The Face Battle Questions
The Face of battle by John Keegan is a history of the military on the battlefield. It is taking a glance at the direct experience of an individual at the point of maximum danger. With the absence of myth-making elements, rhetorical and the xenophobia, breaking away from the style of layout that describes the battle. Keegan most probably has written the model that defines military history. In his careful assessment of the three consecutive fightings that occurred in a different period, he has managed to convey the experience of combats meant for the battle participants, and whether we’re facing the arrow cloud at the battle of Agincourt, musket balls at Waterloo, or even the steel rain of Somme.
The reason Keegan is focusing on individual soldiers.
John Keegan has employed his focus on the ‘ordinary soldiers’ point of view. Who in this case, are the normal individuals of the society? The reason for this is because according to him, he perceives the point vital by emphasizing on acknowledging the roles played by the soldiers. By this, Keegan was greatly anticipating the kind of history that the majority of past analysts had begun to write about in the past decades. Recently, some analysts intended to look into the part of the “little peoples” experiences in their past life than historians did in the past. The past historians always included the side of the “great men” and the associated big picture. They focused more on presidents, kings, or other leaders. When they looked into issues that comprised of war, the reports on general choices made, were the only one surfaced. They focused more on major strategic decisions which were made by their leaders, for instance, Winston Churchill or even Franklin Roosevelt. For example, Keegan states that a set of World War 1 achieved a remarkable fate of publishing an exhaustive account of one of the greatest catastrophes of the world without displaying emotions. (e notes, 2019).
Keegan article is an illustration of a new school of history that had undergone an evolution of reactions to this particular kind of thinking. In this version of historiography, historians looked into the experiences of the people who were regarded as “little.” He intended to broadly acknowledge that the skills that happened in their life were significant to them at that point of time. By doing this, it would create a sense of belonging and understanding about our fellow human beings. With this, Keegan is trying to signal to us an understanding that battles are not led to victory by just the kings, presidents, generals and also other levels of leaders, but are geared by those people who are putting their hearts and efforts in the war and are doing the real action of fighting.
The war Tactics of the Agincourt and comparison to the battle of 100 years.
The Face of the battle took a different path. Its approaches were more of personal examinations of effects that were caused by military combats on the individual soldiers that had been sent into the battlefield to fight wars that had been ignited by their political leaders. The war carried on for a more extended period of more than a hundred years. It created two different eras, which included English strategy, which was a brutal one during the reign of King Edward III. The English conducted a series of raids. The missions were intended to be of pure murder, aiming in causing devastation of the region by destroying crops, livestock, buildings, windmills, and other structures. (Thought. co, 2017). The religion facilities like people were plundered and later put to the fire or sword. Their target was to see to it that The French would not have any resources that could sustain them and get back to the victory of the war. But instead, end up negotiating or give in to the battle to put a halt to the war. The English had overtaken Edward’s essential sites such as the Calais. The result caused the low-level lords to fight constant battles against rivals for the land.
It is important to note that the English victory was as a result of tactical innovations. Their weapons consisted of longbows that could shoot faster and travel at a greater distance compared to the French militaries. Also, they had many archers than the armored infantry, whereas the French were employing cavalry charge after charge and were miserably defeated. They effortlessly attempted to adopt the Poitiers when the whole French force became dismounted, but on the other hand, the English had snatched victory, even to Agincourt when the new generation of the French men forgot their lessons taught.
Keegan request was to fill in the gaps in his knowledge and understanding of military history, which then resulted in him into what he regarded as the Face of Battle. The effects brought by the combat of military campaigns on the psychological framework of an individual soldier. The memories drawn from the war are very vital issues, but in most cases, are highly ignored.
Vivid memories and images from the face of the battle
Several instances create vivid memories regarding Keegan. For example, when one of the Picton officers fell to a sudden sleep, the immediate halt sounded, he did not think of food until later in the night. When he finally woke up to feast on some cooked chops in the breastplate of dead cuirassier during the Waterloo campaigns. This instance is full of humor at the state of confusion the soldier was in when he realized that he had slept off-guard.
The most useful analogies to me are the difference that existed between English and the French judicial systems. The duties of the court during the administration of criminal cases that it has developed upon a jury is to rule out a guilty or not guilty situation to the evidence that was presented by the prosecution and defense counsel in turns. The trials are usually conflicts and verdicts to decisions that both parties comply. In France and any other states which observe Roman law, the responsibilities of the court in criminal cases are to reach the truth of the issue at hand as far as the human eye can perceive. Also, the firm of establishing the outlines on which the fact falls and not on the jury, which in most cases is strictly requested to adhere to the judgments issued by the judge. The argument is put to termination only when the ruler is satisfied with the results of both teams. The character traits portrayed by these two states are referred to as accusatorial in English and inquisitorial in French. In conclusion, Keegan’s point, however, its application is evident to the history of the battle, if it is not a crime; it’s a special event that is possessed as a parallel. The question is always who gets guilty of the result, if the state was defeated, or held responsible for the outcome and whether it was a victory.
References
e notes. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/from-article-face-battle-by-john-keegan-why-does-473736.
Thought. co. (2017, March 17). Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/strategy-and-tactics hundred-years-war-1221907.