FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,365
- Points
- 1,160
For a historian, Bateman seems to have missed the first requirement of stating an argument: defining the terminology involved.
"Soldier" by definition means nothing more or less that "One who serves in an army" - it is not (as he says) a western concept. Armies are a function of advanced societies regardless of whether they are western or oriental or even South American.
"Warrior" by definition is one who "engages in warfare with courage and skill". The warrior can exist inside or outside an organized army.
The concept of "honor" (or honour for those of us who cling to Britified speech) has nothing to do with either the term soldier or warrior. It is simply a concept accepted or rejected by the specific society in which the respective soldier or warrior serves. Honour is, regrettably perhaps, a very flexible term. On the other hand, by general definition the term "discipline" is generally, but not always, associated with an army/soldier while it may or may not be applicable to a warrior culture.
All of that said, I can't get very excited, one way or the other, about the terminology which some commanders/commands use to motivate the teenagers that form the backbone of their soldier/warrior class. There have always been, and there always will be, people in the ranks (both high and low) who think that what their leaders are doing is wrongheaded, counterproductive or just plain silly. That doesn't mean they are necessarily right.
I don't want to be a nitpicker but I'll give it a shot anyway. I agree with Bateman's premise that formerly (and by this I assume he's speaking of the time of the Custer battle) the 7th were not warriors. I tend to question as to how much they were soldiers. At the time (early 1870s) most of the US Army troopers were not civil war veterans but instead immigrant recruits with few military skills including marksmanship or riding. The training at the time was dismal to nonexistent being left primarily to on-the-job experience. The basic defensive tactic at the time was the dismounted skirmish line and we all know the famous fact that the 7th had boxed up their sabres before the campaign (I'll leave out the Gatling gun issue because it's irrelevant). In action, the company skirmish lines of the main body of the 7th held briefly but quickly turned into disarray followed by a cascading disintegration company by company until it was annihilated. When I visited Little Big Horn a Ranger there recommended a very good book on the subject to me: Richard Allen Fox Jr's Archaeology, History and Custer's Last Battle. If anything, the book teaches what happens if commanders do not properly instil within their troops both soldierly organization and discipline and a warrior spirit of courage and skill at arms.
:2c:
[cheers]
"Soldier" by definition means nothing more or less that "One who serves in an army" - it is not (as he says) a western concept. Armies are a function of advanced societies regardless of whether they are western or oriental or even South American.
"Warrior" by definition is one who "engages in warfare with courage and skill". The warrior can exist inside or outside an organized army.
The concept of "honor" (or honour for those of us who cling to Britified speech) has nothing to do with either the term soldier or warrior. It is simply a concept accepted or rejected by the specific society in which the respective soldier or warrior serves. Honour is, regrettably perhaps, a very flexible term. On the other hand, by general definition the term "discipline" is generally, but not always, associated with an army/soldier while it may or may not be applicable to a warrior culture.
All of that said, I can't get very excited, one way or the other, about the terminology which some commanders/commands use to motivate the teenagers that form the backbone of their soldier/warrior class. There have always been, and there always will be, people in the ranks (both high and low) who think that what their leaders are doing is wrongheaded, counterproductive or just plain silly. That doesn't mean they are necessarily right.
I don't want to be a nitpicker but I'll give it a shot anyway. I agree with Bateman's premise that formerly (and by this I assume he's speaking of the time of the Custer battle) the 7th were not warriors. I tend to question as to how much they were soldiers. At the time (early 1870s) most of the US Army troopers were not civil war veterans but instead immigrant recruits with few military skills including marksmanship or riding. The training at the time was dismal to nonexistent being left primarily to on-the-job experience. The basic defensive tactic at the time was the dismounted skirmish line and we all know the famous fact that the 7th had boxed up their sabres before the campaign (I'll leave out the Gatling gun issue because it's irrelevant). In action, the company skirmish lines of the main body of the 7th held briefly but quickly turned into disarray followed by a cascading disintegration company by company until it was annihilated. When I visited Little Big Horn a Ranger there recommended a very good book on the subject to me: Richard Allen Fox Jr's Archaeology, History and Custer's Last Battle. If anything, the book teaches what happens if commanders do not properly instil within their troops both soldierly organization and discipline and a warrior spirit of courage and skill at arms.
:2c:
[cheers]
