08-21-2006, 12:57 AM
Logical explanation of behaviour rests on understanding the values of the persons involved. The values of soldiers are not those of civilians; and the values of Roman society, or medieval French society, are not those of modern America. It might be worth looking at Lendon's "Soldiers and Ghosts" in this regard - it just came out in paperback.
I do like citing sources. Of course, they all have their biases, and scholars make careers of trying to understand them. But if one decides that the sources should be thrown out wholesale, then you are essentially deciding that they have nothing to say that you don't already know - in which case, why study the past at all?
One more case to the examples cited by Caius. At Gettysburg in 1863, the Confederates' right wing had broken through the Union defense at the Peach Orchard, and was moving to outflank the main Union defense line. To buy enough time to build a new defense, the Union general on the spot (Hancock) had to slow down the Confederate division of Anderson. He had one understrength regiment of 262 men, the First Minnesota. At Hancock's order, they ploughed into the entire Rebel division. The ground was clear, and the men could see exactly what they were getting into, and they had all been in battles before, and knew what to expect. Within 10 minutes, 215 of the men were casualties, including all but three officers.
They bought just enough time for Hancock to bring up the next reinforcements, and stabilize the Union line.
I do like citing sources. Of course, they all have their biases, and scholars make careers of trying to understand them. But if one decides that the sources should be thrown out wholesale, then you are essentially deciding that they have nothing to say that you don't already know - in which case, why study the past at all?
One more case to the examples cited by Caius. At Gettysburg in 1863, the Confederates' right wing had broken through the Union defense at the Peach Orchard, and was moving to outflank the main Union defense line. To buy enough time to build a new defense, the Union general on the spot (Hancock) had to slow down the Confederate division of Anderson. He had one understrength regiment of 262 men, the First Minnesota. At Hancock's order, they ploughed into the entire Rebel division. The ground was clear, and the men could see exactly what they were getting into, and they had all been in battles before, and knew what to expect. Within 10 minutes, 215 of the men were casualties, including all but three officers.
They bought just enough time for Hancock to bring up the next reinforcements, and stabilize the Union line.
Felix Wang
