The Psychology of War

[Dragoon Knight]

For some strange reason, I began thinking about war today.  It was probably influenced by the fact that it seems to be going on all around us, but my thought was quite specific and unusual.

If you were part of an army, fighting for a cause, would you be more willing to fight if you knew that your leader was safe, away from the battle?  Or would you fight more avidly if you knew that your leader was alongside you in battle?

This lead on to further thoughts, but they were more relative... such as whether or not an order seemed just, fair or 'good' to the person being ordered would affect the efficiency of that person in battle.  Or even if the sex / race of the person giving the order would affect the way in which the ordered fought.  I realise this may be a sensitive issue, but it really got me wondering...

Anyone have any thoughts on this, especially regarding my first question?

[EWS]

I reckon I would feel better if my commander was with me.  Knowing that he was as willing to die for the cause as I was.  It gives an extra bit of morale, however, he would also need to be protected at the same time.  If you notice, when patroles are out, the commander is never at the front, nor at the back.  And they very rarely wear rank.  For if the leader dies, morale dips and the troops get in disarray!

[Dragoon Knight]

You see, that's roughly what I think, EWS.

[Wolf]

I would fight harder if my commander were on the battlefield beside me; it is imperative that he survive. If the leader is lost, though, this blow to morale is greater than the morale lost if the leader was never on the field in the first place. You see, if the leader is not present in the first place, the troops merely become cynical. He's in charge, so, he's out back. They can relate to that. If the commander is on the front lines, however, and he is lost, the troops will feel that they failed him -- that it was their fault. They lose more than their optimism; they lose their confidence.

[Vanguard3000]

I think it all depends on what kind of leader that person is.  Some perople are bester described as leaders of the state, and would best be sitting behind a desk during a war, while others are leaders of men, who people would gladly die to protect.

[Dude_Doc]

What's up with the GDI and NOD stuff???

[Dante]

I would be the commander. Off in some ivory tower somewhere, laughing...

[Edric O]

If you were part of an army, fighting for a cause, would you be more willing to fight if you knew that your leader was safe, away from the battle?  Or would you fight more avidly if you knew that your leader was alongside you in battle?

That depends on what kind of leader you're talking about. I would prefer him to be in the place where he can do the most good. I don't think his presence would influence me by much. I don't like leaders anyway. ;)

This lead on to further thoughts, but they were more relative... such as whether or not an order seemed just, fair or 'good' to the person being ordered would affect the efficiency of that person in battle.

I fight furiously if I believe my cause is just. However, I would NEVER follow an order that goes against my principles. That's why I'd make a good revolutionary, but a bad soldier. :)

You see, I fight for ideals, not for men. If it looks like my leader has less in common with my ideals than the leader of the opposing army, I'd switch sides without a second thought. And if my leader is particularly evil, I would consider assasinating him.