Read all the posts, gotta agree with gedanken.
Lets assume we talk about warriors in the traditional military
sense, that is all things related to taking up arms, tough
character and so on.
Gurkhas need not to be ever in wars to become warriors before they
were employed in the British Army. The fact they are a farming
community makes them even fit for training in the British
Army.
Look at farming communities, what are the behaviours and job scopes
of farmers in the padi fields? They woke up before dawn and retire
late at night. They worked on various tasks even before they reach
the padi fields, getting ready, breakfast, sharpen tools, feed the
animals, clean them etc etc, then they proceed to the fields or
animal farms or pastures. They plant seedlings, feed and check the
animals for sickness, shepherding them from pastures to pastures,
collecting manure, all kinds of jobs we Singaporeans find
disgusting today. Under all kinds of conditions, hot weather, rainy
seasons, snow, under all kinds of terrain, mountainous, rocky,
flats..etc etc
Actually because of the really tough demands and conitions of the
jobs, plus handling various farming tools, makes them tougher and
more dexterous. So this tough character becomes innate, and they
become physically and mentally strong.
Lets not forget to compare them with the British, Indians and
Chinese at that time. The British were riding on waves of the
Industrial Revolution, Indians and Chinese had already progress to
empires and states with much more advanced technology than the
Gurkhas, (however weak they are compared to the British). In a
sense, all three civilisations progress to focus,in various
degrees, more on industrialisations (meaning more mechanisations,
and lessen work on mind and physical strength) and trading (
diverting large part of produce towards sales, and also manpower to
handle the trading). The British actually have no army to begin
with, largely depending on mercernaries, local and foreign. Why so?
Actually can write an essay on this. The British Parliament in the
1700s did pass a law, which implicitly allow the army and navy to
kidnap their own subjects for 'service for His Majesty'. I will
post this in another thread. not forgetting the Britsh Army is the
youngest service arm in the British armed Forces. How come?
Not only the tough demands of the job, the community as whole.
Those kinds of environment would have make the Gurkhas more tight
knit. More than ever they depend on each other. Warding off other
creature which would make raids on their farms, community
festivals, sounding the alarms when there are intruders...
Why not the British also recruit Chinese or Indian soldiers?
Obviously they saw in Gurkhas what they cannot see in themselves or
the Chinese and Indians. Its the tough physical character and
mental strength they see in them. If what gedanken said on the
history of the Gurkhas is correct, then obviously the tenacity of
the Gurkhas were due to what they did on the farms. I could gather
any Tom Dick or Harry and train him with skills, but whats the
point if their attitude is bad? Think the British is so good with
motivating, leadership and all the crap we learn today? They demand
instant success, not some ra ra brainwashing. The British army at
that time merely just have to train them in the arts of warfare,
and voila, you get one of the most respected race in the
world.
The Chinese and Indians have centuries of warfare, yet today they
are not a warring culture. Why? India fought with the Greeks since
Alexander the Great, and we Chinese have fought from Shang to Qing
period. Does this few centuries of warfare prove anything? Worse,
we have civil wars since time immemorable. Merely having handled
weapons and sticking tabs on maps before doesnt makes one a
warrior. More than ever, the Chinese and Indians were also great
farming communities, but at the same time, focusing on expanding
empires, wrought new knowledge, trade (the Silk Road).
Its very hard to equate attitude, mentality with experience and
skills nowadays. Merely having fought in wars before does not prove
ones to be a warrior.