In former times, the character and situation of the people, the object they had in view, their bravery and the skill of their leaders, did every thing; but now the skill of leaders and the command of money are the chief objects; for there is not sufficient difference between any two nations in Europe as to counterbalance those:  and, indeed, (except so far as military skill is accidental,) it is to be found principally in nations who have a sufficient degree of wealth to exercise it and call it into action.

We shall see that the first revolutions in the world were effected by the natural strength, energy, and bravery of poor nations triumphing over those that were less hardy, in consequence of the enjoyment of wealth, until the time of the Romans; who, like other nations, first triumphed by means of superior energy and bravery; and, afterwards by making war a trade, continued, by having regular standing armies, to conquer the nations who had only temporary levies, or militias, to fight in their defence.

The triumph of poor nations, over others in many respects their superiors, continued during the middle ages, but the wealth acquired by certain nations then was not wrested from them by war, but by an accidental and unforeseen change in the channel through which it

—–­ {21} An idea has gone abroad, since the successes of the French armies, that money is not necessary to war, even in the present times.  It will be shewn, in its proper place, that the French armies were maintained at very great expense, and that a poor country could not have done what France did. -=-

flowed.  At the same time that this change took place, without the intervention of force, the art of war changed in favour of wealthy nations, but the changes took place by slow degrees, and the power of nations now may almost be estimated by their disposable incomes.

This change, however, has by no means secured the prosperity of wealthy nations; it has only prevented poor ones, unable by means of fair competition to do by conquest what they could not effect by perseverance in arts and industry; for, in other respects, though it makes the prosperity of a nation more dependant =sic= on wealth, and more independent of violence; it prevents any nation from preserving its political importance after it loses its riches.  It does not by any means interrupt that progress by which poor nations gradually rise up and rival richer ones in arts.  It has not done away the advantages that arise from superior industry and attention to business, or from the gradual introduction of knowledge amongst the more ignorant, thereby lessening their inferiority, and tending to bring nations to a level; on the contrary, by increasing the advantages, and securing the gradual triumphs gained by arts and industry, from the violence of war, it makes wealth a more desirable object, and the loss of it a greater misfortune.  It tends to augment the natural propensity that there is in poor nations to equal richer ones {22}, although it, at the same time, augments the difficulty of accomplishing their intentions.