I want to link this to talking about honor in class and one of the presentations (I don't remember whose it was, but it was the one where they called a cease fire to collect the dead).
I was watching the presentation and I saw a picture of both sides just collecting their dead. I also remember the presenters saying how both sides would occasionally take a day off the fighting to just collect their dead. My question is, when one side is out their collecting their dead, why doesn't the other side ambush them and just kill them all? That would save a lot more lives for the ambushing side. The answer I suppose, would be because that's against this code of honor that they're supposed to live by.
So my question is this: why? Why was honor so important? Obviously honor was considered more valuable than human life since because (say) the trojans never ambushed the acheans during one of these body collections, a lot more trojans died at the hands of some of those same acheans who were picking up corpses. Now it probably wouldn't be achilles or ajax or hector picking up those bodies, but still, it would have helped win the war. So the second question is this: should honor be held so highly? Or should it be nothing more than something to prevent absolute barbarity in war? OR should it not be considered at all? Should war be completely based on survival?
I think the whole idea of "honor in war" is ironic at best, hypocritical at worst. What's honorable about killing people? The fact that their should be such a code of conduct in war to de-horrify it, to make it more "game-like" is repulsive. People die in war, lives are destroyed by war, and for someone to say "this is how you're supposed to make war" guidelines or rules, if you will, seems absurd. After all, what good is honor to the dead? Dead is dead, regardless of how one died.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Ed, I think your blog raises some really good questions. If it's war, why not kill the enemy even if it isn't considered normal? I think one aspect of the argument though are the gods. I feel that if one army was attacked during a so-called ceasefire, the gods would favor that army and make the other one suffer. I guess it really comes down to what you are willing to do to win a war.
I have to say I disagree when you say that it doesn't matter how you kill your opponent. There is an honorable way and a dishonorable way. If you don't feel morally obligated to be fair in war, you should at least be worried about the repercussions in terms of your world image. Ultimately, I think that is the real reason nations are fair in war.
I think that it should be a personal choice as to how honorable a warrior/soldier wants to act. If he/she breaks a certain rule or code of conduct then they should obviously be punished for it. But ultimately, being honorable is a personal choice and shouldn't be held higher than human life.
I think honor in war is somewhat ironic. I don't understand how a war can have rules when the objective is to kill the enemy. If countries and people were truly honorable, they would be able to come to some agreement and prevent the war all together. War is barbaric and one has to either kill or be killed. The idea of honor between enemies in war makes no sense. I respect and admire American soldiers who fight for our freedom, but how can I feel compassion for enemy soldiers who want to destroy America. War is about victory, not honor.
You raise a good point but to your question of why is honor held so highly I think I have a practical answer. I'm not so sure how it would have worked during the Trojan War but in present day it makes sense to have "honor". Take Iraq, for example, there the United States is trying to win over the Iraqi people and to do so, the must act honorably. If the Americans do not act honorably they will be seen as oppressors in the eyes of the Iraqis rather than liberators. To win over the population of a country, acting honorably is necessary.
I believe the whole idea about not attacking each other while they are collecting their dead is more along the lines of respect rather than honor. They were allowing them to collect the dead so that they could pay their respect to the ones who had been lost.
Your blog made me think about how war has changed the styles of fighting. It used to be that soldiers would stand in ranks and get shot at, then went to guerilla warfare, then tanks/planes/bombs, ect. It is sort of shocking the lengths at which we have grown in fighting styles. A long time ago guerilla warfare used to be considered cowardly, now look at how we fight.
I think it doesn't matter either how you kill your opponent. I know in every culture there is an honorable or dishonorable way but for me - a death is a death, no matter how it happens its still the same death.
Also honor is quite annoying when it comes to stories. I've heard enough on honor in war hahaa.
I think to answer this question, you have the think about it in terms of society today. What would happen if we won a war using chemical weapons? The social ramafacations for such actions would not be worth winning the war. In the same way, winning a war in those times by fighting on the day of burial would not be worth it.
Eduardo, you make some interesting points and some very controversial ones as well. You said at the very end of ur blog "After all, what good is honor to the dead? Dead is dead, regardless of how one died." I completely disagree with that statement. I believe that honor exists to glorify the dead. We often hear the phrase, he died with honor, in battle, or in the way he lived his life. It is easy to say that a person is dead is dead, regardless of how he died. To me, this is despicable, rude, and even ignorant. Try telling the dead man's wife, or children, or parents, or brothers that he is dead, simply dead. A man lives his life with one certainty: death. To say that a dead man is simply dead takes away from the life he lived, and the honor he upheld. We live and we die and we are either remembered or forgotten. It is safe to say that most everyone wishes to leave behind a legacy of which they are proud. Pronouncing a man dead, and leaving it at that, extinguishes any possible legacy, honorable or not.
Post a Comment