Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Job #2 - Thinking Question

"The preparations being complete, the two private soldiers stepped aside and each drew away the plank upon which he had been standing.  The sergeant turned to the captain, saluted and placed himself immediately behind that officer who in turn moved apart one pace. These movements left the condemned man and the sergeant standing on the two ends of the same plank, which spanned three of the cross-ties of the bridge.  The end upon which the civilian stood almost, but not quite reached a fourth.  This plank had been held in place by the weight of the captain; it was now held by that of the sergeant.  At a signal from the former the latter would step aside, the plank would tilt and the condemned man go down between the two ties."


I had to read this section a couple times before I completely understood what was going on.  From what I collected, the captain was holding the weight of Peyton first, and then he switched out with the sergeant.  The captain is ranked higher up the military ladder than the sergeant.  Therefore, the captain was in charge of the execution.  As we can see, the captain was holding Peyton's weight at one point, but then switched out with the sergeant.  Why did he switch out with the sergeant if he was the one in charge of the execution? Couldn’t he have stepped off himself instead of telling someone else to step off for him?  Maybe I'm reading way too much into this, but I was wondering if he switched off because of military rules and regulations or because of more personal reasons. Did he not want to be the one directly responsible for Peyton's death?  Was he fighting inwardly over the prospect of executing someone?  Maybe he had none of these thoughts.  His thoughts could have just been thoughts of preserving his country and fighting for his own cause.  So my main question is, why did he have the sergeant perform the death giving action and not do it himself?



8 comments:

  1. I think the he (most likely) didn't care about Peyton. I think it was more of him as a higher up in the military not wanting to "tarnish" his record by being directly responsible for Peyton's death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could be what I previously said, or it could just be a part of military code or rules back then.

      Delete
  2. This might sound bad but maybe the sergeant wanted to kill Peyton..?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And he therefore wasn't allowed to? That makes sense. Peyton was supposed to be killed for political reasons,not personal.

      Delete
  3. I did some research into military chain of command & it's a bit confusing to me. There are commissioned officers & non commissioned officers. It seems that typically, soldiers take orders from those directly above them but not always. We need a military person to explain it all :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kayla, I wanted to say that your picture really helped me understand how the board was positioned on the bridge! I was kind of confused over that. Anyway I'm also confused about this question you have, I don't know what to think about it. I'm afraid I can't be much of a help here :/

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's really interesting that that caught your attention.I loved that quote too! I forget what book I read it in, but there was a big deal made about an execution in which the king insisted he performed it. He believed that a man who orders a death must be willing to carry it out himself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Could the military have put the weight of taking someones life on someone who hadn't done so as much? I assume the captain performed a long time in the army to achieve that rank.

    ReplyDelete