Warriors are not always Soldiers

Just as courage is not necesarily discipline.

There were times I feel ashamed. Though I consider myself non-Westerner (Western influenced perhaps but always at heart I know I am Eastern), I have always had a fondness for Western Military. I admit, amidst my friends, one in particular is very keen on Islamic Middle Eastern militray in the middle ages as well as Japanese military traditions, the samurai and the Bushido codes, as well as that of my brother's own preference for the views on contemporary middle eastern and chinese armies, I have always preferred to look towards their European counterparts, Greek Hoplites, Macedonian Phalanx, Roman Legion, British Redcoats and the like. I can understand the need to take pride in our own (non-western) achievements, and for that I do not shun those who do so, but the fact of the matter is I am, perhaps impressed by the notion of rational inquiry, impressed with what facts history has put out. And history tallies greatly on European achievement.

I'll tell you why it is such. The world is populated by kingdoms, in the earlier days and all those kingdoms and empires were very much centralized monarchical governments, where the supreme ruler is above all else and others mere subjects and slaves to him. Take our own Malaccan sultanate, the middle eastern sultanates even, the Aztecs, Zulus, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols and per haps other I have missed out; what is similiar in all the stated are their dependecy on the King, sultan or emperor to a point where should we remove the figurehead, such organization can suffer greatly or even fall, to which the cause (or perhaps effect) is that nobody else in the system had the rights to question the supreme ruler. Free Inquiry, freedom of speach, and individual rights, for the most part originated in the west. It's true, Islam states the rights of individuals too, though in my point of view, Islamic ideals is not why the Islamic civilization fell. Islamic civilization fell because firstly, it slowly reverted back to theocratical rule, and secondly it started to follow extremist ideals of everything being God's Divine will and sought no rational explanation (which I might add is encourage in Islamic traditions, not otherwise).

Unique to all these were the Greeks, whom we can blame (if that is what you want to do) for Western Ascendancy. Greeks had civil rights and for the part it played against Persians, the contrast of the two armies is that Greeks were free men defending their OWN individual property (to their time's extent and their own interpretation of freedom) while the Persions were merely subjects of their King who merely followed his command mainly to avoid being punished or executed. This is critical because it ultimate decided the Greeks as the better fighters, their will being stronger. The Greeks' tradition were passed on to other Europeans and thus begins the western military hegemony. They were neither smarter, stronger, faster, or better in anyway than most of us, but they had a culture in which its roots had given them an edge.

But will alone wasn't what made the Greek and its subsequent western heirs string in military. It was the fact that where all warriors in the world placed a strong focus on killing his enemy, whereby the number of ones kills is the measure of ones honor, the Western system is less individualistic, and the emphasis was on staying in rank, and fighting cohesively. The disparity is that in civic terms western value individualism and personal gain, but in battle soldiers are expected to be selfless. The opposite is what is often true for the societies of others; we are to be insignificant individually save for thw supreme ruler of which we are his lowly subject while in battle we are focused on seeing which of us is better at killing the enemy. ( I look now with accusing eyes towards frag-chasing extremists in the gaming world).

The third point is in the system of supply and economics itself. Westerners have somehow adopted a systen which can supply its armies with food, weapons and manpower unmatched elsewhere. Whereas many a local tribe or nation depended on victory in one decisive battle, in which should they lose, then they lose all, western armies have the ability to replace such lost in defeats with ease as compared to their non western counterpart. Here is why, and its not about the fact that Western high technology enables smaller amount of soldiers to be fielded thus easily replacing auch small numbers. Its simply about practicality. Whereas a well trained samurai or Janissary will take a long time to replace and train, westerners have always been interested in putting as many killing power in as many hands possible with little training and disregard of class. Thus citizen can become deadly killers capable of taking down their aristocratic counterpart.

No, westerners are not superior; they can be beaten. But to do so we have to come to terms and accept the flaw in our own ways and to adapt as necessary to situation. I have no doubt that the Japanese samurai is far worthier a warrior than a British Redcoat. And as individuals I think the samurai is likely to be more cultured and intelligent than a Redcoat. Indeed, there is more intrigue to the Samurai than the Redcoat, and he is equal if not better at a duel than the Redcoat. But as far as soldiers go, the Redcoat is the better choice, because he focuses not on the many ways killing, but on the singular purpose of standing shoulder to shoulder with his compatriots.

The most important thing I want to point out is of course the mindset of the people. Aztecs for example, prefer capture and killing their enemies through ritual sacrifice than in battle. Zulus, Janissaries and Eastern raiders fought to prove their individual skills, certain groups attribute defeat and victory to divine reasons, but against these, the western originated idea of decisive battle, to utterly decimate the ability of the enemy to resist on the field, and to analyze through rational inquiry, has in fact prevailed over all the others.

I cannot turn a blind eye to western achievement, and I must be honest to admire them for their accomplishments. I am however clear that there is no justification on the horrors they have commited on other natives to pursue their own national interest, nor do I agree on us all fully adopting western customs. The question is not who is superior, in the end. I will not tolerate any mindless debate that the samurai is the best warrior or soldier, or the Zulus are fiercest or Ottoman Turks are most advanced and the like. You can take pride in whatever individual accomplishments each has, but the point here is to analyze the facts and not bask in pointless glorified ideals. Therefore given the availability of information, the main question is, would we learn from it?