Saturday, December 11, 2010

The Importance of Honor in Warfare

Honor (N.)

The Haitian revolution between 1791 and 1803 was characterized by violence and betrayal on practically all sides of the conflict. From Toussaint L'Overture's betrayal of Spain to fight with the French to Napoleon's campaign to retake Saint-Domingue despite France's previous agreement to free all slaves across the empire. One can almost certainly conclude from these betrayals that little honor existed between the major powers involved in the Haitian Revolution. This suggests that the independent nation of Haiti was founded on dishonor. This suggestion begs the question; Is honor important and/or necessary in waging warfare? The bloody conflict on Saint-Domingue bore witness to a wide array of military strategy, which wouldn't be considered honorable by most standards. In this total war conflict, small groups of Haitian guerilla fighters would quickly traverse the dense foliage of the island to ambush their foes. When fighting broke out in 1791, slaves burned plantations to the ground and murdered practically any white they could capture. On the other hand, one might consider this justifiable after the murder of countless slaves on the plantations that had gone on for centuries in Saint-Domingue. For a young Frenchman, in his late teens or early twenties, bleeding out in a remote Caribbean jungle thousands of miles from home, honor most likely meant little. So let us consider the question again, How Important is Honor in warfare? In Total Warfare, as can be observed from the Haitian Revolution, there is no honor. For centuries prior to the French Revolution, war usually consisted of large standing armies who would meet on open plains to make battle, one army would triumph over the other, force their foes to retreat, and gain land, wealth or both. With the advent of total warfare during the French Revolution, one or both armies would fight to the death for their respective cause(s). In standard warfare, a defeated general would symbolically present his sword to his adversary as Lord Cornwallis did to Rochambeau after the siege of Yorktown. In total warfare on the other hand, a general would rather pry the sword from his adversaries lifeless hands than receive it as a symbol of surrender. Each one of us has a limited amount of time on this Earth, so when fighting for equality, honor is inconsequential really. Personally at least, It wouldn't bother me that I would be seen as a dishonorable leader by future generations long after I was dead, what would concern me is whether or not I achieved a goal which I believed just. But that's just my opinion on the matter concerning honor and warfare and I'd also like to make it clear that I don't believe in violence to achieve equality. But I now leave it to your thoughts.

2 comments:

  1. Alex, I agree that achieving a just goal is the the main cause for war. At the same time I do not see this any different from honor. By achieving a goal that is good for the people and just isn't one just defending their honor? By saying that a goal has to be just, it has to be morally right. Honor is the "adherence to what is right" so I think that when fighting for equality, when one is trying to make the just decision they are simultaneously being honorable because the very definition of honor is adhering to what is right and just.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You definitely make a good point. The pursuit of a "just" goal by definition is honorable in itself but that point brings up the rhetorical question, what is just? Its easy to say that equality by definition is just but one could try to see the Haitian conflict through France's perspective. The risk of losing Haiti to an enemy may have seemed too great for Napoleon. True, the Haitian people deserved equality, but what if many more lives were at stake in France as a result of the potential economic losses? Unfortunately the world of the Haitian revolution was kill or be killed. Is the pursuit of our own survival at all costs a just cause? If yes, then betrayal and deception would by default be considered honorable. But as I said, you make an good point that seems to contradict the points I made in my post.

    ReplyDelete