The Troops of a Father and Son: Impact and Implications

I received a great amount of feedback to my last post in addition to some questions. In general every blogger has to accept a trade off: shorter posts are nice to read but you have to be incredibly judicious in what you post, while longer posts allow you to include a great amount of detail but you may loose a greater number of readers. Those of you that know me from grad school know that I prefer the short school. I generally do short posts and leave a few assumptions unspoken. Since I seemed to garner some interest I will now flesh out a few of those unspoken assumptions and add a few that commentators brought to my attention.

Nature of the text: This was the work of a Chinese military leader during the Warring States Period, roughly 400-300 BC. A common problem during the period was the increasing size of armies. The Spring and Autumn periods featured armies of roughly 30-50 thousand. A few hundred years later these armies had swollen to the hundreds of thousands. And these large armies could wipe out the existence of a nation in one campaign. That is why the number of states dwindled during the Warring States period from 30 to 1. Thus the command and control of large numbers of conscripts became a significant concern for leaders. Since Chinese culture already valued the respect of a child for a parent this was applied by military theoreticians. The works of Sun-Tzu, Wu-Tzu, and Wei Liao-Tzu contain admonitions that a general must be a father and the soldiers the son. This implies trust, respect and obedience in both parties that should increase the performance of armies as I described in my previous post. In fact, many of the spiritual principles found in Chinese Theory result from pragmatic concerns. The stress on these emotions were a powerful and effective way to teach leadership and soldier skills. If you examine my posts "Full Time Soldiers" and "Military Causes for the Problems in Helaman" you would see where I detected and described an increase in the army size and length of service basically similar to what Chinese Society faced in the Warring States period. So the Chinese text can help us illuminate the problems that Nephite society faced and what Mormon thought was the answer to it: stronger families as shown by the Sons of Helaman.

And perhaps a final question is in order: since Mormons today have such good families does that explain their stellar record of service to their country? Service in the country can mean work in government agencies, the military, and even service industries such as Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and the fulfillment of civic duties. Do the traits that make one a "good son" have a causal effect on the number of people that give service and the quality of that service?

Mother and Son: A commentator mentioned the difference in texts between the father and son of Wu-Tzu and the mother and son mentioned by the Sons of Helaman (hereafter cited as SoH). But many readers of Alma 56:47 look at the last half of the verse but miss out on the first half: Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives

The SoH had a cultural fortification similar to the ancient Chinese and they stated it to their father general. I don't feel the statement about their mothers is a major aberration from the text of Wu-Tzu. The Chinese text is a prescriptive military tract. While the BoM contains a description of events. In the transfer from prescriptive theory to descriptive narrative we should expect minor differences and be flexible in our application of the former to the latter.

The Beauty of the Lilies...ummm er...military theory: Its one of the fun ironies of being a military historian that sometimes the most beautiful things I read are poetry. Those that have read Charge of the Light Brigade should already appreciate that fact, but this is military theory written in terse Eastern prose. I will re post it here in a way that accentuates its form:

When they advance they cannot be withstood;
when they withdraw they cannot be pursued.
Their advancing and withdrawing are measured;
the left and right flanks respond to the signal flags.
Even if broken off from the main order they preserve their formations;
even it scattered they will reform lines.
They will hold together in peace;
they will hold together in danger.
Their number can be assembled together,
but cannot be forced apart.
They can be employed,
but they cannot be exhausted.
No matter where you can dispatch them,
no one under Heaven will be able to withstand them.
They are called 'the troops of a father and son.'

I can't force anybody to appreciate poetry, but I hope you can notice its form and message. [I'm not a poetry teacher I'm a historian, I hope I have given you enough context and examples to appreciate its beauty]

A Model for life: I asked a question earlier that applies to this section. Does the filial duty that modern LDS are known for reflect itself in superior quality of LDS servicemen? I plan on posting in the future about the paradoxical nature contained in a military text ostensibly devoted to being a more proficient killer that actually points out many of the proper moral behaviors we should have in our daily life.

Ritual Warfare: I've mentioned the similarity of this point across ancient civilizations in several places on my blog. Please check out "But Ricky", "Prearranged Battle", and "Homeric Warfare".

As always I invite comments.

The Troops of a Father and Son

I have been attending my residency at Norwich University for the past week in preparation for getting my M.A. on Friday. Today I had a little bit of free time so I found an interesting piece of text from the writings of Wu-Tzu. In the section on "Controlling the Army" we read:

Marquis Wu asked: "What measures will ensure the soldiers will be victorious?"

Wu Ch'i replied: "Control is foremost...What is meant by control is that when stationary [in camp] they observe the forms of propriety [Li] and when in action they are awesome. When they advance they cannot be withstood; when they withdraw they cannot be pursued. Their advancing and withdrawing are measured; the left and right flanks respond to the signal flags. Even if broken off from the main order they preserve their formations; even it scattered they will reform lines. They will hold together in peace; they will hold together in danger. Their number can be assembled together, but cannot be forced apart. They can be employed, but they cannot be exhausted. No matter where you can dispatch them, no one under Heaven will be able to withstand them. They are called 'the troops of a father and son.'"

In the footnote Ralph Sawyer writes: "The troops and their commander (and ruler) are characterized by a relationship similar to the idealized one between father and son: it is characterized by benevolence, righteousness, beneficence, good faith, and love from the parent with the reciprocal virtues of trust, love, respect, and obedience from the son."

I should also mention that the word Li in Chinese history refers to the proper observance of religious rituals and righteous behavior according to the Confucian tradition.

Thus the 'troops of a father and son' are righteous soldiers that have mutual love and respect between commanders and soldiers. These soldiers perform difficult maneuvers and respond well to difficult situations.

We read of a similar kind of soldier in the Book of Mormon. In Helaman 53 we read that the people of Ammon:

20...were all young men, and they were exceedingly valiant for courage, and also for strength and activity; but behold, this was not all—they were men who were true at all times in whatsoever thing they were entrusted.
21 Yea, they were men of truth and soberness, for they had been taught to keep the commandments of God and to walk uprightly before him.

In Alma 56 Helaman continues the story:

10 And I did join my two thousand sons, (for they are worthy to be called sons) to the army of Antipus, in which strength Antipus did rejoice exceedingly; for behold, his army had been reduced by the Lamanites because their forces had slain a vast number of our men...

This small army of father and sons becomes tactical bait for the Lamanites but cannot be caught by their larger army after a multi day chase in Alma 56: 30-42. Cut off from the main army but no longer being chased they debate their next course of action. Their commander recounts the soldier's reply:

43 And now, whether [the enemy army is] overtaken by [the main army] we knew not, but I said unto my men: Behold, we know not but they have halted for the purpose that we should come against them, that they might catch us in their snare;
44 Therefore what say ye, my sons, will ye go against them to battle?
45 And now I say unto you, my beloved brother Moroni, that never had I seen so great courage, nay, not amongst all the Nephites.
46 For as I had ever called them my sons (for they were all of them very young) even so they said unto me: Father, behold our God is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall; then let us go forth; we would not slay our brethren if they would let us alone; therefore let us go, lest they should overpower the army of Antipus.
47 Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.
48 And they rehearsed unto me the words of their mothers, saying: We do not doubt our mothers knew it.
49 And it came to pass that I did return with my two thousand against these Lamanites who had pursued us. And now behold, the armies of Antipus had overtaken them, and a terrible battle had commenced.


So they courageously enter battle and now we read of their performance:

52 And it came to pass that the Lamanites took courage, and began to pursue them; and thus were the Lamanites pursuing them with great vigor when Helaman came upon their rear with his two thousand, and began to slay them exceedingly, insomuch that the whole army of the Lamanites halted and turned upon Helaman.
53 Now when the people of Antipus saw that the Lamanites had turned them about, they gathered together their men and came again upon the rear of the Lamanites.
54 And now it came to pass that we, the people of Nephi, the people of Antipus, and I with my two thousand, did surround the Lamanites, and did slay them; yea, insomuch that they were compelled to deliver up their weapons of war and also themselves as prisoners of war.

After the battle Helaman wrote:

56 But behold, to my great joy, there had not one soul of them fallen to the earth; yea, and they had fought as if with the strength of God; yea, never were men known to have fought with such miraculous strength; and with such mighty power did they fall upon the Lamanites, that they did frighten them; and for this cause did the Lamanites deliver themselves up as prisoners of war.

So far we see that these "Sons of Helaman" are righteous men filled with truth, soberness and courage. When they decided to battle they rehearsed the words of their mothers and liberty of their fathers. This deference to familial teachings and the counsel of elders is considered a powerful form of proper conduct [Li] in Ancient China. They loved their father commander and he loved them in return. And they entered battle with vigor (or awesomeness) when it was not required of them. In Alma 57 we read an account of their conduct during a Lamanite counterattack:

19 But behold, my little band of two thousand and sixty fought most desperately; yea, they were firm before the Lamanites, and did administer death unto all those who opposed them.
20 And as the remainder of our army were about to give way before the Lamanites, behold, those two thousand and sixty were firm and undaunted.
21 Yea, and they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness; yea, and even according to their faith it was done unto them; and I did remember the words which they said unto me that their mothers had taught them.

Just as in the first battle, the "Sons of Helaman" perform better than the regular soldiers. They kept their proper form (in relation to their families and religion) in peace, they remained in formation (or their proper form) while in battle. They were threatened with annihilation but held firm. They obeyed and observed every order of their commander, performing "[measured] advanc[es] and withdraw[s]". They were employed but never 'exhausted in battle', chased but never caught. They were "awesome" when joining battle. They respected their commander so much they called him father. They were led and respected as sons. In short, they exemplified the traits desired by Wu-Tzu for 'the troops of a father and son'.

This post was not designed to prove a definite connection between the Book of Mormon and Asian culture. In the post titled "But Ricky", I used a Hugh Nibley quote to describe how we should expect all sorts of nonsense if we compared a work of fiction to ancient records. But instead we find that an accepted ancient record provides a strong and surprising match for a record that also claims to be ancient. This is now my 50th post, with each one I am more inclined to take away the "claim" from my previous sentence. This is one more example of a match that the critics must explain to me in order to dissuade this historian from concluding the Book of Mormon is an authentic record.

19th Century American Military Theory and the Book of Mormon

I received a question from Broz who blogs over at www.ldsdoctrine.blogspot.com, and since I wanted to move away from the bitter polemics that are often involved in apologetics I thought this would be a good transition post. It builds upon my previous posts which examine ancient military theory and tactics within the BoM by presenting common American Military thought at the time of its publication. It also references a paper concerning the principles of war, that I hope to link to when its finally posted. [I also added the reference to Weigley and corrected spelling and grammar in a couple places]


Thanks for your interest in my blog. Your question [concerning military theory and practice in 1830-1860 America] got me thinking for awhile. In order to answer it I will describe American military thought in the 19th century and the major theoreticians that influenced their behavior. And then I will compare it to events in the BoM.

After Napoleon two major theoreticians dominated military thought with the supposed lessons of warfare from the conflicts. Jomini and Clausewitz. Both writers started their works in the late 1820s and 1830s. Clausewitz was not even translated into English until after the civil war (I think), but he definitely was not translated, or even done writing by 1830. The writings of Jomini were more prevalent, but even then he was not taught extensively at West Point. West Point taught very few classes on military theory and leadership in that time, it was mainly a glorified engineering school (that's what Lee graduated in for example). It was not until the late 19th century that they added command and general staff schools on the model of German successes and they started using Clausewitz.

High Nibley has discussed the elements of Clausewitzean theory in the BoM. You can find it here: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=727

I have also discussed Captain Moroni's leadership using the same author here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2009/01/clausewitz-on-captain-moronis-genius.html

In both cases the BoM definitely exhibits military thought and strategy far beyond what Joseph Smith had available to him. I also have done research that is accepted for publication (BCC E Journal) that describes principles of war taught to current army officers within the BoM. Again this is far beyond what J.S. displayed in his life and writings and even beyond common knowledge of military officers in that day. The principles of war were not explicated until the 1920s by a British army officer named J.F.C. Fuller.(Clausewitz gave some too but Fuller's are much better known) They are now drilled into U.S. Army officers to help them analyze information.

Within the BoM there is some Jominian thought. This was a post Napoleonic writer that was popular in America before the Civil War. The practice of Moroni having separate parts of his army pinch an enemy army between them does sound similar to his Jomini's main principle. (max the most amount of strength at a specific point) But the many ruses and stratagems employed by Moroni are common among ancient armies. A Roman writer named Frontinus wrote about many of these at about 75 BC, about the same time as Moroni.

With military theory you can use accepted principles and push them backwards, such as post Napoleonic writers. But you can also use contemporary writers to place BoM events within its expected time frames. In short: the BoM displays many correct military principles codified by writers Joseph Smith did not have access to. It is also corroborated by military writers that were contemporaries of BoM events, such as Frontinus and Caesar. Again, Smith did not have access to these either. (Unless we can believe that he read untranslated German military theory in the moonlight after working as a farmer all day and other nonsense)

So I hope that answers your question. Let me know if it does not. For further reading you can see "American Strategy from the Beginning to World War I" by Russell Weigley in The Makers of Modern Strategy.

Great News

A few posts ago I mentioned how its been tough looking for jobs. Despite the sluggish economy I recently was hired as a teacher at Trine University (nationally ranked by the Princeton Review for all of you haters out there). This doesn't have all that much to do with warfare in the Book of Mormon, but it does impact this site. In preparation for my classes this fall I will have to research and create a couple syllabi, then start my preparation for the classes. (I am teaching undergraduate courses in The People of Japan and Contemporary Issues btw)

This signifies how people outside of Mormonism respect and value my research. My resume included two significant papers I have done concerning Book of Mormon research, my teaching experience as a missionary, my undergraduate education at a supposedly inferior school such as Southern Virginia University, and my time as a counselor at LDS themed youth camps. Yet despite all the clues that I was a "lying", "brainwashed" Mormon that produces "shoddy work", they still hired me. For people without prejudices against Mormons this doesn't seem a point worth mentioning and I apologize for laying it on thick, but many critics of the church contend that Mormon scholars are only accepted for their work outside of Mormonism and they proceed to scoff, ridicule, or disqualify anything and anybody that defends Mormonism. Again, I was hired by the strength of my thoroughly Mormon resume, you ignore me and other Mormon scholars at the cost of your academic reputation.

So you combine the preparation for class with the paper on premodern Chinese Naval theory that I am preparing for next year's Society for Military History conference, and the research into the Gadianton Insurgency that I described below, and I simply won't have a great deal of time to devote to indepth and exhaustively researched posts. But I still appreciate my loyal readers and I plan on offering small gems as I continue my regular study of the book.
Update: I've been informed through email that the comments are not working for at least one person. If everybody who reads this could try it out and let me know, I will do my best to fix the problem. Thank you for your patience.