3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
This is and is not kinda connected to the Human Animal thread.
I came across a series of short documentaries, home done by some guy on his computer and put up on youtube. They were on the Hundred Years war. I knew only the big bits and pieces of this part of history, as most folk do--Henry V, Joan of Arc, ends with England falling into the War of the Roses...that sort of thing. So I thought, why not? and sat down and watched all of this guy's 17+ parts, each running about 3-7 minutes. Not bad. Not bad at all. He really got it all into a neat and informative nutshell from battle tactics to personalities and reasons why.
What struck me, however, was the fact that in this long-assed, off-and-on war between England and France over France, the most amazing battles were won usually with a combination of great tactics on the part of one side (and stupid tactics on the part of the other--aka, unbeknownst to me, the English had been using the long bow against the French for a while prior to Agincourt; the French kept making the same mistake and charging into those arrows), and leadership.
I'm not talking leadership in the sense of good move or just good moves. I mean leadership in the sense of a figurehead and flashpoint. Of a guy who had charisma. I mean, you go through this series and there are these powerful leaders making their men hold together and go into battle under the most appalling conditions and uneven odds. And when these men are leading the way, it usually helps to win the day, if only because the armies would have deserted or fallen apart otherwise...as the armies on the other side do under not-so-good leaders.
But what is really striking is Joan of Arc. I'm now convinced she can't really be appreciated without a real knowledge of the history and situation of France at the time. I mean, you get to her there at the end, and it's a real "What the fuck?" moment. The whole of France is in English hands--abet spread really thin and easily broken if anyone can get up the courage to make a real fight for it. But the French leaders have tried and tried and tried to win, and failed over and over again. Suddenly, a 17-year-old illiterate peasant girl talking of visions shows up and says, "I'm leading us to victory!" And she does! What the fuck?
But this is what got me thinking. Is that all that was needed all along? A figurehead for the French side? A flashpoint? A girl in armor shouting "God is on our side!" and suddenly everyone in France rallys to kick out the English? And does that mean that it's always easier to win if you kill the figurehead? Alexander the Great dies and it all dies? Almost always? What is it about the human animal that groups of people often don't seem to know what to do until the right leader appears? And then, like a pack of wolves or lemmings over a cliff, they'll follow that leader anywhere and do just about anything that leader tells them?
Certainly, leaders can lead in wrong directions with disastrous results, but my point is simply how interesting it is that humans often can't see, or worse, will ignore what's right in front of them until and unless the right leader comes along. And then, suddenly, they all see it and do it and succeed. The leader couldn't have done it without them, and they couldn't have done it without the leader. Why the need for such flashpoint and bellweathers? And why, for that matter, are we willing to be dragged in the wrong direction by leaders, contrary to all common sense, and only willing, in many cases, to go in the right direction if another better leader takes us there?
Thoughts?
I came across a series of short documentaries, home done by some guy on his computer and put up on youtube. They were on the Hundred Years war. I knew only the big bits and pieces of this part of history, as most folk do--Henry V, Joan of Arc, ends with England falling into the War of the Roses...that sort of thing. So I thought, why not? and sat down and watched all of this guy's 17+ parts, each running about 3-7 minutes. Not bad. Not bad at all. He really got it all into a neat and informative nutshell from battle tactics to personalities and reasons why.
What struck me, however, was the fact that in this long-assed, off-and-on war between England and France over France, the most amazing battles were won usually with a combination of great tactics on the part of one side (and stupid tactics on the part of the other--aka, unbeknownst to me, the English had been using the long bow against the French for a while prior to Agincourt; the French kept making the same mistake and charging into those arrows), and leadership.
I'm not talking leadership in the sense of good move or just good moves. I mean leadership in the sense of a figurehead and flashpoint. Of a guy who had charisma. I mean, you go through this series and there are these powerful leaders making their men hold together and go into battle under the most appalling conditions and uneven odds. And when these men are leading the way, it usually helps to win the day, if only because the armies would have deserted or fallen apart otherwise...as the armies on the other side do under not-so-good leaders.
But what is really striking is Joan of Arc. I'm now convinced she can't really be appreciated without a real knowledge of the history and situation of France at the time. I mean, you get to her there at the end, and it's a real "What the fuck?" moment. The whole of France is in English hands--abet spread really thin and easily broken if anyone can get up the courage to make a real fight for it. But the French leaders have tried and tried and tried to win, and failed over and over again. Suddenly, a 17-year-old illiterate peasant girl talking of visions shows up and says, "I'm leading us to victory!" And she does! What the fuck?
But this is what got me thinking. Is that all that was needed all along? A figurehead for the French side? A flashpoint? A girl in armor shouting "God is on our side!" and suddenly everyone in France rallys to kick out the English? And does that mean that it's always easier to win if you kill the figurehead? Alexander the Great dies and it all dies? Almost always? What is it about the human animal that groups of people often don't seem to know what to do until the right leader appears? And then, like a pack of wolves or lemmings over a cliff, they'll follow that leader anywhere and do just about anything that leader tells them?
Certainly, leaders can lead in wrong directions with disastrous results, but my point is simply how interesting it is that humans often can't see, or worse, will ignore what's right in front of them until and unless the right leader comes along. And then, suddenly, they all see it and do it and succeed. The leader couldn't have done it without them, and they couldn't have done it without the leader. Why the need for such flashpoint and bellweathers? And why, for that matter, are we willing to be dragged in the wrong direction by leaders, contrary to all common sense, and only willing, in many cases, to go in the right direction if another better leader takes us there?
Thoughts?