Talk:Honours of war

Military history: Culture / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Bag and Baggage

There's a phrase in (former) military use, to "march out with bag and baggage", and its meaning relates to the honours of war, in two ways. Simply, it is a conclusion to a siege; secondly, it is by negotiation, and with a degree of acknowledgement and respect accorded to the defeated defenders.

Accordingly, I think this article should deal with the phrase. Anyone know anything about it all, + able to provide references?

I remember reading tht the bags are the troopers' and officers' personal possessions; the 'baggage' is the defenders' military baggage train.

In military use the implication of respect for the defenders is clear - it's the point of the phrase. But it has been picked up into civilian use too, and with a misunderstanding - as if the last two words, and baggage, merely emphasise the shame of defeat. In military use, those words indicate the opposite. The defenders are not simply a rabble being evicted with whatever they can manage to carry: they are marching out as an intact military force, complete with its baggage train.

The alternative, where the defenders refuse to surrender, is for the attackers to form and storm a breach in the defences (or try to! - or to give up and go away: because for a field army, the role of a static seige army risks disastrous problems of leadership and morale; or because beseigers camping in the swamps outside the walls are severely exposed to disease; or because the defenders have enough food - and water - to hold out to the end of the fighting season or until relieved).

Storming a breach is nobody's idea of fun to look forward to, and the mediaeval tradition, if it was attempted successfully, was to then "cry havoc", playing out in unspeakable horror. 84.9.129.92 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine .. European custom[s]?

Barbara Tuchman (The First Salute) is quoted in the References as commenting on the practice of the defeated defenders marching out to a tune associated with the victors as "Byzantine" .. though it's natural enough for both forces to expect the defenders to acknowledge tht the occasion is the other side's victory not their own. In fact, given tht the defenders are marching out with fixed bayonets or even ammunition ready for immediate use (Morris Greenspan, Soldier's Guide, + John Wright, 'Sieges and Customs', both also in the References), the idea of the defenders marching out to their own tunes hardly bears thinking about.

This looks like an interesting and rewarding area for academic study (probably in a context of conflict theory, anthropology even, rather than military history). Presumably there has been some study of it .. anyone aware of any sources?

It will have been an area of evolving practice, so I'd think recent systematisation (as in Greenspan's 1969 Guide) would need to be treated with some care; instead, I suspect examining reported details in the context of the likely situation on the ground would often give insight.

A garrison surrender of a town will always be tense and tricky. There are three groups: the departing garrison, the victors and the townspeople. On the civilian side, the incoming commander may well be thinking ahead to whether the outgoing garrison's soldiers have unofficial partners, and perhaps families, tht they are being required to leave. One reason for allowing the defeated officers to retain their personal weapons will be so tht they can ensure tht their soldiers do leave! - and a reason for allowing them to retain a token few artillery pieces will be so tht those officers are left with some dignity to defend - so tht they do in fact enforce the agreed terms of surrender on their own troops. (In the Early Modern period possession of artillery after a battle was the recognised touchstone of defeat or victory.)

On the military side: it will all look so straightforward in next week's newspapers - probably! - but at this instant, as the outgoing garrison draws the bars and opens the gate, this is a heart-in-mouth moment. Was the negotiation genuine? or was it a feint? Is this the moment of an armed sortie? against your troops? - who are deployed to celebrate not to fight! Assuming not, the garrison emerging will be moving in column, with long indefensible flanks: will any of your people - some traumatised by recent fighting, many having lost friends killed by this enemy - see a last opportunity for revenge? Hopefully not - the risk is probably the reason for allowing the garrison's musket-men to have ammunition ready in their mouths - but what about those defeated soldiers? What's their morale & discipline like? in defeat? Will every single one of them follow orders? not to use their weapons? at this last opportunity?

In summary, it seems to me likely tht the detailed conventions tht look so strange from the armchair afterwards are of real practical significance on the day. Have any RSs explored this? 31.94.33.60 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]