The Warrior Spirit

[lesbiaphrodite]

I have always been attracted to warriors, whether they come along as cowboys, superheroes, Spartans, tribal figures and the like. What fascinates me about warriors is their indefatigable desire to conquer and to be strong and fit enough to do battle for what they believe in.

My personal favorite warriors are definitely the Spartans. Their culture and their complete lack of fear were simply amazing to me. When I read about the rituals they performed prior to battle: stripping naked, exercising, bathing, grooming each other's hair, I am a bit in awe. I have also heard it said that they sacrified to eros before a battle so that they might embrace death like a lover.

I wonder, what am I willing to fight for? What am I willing to die for? I am positive that I would die for love--the love of my family, my friends, my partner. I would also be willing to die for some of the things I believe most strongly in.

What would you fight for?

Who are your heroes?

Why?

 

[Handley_Page]

I thought of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans, but I think a better one might be Ramses 2 (the Great). Led his troops into battle at Kadesh.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

.
.
.
.
.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I have always been attracted to warriors, whether they come along as cowboys, superheroes, Spartans, tribal figures and the like. What fascinates me about warriors is their indefatigable desire to conquer and to be strong and fit enough to do battle for what they believe in.

My personal favorite warriors are definitely the Spartans. Their culture and their complete lack of fear were simply amazing to me. When I read about the rituals they performed prior to battle: stripping naked, exercising, bathing, grooming each other's hair, I am a bit in awe. I have also heard it said that they sacrified to eros before a battle so that they might embrace death like a lover.

I wonder, what am I willing to fight for? What am I willing to die for? I am positive that I would die for love--the love of my family, my friends, my partner. I would also be willing to die for some of the things I believe most strongly in.

What would you fight for?

Who are your heroes?

Why?

Back in the '70's it was fashionable to consider The Hobbit an anti-war book because all the fashionable people were anti-war. It is not. Bilbo's message, as shown in the Battle of the Five Armies is that there are things which must be fought for, even when there is no hope of victory---or even of survival. Who are my heroes? Thorin Oakenshield and Bjorn!

 

[amicus]

My current saga, The First Chief, with volume two near completion, follows the life and discovery of a young Chief of a tribe, 10,000 years ago, who struggles to understand the nature of a Warrior and what values he holds and defends.

Personally, I would look to Winston Churchill and Alexander the Great, who, in my opinion were a combination of intellectual, leader and warrior.

For entertainment and a definition of a Warrior, I might suggest the following 2007 film The Last Legion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Legion

Aishwarya Rai

While pursuing her studies in architecture, Rai began modelling on the side. In the 1994 Miss India contest, she won the second place behind Sushmita Sen, and was crowned Miss India World. She went on to win the Miss World title the same year, where she also won the Miss Photogenic award. She abandoned her academic education after winning the pageant and spent one year reigning as Miss World in London. Rai then started working as a professional model and then moved on to her current profession as an actress.

That is the 35 year old actress over on the left, not the still I wanted, but perhaps with time I will find one more representative of the film...

Nice topic....you might have a good thread started here...congratulations

amicus

 

[rgraham666]

A little story, an old favorite, about warriors.

Many years ago there was an old samurai who had decided to retire to become a priest.

But before he could do so he had to determine which of his three sons received the family sword.

So, after thinking a bit, he decided to test them. He went to a room in their home and placed a small wooden block on top of the shoji, the sliding door to the room. When the door was opened the block would fall and hit the person in it.

Then he called his youngest son to him.

The youngest son was a swordsman. He spent every available minute practicing with it. He was sharp, fast and deadly.

He came to the door and opened it. The block fell and struck him. He had his sword out and sliced the block in two before it hit the ground.

The old man stood up in a rage. "Get out of this house!" he shouted. "You are disowned! You do not understand what it means to be samurai and you never will."

Replacing the block the old man called his middle son to him.

This son spent a great deal of time studying the way of the sword. But there were other things he studied as well. They weren't his main point of interest though.

This son came to the door and opened it. The block fell and struck him. He caught it before it hit the ground.

Bowing to his son the old man said, "I am sorry, but you cannot receive the family sword. You do not yet understand what it means to be samurai. But I can see that one day you will."

Resetting his trap the old man had his oldest son come to meet him.

This son studied the sword, but it was just one of many things he studied. He wasn't a poor swordsman. It was just one of his many interests.

He came to the door, started to slide it open. He stopped then to reach up and pull down the wooden block. Entering the room he closed the door and replaced the block. Bowing to his father he asked, "Father? You wished to speak to me?"

"Yes," replied his father. "I have made my decision. You are the one who will receive the family sword as you are the one who most understands what it means to be samurai."

The greatest warriors are ones who don't need to use their swords.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

A little story, an old favorite, about warriors.



The greatest warriors are ones who don't need to use their swords.

From The Art of War, Sun Tsu: To win a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the acme of skill. The acme of skill is to attain victory without ever entering battle.

 

[amicus]

You would almost think from the above that the Samurai and Sun Yat Sen, were Pacifists....NOT!

Amicus

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You would almost think from the above that the Samurai and Sun Yat Sen, were Pacifists....NOT!

Amicus

True. They were just really good PSYOP soldiers.

 

[ishtat]

From The Art of War, Sun Yat Sen: To win a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the acme of skill. The acme of skill is to attain victory without ever entering battle.

Sun Tzu not Sun Yat Sen.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Sun Tzu not Sun Yat Sen.

Ah, that is correct. My daughter borrowed my copy and took it to college with her when she signed up for AFROTC. Little minx never brought it back! I'll go back and edit.

 

[amicus]

I would add that the 'Vikings', who plundered most of Western Europe, including England, Iceland, Greenland and some think North America, might deserve a little mention as Warriors of the first rank....Erik The Red? Does memory serve?

Amicus

 

[BrazenFellow]

In my opinion the reason that the Ping Fa and its associated works (such as those by Sun Yat-Sen) are considered 'timeless military classics' is because they are so vague that they cannot be 'wrong'. They are simply common sense for any military leader with even a modicum of training.

By comparison, Carl von Clausewitz's works are substantially more useful to those who are in the process of learning or examining another aspect of military planning.

It is interesting to note that Clausewitz, the same man who wrote that war is an extension of political will, also comments extensively on the possibilities of using manouevre and superior strategy (political, economic, et cetera) to achieve bloodless victories.

In my experience, the only people who glorify combat, particularly close combat, are either psychopaths or those who have not experienced combat. I have a lot of warriors I admire for a multitude of reasons, I don't think I could pick a favourite. I might be able to generate a list of twelve to fifteen people, but that's a little outside the subject at hand.

What would you fight for?

Who are your heroes?

Why?

I would fight for people I care about, my lady in particular. If she feels threatened at any point I'm either not around or someone is about to become a lot less threatening. I subscribe to the Clausewitzian thinking on national survival, and were my country threatened I would enlist. My country encompasses those I care for with a handful of exceptions and having been to other countries I can say I definitely feel an affinity for Canada in particular, as much as I may disagree with her recent governments and their idiotic policies.

I'd have to say one of my many heroes is the RSM from 17 Field, RCA, who during a night action in Otterlo shot two Germans with his STEN, then when that jammed he strangled a third with his bare hands. That prettymuch encapsulates what I admire about my countrymen in the Forces; they're all fucking crazy and do things like this to try and prevent their mates from getting killed, but they don't do it in defence of their homeland. No, they do it in defence of someone else's. That's pretty badass.

 

[rgraham666]

Sun Tzu wasn't a pacifist. He just knew the limitations of war.

When you do battle, even if you are winning, if you continue for a long time, it will dull your forces and blunt your edge; if you besiege a citadel, your strength will be exhausted. If you keep your armies out in the field for a long time your supplies will be insufficient.

When your forces are dulled, your edge is blunted, your strength is exhausted, and your supplies are gone, then others will take advantage of your debility and rise up. Then even if you have wise advisors you cannot make things turn out well in the end…

Therefore those who are not thoroughly aware of the disadvantages of the use of arms cannot be thoroughly aware of the advantages of the use of arms.

Pity so few people read and understand Sun Tzu these days. We'd avoid a lot of pain and misery if we did.

I keep a copy by my bed for reading before I sleep.

ETA: Brazen? I would recommend the book A History of Warfare by John Keegan. He showed that Clausewitz was a man very limited in view by his personal history and the history that occurred during his life. There are far more reasons than politics for people to fight wars.

As far as what I would fight for I would fight for the woman I love, my beliefs, my country and myself in that order.

I have no heroes. Heroes has a somewhat negative connotation for me because the word has been hijacked for political purposes. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and many other demagogues pretended to be heroes to push their political agendas.

I have role models, Socrates, Sun Tzu and Thomas Jefferson chief among them.

 

[ishtat]

Personally, I would look to Winston Churchill and Alexander the Great, who, in my opinion were a combination of intellectual, leader and warrior.


amicus

Interesting choices. Personally, I think Cromwell was a greater Englishman than Churchill. Churchill whilst admired in the UK tends to be even more admired in the USA, perhaps because Americans did not experience his more chequered career as a peacetime politician.

Alexander of course is known not as the "Great" but even today as "Alexander the Barbarian" from the Med to India. I can't forgive him for destroying the Library at Persepolis!

Given your expressed political and social views Amicus I'm a bit surprised that you nominated a manic depressive(Churchill) and a homosexual(Alexander).

Unlike lesbiaphrodite I think that the Spartans were wholly unadmirable. Blind courage drilled into a child from infancy to my mind is contemptible. Greater by far is the courage which through the virtue of the individual overcomes his own real and sensible fear. The Spartans in the end were a small minded inward looking essentially communist state in which the spirit of the individual was at all times from infancy crushed in the service of the city. They were automatons, not warriors.

The great warrior has to first know, experience and overcome fear, he must deny his rational self before he can be a hero.

My hero would be Cyrus the Great because despite being a conqueror he recognised that as far as possible his peoples should be free to govern themselves. He released not only the Jews but also all the rest of his empires subject peoples. Alexander took everything from his subjects and gave them Macedonian domination. Cyrus his equal as a conqueror was perhaps the only conqueror in history to recognise the futility of domination and gave individual freedom back to millions.

 

[BrazenFellow]

Brazen? I would recommend the book A History of Warfare by John Keegan. He showed that Clausewitz was a man very limited in view by his personal history and the history that occurred during his life. There are far more reasons than politics for people to fight wars.

Respectfully, I disagree. I like Keegan's work and have skimmed this book you suggest - sadly, haven't bought it - and agree with him on some points but I feel that Keegan is buttonholing Herr Clausewitz (not actually entitled to the "von") with an oversimplistic analysis of his work. Clausewitz's views are most definitely shaped by his personal experiences and the events that occurred during his life but they are not "very limited". I would recommend Hew Strachan's Carl von Clausewitz's On War as a biography of Clausewitz in relation to his works.

Perhaps the biggest problem here is that Clausewitz perceived politics to be all-encompassing and representative of more than we are. You say that wars are not fought exclusively over politics, and I agree, but Clausewitz may categorize the ethnic squabbling in the Balkans during the 1990s as being a political fight as much as it was an ethnic one. He would be correct in saying so. The brawls that occur over resources during times of scarcity would also be categorized as political, as it is a political need to provide for one's subjects which would initiate that war. Without the higher aspect (an entire region or nation going into combat) it cannot be a "war", and would instead be a skirmish or a violent riot or some other combat action.

I like your assessment of "no heroes", however. I'll have to amend myself and adopt that as my own (with obvious credit to you, yes) because in retrospect, what you say is really quite true. My example of hero is weak because I did not want to list a statesman or general as has been done here because of this corruption of the concept of "Hero."

Interesting choices. Personally, I think Cromwell was a greater Englishman than Churchill. Churchill whilst admired in the UK tends to be even more admired in the USA, perhaps because Americans did not experience his more chequered career as a peacetime politician.

I would have to disagree. Neither Cromwell nor Churchill are great Englishmen. I would argue Churchill is greater than Cromwell, if only because Cromwell was given to bouts of religious fervour which turned him into an unabashed dumbass at times. Churchill however is no hero; I have a list of actions which endanger the Allied war effort during WWII and cause many more Allied casualties than they prevent, thus in my books he can be no hero. This is not something that could not have been avoided at the time, either, for instance the failure to roll up the North African theatre early in 1940/41.

Edit: I concur in your assessment of the Spartans. There are some chilling similarities with W-SS 12 "Hitlerjugend" Division which is a formation belonging to an organization I cannot forgive whatever their martial qualities. Hearing people characterize them as "warriors" denigrates the concept of "warrior" as this thread has presented it.

 

[amicus]

BrazenFellow, welcome, I do not recognize your screen name, Ishtat, always interesting to read your posts.

I would not classify Churchill as 'manic depressive', perhaps depending upon which Biographer you read?

And I admit I never read anywhere that Alexander was a homosexual, but those two personal choices, and they are just that, were not based on their personal characteristics, but the quality of leadership and victories that each achieved.

I offer the two 'Wiki' entries for your reading pleasure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Alexander III of Macedon, popularly known to history as Alexander the Great, ("Mégas Aléxandros", Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1]) was an Ancient Greeki[›] king (basileus) of Macedon. Born in 356 BC, Alexander succeeded his father Philip II of Macedon to the throne in 336 BC, and died in Bablyon in 323 BC at the age of 32.

Alexander was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and it is presumed that he was undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered the Achaemenid Persian Empire, adding it to Macedon's European territories; according to some modern writers, this was much of the world then known to the ancient Greeks (the 'Ecumene').[2][3]ii[›] His father, Philip, had unified most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in the League of Corinth.

As well as inheriting hegemony over the Greeks, Alexander also inherited the Greeks' long-running feud with the Achaemenid Empire of Persia. After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states, Alexander launched a short but successful campaign against Macedon's northern neighbours. He was then able to turn his attention towards the east and the Persians. In a series of campaigns lasting 10 years, Alexander's armies repeatedly defeated the Persians in battle, in the process conquering the entirety of the Empire. He then, following his desire to reach the 'ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea', invaded India, but was eventually forced to turn back by the near-mutiny of his troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill





Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British politician known chiefly for his leadership of the United Kingdom during World War II. He served as Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. A noted statesman and orator, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army, historian, writer, and artist. He is the only British Prime Minister who has ever received the Nobel Prize in Literature and only the second person to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States.


During his army career, Churchill saw action in India, in the Sudan and the Second Boer War. He gained fame and notoriety as a war correspondent and through contemporary books he wrote describing the campaigns. He also served briefly in the British Army on the Western Front in World War I, commanding the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.


At the forefront of the political scene for almost fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of the Asquith Liberal government. During the war he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He returned as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. In the interwar years, he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Conservative government.


After the outbreak of the Second World War, Churchill was again appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. Following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain on 10 May 1940, he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and led Britain to victory against the Axis powers.[1] Churchill was always noted for his speeches, which became a great inspiration to the British people and embattled Allied forces.


After losing the 1945 election, he became Leader of the Opposition. In 1951, he again became Prime Minister before finally retiring in 1955. Upon his death, the Queen granted him the honour of a state funeral, which saw one of the largest assemblies of statesmen in the world.

~~~

I think there is also the 'context', the era or age, these men represent, in that the British Empire, upon which the 'sun never set', and Ancient Greece, perhaps the first, attempt at 'Democracy' we know of in human history, are both monumental events World War Two and the Roman Empire. Something that has always remained in my mind was the statement that: "A Roman citizen could go about in safety in any portion of the Empire..."

I am but a student of history, not a scholar, but these two came to mind uppermost as I considered the question of what a 'warrior' is and why.

regards...

Amicus

 

[Liar]

I would add that the 'Vikings', who plundered most of Western Europe, including England, Iceland, Greenland and some think North America, might deserve a little mention as Warriors of the first rank....Erik The Red? Does memory serve?

Amicus

They only really plundered big time on the British isles, around Bretange and a bit of Russia. The rest was mostly trade routes to the south and south east...

...and exploration/settling westbound. Iceland was empty when they got there, and Greenland and Vinland (N. America) had inuits that they got along peacefully with.

 

[BrazenFellow]

Liar, I would recommend you update yourself on your history regarding our Norsemen friends here. I'm part Norse, hence my studies on this subject. One quote that comes to mind with regards to the Vikings settling Greenland is this: "They found him pale, whereupon they stabbed him in the arms, legs, and torso, to see where and how much he would bleed", in relation to their first contact with a native on Greenland. (The Inuit are a separate tribal group which moved in much more recently than the natives in question during the Viking era).

Lanse aux Meadows (sic?) was evacuated in good order, but it was evacuated because like other settlements in Vinland, the Vikings did not get along well with the natives. I believe one was hacked down when he tried to steal a sword (understandably), which resulted in several native raids, which pissed off the Vikings more, which resulted in the natives losing and the Vikings deciding to leave because the natives would make it a point to attack their women and children instead of having the balls to face up to a six foot meat-fed warrior wielding an axe.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

They only really plundered big time on the British isles, around Bretange and a bit of Russia. The rest was mostly trade routes to the south and south east...

...and exploration/settling westbound. Iceland was empty when they got there, and Greenland and Vinland (N. America) had inuits that they got along peacefully with.

That's not what the archeological evidence indicates. In Greenland the Vikings and the Inuit arrived approximately simultaneously but kept apart. The Vikings were farmers and the Inuit, of course, hunters. The church didn't want the Vikings to have anything to do with the pagan Inuit and when the Little Ice Age arrived, the Inuit flourished and the Vikings starved. As far as Vinland is concerned, Newfoundland was inhabited by a people who were just as well armed as the Vikings and more numerous. The Vikings only stayed about a couple of years before they left in a hurry. Speculation is that they were chased out.

 

[amicus]

Years and years ago I was much surprised to learn the the conquest of England, Scotland, Ireland and the usual Iceland, Greenland, Vinland referencees were greatly exceeded by Norse Trading conquests throughout Europe, including those nations on the Mediterranean.

About midway through the following Wiki piece is a map of Norse trading routes and settlements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age

Central Europe


Further information: Pomerania during the Early Middle Ages


Viking Age Scandinavian settlements were set up along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, primarily for trade purposes. Their appearance coincides with the settlement and consolidation of the Slavic tribes in the respective areas.[14] Scandinavians had contacts to the Slavs since their very immigration, these first contacts were soon followed by both the construction of Scandinavian emporia and Slavic burghs in their vicinity.[15] The Scandinavian settlements were larger than the early Slavic ones, their craftsmen had a considerably higher productivity, and in contrast to the early Slavs, the Scandinavians were capable of seafaring.[15] Their importance for trade with the Slavic world however was limited to the coastal regions and their hinterlands

.[16]

Rather interesting, eh?

Amicus

 

[TE999]

If you're looking for warriors, Navy SEALS are the best. About one man in twenty makes it through training. 3/4 of their missions since their inception are still classified. These guys eat steel bars and shit tenpenny nails. They're tough!

 

[BrazenFellow]

Let's try to avoid turning this into a "Nation X's special operations element Y is better than Nation A's special operations element B", because that shit goes nowheres. I'd insert a joke here about the SpN VMF (major bonus points if you know who they are without having to go to Google) but I'd really rather avoid the potential for that being misinterpreted.

Amicus: Yes, there's a reason that many Russians hailing from the North are blonde and blue eyed.

 

[ishtat]

I would have to disagree. Neither Cromwell nor Churchill are great Englishmen. I would argue Churchill is greater than Cromwell, if only because Cromwell was given to bouts of religious fervour which turned him into an unabashed dumbass at times. Churchill however is no hero; I have a list of actions which endanger the Allied war effort during WWII and cause many more Allied casualties than they prevent, thus in my books he can be no hero. This is not something that could not have been avoided at the time, either, for instance the failure to roll up the North African theatre early in 1940/41.

.

Hmm. Yes Cromwell could be a religious fanatic but so were all other Englishmen and American colonists at that time. To be a religious fanatic in the 17th century was the norm. In fact if you read Christopher Hill's analysis of Cromwell his fanaticism was moderate compared with his contemporaries. We cannot perhaps, judge the 17th century from the point of view of the 21st.

So far as Churchill is concerned he was a hero particularly from early 1940 to October 1940 ( end of Battle of Britain). Being a hero doesn't require success as a pre-requisite. His greatest failure was the Dardenelles expedition in the first Word War. That was failure on an heroic scale. 200,000 lives lost - for no gain.

 

[3113]

Back in the '70's it was fashionable to consider The Hobbit an anti-war book because all the fashionable people were anti-war. It is not.

Um, so you're saying that those who were anti-war didn't think there were things worth fighting for "even when there is no hope of victory" like...stopping a war? Or gaining equality as MLK, jr. did without resorting to violence?

Being against a questionable war where people are killing other people (anti-war) is not the same as being anti-fight-for-what-you-believe-in. And one of the reasons that anti-war people saw the books as anti-war is because they believed that wars need not be won only with swords, arrows, etc. Which, in fact, is the primary message of the Lord of the Rings where the war is ultimately won by the "hero" not killing, but instead showing mercy and empathy (toward Gollum) and by climbing a mountain.

Tolkien based LOTR on his experiences during WWI, which was one of those wars when even the most gung-ho of young warriors realized how awful war is, and how terrible a thing it is; where many who went in believing in fighting it, came out wondering why it had been fought at all. He was not pro-war by any stretch of the imagination, though as a veteran, a Brit who saw the bombing of England, and father of sons who fight in WWII, he could hardly be anti-warrior. Nevertheless, the book emphasizes peace, not war, as its goal, and nature lovers/farmers, not warriors, as true heroes.

It's the one thing that keeps coming up over and over again in the books: how Kingdoms with grand wars and warriors eventually vanish--but peaceful farmers remain. You miss everything if you think that the Lord of the Rings glorifies war or even warriors. Every wise warrior in the book is a poet, healer, gardener, artisan underneath, in many cases forced only by circumstance to be a soldier, and, with few exceptions, having no desire to make it their career. And in the end, the devoutly Catholic Tolkien believed that hauling that cross up the hill and being crucified on it was the ultimate way to win any war.

So, you see, that anti-war people were not so wrong as you suppose in seeing the book as "anti-war." But what you should see is that your accusation of them as bias is calling the kettle black. For your own bias sees only the warriors with swords and arrows in the book while missing completely all messages of peace and winning wars by other means. You are equally wrong if you think LOTR is a pro-war/warrior book.