Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Chapter 1-Dying "To Lay Down My Life"
During the civil war, the ars moriendi or proper way for a person to die was threatened because of the high death tolls that the war inflicted in a short amount of time. Why were soldiers honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members even though the facts may have threatened ars moriendi? Do you believe that soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades regardless of circumstances(when aswering this question, feel free to think about more modern wars as well)? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members even though it threatened ars moriendi becuase the letters to the families not only included their "Christian achievements" but their "miltiary performances" as well. This threatened ars moriendi because military achievements were not always associated with the Christian church.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Soldiers should be honest about fallen comrades regardless of the circumstances because when faced so closely with death people tend to show the real them. If a fallen soldier died in battle the the family should know about his accomplishments out of war and during war. As in todays war in Iraq people come back changed and they are different and both sides of people should be reconized no matter the circumstances in which they are in.
The soldiers were honest in their letters because they believed that the families had a right to know the way the soldier died and how the "funeral" had taken place. The large death tolls were looked on as threatrening ars moriendi because the " Good Death" was the way many religious affiliations believed was the way to die and the war was not taking on death like the church would have wanted and it didn't exemplify the "good death".
ReplyDeleteSoldiers were honest about their comrade’s deaths, despite the fact that it threatened the ars moriendi, for multiple reasons. Chief among these is the fact that soldiers who served in the Civil War formed powerful bonds and relationships, due largely to the horrific experiences they shared. This enabled them to disclose information about their “brothers’” deaths with complete honesty. When notifying a fallen soldier’s family, no soldier of that time would have willingly risked tarnishing their deceased comrade’s crucial last moments, and by extension the relationship they had once shared, with dishonestly. Also, “The Good Death proved to be a concern shared by almost all Americans of every religious background.” This allowed the majority of dying soldiers to piece together an impromptu ars moriendi in their final moments. This dramatically reduced the amount of deaths that soldiers would have been required to lie about to provide family members the comfort they so desperately sought.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades if the soldier’s family expresses the desire for them to do so, regardless of the circumstances. I feel this way because when it comes to something as significant as death, I think it is critical that no detail is spared, no matter how unappealing it may be. If the family is content with the knowledge that their loved one died serving our country that is perfectly fine. Yet, if they want details concerning the death, I think they are entitled to them.
The soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades because the soldiers knew that the last moments of their friend’s life was crucial, not only to the dying soldier, but that soldier’s family as well. When informing the family of the death of their loved one, the consolation letter was meant to “make absent loved ones virtual witnesses to the dying moments they had been denied…to mend the fissures war had introduced into the fabric of the Good Death.” Even if the soldier’s death threatened ars moriendi, the family still wanted and needed to know how their loved one had died. They wouldn’t lie to the family, but many fellow soldiers, pastors, doctors, and nurses would walk a dying soldier through the “art” of dying, so that a Good Death could be reported. They would ask the soldier for last words and messages, and confirmation of their salvation as well. When informing the family, the information would usually include “the deceased had been conscious of his fate, had demonstrated willingness to accept it, had shown signs of belief in God and in his own salvation, and had left messages and instructive exhortations for those who should have been at his side.” Comrades would not lie about a dead soldier’s death, but they would try to walk them through ars moriendi so that the family could be assured.
ReplyDeleteNick
ReplyDeleteI agree that the family should be able to know all of the details of a soldier’s death if that is what they want. If it was possible, the family would want to be with the dying soldier, and if the closest they can get to that crucial time is through another soldier that witnessed that death, they should be able to know everything that happened before and during his or her last moments.
The fact that soldiers were honest, I believe was the right thing. Although, it was looked on as threatening ars moriendi because to the church, dieing in war wasn't the honorable way to die. Which I also believe wasn't such a good thing. But, I believe that the fallen have a right to have there story's shared so that when the war was over people would hopefully know that they didn't die in vein. Just put yourself in the situation of dieing at war. Would you want your story to be told?
ReplyDeleteThe soldiers were honest when writing to the family of a fallen comrade because, “The Good Death proved to be a concern shared by almost all Americans of every religious background.” In ars moriendi, the last dieing moments were crucial for last minute instructions and afterlife knowledge. As Makayla said, the consolation letters were meant to make absent loved ones virtually there. They were meant to mend the fissures that war had imposed upon ars moriendi. These letters had to be honest as the family would be looking for last minute instruction and confirmation of the deceased salvation for hopes that they would one day see them again in the after life. Honesty threatened ars moriendi, but soldiers hoped to decrease the threat by walking the dying through the good death, recording their final moments.
ReplyDeleteI believe honesty about comrades deaths is of utmost importance. Death is of great importance in many different lifestyles. No detail should be spared. All details are crucial for the families final assessment of the deceased. I also agree with Chandler in that people would want the true story of their death to be revealed, especially to the ones they valued most.
The soldiers were honest when writing to the fallen comrade's family because, as much as it threatened ars moriendi, the family would want to know what happened. For soldiers a "Good Death" was death with family and instructions into death. Those 600,000 soldiers who died were denied the major parts of "Good Death". So in order to provide some measure of "Good Death" hurt and dying soldiers were often visited by comrades before death. They would then write letters to their family, telling them about the death. As Tori said, "The families had a right to know the way the soldier died and how the 'funeral' had taken place". Parents would send letters to the regiments asking for information on their life while in the war. And what the comrades wrote back was exactly that. They included how they felt religiously and what military honors, if any, they received. Faust writes, "Another Confederate castigated himself for not stopping in the aftermath of an 1863 battle to record an enemy soldier's last words and transmit them to his family." This man would have written to an enemy soldiers family. For all of these reasons, I truly believe that being honest through these letters was important for the family and fallen comrade.
ReplyDeleteMikayla
ReplyDeleteI agree that information should be provided for the family. The Soldiers honored both the parents and comrade through their writing. What you said in your post effectively talks about the acts of ars moriendi and the insurance of the family. It did give the family a way to be a 'virtual witness' to the death. Which gave the family the ability to have some of "Good Death". They should absolutely be given the facts of their son or father or husband's death.
Tori
ReplyDeleteI agree with your answer. Ars moriendi was threatened by the expansive death toll as people feared a proper death could not be given to the soldiers. Despite this many still fought in the war and when a comrade was dieing, one of the living would do their best to walk them through the proper death for the sake of the victim's family and the common proper death belief. The soldiers should be honest with reporting the death, as you said, because one reveals themselves in the face of death. Knowing the soldiers accomplishments I believe is also important as it allows the family to be proud of the individual for more reasons then that of “they served in the war”. I greatly agree with you that all soldiers who come back from a war should be recognized as they have just went through numerous hardships and are changed because of it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSoldiers were honest about fallen comrades because they felt that the soldier’s kin should know what happened to their loved one during his last moments, as stated “‘We promised each other’ that if any were wounded or killed, ‘we would see that they were assisted off the field if wounded and if dead to inform the family of the circumstances of death.’” (14). Soldiers felt not only religiously, but also morally obligated to tell the truth about fallen soldiers. The soldiers and families wanted the dead to be remembered honorably, and felt that family should be informed, because “Family was central to the ars moriendi tradition” (10). Although hearing the story of how a loved one died was painful, families knew it would be even more painful to not know what happened, ‘I write to you because I know you would be delighted to read a word from your dying son.’ (16). I believe soldiers should be honest about fallen comrades, because family- more than anyone, deserves to know what happened in the soldier’s final moments. I believe that it would be much more painful to find out I was lied to about a relative’s death, than it would be to hear the truth.
ReplyDeleteSoliders thought that every soliders family had the right to know what had happened to there son, husband, uncle, or brother etc. Even though some of the details might have effected the ars moriendi of that person, the soliders thought that every family needed to know how their family member had died in order to serve his country. I belive that soliders should always be honest when it comes to informing a family of a fallen solider.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the soldiers would be honest in their letters because the families diserved to know how they died. I dont think that they wanted to lie to the families of their falen friends. I think that soldiers should always be honest in their letters regardless of the surcomstances because that is what the families would expect of them. If i had a family member killed in a war i would want to know the truth. I wouldent want someone to lie to me to make me feel better i would want to know what really happened.
ReplyDeleteThere are some very strong reasons a soldier would tell the truth about their comrades deaths even if it threatened the ars moriendi. The fall of a very good friend in battle is not only hard on the family but on the soldier telling the family. Why should you lie about your best friend's final moments to their family? You have your memories of him and then the family would have different, untrue memories of the same person for the rest of their life. That would be a hard thing to live with. To lie to the most important people in a person's life about such an important, somber thing as death is not right. I know that if I died, I wouldn't want someone to make up a story of maybe a better death to my family. Every person only gets one death, and unfortunately, there are lies to what really happened in many of them. The family truly deserves to know how their beloved one actually died.
ReplyDeleteRespond to C.J.,
ReplyDeleteThat is right. Any family member who had a loved one die would never want to be lied to about their death. Also, soldiers were more, as you said, obligated to tell a family the truth about a soldiers death. That is part religously and also that the soldier knows that they could be killed at any time too and would want a soldier to recount the events of his death truthfully. It would hurt much to find out that your loved one died in another way and know that you were lied to about their death.
The soldiers in the Civil War would be truthful about the deaths of other soldiers for a few reasons. First, the soldiers felt obligated to tell the family of the fallen soldier because they knew if they died, they would want their family to know the truth. Also, the soldiers formed very strong bonds while fighting by each others side. So, it was hard for a soldier to tell a family lies about his best friend.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, families need to know how their sons and husbands died. With an issue as monumental as death, a family has the right to know how their loved ones died, even if it threatens ars moriendi
In response to Jordan Farmer, I agree with your entire post, especially your statement that the last moments were crucial for last minute instructions and afterlife knowledge. ‘What you are when you die, the same will you reappear in the great day of eternity.’ (9). Also, that no detail should be spared and that “people would want the true story of their death revealed”. Even though a soldier’s death may have been portrayed as honorable and heroic, I know that I would definitely want the truth to be told if I died in the war.
ReplyDeleteFor the soldiers that had to write to families about a dead family memeber, it was important for them to be completely honest about how they died. It's important because the family should be given that respect to know if their son, husband, or father represented their country in his last moments of life. Even though the truth about the way they died goes against the ars moriendi, its the correct moral aspect to tell the truth.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what the circumstances are I do believe that it is important to be honest. Of course having to right to a fallen comrades' family about their death would not be easy. But telling the truth would make it slightly easier to fully say goodbye to their fallen comrade. For instance, if i had a family memeber fighting in the war in Iraq right now, I would want to know exactly how he/she died no matter how hard it would be to hear.
C.J,
ReplyDeleteI completly agree with what you stated and quoted in your comment, because you are right. Any family deserves to the know the truth as hard as it might be. And given the circumstances of war, the family had to atleast expect some bad news. Towards the end of your post you said it would be harder to find out you were lied too. I agree with that, I would feel betrayed of knowing the real reason my family memeber had died.
Although it may have threatened ars moriendi, the soldiers were honest about their comrades' deaths with the families because, as many have said, the family had a right to know about the soldier's final moments. They were showing to the families how their soldier died a hero, even though he may not have had what was considered a "good death". I believe the soldiers developed a bond amongst themselves and began to look at each other as honorable men. So when one of their comrades died they told the family the true story because, to the soldiers, it was an honorable death.
ReplyDeleteI do believe the soldiers should be honest because in a way death during war is different. The soldiers are dying while protecting their country and even their own families. If they died protecting their families, then the families deserves to know the truth.
I agree with C.J.'s point that "any family member who had a loved one die would never want to be lied to about their death." Also the soldiers died heroes and the families deserved to know this. Lying to the family would in a way show disrespect toward the fallen soldier.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Civil War, soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members because the family had a right to know how their loved one died. This was often hard, because the idea of ars moriendi, or “the good death”, was often threatened. However, as challenging as it was to notify loved ones of this tragedy, the soldiers were honest for another reason. This was the fact that while fighting in war, the soldiers themselves had become like family. Since they knew the truth, the real families had the right to know as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the soldiers have a duty to be honest about their fallen comrades. This is because even though the truth may be hard to hear, the families of the departed should know how they really died. Although I believe this, I also believe that the families have a right to choose not to know how their loved one died. If they wish to just know that their loved one died for their country, so be it. If they want to know exactly how they died, the living soldiers should feel an obligation to be completely honest.
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with what you have said. I also believe that the families of lost soldiers deserve to know the truth about how they died. I love how you associated knowing the truth with respect. It truly is a respectful task to be able to tell a family if their beloved son, father, brother, or other relative died while representing their country. They also should know if, unfortunately, they were not doing a noble deed in the moments of death. For example, if it was not a “good death”. Morals really do play an important roll in this idea of truth. Like you said, I would want know how he/ she died no matter how hard it may be to hear.
I think soldiers were honest when writing families because they wanted the family to know exactly how there loved one had died.Thus giving them a window into being at their side when they had died. Even though the deaths were not always "good deaths" they chose to be honest for the sake of showing the family the truth instead of covering it up and always saying they died well. Such is the same in more modern wars as well friends and comrades will still write the families after death of their loved one to comfort that family.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the soldiers in any war if writing family should be as honest as possible when writing about the death of their comrade. Even if the death did not follow the Ars Moriendi tradition i believe the family still wanted/had the right to know exactly how their loved on died.
When writing to families after the death of a loved one, soldiers were very honest with the details- even if they threatened ars moriendi. To a family during the 19th century, it was hard enough not having kin die in the comfort of their own home. A death hundreds of miles away with no news on how such a tragedy happened was one of the worst horrors of war. Not knowing these details made family members not only mourn the physical death of their loved one, but also the possible spiritual death. Families wanted to know if they had a chance at meeting their lost kin in heaven, and knowing these important details of death took a burden off of the family's suffering. It was better for them to know the way a family member died in an honest letter than have one that lied to exhibit a “good death.”
ReplyDeleteWhen writing these condolence letters, I would be torn about whether or not to write completely honestly. If a family was forced to endure the loss of a member, I would want to give them a good lasting memory accounting this death even if it was considered a "bad death" based upon Christian principles. The last thing I would want to do is be forced to leave them with details that would leave them forever shamed and find no closure. In my opinion, it is both good and bad for soldiers to be completely honest when writing these letters.
C.J. and Danielle-
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. You stated that "the family had to at least expect some bad news" which is a very good point. In a time of war no family could be completely sure that their kin was safe, for there was too much uncertainty. I hadn't considered how difficult it would be for family to find out they were lied to about how their loved ones died. Danielle was right in stating betrayal was the only feeling you would have. It would be hard to cope with knowing you had been cheated out of knowledge that was rightfully yours. Great points!
Jordan-
ReplyDeleteYou made a very good statement when you said "All details are crucial for the families final assessment of the deceased." It is true that families ultimately wanted to know such gruesome details of death because they hoped for salvation of the dead and unity in eternity. It is only after knowing these details that a family could find a sense of relief in knowing what was yet to come for the deceased according to Christian law. Very good emphasis on a major detail.
Kendra and Danielle-
ReplyDeleteI agreed with what you said about morals because I really do believe that that had a lot to do with why they told the truth about fallen comrades deaths. I had never thought about that before but it makes a lot of sense.
Soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members even though the facts may have threatened ars moriendi.I believe they did this because the soldier's last moment should be shared to their family. These same things happen in the more modern wars.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that if a soldier dies on the battle field thier family needs to be told how it happend no matter how it happened.
Baker
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said when you said that the family would be given a window to be at the side of the loved ones by knowing how they had died. Even though it wasn't a "Good Death". That was good.
I agree with what Chris had said. Every family of a soldier has the right to know what had happened to their son, father, etc. Even throughout the war, soldiers had become friends and if one had died, it would be harder for the other to tell the family about the tragedy.
ReplyDeletehank hammond
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe that soldiers should tell the truth about their fallen comrads. It's not like how you die defines your charactor or how you have lived your life. If your love ones know that you have lived a heroic life, they won't care how you died, and even so, it was probaly also heroic. You see the same type of stories now in modern wars and many get medal of honor for their heroism. So all in all, lieing to the fallen's loved ones is unethical and unnecessary.
hank hammond
ReplyDeleteIn response to Larissa
I partly agree with Larissa in the soldiers being credited with honesty towards the victim's family. This would ultimatly be the write thiing to do. Yet you mentioned that it was sometimes necessary to lie to help the families to feel better. I disagree. If the families knew that he had a good life, than the can asume their meeting in heaven. The death should not matter enough to the piont were they should ever lie to the family.
I agree with Tori that the soldier's letters were honest to the families of the dead. The families had the right to know how there loved ones died. Although it may have threatened ars moriendi, you don't need to there families. It is good to have honesty.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Sheehan,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your statements. No matter how hard it might have been to tell the family members of a fallen comrade's death, I think that morally, you must tell them the truth.
There are two very distinctive, but completely debatable sides to this argument. A soldier could either relieve his conscience to the family concerning how their son, husband, father had actually died; or he could tell them that the soldier had faced a Good Death regardless of whether or not it was the truth. Soldiers were truthful about their fallen comrades because of their beliefs at the time. They thought it better to demonstrate integrity and honesty when explaining a loved one’s death rather than not. This is quite puzzling to me due to the fact that chapter one seems to be dedicated to illustrate how vital a Good Death was. The fierce religious and moral beliefs of the nineteenth century public are lucid during the time of the Civil War. All Christians, Jews, etc. had one thing in common: they believed in the ars moriendi. When “soldiers and their families struggled in a variety of ways to mitigate such cruel realities, to construct a Good Death even amid chaos, to substitute for missing elements or compensate for unsatisfied expectations” (9) how could a soldier have the heart to inform a wife that her husband had, in contrast to the ars moriendi, demonstrated lack of faith, despair, impatience, spiritual pride, and avarice; the five temptations that plague a dying man? How could a soldier tell a mother that her son had died in opposition to the ars moriendi, completely and utterly alone, devoid of friends or family at his deathbed? How could a soldier possibly break the news to a little girl that no prayers to were said to her father as he took his last breaths lying alone on a battlefield “‘in an enemys land far from home’” (9)? This is such a difficult question for me that I cannot give a definite answer. I can only say that if I were a soldier fighting in the Civil War, having the widespread belief of the Good Death, or for that matter, any war, I would lie. Nevertheless these men felt it wrong to lie, so they told the truth. Perhaps this was because of their ethics, their need for some sincerity in the midst of the turmoil. Their compulsion to tell the whole story took precedence over the ars moriendi. This was not comfort for the family, it was comfort for themselves. In my judgment, they should have lied. The men should have fabricated the death of their comrade because loss of life “is not like a birth, or marriage, or a painful accident, or a lingering sickness. It has an importance that cannot be estimated by men” (8). Death’s absolute permanence should be reason enough to stretch the truth in exchange for a lifetime of comfort. Death is the last thing anyone does on earth. My question is why paint a depraved, substandard, unpleasant picture in the minds of the living? Why not create an amiable one?
ReplyDeleteRE: Kendra LaFonte
ReplyDeleteI agree with your what you said about the family’s rights and the soldier’s duty to some extent but isn’t there more? Isn’t there more in life than duty? In a time of such turmoil and misfortune there should definitely be more than responsibility and obligation. There should be a point in time in which rights should be politely ignored and interminable feelings should come into play. At such a time, a different brand of duty comes into place; the one that is not recognized aloud but still silently appreciated. As for the family, they have a right to go on living; even one of them does not. What’s more, they deserve to continue life with peace of mind.
Soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members even though the facts may have threatened ars moriendi because they wanted to truthfully and honorably express the sacrifice that the soldier made for his homeland. By fighting in the war, he died to prevent others from killing and dishonoring the moral principles of a “Good Death.” It is no easy feat to charge into battle knowing that you could die at any moment. There is no greater sacrifice than fighting for what you believe in and the protection of your country. For example, in today’s wars and society some people care more about the death of a movie star rather than the death of a soldier in battle. What has the movie star done for the country? Has he/she risked their lives so we may be free? Regardless of the circumstances of death, I believe that soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades. In the letter to the family regarding the soldier’s death, truthful facts would help them let go of the deceased rather than falsifying the facts just to make it seem like a “Good Death”, and making it harder for them to believe he is gone.
ReplyDeleteRe: C.J.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about how “soldiers felt not only religiously, but morally obligated to tell the truth about fallen soldiers.” The families of the soldiers would want to hear about every detail of the death in hopes of making the passing of the soldier a little bit easier. The comrade writing the letter would probably want the same thing if he had died and his friend had not. If I were in their shoes, I would have the moral responsibility to write the family informing them of their loved ones’ death.
The soldiers were honest when writing to the fallen comrade's families because, as much as it threatened ars moriendi, the moral and honest thing to do was let this man's family know what truly happened at the time of his death. This deceased man made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and died in the most honorable way possible in defense of what he believed in. As much as those that have to deal with the death of their fallen loved one deserve to know the truth, the man that put his life down on the battlefield deserves this treatment even more. If a member of my family fighting in the war in Iraq even today were to be killed in action I deserve to know exactly what happened and the fallen fighter I know would have it no other way. At the time it went against their long followed beliefs, but these men told the truth because it was the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteIn response to CJ
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you have stated in your previous post. Especially when you said "they felt that the soldier’s kin should know what happened to their loved one during his last moments." It is clear that many young children lost their fathers due to this war before they even had the opportunity to know him. Imagine having no memory of your father and having no idea how he passed. That is painful, and as you stated the following generation deserved to know what their fathers sacrificed on the battlefield the day of his death, and deserved to know the truth.
In my opinion the soldiers should be honest with the families of their fallen comrades regardless of the situation even though it may threaten ars moriendi, because I think that the families would want to know what really happened to their family members. I think that the soldiers were honest with families although it threatened ars moriendi because I think they felt that the families deserved to know what happened.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Sheehan-
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you stating that the families deserved to know whether or not their family member represented their country in their final moments of life.
Soldiers in the Civil War were honest about the deaths of their fallen comrades because their family deserved to know how they died. Even if the death threatened the tradition of ars morendi I think lying about how someone died is an awful thing to do. When a soldier died on the battlefield their kin wasn’t able to hear their last words or perform rituals that were essential to the “Good Death”, “As sermonizers reminded their congregations: A death-bed’s a detector of the heart.” Describing how the soldier died and his last words to his family in a letter not only brought closure but also it was the right thing to do morally.
ReplyDeleteMatt Coen-
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you that "there is no greater sacrifice than fighting for what you believe in and the protection of your country". If we didn't have soldiers willing to sacrifice their life we wouldn't have the great, free country we have today.
Soldiers should definitely be honest to the families regarding the fate of their soldier. I believe that the family has the absolute right to know the truth, even though it might have threatened the families belief that they would all be together in the afterlife. They should be allowed to know what to expect.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Golight
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the soldiers last moments should be shared with the family. Also, that this should happen with soldiers in modern wars. I know that if I knew someone who had died in a war, it would be very important for me to know what happened to them.
Soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades death when telling the soldier's family, because it was the right thing to do. It didn't matter to them if it effected the Ars Moriendi becuase the fallen soldier's family needed to know how there loved one died in the war. Also these soldiers all became "Brothers" they all were going through the same conflict, they were all fighting side by side eachother in battle. In modern wars today when a soldier is killed in action its usaully that fallen soldier's commanding officer who writes a letter to the soldier's family about the soldier's death and usaully the soldier's comrades would go and comfort thier family.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jacob A.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement on how it was the right thing to do. Families needed to know how thier loved one died even if it wasn't a good death, it was just just the right thing.
Soldiers were completely honest when informing the families of the men fallen in action because they felt that the families had earned the right not to be lied to and although it was painful to know the truth these soldiers might have believed that any dishonesty from their part was like disrespecting their fallen comrades, and not rendering them the reverence they were undisputedly deserving. Even in the wars that have taken place more recently and the war today it seems that this act of complete honesty is in fact the right thing to do, even if the Ars Moriendi is unfortunately being dishonored.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nick Burns
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said because I, too, believe that the horrible events the soldiers witnessed together was sure to bring them close together and create unique relationships. These strong bonds definately made it hard to lie to the families of those that were killed in battle because this dishonesty would undoubtedly scar those moments spent together and the brotherhood created.
Soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades when notifying family members because I think the soldiers felt it was morally wrong to change what had happened or how the fallen soldiers felt when writing to family. Even if it did threaten ars moriendi, honesty and reality triumphed over it. The fallen comrades deserve for their family's to know how they lived and fought and died. The family should know their last words because "people believed final words to be the truth, both because they thought that a dying person could no longer have an earthly motivation to lie." So this made it important for the soldiers to be honest in their details to families.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the circumstances, I do believe that soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades. To me it is just common respect. It allows the family to get full closure and move on if what they know they're reading is true, rather than a lie for it to be a "good death."
Kendra LaFonte,
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point that familes have a right to choose not to know how their loved one died. I agree, because people are different and some people don't want to know they details and some people do. I believe the soldiers should be honest, but in the way the family wishes.
After reading about ars morendi and understanding it, I am a bit conflicted in the matter of letting the family of a fallen soldier know exactly how he died. I know for some, hearing the ugly facts may make accepting a loved one's death a lot harder. But personally, for me, I believe that I would want to know exactly how my loved one died. I think that, after a commrade of the fallen soldier has contacted the family, the family should have the right to either ask for more details or just say, 'Thank you' and move on. In the other light, I also think it depends on the person who is notifying the family. Say, if a person's best friend just died, he may not want to speak of what happened to the friend. So, honestly, I think the details of a death dealing with ars morendi is specific to each circumstance.
ReplyDeleteKristine Ayre
ReplyDeleteI read your comment about the Ars Moriendi, and I completely agree with you. I, too, believe that a family has a right to know the last words of their loved one, but, since the families were not with the dying soldiers, it seems that it was up to a commrade to relay any last messages or wishes to the family from the soldier.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSoldiers in the Civil War were honest about their comrade's means of death for a few reasons. I think that they must have felt that the family of their fallen friend had a right to know, despite the fact that their death may have been gruesome and terrible. Considering the major religions of the time, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, they must have felt it morally wrong to lie on behalf of the deceased, whether or not it could save their family from further sorrow. Also, if the soldier in question had been in the war for awhile, say, a long time, would he not be somewhat desensitized? Therefore, he probably would not feel it completely necessary to spare the family's feelings, and rather give them all of the harsh details.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that the soldiers have the obligation to fully report every element of what they witnessed. Otherwise it seems that they would somewhat disgrace their friend. Also, as i stated at the beginning of the post, I believe the family would have a right to know.
-Anna R. Gibson
Response to Nick Burns.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr. Burns' post was very well put. I like when he says "When notifying a fallen soldier’s family, no soldier of that time would have willingly risked tarnishing their deceased comrade’s crucial last moments, and by extension the relationship they had once shared, with dishonestly." It does seem to be the case that a soldier would not want to befoul anyone's view of what really happened when their friend had died. It would almost be his last homage to his comrade to relay the exact case of his death to his family.
-Anna R. Gibson
Mark Miller-
ReplyDeleteI read your blog and I would have to agree with you on your thoughts and opinion. I liked how you referred to soldiers as "brothers", because I think that is very true. These men live together and endure the horrors of war side by side, making their bond unlike that of any other. You also made a good point when you said that telling about the death of a soldier honestly it was the right thing to do.
Soldiers were honest about the deaths of their fallen comrades because it was the honorable thing to do. However, I don't believe that the soldiers were completely honest. They may have twisted the truth about a "good death" when writing to the deceased's family to put them at ease. On page 24, Faust states, "Soldiers' efforts to provide consolation for their survivors altered the tradition of the ars moriendi." They also wrote about the deceased's patriotism if evidence of his religious dedication failed to suffice, as stated on page 24, "in some instances patriotism and courage seemed to serve as a replacement for evidence of deep religious faith." Regardless of circumstances, I believe that soldiers should be honest about their comrades death. I think the families deserve to know the truth, however, I don't think their deaths should be described in excruciating details in order to spare the feelings of families who are already upset.
ReplyDeleteAnna
ReplyDeleteI am glad you found my post well put. Your idea of relaying the news of a soldier’s death to his family as a last “homage” is a great extension of my original idea. I do not think anyone would willingly take away anything from that responsibility by polluting it with dishonesty.
Soldiers were honest about the details of a fallen comrade’s death, even though it may have jeopardize ars moriendi because the truth is very key to having a concept of what the deceased comrade’s afterlife may consist of.
ReplyDeleteI believe that whether or not facts of a fallen comrade’s death may threaten ars moriendi, soldiers should be honest regardless of the surrounding circumstances. As stated within’ the text, “A life was a narrative that could only be incomplete without this final chapter, without the last-defining words.” (10) According to author Drew Gilpin Faust, “family members needed to witness a death in order to assess the state of the dying person’s soul” (10) because, it is believed, “what you are when you die, the same will you reappear in the great day of eternity.” (8-9) As all wars make it an impossibility for the family of the dying to be present, therefore it is up to his or her fellow soldiers to analyze the soul of the dying to get an estimate of who he or she will continue to for all of eternity. It would be unfair for a fellow soldier to be anything but honest with the deceased soldier’s family about the facts of a fallen comrade’s death.
In response to Kristine Ayre's post:
ReplyDeleteI found your post to be nicely phrased. Morality is a topic that I had not connected to the idea ars moriendi, though it certainly applies to whether a soldier will be honest with the facts of a fellow comrade's death. Honesty is described in Webster's Online Dictionary as being "free of deceit and untruthfulness". Moral is described as "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". Therefore, to be honest, you must have morals and these soldiers certainly did have a good sense of morality to be honest.
I believe that it honesty is best no matter the circumstances of the death of the individual. If the soldier was killed fighting heroically, than honesty would work for the best here, but if the soldier was killed for example in a roadside bombing, than it might seem better to lie about his/her death, but to tell the truth also tells the tragedy of war and how many are killed before there time.
ReplyDeleteI believe that no matter the circumstances of a soldier's death, their family has a right to know exactly how their family member died. The high death tolls threatened ars moriendi, adding to the temptation to lie about a soldier's death. I feel that it would be much more tempting to lie about death in present day wars because of the technology and artillery used to kill, making many of the deaths today more horrific.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Chapter 1, and learning more about ars moriendi, it would have been hard to write a letter telling family members their loved one did not have a "good death". I do suspect that although soldiers were honest when writing home, they were comforting. They could comfort the family by saying that the soldier appeared very peaceful, as if he was willing to sacrifice himself to the lord. I do think that being honest about the way someone died is a responsibility that all soldiers had to one another. In modern day, we don't so much practice ars moriendi but it is still good for the family to be informed the real reasons of death (for instance if it was a friendly fire situation they should be told he was shot by a fellow soldier).
ReplyDeleteKatie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the fact that it would be harder to lie about death in modern warfare due to the increase in technology. Unfortunatly nowadays it is much easier for a soldier to die without fighting in battle, making it less glorified and more horrific.
Brian-
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that although dieing in a roadside bombing is much less glorius than heroically sacrificing yourself to save another, the soldier's family deserves the truth. Lieing about such a thing is tempting but wrong.
The beliefs of the soldiers was that they thought every family diserved to know what happened to thier family member. Honesty was the best way for one to explian to another how thier family member had died, thus being why the soldiers had told them the honest truth. Even if the truth had effected the ars moriendi of that person, it was the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI believe the soldiers in the civil war were so honest to the families of their fallen soldiers for many reasons. One reason being if someone goes through a traumatic experience with another person, a strong bond is formed between the two. The soldier wouldn’t want to dishonor his brother in arms by lying to his family about what happened to their family member, even if the ars moriendi was threatened. "People believed final words to be the truth, both because they thought that a dying person could no longer have any earthly motivation to lie, and because those about to meet their maker would not want to expire bearing false witness."(pg 10).
ReplyDeleteIn the nineteenth century, death had a high importance to the people, for it was said to be a window into the next life of a person who had passed. A Good Death was the most desired way to die for the American people, and part of having a Good Death was having the person's family around them to witness their last moments. Soldiers dying at war were not able to have their families with them to witness their last moments, therefore they could not truly assure themselves or their families that they had a Good Death. So, fellow soldiers made promises to each other that they would explain to their families of their deaths and last moments because they were not there to witness it. I think that soldiers were honest in their letters, because if the soldiers had of had a Good Death at home, their family would have been around them, whereas war took away that chance. Letters provided a way for their family to at least know how their family member died, and honesty was of utmost importance.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that soldiers should be honest in their letters if the family wishes for it to be that way. To truly know how their loved one died may bring the family some amount of closure in knowing if their family member had a Good Death. I think it is important at least to know what truly happened to their family member, because so many families lived for years in doubt of what had happened to their loved ones.
In response to Mikayla Greenwell-
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with all of the statements you made in your post. I think it is really important that you said "the soldiers knew that the last moments of their friend’s life was crucial, not only to the dying soldier, but that soldier’s family as well", because you outlined the importance for the family members to know what truly happened to their loved ones. I also liked that you said "Comrades would not lie about a dead soldier’s death, but they would try to walk them through ars moriendi so that the family could be assured", because it not only made me think, but I also thought it was a very true fact which has a lot to do with the letters written to a soldier's home and the way in which many soldiers spent their last moments.
Soldiers were honest about their fallen comrades for multiple reasons. They provided the information a relative would have looked for in a conventional deathbed scene. These observations could be used to evaluate the family’s chances for a reunion in heaven. The soldiers writing the condolence letters tried to focus on as many aspects of ars moriedi as possible. They wanted family members to know of their loved ones’ last moments and the likelihood of a reunion in heaven. I believe that soldiers should be honest about their fallen comrades regardless of circumstances. I think the family members deserve to know the details of their loved ones’ last moments and deaths.
ReplyDeleteBrian-
ReplyDeleteI agree that today it is much less heroic to die in battle than it was during the Civil War, but we dont ahve the same thoughts today as we did back then, and have other ways of being notified other than a graphic letter written by a nearby nurse or other soldier. Lying about such a thing would still be wrong
In response to Tori
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with your response. I liked how you mentioned both Christian and military duties. I als othink that it's hard to lie about something as somber as death, especially in war. I also think that it was nice how you mentioned Iraq. I was wondering though, maybe I just forgot it from the book, but was ars moriendi all religious?
The fact is that Ars morendi meant little in the heat of death and battle far more important was the feeling of companionship with your families. Who cares about some stupid custom when your life is on the line there are things far more important. Ars morendi like chivalry before it perishes in the violence despair and death that is war. What was the point of lying to your families? Would you want your last words to them to be a lie I doubt it. Truth was one thing that soldiers still had and they didn't want to relinquish that.
ReplyDeleteSoldiers were honest about fallen comrades when telling family members even though it threatened ars moriendi because the families had the right to know what happened to their family members. Also, those who served created a powerful bond so they feel it was their right to tell the family about the lost friend. Also through the relationships they became “brothers” so they feel they also lost a family member. So I think both of these things made the men tell the truth even though it went against ars moriendi.
ReplyDeleteThe soliders were honest about their comrades death even when it may have threatened ars moriendi. They knew they had to be honest to the family of the solider which could not be involved with the solider in his last momments in this realm. The soliders in which told the families gave full discriptions for the family to at least feel this horrible pleasure they most certainly desired. These letter were to also “make absent loved ones virtual witnesses to the dying moments they had been denied…to mend the fissures war had introduced into the fabric of the Good Death.” The soliders had also developed a bond with the men that had died. Even if it was through their friends passing away or the troubles they both endured while serving. They knew that it was also their obligation to tell their loved ones how honorable they were, how they were before death, and how they were after they had died.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the soliders should be honest about their fallen comrades. The family should have every right to know what had happened to their dearly beloved solider. Even if it was just a simple diease that they had caught at one battle they still desire the information and I believe they should recieve it. In modern days a family will get a phone call a day or two later recieving the horrific message of their solider's wound or death. Now in today's society you can quickly have the information of your solider but back then you may have not even know the fait of which your solider had undergone.
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is important that the soliders are honest about comrades deaths. Many people and families due value what information they can get, if any at all. It creates closure for them and they can then focus on the positives,such as seeing them in the afterlife. It was their duty to not only fight but to care for their friends, which ,in my opinion, obligates them to help out the friends family with any needed information. I don't really believe that the soliders would spread information about their comrades because it is a loss and usually people are not willing to talk about one of their close friend/family death. If they did I don't think that the information would venture to far.
Nick
ReplyDeleteI agree that the bonds the soldiers made were so powerful that they could give any information about there fallen comrades, and they would never tarnish there comrades last moments. I also agree that every soldier should be honest about a fallen comrade.