Although our playing Risk is not the most enlightening activity when it comes to learning about war, I believe it does shed a different light on the topic.
First of all, it allows us see how complex war is. Even with the relatively simple bored game, we all struggled to remember the rules and basic strategies. Imagine how complex the actual thing is.
Second, we hesitate to attack when all we put at risk is our position and small wooden pieces. The stress that a commander is under when they give an order that could affect the outcome of a war or determine whether hundreds or thousands of people could live or die must be indescribable.
Lastly, even the jokingly aggressive remarks that we make towards teammates when they roll low numbers is indicative of the internal strife that can so readily erupt within an army.
Based on these three ideas, I believe that it is not within our ability to judge Longstreet and Lee in the worth as leaders. Given our general lack of understanding for basic warfare strategy in addition to our lack of relative leadership experience, we do not have the knowledge nor the insight to judge these two highly ranked leaders. The complexity of war, the various factors that go into each decision being made, and the internal strife that can erupt so easily within an army are just three ideas that show that although we may be able to give opinions about each man depending on the book Killer Angels, we are not in the right to judge them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
While I love the game, I still hesitate before completely connecting it to an actual war. Nevertheless, your points are completely valid. There is a sense of ego that is clear in our game that is also evident in actual war. Also, your post brings up a very important question: Who would win in a Risk game between Lee and Longstreet? Should a player in this game be overtly aggressive, like Lee, or should one be centered around defense until the perfect moment to attack? I think once we hail a winner of our class game, we should look at their strategy and really find out the best way to win in Risk and try to distinguish which leader, Lee or Longstreet, would win.
i have to say, most of the time i deal with being one girl in a classroom of guys pretty well. But when all of you get clustered around that game board so intensely, and every last one of you is as tall as i am or often much taller, it gets pretty intense. The competitiveness is a point i'd like to add to your three. i wouldn't dare count myself as apart from that competitiveness, either.
And i agree with Mikey... The final winner may or may not have a distinct strategy, but either way it would be interesting to look at.
Wow this is a great post, I completely agree with you regarding your thoughts on the game of risk. However, for the class I feel that it is actually a great way to understand some of the basic concepts that are involved in the decision-making process during a war. You have to think strategically and think a few moves ahead, you also have to think about the reprecautions of your decisions.
I also think that Michael's idea about trying to figure out the best strategy to win in risk and who would have won (either Lee or Longstreet) is a great idea and one that would be quite interesting because I am sure that the class would have different stances on the matter.
Connor, your blog is always one of my favorites to read. As people have already said, it is tough to compare risk to real war, however i think that the way you brought up the topics at hand made it work. Being a General is hard, im not arguing that. However, you cant just make decisions and be bailed out because it was a hard decision. Thats why you are a General; to make tough decisions. I think we can critique Generals for the reason that they signed up for the tough job and should live with the consequences.
Michael has a good point. We shouldn't try to put RISK and war side by side when comparing the too because there's alot more involved than just rolling a die and finding out if you've conquered more land, but it'll definitely be interesting to see who wins.
Connor, great post buddy. I like how you compared it to actual war. They are not even in the same ball park, but both have a lot in common (on paper wise). We always talk about how Lee was a stupid general because he was aggressive to a certain extent. But think about it, back then that is what they were taught and that is what they only knew. Before Gettysburg the Confederacy was winning the war. So if you were Lee, why fix something if it is not broken. Why stay defensive when you have been so successful with your current strategy. We will never know what Lee was thinking and that is why people still wonder why he ordered the charge.
Beautiful post teammate. The first two points you make are good, the last one is very good. I had not recognized that side of the reality. It is true, we get upset when our teammates roll poorly, to imagine how one would react when he learns the cause of his best friends death is the mistake of a fellow soldier must be utterly flattening. Great post
i don't think we're judging them as being bad leaders b/c they made bad tactical decisions, i do however think we have the right to judge their decisions. after all it's pretty easy to say longstreet's tactics were better suited to modern warfare than lee's. But after all, hindsight is always 20-20 right?
Post a Comment