While it may be considered admirable to spare your enemy in war, such as in the Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler Incident, is it really logical? If sparing your enemy means that they will just come back to kill your comrades later on, wouldn't it make more sense to kill them, even if they are vulnerable?
it also means you or your comrades wont have to face execution in case of being captured
sun tzu
>To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.
>>1080391
True, you do have a good point there. Violence begets violence, etc.
>>1080391
I think you're taking that sun tzu quote out of context. He was talking about minimizing losses while pursuing a routed enemy.
The next line:
> To a surrounded enemy you must leave a way of escape. Do not press an enemy at bay.
> Prince Fu Ch’ai said: ‘Wild beasts, when at bay, fight desperately. How much more is this true of men! If they know there is no alternative they will fight to the death.’
Apparently Hitler avoided being shot while on a run because he saw a wounded British soldier who didn't raise his rifle. He lowered his and gave him a nod before trotting off.
The Christmas Truce too
>>1080411
I imagine it's easier with WWI since the soldiers were so disconnected from any kind of politics
>>1080403
thats the point?
if the german army didnt have to fight all those pockets and they just surrendered, their losses would have been smaller
cornered rat etc (not calling the soviets rats just before any naziboo starts licking my ass)
>>1080388
If you want to be practical just permanently injuring someone is way better. A dead body only needs to be burried, a cripple needs multiple people to take care of him.
>>1080388
It might be as >>1080391 said.
>If sparing your enemy means that they will just come back to kill your comrades later on, wouldn't it make more sense to kill them, even if they are vulnerable?
This cunt here thought so to, and that is what one of yhe factors that made him unite china by giving a shit about chivalry. He didn't take any pow, he just executed them to spare resources for his own troops instead. However he did not executive his enemies as often. They just became nobles in name and were just chilling in the capital.
>>1080420
Wait, he just executed enemies that surrendered, and occasionally let some of his enemies become nobility in his court? How is that giving a shit about chivalry, though?
>>1080426
He just wanted to preserve the ancient bloodline of various Chinese nobility. Which is chivalrious i guess.
During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period it was the norm to not executive captives and taking care of them, also l it was important not to brake certant rules, especially in the Spring and Autumn period. However, during the transision to the Warring States period war stoped being about honor and adventure between nobles and adventures, but full scale mobilization and to be as devious and crafty as possible.
Qin Shi Huang would execute prisoners, which were almost unheard of at the time, this to prevented them from eventually returning and fight again.
By showing mercy you could recruit able men into your court and army, which many rulers did. But I am not sure about Qin Shi Huang. I assume not because his state was ruled by law, which would mean desertion to another state would basically be treason, even if it was from an enemy statw to his
>>1080426
>>1080536
The thing is, chivalry has nothing to do with modern conflict or ancient East Asian warfare. It was a medieval ideal put into practice by French knights for a little while, and which has been mythologized into some kind of Western anti-Bushidō.
Chivalry was more of a fashion statement than a military strategy. It often wouldn't even have been motivated by genuine concern for the well-being of another, but for political or social cohesion or advancement.
I know OP meant chivalry in a broad and undefinable sense. I don't care. Chivalry has no place in modern war or anywhere but in medieval European feudal societies like France.
OP is asking about conscience vs. strategy.
>>1080414
In that passage Sun Tzu is talking about the losses of your own army, while fighting desperate, cornered enemies. So yes, ideally you wan't to get them to surrender/route, rather than lose your own men.
