Would you live forever?
Randomly, I came across these two quotes only two days apart while researching completely different things.
The first is from a post by Richard Fernandez:
One didn’t intellectually convince people to attack the German lines. One led them – a wholly different thing.
“Daly is popularly attributed in Marine Corps lore as yelling, ‘Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?’ to his men during the Battle of Belleau Wood. Daly later told a Marine Corps historian that his words were ‘For Christ’s sake men – come on! Do you want to live forever?’”
It was just a couple of days earlier that I had come across the following in a 1989 review of the book Self-Consciousness by John Updike, which offers this Updike quote from the book:
Now I have long since, in deference to my emphysema, given up smoking, even the smoking of little cigars that, after I broke the cigarette habit, used to get me through the stress of composition. Also, I have given up salt and coffee in deference to high blood pressure and alcohol in deference to methotrexate. The big-bellied Lutheran God within me looks on scoffingly. ‘Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?’ Frederick the Great thundered at his battle-shy soldiers – ‘Dogs, would you live forever?’ ”
I wondered whether Daly was aware of the Frederick the Great quote, and when I went to Daly’s Wiki page, interestingly enough, the Frederick the Great quote popped up there, too:
An earlier use of a similar phrase is attributed to Frederick the Great: “Lads, do you want to live forever?” (German: Kerle, wollt ihr ewig leben?), addressing retreating Prussian troops at the 1757 Battle of Kolén.
Note the daintier form: lads instead of dogs. I bet that “dogs” is correct, though; “lads” just seems impossible in such a context—and, if said, would have been far less memorable.
Daly seems to have cleaned up his own quote, too. But again, I have a sneaking suspicion that “sons of bitches” was almost certainly the original.
Note that both purported originals use a dog metaphor. Are dogs so very cowardly? I thought many of them tend to be rather brave, especially if dealing with danger to their owners or their pups.
I can testify that one should do the things one wants while (s)he is physically and mentally able. At age 68, I should be sitting in a rocking chair on my porch reminiscing, but next month I’ll be flying across the Country at 200 MPH in an airplane I built myself.
Towanda!
That “Kerle” is the plural of Kerl which means “fellow, guy, chap, bloke”; see here. Also, the German word for dogs is Hunde, so Frederick would have to have said: “Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?” Question is, which quote is correct?
To add to the confusion, the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations give the German as: “Ihr Racker, wallt ihr ewig leben?” or “Rascals, would you live forever?”.
Ah, cleaning up history!
Gulliver’s Travels are delightful and enlightening. IOW humans as they are, actually.
This is the way we actually deal with each other, a premise which necessarily requires morals and ethics.
The struldbrugs show us what is what.
Dogs always follow a leader, once they find out who it is.
Snopercod,
Good for you. I’m sure you will have a wonderful time.
From Shakespeare:
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter’d with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
(I had supposed the phrase “dogs of war” came from Henry V, but I was wrong. It is from Julius Caesar.)
“Dogs” isn’t always an insult. It can imply fellow membership in a pack – as long as the speaker is understood to be including herself in the group.
Remember “dogfaces” from WWII.
Dogs aren’t cowardly, it’s more of a term for soldiers… the lowly. Often also dog-faced men. Driven hard, men cannot keep up their appearances. I don’t think the dog part impugns bravery. Just identifies the powerless who must act for the powerful, and risk death, for very little, if any, reward.
Though the natural state of man is not sufficient that he would even slaughter without cost, but because of the price of the effort. So war, in which personal loss is involved… war is not natural to man at all. Dispute, perhaps, when work isn’t sufficient to weary him. But not so much war. At most dueling. It seems, however, too often the man who was better to have lived did not live, so they put the nubs to even dueling.
Even the best warriors sometimes needed a boost. Disregarding mortality is a good one. Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil. For I am the meanest son of a bitch in the valley. There are other means. If I were to advise men, if more quietly, I would just, throughout their training, let them come to the understanding that they are already dead. As such, they have nothing to fear in going forward. I do consider myself as such, and have for decades. I can’t let it go, might yet have work to do. Work which requires a certain disregard.
“Dogs” is the universal invocation for a ‘Pack Attack.’
It’s the emphasis on the Group that carries the freight.
Ancient armies DID use actual “dogs of war” — typically with massive leather collars that held embedded spikes.
Their primary purpose would be to “dog down” skirmishers, as they would never be effective against ranked infantry.
[ Pikes or guns, it’d be dead dogs either way. ]
Infantry == baby fighters
An allusion to the fact that the age of the infantry ranks skewed young — as in teenage boys. To be contrasted with “Man at Arms”
And, lastly, the very common term “man of war” when used to describe combatant vessels in the age of sail. Note that commercial vessels were invariably addressed as female. The male form of address — for combatant ships — is still the norm in German. ( In direct contrast to “Fighting Lady” used by the USN. )
%%%
There is the drastic schism between the sexes: there is never a time when it makes sense for a female to approach danger// spoil for a fight.
Whereas for the male, it is essential that personal safety be set aside to protect the family// clan// tribe// nation.
No woman would ever be brought up on martial charges for running from a battle. It’s expected behavior.
Females do have a life-critical role: THE oldest profession ==> nursing the wounded. In the Crusades nurses were universally termed “washer women” — as they were removing, washing, and replacing all bandages.
This massive nursing corps is almost invariably ill described in contemporary accounts — as being “the baggage train.”
‘Baggage’ my eye! It’s the medical corps and food prep staff !
Hence, in any battle, things turn quickly the moment the opposition is able to attack the women// the “baggage train.”
A subtle but important difference between Sgt. Daly, USMC and Frederick the Great is that Sgt. Daly was calling on his men to follow him, even it meant their deaths, while the Prussian King was demanding that his troops obey him even if it meant their deaths.
Thanks, parker. Flying over the Rocky Mountains should be “interesting”. Here’s the (IMHO) definitive YouTube video on Neo’s topic: Henry V – Speech – Eve of Saint Crispin’s Day
snopercod…
That was one crafty king.
After exhaustive study, from that very field (STILL strewn with debris from that battle ) the evidence is in. The French knights defeated themselves. The English longbows were not a significant factor in the battle at all. (The French had up-armored, wearing plate that was proof against them. )
[ Down right amazing what the metal detectors keep pulling up.]
It turns out that the terrible clay soil — so much commented upon during WWI further up the coast — killed the French.
It’s totally beyond the power of one man to raise himself — once fallen — upon that gluttonous mud. Even the attempt will bring a man — in good health — up to heat stroke.
‘Twas like a stiff version of quick sand.
The self-destruction was so complete that most of the English line actually could not get into the fight. The French were killing themselves while out of effective combat range!
That latter point stunned the modern experts.
The missing element that all contemporary accounts regale was the fog and mist. The French actually rode in blind — no appreciating whatsoever that the plain gave away to either side. It’s against all instinct of horses to obliquely gallop down a depression. So each wing of the French attack crowed in on each other until they lost control during the charge.
Once the first calamity occurred, the subsequent charges merely piled on the fatalities.
The French had so up-armored their kit that they couldn’t get up if they fell over — which appears to have been a universal failing for those fellows.
Consequently, the French inflicted almost no casualties upon the English, while losing virtually every knight that charged.
When the fog lifted, even the English were stunned.
(After the Atom Bombs were dropped..) “…we would live to be old men.”
E.B.Sledge, “With the Old Breed on Peleliu and Okinawa”.
The big-bellied Lutheran God within me looks on scoffingly. ‘Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?’ Frederick the Great thundered at his battle-shy soldiers — ‘Dogs, would you live forever?’ ”
Two Kaiser latter:
‘Das habe ich nicht gewollt.’
Wilhelm II, the last Kaiser, at verdun.
Zieg!
dog isn’t always a insult… when you’re swinging the bravado; dog can be a compliment.
For soldiers, duty and honor are more valuable than life, if the life is cowardly.
As the father of two retired military officers (Marine and Army-25+ years both) plus the Marine’s wife is a retired Marine Officer (she out ranks him also 25+ years) both deployed and saw battles, I agree with Neo. Suspect the language was a lot rougher than the published and admitted to language! And there is nothing wrong with that in the heat of battle and trying to get your troops either angry enough of ashamed enough to turn and attack. Way to go troops!
This reminds me of the “every man dies” quote from Braveheart. For honorable men, such an appeal will always compel, provided it is true that every man will eventually die.
It seems odd, or perhaps tragic, that death is so important in giving meaning to life.
Marines are called Devil Dogs among other things.
The quote was used in Starship Troopers… very cheesy.
he s exhorting them “to put it ALL on the line”
of course he d call them “dogs” to provoke them !
A great great tactic !
Oliver Sacks will not live forever, at least bodily.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/30/oliver-sacks-dies-aged-82-eminent-neurologist-author-awakenings
Dog’s aren’t cowardly, but they aren’t stupid. They are pack animlas — They usually look to someone to lead them into combat.
Think of the way a pack takes down a larger animal — they run in and nip at it from behind, then run away before it can turn around and attack. The larger animal dies the death of a thousand cuts.
This is not full frontal attack, by any means.
And usually the Alpha dog does the first nip. And if the alpha dog retreats, the rest will follow.
So yes, the dog analogy is applicable.
blert: Thanks for adding the historical details of Againcourt. I think the point was that those men didn’t know about the mud, and probably thought they were going to die in battle; But they went anyway. The fact that it was nature and heavy armor that defeated the French doesn’t diminish the courage of the English for stepping up to the fight when they were hopelessly outnumbered. One could only wish that the current republican “leadership” in congress had that kind of courage.
Hunde, wollt ihr ewig Leben? The quote lives on as the title of this 1959 film about the Battle of Stalingrad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxS7uFNX4sk
I’ve always been partial to the “small boys attack” order to the Destroyer Escorts that sent them against the JN battleships at the Battle off Samar. That and “Panzer Kreuzer ran an den fiend” from the death ride of the German battle cruisers at Jutland.
Blert:
Where did you get that info?
Gotta tell you though… I really don’t want to live forever. Unfortunately, I don’t think some of us get to choose. *rictus grin*
Cornhead Says:
August 30th, 2015 at 9:26 pm
Blert:
Where did you get that info?
The BBC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVuVtP_xepU&index=1
Artfldgr Says:
April 9th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
some people embrace all of reality, including risk, and outcomes… for those people, religion is something else, and life is something to be lived by not fearing death.
while campy, its summed up in the overused missive from the wars, when one man wanted the others to charge into fire…
do you want to live forever?
those that say yes, never live at all…
religion, can hold that anxiety away, but in truth, most of it is fear of living… and religion makes living more accessible to those who would not live, but exist in fear.
do you want to live forever?
those that say yes, never live at all…
religion, can hold that anxiety away, but in truth, most of it is fear of living… and religion makes living more accessible to those who would not live, but exist in fear.
Exactly!
Die fighting or die hogtied, hog!
I plan to live forever.
But barring that, a couple thousand years.
Even 500 would be pretty nice.
Following on Doom’s theme, that was one of the memorable moments in the Band of Brothers miniseries. One of the minor characters (but an officer still) was fearless and inspired other people. When asked how he was able to do things that others backed away from, he said he considered himself already dead.
Back to the main question, as a Christian I believe I will live forever (at least I hope to!). Due to this, I consider death something to be prepared for rather than something that terrifies me.
There was no such thing as equality back then in English or Welsh days. There was feudalism. A dog may be a part of the family and may hunt with the family, but it is not accorded equal status with humans. Same for soldiers serving under their feudal lord, same for vassals serving their lord.