Why don't remember soldiers pre-WWI(and pre-Civil War in America)?

It seems to me slightly hypocritcal to remember those soldiers who have fallen in the First and Second World Wars, and not those in earlier wars.

For instance, WWI and the Napoleonic Wars were very similar. Both were politically, not ideologically driven, and both were very destructive and caused the loss of many lives. But do we remember the soldiers that died in the Napoleonic Wars? Not really, if at all.

That's because the written and visual records of the Napoleonic War (War of 1812, Spanish Succession) are either scanty or don't look good. It's too remote from the current population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

That's because the written and visual records of the Napoleonic War (War of 1812, Spanish Succession) are either scanty or don't look good. It's too remote from the current population.

---

The fact that nobody's alive from them anymore either doesn't really help. I think the older a war gets the less relevant it gets, unless it is truly epic in scale. Even if we had all sorts of footage from the Napoleanic Wars I doubt people would relate to them as much as the war Pappy fought in, or the one that Uncle Leonard got drafted into.

Here's my take:

I'm fairly sure that the soldiers' sacrifices are technically immortalized in patriotic songs that pop up during several functions in the US. However, I believe that too much time has passed. The War of 1812 is not remembered anywhere near as much as the Revolutionary War and was apparently forgotten by many until 9-11, when the topic of US security was brought up.

The Civil War is remembered, but it depends on where you are. Those in the South still sometimes wave Confederate flags, which are seen as symbols of oppression. If anything, the soldiers are honored, but many may see the war as something no one really wants to remember as the repercussions lasted a very long time and many would argue that they are still present today.

The War of the Spanish Succession appears to be a mostly European affair. The colonists in the eastern colonies where aided by English soldiers, though I think the colonists would have considered themselves English as well.

Lots of people remember the Napoleonic Wars, in fact it is one of the most read historical periods, period. It is my favourite time in history - European anyway. We make more of the soldiers from the Two World Wars, because people are still alive from them and it seems so close.

This is so hard to understand? Grandpas, Grandmas, Fathers and Mothers served and died in those wars. Do you remember sitting on great-great-great-great-great-great grandpapy Josiah Jedediah Clampertsen's knee, listening to his war stories about axes and iron maidens? Your immediate relatives who put their lives on the line directly for you and your loved ones. They are the ones to honor.

The rest get monuments - they had their day.

America has fought in a war ever century since the Revolutionary war. The entire 19th century included The War of 1812, The American Civil War, and then they century plus long war(s) against the native Indians. Then there is obviously the 20th century in which we fought 2 major wars, both times joining after they started, and then many undeclared wars until the Persian Gulf Wars and The War on Terror. We've had sooo many wars, and thousands of soldiers who died fighting all over the world, to honor them would mean having celebrations almost once a month to celebrate some war or conflict that we fought or took part in to honor those who died fighting for our country. I guess you can say that Veterans Day covers it.

I'd say that part of it is that up to the Spanish-American War the armed services were not too highly thought of. The Jeffersonian distrust of standing armies and strong central government was a big element of the American psyche up to era of American Imperialism and ideological ideals behind WWI and WWII. Think of the term 'arsenal of democracy,' something that I highly doubt the anti-Federalists would have agreed with.

TuffStuffMcGruff is also right about the element of knowing people still involved. Though that would not explain how forgotten and uncelebrated the Korean War is, despite its very important implications in today's foreign relations.

I believe that WW1 and all wars after are only remembered purely because of the scale of them. The entire world embroiled in conflict on a scale never seen before, with men dying by the tens of thousands every day, and huge swathes of Europe devastated. It made all other wars before it seem insignificant, hence why the Napoleonic Wars had their former name taken from them - the Great War.

It became personal. Thing is, not just grandpas would remember those wars - civilians were the front, the sheer mass of men sent meant there were repercussions on the home front either directly (husband killed) or indirectly (need to keep industry going). That, and more modern media and propaganda efforts brought the war into the living rooms. Not just those fighting remembered, but the whole family.

I'd also say that the opening post is a bit harsh. Perhaps wars of the nineteenth century are not viewed personally anymore, but they live on in collective memory and the relevant nations can remember key moments as national symbols. It's a pattern I'd argue begins developing in the nineteenth century with the Napoleonic wars, continued through the Prussian wars, the American Civil War, the Russo-Japanese conflict, and on into the twentieth century conflicts of which there are still people living who can remember the personal consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Though that would not explain how forgotten and uncelebrated the Korean War is, despite its very important implications in today's foreign relations.

---

The lack of remembrance of people who gave their lives in Korea is a national disgrace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Lots of people remember the Napoleonic Wars, in fact it is one of the most read historical periods, period. It is my favourite time in history - European anyway. We make more of the soldiers from the Two World Wars, because people are still alive from them and it seems so close.

---

Spot on. My grandfathers fought in the Great War and my uncles and father fought in WWII and Korea. I have worked with blokes who fought in WWII and spoken to them about it. Also the advent of the cinema/radio/television has shown later generations how life was in the early/mid 20th century, that just wasn't possible in the 19th century. As time passes and 'living memories' fade then these wars will fade into an historical context.

In a way I feel privileged to have known people who participated in these fantastic events. Stories they told me will be relayed to my grandchildren, of that you may have no doubt. :bow:

The concept of a nation state is young, end 18th / beginning 19th century. Hence, before that, the idea of soldiers as brave patriots shedding blood for the fatherland didn't exist. No need to remember them in a modern fashion.

Should we commemorate the Swiss mercenaries who fought for Louis XIV? Or for his enemies, depending on whose coffers were deepest? The noblemen who bled the countryside dry during the 100 years war, for their own particularistic dynastic gain? Should we honour the men from all those centuries during which armies were bands of uprooted young men, plundering, pillaging and raping their way to and from the battlefields?

We don't commemorate them. We only started to remember the fallen with the advent of modern armies. Alas we did! They are worse than the plundering hordes of old. Conscription armies, the holy fatherland, dying for God, country or king - it's a very modern notion. And so is the idea of remembrance of soldiers as those who performed a patriotic duty, or who made a sacrifice.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They are remebered, the fallen from about 1800. After each war, their blood shed became sacred. 'From my grave, take this torch, continue my holy cause, that my blood was not spilled in vain', as was the usual message from old monuments, poems, statues. And off to the next war, to reconquer the territory lost in the one before. The low point for this sort of sacred military remembrance resulted in WWI.
Walking the sacred road to the battlefield, were one would have the honour of making the holiest sacrifice of all - getting shot to pieces for the abstract notion of a fatherland. We should've taken lessons from the Aztecs. WWI would've been a lot more efficient if we had just build a pyramid in each capital - altars to the fatherland - and sacrificed teenagers on it by the hundreds of thousands.

Still, Europe didn't wake up. Again, the fallen were not granted peace and rest. Monuments served to hold their souls hostage to the cause of mass patriotic bloodshed. Resulting in the even larger tragedy of WWII. Only after this war did the tide slowly start to turn, and did the nature of remembrance start to change.

If it was up to me, all war memorials and statues would be toppled. The mass graves can remain, but there should be no flags, no military signs, no anthems played, no dedications to a cause. And the straight rows of identical graves - so dehumanising - should be changed to crooked paths, with individual graves, each one different from the next. And they should be multi-national. No French soldier should ever be officially remembered without mention of his German counterpart. Or whatever other nationality is appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

these fantastic events

---

Me neither can at the moment think of anything more fantastic than WW2 and its millions of slaughters. :2thumbsup:

Im wondering do the losing sides commemerate thier troops ? not so much WW1 but im mainly thinking ww2, Germans, Italians and Japanese. Obviously we can't say the same lovely things as a UK French or US solidier, they didn't die to liberate, they died to conquer and destroy. Which makes it all the more tragic imo, these brave young men who im sure mostly thought they were doing the right thing cut down in thier prime fighting for genocidal maniacs...

Well, Japan, at least, seems prone to commemorate anything..
Besides, what is really evil and good in a war? The US in the time of WW2 treated coloured people as lesser people; while not killing them; it's evil plenty in my eyes. Being a better option, far from being pure.

EDIT:And of course, the soldiers of the UK wich fought for a nation that had colonies aplenty. Shortly after WW1 the Jallianwala Bagh massacre took place.

Besides, what is really evil and good in a war?

Well i was thinking more of the countrys actions in relation to WW2 than any domestic policy

Its easier seeing it as a black white scale, now of course UK US France were not whiter than white, more a light greyish colour and the axis were mostly a very dark grey colour, but its the closest war i can think off as having a good side and a bad side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Im wondering do the losing sides commemerate thier troops ? not so much WW1 but im mainly thinking ww2, Germans, Italians and Japanese. Obviously we can't say the same lovely things as a UK French or US solidier, they didn't die to liberate, they died to conquer and destroy. Which makes it all the more tragic imo, these brave young men who im sure mostly thought they were doing the right thing cut down in thier prime fighting for genocidal maniacs...

---

ANZAC day was just abit ago and the Turks hold celebrations in remembrance just as the Australians and New Zealanders do. Also the Japanese visit their highly controversial Yasukuni war shrine despite that some of the men buried there committed war crimes. Because of Nazism and Fascism I don't think the Germans and Italians want to remember much of WWII.

Quote:

---

The lack of remembrance of people who gave their lives in Korea is a national disgrace.

---

It truly is a disgrace, I've never really understood how it became so forgotten, it even had a TV show, the book "This Kind of War" is a must read for military officers and things like MiG alley and Porkchop Hill, yet it is forgotten. I know WWII and Vietnam overshadowed it in a way but still, it was no brief easy war and thousands upon thousands of Americans and other UN troops gave their lives there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The concept of a nation state is young, end 18th / beginning 19th century. Hence, before that, the idea of soldiers as brave patriots shedding blood for the fatherland didn't exist. No need to remember them in a modern fashion.

Should we commemorate the Swiss mercenaries who fought for Louis XIV? Or for his enemies, depending on whose coffers were deepest? The noblemen who bled the countryside dry during the 100 years war, for their own particularistic dynastic gain? Should we honour the men from all those centuries during which armies were bands of uprooted young men, plundering, pillaging and raping their way to and from the battlefields?

We don't commemorate them. We only started to remember the fallen with the advent of modern armies. Alas we did! They are worse than the plundering hordes of old. Conscription armies, the holy fatherland, dying for God, country or king - it's a very modern notion. And so is the idea of remembrance of soldiers as those who performed a patriotic duty, or who made a sacrifice.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They are remebered, the fallen from about 1800. After each war, their blood shed became sacred. 'From my grave, take this torch, continue my holy cause, that my blood was not spilled in vain', as was the usual message from old monuments, poems, statues. And off to the next war, to reconquer the territory lost in the one before. The low point for this sort of sacred military remembrance resulted in WWI.
Walking the sacred road to the battlefield, were one would have the honour of making the holiest sacrifice of all - getting shot to pieces for the abstract notion of a fatherland. We should've taken lessons from the Aztecs. WWI would've been a lot more efficient if we had just build a pyramid in each capital - altars to the fatherland - and sacrificed teenagers on it by the hundreds of thousands.

Still, Europe didn't wake up. Again, the fallen were not granted peace and rest. Monuments served to hold their souls hostage to the cause of mass patriotic bloodshed. Resulting in the even larger tragedy of WWII. Only after this war did the tide slowly start to turn, and did the nature of remembrance start to change.

If it was up to me, all war memorials and statues would be toppled. The mass graves can remain, but there should be no flags, no military signs, no anthems played, no dedications to a cause. And the straight rows of identical graves - so dehumanising - should be changed to crooked paths, with individual graves, each one different from the next. And they should be multi-national. No French soldier should ever be officially remembered without mention of his German counterpart. Or whatever other nationality is appropriate.

---

Where are you quoting that stuff from? It strikes me as very misguided and quite frankly dumb.

War memorials and the like should not be removed because they 'glorify' the dead. Those war memorials were put up for the purpose that they're still used for today - to remember what has happened, so that it never happens again. That article seems to be making out that war memorials are glorify the mass slaughter, as if to say 'these hundreds of people from this village died gloriously for their country'. They don't. They serve to point out that hundreds of men from this village of a thousand people died horrifically for their country, and hundreds of thousands of men from similar small villages up and down the country died horrifically as well - this is to remind you of the cost of your 'patriotic' wars.

So ultimately, if anything, they are anti-patriotic mass-slaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

...The Civil War is remembered, but it depends on where you are. Those in the South still sometimes wave Confederate flags, which are seen as symbols of oppression.

---

On one of the routes I use to visit clients, there is a house on the left as your drive out that prominently sports the battle flag of the Confederacy -- as the only flag flown on the flagpole and as the upholstery of the chairs on the front porch.

Across on the right, about half a mile down, is an access road that the county let the owner name her/himself. That owner had their street named Islandwanha.

:devilish:

I suspect the "unreconstructed" family across the street still hasn't got the joke yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

Where are you quoting that stuff from? It strikes me as very misguided and quite frankly dumb.

---

It's all rather silly, isn't it? I can't for the life of me find the link right now. I quoted it from an old post by Adrian, who obviously hadn't given the subject much thought. :yes:


:creep:
*mumbles something about vengeance and sneaks off*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

ANZAC day was just abit ago and the Turks hold celebrations in remembrance just as the Australians and New Zealanders do.

---

The Turkish can happily celebrate ANZAC day as they handed our butts to us and it gave Attaturk the political capital and military glory to leverage out the Ottoman Empire.

Mind you the Mosque in Auburn Sydney is the Gallipolli mosque... and just down the road from that is a magnificent Turkish confectionery shop... hmmm Turkish Delights.. So there are no hard feelings there. There seems to be more animosity to the British over that event then between the Aussies, Kiwis and Turks.

My grandpas didn't die in the war and they didn't tell me about it either. My dad's dad died long before I was born, my dad was born in January 45, my mom's dad died when I was one year old, my mom's mom doesn't like to talk about it a lot and has no clue what my grandads did during the wars. My dad doesn't know a lot either(he's from the Netherlands btw, don't think they put up a big fight where he lived anyway).
So for me Napoleonic Wars and WW2 aren't too different concerning the topic. :sweatdrop:

We don't remember soldiers before then because we didn't have any :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I quoted it from an old post by Adrian [..]

---

I never make that many typos and logical errors. The author has to be French.


















:mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

On one of the routes I use to visit clients, there is a house on the left as your drive out that prominently sports the battle flag of the Confederacy -- as the only flag flown on the flagpole and as the upholstery of the chairs on the front porch.

Across on the right, about half a mile down, is an access road that the county let the owner name her/himself. That owner had their street named Islandwanha.

:devilish:

I suspect the "unreconstructed" family across the street still hasn't got the joke yet.

---

If there's a hole in the path, the owner should name it Drorke's Rift.

The Korean War is fairly well remembered in the UK, well... as far as I can tell. I think its mainly to do with the actions of the Gloucestershire Regiment at Imjin River.

Lets remember those who died in the Cold War.

Just a idea that im tossing out there;

Is it possible that soldiers before ww1 arent that revered because of the standard of soldiers back then? I mean, when a town got pillaged back then (still happens today but not as a norm), the standard was to rape, pillage, and burn everything in it. Thats why alot of the soldiers were soldiers in the first place.

Thoughts?

Anyone want to speculate on what we look back on when the WW II generation has passed? Before it they had the Great War and even Civil War vets around. Please don't tell me Vietnam will be our new paradigm.