QUESTION 1
It is noted that there are 3 honour codes that are informally enforced. Firstly, Nobles and gentles were anticipated to act more dignified than the lower class, towards which they had commitment as overlords of an end-result of medieval administration. Secondly, loyalty to the military leaders was private and officers were individual from a strong fellowship which declared the privilege of comprehensive self-management. Lastly, officers battled for the conservation and improvement of conventional triumph. However, it is noted that the army officers glorify courage over other virtues and condemned cowardice in which the offender is subject to be penalized.
Habitually associating in an intimate behaviour with rank and confidential file as well as criticizing a regiment was a code breach of a severe nature. Not to mention, lying, condemn, and defamation of the name of kindred officers called for prompt amends. The tension between the law and honour code in context of the 18th Century British military experience is there are no definite governance of improper attitudes of an officer and a gentleman that provoke dilemma among the military officers.
On the other hand, the conduct was not formalized in the Articles of War causing the charge stayed sufficiently adaptable to change as ideologies of honour altered. Ambiguous rule could be
…show more content…
Yet, the officer who rejected a faced off was subject to peers alienation that made the consent of the king little compassion which eventually forced him to hand in a resignation of commission. This means that the officer is convictable of disregard in appeal a clarification from the challenger. It is notable that the act of denying a confrontation is viewed as an allegedly cowardly behaviour among military officers regardless of their