 |
| Chivalry Frank Dicksee |
That opening painting (which is also the cover art on my copy of Bernard Cornwell's most excellent novel, Enemy of God) is a prime example of how some folks (the one's who have never seen it) glorify combat and, of course, by extension, war itself. But look closely at that painting of the damsel in distress.
She looks a bit apprehensive, doesn't she? I mean she's tied up and bound to a tree, the implication is that the guy on the ground (who looks a lot like he's just resting after getting knocked down) is obviously the "bad guy." I mean his armor is dark and we should assume that he's the guy who tied the lady to the tree. (What kind of sick bastard ties a lady to a tree?)
Now the chap who appears to be sheathing his sword, I mean his left hand holds the scabbard steady, has just skewered the chap upon the ground. I mean it's all very decorous innit? The bad guy has been bested and the lady is about to be rescued, we hope. (No doubt she's wondering if she's exchanged one brute for another.)
Now in reality I'm assuming that the bad guy has been stabbed in the throat, the sword the "good guy" is in the act of sheathing is a long pointy type. Good for poking things, like throats through gaps in someone's armor. So I have to guess that the guy on the ground is already dead, otherwise he'd been grasping at his neck with both hands trying, in vain usually, to staunch the bleeding.
But where is the blood? Ah, romantic paintings of chivalrous combat never show bleeding, or disembowelment, or missing limbs, and missing heads. They never show people being split open like overripe gourds. Nope, no one (other than some sick bastard who ties damsels to trees and such) would be interested in purchasing or commissioning such a painting.
Besides which, the old bastards who send people to war, they seldom go themselves, don't want the youth to think that war is dangerous or anything now, do they? Heck, no one would ever volunteer ever again if they knew the truth of the thing. Need a particularly nasty objective taken? Send in the inexperienced troops, they don't know any better. The wily old veterans? Their objective is to stay alive, they do know better.
War is nasty, it is brutal, it is uncomfortable, it is dirty, it is loud, you meet some very nasty people on the battlefield, on both sides.
Unfortunately though, war is sometimes necessary. I doubt anyone alive today (who isn't clinically insane or profoundly stupid) would think that letting the Nazis control Europe would be a good thing. There is always (pardon my French) some asshole, or group of assholes, who want somebody else's stuff. Either they themselves don't have enough of their own stuff, or they're just greedy for more stuff. Really, that's the bottom line.
Okay, there is another sort of warfare, in this sort of warfare (again pardon my French) some asshole, or group of assholes, thinks that the way they think is just really awesome and wonderful, and that the way you think is really disgusting and deplorable. So they're going to make you think like them. Or kill you. Ideological wars are like that, think Commies, Fascists, Nazis, most wars of religion as well.
It's always somebody who wants somebody else's stuff, or they just want to be in charge. In reality, it doesn't matter where you fight, it all sucks because someone is trying to kill you.
War. Sometimes necessary.
Always sucks.
Just my two cents...
But don't take my word for it, ask these guys...
 |
| (Source) |
.jpg){kind=link}
Call me a deplorable and I'll be the very best deplorable I can be...... my two cents added to yours Sarge.
ReplyDeleteMe too!
DeleteI would agree that war, whether necessary to protect your stuff from someone else's grubby hands, or to defend against an ideological or religious power grab, definitely sucks. I would also posit that a war, which is not backed by the populous, such as happened during the Viet Nam War, must suck even more for the soldiers who are forced to fight. It seems only fair to me, from talking to folks alive during the WW1 and WW2 and then to others around during the Viet Nam and now during the "Afghanistan conflict", that the "folks back home" need to have some "skin in the game" as well. The general population, not just the 1% of families who have loved ones on the battle field. When folks at home, non-combatants, if you will, have to sacrifice, I think it truly brings home that fact that War DOES suck. So the best way to "get out of" war, is to win it, and move on.
ReplyDeleteThen there are all the "little" wars going on all over, like neighbors squabbling. Africa, and the Middle East seem to be full of those. And for the common peasant-type person living in those areas, that would definitely suck as well.
Maybe, WW1 and WW2 were easier (if I can use that term) to win, even though the loss of life, limb, and treasure was huge, was because the "why" of the war was pretty clear. After all, stemming the tide of the Nazis, was definitely a ideological war.
The wreck that is the aftermath of war, the destroyed property, destroyed lives, the death, injuries, and huge financial impacts also suck. One of the good things to come out of WW2 was that after America helped/lead the destruction of Germany, and Japan, we then helped to lead in the re-building. Something that didn't happen after the Civil War, where the North just continued to kick the South after it was already down.
So, yes, agree, that war sucks. Big time. War, when the only people who sacrifice are the solders on the field, sucks even more.
The question is how to keep other's grubby mitts off your stuff, or to stop ideology/religious lunatics from going batcrap nuts and trying to take over the world. It is difficult to go smack some sense into folks when they need it, especially if talking doesn't do diddiley squat, but sometimes when the carrot doesn't work, a stick does need to be used.
One thing that some folks refuse to learn is that "if you want peace, prepare for war." (Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
DeleteIf the other guy knows he'll get slapped, and slapped hard, if he tries anything, odds are, he won't. Teddy Roosevelt was right, speak softly but carry a big stick.
There is no such thing as a "peace dividend." If you want another war, disarm yourself when the last one is done.
All this goes along with what you said yesterday Suz, if you're going to go to war, go in hard, go in to win. Break stuff and kill people, that's what armies do.
WWI was, for the USA, in some ways, an extension of the Spanish-American style of Propaganda War. Going back and reading a lot of the news articles vs what was actually happening shows a very strong slant by the Anglocentric newspapers towards England (moreso than France, though the French were often portrayed as 'romantic') and very much against the Germans and somewhat the Austrians (those two nations being kinda lumped together as "the Huns.") A great example is the whole Lusitania affair. Germany knew there were munitions aboard, she even warned in the newspapers with large ads that the ship was carrying weapons and war materials and therefore was a legal target. Some of the passengers even decided not to board. But England, and the carrying line, assured everyone that the Lusitania was too fast to be torpedoed. So... then why did she slow off of Ireland and make herself a big fat target? Conspiracies abound about that Mongolian cluster something-something. And the treatment of German-Americans, starting back in 1914 and getting progressively worse, by the Democratic party (why is it always that group of people) even before we finally declared war. Few remember the wholescale renaming of all the beer halls and guest houses from their more Germanic names to bars/saloons and hotelish names.
DeleteWWII was a more direct, almost 'holy,' war. We were directly attacked, clear declarations of war against us, clear enemy on both sides of the world. Even so, our presidency and our state department bungled and went against the general wishes and beliefs of the populace, along with the aid of the news organizations, in their support of decidedly unfriendly allies over friendly allies (chiComs vs Nationalist Coms being one of the better examples.)
Korea? We had Korea won, hands down, then the chiComs got involved and it turned into an ongoing and rather ugly stalemate that exists today. Thanks, UN, for tying our hands, ya bastard organization.
Vietnam should have been an easy and righteous victory. Several times we had the Northerners against the wall, knife to the throat, peace about to occur, when our media (again) and our democrat-run government (again) dropped the ball. And then, of course, Nixon managed to fumble it and then support the ChiComs over the Nationalist Chinese, so the faults not all on the Dems. But it was a righteous cause.. We had that war won, and then we threw it away, over and over and over again. We even had the Southerners winning after we left, and then pulled the rug out from underneath them.
Gulf Wars I should have been a huge-assed victory, but we listened to our allies and the UN and stopped. We had that mutt Saddam against the wall, and we should have continued and finished off that turd, then done another Marshall Plan and changed the middle east forever. But no. So we had to go all Gulf Wars II and then, once again, not have a Marshall Plan in preparation for winning.
DeleteAfghanistan has been a victory several times. We have had them against the wall repeatedly, only to have our state department (again) and our Dems in the government (again) piss it all away. The focus of the Afghan war should have been divided - destroy the mutts on the ground while going after their backers wherever they were - just like George Bush (jr.) said he was going to do and wanted to do and was stopped by our state department and our dem controlled government (just look at all the dems who voted for military action and then turned right around and voted to pull the rug out from under all the military.)
War. Leave it to the warriors and soldiers. Then it will be over, one way or another. Quit with all this murky political carp of restraint and control. Let our military loose. Let them do to everyone what they did last year to that Russian backed mercenary group.
Bah. Bad thoughts in head. Watching my beloved Florida be stolen by the Democrats. I shouldn't be allowed near an open communications port. And dark dreams of cracking the safe open and going Minuteman are occupying my mind these days. Bahhh.
Beans @10:37 - Spot on analysis.
DeleteBeans the 2nd @10:37 - Going into Afghanistan? No, just no. It's the freaking tar baby.
Delete"After all, stemming the tide of the Nazis, was definitely a ideological war."
DeleteSuz: It was not a sure thing that Congress would declare war on Germany, if Hitler had not declared war on us ( U.S. ) first.
Paul L. Quandt
"And the treatment of German-Americans, starting back in 1914 and getting progressively worse, by the Democratic party (why is it always that group of people) even before we finally declared war."
DeleteMy father told me a little of the way his father was treated in that time frame.
Paul
Paul @3:05 - Never a sure thing with Congress involved. Of course, many Americans wondered why we were fighting the Germans when it was the Japanese who attacked us.
DeletePaul @3:13 - Our treatment of German-Americans during WWI was bad, though it didn't reach the level of the treatment of Japanese-Americans, it was despicable. Yeah, what is it with the Ds?
Delete"Yeah, what is it with the Ds?"
DeleteYou do read Theo Spark, do you not? I didn't see him listed among those on the right side, ->. I believe that Theo has the right of it.
PLQ
No I don't, I have enough drama in my life.
DeleteAs LL over at Virtual Mirage likes to say, "War is a racket". I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam protesters coming up with, "War is good for business. Invest your son".
ReplyDeleteProtecting your own, and your values, is a reason for war. If so, you best become proficient. Consider the Plains tribes vs General Sherman.
Foxtrot the Vietnam protesters.
DeleteAs to reasons for war, there are good ones. Taking someone else's stuff or imposing your beliefs on someone else are not.
The Plains tribes were warriors, they needed soldiers. Bottom line, they lost.
"Foxtrot the Vietnam protesters."
DeleteChris, I was one of them after I was discharged from the USAF in 1968. We were in the wrong war, on the wrong side, lead by incompetent assholes. HST started it because, however competent an artillery captain he may have been, he didn't know sh-t about what he needed to know as President. JFK upped the ante because he f'ed up at the Bay of Pigs. However, it was W. Wilson who first lead the train of disasters in dealing with French Indochina/Viet Nam. I've read the history and can give chapter and verse. But I won't hijack your blog to do it.
PLQ
I get all that Paul, bear in mind, many Americans felt (and some still feel) the debt we owe France for their help in the Revolution. However, "wrong war." "wrong side"? The treatment of the south Vietnamese by the communists both during and after the war showed me that we were on the right side, fighting the right war. But, I'll concur with your remark about the incompetent assholes, particularly LBJ, who was a complete ass.
DeleteHelping the French try to keep Indochina as a colony wasn't smart, trying to support the aspirations of the south Vietnamese put us on the side of the angels, in my book. The media was complicit in our lack of success in Vietnam. Look at our history since then, many of those so-called anti-war protesters were in league with the commies, not all but many. I knew some anti-war protesters back in the day, for the most part they were protesting because they were scared of being drafted, not due to some high moral principles.
But with idiots in charge, I can't say I blame them for being scared. Believe me, the draft loomed large when I was 18.
"Helping the French try to keep Indochina as a colony wasn't smart, trying to support the aspirations of the south Vietnamese put us on the side of the angels, in my book."
DeleteWell, this is one time I think that you are not aware of all of the relevant information. I have read extensively on this subject ( if I were to get a ' piled higher and deeper ' degree, it would be on the first ten years of the U.S. involvement in French Indochina/Viet Nam ). The time period of 1940 to 1950. The two Presidents of that time firetrucked the whole thing and it never got any better. However, the first U.S. President to screw the pooch was Woody Wilson at the end of the 1914-1918 unpleasantness. In your abundant spare time, read a good history of Viet Nam. An eye-opener, it is.
This is a subject about which I feel quite strongly. I helped train a goodly number of good men who went into that inferno, and, I am sure, far too many didn't come home again. Even the ones who physically came home lost parts of themselves.
Paul L. Quandt
"...the draft loomed large when I was 18."
DeleteThe first time I enlisted into the USAF, in 1965, we called ourselves ' draft dodgers '. It was one of those very unfunny jokes.
Paul
We can agree to disagree, I too have read extensively on the subject.
DeleteThere are many unfunny jokes in life, most highlight some unpleasant fact. Like that.
Delete"We can agree to disagree, I too have read extensively on the subject."
DeleteI hope the day comes that we can sit down together over the beverages of our choice and talk history.
Paul
Now that will be epic.
DeleteI wonder, particularly in light of the last week’s worth of posts, if we’re headed for a future peer state world war because we’re now mostly removed from the generations who experienced its horror first-hand.
ReplyDeleteI hope I’m wrong.
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
DeleteA future peer state world war? Short, brutal, and most probably nuclear.
Like you, I hope I'm wrong.
One of the reasons I keep writing that we need to fight the PRC sooner than later. It may be that it is already too late.
DeletePLQ
There will be no major war with the PRC, mark my words. If there is, then it's "game over, man."
DeletePeople keep thinking that we're going to refight WWII, won't happen, it'll be low intensity if anything. No one can afford the disruption to global commerce if someone starts something stupid. People out there are already starting to wake up to the threat of the PRC, including the Pakistanis.
Well, think what you will about the current President, at least he appears to be aware of the threat of the PRC. I might even go so far as to suggest that his administration is doing something about it.
DeletePaul
They are.
DeleteThe guy on top is wearing 'white harness' while the guy on the ground is wearing 'black harness.' All that means is that the guy on top has a horde of minions to polish his stuff, while the guy on the bottom decided to buy his armor with an anti-rust treatment that can be maintained in the field.
ReplyDeleteAs to the sword thingy, White Harness dude is putting away his arming sword (long pointy crowbar) after bashing Black Harness dude. He will then subsequently whip out his misericord (a long, pointy icepick, sometimes with a flat pommel to pound with) and poke it in either Blacky's eyes, armpits or crotch, those being the least armored locations. Unless he's going to take Blacky hostage for ransom.
Either way, Little Miss Buttercup's afternoon of S&M looks like its been interrupted, unless the whole scene behind is part of the role-play. Wonder what the safe-word is?
Ah, my day is made. I picked that painting for a different topic, thought that topic sucked, then went with the whole "War Sucks" thing. Figuring I could use that painting to illustrate a point AND to let you show us your mad medieval skills. You did not disappoint.
DeleteIf I ever go back in time, I will not (upon being smashed to the ground) ask for "mercy."
(And that long sword still looks kinda narrow, even the scabbard seems thin, based on the hand gripping it, but hey, if it isn't a claidheamh-mòr, I'm out of my depth. Yes, the medieval variant, not the basket hilted thingee.)
I have some liberal and leftists friends, (ok, more like acquaintances I tolerate), whose words of thanks on Veterans' Day ring hollow to me. They don't support any military action, but supposedly support the troops. I don't call them on it though. Some people will never understand how war can be both tragic, and necessary.
ReplyDeleteAin't that the bitter truth?
DeleteOk, so Beans needs a spew alert warning..."Little Miss Buttercup's afternoon of S&M looks like its been interrupted"...lol
ReplyDeleteAnd any one handling a claidheamh-mòr would not be wearing white, or golden armor, but would be in a kilt...unless this painting was painted after Culloden when the kilt was banned.
Absolutely.
DeleteAs to the spew warning, I get ya.
Hey Old AFSarge;
ReplyDeleteWar sucks, but it is necessary sometimes because Peace at any price is worse. I have commented more than once that we won the war against extremist(The Japanese) because we had the stones to go totally ruthless on them. But since then we have gotten soft and it showed in our subsequent conflicts, especially Vietnam and to a lesser extent to my war Gulf 1, we should have gone to Baghdad in 1991 but the democrats after seeing the highway of death and the UN guilted George GW Bush into stopping after 4 days. We expected to keep on going and I remembered being pissed because I knew back then that we would have to go back later.
I remember the exact same thing MrG.
Delete