The Houma courier. (Houma, La.) 1878-1939, 1900-05-05
MILITARY BRAVERY
Mystery on the mumnn amaiatV Whfch
d Most Connpteuous In
Battle.

-
News letters and Official reports
from the Philippines aud South Africa
contain many s~stories Of military
bravery that the world is compelled ia.
wonder anew at the mystery Of the
human quality which Is most con-
spicuUus in battle. That the stories
themselves are untrue, or that the
facts are exaggerated, is extremely inn
probable; reports Of extraordinary
bravery Of detachments and individ-
uals win not be doubted by men who
themselves have been under IRE" Of
whom we have still nearly 100000 in
the United States, and all of them know
that on this subject truth is stranger
than fiction"
The conduct Of soldiers in action has
been the subject OF numerous explana-
tions, none Of which explained. It IS
the fashion OF all nations to ideaIize
their soldiers into men who become
heroic through love of country and
faith in the justice of their cause, but
no view, whether casual or careful, Of
any body Of troops win be rewarded by
the spectacle OF men of more than
average humanquaBty. Whether con-
scripts or volunteers, white, black,
brown or yellow, soldiers faces are
very like those of civilians. Nor can.
their deeds in war be attributed to saw
agery Of nature, for soldiers off the
field r quite as ~peaceable and kind
hearted as home bodies. In the days Of
solid military formations it was said
that soldiers fought BECAUSE they were
pressed upon the enemy by the human
mass behind them; when solid coli
umns and squares were abandoneda and
men fought in lines only two ranks
deep, its was explained that they stood
up to their work because any attempt
to run would be stopped by the swords
and bayonets Of the "f~le-closers'' who
stood behind each and every company.
But all the old-fashioned fighting
methods have been ignored in the Phil
,ipPines and South Africa, as they were
two years ago in Cuba, and as they
have been for a quarter of a century
by the Britishin India and by army
in its fights with the redskins; yet the
common soldier, raised to the respon-
.sibiity Of an individual fighter, and
with the individual fighters chance
to skulk, fights nmore braveIy than
his kind did in older days.
He used to have the incentive of loot
and license should his side conquer, but
eve that is now denied him. When
armies were recruited principally from
the prisons, the slums and the high
ways, the bravery of the common sol
dier was attributed to callousness,
apathy, and the lack Of any incentive
to live. When men followed only lead
ers of their own choosing bravery was
supposed to be a result Of herO-wor-
ship, yet the modern soldier will fol-
low any stranger, Of any rank, who
manifests Willingness to lead. "A full
stomach, preferably with some alec
hol in it, was supposed to be conducive
to bravery, yet soldiers on half "a
tions fight as bravely as any others, as
many of u men who charged in Cuba
and raided in the Philippines Tor did
both) have abundantIy proved.
Military bravery cannot be explained
blythe theory of fatalism, for soldiersa as
a class are not fatalists. Neither is it
due to abnormal natural courage, for
soldiers are recruited from among all
classes, including the gentIest. 1t does
not come of temporary insanity caused
by extremely mental and physical
strain, for never are the sol
6jer's faculties more alert and
well Gin hand" than when in battle;
the excitement at the beginning Of an
engagement is so great that a COM
~pensating calmness inevitably follows,
and quickly, too. Possibly satisfaction
at having an opportunity to do the
work for which he has been trained is
a partial cause of the soldiers bravery
in action; the nan who has learned
any other trade spends half his waking
hours at it, but the soldier who has
given one hour in "a of his term of serv-
ice to actual fighting is a rarity.
Still, despite all theories and explana-
lions, military Bravery remains one of
the most mysterious of human quail
tiles, and the men who best exemplify
it are as powerless as any others to ex-
plain it.-John Habberton, in Saturday
Evening Post.