Themiclesia wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
It's really something developed by the unit itself over time, and can't be artificially constructed. That's why nowadays if the US Army has to raise a new unit, most often they'll give it the name, colors, and lineage of a previous unit that was decommissioned in the past.
Unless your military is literally brand new and has never fought in a war before, it should have units that have distinguished themselves in the past. Even units that aren't famous like the 101st Airborne or 442nd RCT have lineage for unit members to take pride in. Famous heroes of the past who were perceived to be exemplars of the service's tenets also tend to help, such as Chesty Puller and Smedley Butler for the US Marines.
Well, each of our armies (six in total) traces its origin back to a significant figure who led this group to victory in notable circumstances, so I suppose that could serve as a 'beacon' or 'reminder' of sorts of one's pride in those armies.
Such as our Principal Army traces its origin intermittently back to 1496, whose leadership is tied to the Earl of Melonmere before the 18th Century, whence command was transferred to the King permanently. The New Army was raised as a standing army in 1697, etc.
For such a reason, our six armies are pretty much independently operating, which difference extends to structure and personnel management, and preserves certain medieval traditions, but I'm not sure if such divisive difference it's a good thing.
It's not. Tradition is nice but not if it impedes function.
