ABC78
Junior Member
I'm curious as to what fellow forumites think of the East vs West attitude on surrendering in battle. The Western thought follows the idea that if there is no hope of winning, it is better to surrender. This assumes that the enemy accepting your surrender will treat you relatively humanely (or at least allow you to live).
On the other hand, Eastern thought regards surrender as a vile dishonor, and only abject cowards and traitors would surrender to the enemy. Eastern thought glorifies those soldiers who would rather die than surrender, even in the face of hopeless odds.
On the one hand, the Western idea is more humanitarian. On the other hand, there are also plenty of instances where refusing to surrender, even if it means certain death, have either turned the odds, or achieved vital strategic goals.
I don't think one can honestly categorize these characteristics to one or the other in the east or the west. It all depends on the "warrior ethos" of the the fighting force, the times they live in and the customs of warfare.
Hell nobody likes to surrender, shame and the loss of honor will keep people fighting especially if you have something more to lose. Also if an enemy is ruthless and doesn't take prisoners your more likely to fight to try to take as many of them with you than to surrender and be marched of to be machine guned. Soldiers are more likely to surrender if an opponent actually takes prisoners and treats them fairly. Both east and west have had these attitudes
Steven Pressfield examined the evolution of the warrior code of honor and mental toughness that has been adopted by soldiers over the centuries. Topics included the concept of citizen soldiers and the implications of a future of mercenary soldiers. He responded to questions from members of the audience at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command Headquarters in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, after Lieutenant General Mulholland made additional remarks.