Authors Costa and Kahn make a case that soldiers fight or run based on demographics, in their study of Union desertion rates in the Civil War: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123181066383175917.html. Essentially, that soldiers who know each other ( companies comprised of soldiers from the same towns) will have less tendency to high tail it compared to soldiers without a significant affiliation to their comrades. Makes sense and a lot of truth in their argument. That said, both the Americans and British have proved that it's really the unit itself--regimental affiliation if you will, that matters--men can be from different backgrounds as long as they have a sense of belonging. Soldiers and Marines who have an attachment to a group (platoon, company, regiment, corps, etc.) will most certainly stand a greater chance of standing and fighting when it becomes arduous. Probably the most classic take on this comes from John Keegan, notably in his fundamental work on why men fight, "The Face of Battle." Read it sometime. It's not for flag and country, it's for the guys to your immediate left and right.
That rather serious fellow on the right is my great great grandfather. Along with some other fellows in his neck of the woods, they rode over to Rome, Georgia and enlisted in the "Stephen's Light Guards," becoming Company I of the 8th Georgia Infantry. There was one desertion in that outfit that served as part of the Army of Northern Virginia from First Manassas to the surrender at Appomatox; four years of some serious campaigning. Pretty good record for a bunch of country boys.
No comments:
Post a Comment