Themes of Arms and the man

Disillusionment with War

The play discusses how war is made, how it is fought, and how parties sue for
peace at the close of it. Indeed, the play’s title is a direct quote from Virgil’s
Aeneid, the Roman epic that glorifies war. Shaw used this quote ironically,
drawing attention to how war should not be seen as romantic.
The Serbo-Bulgarian War is not addressed directly in the text, although that is the
historical template on which Shaw bases his production. Bluntschli is a Swiss
mercenary who has hired himself to the Serb cause, along with soldiers from other
nations. Sergius is supposed to representing the “heart” of the Bulgarian enterprise,
with his gutsy charge at the start of the work demonstrating just how powerfully he
wishes to defend his nation’s honor. What becomes clear as the play progresses,
however, is that war is simply a job for soldiers, and nothing more. Sergius is not
the hero he is initially thought to be. He romanticizes war to such an extent that he
leads a foolish charge against the enemy, and only does so in order to climb the
ranks for recognition. Bluntschli also destroys Raina’s romantic idea of war and
heroism when he proves that the best soldiers are often not identified as such on
the outside.
For Shaw, war is simply a way for men to occupy themselves, perhaps in
redrawing small parts of the national borders, while others on the domestic front,
who are predominantly women, shape many more aspects of life. Though
Catherine and Raina are ostensibly dependent upon the outcome of the war, in
dealing with Bluntshli they are also active participants in some of its intrigues. In
harboring an enemy and ultimately marrying him, they add to the argument that
war and its divisiveness can be meaningless.
The Complexity of Romantic Love
The interactions of characters are primarily driven by romantic love, or lack of it.
Social conventions of love during Shaw’s time period included public and formal
courting, parental approval, and consideration of social status and wealth of each
partner. However, the characters in this play defy the norms and each end up with a
person that is best suited to them. Characters slowly disabuse themselves of the
features of romantic love they have most cherished all their lives, and realize that it
is far more complex. For example, Raina does appear to love Sergius in the
beginning of the play, but when she falls in love with Blunstshcli, she realizes her
love for Sergius was superficial. Perhaps Raina only felt this way because Sergius
was lauded as a hero and because Catherine and Petkoff supported the union to
maintain the family’s social status.
By contrast, Louka, though engaged to her fellow servant Nicola, does not appear
to have ever been in love with him, and demonstrates that she is willing to work
hard to marry into a higher rank. Romantic love does not seem to be a factor in her
decisions. The beginnings of Louka’s relationship with Sergius are illicit, and defy
social norms of courtship. Bluntschli’s introduction to Raina is also
unconventional, as they meet secretly in her bedroom. And when they finally
become engaged, Bluntschli, the pragmatic and calculating soldier, surprises
everyone by revealing himself to be a lifelong romantic.
The Arbitrary Nature of Social Status
The social station of the characters in the play is one of the dynamics that becomes
most pronounced by its end. Louka wants to be more than a servant, whereas
Nicola seems content to remain one. Bluntschli appears to be middle class, but
reveals later that he is far, far wealthier than the noble Petkoffs. Petkoff and
Catherine want Raina to reinforce the family’s position however she can, either by
marrying the ostensibly bravest man in Bulgaria, Sergius, or by adding greatly to
the family’s coffers by joining with Bluntschli.
As in any marriage narrative of the nineteenth century, romantic love might be a
part of the marriage calculation, as it certainly didn’t hurt to love one’s partner. But
that is far from the point of marriage in this time period. Characters want to unite
noble families and improve financial situations. What romantic love tends to do in
these situations, then, is cut across and destabilize what might be the otherwise
orderly transfer of money between families.
Romanticism/ Idealism vs. Realism
One of the central criticisms of Arms and the Man is of the tendency of people to
romanticize or idealize complex realities: in particular love and war. Literary
romanticism began to decline right around the time Shaw was born, and the play in
many ways illustrates how and why romanticism historically failed: it could not
accurately describe fundamental human experiences.

Raina is the play’s most obvious romantic. Her relationship with Sergius (whom
the stage directions call a “Byronic hero” after the Romantic poet Lord Byron)
embodies almost all of the romantic ideals: they are both beautiful, refined, and
appear to be infatuated with each other. However this romantic, idealistic vision of
love does not stand up when reality sets in. The “genteel” Sergius lusts
animalistically—even, sometimes, violently—after the servant Louka and Raina is
in love with the anti-romantic Bluntschli. Their ideal romantic love is all an act. In
reality, love is much more multifaceted, and complicated, than Raina and Sergius
make it seem.

Raina and Sergius’s flawed romanticism also shows through in their conception of
war. Raina waxes poetic about how Sergius is an ideal soldier: brave, virile,
ruthless but fair. It turns out Sergius’s cavalry charge was ill-advised, and the
charge only succeeded because the opposing side didn’t have the correct
ammunition. Sergius is not the perfect soldier—he is a farce. And the real soldier,
Bluntschli, runs away from battle and carries sweets instead of a gun. He also
speaks honestly about the brutality and violence of war—which involves more
drunkenness and abuse than it does heroics and gallantry.

Shaw displays an interest in revealing human realities like love and war for what
they really are: often ugly, contradictory, and thoroughly complex. He implicitly
criticizes romantic art for avoiding these realities, and giving us a sugarcoated
version of human life and human history. Conversely, his work puts forth the
argument that art should be able to make sense of and account for human
experiences.
Class Division
19th century Europe was a place where divisions between the classes were
becoming sharper and more damaging all the time. Industrialization and a
widening wage gap gave rise to a socialist movement determined to protect
members of the working class from exploitation. Predictably, Shaw, a socialist and
activist, seeks to undermine the significance of class divisions in his play. The
book persistently points out that division between the classes is unethical and
unjust. The play maintains that in fact there is no inherent difference between a
member of the working class and a member of the aristocracy beyond the way they
are treated by society.
Louka is the most adamant socialist voice in this play. She insists she does not
have the “soul of a servant” and refuses to think of herself as subservient simply
because she was born into the working class. She falls in love with Sergius and
calls Raina by her first name. In doing so she eschews convention and promotes
her own equality.
Bluntschli persistently identifies himself as a poor soldier, and loves Raina because
she was kind to him (and in fact fell in love with him) before she knew he owned a
chain of hotels and therefore had a claim to a great fortune. Perhaps Raina’s
greatest virtue is her ability to see past class divisions. This is especially notable
considering how wrapped up in the meaning of wealth and aristocracy the Petkoffs
are. They speak down to the servants and seemingly cannot go five minutes
without mentioning that they have a library (an indicator of unusual wealth.)
Ultimately, the play depicts those obsesses with their wealth and class to be foolish
and shallow, and further suggests that those locked into their class positions are
stuck acting a role that keeps them from their true selves, from actual happiness.
Heroism : Another of the central questions of Arms and the Man concerns the
nature of heroism. What makes a hero? What does it mean to be a hero? What
responsibilities does such a label convey? At first, Sergius is painted as a hero—he
led a successful cavalry charge, displaying immense (in fact foolhardy) bravery. He
is physically strong, courageous, and handsome. He thus embodies a very
traditional kind of heroism. But it is made clear that Sergius’s actions are
considered by more seasoned soldiers to be farcical. Though Raina and her mother
fawn over Sergius, in part because Raina is betrothed to him, others find him more
of a clown than a hero.
Bluntschli is a kind of “anti-hero.” He is dubbed by Raina to be the “chocolate
cream soldier”—a moniker that inspires images of weakness and sweetness—
because he typically carries chocolates rather than extra ammo. He is older, more
modest looking, and doesn’t believe courage is a virtue. But by the end of the play
he is revealed to be both a better soldier and a far more desirable husband than
Sergius, and wins Raina’s affections.
The question of heroism Is a rich and diverse one. By wondering about what makes
a hero, Shaw engages various lines of thinking. What do heroes mean to culture?
Who ought to be a hero? And what of literary heroes?—Shaw was writing in a time
of social and political upheaval. The clash between socialism and capitalism was
growing more contentious, and the rise of new industrial technologies was
exacerbating the already sharp class divisions and changing the cultural landscape.
It was accordingly a time of artistic and literary upheaval as well: literary
Romanticism no longer seemed fit to make sense of or address contemporary
human problems. The Byronic, romantic hero had been forsaken—what would the
new literary heroes look like? By engaging these questions about heroism Shaw is
asking questions about the future of culture and art.
Identity, Authenticity and self expression
Arms and the Man is very interested in identity—many of its characters (played by
actors on the stage) are themselves acting out certain roles, and the play repeatedly
questions what constitutes a person’s “true identity.” In addition, the play
emphasizes the importance of remaining authentic to yourself: many characters in
the play are liberated once they learn to stop posturing or performing for others and
express themselves honestly.
Both Raina and Sergius act out different roles depending on who they are with.
Sergius supposes that he is “six different men” all wrapped into one. Raina speaks
with a certain kind of passion and drama deliberately, because she finds it has a
desired effect on the listener. They both do a good deal of “acting.” Shaw also
implicitly asks what things (besides behavior) determine identity. Is it our
profession? Is calling Bluntschli a “soldier” tantamount to summarizing his
identity? The same question could be asked about Nicola being a “servant.” Do our
families or our names define us? Raina often speaks of herself as though her status
as a “Petkoff” Is integral to who she is.
These characters triumph, and form happy relationships, once they cease
performing for the benefit of their family, friends, etc. and allow themselves to act
authentically. Raina is able to let go of her romantic youthful and aristocratic airs
and be herself with Bluntschli—who can only admit his love for her after he lets go
of his rugged cynicism and admits he has a romantic side. Louka and Sergius also
end up together once Sergius admits he is not as sensitive and refined as he acts,
and once Louka freely admits that, though she has been acting put off by Sergius,
the affection is in fact mutual.
In the late 1800s, Shaw became an advocate for the rights of workers, women, and
racial minorities. He observed that certain groups of people were subjugated
because of certain aspects of their identities, and in many ways this play serves to
deconstruct “identity” as many in the 1800s would have seen it: something
grounded in manners, social and economic standing, ancestry, race and gender. He
also sees these divisions as not only economically or socially damaging but also
psychologically damaging. Shaw questions these divisions in the play just as he
questioned them in his activism. The play reveals that if culture shapes our identity
for us we fail to be happy. But if we can find a way to be authentic to ourselves,
our lives become more honest and our relationships more fulfilling. In many ways
this emphasis on the importance of self-expression could be a kind of implicit
argument for the importance of the arts, which many perceived to be waning in
importance in the increasingly industrialized and scientific world of the late 19 th
century.