La Grande Code: Farouche comme Ogier - Fierce as Ogier - Why Men should remain untamed
And bold
This part of the Grand Code of Gallia, is one that I must confess to pondering about for quite some time, and that I didn’t really know for sure how best to translate for you all. ‘Farouche’ is a purely French word that has connotations of ‘Terrible’ or ‘Savage’ or ‘Wild’ but it is often used to describe heroes. It isn’t a villainous quality.
For examlpe when English heroes such as Aragorn, Gandalf or Aslan or Conan are described as good but not safe, the French have a word for it; Farouche. It is a word I’ve always liked since childhood. It remains one of my favourites, and when looking through the French translation of Hour of the Dragon, it was interesting to note that it did appear to be used to describe our favourite Cimmerian, so yay about that one.
Words that don’t really translate well from Francais to English aside, Ogier l’Arn in my world of Pangaea, can be roughly considered synonymous with the ‘Ogier the Dane’ or ‘le Danois’ from the French Matter, or the Matter of France, the body of Chivalric legends that date back to around the 10th or 11th centuries or so and are about Charlemagne and his court.
Now the question remains; why should men remain untamed, wild and ferocious? Because we were never meant to be tamed. We were meant to be ‘Lions’ as Achilles told his men, in the movie Troy and this was certainly his mindset in the Iliad also. And while I would demure any meaningless destruction that truly wild men could effect upon themselves and their own society, wild as we ought to be we should remember to be as Loyal as Norbert and as faithful to one another as Wolves are to their pack.
So when combined the two ideals are not as far apart as one might think; certainly men should be wild but never without Courteousness and Fidelity. The reason for this is that an untamed beast is one that is soon put down, by those around them and is usually a stupid animal one without a proper purpose. It is why we must never forget to be clever also.
Being of an untamed, an undiluted mindset is how Buck was able to survive in the Call of the Wild, how he triumphed over men and nature, as he became ever more raw, ever more wild and ‘barbaric’ to use Howard’s favourite word.
What of Conan? He is certainly wild, and untamed, and always remains so, and this is an important key to how he survived the wilderness of Cimmeria, and the many trials that he came across over the course of his lengthy life.
You also have the likes of Aragorn Elessar II, who could be used as an example of this particular virtue. Remaining true to himself, and wild and untamed and fierce against his enemies, yet friendly and warm towards all of his friends. Why is this? Because his ferocity was not meant to be used as a weapon against them, but against those who menace them.
Ferociousness is a virtue that our ancestors had, one need not go further than the 20th century when men by the millions fought throughout Africa & Europe, and then in Asia. Ferocity doesn’t even begin to describe those men.
Could our generation accomplish such feats? Quite possibly, it would however require us to become more intuned with our ancestors, with ourselves and to aim higher than we have in some time.
Then there’s the men of the 19th century, of the ‘Revolutionary’ Generation, that of the Napoleonic era which fought across Europe. I’m not sure any of us can imagine how grizzled and mighty that generation might well have been, or how potent a force of nature they were.
Has the world never seen their ilk before though? Certainly she has, across many centuries from the 30 Years War, that ended in the treaty at Westphalia, and then there was some time before it the Wars of Religion of France, which saw France torn to shreds by fractious political infighting as the De Guise family sought to usurp the crown and came very near to succeeding (thankfully they failed).
Long before that conflict there was the myriad wars of the Medieval periods, from those of Charlemagne, to those waged by Justinian, there’s also the wars fought by many generations of Normans, and also the wars of the later Medieval periods. The men of those eras were ferocious, were dangerous and very much violent.
Now were they all positive role-models? Certainly not. The more positive example might be the Roman legions, but the trouble with those men is that many sold their ferocity to the highest bidder. This sort of action I would not describe as ferocious but as domestication.
How is this the case? A man who would sell everything for a couple of shekels, is a man who could be tamed by those very same means. Money is a great tool certainly, but those who would sell themselves and others out en masse for money inspire little trust in those around them, and are unable to build anything lasting.
Certainly the barbarian hordes that came into the Empire traded their war-talents for land, and left their names to various parts of the Empire, but let us examine how many actually managed to build anything; the Burgundians were reduced to mere vassals of the Francs, the Ostrogoths were thrown over for the Lombards, the Vandals were wiped out by the Greeks.
Meanwhile in the Greek East, did men there do as they did in the Occidental Empire? Certainly not. This is why Constantinople lasted as long as it did.
Ferociousness without loyalty, is savagery and savagery cannot build anything lasting. The Legions of the 3rd century, of the Good Emperors and even those of Augustus understood this, and it was on their backs that the Empire was expanded and built. They were ferocious fighting men, brave and fiercely loyal to the Emperors. Could anyone bribe them against their nation’s leader? Apparently there were attempts and they all ended disastrously.
Naturally you had the Praetorian Guard who were bribable, and were as one historian described them the ‘spoiled brats’ of the Empire, and as seen throughout Caligula’s reign untrustworthy (they helped enforce his brutal reign), and just because he could bribe them didn’t mean his uncle Claudius couldn’t. As Claudius demonstrated when he usurped the throne, then you had Nero who had to face their reckoning, just as several of his successors.
The difference as one can see is that savagery and mental or spiritual domestication kind of go hand in hand.
We see this in plenty of places around the world, and it is often a tool of the powerful that they might hold a monopoly over violence. But truly ferocious men do not sell themselves or one another for coin, this is what Howard meant when he idealized the Barbarian man, he meant the rawest form of a man, the rawest form of individual. Ferociousness and Barbarianism doesn’t preclude kindness.
There is a difference between gentleness and harmlessness. A harmless man is also likewise domesticated and tamed, and utterly helpless. He’s lost all measure of his masculinity, all measure of his innate ferocity. That said, a gentle man is not necessarily a weak one, but one who seeks to sheathe his nature. He puts it into a scabbard on a spiritual and personal level that he might draw out his ferocity when necessary.
After all a bared sword turns all into enemies as Yoshikawa Eiji pointed out in his Musashi novel. It is only when one learns when to wield raw steel and when one learns to sheathe it that one can be described as a proper warrior or ferocious man.
This brings us to the topic of Asia, over there none were ever as ferocious as the Samurai who throughout different generations fought and struggled for dominance over Japan. Some were scum such as many of the warriors guilty of the war-crimes accomplished in the names of the Ashikaga and Minamoto. But on the same token they were loyally served by good and leal men.
The bushi could sell their services as lightly as the Romans or Knights did. But they could also prove themselves honourable and stubbornly loyal to a particular cause or ideal. It is why they were never to be underestimated and why the many Lords of Japan did not take any of the men in their service lightly. Especially in the Tokugawa era, when the memory of the Sengoku Jidai remained fairly fresh.
Ferocity therefore is no sin, but a necessity. Savagery, treachery and greed are, so that men must always be conscious that they not give way to them and keep their virtue and honour intact and keep their ferocity in check when it must be kept in check even as they must let it loose when the occasion calls for it. Rather like a Clint Eastwood character.
Felanar and Kara will cut off your head if you threaten their family, but are gentle and loving toward bunnies, foxes, and innocent villagers.
Anybody can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right man and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
― Aristotle