|View single post by Widow|
|Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 02:23 am||
I love that Longtsreet denounced the use of mines as not being a manly way to fight.
Which leads to another discussion: the Age of Chivalry (which wasn't chivalrous, but rather barbaric) and its influence on the way the Civil War was fought in the early years.
Back in the olden days, only noblemen could fight on horseback. They usually would rather capture the foe and hold him for ransom, instead of killing him outright.
We can blame the Normans for this. And Sir Walter Scott. Yeah, I read Ivanhoe too, and loved it.
horse > cheval > chivalry > cavalier > cavalry > caballero
The whole idea was equal numbers of opponents of equal social rank, using equal weapons, face to face. Any other way was for the common foot soldiers, yeomen, peasants, whatnot. The Code Duello was the extreme application of those principles. Fight fair, according to accepted rules.
It was more important to be seen as a gentleman who fought fair and lost, than to be known as a common cheater who won. No sniping, ganging up, hidden weapons, shooting in the back, unconventional warfare, warrring on civilians. Just you and me, buddy, mano a mano, we'll see who's the better man.
Glory is external, someone else has to see it and call it glorious. Honor is internal, doing the right or fair thing even if nobody witnesses it.
It's my belief that the most troublesome chemical in the world is testosterone.
double chin-grin ---> ((: