On obstinacy

When I reread Montaigne’s 15th essay “Men are punished for being obstinate in the defence of a fort without reason” in his Essays, immediately I had to think of Hervey Allen’s Toward the Flame, which I had recently read. Toward the Flame is Allen’s account of his experiences as a soldier during the First World War. As for Montaigne’s essay, he describes there the possible fatal consequences of obstinacy in war. Already in the first sentence Montaigne summarizes what he wants to tell us: “Valour has its bounds as well as other virtues, which, once transgressed, the next step is into the territories of vice.” If one crosses the boundaries of a virtue like bravery, it easily can lead to the opposite, in this case “temerity, obstinacy, and folly.” Montaigne illustrates his view with cases of fortresses that surrendered after a hard and obstinate resistance; however, after the surrender the losers were as yet killed by the victors. In his days this was not unusual. Rather it was a “custom”, so Montaigne, “in times of war, to punish, even with death, those who are obstinate to defend a place that by the rules of war is not tenable.” Montaigne thinks that the killing is not unreasonable, since “otherwise men would be so confident upon the hope of impunity, that not a henroost [chicken coop] but would resist and seek to stop an army.” However, what is “tenable”? For “the strength or weakness of a fortress is always measured by the estimate and counterpoise of the forces that attack it … where also the greatness of the prince who is master of the field, his reputation, and the respect that is due unto him, are also put into the balance. There is danger that the balance be pressed too much in that direction.” Even more, “it may happen that a man is possessed with so great an opinion of himself and his power, that thinking it unreasonable any place should dare to shut its gates against him, he puts all to the sword where he meets with any opposition”, so kills the resisters.
Happily, this cruel custom has changed since Montaigne wrote these words, and nowadays it is at least forbidden by international law to kill a soldier who has surrendered, let alone innocent civilians, although in practice this law often is violated.
Now to Harvey Allen, a lieutenant in the 28th division of the American Army in France during the First World War. His division had been added to the Sixth French army. At the end of Toward the Flame, Allen takes part in the battle of Fismette, a little French village on the north bank of the Vesle River, opposite the somewhat bigger village of Fismes on the south bank (west of Reims). Fismette was a bridgehead, surrounded by the German army and impossible to defend, according to his American division commander, who therefore ordered his soldiers to withdraw to the south bank. However, this order was countermanded by the French commander of the Sixth French Army. So, the fierce and cruel battle continued and the Germans conquered Fismette and killed or captured almost all American soldiers there. Later the French commander apologized to the American division commander, while general Pershing, the commander of the American army, said to him: “Why did you not disobey the [French] order?” In other words, this battle of Fismette is a clear case of Montaigne’s view that “men are punished for being obstinate in the defence of a fort without reason.” The difference between Montaigne’s cases from the 16th century and before and my case from the 20th century is that now the soldiers were not punished by being killed after the battle by the victor, but they were punished “only” – if not killed in action or being wounded – by being taken captive (and released after the war).
Although these cases are all military, the negative consequences of obstinate behaviour are certainly not limited to military affairs. They are found everywhere in politics and society. Obstinate behaviour sometimes leads to success, but most of the time it leads to failure and nasty consequences. That is what we can learn from Montaigne’s essay, if we want to give it a wider, non-military, meaning. Moreover, I want to add, with obstinacy you don’t make friends but only foes in society or in your personal relations. Being too often unreasonably obstinate makes that people who should be your friends or at least should help you, turn against you. However, the problem is: What is being obstinate? Montaigne mentions the case of persons who see others as obstinate, while just they themselves are arrogant. And is not-giving-in a matter of being obstinate or a matter of seeing reasonable chances? It’s sometimes difficult to judge if we have to assess single cases, like resistance to an enemy. Who didn’t see the resistance of the Ukrainian army against the Russian invasion as obstinate and unreasonable during the first days? Western powers even advised the Ukrainian president Zelensky to flee and to form an exile government. However, the facts proved him right not to do so and to resist. Theory often collides with practice. But if everybody disagrees with you or if the facts seem to turn against you, there is reason to wonder whether your stubbornness isn’t a matter of stupidity.
And what once you have lost because of your obstinacy? Was your stubbornness really unreasonable obstinacy? Others will judge. But also here Montaigne has a warning for us, in the last sentence of his essay: “Above all a man should take heed, if he can, of falling into the hands of a judge who is an enemy and victorious.” For the winner is always right, even if he isn’t.