We die for the One, we die for the One.

[JMB1138]

I watched the movie with a bunch of friends, and we were all struck by something concerning the Ranger code. It really does not make sense, at least to me, for their "core principle" to be never to retreat from combat. This just doesn't sit right with me. In some cases, it is tactically wise to conserve your resources and retreat in a situation where victory is impossible. I can understand though this being a Minbari principle, but what makes even less sense to me is why Sinclair, once head of the Anla'shok, wouldn't have changed that. Delenn, who is Ranger One at the time of this movie, surely wouldn't agree with that philosophy. It just doesn't make sense.

Here's the only thing I can think of: it's well known that at this time the Minbari are in a period of decline, becoming more and more corrupt (perhaps too strong a word) and moving further from their principles. Perhaps they are blinded by tradition in the face of common sense, or are just trying to stick it to a human - both being examples of "unenlightened" behavior. And it's obvious that jms is aware of how condemning retreat is ludicrous, because he had G'Kar speak the logical argument against it. I realize G'Kar is as wise a figure as you can get on B5 (without being a Vorlon that is

), but a Narn telling a Minbari council what to do?

I don't know, this just doesn't sit right with me. Any thoughts?

------------------
-jmb

 

[taichidave]

As Delenn demonstrated (in Lines of Communication, I think) Minbari do not back away from a fight, even when it would be wise to do so.

The Rangers, coming from a Minbari culture, would naturally reflect this principle.

In time, I would think that the influence of other cultures would mitigate this.



------------------
"We are (not) all Kosh."

 

[Deviot]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JMB1138:
I can understand though this being a Minbari principle, but what makes even less sense to me is why Sinclair, once head of the Anla'shok, wouldn't have changed that. Delenn, who is Ranger One at the time of this movie, surely wouldn't agree with that philosophy. It just doesn't make sense.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And concidering he was Valen why did he make this rule in the first place? Or did the Minbari already have this in there code before the rangers where formed?



------------------
Deviot
Lincbot@yahoo.com.au

 

[GreyWulph]

I think the spirit behind "We live for the One, we die for the one." was best shown in the B5 episode when Sheridan asked a whole ship of rangers to give up their lives so false information would be fed to the Shadows. There the Rangers deaths SERVED a purpose! But just to die to show that you are willing to die without their being a useful RESULT of your death seems ludicrous.
Clinging to dogma in the face of reason is the domain of a fool not a wiseman.




------------------

 

[channe]

GreyWulph - I think one of the points made is that the Minbari are not humans with funny heads, they're aliens, and as such they have principles that are going to be alien to us.

And Sinclair isn't just going to change 1000 years of tradition with one sweeping stroke, especially if it's so ingrained. You can't do that. Sinclair couldn't have - he'd be out on his butt as fast as fast could be.

Besides -

<table bgcolor=black><tr><td bgcolor=black><font size=1 color=white>Spoiler:</font></td></tr><tr><td><font size=2 color=black> He's the one that created the Rangers, whether he knew it or not at the time. He's going to probably do the same thing... </font></td></tr></table>



------------------
channe@[url="http://cryoterrace.tripod.com"]cryoterrace[/url] | "I wonder," said Frodo, "but I don't know. And that's the way of a real tale."

 

[Talathanar]

I think the point of not retreating from combat comes from allowing the enemy to destroy more of something. My guess is that in a similiar situation to what the Rangers were in in the beginning of the movie any other crew wouldn't have gone after their enemies either. They'd have sent word back to someone else and get more people out there.

Later in the movie with the Vaelen they made their choice on who it would benefit more. As the rangers in the ep of B5 spreading info did. Retreating seems like it's not the issue buy the reason for the retreat.

------------------

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

i seem to remember some episode i think season 5, where mr garibaldi had a theory that the minbari were (genetically?) unable to walk away from any fight.

this is proven when delenn 1st meets the drahk, they beat the crap out of her whitestars, and they manage to get to the safety of hyperspace...

and what does she do? she goes right back not 2 minutes later with no repairs and blows them out of space

------------------
I have no one to envy...
I envy you having me to envy...

"love to stay, can't, have to go, kiss kiss, love love, bye" G'Kar

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>..it is well known that at this time the Minbari are in a period of decline, becoming more and more corrupt...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would disagree. They are divided, but recovering. The civil war is over. Minbar has lost its ancient harmony, but gained new flexibility. After a thousand years of agreeing, the Minbari can finally disagree -- without starting a war.

The worker caste has five places among the Nine, the place for the Chosen One is empty in memory of Neroon. Delenn holds the title of Entil'zha and the Interstellar Alliance has moved its headquarters to Tuzanor.

It is a time of quiet conflict. Conflict through peaceful means and internal debate. A large portion of Minbar resents getting involved with other species and intestellar politics. They are used to isolation.

Their ancient tradition is never to surrender, neither to fear nor to enemies. They are much more willing to die for their honor. According to Minbari logic, backing away encourages the enemy. It shows that you can be intimidated. It shows that you are not confident that your side will prevail. They rarely back away from a fight, especially a justified fight. If they would have backed away in front of superior enemies, they wouldn't have survived the previous Shadow War.

Even if ordinary Ranger crews have started to understand other ways of thinking, even if Delenn tries to understand Human ways, the old-school Ranger Council is not likely to undestand. Now which persons and institutions determine the policy of the Ranger Council?

1. Entil'zha is the highest authority for Rangers.

Delenn knows this, but will not use authority as a club. The Ranger Council must ensure that the Rangers can work efficiently. She can break it and appoint new members, but will refrain from doing so. It would destabilize matters, prevent the Rangers from working.

Delenn is more likely to let the Ranger Council act independently, explaining matters but not constantly overruling them. Gently breaking 1000 years of tradition takes more than 3 years. The Rangers need their old school of trainers, teachers and instructors. Some of them are bound to be conservative, and may not like the Human way of deciding.

This makes the views of the Ranger Council natural. They are fixed in their ways, and they control everyday business. G'Kar may represent the ISA, the organisation controlling Ranger resources. Hence it is also natural for him to stick his nose into Ranger affairs.

2. The Nine can interfere with any activities in Minbari space.

If the Grey Council wants something badly enough, they have the means to influence even the Rangers. If the Grey Council shouldn't like Human ways, they might easily interfere with Ranger matters to reinforce old traditions. While Delenn was the person who formed the new Council, she does not have authority over them. She is not Chosen One, only Entil'zha.

----------

Conclusion:

Politics is a mess. Interstellar politics is a large mess. Minbari politics is a mysterious mess. Politics after a civil war is a contradictory mess.

The result: we have an old organisation trying to fulfill a new duty (Rangers) and a new organisation trying to survive (Alliance). They are amid a large, mysterious and contradictory mess. Mistakes happen every other day. Some are made with the best principles and intentions. People like to do it their way, believing that their way is the only way.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited January 21, 2002).]

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

As far as the Sinclair/Valen issue goes, once Sinclair went into the past, he was obligated to act exactly as history had shown that he HAD acted, or risk changing the future.

And he went back to a time in Minbari history when they were at war and there was no Grey Council (he created it,remember) or unifying element. He gave them all of those things, along with creating the Rangers. It makes sense to create a cadre of soldiers whose loyalty and obediance would be unquestioned.

It does seem like the supreme irony, though, that the Minbari (who tend to look doen their noses at the other races) took the principals and traditions that a *human* gave them and adhered to them so blindly that it became a religion as well as a way of life.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Rhea (edited January 20, 2002).]

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Remember that Sinclair did in fact agree with the philosophy of going down fighting. He did try and ram the Sharlin, remember? He also joined the line, which in itself is the same principle. And fighting the shadows requires you to never give up and never back down. Because they will NOT let you retreat, they will hunt you down forever until you're destroyed. No where to run, no where to hide, only thing left is to 'take you bastards with me'.

Nothing is wrong with this, so I don't see why the Minbari would give up something that is at the core of their foundation. Garibaldi talks about this in more detail.

------------------
Marc Cosgrove

"From chaos, order came. As was inevitable." -Summoning light

 

[Quagmire]

The Rangers were formed as a uniting force during a war with an enemy not likely to leave survivors. This credo ensures that a Warrior caste vessel will come to the aid of a Religious caste vessel despite daunting odds. The Shadows are also unlikely to allow ships to leave once battle is joined. At the time this all or nothing mentality made sense and we all know the Minbari aren't big on change so it's not surprising it became permanantly ingrained.

And there is the fact that they are ALIEN.

------------------
"Crying isn't gonna get your dog back. Unless your tears smell like dog food. So you can sit here eating can after can of dog food until your tears smell like dog food or you can go out there and find your dog."-Homer in The Canine Mutiny

 

[Teekas Dragon]

Just something to make you think in lines of strategy. Say you send out a small force to match an enemy on a field of combat (space or on a battle field doesn't matter), you fight it out for a little bit then retreat. In doing this you make the enemy think your weak. Just incase they follow your retreating forces have a larger force ready to engage at a certain point. If they follow you then they'll get destroyed as soon as they get to the ambush site you set up. If they don't follow you then there's a chance that the next time they strike that they'll over extend their forces in the next battle, still thinking your weaker than you are. By doing this you can make an advantage for your self because they won't know how stronge your forces are till it's too late and they are in the fray too far to back out before suffering a loss.

I agree with the way that the rangers acted and i understand the tradition, this was just something to make ppl look at retreat at a slightly different angle.

Sinc.
Jerome

------------------
I am a Ranger. We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We stand on the bridge and no one may pass. We live for the One. We die for the one.

 

[Akai]

That's one place where the point could have been better made if the scenario was better written. If the Rangers are expected to be willing to sacrifice themselves then why not have a situation in which the consequences are made clear? Had David's decision to not sacrifice his crew resulted in the loss of innocent life elsewhere or had resulted in the loss of face for the Rangers (or the loss of the confidence that members of the Interstellar Alliance had in the Rangers) then the reaction of the Gray Council would have made much more sense.

------------------
Spoo: it's what's for dinner.

 

[bakana]

People are assuming that Valen created the "tradition" of never backing away.
Doubtful. He was a supreme tactician who Never sacrificed a life unnecessarily.
It went against ALL his principles.

But, the Minbari have had 1000 Years to put their own interpretation on everything.

Just as our own religious whackos have so often done things that would Horrify Jesus, Moses, Mohammed & Bhudda.
All in the Name OF God.


------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."

 

[GKarsEye]

The whole "well, they're alien" argument doesn't hold. In real life, many various military traditions sprang up independantly from each other. But all the successful ones used similar military strategies. Some things work, and some don't, period.

Retreat is, at times, necessary. The most successful forces are the smartest ones. This includes swallowing their pride and retreating if necessary, to come back stronger. So, the enemy may think you're weak temporarily. The mind games aren't always more important than the waste of lives and resources that comes with fighting an impossible battle. Each situation must be evaluated independantly.

It was my understanding that Rangers are taught to use their heads. They're not just infantry privates being sent into a meat grinder.

Sinclair was going to ram the ship in the Battle of the Line because he figured that he wouldn't survive anyway, so he might as well have taken down an enemy warship. As desperate and insane as it was, it was a reasonable decision. Martel's situation was different.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

 

[Kitaro Sasaki]

"We live for the one, we die for the one"

A great example of the Ranger credo that was displayed during one of Earth's historical events, and may be the first time that the world witnessed such a mind state, was the bombing at Pearl Harbour by the Japanese, December 7, 1941...and the introduction of the "Kamikazi" fighter pilots.

The Japanese "Kamikazi" fighter pilots were specially trained warriors to not only be specialized in air tatical combat and air raids...but to also sacrafice their lives, by smashing their planes into the enemy, furthering the annihilating their foe!

"They live for their country, they die for their country"

Cheers! -Warren-

------------------

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Retreat is, at times, necessary. The most successful forces are the smartest ones. This includes swallowing their pride and retreating if necessary, to come back stronger. So, the enemy may think you're weak temporarily. The mind games aren't always more important than the waste of lives and resources that comes with fighting an impossible battle. Each situation must be evaluated independantly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When, in the last thousand years, was the minbari fleet outgunned? Often, all they had to do was to show up, and the enemy would go home (see Point of No Return). In this atmosphere, this kind of pragmatism doesn't develop often.

------------------
never surrender, never give up
God, I need a better tag line

 

[GKarsEye]

Warren, I'm not sure if this was your intent or not, so sorry if I'm wrong, but the example you provided about the kamikaze helps prove my point, and that of the original thread poster. In fact, I had considered using that as an example in my original post.

They had lost the war, yet continued to kill themselves. Why? Honor? Pride? Tradition? Foolishness. They forced the United States to commit one of the most horrendous acts of violence in all history, dropping the A-bomb, because not doing so would have been even worse. The Japanese paid for their stupidity and learned the hard way.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

 

[Kitaro Sasaki]

GKarsEyes,

Actually, thanks for the spelling correction on "Kamikaze" (and me being Japanese and all...he he he)

Thanks for the intelligent points, GKarsEyes!

I enjoy reading your message posts!

The sacrificial mentality (to defend and maintain honor and pride,etc) of the Japanese, more so in the past than current, can be dated back further to the times of "The Samurai" era...

Regarding your reference to the Japanese being "stupid"...(I use that word very, very loosely, as the Japanese are far from that!)

Well, that can definitely be debated! I believe that the United States blantantly displayed so-called "Stupidity" and "ignorance" before, during and after the bombing of "Pearl Harbour"...(which is one of the reasons why Pearl Harbour was so accessible to being attacked in the first place by a "SO-CALLED SNEAK ATTACK"), but I don't want to get into that one...as this thread discussion will definitely go off on an "Oblique Angle"!

I think that the Japanese have proven themselves as a people that stand by a strict, disciplined set of ethics!

From a war-devastated country; to become the second largest, powerful economy in the world...

Not bad if you ask me...

Cheers! -Warren-

------------------

 

[Kitaro Sasaki]

I just wanted to say that...

First of all, to debate whether a country, a people have a justifiable set of ethics, or beliefs (ie:religion) is, in a way, ridiculous...and arrogant of us to even do!

Of course, that is what makes us, on a global level, so interesting and unique. The many different civilizations and the many different belief systems within each culture, that make up that civilization are to be appreciated for what they are...if that makes any sense!?!

Some (cultural belief systems) may be percieved as being a primitive way of existing, or doesn't make any sense (should it really make any sense? what does?)...some may not...

The only reason why we have good or bad is the fact that we all gauge ourselves with what we have, what we believe...how we behave relative to how another behaves and so on, and so forth...

This is what causes the many problems that that plague our great planet Earth!

And in my opinion, will probably continue throughout the entire rotation of life and life beyond our universe...Of which "Bablyon 5" and "Babylon 5:The Legend of the Rangers" deals with...

That very subject is what started this thread in the first place...


Cheers! -Warren-

------------------