I wish to examine the correlation between Individualism and the Military in the situation of war(of landed infantry). I ask, "Is it correct to say that collectivism has always dominated over individualism when it comes to the situation of war?" I argue that collectivism has always dominated over individualism in the military sphere but individualism is possible and increasingly cultivated (albeit of a compartmentalized kind) in the modern battlefield. So it seems logical to go on to ask: How is this possible? And what does this compartmentalized individualism "look" like?I understand Individualism as a socio-political concept that manifests itself in certain positive traits such as self-reliance and independence. In the extreme, it can come to mean that an individual's goals and interest comes to take center stage and can supercede and dominate over the goals and interests of the collective and culminate in a form of a "self-interested" individual. Thus the concept of individualism surely is in sharp contrast with all that we associate with the military sphere with its culture of conformity and strong group identity.
So the peculiar form of compartmentalized individualism that I will be referring to in this discussion is one that focuses on the increased importance of self-reliance and scoped decision-making. But the individual's social identity is still fixed within the group identity and the individual's goals and interests still lay second fiddle to those of the collective due to the fundamental mission-based nature of the military sphere. But it is important to take note here that just because the individual's goals and interests are dominated over, it does not mean that soldiers are cannon-fodder. In fact in democratic cultures, we find that the emphasis on taking care of the well-being of the soldier is increasingly important.
I seek to examine the validity of my argument through the various epochs of military history. We begin with the Phalangite era when the importance and dominance of group tactics come to crush over the effectiveness of individual skirmishing. This era clearly puts the idea of collectivism over individualism as the soldier turns himself into a part of a mechanized killing machine. He was a sum of parts. Simple pyschology proved to successfully condition the phalangite as the man in the unit was "pushed" forward by the legs behind him and assured by the sarissas all around him. Perhaps individualism was only displayed by army commanders who required guile and tactics in order to lead his men to victory. But the bulk of the efficient Macedonian, then Roman and later Frankish pikemen all proved the unconquerable efficiency of the collective in that era of the Phalanx. 
When we move onto the era of gunpowder and marching armies, the inaccuracy of the dominant weapon was a limiter. This technological limiter made drilled rank and file volley fire a more advantageous way of fighting. Also, drilled rank and file and facing down cannon fire made for the necessity of instilling iron discipline. The soldiers needed to be more afraid of their officers than the opposite side so that commanders could wield their men to face off, exchange volleys with the opposition and march over to claim land all in the face of exploding gunpowder and walls of lead. Thus collectivism triumphed out of necessity and efficiency over Individualism again in this era.When firearms became more accurate, individualism became to grow in importance. This was heralded with the advent of riflemen as opposed to musketeers even during the previously discussed era of gunpowder and marching armies. Individualism hit a wall again during the stalemate engagements of WW1. This time the efficiency of technology was a limiter on individualism as tactics that were still rooted in the Nineteenth century could not keep up with the new surgically efficient killing machine gun. Commanders went about planning with an outmoded expectation of “good soldiering" which led to millions of lives wasted as cannon fodder. Numbers and human waves of charges called for little need for individualism. Too much thought-process could jeopardize the charge in fact and leave already committed comrades stranded ahead. A bolt out of the blue, storm-troopers were to prove a display of individualism and bravery intended to break the stalemate but could not counter the general macro-situation of the poorly coping battlefield tactics of the era. (I pause here to insert the clause that I have a sinking suspicion that in the novel new theatre of air combat, individualism flourished. To what extent and why, I cannot conclusively say now because admittedly, my knowledge in this area is insufficient to pose any coherent argument. I shall investigate further. :P )
Past the static lines of WW1,scattered group tactics grew in importance and pitched battles faded away in importance in WW2. Commanders came to recognize that decentralized fighting required more individualism. The movement away from pitched battles meant that warfare became more and more dynamic and ever new circumstances needed split-second decision-making and self-reliance from soldiers on the ground.
Move over to the modern armies of today's battlefields and we see that modern combatants face an even greater array of threats and opportunities. The need for co-ordinated arms warfare in the modern battlefields has also brought the share of decision-making increasingly down into the hands of the individual soldier (notably small unit leaders). Yet another a post-WW2 phenomenon, the advent of asymmetrical warfare also places emphasis on the guile, devotion and tactics of the individual soldier. The importance of compartmentalized individualism has never bewn stronger...
