BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Discipline and defiance: toward a reciprocal model of power relati
 ons in eighteenth-century European armies - Ilya Berkovich (Hebrew Univers
 ity of Jerusalem)
DTSTART:20121127T173000Z
DTEND:20121127T190000Z
UID:TALK40866@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Gui Xi Young
DESCRIPTION:\nThe fire fight between two opposing infantry lines which for
 med the foundation of eighteenth-century battlefield tactics\, was won not
  by the physical extermination of enemy soldiers\, but by causing them to 
 break formation and flee. Victory was thus achieved when the collective me
 ntal endurance of your troops outlasted that of their opponents. Modern sc
 holars cite this rationale when explaining the alleged brutality of old-re
 gime military discipline. According to this view\, continuous chastisement
 s in peacetime inured the soldiers to prefer the uncertain fate of marchin
 g against enemy cannons\, rather than face certain punishment at the hand 
 of their superiors\, as Frederick the Great himself has said.\n\nUntil now
 \, the sources used to examine the effectiveness of these disciplinary mec
 hanisms were military regulations\, court-martial proceedings and officers
 ' memoirs. No attempt was made\, however\, to study systematically the per
 spective of the men who were actually subject to these measures. By lookin
 g at written testimonies of old-regime common soldiers\, this paper not on
 ly deals with a largely untapped source of evidence\, but also with materi
 al best suited to assess the practical implementation of the eighteenth-ce
 ntury disciplinary regimen. According to these accounts\, rather than stra
 ightforward top-bottom disciplining\, the interaction between officers and
  men was more reciprocal. Soldiers could act assertively organising boycot
 ts\, petitions and carefully-orchestrated displays of public displeasure. 
 Instead of mercilessly crushing such instances of discontent\, officers of
 ten reacted mildly resorting to threats\, negotiations and pardons. Althou
 gh they occasionally challenged formal discipline\, soldiers usually stopp
 ed short of mutiny\, while officers stopped short of punishment as soon as
  their authority was again complied with. The power relations between the 
 two groups have thus resembled a continuous tug-of-war in which the men we
 re able to extract considerable concessions from their superiors. This mea
 ns\, however\, that rather than solely enforced by terror\, the obedience 
 of soldiers was also based on willing consent. Therefore\, the view which 
 attributes old-regime combat motivation to successful disciplinary inocula
 tion cannot stand. As long as soldiers agreed to enter combat\, it must be
  assumed they had a more active reason to do so.
LOCATION:(Note venue change) Seminar Room S3 Alison Richard Building
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR