Faceless Men, Crackpot Theories, etc

[Gumboot]

The often quoted "only one in ten Soldiers fired on the enemy" statistic comes from BG SLA Marshall's The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation, which he wrote after WW2. Like nearly everything written by SLA Marshall, his data is extremely suspect. He references his own conversations with combat Soldiers during WW2 but doesn't provide any data. Numerous studies have shown that his data is incorrect (as in when you actually interview veterans from WW2 and record the data you find that they universally fired on the enemy). Bottom line is that Marshall was full of ****, but his claims keep getting regurgitated and reworked as though we have some kind of program to turn us into killbots or something. Our pop-up target ranges train us to identify a target, acquire a sight picture, and fire before the target goes down... they don't make us lose our humanity or anything like that.

Actually, the work in question by Marshall is Men Against Fire, and the only legitimate criticism of Marshall is that he didn't keep scientific-quality records, but a vast number of subsequent studies of various historic battlefields has supported and reinforced his initial figures. In engagements ranging from the 18th Century through to post-WW2 conflicts with non-western armed forces, the rate of non-firing remains surprisingly constant.

In any event, the US military certainly believed Marshall's findings and instituted kill-conditioning training after WW2 which saw a significant rise in combat lethality of infantry, with properly conducted studies of Korea and Vietnam showing a dramatic increase in soldiers engaging the enemy in combat (the figure was around 60% for Korea and over 90% for Vietnam).

Today, all modern western armies and police forces undergo kill-conditioning training, specifically designed to overcome what is now widely accepted as an inherent psychological resistance to killing.

Having said that, you're right that this doesn't turn soldiers into "killbots" as you put it. There's a woeful lack of actual understanding about the actual psychology of killing, particularly in the public sphere.

I'd recommend reading "On Killing" by Lt Col Dave Grossman. It's a ground-breaking book on the topic.

The basics are that humans naturally have a biological resistance to killing other humans, and normally can overcome it with quite extreme social or emotional pressure, or significant distance between the killer and their target. The greater the resistance, the greater the resulting "backlash" of psychological trauma. This is why, in the civil population, most murders are "crimes of passion" between people who are very close, and also why murder-suicide is so common.

Kill conditioning seeks to lessen or ideally disable the resistance to killing. It doesn't remove empathy, or morality, or a sense of self, or any of that other nonsense. It doesn't make people want to kill or enjoy killing. It simply takes the safety off, as it were.

 

[Eulalia]

Not that I know personally, but I have several relatives in the military. Isn't the key to establish following orders and yes, to "remove the safety" as part of that?

I have wondered what characters of GRRM's are most truthful to modern day warriors and leaders. The ones that I know of would be more like the Hound, or Jaime (without the incest issues) or the Old Bear or Jon--but not so extreme. However, what do I really know? It does seem that team sports do have similar elements.

Oh yes, I think Arya will keep her Starkness. I could imagine a plot turning point going along the lines of her being sent to kill Tommen, and instead she kills Cersei, as per her list.

I though originally that GRRM was going to set up The Hound and Arya to be romantically involved down the road, since they had parallels and chemistry for dialogue. (only when Arya became older). Someone said that the Hound was more of her mentor. Not sure what will happen now!

 

[Gumboot]

Not that I know personally, but I have several relatives in the military. Isn't the key to establish following orders and yes, to "remove the safety" as part of that?

Not really. Yes, soldiers are also trained to follow orders and their individuality is suppressed but this is more about unit cohesion and teamwork than kill conditioning. Marshall (and other research) found that even without conditioning, soldiers would engage the enemy if an authority figure was present. This is collaborated by the experiences of NCOs throughout the history of warfare, who have complained since at least the Napoleonic Era about soldiers only firing when the NCO was looming over them.

This goes back further - the Ancient Romans trained their soldiers to stab rather than slash, but the resistance to stabbing is greater than to slashing, so soldiers would revert to slashing in battle, despite their training. Centurions used to regularly complain about this, and an entire Roman culture arose behind drawing a parallel with stabbing and sexual penetration, so that the masculinity of those who slashed was put into question - girls slashed, real men stabbed.

Modern kill conditioning takes places almost exclusively on the shooting range, and is very much about creating a shooting environment that more closely resembles actual combat (as opposed to the old approach of shooting at a fixed circle target).

I have wondered what characters of GRRM's are most truthful to modern day warriors and leaders. The ones that I know of would be more like the Hound, or Jaime (without the incest issues) or the Old Bear or Jon--but not so extreme. However, what do I really know? It does seem that team sports do have similar elements.

I think the strength of Martin's characters is the variety. There's many "strong" or "powerful" characters, but for very different reasons. Some are encased in an armour of honour which brings them enormous respect, some are brutes, some are just exceptionally lethal killers, some are hugely clever and out maneuver their opponents, and some are simple devoid of morals and defeat their enemies by doing things their enemies would simply never contemplate.

Oh yes, I think Arya will keep her Starkness. I could imagine a plot turning point going along the lines of her being sent to kill Tommen, and instead she kills Cersei, as per her list.

My expectation (hope?) is that, having neared completion of her training, her refusal to totally submit to the Many-Faced God will see her cast out of the Faceless Men and she'll return home as a lethal killer.

I though originally that GRRM was going to set up The Hound and Arya to be romantically involved down the road, since they had parallels and chemistry for dialogue. (only when Arya became older). Someone said that the Hound was more of her mentor. Not sure what will happen now!

I kinda felt that was more about Arya learning that things weren't as black and white as she thought. I almost expect her ultimate character arc to be that she's in position to kill Cersei or similar, but instead feels pity for her and lets her live.

 

[Eulalia]

Very interesting about Warriors, Gumboot. I'll have to check it out. I think I read that stabbing swords are cheaper and faster to make and easier to control, too! I didn't realize that they were for manly Romans.

I suppose I've never met a military person like Barristan Selmy, (or utter psychos either, to my knowledge)so I don't know if he is a romanticized figure or it is just chance. GRRM seems to go to a lot of pains to poke holes in the idealization of war and military. Some of the most touching moments belong to the Night's Watch guys who are not grand at all.

You made me notice that Arya is being trained in the House of Black and White--but the Stark wolf colour is grey. She does take the Hound off of her list.