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.

[Antoni Chmielowski]

During WW2 in the North African desert a spirit of esprit de corps existed between the Afrika Korps and the British 8th Army.

They established a protocol of patrolling and treatment of prisoners.

When an Afrika Korps detachment captured an heir of the Players cigarette dynasty, he was returned for a delivery of 2 million cigarettes.


The morality of smoking is up for debate !:)

[Ricky B]

Interesting comments Paul.

Personally, I think there are a lot of factors in regards to Chivalry being present, and the role of honor. I don't think it has disappeared either, but is driven by the wars being fought, and what drives them. I do think a lot of it was cyclical also - for example, the 30 Years War, with its absolute devastation to combatants and civilians alike, led to a feeling of horror among many in Europe, and drove the wars that followed up until the French Revolution and Napoleon's wars, that led to a more limited, honorable fighting. These wars were driven more by a matter of "advantage" for your country, rather than being fought to destroy the other side, and even most of the Napoleonic Wars were limited in goals.

Our Civil War saw the same parole offered to prisoners in the beginning, but that slowly died off as the fighting went along. But even in other aspects, there was a feeling of brotherhood among both sides, even though the men were willing to give there lives to win.

The major wars of the 20th Century, however, were almost back to the 30 Years War, with massive death, destruction, and the fight to destroy the opponents, in particular WW2. Ideology - political, religious, or just plain hatred has played a major role in most of the wars of the last 100 years, or it developed over time in wars such as WW1 where I think there was some honor early on, but as losses mounted, so did hatreds.

And you raise an excellent point, I think, regarding the new feelings about dying for your country. I personally think some of that is driven by the demand in the west at least for bloodless victories, at least for "our" side, regardless of the losses to the other. The value that is placed on human life is reflected more in keeping our soldiers alive, at the cost of doing whatever is needed to destroy the enemy's will to fight.

I don't think I want to delve any deeper into that side of things. But I do think there is still an honor in many soldiers and it still comes out today in the rigth situation, but many recent conflicts haven't allowed it to be expressed, or it disappears quickly as hatred builds. And maybe the less personal combat of today, rather than the up close and personal fighting of earlier eras, makes it more difficult to see the enemy as a person???

Rick

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

An extremely pertinent post Ricky especially this And maybe the less personal combat of today, rather than the up close and personal fighting of earlier eras, makes it more difficult to see the enemy as a person???

Brilliant topic Paul, I did a course on it at Uni and would love to join in but as I seem to have developed a knack of being a 'Thread killer' I will wait for a bit to see if the discussion takes off, I do hope it does it would be nice to see some real discussions going again like we had a few years back

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

LOL, Peter, I've never viewed you as a thread killer, and I hope no one else has either. I would hope that men of character could discuss and even disagree on any topic amicably.

Anyway, I accept Rick's notion that the level of behavior is linked inextricably to the nature of the combatants and the goals of the wars. It appears, on the surface at least, to fit so many situations through out history that I accept it easily as an explanation. I guess I now wish I lived in an era when warfare was still still fought to advance or limit the advantage of a nation, and not to combat an ideology. How does one kill an idea precisely anyway? :(

Oh, and Toni...I'm not sure that blackmailing the Brits for 2 Million Fags is quite honorable. Sounds more like extortion to me. LOL

[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

[Stryker]

Mmmm, chivalry and honour in the 18th and 19th centuries, may have been an option for the very privileged few but I think you're looking at this through some very rose tinted glasses and been watching too many hollywood movies... not much honour and chivalry in these subjects;
The extermination of the Native Americans, the rape and pillage of numerous towns and cities by all sides during the napoleonic wars (the Russian army for example send to assist the Austrians against Napoleon looted and raped and destroyed everything in their path - so much so that the Austrians saw the French as liberators, the treatment of the Spanish at the hands of the French, the sacking of Vittoria by Wellingtons troops etc. etc.), the treatment of coloured slaves until the abolition. Did someone mention the american civil war?where the confederate troops (and women and children I believe) were put in camps and left to die with no food, sanitation or medicines. The European powers Rape of Africa, the treatment of the Aboriginies in Australia, the British concentration camps in the Boar war..... shall we go on.....not much honour there for the common man (or woman)

So the chivalric honour of a few rich gentlemen who were probably mates and/or related doesn't really cut it with me... I think in modern warfare, with the media everywhere, means armies can no longer get away with the things they used to, probably has done a lot to stop some of the more depraved goings on after the battle is won although the victors have still gotton away with murder on several occasions.. study what the Russians got away with between 1930 and 1950... makes what the Germans did pale into the shadows (almost).

bit of a ranting post and all from memory so feel free to correct or point out I may have missed the point...a good post Paul and a great discussion point at last.... but.....don't see a lot of chivalry in the history i've studied during this period (and there's a lot more I'm sure)

[Ricky B]

Hi Rudolph,

I think you hit on what Paul mentioned, which was the Chivalry was dying by the Napoleonic Wars - and I doubt any war, being a brutal occupation, didn't result in cases of brutality. I believe though that the balance went in cycles through history, or even in single wars, with a tendency toward chivalry or brutality.

Regarding the US Civil War, I see it as a great example of the mix of chivalry and brutality that many or most wars tend toward, with most getting more brutal as the fighting goes on. The Civil War did see brutal prisons on both sides, generally but not always without malice but more due to a lack of desire to improvide conditions for the large numbers of prisoners kept in them, more than any sanitation system could handle in the limited space given over to the prisoners, for those that suffered from sanitation problems.

But the flip side is that early on in the war both sides did offer parole to prisoners, allowing them to go home and await an exchange before fighting again, and this worked fairly well. I think it was the Union that decided to stop exchanging prisoners to make the South's manpower problems worse, but could be wrong there.

However, in general the civilians on both sides suffered relatively little during the war. There were exceptions, of course, sometimes due to purely criminal acts by rogue bands of soldiers, other times due to higher level policy, but in general the higher level policy of ones such as Sherman who impacted a large part of the Southern citizens was to "make war hell" but without taking so much that the civilians could not survive. His men had orders to take food from the civilians in the areas they passed through, making his "march to the sea" possible, but to be sure and leave each family enough food to last them through to the next harvest. They had orders to destroy homes and businesses when involved in the war in some way, and I don't believe they generally destroyed homes outside of those that were used in military/guerilla ops against them. Again, there were exceptions but that was the idea - to make people decide the damage they would suffer if they resisted the Union soldiers would be worse than giving in.

The soldiers themselves often treated each other as distant family in many cases, trading tobacco for sugar, fraternizing, etc, as long as they weren't in battle. This amazes me just because they fought so hard in battle, and lost so many friends, but many could still deal with the other side honorably.

I just bring in the Civil War because I know it and it had a lot of examples of both sides, but I would have to say that overall, considering the passions of the North and South, the soldiers especially respected each other generally and treated each other honorably, doing what they felt they had to do but most not going past that point.

Rick

[JasonC]

"modern warfare, with the media everywhere, means armies can no longer get away with the things "

Try selling that crap in Rwanda or the eastern Congo.

Only the dead have seen the end of war, and war boys is all hell.

[Stryker]

"modern warfare, with the media everywhere, means armies can no longer get away with the things "

Try selling that crap in Rwanda or the eastern Congo.

Only the dead have seen the end of war, and war boys is all hell.

Well, Rwanda and the Eastern Congo is more about money and corruption than anything else and when there's a lot of money at stake, the people tend to suffer and the media gets bought off - the BBC for example tells only one side of the story, not the background or the reasons things are happening the way they are... in my opinion - of course.... this has been the story in Africa since it was settled.

My post was very general, to provoke discussion about the topic - each of these points obviously have a lot more too them and I was very interested to read Ricky B's post on the American Civil War.. a subject I'm interested in - but of which I don't know too much about.

The part of my post you quoted sort of referred to what's happened in Iraq, with the media in the UK reporting when soldiers have abused citizens (which again was often one sided pile of crap in my opinion).. and media coverage of wars such as vietnam and the Falklands to name just two that come to mind...