Warrior Ethos

[selil]

What language? Whose customs?

I'd suggest Klingon, with smatterings of Romulan. Now before y'all get your backs up and protest.

Isn't the idea to teach principles rather than specifics?

Don't you want soldiers to be able to operate in ANY environment rather than a singular environment?

From my perspective as a "group" military establishments have a tendency to hold to silos of knowledge with the tenacity of drowning children. Some things need behaviorist (lock-step) automaton responses. This oozing social stuff though should be taught as principles and strategies, so says the technologist who doesn't go outside very often.

[goesh]

Warrior ethos - the ability of an individual to subjugate his emotional and physical pain to the well being of his unit and the chain of command. We have reached a point in our social evolution that outside of SF units, this is about impossible to achieve because the rights of the individual almost equal the rights of the collective. We compensate by trying to have smart soldiers with lots of technology at their disposal.

[William F. Owen]

I'd suggest Klingon, with smatterings of Romulan. Now before y'all get your backs up and protest.

Isn't the idea to teach principles rather than specifics?

Don't you want soldiers to be able to operate in ANY environment rather than a singular environment?

Don't forget Borg! - well 7of9 anyway.
...but what you say is exactly correct and the silliness of the Combined Arms boys still using Soviet threat models, speaks to this, but not in a useful way.

[Ken White]

I'd suggest Klingon, with smatterings of Romulan. Now before y'all get your backs up and protest.

Isn't the idea to teach principles rather than specifics?

Don't you want soldiers to be able to operate in ANY environment rather than a singular environment?

That sums it up rather nicely. Full spectrum simply means just that. Soldiers don't pick the environment, politics do.

Good job. You can have Sunday off...

[marct]

Isn't the idea to teach principles rather than specifics?....
From my perspective as a "group" military establishments have a tendency to hold to silos of knowledge with the tenacity of drowning children. Some things need behaviorist (lock-step) automaton responses. This oozing social stuff though should be taught as principles and strategies, so says the technologist who doesn't go outside very often.

LOL - are you trying to completely change the worldview of TRADOC ?

Seriously, I do agree with you that it should be taught as principles, although I'm not so sure about "strategies" (I'd need some clarification on what you mean by that in terms of training).

One of the most effective cultural training systems was, oddly enough, the Roman system in the 2nd century and, again, in the 4th century. The vast majority of "principles" were only "taught" to the centurianate and the tribunate, but there was an extensive use of exempla - "stories" - that were used to teach the legionnaires. On the whole, both the 2nd and 4th century systems worked pretty well for their environment (the 3rd and the 5th are another matter ).

It should be possible to modify the 2nd century version - its weaknesses are not really apropos to today's environment (mainly that it encouraged the local revolt of generals once the imperial inheritance system of the Silver Age went down the tubes). The key to that system was to valorize innovative study of specific situations and inductively derive "lessons learned". This was encouraged by the shear number of exempla, stretching back over 1000 years. The final end product of this system, at least in terms of cultural training / education, can be seen in Maurice's Strategikon.

[selil]

One of the most effective cultural training systems was, oddly enough, the Roman system in the 2nd century and, again, in the 4th century. The vast majority of "principles" were only "taught" to the centurianate and the tribunate, but there was an extensive use of exempla - "stories" - that were used to teach the legionnaires. On the whole, both the 2nd and 4th century systems worked pretty well for their environment (the 3rd and the 5th are another matter ).

Would you believe that is how I teach? I was originally exposed to the principle as an undergraduate and the linkage between "stories" and socratic method.

When I said strategies earlier methods might have been a better word. "How to" adapt, change, meet mission requirements. Fusion rather than fission?

[marct]

Hi Sam,

Would you believe that is how I teach? I was originally exposed to the principle as an undergraduate and the linkage between "stories" and socratic method.

LOLOL - it's how I teach too - at least when it is possible.

When I said strategies earlier methods might have been a better word. "How to" adapt, change, meet mission requirements. Fusion rather than fission?

Ah, okay. That is a really good place to use exempla, so you can show how people at different times and in different places did it, but all based around a similar principle.

[William F. Owen]

One of the most effective cultural training systems was, oddly enough, the Roman system in the 2nd century and, again, in the 4th century. The vast majority of "principles" were only "taught" to the centurianate and the tribunate, but there was an extensive use of exempla - "stories" - that were used to teach the legionnaires. On the whole, both the 2nd and 4th century systems worked pretty well for their environment (the 3rd and the 5th are another matter ).

That there, my old beaver worrier, is gold dust. Excellent point and many thanks!

[marct]

That there, my old beaver worrier, is gold dust. Excellent point and many thanks!

Thanks, Wilf. A fair number of the Canadian and, I would assume, British regiments had a similar system. I got it from both sides of my family .

On another note, I'm thinking of changing my avatar.... What do you think, Wilf?

[Ken White]

Beavers 'in' the Prairie? Now there's a sight to see...

[marct]

Beavers 'in' the Prairie? Now there's a sight to see...

Hey, what can I say? We outsourced the instruction manual to Japan !

[yamiyugikun]

While I am a civilian and know little about the "warrior ethos," I've always thought warrior ethos was a spiritual approach to dealing with difficulties in life. I think that perhaps "warrior ethos" developed from the ancient codes of chivalry in medieval Europe. Orders of chivalry in England were the Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, and Order of the Bath. A Royal Navy captain or army general was generally admitted into one of those Orders, or given a peerage, elevated to the rank of a lord if he achieved a notable victory. From my understanding, the medals of bravery that General Washington gave during the American Revolution seemed to have come from this European tradition of Orders and medals. Just my thoughts on the possible history and roots of "warrior ethos," at least here in the West.

Naomi

[Uboat509]

Maybe it's because I come from a combat arms background, or maybe it's because I am a registered cynic but I have never seen the point of all this "warrior" stuff. It reminds of those cheesy corporate motivational posters that one sees around office buildings, an eagle soaring majestically in a clear blue sky with the caption "vision", or a colony of ants building a nest with the caption "teamwork." It may be interesting for about the first fifteen minutes after it goes up but then it just fades into the background and becomes little more than decoration. I don't believe for a second that changing PLDC to the "Warrior Leaders Course" or making Joe memorize the "Warrior Creed" has turned anyone into a warrior. The goal was admirable, model it after the Marine Corps where every Marine is an infantryman first and whatever job second. But the Marine Corps is an entirely different culture from top to bottom. Trying to recreate that culture across the board in the Army is just beating your head against a wall. I don't worry about the Warrior Ethos having a negative effect on the Army simply because I don't really expect it to have any effect at all.

SFC W

[slapout9]

Maybe it's because I come from a combat arms background, or maybe it's because I am a registered cynic but I have never seen the point of all this "warrior" stuff. It reminds of those cheesy corporate motivational posters that one sees around office buildings, an eagle soaring majestically in a clear blue sky with the caption "vision", or a colony of ants building a nest with the caption "teamwork." It may be interesting for about the first fifteen minutes after it goes up but then it just fades into the background and becomes little more than decoration. I don't believe for a second that changing PLDC to the "Warrior Leaders Course" or making Joe memorize the "Warrior Creed" has turned anyone into a warrior. The goal was admirable, model it after the Marine Corps where every Marine is an infantryman first and whatever job second. But the Marine Corps is an entirely different culture from top to bottom. Trying to recreate that culture across the board in the Army is just beating your head against a wall. I don't worry about the Warrior Ethos having a negative effect on the Army simply because I don't really expect it to have any effect at all.

SFC W

Agree 100% they are not warriors they are American Soldiers! and Army Men should be Green not Digital.....I feel mo better now.