Chivalry and Honor

[Steel God]

On a recent trip I indulged myself by listening to an audio copy of Patrick O'Brien's Master and Commander. On the off chance that anyone is not familiar with the series, it's main character is Captain Jack Aubrey of His Majesty's Royal Navy, and the time period is the late 18th century and early 19th century.

While enjoying the book (as I always have) this particular time through I was greatly struck by the incidents of chivalry shown to enemy combatants, and the honorable way in which both sides conducted their affairs. I was also relishing the manner in which dialog was engaged in, if the writers are even close to historically accurate in that regard, and the letters and logs of the period clearly indicate they are, then it was a time in human history when despite widespread illiteracy, those who were educated were clearly educated at a far higher level than most of us in the 21st century...or perhaps what passed for conversation was just nicer than the truncated colloquialisms that pass for words today.

By I digress from the main point. Those who know me, know me to be admittedly conservative, traditional, and somewhat sentimental; so what I'm about to say may come as no shock. Does anyone other than me think that the "rules of warfare" as practiced in that era were clearly superior to the rules of warfare as practiced in our own life times (and for the purposes of discussion I'd call our lifetimes the 20th century into today)? For certain the living conditions under which the rank and file in any army or navy, even the best of the era, would be considered harsh by today's standards, but that's not what I'm really talking about, instead I'm focused on a sense of honor that would allow surrendered officers to remain armed, and said officers would, on their honor, be expected to behave in a way which would not be considered unsporting. The parole of crews and prisoners to their own sides, with an expectation that they would not be put back into service until properly "exchanged"; essentially nations became their own POW camp guardians, is completely alien to 20th century ways of thinking. I am awe struck by the way in which a man's, or a nation's, honor could and would bind gentlemen and officers to agreements, and that it was reciprocal.

I don't know where exactly those practices ended, and perhaps the setting for this series represents the period where that came to pass, caught up as it was in the French Revolution. But I can't help feeling that there is at least some truth in believing that as hard as things were back then there is at least something to be said for living and dying in an honorable manner; as opposed to today when conditions are less harsh, but dying under any circumstances seems dishonorable, and living therefore seems to be the only purpose, no matter how dishonorable one must act to maintain it.

Ah well, random musings on a rainy Saturday afternoon. Have a great weekend all.