Our class’ game of Risk made me ponder more than simply what strategy is best to take control of North America. The other day when we were busy slaughtering the blue team, I realized my thinking while playing was pretty similar to how General Lee thought during the Civil War. Moving troops to attack Brazil, I had no regard for their safety and didn’t even care to think about the cubes’ well being. While on a larger scale and dealing with actual people instead of wooden blocks, I could see how Lee’s disregard for his men made sense. His focus and determination to win an objective completely blinded him from the sensitivity that other leaders had towards their troops. For Lee, playing a game of Risk would be no different than ordering Picket’s Charge. While some may view this as a terrible trait for such a powerful man such as Lee to have, I disagree. Lee’s hardness gives assurance that the General is doing everything he possibly can to win the war.
I also began to ponder how this thinking has changed since the Civil War. No longer are wars fought with a Napoleonic mindset, where the amount of deaths suffered is meaningless as long as the battle is won. Today, each and every soldier’s life is appreciated in the armed forces. This is in large part due to the development of the mass media. As people become aware of the growing deaths, distaste for war soon follows. The death toll of American soldiers in the Iraqi War is currently 4,083 troops. Compared to the 618,000 killed in the Civil War, I think it’s safe to say that our concern for life has dramatically increased since then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Very interesting comparison between Lee and Risk. I agree with you -- our concern for our troops has dramatically increased since the Civil War and we have adopted different war tactics than the preferred Napoleonic tactics of that age. I think the game of risk, however, is intended to be a tactful game. Whereas the game Lee played was not well planned in many peoples' eyes. I am pretty sure the cubes dont have feelings but the soldiers in the Civil War did. So that is an unfair comparison. But I do see how Lee's strategy is reflected in the game of risk.
Lee was focused on winning the war by any means necessary. His military strategy and ideals can be seen as excessive and careless, but he believed he was ensuring victory for the confederates. It is easy for us to criticize Lee now that we know his military tactics failed. Lee was an adored figure of the confederate army because of his leadership skills and military background. Death was not a top priority, but rather victory for the South was the only objective. Today, human worth is much greater than it used to be. A soldier is more valuable alive than he is dead.
I agree that the concern for American lives is higher now than it was during the Civil War. First, the sheer numbers is a clear indication of this. Also, the overall attitude of war is different. It seems that there was the nature of war was much more aggressive during the civil war. I would assume the biggest reason for this is a product of the technology that has become part of modern warfare.
Although I agree with you on the fact that Americans have become more aware and conscientious of a soldier's death, the reason there are less deaths is because of technology and modern strategies.If the Civil War Generals were able to adopt some sort of strategy where men did not walk in formation towards a fixed artillery piece, and rather used cover and teamwork to overcome and objective, they would have been much more successful.
I believe that by taking into account the feelings and lives of every man under his command, Lee would have second guessed every decision he was going to make which could have had terrible consequences.
I really like the stat that was given at the end of your post, I thought that it proved the point you were trying to get across about the value of soldiers lives.
P.S. One of the differences between our team attacking Brazil and Lee giving the order for Picket's Charge is that the attack on Brazil was a guarenteed victory.
Obviously death tolls have gone considering it is no longer logical to march 15,000 men in a straight line at several thousand other men because those other men will be holding automatic weapons, not to mention the other capabilities of modern warfare. However, that same strategy was already outdated by July, 1863, Robert E. Lee just hadn't realized it yet. James Longstreet, on the other hand, did. Made evident by his talk with Fremantle (the British observer), Longstreet understands that the addition of rifles, accurate firearms, had changed warfare. No longer marching in a straight line directly at the enemy advisable, it was quite honestly, suicidal. Sadly, for the Confederacy, Lee did not realize this until it was too late, until after Pickett's Charge and essentially, all had been lost.
Lee's attitude toward his men is in a way a defense tactic. Sending men off to war, probably to die, is rough on anyone's emotional health. Thinking of troops as blocks has probably saved many generals from insanity. That doesn't make it right, but i think it's part of the reasoning.
Your use of statistics couldn't be any more forceful... A point well made.
I respect that you agree with General Lee's outlook on his troops, but you cannot deny that his disregard for their lives cost him the war. Sure he wants to win the war, everyone does. Just because I want to be President of the US, doesn't mean that makes me a good candidate for the job. There are times where you cannot dwell on the lives lost during war because dwelling will hold you back, but you cant honestly think that Pickett's charge was a smart tactical decision. Likewise, your approval of Lee's tactics suggest that you think the death toll in iraq is not enough. Since we arent losing enough men, are we not trying as hard?
I agree with Scott. Comparing Risk and Lee is interesting. Lee felt as though he should be less personal with his troops so that he could win the war as fast as possible. Sadly that didn't work and with technology these days it's true that concern for troops has increased dramatically.
I hate this post for the sole purpose of ur reference to Blue's Clues. We will make you bleed tomorrow, no doubt in my mind. On another note, the points you make are great. I really liked the value of death point you made. Generals must be able to relinquish the humanistic instinct to value life. It takes a rare breed to do this. Today, we see a insurmountable decrease in deaths. Understandably, people today want to learn more about the situation with all the resources we have. This curiosity however has limited generals boundaries and potential for success, because he must then take into account the fear of loss of life, and alter his tactics to fit this.
let me say that this is the single funniest post i've read. how you have no concern for our blocks' well being. on a serious note, i think it's a bit of an over simplification. we aren't able to use tactics in risk, we just roll dice. If we could take N.A. in 10 turns and lose 2 pieces i'd rather do that then take it over in 2 turns and lose 10.
Post a Comment