Big Question Sereis #1
Why can the warrior both be a warrior and pillage during the act of war (like Genghis Kahn and his warriors) and can a warrior that pillages pillage enough to the point where he is no longer a warrior but a pillager?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In my opinion: Just because a warrior pillages, doesn't mean that he is a "Pillager" by definition of life style and fighting style. He is just taking advantage of loot and other treasures that usually (not always) drive the Pillagers into pillaging. I do believe a warrior may become a pillager in life style and fighting style, however, it would call for an abandonment of his higher calling and former creed [it might not be complete abondonment, but it is certainly not the priority that is once was for him/her/it]. A warrior might fall under the siren call of blood lust, gold lust, and lust lust...and then he (she) would begin the "Cross-over" situation that I previously mentioned.
Genghis, like Robin Hood, walks a fine line indeed. A Pillager can be highly skilled, that is why they are so deadly, but they still might not have the formal training or creed.
Let me preface this by saying I watched the video three times through while drinking a beer and giving serious thought to the question. Here are the results of that…
First, I would like to bring up the topic of representation, or in this case, misrepresentation. Perhaps what we are analyzing (and frequently criticizing) are not the true historical figures, but the modern day adaptation, characterization and representation of the individuals.
While thinking about this, I stumbled upon yet another dilemma. Should we completely ignore the frequently comical and preposterous adaptations of historical Warriors and Pillagers? Or do they carry some weight that requires a deeper analysis?
I have since come upon many more questions as such, but have chosen to refrain for the time being in order to continue this discussion.
And in doing so, I start by saying I agree with Blake. I believe the classification of Warrior and Pillager should not focus solely on whether or not one pillages (for the act of pillaging occurs often during warfare on both sides due the practicality of the act), but whether there is formal training and a creed to which the person/creature adheres.
However, what struck me most about Blake’s response was the aforementioned “formal training”. Could this be a solid point for comparison? At first I believed so (see the first post), but in reading the biography of Genghis Kahn I have developed serious doubts.
trey, I think you bring to our attention a few very provocative thoughts...but for now I will only say a couple of things in regard to my post.
Can a group of pillagers join forces for the greater interest of the group and wage war against another group of pillagers or group of warriors?
Do they not take on what many of us are positing gives warriors their identity: a higher cause, a collective endeavor.
Pirates have been known to undertake military like acts.
I think that certain warriors are pillagers and the fact that they are labeled warriors is simply because they are connected to a militant faction of a tribe or polis of some sort.
I think we may need to get past thinking that any person involved in a militant system is a warrior. Even if said warrior was formally trained. Maybe.
I would bet that many warriors were born fighters just like many pillagers were born fighters--formal training or not.
We must not forget that pillagers almost always have a leader or captain. The latter of the two labels stongly signifying the pillagers lack of difference in comparison to the warrior in the sense of structural and creed like submission to authority.
“Can a group of pillagers join forces for the greater interest of the group and wage war against another group of pillagers or group of warriors?”
I don’t see why this couldn’t/doesn’t happen. However, I have a hard time imagining the camaraderie between the alliances of Pillager forces lasting for very long after the fighting.
“Do they not take on what many of us are positing gives warriors their identity: a higher cause, a collective endeavor?”
Perhaps there is a higher cause, if you count lust, greed, rage, etc. as examples. But I would argue that these are more internal than collective. And at times when they do work together, it is to acquire a greater wealth for the divvying among individuals (a collective endeavor).
“I think that certain warriors are pillagers and the fact that they are labeled warriors is simply because they are connected to a militant faction of a tribe or polis of some sort”
I agree; the Russian forces of WWII, many alien armies, and more or less any other invading force are example of just this.
“We must not forget that pillagers almost always have a leader or captain. The latter of the two labels strongly signifying the pillagers lack of difference in comparison to the warrior in the sense of structural and creed like submission to authority.”
Yes, but with Pillagers the submission to authority is most often synonymous with submission to fear, for it is by fear that most Pillager leaders rule. Warriors, on the other hand, submit to authority after months/years/decades of formal training (and many would say brainwashing).
I believe the topic of authority and the submission to authority could be very interesting for future discussions.
Post a Comment