Michael Noire
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:13:31 +0000
I've been thinking about the archetypes we use to describe soldiers in the modern and historical sense. I am reminded of those old GI Joe cartoons and the stories of GIs after the war that handed out candy bars to the destitute native children. I am reminded of the soldiers on both sides of trench warfare who chose to have a holiday cease fire and share a cup of tea. I am reminded of nobles who lead their soldiers into battle and fight for their religious beliefs, their land, or their ethics. The brave soldier, the defender of the homeland, the man who fights for his country because he wants to preserve his way of life. I am reminded of these many scenarios, but also reminded of varying contrasts. There are those soldiers such as in the dynastic Chinese armies that move like robots mechanically obeying orders despite the attrition or foolishness of the orders. I am reminded of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary wars in which armies lined up to fire muskets and became sitting ducks and how it seems their training is no less robotic than the dynastic armies of centuries past. I think about Guerrilla Warfare, and the Tactics of Berserkers and megaviolent killing machines. I contemplate these and the contrast with idealized Paladins or soldiers who try to protect the innocent, try to avoid killing women and children, try to avoid bombing schools and churches and hospitals, and how that contrasts with colonels who board up villagers in churches and burn them all alive.
I think about the Spartan soldiers, and then the Roman soldiers with shaven heads, and contrast that with the Celts, or Native tribes will long hair and war paint. I try to see through this mess of what defines a soldier, and I come to the conclusion that a soldier does not have to be a mindless killing machine. They do not have to be a berserk blood thirsty maniac. They do not have to be a suicidal automaton worried about their families or lives because an order seems too insane or too evil to carry through. It seems to me such a thing as a good soldier can exist. That the idea of the soldier is one who struggles, but not necessarily someone who's only purpose is in killing and destroying. I think the idea of a soldier is to kill and destroy that which threatens the life and beauty around them, to represent a final solemn sense of resolution, to draw the line and say 'come no further'. I personally believe that the ideal ethic of a soldier is one with good intentions, and the bravery to see them through.
What kind of soldier do you see as ideal, ethically? Historical comparisons or examples being viable.
I think about the Spartan soldiers, and then the Roman soldiers with shaven heads, and contrast that with the Celts, or Native tribes will long hair and war paint. I try to see through this mess of what defines a soldier, and I come to the conclusion that a soldier does not have to be a mindless killing machine. They do not have to be a berserk blood thirsty maniac. They do not have to be a suicidal automaton worried about their families or lives because an order seems too insane or too evil to carry through. It seems to me such a thing as a good soldier can exist. That the idea of the soldier is one who struggles, but not necessarily someone who's only purpose is in killing and destroying. I think the idea of a soldier is to kill and destroy that which threatens the life and beauty around them, to represent a final solemn sense of resolution, to draw the line and say 'come no further'. I personally believe that the ideal ethic of a soldier is one with good intentions, and the bravery to see them through.
What kind of soldier do you see as ideal, ethically? Historical comparisons or examples being viable.
