[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Code of Honor

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Really? Any examples of such courts-martial, or less formal penalties?

By and large, once a professional code is established, I'd expect the public at large to recognise that it’s what you're likely to get once you hire a member of that profession.

Yep, if nothing else even before the rules of medics in combat was established by conventions it makes sense for all sides to be OK with treating wounded on all sides* (even if tacitly and not officially) as well that could be them dragged into the other side's medical tent next time!

of course resourcing management and prioritising was always going to be thing (and could be after the convention came in as well)



*especially if the wounded were going to be a nice realisable asset due to ransom, maybe less so if they weren't!

[AlexanderHowl]

Before the 20th century, most of the fatalities suffered by soldiers were caused by disease rather than by violence. Even in the case of violence, most of the soldiers died of infection rather than of trauma. When you go back to the 19th century or earlier, captured soldiers of common blood were often used for forced labor or sold into slavery, depending on the culture, though many enemy captured soldiers were executed after battles if the locals did not need their services. Since a captured noble could fetch an average of their annual income in ransom, nobles tended to fair much better than commoners when captured.

With the improvements of medicine and the social ban against slavery and forced labor during the 19th century, society had to do something about captured soldiers. Soldiers had stopped being seen as murderous opportunistic thugs that looted and raped the innocent with the rise of nationalism during the 18th century and, with the rise of nationalism, the soldier started becoming a hero. Thus you have the conditions for the establishment of the Geneva Convention during the 19th century.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Before the 20th century, most of the fatalities suffered by soldiers were caused by disease rather than by violence.

True

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Even in the case of violence, most of the soldiers died of infection rather than of trauma.

Not sure how true that is though? I mean yes dying of infected wounds was obviously a common thing, but I'm not sure how you go about showing that of all soldiers who were ever wounded most of them died due to complications of infection rather then the initial trauma. If for no other reason some would have died of their wounds at or soon after receiving them and not even made it to whatever medical services there were, or had a chance to die of infection or long term trauma effects.

Not to mention to make the comparison in the wider context of wound survival you would need to know how many wounds were survived and not all wounds would have been treated by the medical services of the time (but that's an aside as that wasn't the claim you were making).

Ultimately there were treatments, infection was a known thing (even if not as fully understood as now), there was actions for preventing it and even curing it (albeit not all of them effective) . Even if poor by our current standards and medical knowledge there is I think a bit of a tendency to overstate here.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

When you go back to the 19th century or earlier, captured soldiers of common blood were often used for forced labor or sold into slavery, depending on the culture, though many enemy captured soldiers were executed after battles if the locals did not need their services. Since a captured noble could fetch an average of their annual income in ransom, nobles tended to fair much better than commoners when captured.

True

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

With the improvements of medicine and the social ban against slavery and forced labor during the 19th century, society had to do something about captured soldiers. Soldiers had stopped being seen as murderous opportunistic thugs that looted and raped the innocent with the rise of nationalism during the 18th century and, with the rise of nationalism, the soldier started becoming a hero. Thus you have the conditions for the establishment of the Geneva Convention during the 19th century.

I think both perceptions of soldiers have been in effect for a very long time and were still in effect after the rise of nationalism in the C19th* and after the Geneva convention. The perception often being as much a matter of the viewer as the soldier's individual behaviour, and neither heroic or dastardly behaviour belonging to only one side of that period in time. Equally it not like forced labour or other poor treatment of POWs ended mid C19th either!

*and it's not like nationalism or equivalent effects in this context weren't a thing before then, potentially effecting perceptions. e.g love of polis, love of god(s), love of king, could color perception of our brave lads behaviour while fending off our enemies dastardly reavers, just as much as love of country

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

The fact remains, though, that cross-dressing wasn't seen as explicitly dishonourable. It was just something that a respectable gentlewoman would be unlikely to do, because it would be ridiculous and there'd be no conceivable call for it. If you asked a Regency lady what could make one of her contemporaries "dishonourable", then she'd likely list breaking her word, not paying debts, (whisper) engaging in extramarital sex... Cross-dressing wouldn't cross her mind. If you hypothesised a lady, say, escaping a war zone by passing as a boy, I doubt that there'd be any great outrage at that part.

As sweet Polly Oliver lay musing in bed,
A sudden strange fancy came into her head.
"Nor father nor mother shall make me false prove,
I'll 'list as a soldier, and follow my love."

The wearing of men's clothing was a taboo, but it certainly wasn't as significant as the taboos broken by defying your family by running away from home to follow a lover (Sweet Polly Oliver), taking a lover while away (Mulan, Augustina de Aragon) or rejecting the traditionally female role in society and taking on a male role (all of them, to varying degrees).

Any definition I would use for a Code of Honour that made a point of being a Gentlewoman's Code would include acting like a gentlewoman. Which means not acting like a man and certainly not acting like a common, ill-bred lout, which is how most Regency gentlewomen would regard Tommy Atkins, Jack Tar and, shudder, foreign soldiery.

Concealing your name and origin by lying or going disguised like some sort of ruffian might be acceptable in certain desperate circumstances, though hardly a honourable practice unless the alternative was even worse dishonour. Concealing your sex, I suppose might be viewed similarly.

But fraternising with common soldiers without a respectable chaperone, sleeping away from home in a room with nothing but men, cursing, blaspheming, drinking heavily, chewing tobacco and other vulgar displays, these are things that gentlewomen just did not do. Yet many, if not most, of them are necessary to successfully passing as a common soldier, sailor or gunner.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Before the 20th century, most of the fatalities suffered by soldiers were caused by disease rather than by violence. Even in the case of violence, most of the soldiers died of infection rather than of trauma. When you go back to the 19th century or earlier, captured soldiers of common blood were often used for forced labor or sold into slavery, depending on the culture, though many enemy captured soldiers were executed after battles if the locals did not need their services. Since a captured noble could fetch an average of their annual income in ransom, nobles tended to fair much better than commoners when captured.

With the improvements of medicine and the social ban against slavery and forced labor during the 19th century, society had to do something about captured soldiers. Soldiers had stopped being seen as murderous opportunistic thugs that looted and raped the innocent with the rise of nationalism during the 18th century and, with the rise of nationalism, the soldier started becoming a hero. Thus you have the conditions for the establishment of the Geneva Convention during the 19th century.

That was quite a bit before the nineteenth century. By that time there were regular POW camps. These could be quite hellish for captured enlisted men because care for them was not priority. But actually putting a captured soldier for auction was hardly done.
There were differing rules in different cultures. There was once a scandal in congress when it was found out that the railroad was knowingly or unknowingly or ambiguously using captives from clan wars in the Chinese interior as labor. As no one wanted to give up the ability to claim a moral high ground over the Confederacy there was an intervention which might have been a long time coming in peacetime.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True



Not sure how true that is though? I mean yes dying of infected wounds was obviously a common thing, but I'm not sure how you go about showing that of all soldiers who were ever wounded most of them died due to complications of infection rather then the initial trauma. If for no other reason some would have died of their wounds at or soon after receiving them and not even made it to whatever medical services there were, or had a chance to die of infection or long term trauma effects.

Not to mention to make the comparison in the wider context of wound survival you would need to know how many wounds were survived and not all wounds would have been treated by the medical services of the time (but that's an aside as that wasn't the claim you were making).

Ultimately there were treatments, infection was a known thing (even if not as fully understood as now), there was actions for preventing it and even curing it (albeit not all of them effective) . Even if poor by our current standards and medical knowledge there is I think a bit of a tendency to overstate here.




True




I think both perceptions of soldiers have been in effect for a very long time and were still in effect after the rise of nationalism in the C19th* and after the Geneva convention. The perception often being as much a matter of the viewer as the soldier's individual behaviour, and neither heroic or dastardly behaviour belonging to only one side of that period in time. Equally it not like forced labour or other poor treatment of POWs ended mid C19th either!

*and it's not like nationalism or equivalent effects in this context weren't a thing before then, potentially effecting perceptions. e.g love of polis, love of god(s), love of king, could color perception of our brave lads behaviour while fending off our enemies dastardly reavers, just as much as love of country

One gruesome detail of military medicine was that wounds on the trunk were almost always triaged(it wasn't systematized as much but the basic idea existed)out as unless minor the wound wound either be beyond surgery of the time or not worth the effort taken from other patients. Whereas wounds on the arms and legs could be taken care of by limb-lopping, a branding iron, and a slug of drink for anyone "to cowardly" to endure the whole thing without flinching(which by the way as an obscure and to modern eyes peculiarly silly part of eighteenth century honor).

[jason taylor]

One comparison that is interesting is "don't shoot at sentries unless there is a commando raid on." That is a perfectly sensible rule(everyone has a battle tomorrow and needs rest).

One of the time that seems curious and indeed abominable to modern eyes is Don't Shoot At Important People. This seems to have been a run off of Divine Right and could take ridiculous forms such as one time when Wellington ordered Boney not to be targeted even though that could end the war at a blow.

Another one which seems absurd is, "don't try to avoid fire". This one Wellington didn't follow and he always used cover when he had it.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

One gruesome detail of military medicine was that wounds on the trunk were almost always triaged(it wasn't systematized as much but the basic idea existed)out as unless minor the wound wound either be beyond surgery of the time or not worth the effort taken from other patients. Whereas wounds on the arms and legs could be taken care of by limb-lopping, a branding iron, and a slug of drink for anyone "to cowardly" to endure the whole thing without flinching(which by the way as an obscure and to modern eyes peculiarly silly part of eighteenth century honor).

I definitely agree triage has been thing applied to wounds seen as not being efficient to treat since for ever, and I can see why certain wounds would be quickly assessed as not worth expending resources for.

But when it comes to such a large and varied area as the trunk I think it tended to depend on the actual injury. Not every torso wound is gushing blood and surgeons up to their elbows in viscera and all the rest.

As an aside in my games this is partly why armour saves people's lives even if it doesn't stop all damage it can turn a potentially life threatening injury (both in terms of trauma and complications at low TLs), into a much less serious injury. Helped by the fact I have a house rule for needing to get past a certain amount of torso before reaching the vitals.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Before the Geneva convention it was quite dangerous for a medic to offer aid to enemy soldiers. A court martial would havery been the least they could expect in many areas.

Oh, I had another thought. The Geneva Convention was first signed in 1864. The US Civil War was fought in 1861-1865, and neither the USA or the CSA were among the original twelve signatories to the Convention. How many cases of court martial can you show during that conflict where the charge was treating an enemy soldier?

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Another one which seems absurd is, "don't try to avoid fire". This one Wellington didn't follow and he always used cover when he had it.

British officers don't duck (20 minute YouTube video). As a code to adhere to this survived into at least WW2.