Chivalry and Honor

[Mike Abberton]

Paul,

An interesting topic. I think like other have said that the nature of the fighting has a lot to do with conduct of those involved. Some things, I think, that affect this are:

Isolation - I think this is a big one. Much of the time when you hear about situations where the opposing sides develop some sort of bond are situations where the combatants are relatively isolated from their higher command structures (particularly civilian or politcal commands) and even from their own sides. So combat arenas like Age of Sail naval combat where small forces of ships were operating on their own for long periods of time, or even the North Africa campaign, allow some flexibility in rules of combat.

Shared danger/hardship - I think when two sides share a non-combat-related hardship or danger it tends to create a strange sort of bond between the sides where they share something in common. The North African foes were fighting the desert as much as each other. Life at sea on a sailing vessel brought about it's own hardships and dangers (bad living condition, bad food, weather, etc.). World War I air combat was a dangerous occupation even outside combat that was reputed to have a certain chivalry to it.

Relatively even combat - It's a lot easier to be chivalrous to the the other side when the fighting is relatively even than when your side is getting desperate. I think this is why you see a lot of campaigns that start out with some sort of Gentlemen's Agreement between the sides that eventually degenerates into savagry as time goes on.

Ideology - This is actually more driver away from chivalry. When you have long-time, trained, professional soldiers on both sides fighting for purely political goals, I think there is a higher tendency to view the other side as something very like yourself and react accordingly. When you bring in less trained soldiers or soldiers fighting for an ideology (religion, bigotry, etc.) things get more personal and consequently more bloody. The Japanese in the Pacific are a good example. They were fighting a quasi-racial/religious war against the anyone who wasn't Japanese and the fighting anywhere they were involved was generally brutal. On top of that their "honor to die for the Emperor" made things even worse. They often viewed prisoners of war as weaklings who didn't have honor to fight to the death. So why would they treat them honorably after capture?

Like I said, Paul, nice thread.

Mike