Prior to the introduction of gunpowder and mass conscription, warfare was a significant part of the social-economic structure of society. Not that it ceased to be afterwards, but it was such in a different way. The further we go back in time (especially prior to the creation of the crossbow mechanism), the more warfare is linked to individual skill and valour.
Hence a good warrior (or the best one) usually became a formal leader, and was always a non-formal leader in his society. We can see it in the way ancient sagas and myths are constructed. The hero is always a warrior (sometimes a cunning one, sometimes a brave one, sometimes an unbeatable or strong one). The Roman republic was based on warfare and advancing in society required that one was an accomplished military leader.
Of course, rose tinted glasses aside, war is an ugly business of death, blood, tears and suffering through various forms. Yet, if there must be war, would not one prefer the war of individual skill, physical ability and valour than to the nameless and faceless mass of the post mass conscription method which has lead up to combined arms?
I am not saying that modern day soldiers do not have individual skill and valour, indeed there is a difference between a chump with an AK and a pro soldier. However, basically anyone can kill anyone else through gunfire. And the soldiers nowadays do not play a pivotal role in society. Their voices are never heard, courtesy of modern military doctrine. We don't need a Praetorian Guard which changes our leaders whenever it sees fit, but the de-humanization of the warrior has lead to society being separated from the whole aspect of war. Unless it's on your doorstep.
IMO humanity cannot escape war. Unless the green men invade, we will never set aside our differences (real or imagined). Greed will always prevail. Yet I somehow see a positive influence of the image of the valorous and heroic warrior on past societies, and I miss that.
Heck, I miss the coming of age aspect and the role model aspect they provided. A young boy in a tribal, classical or medieval society wishes to become a man worthy of the title. Being a man was indeed a title, earned through a coming of age ritual. It was not a given, one was not entitled to being a man because he grew stubble on his chin. The boy had to prove to other men that he was capable. And he looked up to the biggest, best and most acclaimed warriors of his society and wanted to become like them.
What are our current role models? Do we even have any which inspire the desire for one to improve himself? To become stronger, tougher, more disciplined? IMO the youth of today (myself included) could use some discipline and such role models. I don't like seeing squishy, pale faced teenage boys with dyed and straightened hair and nail polish. And don't tell me that a 15 year old knows that "that is who he is". It's not a matter of sexual preference either. It's a matter of turning boys into men. Somehow modern society is missing the whole coming of age thing, and we are spoiling children more and more with the ever widening no man's land called "teenager".
There used to be no teenagers in history, only children and adults. Right now, this "not quite grownup" group is being pampered into becoming moma's boys. Then the women complain that they get jellyfish for boyfriends who can't let go of their mother's skirt. Unless your life molds you into becoming an adult, you could get some psychological issues (Jung speaks of this, the subconscious sexual fantasies of the cradle) just by virtue of the society we live in. It lacks direction and motivation for the youth to seek to become men of value.
I'm not saying let's all be like North Korea and have 50% of our population employed in the army. Nor am I saying let's breed more soldiers to go kill more people. I'm saying, let's replace the image of Achilles, Hector and Alexander with something else which kids can aspire to. Or am I wrong? Is my way of thinking archaic?
Bookmarks