The emergence of centralised state power, driven by the need to focus violence outside the borders of the state, was the primary factor behind this. Warriors Are on the losing side of historyįor all the myths, warriors lost to disciplined soldiers on the battlefield. That is what Pashtu insurgents, Boko Haram, and Mexican Drug Cartels still do today. If you are looking for actual warriors in the modern world then you need look no further than the enemies of liberal democracies with their disregard for human life, their killing of non-combatants, their crimes against women and their lack of discipline. Yet, they fought, massacred, raped, enslaved, and pillaged for their own gain. It’s easy to look back in awe at these cultures and study the romanticised images presented by films such as 300. This in turn led to a chronic instability as they competed for power through conquest, war, and destruction. They held power in their respective societies because they were trained in the application of violence and valued it as a tool to seize power. Samurai, Feudal Knights, Turkic Mamelukes, and Eurasian steppe horsemen are prime examples of warriors who inherited their status from birth. Warriors feel they own the exclusive right to apply violence or bear arms. What do we mean by ‘warrior’? John Keegan’s 1993 analysis offers a starting point A warrior is a professional fighter trained since childhood whose class or caste holds power. This case study should be a warning to professionals who flirt with it today.įinally, this article concludes by arguing modern military professionals should aspire to another historical example, that of Roman Centurions. The warrior ethos weakened the French Army to the point of mutiny. ![]() Secondly, this article uses the post WW2 French Army as a case study to demonstrate why a warrior ethos ultimately leads to catastrophic moral failure with serious political consequences. ![]() This led to their defeat by disciplined soldiers by 1900. ![]() It argues that warrior societies fell behind stable and centralised nation-states because they lacked the discipline to succeed. This article is split into three parts each making an interlocking argument:įirstly, it examines why soldiers are fascinated by warriors. Their values are the opposite of those that modern armed forces should aspire to. ‘Warriors’ are rapists, murderers, and slave owners. Yet, even a basic review of the historical evidence shows that the warrior ethos is both toxic and dangerous to modern militaries. There is a feeling amongst some military professionals that the ‘warrior ethos’ is needed to promote a more aggressive and independent ‘warfighting’ culture. Notwithstanding this 2006 film, the image of heroic ‘warriors’ is deeply embedded inside the military psyche. Worse, it did not even occur to the promoters of the ‘warrior’ brand that the Spartans were a privileged minoritarian caste whose political and military system rested on slavery and the ruthless oppression of their population. Snyder’s romanticised image of heroic warriors does not match the historical reality. ![]() That the author of the source graphic novel, Frank Miller, had a Huntingtonian agenda, 1 and that this in turn was based on Greek propaganda, was not taken into account. Its popularity generated widespread use of the film’s iconography and ‘Spartan’ became a brand used to promote ‘warrior’ values Do you remember how successful Zack Snyder’s 2006 film, 300, was? It enjoyed a popular, if not cult, following amongst military personnel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |