Soldiers indeed.
A fragment on the martial instinct.
By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (69) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
At the Battle of Gaines’ Mill, in late June of 1862, John B. Hood’s Texas Brigade delivered a blow against a strong Federal line that provoked from Stonewall Jackson this elegiac tribute, when he came to behold the carnage it required of the victors: “The men who carried this position were soldiers indeed.”
They were soldiers indeed because these men marched across a swamp under savage fire with their weapons unreadied. Their casualties were staggering, yet they never staggered; and the force of their boldness, when finally combined with a great volley of musketry at short range, broke the Union line. It was Lee’s first victory. They were to distinguish themselves again in battle, many times, not the least of which was the charge they made on the second day at Gettysburg against the Federal far left, down in the Round Tops and the aptly-named Devil’s Den — a charge that, in the end, could not hold its ground gained, but earned its way into memory by way of the courage it demanded of these men.
What is it in men that gives them the power to accomplish such deeds? It is one of the things that, despite all the terrors of war, forbids us to condemn it utterly. It is the virtue of fortitude. It is courage.
Read on.
Among recent films — and I daresay film is the best medium for depicting fortitude — the final episode of The Lord of the Rings delivers an unforgettable depiction. Arriving near the gates of the White City, and in rear of the great host of Mordor’s Orc army, the Riders of Rohan, the Rohirrim, make their Ride. Horns sound to announce their arrival, the enemy turns in some disarray to receive their charge, and streaks of sunshine gleam over their shoulders. The king’s words are minimal: he does not really need to inspire these cavalry-men, for they know well what awaits them.
“Arise! Arise! Riders of Théoden! Spears shall be shaken, shields shall be splintered! A sword-day! A red day, ere the sun rises!”
As the charge begins, the men shout Death! They do not fear it, and many of them will meet in here today. This gallantry is felt — profoundly felt, I thought, for the scene is masterfully rendered — and the viewer is taught again that valuable lesson, which if he was lucky he learned long ago, that not everything in war need be evil.
We do not, as a rule, teach military history in this country. We teach that wars happened, that they were terrible, what they accomplished, or failed to accomplish, or inflicted; but we really do not teach how they were fought, or who fought them and why. This fact probably goes a long way to explaining why our young men are so historically ignorant. The one sort of history that will reliably move boys to that excitement with learning which is alone capable of inspiring them, has been removed from our curricula.
Meanwhile, in the public media, our soldiers in the field have become mere types in the Liberal caricature of Victimization. The stories we tell of them all, or at any rate most of the stories, ring with despondency and helplessness; or with mere stale partisanship. In film the trend is almost worse: American soldiers are regularly portrayed as madmen, dupes, degenerates, or heartless criminals. And alongside this spiritual degradation, we strive ever more eagerly to turn our military institutions into playgrounds for social experiments. The educational neglect makes the fighting man incomprehensible; the rendering of him through the ideological lens of victim makes him contemptible; and the social innovation imposed on his tradition undermines his virtue.
There are, in every society, men who actually like to fight, and who will excel at nothing else. War must be recognized as their vocation. This is a fact. Judge it how you like, it must acknowledged. It is one of those most ancient of political problems that such men cannot be destroyed, transformed, or ignored for long; but they may be disciplined into useful and honorable service; and it is a measure of the character of that society how well this is done. For the pitfalls are countless, usually reducing to an alternative of either (a) effective military power and systematic cruelty, or (b) feebleness and foreign subjugation. Fortitude is exalted, and the other virtues are abolished; or fortitude is abolished, and the others rendered impossible. But fortitude can be harnessed. We might almost say it can be baptized. There have been soldier-saints.
It is a joy to learn how successfully Americans have avoided the many pitfalls of this martial instinct in men. We have not come close to perfection, but we have for the most part avoided calamity; and we are excelled by almost no other society. What a glory of our tradition that our fighting men have been so honorable in victory and defeat! The tragedy of the Civil War, for example, was in the wickedness that made it unavoidable, not in the wickedness with which it was conducted; for by and large it was conducted justly and even magnanimously. Of how many other civil wars can the same be said?
This noble American achievement is being steadily undermined. The sappers have been at their grim work for some time now. That our military has endured as long as it has, is a testament to the tradition upon which it stands, and to the men it has trained up to continue that tradition. But it is the meanest of follies to assume that what is precious is also indestructible.
It is tempting argue, at this point in a sketch like this, that the problem is the Feminization of the military. But this is too facile. The failure here lies primarily with men: men who allow their sons to be treated like girls; men who fail to honor women, and thereby teach no honor in their descendents; men who will send their wives and sisters to war to satisfy their itch for abstract equality. I would like to ask those who here who have made their peace with women in combat (which is our de facto policy today, considering the absence of any true “front line”) if they really think the history of human warfare is conspicuous for its respect for women. Think hard on that. That it is conspicuous for rather the reverse should give some indication of how profound our achievement is: the fruit of the long, pain-staking, patient, to be sure imperfect, but noble work of our ancestors stretching back over centuries upon centuries. The honor code that made the American fighting man one of the few exceptions from the rule of pillage and rapine as a concomitant of war, is the same code that stands in implacable opposition to abstract gender equality. Erode it with incessant innovations and you may unshackle a monster.
In the event of such a catastrophe as the final loss of the Western code of jus in bello, will there be an accounting for the innovators whose ministrations robbed our fighting men of their virtue? Doubtful, for there is none for the innovators who, for instance, robbed our inner cities of the tenuous order once achieved and enforced, now lost, perhaps forever; or for those who emancipated pornography and now wail and gnash their teeth at its rotten fruit at, i. e., Abu Ghraib.
Our armed forces still produce Stonewall’s “soldiers indeed.” Our own Jeff Emanuel has documented some, and there are many, many more. But it is to be doubted how long this will remain true if we cannot muster a fortitude of our own sufficient to stop and reverse the depredations inflicted on our martial tradition.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Spoils, Bragging Rights, And One-Upsmanship — Comments (0) »
Soldiers indeed. 69 Comments (0 topical, 69 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Re: People talk as if there is something "wrong" with man, that he is "infected" with the "evil" of war. Who made man?
War is a necessary evil-- necessary at times indeed. But it still remains evil. And for Christians, let me ask if they think that God made men for war, that war was part of the order of Creation ordained in Eden before the Fall.
just had a flashback to a college course...Philosophy of Religion.
we spent a better part of the semester discussing Good vs. Evil..and how can God be good, when there is so much evil in the world.
good class, but it made my head hurt
I can't believe that there exists such a thing as evil. Surely, the reality is just that God's purpose is infinitely above our understanding. So, when we are crushed in the machinery of some greater process, we invent Evil to explain God's seeming lack of concern for infinitesimal, egotistical us.
Maybe it's not even about us? Maybe we're a pimple on the a** of something greater? Maybe we're just a precursor to the real show?
Do they cover this stuff in Philosophy of Religion?
as I said, good class, however I think I could have made a better choice to fill out my final 3 hours credit that were needed.
men are evil. War is too often needed to stop these evil men. As far as American soldiers "liking to fight", good, and it is not fighting Americans love, it is winning. That is why we are still around.
are still "soldiers indeed." My youngest is an infantryman, and I'll admit to being astounded by his bellicosity and how definitively un-PC his unit is in comparison to the "military bureaucrats" with whom I've dealt. They can give teachers a good run in being mealy-mouthed and mush brained.
Most of my ancestors were at Gaines Mill, 48th Georgia, under Huber, D.H. Hill and Longstreet, some also in the 38th GVIR, couple are still there and my gg/grandfather was wounded sometime during the Seven Days, never have been able to figure out just when; he returned to the ranks and served until KIA at The Crater.
It must have been some sight, I know it only from the Confederate side; all those green troops, the colonels and brigadiers had mostly been lawyers and politicians a few short months ago. The 48th was raised on 4 Mar 62 as a Georgia unit since Gov. Brown refused to cooperate with the CS Conscription Act. Georgia ordered the militia to assemble on 4 Mar 62 where it would be asked to "volunteer" for PACS service, or "then and there be subject to a draft" by the State of Georgia. Almost none of them had ever been more than twenty miles from the place they were born or heard a shot fired in anger - at a man anyway.
They waited near a damaged railroad bridge as the sun rose higher, Yankee observation balloons floating above them, and a scattering of picket and skirmisher fire. President Davis rode by with General Lee; he was more known as Granny Lee or the King of Spades then rather than Marse Robert, and it was the Confederate Army of the Potomac facing the Union Army of the Potomac. It was, as were all the 7 Days battles, badly and brutally fought, but by dint of pure, desperate personal courage the green country boys fought McClellan to a tactical draw that caused him to lose his nerve, withdraw and free their capital, the church spires of which had been visible from his lines only a few days before.
Thus was born the Army of Northern Virginia and by the end of the campaign that ended with the single bloodiest day in American history at a Maryland town called Sharpsburg on 17 Sep 62, there was not a consequential Union force in Virginia, and they were not to return to stay until Grant and Lincoln decided to bear the "bloody arithmetic" in the Overland Campaign of '64.
Some of us do know our history, even if it isn't the history that the government schools teach. Deo Vindice
In Vino Veritas
It's remarkable, and in a way hard to imagine, to reflect that Lee was not well thought of back then. His aggressiveness, which would serve him so well until Gettysburg, was evident enough in the Seven Days, but the execution was poor indeed.
Seven Days and Gettysburg are linked in this way: the astonishing fortitude trussed by bad execution.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
At 5:30 AST this morning, I got my first phone call from FOB Lane, somewhere in Afghanistan - that's a bit daunting.
To me, the most interesting part of the 7 Days was the utter lack of effectiveness by the already legendary T.J. Jackson. When he finally arrived, over twelve unexplained hours late, even Lee's courtesy was strained as he said, "General Jackson, so glad you've decided to join us," or words to that effect; there are various accounts. Some speculate that Jackson was bipolar and there are incidents, particularly this one, where he seems to have just "checked out." He certainly went on that summer to redeem himself at 2nd Manassass and Sharpsburg.
In those early days, the men hated Lee; filled with bravado, they just wanted to have stand-up fights, something Lee knew he couldn't long profit from. From his engineer's background, Lee forced them to dig, and dig, and dig, and they hated it. First because they thought it was slave work, and much was done by impressed or contracted slaves, and second because it was hard, hard work under the brutal summer sun.
I have some accounts from the period and one goes on about how finally Mj. Gen. R.H. Anderson relented and reduced the work day from 12 to 8 hours because of the heat. The 48th GVIR was one of the last garrisoning units to leave Richmond and spent much of its time there building the first of what became the massive Richmond - Petersburg field works. They took the train to Ginea (sp) Station and came to Longstreet at the double time just as the ball opened at 2nd Manassas.
In Vino Veritas
I guess it's safe for good conservatives to return to the favored pasttime of Confederate hagiography? If we want to talk about determined American troops fighting for the cause of liberty, there are plenty of examples out there - the 54th Massachusetts at Fort Wagner, the 20th Maine Volunteers at Little Round Top, the 101st Airborne at Bastogne, the 1st Marines at Guadalcanal, etc. The list is quite long. But it's just so easy, isn't it?
Also, seeing as how brave women should apparently stay home in times of war, I guess "Sergeant Molly" Pitcher (AKA someone who actually fought for America, not against it like the disgraced Confederates) should have sat home crying and breeding instead of being a hero and loading the guns at Monmouth. Maybe some more colonial patriots would have died, but at least the men would have felt manly while the British shot them down, undeterred by Molly's cannon fire. George Washington (that noted immoral fool) must have been mistaken when he designated her an NCO.
Finally, I'm also interested to learn that pornography is to blame for Abu Ghraib. There are a number of things that could be said about that, but it would require a lot more room and a lot more time, so I'll let somebody else step in.
PC intimidation tactics won't fly around here. I might have told a story of the Iron Brigade, when, as a green outfit of young farmboys, it stood tenaciously against the hardened veterans of Stonewall's divisions at Second Manassas; but was undone in that battle by poor generalship at the top. I might have said a thousand things, but I did not.
I suppose in the mythical Open Society you revere, a man can say anything -- absolutely anything -- except a good word for thr soldiers of South who won the admiration of the world. That will be forbidden. By celebrating thair gallantry I do not denigrate that of those who defeated them. And perhaps you overlooked the sentence where I referred to the "wickedness" that made the war unavoidable.
As for women in combat, I stand by my position, which you have met with mere bitterness and rare ancedote. I never denied that some women can fight, and fight well. I denied that we should remove the rule that has sought to prevent them from fighting. What's that old line about exceptions and rules?
My point about pornography and Abu Ghraib is that dramatized sexual degradation cannot possibly be regarded as utterly alien to a pornographic society, which is what we are.
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Why is it that, if a woman wants to fight and is able to fight, she should not be allowed to fight?
You might want to ask that question of the majority of Americans too, buddy.
-----------
A tribute to CO
Well, pollingreport has this:
"If a military draft is reinstated, do you think young women should be required to serve as well as young men?"
Yes No Unsure
% % %
ALL 46 49 5
Men 49 47 4
Women 44 50 6
and this:
"If the military draft were reinstated, would you favor or oppose drafting women as well as men?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
6/20-22/05 43 54 3
It certainly isn't resounding support for women in combat, but I don't think that the situation is as cut-and-dried as your sarcasm seems to indicate.
I'm not, in any way, advocating lowering physical standards or any of the stuff that frequently occurs when, as a matter of social policy, it is determined that women "should" occupy more positions in a physically demanding field. But if a woman if physically capable of serving in a combat role, I see no reason why we should not allow it.
And tell me where the question addressed combat instead of military service. I hate to break this to you, but military service is overwhelmingly non-combat.
We should not allow it for dozens of reasons; as you are, I suspect, more concerned with a specific policy outcome than anything -- and from your comments here, taking shots at a Contributor and several other commenters -- I suspect you couldn't care less about them, however.
-----------
A tribute to CO
Re: My point about pornography and Abu Ghraib is that dramatized sexual degradation cannot possibly be regarded as utterly alien to a pornographic society, which is what we are.
Sexual brutality against conquered foes is nothing new and America did not invent it. I don't think you can blame our "pornographic" society for this one, as it happens in every war, part and parcel of the unrefinable cruelty of the beast.
By the way, do you object to women in the military or just to women in actual combat? The former objcetion I would share with you, but the latter I cannot. In today's hyper-technologized military there are innumerable tasks women can and should do as well as men. And in fact this is not even all that new either. In armies of the past all the camp followers and vivandieres were not just sex toys; they did a lot of very practical (if then very low tech) work supporting the army too.
-----------
A tribute to CO
Daggum, Aleks: you are irremediable! Compare this statement of yours: Sexual brutality against conquered foes is nothing new and America did not invent it, to this of mine: I would like to ask those who here who have made their peace with women in combat ... if they really think the history of human warfare is conspicuous for its respect for women. See any resemblence? The primary difference I see is that you are emphasizing homosexual brutality.
So you are lecturing me on a point I myself made. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I said that, in becoming a pornographic culture, we are regressing drastically toward the barbarism that makes both our similar statements true.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
beyond the movie Glory, you'd know that the assault on Battery Wagonner was nothing short of murder; green troops were led by green, rabidly abolitionist officers against a position that no sane Union commander would have assaulted. All done for a political agenda. Likewise, the AOTP was more than content to fill the USCT with liquor and send them into The Crater shouting "no quarter." Again, a foolish assault against entrenched troops in a position the assaulting force had no chance of carrying, but the white officers were more than happy to send in the USCT.
The regular troops had well learned not to do it as evidenced by Grant's subordinate commanders refusing to continue the assault against the CS fieldworks at Cold Harbor.
And to borrow a line from an old song, "I ain't asked no pardon for anything I done."
In Vino Veritas
Obviously, the warmth and regard you've shared with us these last two years have finally bubbled over to the point where you're literally bursting with good will. I'd know that from reading clever words like "I guess it's safe for good conservatives to return to the favored pasttime of Confederate hagiography," and "[Pitcher] should have sat home crying and breeding instead of being a hero and loading the guns at Monmouth."
Unfortunately, the love is merely one-sided. It's not us, it's you.
Goodbye.
-----------
A tribute to CO
Some lineal ancestor or another of mine has fought in every American war since my I don't remember how many greats grandfather, a Dutch citizen named Reason Crump fighting for British citizenship, was KIA in the French and Indian War leaving behind a wife and two young boys, another Reason and Pleasant, from whence cometh I.
My Confederate ancestors fought for hearth, home, and the State of Georgia. I won't do that all too typical riff of Southerners answering this issue; some of my family owned slaves, some quite a few, and all were yeoman, landowning farmers. There is some truth in the "rich man's war, poor man's fight" meme, no, the sixties lefties didn't invent that one, but that isn't my history.
My ancestors used their Revolutionary service in Virginia to acquire land in the Creek Cession lotteries in Georgia in 1795. I still pay the property taxes on some of that land. I am, in fact, the only member of my lineal family that has ever paid a mortgage payment on the piece of land on which he lived.
You owe your life and the fact that you can spout your nonsense to me and to mine. My son carries a SAW in Afghanistan today, so that you can safely be a soft, squishy fool. Did you forget where you left your b**ls, or did you just never have any?
In Vino Veritas
Or child molester hagiography
Or child killer hagiography
Or well you get the point.
Goodbye sunshine
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I'm not even really sure what the point of this diary is supposed to be, but I think you have a very romanticized idea of what war entails.
We honor our men and women for the bravery that they display in battle, but we should never confuse that feeling for honoring the idea of war itself. War is brutal and vicious and horrible. Sometimes it cannot be avoided, but it should never be sought out.
Among recent films — and I daresay film is the best medium for depicting fortitude — the final episode of The Lord of the Rings delivers an unforgettable depiction.
Yes, well, film is also the best medium for depicting elves and magical pirates. Your characterization of war as uplifting and ennobling is about as realistic.
There are, in every society, men who actually like to fight, and who will excel at nothing else.
Yes, they are called criminals. We, as a society, should be able to channel someone's aggressive/competitive impulses into any number of pursuits, not just war.
you're awful close to dumping on many of my friends and family...
I guess you are replying to me saying:
Yes, they are called criminals. We, as a society, should be able to channel someone's aggressive/competitive impulses into any number of pursuits, not just war.
I thought my meaning would be clear, but let me spell it out for you.
Today, people are able to channel their aggressive tendencies into any number of constructive endeavors: "climbing the corporate ladder", sports, politics, etc. Paul's assertion that the only outlet for these tendencies is war is absurd. People that are only able to channel their aggressive tendencies into violence (Paul's "men who actually like to fight, and who will excel at nothing else") are criminals or madmen. Such a person might have been useful in certain militaries in certain ages, but I don't think they would be welcome in any modern military.
Men (and women) in the military might be (and probably are) more aggressive than most, but without the outlet of war, they would certainly be able to channel that tendency into other pursuits.
your point, whatever it was meant to be, is cr$p...your words linked the men and woman that Paul wrote about to crimminals...period.
piss poor answer in my book
as with the old saying "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig", so too can your drivel about Soldiers and criminals and channeling aggression be re-stated as you hate war and are disgusted by those who fight them.
The people of the world, like you, who find disdain for such "creatures" as warriors are alive because of them. You could no sooner stand up against a criminal crawling in to your house I would venture.
Soldiers are men that are trained to kill. They are no more pre-disposed to the "crime of fighting a war" than you or I. They are taught to kill to defend themselves and their country. They are able to adapt to and with their training because they, like all of us under the right circumstances, are capable of many things in the name of survival.
You are unfair to everyone who has ever served, and you paint an entirely inaccurate picture of Soldiers and warfare in everything you suggest here...and it shows how little you understand or value what it takes to for either.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
Where did I say that soldiers are pre-disposed to fighting a war? It isn't soldiers that decide whether or not we go to war. You have completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented everything I said.
My point was that Paul's statement of "There are, in every society, men who actually like to fight, and who will excel at nothing else. War must be recognized as their vocation. This is a fact. Judge it how you like, it must acknowledged. It is one of those most ancient of political problems that such men cannot be destroyed, transformed, or ignored for long; but they may be disciplined into useful and honorable service; and it is a measure of the character of that society how well this is done." is patently false.
I understand his point that some people are pre-disposed to be violent or especially competitive. But his assertion that joining the military is the only vocation available to them is absurd. Joining the military is certainly one option, but it is not the only option. If a person is pre-disposed to be violent or especially competitive, but lacks the self-control to channel those impulses into sports or politics or acquiring money or power, they aren't going to have the self-control or commitment to serve in the military either.
You say yourself that soldiers are "are men that are trained to kill" and that they are "taught to kill to defend themselves and their country". I agree with you 100%. My problem is with Paul's statement, which seems to indicate the opinion that people in our military are pre-disposed towards violence and that joining the military is the only option our society offers for them to channel that desire.
The people of the world, like you, who find disdain for such "creatures" as warriors are alive because of them. You could no sooner stand up against a criminal crawling in to your house I would venture.
Oh good, have we gotten to the point in the discussion where you are calling me names? That's my favorite part.
"My point was that Paul's statement of '[there are born soldiers in every society]' is patently false." I stand by it. Up-thread you chastised me bitterly for not emancipating women soldiers, remember? "Why is it that, if a woman wants to fight and is able to fight, she should not be allowed to fight?" So which is it? Or are you making the stupidly perverse statement that there are only women soldiers?
Perhaps you will object to my paraphrase of ... well, of myself. I do not think that in justice you can really object to it. I said that there is a vocation of war, toward which some man are irresistably drawn. Even some women. I do not think we should overturn our laws, or the code of honor which they reflect and shelter, to accomodate the latter, but I do think they exist.
You do not seem like a dull fellow, and so I am inclined to say that this whole tissue of error of interpretation, which has now spun out to nine or ten comments between us, could have been remedied by more careful reading.
___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
One of the greatest Americans who ever lived, far superior to both you and myself, once said:
"It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it".
Give it some thought. War was a substitute for the senseless murder and mayhem we see in terrorist wars like Iraq. It was meant to be more noble, more humane, and more honorable. Of course, to do that, the men fighting have to be the same.
In the history of the world, no fighting men have been more noble, more humane, or more honorable than the soldiers (north and south) of the United States of America. Just ask any German soldier who got to choose between surrendering to the Russians or the Americans which he chose.
I deny that I have a romanticized view of what war entails. And I would ask what gave you that impression. Nowhere did I honor the "idea of war itself." As for my opinion of war itself, more can be gleaned from this, and perhaps something can be gleaned from the fact that I am the closest of the Contributors here to the antiwar position, that I oppose the Iraq war, and have been firmly critical of President Bush for years. In short, I am emphatically not celebrating the courage often displayed in war, as a kind of stalking horse for my promotion of a current war.
War is brutal and vicious and horrible. Sometimes it cannot be avoided, but it should never be sought out.
Yes, it is. But if there is justice in the cause, and the war is carried out justly (i.e., in accordance with the jus in bello code I spoke of), then good has been done. Even where there is no justice in the cause, the just action of the soldiers themselves, who have no control over where they are ordered to fight, is still commendable.
You did not like the film The Return of the King. Bully for you. Of course, here again you are arguing with something I never said -- namely, that this depiction is realistic -- and in an ill-mannered fashion. Why? The Ride of the Rohirrim in Tolkein's story functions clearly as a kind of idealization of the the dutiful discharge of a martial duty, in other words a just war. If it did not move you -- well, I cannot help your deficiencies.
You conclude with an accusation that any soldier who falls into the category of "liking to fight" is a "criminal." You have, in fine, named essentially the entire United States Marine Corps a den of thugs. Well done.
"We ... should be able to channel someone's aggressive/competitive impulses into any number of pursuits, not just war." I wholly agree. Where did I imply otherwise?
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
This is what gave me that impression...
What is it in men that gives them the power to accomplish such deeds? It is one of the things that, despite all the terrors of war, forbids us to condemn it utterly. It is the virtue of fortitude. It is courage.
How is it that men behaving bravely in combat somehow makes war not condemn-able? It is the reasons for a war that determine whether it should be condemned. The mere presence of bravery does not a good war make. Certainly, German soldiers fought bravely during WWII, but that does not prevent us condemning that which they fought for.
The Ride of the Rohirrim in Tolkein's story functions clearly as a kind of idealization of the the dutiful discharge of a martial duty
This part was also confusing to me. If you are not attempting to romanticize war, I'm not sure why you chose such a stylized, idealized depiction? Certainly, the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan offers are much more realistic depiction of wartime courage. And for the record, I did like The Return of the King. I mean, you would have to be bonkers not to.
In any event, thank you for clarifying your position. I read your article on Cella's and I agree with a lot of what you say. I will bow out at this point.
How you get from the statement that something "forbids us to condemn [war] utterly," to the restatement that I aim to idealize "the idea of war itself," is a question I will have to leave to your unique reasoning method.
The mere presence of bravery does not a good war make.
No indeed. But fortitude there is in virtually every war, and fortitude is the very opposite of condemnable, it is virtue: so we cannot condemn it utterly. German soldiers did fight bravely, and while we do indeed condemn their cause, we do not condemn their bravely. How is this distinction so obscure? I did not write an essay about the justice of certain causes of certain wars; or about the justice of war as an idea; I wrote an essay about soldiering and fortitude.
I leave it to the men who fought in that battle to tell us how realistic a depiction Saving Private Ryan was, but there can be no doubt that it was a profound and terrible depiction of fortitude.
So, to repeat what seems to be the source of your ongoing confusion, I am not writing here about the abstract nature of war, but about soldiers and their characteristic virtue.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I'm still in this game, and I want him!
In Vino Veritas
red meat being served...
Beecubed has said nothing outrageous in this thread although you guys certainly seem determined to infer a pretty specific and seemingly inaccurate interpretation of his comments.
People that LIKE to fight and kill are troubled. People that fight and kill because that is what they believe must be done people who are acting upon their sense of honor and morality.
If you can't see the difference between the two I don't know what to say. Other than to say that the military loathes the former and embraces the latter.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
It is a fine line. you are right, if you actually like to kill, you have issues. Yet, it is quite normal for a young soldier to be "gung ho" and want to get into battle. I have known many soldier/fliers that trained for a long time and were "excited" to go to battle. yes, when it happens, it is not what they believed it would be but that is very normal. There is a fine line here, I guess that is where our civilization is and where it has come from. But, I never question a motivated soldier, we train them to kill, that is the reality, if they are "into it" well, I am not going to question them for that.
I generally agree with you.
I don't really want to get involved in this discussion because it seems kinda pointless and prone to reckless stereotyping.
But there seemed to be a bunch of people looking to skin beecubed over his comments without bothering to figure out what he is saying.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I was agreeing with you :) I was not agreeing about your opinion of the other poster, but on what you said, that was true. I was just saying that the our civilization is complicated and warriors, hungry for battle have always been a part of it.
He dug his own ditch with his careless words -- words that could easily be interpreted as calling all soldiers criminals: a carelessness that you have mimicked in your own comments. You "hate" the Civil War in its particulars; you call men possessed of the soldierly vocation "troubled."
I wish you would take your own advice -- "figure out what he is saying" -- before firing off such remarks.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
If you think I said that men possessed of the soldierly vocation are troubled then we are clearly speaking different languages.
I hate the way the Civil War was fought. You may use whatever pejorative you like.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
you're wrong. My interp was that B used "crimminal" when not needed or called for. It was done to get attention. B looked for attention and got what was coming.
Want attention, get ready to get it right in the face.
Hopefully, at this piont, the knothead is no longer posting here
We do not send women into combat. We put them in the way of combat, to our shame; but we do not put them at the front line. Pay attention before lecturing others.
Second, had you bothered to read what Paul wrote, you would have saved yourself what must have been an enormous amount of time to compose that mediocre snark about glorifying war.
Third:
Yes, they are called criminals.
Out of bounds. But guess what? You have a chance to cure. 24 hours. Good luck.
-----------
A tribute to CO
As I said several times, I was not saying soldier = criminal, I was saying that "men who actually like to fight, and who will excel at nothing else" = criminal != soldier.
I felt this was pretty clear in my text, but maybe it was not.
There is no further value in this discussion, and it appears that Paul at least is convinced that the whole thing boils down to a problem with reading comprehension. I would add "and fundamental disagreement on first principles," but that won't be worked out here.
-----------
A tribute to CO
Re: Yes, well, film is also the best medium for depicting elves and magical pirates. Your characterization of war as uplifting and ennobling is about as realistic.
In the book at least Tolkien was at pains not to glorify war for its own sake (his own WWI experience left him with a hatred of war). His characters are just doing what they have to, and everyone is really, really glad to just go home at the end and enjoy their beer and pipe weed.
By the way, as far as women in combat goes, LOTR is rather embarrassing to cite here, as we get an almost anachronistically feminist viewpoint from Eowyn who ends up going to battle disguised as a man and slaying one the chief Big Bads.
LOTR is rather embarrassing to cite here, as we get an almost anachronistically feminist...
Aleks, your pedantry foils you again. Do you think I was unaware of this? The fact that Eowyn has to conceal herself to join the battle: how might this fit with my argument? Is it not clear that Tolkein is certainly not subversive of the code which prevents women from fighting, but rather, that he is saying that some very rare women have this warrior's vocation too and propriety will not stop them? Come on, now.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
More or less inept and incapable at everything he tried outside of active-duty military life, with the exception of writing his memoirs. Lock 'im up!
Was a winner. When you win, a lot is water under the bridge. A bad President? Yes. But this only shows how important winning a war is, it is MORE important than a good or bad president.
My point was that he pretty well fits "men who actually like to fight, and who will excel at nothing else," whom bee3 has designated as criminals.
I agree with you. And really Grant never had his character questioned, even in the presidency, but he did get played by others. And I am a Southerner so my respect for grant was hard earned, and he did earn it.
if the rumors told of him are true.
Thanks for the comment: I had Grant specifically in mind when I wrote parts of the essay.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
If you don't understand how that particular scene and others shed light on the human condition.
If you feel that such is only for the realm of children I would hazard your development is incomplete.
And only someone who is either not a man or has never had to fight for anything could make the characterization of the warrior trait you did.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I'd bounce your a$$ for the last line alone
I can't really share in Paul's nostalgic view of the Civil War.
It was a brutal war with brutal results. The heroism of those soldiers in charging against fixed positions must also consider that NOT doing that was considered mutiny. Commanders on both sides, unaware of the capabilities of their newfound weaponry , chose to continue to fight in styles reminiscent of breech loading weapons and layered fields of fire.
Even the most creative of commanders such as Jackson, Beauregard, Halleck or Grant still accepted standard rules of engagement once the enemy was met. This caused massive casualties that were oftentimes needless.
The almost complete disregard that both the North and South had for the common foot soldier was contemptible. The one positive aspect of this war was that it fundamentally changed the American commanders viewed the foot soldier and how to wage war. Sadly it was a lesson that that the Old Guard Europeans didn't learn when they enacted a very similar style of war 50 years later.
I prefer that we praise true heroism to needless slaughter.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
This is the gist of your statement. The Civil War's "one positive aspect" is not the usual one men mention, but it probably has some merit it.
So you oppose the Civil War. You want a cookie or something?
I did not get into an overall discussion of the moral character of that war. I do think there many more "positive aspects" than one, including the one I am arguing here: the essential honor with which it was fought.
You are, as usual, painfully irresponsible with your words. You deny that there was "true heroism" in the Civil War? You cannot believe this; if you do, it is a vicious and detestable statement.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
That is a novel reading of my words.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You say that there is only "one positive aspect" of war X, which was purely incidental to its object and conduct. How can you not be said to oppose War X?
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Commanders on both sides, unaware of the capabilities of their newfound weaponry , chose to continue to fight in styles reminiscent of breech loading weapons and layered fields of fire.
Breech loading weapons were an innovation in the Civil War and ergo reminiscent of nothing. Breech is the rear, you seem to have confused it with the muzzle, that's where the bullet comes out.
Nothing wrong with layered fires, we still do that.
Even the most creative of commanders such as Jackson, Beauregard, Halleck or Grant still accepted standard rules of engagement once the enemy was met.
I have no idea what this means. At first blush I thought you were confusing "rules of engagement" i.e. the rules under which deadly force can be used which didn't really exist in the Civil War with "tactics", i.e. how the battles were fought. But then I looked at your list of "creative" commanders and decided to not take that leap of faith.
The almost complete disregard that both the North and South had for the common foot soldier was contemptible.
Again, I don't know what this means. Men on both sides acted in disregard to their own lives but I don't get the "contemptible" part. Who did this? Johnston? Hill? Garnett? Armistead? Cleburne? Stuart?
At that time it was customary for officers at brigade level and lower to lead from the front of their formations, so it was pretty hard to treat your soldiers' lives with contempt, at least as that word is commonly understood, and not treat your own with contempt. And treating your own life with contempt in combat is not a vice.
The one positive aspect of this war was that it fundamentally changed the American commanders viewed the foot soldier and how to wage war.
Did it? How so? The next war we waged with a regular army, the Spanish-American War, saw essentially the same tactics being used albeit on a much smaller scale. San Juan Hill and all that. In World War I, we used the same tactics as the French and Brits had we not entered the war late, our first divisions didn't arrive until March 1918, we, too, would have lost a generation in Flanders.
Sadly it was a lesson that that the Old Guard Europeans didn't learn when they enacted a very similar style of war 50 years later.
Actually, they enacted several wars using those tactics and accepted the wastage as the cost of doing business. The Austro-Prussian War, the Russo-Turkish War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Russo-Japanese War all showed the suboptimal results of sending massed formations against breech loaded (again, that's the rear of the weapon) and automatic weapons and through barbed wire (seige of Port Arthur).
The real issue here was that of tactical control. Where the railroad and telegraph were both seized upon by militaries everywhere, these were probably the two major innovations of our Civil War, the problem of controlling bodies of troops was insurmountable. As a result, the only reliable way to maneuver was to keep the formation within eyeshot, and earshot, of commanders. This limited dispersion.
As the man said, you are entitled to your own opinion, just not to your own facts.
First off I must apologize for clearly muddled writing. I went out to dinner with coworkers last night and clearly had a little too much to drink.
Anyway....
Breech loading weapons were an innovation in the Civil War and ergo reminiscent of nothing. Breech is the rear, you seem to have confused it with the muzzle, that's where the bullet comes out.
Nothing wrong with layered fires, we still do that.
I meant to say muzzle loaded weapons. You indeed correct.
When I was speaking of layered layered fields of fire I was referring to the traditional front line assault tactics of Armies in the late 18th and 19th century. Where that was often effective in the past because you could lay down a heavy barage of fire that the opponent must contend with this was no longer the case. With breech loading weapons the reload times was vastly faster, thus a layered assault line didn't really get anything. But commanders still used traditional concepts of assault because this is what they were taught.
Again, I don't know what this means. Men on both sides acted in disregard to their own lives but I don't get the "contemptible" part. Who did this? Johnston? Hill? Garnett? Armistead? Cleburne? Stuart?
Contemptible was a poor choice of words as that requires a modern morality. But looking back on it the war was fought with so much needless bloodshed because the commanders didn't value a soldiers life enough.
Did it? How so? The next war we waged with a regular army, the Spanish-American War, saw essentially the same tactics being used albeit on a much smaller scale. San Juan Hill and all that. In World War I, we used the same tactics as the French and Brits had we not entered the war late, our first divisions didn't arrive until March 1918, we, too, would have lost a generation in Flanders.
I will have to re-read my WWI military history because I seem to recall that American troops also chose to not simply make direct assaults on dug in positions but I could be wrong on this.
The real issue here was that of tactical control. Where the railroad and telegraph were both seized upon by militaries everywhere, these were probably the two major innovations of our Civil War, the problem of controlling bodies of troops was insurmountable. As a result, the only reliable way to maneuver was to keep the formation within eyeshot, and earshot, of commanders. This limited dispersion.
As the man said, you are entitled to your own opinion, just not to your own facts.
Very much true. The Civil War fundamentally changed warfare because of the use of rail and telegraphs to communicate and provide logistics and support. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I was simply talking about the tactical foolishness of how wars in general were fought from the Civil War up until World War II.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
"The almost complete disregard that both the North and South had for the common foot soldier was contemptible"
this is simply not true. It is true the Civil War was a "perfect storm" of violence. The tactics were from the "last war" and the technology made much of them obsolete. See the failed frontal attacks at Malvern Hill, Gettysburg, and Fredericksburg.
If you look at the statistics, which do not lie, Conferderate Bridadier Generals had higher mortality rates than common foot soldiers. To say that their leaders and the populace did not care about the men is simply wrong. I can debate this in more detail another day if desired.
I'm not really sure what your point is suggesting.
Brigadier generals in the Civil War were usually young field commanders. They weren't usually the people creating strategy and battle plans. They were the guys carrying it out.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
was the violence of the war was not based on contempt for the foot soldier. It is not like they could have used "fire and maneuver if they simply cared more. The reality of the Civil War is there tactics were effective at killing the enemy, and often themselves. The problem was they really did not know how to quit, unlike our more caring society.
check out how many two star and three star generals were killed and wounded in Lee's army. And Lee himself was physically restrained from going to the front by foot soldiers several times.
look, I agree with your premise that the fighting was very brutal, but I just do not agree that this was a result of a lack of caring. It is simply a disagreement, I suggest we move on :)
I don't think that the Generals held the foot soldiers in contempt. I simply believe that they didn't view their lives as terribly important. IMO, the Civil War was somewhat unique for us as we have generally viewed protecting our soldier's life as a critical aspect of our war fighting.
My original point was really just designed to point out that I don't care much for glorifying the heroics of the Civil War because I just hate that war in particular because of the callousness of our the common soldier was treated.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
It is simply a disagreement. But there is nothing wrong with cordial and civil disagreement. :)
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The history of man is the history of his wars. The archaeology and mythology of man are those of war.
People talk as if there is something "wrong" with man, that he is "infected" with the "evil" of war. Who made man?
Other creatures practice war--ants do, and our closest relatives, chimps, send out raiding patrols to kill members of other chimp clans. Who designed all these creatures? Does He make mistakes?
And why would He give us such a terrible thing?