I've been re-watching some anime lately (Netflix is cheaper than feeding my book fix). In particular Rurouni Kenshin and Bleach.
Rurouni Kenshin is set in a very interesting era in Japanese history. Japan was transitioning from a feudal system to a more modern nation/state, and much of the story arc is related to the upheaval this caused. In particular, many samurai and warriors were at a loss about how to live in a world where they weren't needed - or wanted - any more.
There's a particularly tragic episode reminiscent of The Last Samurai where a group of fighters take on government forces and get slaughtered by gunfire. There are questions about the warrior way of life, about the values of the samurai and what it would mean when they are lost.
I find the storylines appealing because they touch on issues we deal with today - the paradoxical power and powerlessness that comes from living in a modern nation/state. How do these empowered, highly skilled and dangerous people find purpose in a world that doesn't need them any more?
Isn't it a good thing, that we don't need to be skilled with arms any more? That we have a society where the vast majority of us don't need to carry around weapons? What have we lost, in the process?
This tension between power through large scale organization and the loss at a more individual level is, in a sense, the same issue at the heart of the warrior/soldier debate. The "Warrior Mentality" has been a big topic in military circles, and I don't want to sound overly critical with what I say next:
Warriors bring to mind lone fighters. Skilled fighters, but a warrior essentially standing by himself. The barbarian Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc. fighting as tribal or clan warriors.
Defeated by the powerful Roman army, who were some of the best professional soldiers of the time.
Soldiering requires working as a team. If you go off to be Rambo, you leave your team open and vulnerable. Back in the sword and shield era you had to march in rank, because the shield in your left hand protected the soldier to your left...creating an impenetrable wall through which you could stab forward with your sword or pike. This (naturally) limits the range of motion you can use in an attack. Instead of a lone warrior standing in a circle, you have a group of people marching in lockstep. A moving, spiky wall. (In the modern era that tactic now makes you a major target for artillery and grenades, so marching in formation isn't a great idea. You still, however, have to move in a different type of formation and anyone who leaves the formation leaves their team vulnerable.)
To make that moving spiky wall, to succeed on the battlefield, you don't necessarily need the best swordsmen. You need the ones best able to keep their shield up (i.e. stamina) and stay in formation. Ones who can follow orders and shift (in sync with their fellows, without whacking each other with their shields or pikes or swords) to move in whatever direction is required.
If you talk about the 'warrior mentality' in terms of willingness to fight, to dedicate yourself to having the necessary skills, the ability to endure pain and difficulty in order to achieve your goal - with honor, and integrity - then soldiers do, indeed, need the warrior spirit.
Yet they also need skills that are less glamorous. Like giving up on individual glory in order to succeed as a team. The Romans grew strong not because they had the best warriors, but because they had the best soldiers.
Warriors are sexy and glamorous. They stand out from the crowd. An army, on the other hand, is strong in the way of ants or bees. Each individual isn't quite as important as the weighted mass of the whole, organized to put the right people with the right resources in the right place at the right time.
So many, many problems are because we are designed to work in a more feudal, personal world...and yet strength and power comes from those faceless organizations - bureaucracies and corporations - that excel at putting the right resources together on a large scale.
Or do they?
Rurouni Kenshin is set in a very interesting era in Japanese history. Japan was transitioning from a feudal system to a more modern nation/state, and much of the story arc is related to the upheaval this caused. In particular, many samurai and warriors were at a loss about how to live in a world where they weren't needed - or wanted - any more.
There's a particularly tragic episode reminiscent of The Last Samurai where a group of fighters take on government forces and get slaughtered by gunfire. There are questions about the warrior way of life, about the values of the samurai and what it would mean when they are lost.
I find the storylines appealing because they touch on issues we deal with today - the paradoxical power and powerlessness that comes from living in a modern nation/state. How do these empowered, highly skilled and dangerous people find purpose in a world that doesn't need them any more?
Isn't it a good thing, that we don't need to be skilled with arms any more? That we have a society where the vast majority of us don't need to carry around weapons? What have we lost, in the process?
This tension between power through large scale organization and the loss at a more individual level is, in a sense, the same issue at the heart of the warrior/soldier debate. The "Warrior Mentality" has been a big topic in military circles, and I don't want to sound overly critical with what I say next:
Warriors bring to mind lone fighters. Skilled fighters, but a warrior essentially standing by himself. The barbarian Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc. fighting as tribal or clan warriors.
Defeated by the powerful Roman army, who were some of the best professional soldiers of the time.
Soldiering requires working as a team. If you go off to be Rambo, you leave your team open and vulnerable. Back in the sword and shield era you had to march in rank, because the shield in your left hand protected the soldier to your left...creating an impenetrable wall through which you could stab forward with your sword or pike. This (naturally) limits the range of motion you can use in an attack. Instead of a lone warrior standing in a circle, you have a group of people marching in lockstep. A moving, spiky wall. (In the modern era that tactic now makes you a major target for artillery and grenades, so marching in formation isn't a great idea. You still, however, have to move in a different type of formation and anyone who leaves the formation leaves their team vulnerable.)
To make that moving spiky wall, to succeed on the battlefield, you don't necessarily need the best swordsmen. You need the ones best able to keep their shield up (i.e. stamina) and stay in formation. Ones who can follow orders and shift (in sync with their fellows, without whacking each other with their shields or pikes or swords) to move in whatever direction is required.
If you talk about the 'warrior mentality' in terms of willingness to fight, to dedicate yourself to having the necessary skills, the ability to endure pain and difficulty in order to achieve your goal - with honor, and integrity - then soldiers do, indeed, need the warrior spirit.
Yet they also need skills that are less glamorous. Like giving up on individual glory in order to succeed as a team. The Romans grew strong not because they had the best warriors, but because they had the best soldiers.
Warriors are sexy and glamorous. They stand out from the crowd. An army, on the other hand, is strong in the way of ants or bees. Each individual isn't quite as important as the weighted mass of the whole, organized to put the right people with the right resources in the right place at the right time.
So many, many problems are because we are designed to work in a more feudal, personal world...and yet strength and power comes from those faceless organizations - bureaucracies and corporations - that excel at putting the right resources together on a large scale.
Or do they?
No comments:
Post a Comment