Morale is the central idea in nearly every wargame. My last article explored the nature of what this thing is. My conclusions people are not what most people see as being morale.
Morale, the idea, stems from a series of ideas that have a lot more to do with religion than they do with war. At its heart at is moral what is right. Discipline, which is central to any units morale, comes from the word disciple! Courage means to have "heart" or spirit. Men have faith in the cause, and of their friends loyalty. Without these "religious" qualities one can not fight a war.
The challenge is nearly the same, if one considers it. Why should any soldier be willing to die for a cause? On the same toke, why should a christian be willing to voluntarily be thrown to the lions, when to live they need mearly renounce their faith? I cannot answer this for any other person, but we do have a word scribe those who falter. We call them cowards. Or worse, we call them hypocrites.
Ghandi and Napoleon both represented great movements in human conscienceness. Napoleon became the leader of the French revolution and all its ideal. Gandhi created the notion of nonviolent resistance which freed India from 200 years of foreign control. What I will show is that, based solely on a comparison of their writings, they say exactly the same thing about morale. Saint and soldier walk together.
PRINCIPLES
Warfare is an orderly activity. Great generals have long held that there are principles which govern it. Not one ever seems to be able to fully agree on what the principles are but they are there. And a good thing to, since if they were all so clear, the rules writers would not have anything to "improve" on.
Napoleon: "All wars should be governed by certain principles, for every war should have a definite object, and be conducted according to the rules of art. War should only be undertaken with forces proportioned to the obstacles to be overcome."
Gandhi: "In satyagraha (soul force) the cause has to be just clear as well as the means."
"Behind my "lawlessness" there is discipline."
Both say there needs to be a clear objective and clear means to the objective. They both counsel using force judiciously. They both acknowledge rules to what they are doing. Their principles on how to fight the war are different, but maybe not as different as one might imagine.
POWER
Power is the stuff that gets things done, isn't it? Maybe power is the ability to do things but if the gun is not fired then did it truly matter? Power may come more from morale than not.
Napoleon: "The strength of an army, like the power in mechanics, is estimated by multiplying the mass by the rapidity: a rapid march augments the moral of an army, and increases all the chances of victory."
Gandhi: "Non-violence...must raise the moral tone of the defenders. Hence there will be a corresponding rise in the moral tone of the "weak majority" to be defended."
"If your spirit is strong, mere lack of physical strength ceases to be a handicap."
Napoleon says that morale is very important to winning. In fact he ties it directly to advancing. In the last article I pointed out how the word aggressive come from the latin word "to advance" and how a coward is one who "turns tail" and runs.
Napoleon says more on this... "...Once the offensive has been assumed, it must be sustained to the last extremity. However skillful the maneuvers, a retreat will always weaken the moral of an army."
The obvious thought at this point is to say "But if Bony and Gandhi were in an argument together, and the little brown guy tried that non violence "crap" on him. Then the big N would pull out a gun and shoot him! End of argument." Obviously Napoleon's men used guns in their struggles. But what about Gandhi?
Gandhi: "The first principle of non-violence is cooperation with everything humiliating."
"The root of satyagraha is in prayer. A satyagrahi relies upon God for protection against the tyranny of brute force."
"Not to yield your soul to the conqueror means that you will refuse to do that which your conscious forbids you to do."
"The non-violent resisters will have won the day in as much they will have preferred extermination to submission."
"There is no defeat in Ahimsa (non-violence)"
Wow! So the little brown guy can accept being killed to the man a victory. Even the French in their many botched colonial wars were not always able to pull this one off. Save the Foreign Legionnaires, French soldiery do not seem too keen on dying to the man in any of their battles. Still, how many people are really willing to follow such a "bugeyed" path as Gandhi points out? Not many I suspect.
Napoleon: "When an army is inferior...the moral of the soldier does much."
Gandhi: "If we cease to be his inferiors, he can not be our superior."
This seems to me to be a key point in morale. As soon as the soldiers on one side of a battle begin to think that they are ""inferior" then they are half way to being beaten. Napoleon says moral helps men stay. Gandhi explains this a little more. Morale occurs within the individual soldier. If he accepts what the enemy is saying to him (ie that he is a piece of shit) then he will be defeated. As long as the soldier can resist this idea they are not defeated, even if they are killed!
Think of it. A line of soldiers are marching towards the enemy, drums beating, flags waving. The enemy open fire (a more clear form of communication there never was). Men are shot as they advance. Wounded men stagger back to their feet and keep on advancing, only to be shot again and killed. That man would earn the respect of honorable men. Now consider another scenario.
A line of soldiers march toward the enemy. The enemy opens fire on them. Some men are hit in the fire and fall screaming to the earth. Those still standing seem to shrink in the face of the fire. They bunch together, trying to hide behind one another. Some men hold back, looking for any excuse to run. Some do run. An enemy soldier takes aim and fires on a man running away. He shoots him in the back. That is not a death one considers honorable. That man was defeated before he was ever shot.
Weakness
Napoleon: "The first qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only the second; hardship, poverty, and want are the best school for a soldier."
Gandhi: "We should learn to dare danger and death, mortify the flesh, and acquire the capacity to endure all manner of hardship."
"My advice to migrate is for all who feel oppressed and cannot live without losing self respect in a particular place... My advice is for those who, though conscious of self respect, lack the strength that comes from non-violence or the capacity to return blow for blow."
Obviously not everyone is constitutionally able to suffer the hardships which go with war. Lord knows it is a terrible thing. Both Gandhi and Napoleon recognize that it is the ability to face hardships rather than inflicting blows that determines a units morale. Courage is a fleeting thing that does not last as long as a dogged acceptance that bleeding is part of the game.
Non-violence sounds like a refuge for the weak, at first glance. But it isn't. In fact, Gandhi would have greatly respected Napoleon's work, violence and all, since he stood for the spread of the heartfelt liberal ideal of the French Revolution. To use non-violence is harder than violence not because it is one must face a well armed enemy and die. It is really hard because one must be capable of shooting back but not doing so.
Gandhi: "A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation, anger or malice, in self defense or in defending the honor of his women folk. This is the highest form of bravery. If an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this greatest law of life, retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desires revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of society of men and women."
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent."
"Non-violence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave...Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with nonviolence...Non-violence presupposes ability to strike."
So Gandhi is pretty clear about what he thinks about cowards. He hates them. (Non-violently of course.) Napoleon has similarly strong views.
Napoleon: "A general of ordinary talent (in) a bad position and surprised...seeks safety in retreat...(A) great captain supplies all deficiencies by his courage, and marches boldly to meet the attack...(By) determined conduct he maintains the honor of his arms, the first essential to all military superiority."
"To authorize generals or other officers to lay down their arms (other than when garrisoning a fortress) affords a dangerous latitude. It is destructive of all military character in a nation to open a door to the cowardly, the weak, or even the misdirected brave. Great extremities require extraordinary resolution. The more obstinate the resistance of an army, the greater the chances of assistance or of success.
How many seemingly impossibilities have been accomplished by men whose only resource was death!"
That last line is critical to understanding the similarities
Between the moral of Napoleon and the satyagraha of Gandhi. Both viewed death as a source of strength! Napoleon would line his men up with their backs to a river, so that there was no retreat. Win or die. Gandhi asks his supporters to go unarmed in front of machine-guns in the way. Force them to retreat (ie be defeated) or kill a host of unarmed "civilians." Just like the early christians feeding the lions, dying will furthers the cause by creating martyrs.
Napoleon goes on further about the evils of cowardice.
Napoleon: "To withdraw from danger, and there by to involve their comrades in greater perils, is the height of cowardice. Such conduct should be proscribed, declared infamous, and made punishable with death. All generals, officers, and soldiers who capitulate in battle to save their own lives, should be decimated."
Gandhi: "A satyagrahi may never run away from danger, irrespective of whether he is alone or in the company of many. He will have fully performed his duty if he dies fighting."
Our experience was that those who went to jail in a prayerful spirit came out victorious, those who had gone on their own strength failed. There is not room for self-pity in it either when you say God is giving you the strength. Self-pity comes when you do a thing for which you expect recognition from others. But here there is no question of recognition.
HONOR
Napoleon: "Determined conduct...maintains the honor of his arms, the first essential to all military superiority."
Gandhi: "Human dignity is best preserved not by developing the capacity to deal destruction but by refusing to retaliate."
Honor is vital to both these men's approaches to war. Gandhi demands that his followers not bow down to anything that diminishes human dignity. Napoleon wants his men to be willing to face death even in the face of overwhelming odds.
Gandhi: "Self respect and honor cannot be protected by others. They are for each individual himself or herself to guard."
"Non-violence is needed for the protection of the Atman, for the protection of one's honor."
"It will be infinitely braver and more glorious because it will give life without taking any."
Once again it seems that Gandhi is asking an awful lot from his followers! The weight of combat is placed firmly on each soldiers head. I imagine Napoleon would agree with this. He said the same thing in his own way.
Napoleon: "The first consideration with a general who offers battle should be the glory and honor of his arms; the safety and preservation of his men is only the second; but it is in the enterprise and courage resulting from the former that the latter will most assuredly be found."
Glory and honor sound great when one stands on the parade on ground, but when the bullets start flying, they lose there appeal. Not every man is constitutionally able to "sacrifice" themselves. Some try to hide and win by being sneaky.
Gandhi: "Moral practice has not been able to keep pace with the mind. Man has begun to say, "this is wrong, that is wrong." Where as previously he justified his conduct, he now no longer justifies his own or his neighbor's. He wants to set right the wrong but does not know that his own practice fails him. The contradiction between his thought and conduct fetter him."
"Moral support cannot really be given in the sense of giving. It automatically comes to him who is qualified to take it. And such a one can take it in abundance."
"No secret organization, however big, could do any good. Secrecy aims at building a wall of protection around you. Ahimsa disdains such protection. It functions in the open in. the face of odds, the heaviest conceivable."
"I do not appreciate any underground activity. Millions cannot go underground. Millions need not."
Napoleon: "A general of ordinary talent (in) a bad position and surprised seeks safety in retreat."
"Some men are so physically and morally constituted as to see everything through a highly colored medium (rose colored glasses!) nature has not formed them for the command of armies."
If truth be told, no men are really equipped to make the supreme sacrifice without a little soul searching. Both of these men recognized this and made comment of how important small groups are.
SMALL GROUPS
Napoleon: "In a retreat, besides the honor of the army, the loss is equal to two battles. For this reason we should never despair while brave men are to be found with their colors. It is by this means we obtain victory, and deserve to obtain it."
Gandhi: "Freedom must be obtained by our own internal strength, by our closing ranks, by unity between all section of the community."
Small groups are where actions take place. Generals never fight, and seldom die. Soldiers or satyagrahi are the ones whose bodies are on the line. They shoot the guns, carry the wounded, and resist the enemy. Gandhi and Napoleon have their small groups do different tasks, but the group remains. Why? Maybe it is because humans are biologically herd animals. We feel protected from stress by those around us. This will certainly be a future morale article.
Gandhi: "Non-violent volunteer corps They must be small if they are to be efficient. The members must know one another well. Each corps will select its own head. One thing should be common to all members and that is implicit faith in God. He is the only companion and doer. Without faith in him these peace brigades will be lifeless."
Napoleon: "Every means should be taken to attach the soldier to his colors. This is best accomplished by showing consideration and respect to the old Boldier. His pay likewise should increase with his length of service. It is the height of injustice to give a veteran no greater advantages than a recruit."
Once men are thrown in together and put under adversity, they become a group of companions. Gandhi does it by faith, Napoleon does it by respecting the old. Once the unit exists it can start acting against the enemy.
Gandhi: "Rules for peace brigades
- 1. A volunteer may not carry any weapon.
2. The member of a corps must be easily recognizable.
3. Every volunteer must carry bandages, scissors, needle and thread, surgical knife, etc., for rendering first aid.
4. He should know how to carry and remove the wounded.
5. He should know how to put out fires, how to enter a fire area without getting burnt, how to climb heights for rescue work and descend safely with'or without his charge.
6. He should be well acquainted with all the residents of his locality. This is a service in itself.
7. He should pray (with the name of God) ceaselessly in his heart and persuade others who believe to do likewise.
This is a very different drill from the standard soldier's! A soldier is taught how to use his weapon, march in formation, care for wounded, and move supplies. Obviously when the soldier gets to the battle he field he shoots at the enemy, in the attempt to convince the enemy that he has lost.
Gandhi's boys fight in a different way.
Gandhi: "In ahimsa it is not the votary who acts in his own strength. Strength comes from God."
"You will not bow to the supremacy of the victor. You wlll not help him attain his object."
"Not to yield your mind means that you will not give way to any temptation."
"Mere mechanical adherence to truth and ahimsa is likely to break at the critical moment."
Napoleon aims to break up the enemies formations and thus prevent them from working against him.
Napoleon: "It is the business of the cavalry to follow up victory, and to prevent the beaten army from rallying."
Interestingly, mere killing is not the goal of Napoleon. If victory can be gotten without blood he is all for it.
Napoleon: "The keys to a fortress are well worth the retirement of a garrison. On this principle it is always wiser to grant an honorable capitulation...than to risk an assault."
Killing is more the realm of the terrorist. Napoleon is not a terrorist. In fact his laws are still in use in parts of Europe. Looters are shot, once order is reestablished after battle. I am certain that the Peninsula war historians can tell many examples of French atrocities in Spain, but these mainly start after the Spanish start a guerilla/terrorist campaign. After terrorism started Napoleon's control was nullified.
Gandhi: "Terrorism results in demoralization (of the people who practice it). Haste leads to waste."
"Morality is contraband in war."
This brings up the last point of comparison, leadership.
GENERALS
Napoleon: "It is not set speeches at the moment of battle that render soldiers brave. The veteran scarcely listens to them and the recruit forgets them at the first discharge. If discourses and harangues are useful, it is during the campaign; to do away unfavorable impressions, to correct false reports, to keep alive a proper spirit in the camp, and to furnish materials and amusements for the bivouac. All printed orders of the day should keep in view these objects."
Gandhi: "The positively necessary training for a non-violent army is an immovable faith in God, willing and perfect obedience to the chief of the non-violent army, and perfect inward and outward cooperation between the units of the army.
"The mind of a man who remains good under compulsion cannot improve, In fact it worsens."
Gandhi seems to be calling for volunteers to impose strict disciple on themselves. Much like Jesus did when he called his disciples. Napoleon relies on more traditional training techniques, since his men do not need to have near the level of obedience that Gandhi's do.
Gandhi: "The general of a non-violent army has got to have greater presence of mind than that of a violent army, and God would bless him with the necessary resourcefulness to meet new situations as they arise.
"A non-violent army need not have the resourcefulness or understanding of its general, but they will have a perfect sense of discipline to carry out faithfully his orders."
Napoleon: "The first quality of leadership is a cool head...He must not allow himself to become elated at good news, or depessed by bad."
"The science of strategy is only to be acquired by experience, and by studying the campaigns of all the great captains."
The leader is perhaps the only person who has a chance to see the big picture while a fight is going on. He has to stare down the whole enemy army without flinching. Maybe this is why general who are only "good" end up retreating. Winning generals have to be able to wait while the situation develops. It requires patience and faith, not easy qualities to develop. Gandhi: "When in the face of an upheaval" such as we are wituessing there are only a few individuals of immovable faith, they have to live up to their faith even though they produce no visibly effect on the course of events. They should believe that their action will produce tangible results in due course."
So, if Napoleon had gotten frightened at the battle of Marengo, and fled the field, then his army would have been defeated. But he stood, and told his men "We have retired enough today; you know I always sleep upon the field of battle!" They went on to win for the next 12 years.
AFTERWARD
When I first read Gandhi, I was struck by how "military" his writings sounded. Later on I read Napoleon, and saw that same train of thought. I knew then that I would write this article, someday. As wargamers we have a natural bias in favor of Napoleon, but looking back on it I now question which of the two men was more brave.
Napoleon certain won great victories and did blessings of the French revolution all around Europe, but he also lost. Gandhi on the other hand was instrumental in British out of India, but he failed to prevent the partition. Napoleonic ideal are still very influential today, while non violence is barely understood by our leaders.
Non-violence is certainly more difficult to pull off. Few people are willing to face death without fighting back. But where peace is gained non-violently, no seeds for future wars are spread. During the partition of India, 50,000 British soldiers were stationed in the Punjab to prevent massacres. They failed, and that region has been near war ever since. Gandhi alone was "stationed" in Bengal, and the result was no deaths.
In closing compare one more set of quotes.
Gandhi: "The minimum that is required of a person wishing to cultivate the ahimsa of the brave is first to clear one's thought of cowardice and in the light of this clearance regulate his conduct in every activity, great or small. Thus the votary must refuse to be cowed down by his superior, without being angry. He must, however, be ready to sacrifice his post however remunerative it may be. While sacrificing his all, if the votary has no sense of irritation against his employer, he has ahimsa of the brave in him.
Napoleon: "Every general is culpable who undertakes the execution of a plan which he considers faulty. It is his duty to represent his reasons, to insist upon a change of plan; in short, to give his resignation rather than allow himself to become the instrument of his armies' ruin...The general ought to refuse obedience, because a blind obedience is due only to a military command given by a superior present on the spot (who can give) the necessary explanations to the person who executes his orders."
Back to Experimental Games Group # 22 Table of Contents
Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1992 by Chris Engle
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com