What's new

Secret of Royal Power: Why were men ready to die in their millions for their Kings?

Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
3,309
Reaction score
-7
Country
India
Location
Germany
How Royal Power, its writ and influence was established among the Human Race? Look at the opening sequence of Battle of the Bastards...the first line of cavalry just sacrifices itself for its King/commander ...From 0:16 to around 2:10 the whole sequence just stops you in your tracks...On a different note, do you think men in Saudi arabia have this sort of loyalty for their absolute monarch?


 
How Royal Power, its writ and influence was established among the Human Race? Look at the opening sequence of Battle of the Bastards...the first line of cavalry just sacrifices itself for its King/commander ...From 0:16 to around 2:10 the whole sequence just stops you in your tracks...On a different note, do you think men in Saudi arabia have this sort of loyalty for their absolute monarch?





Well, that's been a question in my head for long. What will really compel people to be in the first wave, knowing they are going to die.
I can understand religious battles, where people are willing to die and hence will consider being in the first wave an honor.
But not the ones for land grab and kinds and specially the not so popular kings...
 
What will really compel people to be in the first wave, knowing they are going to die.
its not the choice of people its the generals and commanders that decide -
In modern times " which unit on the front lines " and " which unit for support "

If you say No you die an dishonorably -
If you say Yes you still die but honorably -
 
its not the choice of people its the generals and commanders that decide -
In modern times " which unit on the front lines " and " which unit for support "

If you say No you die an dishonorably -
If you say Yes you still die but honorably -


How did the first generation of Kings establish themselves?...and how this cultural gene/meme replicate so successfully across the globe?
 
How Royal Power, its writ and influence was established among the Human Race? Look at the opening sequence of Battle of the Bastards...the first line of cavalry just sacrifices itself for its King/commander ...From 0:16 to around 2:10 the whole sequence just stops you in your tracks...On a different note, do you think men in Saudi arabia have this sort of loyalty for their absolute monarch?


saudis will make plane tickets the first chance they get if anyone invades... very few will die for king and country as was demonstrated during kuwait war... the thing is good times make weak men... so no use of blaming them
 
Monarchs commanded the statehood & nationalism
Prior to the concept and implementation of 'nation-state' during modern periods (starting with Napoleonic times from a Western/European perspective), the monarchs were styled as the sovereign and they represented the state. In many ways, they were the state. Thus, the monarchs were the symbols of nationalism and incited popular support in their favour against the opposing forces, even when/if they were ruthless to their own population.

Representatives of their religion
In many cases, religion also played an important role. Monarchs/rulers styled themselves as representatives of their respective religions or propagated their appointment to rulership as religiously 'sanctified.'

Political Authority
The monarchs also had the right to regulate and accumulate national wealth. They also had the right to delegate political authority or take it away from the nobilities. The nobles in pre-modern times commanded armies. To achieve political and financial favours from the monarchs they would pledge their loyalties and armies (& themselves served as commanders).

Battlefield Command
One of the key motivations for forces to support their monarchs was the fact that the monarch, their family members, & subordinate nobilities would take part in warfare alongside the population and soldiers. Presence of 'elite commander of authority' has been an important motivational factor and, in fact, continues to be in some form or the other. In modern times when the soldiers of the platoon see their commanding officers leading from the front and risking their lives for the nation-state and for the platoon itself they automatically find the motivation to fight. This is perhaps one of the reasons that Middle Eastern armies today do not perform as the armies from other states like Turkey, Pakistan, etc.

War Booty
In the end, war booty mattered a lot. Given the level of poverty during the medieval time, people perhaps found war as a means of acquiring something for their survival. Otherwise, they were bound to die of hunger anyway.

Wages
While the armies of older times were not standing armies in the sense of what we have today they nonetheless received wages. Everyone doing their duties.
 
what is different then today people want to die for religion or country ?
 
what is different then today people want to die for religion or country ?


You have a sense of ownership in your religion and country, however false it might be...the sense of ownership may be missing in pre-Industrial polities


Monarchs commanded the statehood & nationalism
Prior to the concept and implementation of 'nation-state' during modern periods (starting with Napoleonic times from a Western/European perspective), the monarchs were styled as the sovereign and they represented the state. In many ways, they were the state. Thus, the monarchs were the symbols of nationalism and incited popular support in their favour against the opposing forces, even when/if they were ruthless to their own population.

Representatives of their religion
In many cases, religion also played an important role. Monarchs/rulers styled themselves as representatives of their respective religions or propagated their appointment to rulership as religiously 'sanctified.'

Political Authority
The monarchs also had the right to regulate and accumulate national wealth. They also had the right to delegate political authority or take it away from the nobilities. The nobles in pre-modern times commanded armies. To achieve political and financial favours from the monarchs they would pledge their loyalties and armies (& themselves served as commanders).

Battlefield Command
One of the key motivations for forces to support their monarchs was the fact that the monarch, their family members, & subordinate nobilities would take part in warfare alongside the population and soldiers. Presence of 'elite commander of authority' has been an important motivational factor and, in fact, continues to be in some form or the other. In modern times when the soldiers of the platoon see their commanding officers leading from the front and risking their lives for the nation-state and for the platoon itself they automatically find the motivation to fight. This is perhaps one of the reasons that Middle Eastern armies today do not perform as the armies from other states like Turkey, Pakistan, etc.

War Booty
In the end, war booty mattered a lot. Given the level of poverty during the medieval time, people perhaps found war as a means of acquiring something for their survival. Otherwise, they were bound to die of hunger anyway.

Wages
While the armies of older times were not standing armies in the sense of what we have today they nonetheless received wages. Everyone doing their duties.


Brilliant and Thank You...But I will inevitably have some counter questions...but I will prepare them in a structured manner and present it shortly
 
Royalty liked to pretend that they were divine. Also pride about bravery was inculcated so you had to fight. You also got part of the spoils of war.

It's many of the same basic drives that intelligence agencies manipulate when cultivating agents in foreign countries.

1.) Booty... War Booty, that is
-lust for women
-greed for money

2.) Real Estate
-land grants

3.) Threats
-dishonor
-death
-poverty

4.) Divine
-religious fervor
-desire to feel relevant + part of a larger whole
-fantasies of heaven
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom