M. ALPHONSEKARR ON MILITARY FOLLY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4488, 7 August 1875, Page 2 (Supplement)

M. ALPHONSEKARR ON MILITARY FOLLY.

The celebrated French wit, M. Alphonse Karr, has just published, iu a Paris journal, tho following caustic remarks on the folly of peoples and of kings iu reference to war ; “ I have narrated before the history of two Roman armies, who, iu time of civil war, when marched one against the other, plainly refused to fight. Tho soldiers ou each side clasped each other's hands, and returned to their homes, leaving their two chiefs face to face, who fought no more. This example has never been followed. It is to bo remarked that these gatherers of palms, these reapers of laurels, these heroes, these conquerors, have no pronounced taste for fighting between themselves. Vary small is tho number of kings who have been killed iu war, like Charles the Twelfth. Sometimes they have boon provoked to single combat to decide their quarrels. Peter 111., King of Aragon, provoked Charles d’Anjou to dispute tho kingdom of Sicily, each at tho head of a hundred knights ; but he forgot to bo upon tho spot. Edward 111. sent a challenge to Philip de ALalois, who refused it, saying that a sovereign did not accept tho defiance of his vassal. There was also another challenge and protracted duel, without result, between the same Edward 111. and King John. Francis I. sent a challenge to Charles Y., who refused it. Charles IX. of Sweden sent a challenge to Christian IV. of Denmark, who refused it. History mentions only one duel which took place between kings. Henry T V., who himself fought, is the only warrior king who, in concert with Sully, has dreamed of putting an end for ever to war and of founding in Europe a league for the assurance of perpetual peace. The plan was a simple ono. A congress of all the sovereigns, groat and small, fixing for each State its definite limits, and engaging to march altogether against any ono who should essay an attack ; a council of delegates from all these nations judging tho differences which may arise between them. But it is not necessary that the people should count upon kings to put au end to the scourge of war. It is true that those same peoples have the imbecility to admire and to adore conquering kings, without perceiving that it is their bones which form the pedestal on which these heroes perch themselves—without perceiving that there is always less cause for complaint of the king against whom they fight than of tho Icing for whom they fight; for tho warrior king, the victor, before going to ravage and to conquer foreign nations, has necessarily to commence by enslaving and ruining his own people—enslaving them that they may bo led to fight without knowing why—ruining them in the cost of armaments. The great standing armies have a double aim—war without, and restraint within. Miltiades, asking a crown after a victory, was answered, ‘ AYlien Miltiades shall have fought alone, he shall he crowned alone.’ Then it is only upon themselves, that the peoples, if they had a lucid interval, should count to put au end to war, from which their princes, at least the victors, draw a certain glory, founded upon human folly, but which, as far as concerns the people, is as fatal to the victor as to the vanquished.” “Peace Society’s Papers.”