How war has influenced ancient, classical and medieval societies

[Myth]

Prior to the introduction of gunpowder and mass conscription, warfare was a significant part of the social-economic structure of society. Not that it ceased to be afterwards, but it was such in a different way. The further we go back in time (especially prior to the creation of the crossbow mechanism), the more warfare is linked to individual skill and valour.

Hence a good warrior (or the best one) usually became a formal leader, and was always a non-formal leader in his society. We can see it in the way ancient sagas and myths are constructed. The hero is always a warrior (sometimes a cunning one, sometimes a brave one, sometimes an unbeatable or strong one). The Roman republic was based on warfare and advancing in society required that one was an accomplished military leader.

Of course, rose tinted glasses aside, war is an ugly business of death, blood, tears and suffering through various forms. Yet, if there must be war, would not one prefer the war of individual skill, physical ability and valour than to the nameless and faceless mass of the post mass conscription method which has lead up to combined arms?

I am not saying that modern day soldiers do not have individual skill and valour, indeed there is a difference between a chump with an AK and a pro soldier. However, basically anyone can kill anyone else through gunfire. And the soldiers nowadays do not play a pivotal role in society. Their voices are never heard, courtesy of modern military doctrine. We don't need a Praetorian Guard which changes our leaders whenever it sees fit, but the de-humanization of the warrior has lead to society being separated from the whole aspect of war. Unless it's on your doorstep.

IMO humanity cannot escape war. Unless the green men invade, we will never set aside our differences (real or imagined). Greed will always prevail. Yet I somehow see a positive influence of the image of the valorous and heroic warrior on past societies, and I miss that.

Heck, I miss the coming of age aspect and the role model aspect they provided. A young boy in a tribal, classical or medieval society wishes to become a man worthy of the title. Being a man was indeed a title, earned through a coming of age ritual. It was not a given, one was not entitled to being a man because he grew stubble on his chin. The boy had to prove to other men that he was capable. And he looked up to the biggest, best and most acclaimed warriors of his society and wanted to become like them.

What are our current role models? Do we even have any which inspire the desire for one to improve himself? To become stronger, tougher, more disciplined? IMO the youth of today (myself included) could use some discipline and such role models. I don't like seeing squishy, pale faced teenage boys with dyed and straightened hair and nail polish. And don't tell me that a 15 year old knows that "that is who he is". It's not a matter of sexual preference either. It's a matter of turning boys into men. Somehow modern society is missing the whole coming of age thing, and we are spoiling children more and more with the ever widening no man's land called "teenager".

There used to be no teenagers in history, only children and adults. Right now, this "not quite grownup" group is being pampered into becoming moma's boys. Then the women complain that they get jellyfish for boyfriends who can't let go of their mother's skirt. Unless your life molds you into becoming an adult, you could get some psychological issues (Jung speaks of this, the subconscious sexual fantasies of the cradle) just by virtue of the society we live in. It lacks direction and motivation for the youth to seek to become men of value.

I'm not saying let's all be like North Korea and have 50% of our population employed in the army. Nor am I saying let's breed more soldiers to go kill more people. I'm saying, let's replace the image of Achilles, Hector and Alexander with something else which kids can aspire to. Or am I wrong? Is my way of thinking archaic?

[Pannonian]

What are our current role models?

TV provides the answer.

[Sarmatian]

I'm not saying let's all be like North Korea and have 50% of our population employed in the army. Nor am I saying let's breed more soldiers to go kill more people. I'm saying, let's replace the image of Achilles, Hector and Alexander with something else which kids can aspire to. Or am I wrong? Is my way of thinking archaic?

In the words of master Yoda, who is wisest across all galaxies, wars don't make anyone great.

Meditate on that you must, Myth.

[The Lurker Below]

12832

[Myth]

Guys, i was hoping for serious debate here. SHAMEFUR DSIPRAY!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6zQ6ZqEqg0

[gaelic cowboy]

Link below to this author who was on talk radio the last day.

He seemed to address a few points relevant to this OP


Ian Morris WAR! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/ian-morris-79345/war-what-is-it-good-for/)

[Pannonian]

War isn't the answer

War is definitely the answer if the question is what word do you get if you spell raw backwards.

[Greyblades]

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
Socrates.


I've always liked the idea of making everyone do 2 years of Service either in the military or in some kind of social work, but I suspect all those European states stopped doing that for a reason so I really don't know.
Because conscription rarely win's votes.

[Husar]

Modern day society also lacks the aspect of living under one roof with all the house animals such as cows, pigs, chickens and then slaughtering them behind the house when the time has come. Modern society lacks the community spirit to get along with or kill your immediate neighbors instead of chatting with people several kilometers away. Modern society lack the black and white view of child/adult and friend/enemy that used to make discussing politics so simple, straightforward and effective unless the lord of the land said you are wrong. Modern society lacks the bond between rulers and subjects where the former would take good care of the latter in return for some labor-favors. Modern society lacks the natural checks and balances that would let the unworthy and weak die because they could not keep up, or just wipe out a third of the population. Modern society lacks the spiritual leadership that would tell the children who they should start a crusade against before they die on the way there. Modern society lacks the traditional gender roles where the man's role was to define what the roles are about. Modern society lacks the inspiring stories where we all live on a big tree and Thor has a really big hammer (true story!). Modern society lacks the sense of sacrifice where people want to die for the aforementioned guy with the hammer to achieve a benefit for society. Modern society lacks brigands, who could turn travel between cities into an actual adventure. Modern society lacks simple rules to live by, like might makes right and the winner takes it all.

Let's all just hope that the Ukraine crisis really blows up to remind us all that we are pussies and that real men with the right attitude don't need nukes to win elegantly, but will do so anyway.

[Sarmatian]

If Jesus could sleep in the stables (or was it a barn? (what's the difference between the two?)), so can we.

[Pannonian]

You know, its possible to criticize the things that are bad about modern society without also lamenting the time when we all slept with the family cows. :no:

Is that an American hazing ritual? Did you use protection?

[Kagemusha]

War is never a good thing, but i would just like to point out that there are Western democracies that still have large popular support for conscription. Like for example Switzerland and Finland that both have akin 70% support for conscription in a way of either mandatory military or civil service. In my opinion it is a great way to teach young people how to work together and in a sense diminish unnecessary extreme individualism. To me conscription as purely military means is becoming somewhat obsolete unless applied in extreme conditions like for example in Israel, where maintaining large enough professional forces would be quite impossible, but i can definitely see it having benefits, if applied in democratic society, while it of course has its downsides as well.

I have always found it interesting why there is such big dislike towards conscription in the Anglosphere part of the world. Maybe our members from such countries might be able to shed some light in the issue?

[Greyblades]

I have always found it interesting why there is such big dislike towards conscription in the Anglosphere part of the world. Maybe our members from such countries might be able to shed some light in the issue?
World War 1.

[Pannonian]

I have always found it interesting why there is such big dislike towards conscription in the Anglosphere part of the world. Maybe our members from such countries might be able to shed some light in the issue?

Britain, as an island, has not had to endure war on its land (with rare exceptions). So the military has not been a fact of life as much as it's been on the continent, and while doing a necessary service, were both distant and comprised of the lower sections of society (Wellington's scum of the earth).

[Kagemusha]

World War 1.

Its not like only English died in World War 1. Sorry too hazy to satisfy my curiosity. Maybe UK have had professional armies for so long that the thought of conscription have become less attractive? Already because of Geographical issues UK has not have a dire need for huge armies in numerical sense in most of her conflicts. Could that be at least a partial reason for dislike?

EDIT: Apparently Pannonian already answered my question before is asked it.:rolleyes:

[Myth]

Britain, as an island, has not had to endure war on its land (with rare exceptions). So the military has not been a fact of life as much as it's been on the continent, and while doing a necessary service, were both distant and comprised of the lower sections of society (Wellington's scum of the earth).

That's cause your longbowmen are overpowered plus the AI sucks at naval invasions.

[Sarmatian]

That's cause your longbowmen are overpowered plus the AI sucks at naval invasions.

Which game are we talking about? Oh, wait, it's like that in all of them. British lobby has been the death of the strategy games industry.

[Greyblades]

To clarify my earlier post: The first world war also entailed the first major conscription effort in the Empire, and it resulted in a complete clusterfuck that killed off enire communities, there were few families that didnt lose a member to the war and noone could say why. In the aftermath the nation had to deal with thousands of ex soldiers that couldnt function in society and those that could were staunchly against ever doing it again.

In some way our nation's leaders lucked out with the nazi's the second time round, without an actual enemy that deserved fighting we'd probably have warred ourselves into complete isolationism.

[Pannonian]

That's cause your longbowmen are overpowered plus the AI sucks at naval invasions.

Just thank the gaming gods the amphibious AI wasn't programmed by Germans, or it would have sucked even worse. Maybe CA should employ American programmers to do that part of their AI, as they're pretty good at doing invasions, although their AIs tend to massively overdo the invasion forces.

[HoreTore]

If Jesus could sleep in the stables (or was it a barn? (what's the difference between the two?)), so can we.

Stables are for horsies, barns are for moo-moo's.

And Giovanni Gentile approves of the OP.

[Greyblades]

That's cause your longbowmen are overpowered plus the AI sucks at naval invasions. Our longbow's arent overpowered, the AI just have a habit of being too stupid to know that cavalry charges into stakes is a bad idea.

[Sarmatian]

Just thank the gaming gods the amphibious AI wasn't programmed by Germans, or it would have sucked even worse. Maybe CA should employ American programmers to do that part of their AI, as they're pretty good at doing invasions, although their AIs tend to massively overdo the invasion forces.

Saxons and Normans could actually do a good job. Now, Spanish programmers doing a naval invasion AI, that's a recipe for disaster.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because conscription rarely win's votes.

sometimes it even loses you a chunck of land that was considered as British as Kent

Conscription Crisis of 1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1918)


It destroyed the Irish Parlimentary Party which had gotten an assurance of Home Rule after WW1.


(A promise I believe the liberals would never have kept anyway)


The linking of Home Rule and conscription killed the IPP and led to Sinn Fein starting the War of Independence.

[Kadagar_AV]

Because conscription rarely win's votes.

Maybe where you are from...

Quite a lot of countries, and people, support it.

Also, those who support it are often more likely to deem it an important political question, compared to those who are against it but don't care much either way.

I guess it's because the "against conscription" side only have vague idealistic ideas of what's good and not... While people for conscription often have very matter of factly arguments (turning boys to men being one good argument).

At least that's how I look on it.


Myth's OP was interesting, and I give him right in his general reasoning. "Teenagers" get away with way too much, on top of that, they stay teenagers well into their 20's - mentally and practically.

Heck, in Sweden, it's quite normal nowadays for 25 year olds to live at home with mom and dad... That didn't use to be the case (immigration also plays a part in this specific problem though, as we simply don't have homes for everyone with the extreme influx of immigrants we accept).

[HoreTore]

Swedes live at home* because they don't have jobs. That's got nothing to do with housing issues.

Anyway, as for instituting conscription:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA


*those who haven't fled to Oslo to become glorious banana peelers, that is.

[Myth]

First of all, as much as I respect and like Husar, I don't see his counter arguments anywhere. I mostly see a straw man argument. I'm not looking at ancient societies with some idealistic romatnic notion that "everything was better". There is no need to bring in the failings of feudalism, the black plague, highwaymen (who still exist BTW, go us right?). Religion bashing is also there, though I find it funny. IMO it's better for my son to want to fight and die for the glory of Odin like a real man than to become a Scientologist or what other new bullshit they come up with. Gender roles, war etc. - Husar you touch on so many subjects which we STILL haven't fixed, us being so modern and all. Heck, your post outlines 90% of the stuff we argue about today and most of the things which make people get infracted here :laugh4:

Who would kids look up to nowadays? Most of the real alpha men become successful business men or athletes, but they're a small part of the equation. Still, It's better for your kid to admire your nation's greatest boxer or football player. At least he's not a corrupt weasel or bureaucrat. You can't seriosly tell me that hearing "Gee dad, I want to be just like Tony Blair when I grow up" will not make you cringe. Not bashing TB or Britain here, just giving an example (Geroge W. Bush was just too comic to even give as such an example).

Also, I'm not implying that mandatory military service is the panacea to this issue, though I do find a correlation to its removal in 2003 and the increase of youth in our lands that look like this: https://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8366/2950230hr7.jpg

And don't tell me you guys have it better - I see Swedish and German young adults (lol) when they come over to our beaches. It's sad and/or pathetic.

Also, I admire HoreTore's intellect. He keeps finding new and innovative ways to call someone a Nazi. Sieg Heil my friend.

My point was that society offers no real way for our kids to enter the adult life. Unless your dad is a bad enough dude, you've got problems. Heck, even Japan has a better model with their extra curricular (called clubs) and their constant drive for everyone to do their best.

[Papewaio]

Stories have a limited number of particapents so the listener/reader can follow along.

Ancient society stories tend to focus on the heroes, leaders and game changers. They are no more an accurate portrait of life then a Hollywood movie. Spoiler alert there was no magical Golden Fleece. For every Alexander there was a legion of followers. And for every legion there was logistical support from baggage train to smiths to cooks to camp followers.

Believe it or not only a fraction of most societies were ever of the warrior class and plenty of others found adulthood through more constructive means.

Nor is war often won by a lone individuals skill at arms. Most of the time it came down to gold, logistics, patience, cunning and tactics (both brave, cunning and horrific). It's not like the Macedonian pikemen were in any different a position to a modern rifleman. We forget that most of the wars are fought by grunts and for us to comprehend the complexities we simplify them and hang the glory on the leaders.

[Husar]

You know, its possible to criticize the things that are bad about modern society without also lamenting the time when we all slept with the family cows. :no:

That still doesn't explain why hazing rituals are a good thing. I find them horribly stupid and outdated.


First of all, as much as I respect and like Husar, I don't see his counter arguments anywhere. I mostly see a straw man argument. I'm not looking at ancient societies with some idealistic romatnic notion that "everything was better".

Of course not, I wasn't even directly replying to you, but I still think that hazing rituals and manly manliness are overrated. I see Russia as a country where a lot of men follow these ideals and if you go to the Ukraine thread, you will see how much people like Russian behavior.


highwaymen (who still exist BTW, go us right?).

I said modern society.


Religion bashing is also there, though I find it funny. IMO it's better for my son to want to fight and die for the glory of Odin like a real man than to become a Scientologist or what other new bullshit they come up with.

How does scientology not qualify as a target of religion bashing?


Gender roles, war etc. - Husar you touch on so many subjects which we STILL haven't fixed, us being so modern and all. Heck, your post outlines 90% of the stuff we argue about today and most of the things which make people get infracted here :laugh4:

You mean the countries that advocate the manly manliness sort of behavior and hazing rituals the most still haven't fixed these issues. How is promoting manly behavior and advocating strength going to fix rivalries and unfairness? Or are you arguing that the way the world should be is that the strong take their rightful place above the weak?


Who would kids look up to nowadays?

Men with morals who actually stand by what they say and don't need manly hazing rituals to be able to pretend that they are someone.


Most of the real alpha men become successful business men or athletes, but they're a small part of the equation. Still, It's better for your kid to admire your nation's greatest boxer or football player. At least he's not a corrupt weasel or bureaucrat.

Yeah, they just become really stupid moderators (on TV, I see this could be misunderstood), opposition politicians in their home countries or go broke because they never learned anything to feed them after their career. I'm not sure that's what I'd want my child to go for, not to mention that not every child is made for that sort of sport.


You can't seriosly tell me that hearing "Gee dad, I want to be just like Tony Blair when I grow up" will not make you cringe. Not bashing TB or Britain here, just giving an example (Geroge W. Bush was just too comic to even give as such an example).

Maybe it's the dad's failure if his son chooses Tony Blair over Angela Merkel.


Also, I'm not implying that mandatory military service is the panacea to this issue, though I do find a correlation to its removal in 2003 and the increase of youth in our lands that look like this: https://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8366/2950230hr7.jpg

Did you check for other potential factors or are you just using completely unfounded anecdotal opinion?


And don't tell me you guys have it better - I see Swedish and German young adults (lol) when they come over to our beaches. It's sad and/or pathetic.

Why? Do you like to look at young naked men?


My point was that society offers no real way for our kids to enter the adult life. Unless your dad is a bad enough dude, you've got problems. Heck, even Japan has a better model with their extra curricular (called clubs) and their constant drive for everyone to do their best.

And their extracurricular suicide rate.

[Papewaio]

That still doesn't explain why hazing rituals are a good thing. I find them horribly stupid and outdated.

You need a clean slate to write a new program.

If you look at the techniques in military training, boxing and cults you will see a lot of crossover.

Cults often separate their recruits out from the general population, keep them very busy, deprive them of sleep and indoctrinate them on the rituals of the group.

Boxing often has to train people out of bad habits and the grueling training is as much to train physical as well as mental stamina.

So military training takes a bit out of the tricks of cults in general. A non destructive hazing ritual which disorientates the recruits, puts them through a difficult task and then joins them to the bigger team but teaching them tricks of the trade is proably a much more effective bonding ritual then a graduation parade.

[Strike For The South]

If one more person tells me how to be a "real man". I will beat them up, screw their girlfriend and eat a steak

[Greyblades]

Well I assume the main reason they still do hazing is because it works. And as much as I feel there's got to be a less...traumatizing way to get the results, well, it's not exactly easy to reinvent the wheel, and failed attempts could cost lives in experimentation. As for conscription the worst soldiers are the ones that don't want to be there. And who doesn't want to be in the line of fire more than a conscript.

[Kadagar_AV]

That still doesn't explain why hazing rituals are a good thing. I find them horribly stupid and outdated.


I find men outdated and stupid.

We could just take the current male population, kill them and retract the sperm, and we would have enough for making new girls for the next umph-very-high-number-of-years.

Oooooor... We could admit that men exist, and that this is a historically as well as factually effective way to make men bond, and to sort the real deal from the mama's boys.

Logically you are right, of course. Unfortunately "logic" isn't always our strongest side, that's why we need an arse beating from time to time, to separate the ones who can from the ones who can't, in extreme situations.

Or are you proposing a world without extreme situations - nor men to handle them?

[Papewaio]

If one more person tells me how to be a "real man". I will beat them up, screw their girlfriend and eat a steak

Hey Strike, your dad called and wants to have a father to son chat about being a real man.

Should I tell him to bring some steaks?

[Kadagar_AV]

Hazing in general isn't good for much at all, and actually the US Army has been trying to get rid of it with great success. I wouldn't call what's left hazing. More like a prankster culture, which is good for laughs at least. I don't care who you are, a lieutenant taped to a gun tube is funny. LTs get paid a lot, so its okay. They'll be fine. More extreme kinds of hazing like jumping somebody to initiate them into a gang, or the kinds of crap frat pledges are occasionally stereotyped as having to do are certainly bad things and I agree with Husar that they're dumb. But to call anything which might elicit discomfort hazing would be counter-intuitive when you're talking about a group of people who are supposed to train together for extremely uncomfortable situations. If you can't handle a little ribbing, maybe you shouldn't be dodging bullets and bombs. But, yes, hazing in general is bad. I don't know why anyone would disagree with that in principle. :shrug:

I'll play.

Because hazing in a military tradition that stretches back since the origin of mankind isn't the same as hazing found on the school yard or among thug gangs in USA.

I was uplifted from this hazing, why would it be negative?


Schoolyards and gangs taking over the principle without all the OTHER principles - yes of course it is bound to go wrong. But hazing as is - in the elite regiments and platoons - still serve the good of mankind IMNSHO...

[Husar]

So military training takes a bit out of the tricks of cults in general. A non destructive hazing ritual which disorientates the recruits, puts them through a difficult task and then joins them to the bigger team but teaching them tricks of the trade is proably a much more effective bonding ritual then a graduation parade.

But it's not like these two are the only tools humans have at their disposal to achieve a bond between men.
I've actually used similar "bonding techniques" as a kid, but that was cruel and stupid and I haven't done it since.


Or are you proposing a world without extreme situations - nor men to handle them?

I'd prefer a world where other people do not insinuate that I'm not a real man because I am not keen of going through a silly hazing ritual.


More extreme kinds of hazing like jumping somebody to initiate them into a gang, or the kinds of crap frat pledges are occasionally stereotyped as having to do are certainly bad things and I agree with Husar that they're dumb.

I thought that's what we're mostly talking about when we say hazing because otherwise the topic is not all that relevant.
Even here in Germany there are really, really stupid and disgusting rituals in the army, which revolve around things like having to eat raw eggs, some stuff with naked people and so on. And then I heard anecdotes about people putting out cigarettes on the skin of non-smokers. If that's what some people see as the good stuff that turns you into a real and disciplined man then I probably don't even want to be one.


Because hazing in a military tradition that stretches back since the origin of mankind isn't the same as hazing found on the school yard or among thug gangs in USA.

I was uplifted from this hazing, why would it be negative?

I thought we're not talking about some funny prank but about actually humiliating rituals that involve all kinds of abuse.


Hazing is the practice of rituals and other activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazing


Schoolyards and gangs taking over the principle without all the OTHER principles - yes of course it is bound to go wrong. But hazing as is - in the elite regiments and platoons - still serve the good of mankind IMNSHO...

The problem is that every regiment has its own rituals and there are enough reports of them being not so dissimilar or even worse than the ones you find in the aforementioned gangs. It may be different in Sweden where it's all fun and games but maybe look for some Bavarian ones for example.
You can start here: http://www.thelocal.de/20100223/25447

I wonder why the soldiers wrote letters to complain if it made them bond so nicely.

[a completely inoffensive name]

363 years ago, the English Civil War inspired Hobbes to write the most idiotic defense of despotism ever written. And somehow, it garnered enough respect that it is considered a lynch pin of Western Civilization. I think I will pass on the benefits of more war on society.

Well, I guess I should be happy that Leviathan inspired better people to tell Hobbes how full of **** he was.

[HoreTore]

Also, I admire HoreTore's intellect. He keeps finding new and innovative ways to call someone a Nazi. Sieg Heil my friend.

Gentile was not a nazi in any way.

[Pannonian]

That's all worse than anything I saw. :shrug: There was a mechanic unit attached to us for awhile that would celebrate birthdays by holding the person down and slapping the crap out of their stomach, and its my understanding that the support units are actually a lot bigger on that kind of thing, but certainly nothing like that in units I was in. Pranking? Constantly. Friendly ribbing that occasionally borders on offensive? Certainly. Eating raw eggs, naked, while someone puts a ciggy out on you? Certainly not. :rtwno:

How would you rate permanently dyeing someone blue, so that for the rest of their life they would be known as painted people?

[Ironside]

Prior to the introduction of gunpowder and mass conscription, warfare was a significant part of the social-economic structure of society. Not that it ceased to be afterwards, but it was such in a different way. The further we go back in time (especially prior to the creation of the crossbow mechanism), the more warfare is linked to individual skill and valour.

Hence a good warrior (or the best one) usually became a formal leader, and was always a non-formal leader in his society. We can see it in the way ancient sagas and myths are constructed. The hero is always a warrior (sometimes a cunning one, sometimes a brave one, sometimes an unbeatable or strong one). The Roman republic was based on warfare and advancing in society required that one was an accomplished military leader.

[QUOTE=Myth;2053589840]Of course, rose tinted glasses aside, war is an ugly business of death, blood, tears and suffering through various forms. Yet, if there must be war, would not one prefer the war of individual skill, physical ability and valour than to the nameless and faceless mass of the post mass conscription method which has lead up to combined arms?

I prefer winning. That means applying the tactics that makes you win. I do prefer not having war at all.


We don't need a Praetorian Guard which changes our leaders whenever it sees fit, but the de-humanization of the warrior has lead to society being separated from the whole aspect of war. Unless it's on your doorstep.

IMO humanity cannot escape war. Unless the green men invade, we will never set aside our differences (real or imagined). Greed will always prevail. Yet I somehow see a positive influence of the image of the valorous and heroic warrior on past societies, and I miss that.

That's because you ignore the true horrors of war. The cripples, the destruction, the dead, the PSTD, the rapes (don't think you're excluded from that one. The macho man you espouse, if you rape him, he'll loose his manhood, a fate worse than death. This is very common in the current wars). Have you red the greek myths? Most of them are quite bad. The word hero didn't mean good at the time, it meant strong.


Heck, I miss the coming of age aspect and the role model aspect they provided. A young boy in a tribal, classical or medieval society wishes to become a man worthy of the title. Being a man was indeed a title, earned through a coming of age ritual. It was not a given, one was not entitled to being a man because he grew stubble on his chin. The boy had to prove to other men that he was capable. And he looked up to the biggest, best and most acclaimed warriors of his society and wanted to become like them.

While the commning of age ritual can be comforting for some, the more complexities you add the harder it'll get. Say that you have an adult ritual at 18 and it's time to leave home. But your father is sick and your mother is dead. Welcome to "kill" you father or not being a real adult. Or you grew up in an area with 20+% unemployment. No jobs, so you can't be a real adult and supporting yourself. You think that would cause a minor or major extra mental strain? Machoism is stronger in poor areas btw.

And basically, most of the modern history haven't had that kind of strong coming of age rituals. Yet humanity has progressed.


I don't like seeing squishy, pale faced teenage boys with dyed and straightened hair and nail polish. And don't tell me that a 15 year old knows that "that is who he is". It's not a matter of sexual preference either. It's a matter of turning boys into men. Somehow modern society is missing the whole coming of age thing, and we are spoiling children more and more with the ever widening no man's land called "teenager".

If you didn't wore makeup, a whig and cried rivers (at important moments of course) then you weren't a man. That was about 300 years ago. Even the macho man concept has changed with time.


There used to be no teenagers in history, only children and adults. Right now, this "not quite grownup" group is being pampered into becoming moma's boys. Then the women complain that they get jellyfish for boyfriends who can't let go of their mother's skirt. Unless your life molds you into becoming an adult, you could get some psychological issues (Jung speaks of this, the subconscious sexual fantasies of the cradle) just by virtue of the society we live in. It lacks direction and motivation for the youth to seek to become men of value.

Italy is infamous for their macho men that also are moma's boys.

Basically, you like macho men. It's a personality trait. Some girls will prefer macho style. That does not mean that it's a sort of ideal man that's supposed to be a default. It's like the liberal and conservative mindset have been fighting eachother for recorded history, yet none of the sides have destroyed the other, showing its superiority.

[Myth]

I want the youth to turn into adults and not good for nothings. No work where you live? Move. Take life by the reigns. Is that a macho man? If yes, then I like that. FYI taking care of your sick father at age 18 constitutes as a coming of age to me. The hardest trials usually come from life itself. That doesn't mean that if life doesn't present such things that we should let the kids turn into under achievers or into men who can't take responsibility, make decisions etc.

It's not about conforming to a stereotype or turning everyone into Leonidas and his elite guard (from the "300" movie) it's about creating good role models. I'm not saying that Alexander won his victories alone. Are you guys deliberately misunderstanding me or what? I'm saying that the aspiration to become someone like Alexander can fashion a boy into a worthy man.

I also stated in the OP that I don't romanticise war. I am fully aware of the horrors and atrocities it brings. I live on the Balkans for God's sakes! I said that the ancient and medieval warrior was a man of skill and and discipline and that seeped through to the younger generations. Where is the modern day man of skill and discipline to be so put before the eyes of the young?

If we have outgrown role models like Achiles and Alexander, then let us replace them with more relevant ones. Not with "16 and pregnant", Honeyboobochild, Jersey Shore, WWF "wrestling" and so on. Ancient sagas were like hollywood films in terms of their accurate portrayal of events, but the message they bring is not "turn your daughter into a skank and buy your kid an Iphone and drink Coca Cola". I rather like the message they bring. Would you have your kid read The Once and Future King or have him watch Twilight or Transformers?

HT: I googled him because I am ignorant of who he was. First line of Wikipedia was "the philosopher of Facism" and I stopped reading from there. I apologize if I jumped the gun and misunderstood you.

[HoreTore]

Fascism =/= nazism.

[Husar]

The word hero didn't mean good at the time, it meant strong.

It still means that to me because that was the first context in which I learned the word.
The whole all dead soldiers are heroes even if they just arrived and got blown up on the loo for nothing still doesn't really make sense to me other than misusing a word to console the families of those who needlessly died to benefit others.


I said that the ancient and medieval warrior was a man of skill and and discipline and that seeped through to the younger generations. Where is the modern day man of skill and discipline to be so put before the eyes of the young?

Business consultants, lawyers, policemen, firefighters, carpenters, engineers. The medieval warrior who was a man of skill and discipline was an ideal that only existed because none of them were that way anyway. So in order to maybe make them a little bit more that way, the powers that were created this ideal image for people to aspire to. That doesn't mean it worked or made people behave much better than before.


If we have outgrown role models like Achiles and Alexander, then let us replace them with more relevant ones. Not with "16 and pregnant", Honeyboobochild, Jersey Shore, WWF "wrestling" and so on. Ancient sagas were like hollywood films in terms of their accurate portrayal of events, but the message they bring is not "turn your daughter into a skank and buy your kid an Iphone and drink Coca Cola". I rather like the message they bring. Would you have your kid read The Once and Future King or have him watch Twilight or Transformers?

How about letting your kid watch/read what it wants as long as it's old enough to understand it and becoming your kid's role model yourself?
Why do TV or books have to be the only source of role models or ideas for your children? My parents taught me relatively early that most of the stuff in books and on TV is not real and should just be seen as an entertaining story, nothing more. I also find it hard to have someone forced on me as a rolemodel who has a completely different personality than I do because it ends in a neverending tirade of not being able to become more like my role model, quite frustrating. Maybe it's more important to give people decent role models that suit them and can get the best out of the way they are wired than to force the same kind of role model onto everyone?

[ICantSpellDawg]

War dictates the lives and interests of men around the world and has throughout history. When they are not fighting it, they are simulating it through athletic pursuits or aggressive politics. It drives technological progress and creates at least as much as it destroys. It is the most fascinating thing in the world and includes all passions in concentrated form. In a world where the mere existence of right and wrong is questioned, what is preferable may simply be what is most interesting. War is most interesting, so I leave you to your own conclusions.

[Husar]

War dictates the lives and interests of men around the world and has throughout history. When they are not fighting it, they are simulating it through athletic pursuits or aggressive politics. It drives technological progress and creates at least as much as it destroys. It is the most fascinating thing in the world and includes all passions in concentrated form. In a world where the mere existence of right and wrong is questioned, what is preferable may simply be what is most interesting. War is most interesting, so I leave you to your own conclusions.

Yet most people throughout history, even among the men who fought in wars, would've rather done without it than with it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yet most people throughout history, even among the men who fought in wars, would've rather done without it than with it.

That's what they say now, but they are all driven to it. It becomes the most important experience of their lives. They can say what they want, but if biology pushes you toward something and it is so interesting that you always think about it, and you seek people who have also experienced it - it sounds like you loved it.

[Ironside]

I want the youth to turn into adults and not good for nothings. No work where you live? Move. Take life by the reigns. Is that a macho man? If yes, then I like that. FYI taking care of your sick father at age 18 constitutes as a coming of age to me. The hardest trials usually come from life itself. That doesn't mean that if life doesn't present such things that we should let the kids turn into under achievers or into men who can't take responsibility, make decisions etc.

And moving without a job is a cheap and safe method is it not? Sufficient to say, there's no easy solutions, no matter how much some might wish for it. Push a man down harder and he might get the push to succeed, or he goes into crime or simply break (drug abuser to escape, etc, etc).


It's not about conforming to a stereotype or turning everyone into Leonidas and his elite guard (from the "300" movie) it's about creating good role models. I'm not saying that Alexander won his victories alone. Are you guys deliberately misunderstanding me or what? I'm saying that the aspiration to become someone like Alexander can fashion a boy into a worthy man.


Alexander the G was the bestest warrior and you should totally be a great warrior conqueror like him. Just don't start any wars or something because they're bad mkay? See the contradiction?


I also stated in the OP that I don't romanticise war. I am fully aware of the horrors and atrocities it brings. I live on the Balkans for God's sakes! I said that the ancient and medieval warrior was a man of skill and and discipline and that seeped through to the younger generations. Where is the modern day man of skill and discipline to be so put before the eyes of the young?

Sport? Police? Firemen? For less athletic ideals you got the scientists, writers, leaders, economic elites and the occational IT geek.


If we have outgrown role models like Achiles and Alexander, then let us replace them with more relevant ones. Not with "16 and pregnant", Honeyboobochild, Jersey Shore, WWF "wrestling" and so on. Ancient sagas were like hollywood films in terms of their accurate portrayal of events, but the message they bring is not "turn your daughter into a skank and buy your kid an Iphone and drink Coca Cola". I rather like the message they bring. Would you have your kid read The Once and Future King or have him watch Twilight or Transformers?

You do notice that both Jersey Shore and WWF are tapping into macho? And that the two first aren't treated as rolemodels. They're rebellions at best. See the thing is that only they can decide what rolemodel they want, all you can do is giving good options. They exist, but people want their Twillight or Transformers as well. What you do are leaving both options open, and make them understand the difference between entertainment, insightful entertainment and insightful literature.


HT: I googled him because I am ignorant of who he was. First line of Wikipedia was "the philosopher of Facism" and I stopped reading from there. I apologize if I jumped the gun and misunderstood you.

Facism is heavy on macho, "men are men and women are women", youth should be this and that and we'll dicipline it into them. Like Communism, Facism has things in it that appeals to people (different people get appealed by different things). Nazism is a very specific thing in a broader spectrum.


That's what they say now, but they are all driven to it. It becomes the most important experience of their lives. They can say what they want, but if biology pushes you toward something and it is so interesting that you always think about it, and you seek people who have also experienced it - it sounds like you loved it.

Warmongering adrenaline junkies do exist, but they're kind of rare. I don't think we got a single one on the forum, even if several has been into combat. The idea of war contains a certain energy that's attractive, but the realities of war are much more brutal than that idea.

[HoreTore]

Fascism isn't just "heavy on macho".

Giovanni Gentile wrote extensively on the importance of youth, what the appropriate role model should be, how the current society is becoming decadent and have lost what guided older societies.

In other words, he wrote the OP.

[Rhyfelwyr]

War has always been socially exploitative, economically devastating, psychologically traumatizing, physically brutal - we can admire those who endured it, but we should never advocate it for its own merits. You were always far more likely to be a pitchfork-armed peasant than a knight in shining armour.

I would be opposed to non-wartime conscription on other grounds as well - most notably the idea that the state could ever have the power over us to force us into such a thing.

Still, for all that, I think we are living in an increasingly vapid society, and I can understand why people long for the discipline and camaraderie of conscription. Tyler Durden's speech comes to mind:


an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy **** we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very ****** off.

I think his comment that "we're a generation of men raised by women" is true as well. People are suppressed. When I see people, they look scared, timid, unsure - our interactions are all so fake and superficial and 99.9% of people try to play along with this game, playing by its rules, trying to get their little place on societies ladder. They want to become confident by getting people's approval by playing by the rules, yet the paradox is that is you play by other peoples' rules then right away you are making yourself a follower, you are making yourself submissive, you are demonstrating your inadequacy. If I see somebody wearing fancy clothes with their hair all styled up, then that says to me right away that they are weak, that they need attention, that they submit themselves to group norms. True self-confidence is almost non-existent these days. People that come across as confident generally derive all that confidence from their relationships to other people, it is something external to them that they can absorb, rather than coming from an internal self-assurance - take away the source of their confidence and they fall apart.

The thing is, I got so isolated, so far out the loop, that I have come to transcend all these things. I went from being the tiny quiet kid to the guy who always gets elected to speak for the group. I didn't look up to any role-models, I didn't build a friendship group, or develop skills or improve myself as a person; there was no 'healthy' solution - I just stopped caring. I threw off all the baggage and when you do that you can see yourself clearly - it's like people tell me, I know what I'm about.

Maybe the solution to the OP is that we need to stop looking to role-models, and start getting ourselves together.

[Husar]

Yeah, it's the age of the big female oppression and we should isolate teenagers more.

Actually I think there is not the one big solution that works for everyone, but maybe I'm just different.

[Greyblades]

The human condition has no cure, merely symptom managment.

Hrm, sounded more profound in my head.

[Ironside]

I think his comment that "we're a generation of men raised by women" is true as well. People are suppressed. When I see people, they look scared, timid, unsure - our interactions are all so fake and superficial and 99.9% of people try to play along with this game, playing by its rules, trying to get their little place on societies ladder. They want to become confident by getting people's approval by playing by the rules, yet the paradox is that is you play by other peoples' rules then right away you are making yourself a follower, you are making yourself submissive, you are demonstrating your inadequacy. If I see somebody wearing fancy clothes with their hair all styled up, then that says to me right away that they are weak, that they need attention, that they submit themselves to group norms. True self-confidence is almost non-existent these days. People that come across as confident generally derive all that confidence from their relationships to other people, it is something external to them that they can absorb, rather than coming from an internal self-assurance - take away the source of their confidence and they fall apart.

I'll give you a hint. 2 alpha males functionally working together is luck, 3 is a miracle, 4 is literal proof of divine intervation. What you describe is perfectly normal for a cooperating group. Most has to be ok with submitting most of the time. The currently popular confidence boosting is causing fragile boasters, that can't handle problems well.

[Pannonian]

Warmongering adrenaline junkies do exist, but they're kind of rare. I don't think we got a single one on the forum, even if several has been into combat. The idea of war contains a certain energy that's attractive, but the realities of war are much more brutal than that idea.

A Soviet defence minister whose name I've forgotten (Sokolov?) was insistent on taking war to its utmost extent if it were to be started at all. It wasn't due to wanting to crush the enemy, as he was under no illusions over the costs involved when the other side did their thing. It was to discourage his civilian superiors from wanting to resort to war over minor things (IIRC Brezhnev might have been head at the time), to impress on them that the enemy would want to do their thing too, and the costs on both sides would be excessive.

[Sarmatian]

By the time we get done with the Russian economy, war will be the easy part. :shrug:

Contrary to bombastic headlines in the newspapers, nothing has changed in practice. So far, investors are cautious due to the headlines, not due to the situation.

In a few months everything will be as it was.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'll give you a hint. 2 alpha males functionally working together is luck, 3 is a miracle, 4 is literal proof of divine intervation. What you describe is perfectly normal for a cooperating group. Most has to be ok with submitting most of the time. The currently popular confidence boosting is causing fragile boasters, that can't handle problems well.

I don't really buy into the whole alpha/beta male thing. It has some truth but the way it categorizes people is misleading. Really it is just about being strong-willed, and some of the most strong-willed people I've met are women and children, and often for reasons that do not fit in with the wider alpha male notion (eg if they show autistic-like behaviours, or they are introverted and just like doing their own thing, etc).

In some ways I would be classified as alpha male, in that I tend to go against the grain, will stand up to anybody over just about anything, would fight everybody on the few occasions when I used to get drunk, etc. And yet in other ways I would not be classified as alpha male. For example I prefer to be on casually good terms with people rather than trying to exert power over them, I don't go out of my way to be the head guy in the group, etc.

People are more complicated than these notions of being alpha or beta, our social intricacies are incomparable to other pack animals.

[Pannonian]

Not Sokolov, but the great Malinovsky, who saw nuclear weapons as having no practical use at all beyond deterrence, as its very use will result in all sides losing. Khrushchev was the head whom Malinovsky thought was deluded in thinking that wars could be won with nukes (although that was the mainstream view apparently, but with Malinovsky holding firm in insisting on emphasising conventional forces as the only practical option).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nobody is anything until they are put in a group. Alpha is relative to the group you're in, and your relation to the others in that group, and your willingness to be submissive to the needs of the group or assertive about your needs from the group. Nobody is just "Alpha" or "Beta" but if I drop you into a room with four dudes and shut the door, some of you will be more Alpha than others.

I disagree. Alpha/beta roles are principally to do with hierarchy. Put four men into a room and shut the door and they will probably just mutter "alright?" then shuffle their feet and make a little small talk. While some may care about a hierarchy and their role within it, others may not recognise that hierarchy, and indeed I think that most people would not particularly care about it if they met as equals. The hierarchical nature of the world we live in with its principally power-based dynamics in relationships is more a consequence of long-term systematic stratification, than it is a reflection of natural human relations.

[Pannonian]

Nobody is anything until they are put in a group. Alpha is relative to the group you're in, and your relation to the others in that group, and your willingness to be submissive to the needs of the group or assertive about your needs from the group. Nobody is just "Alpha" or "Beta" but if I drop you into a room with four dudes and shut the door, some of you will be more Alpha than others.

Four betas in a room will function better than four alphas in a room. That's what civilisation is, with a monolithic alpha state whom no-one can challenge. Civilisation rests on the realisation that alpha isn't necessarily the be all and end all, and beta isn't necessarily a bad thing. Constitutional monarchs are a way of having a single alpha who doesn't do anything, so that no-one else can challenge for that status and thus upset everyday life.

[Myth]

In regards to alphas and betas, I can give you an example that illustrated it to me very well when I was attending a course a few years back. It has to do with pavianes and the way their society works. There is one dominant alpha male in the pack. He gets to eat first, he gets to mate with the females. Then there are the betas, who eat after him and look for his approval before commencing their own mating rituals. Then there are the gammas who eat scraps, and who do not mate with females. When the alpha looks at them, they hide their genitalia with their hands (the same non verbal sign is also present in humans when very distressed).

So who is the alpha paviane? When they asked us that, our natural response was: The biggest! The strongest! To which the speaker said - no. There were more suggestions from the class. None were right. The alpha paviane is the one who does not back down. He never backs down from what he desires - he is willing to fight over half a banana. Over every single female. He is willing to risk permanent injury or death but he does not yield. When one of his pack is in danger, he is the first to go and stick up for the fellow paviane. He intimidates aggressors and he leads the charge if a fight is inevitable (and as we all know, animals are smarter than us. Fighting is their LAST resort).

How does this translate for a human man? Well, the alphas as we said, don't back down. They don't give up. They are not quitters. They are willing to work/fight for their woman, career, friend etc. They ALWAYS stick up for those they care about. This is the most alpha thing one could do - protecting the ones he loves despite the odds. The alphas thus, by virtue of these traits, are perceived to have higher value and are given the leader position in their respective social groups. Alphas have goals, and women for them are secondary. They simply know they can get them, or they know they have options. Thus, alpha men go down their chosen path and do not sidestep for a girl. This in turn, makes girls really hot for them, because if a man acts confident and demonstrates that he has options, he definitely has high value, because other women have preselected him. So on and so forth, you get the picture.

There are a lot more betas than alphas in our society, and that is only right. What we need in my opinion, is a way to influence young men to man the hell up and let go of mamma's skirt. The Alphas already do that, the rest need some assurance, or a role model, or a group of peers or what have you. Men with subconscious Oedipus complex and issues relating to having no way to step into manhood have trouble later in life.

The army doesn't turn every single pimple faced youth into an alpha killing machine. Heck, the army probably spends some time reducing the ego of an Alpha to make him fall in line. But for the former, the army will be a place where he will be separated from his home and parents and where he will learn new things, hang around other men, some of which are more calm, stronger, tougher, faster, smarter, older, more experienced and so on. It will rub off on him. It will make him a bit more confident and make him look at life a little differently. His big teenage dramas of yesterday will no longer affect him as much. And now he is on the road to manhood. If not the army, the karate club, the local football hooligans gang or other such groups serve a similar purpose in varying degree of success and actual benefit.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well that's your opinion, but if we take a less abstract situation I'm sure you'll find that you, too, jockey for position whenever you are put into a hierarchy and that the nature of your jockeying will vary based on the gender and disposition of those influencing your position. You do it at work, you do it at school, you do it on the soccer field and you do it in multiplayer video games. It is an aspect of human interaction that people have unfortunately attached very shallow and black and white meanings to. There are no Alpha males or Beta males, there are just males who act in an alpha or beta fashion depending on the situation.

I am happy to speak of people displaying alpha or beta traits, I just don't like the idea of categorizing them as alpha or beta, simply because the terms are designed for pack animals, and we are not pack animals - they can only be applied very vaguely to us as a species.

@Myth: I think the things you list are an example of what I speak of here. A lot of the traits you list as being 'alpha' are in fact just general traits that a lot of people can display in isolation without the whole alpha package. Think of how many people work hard while not attempting to dominate others. Or how many people are goal-driven without being stubborn or assertive.

[Myth]

Of course people can display traits of this kind. A shy and quiet mother can turn into aforementioned Leonidas when she has to defend her child. It's when one displays a number of these behavioral traits that we can label them as Alpha. Just because a girl smiled at you doesn't mean she likes you. But if she smiled, then brushed your hand when you spoke and she laughed at your (not so funny) joke, then you can safely assume she likes you. It's the same overall, human behavior is not an exact science, you just have to gauge it. But we've gone off topic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm fine with being alphas and im fine being around betas. But one thing I can't stand are those omegas.

[Ironside]

I don't really buy into the whole alpha/beta male thing. It has some truth but the way it categorizes people is misleading. Really it is just about being strong-willed, and some of the most strong-willed people I've met are women and children, and often for reasons that do not fit in with the wider alpha male notion (eg if they show autistic-like behaviours, or they are introverted and just like doing their own thing, etc).


I used alpha as a shorthand for people that has a "my way or the highway" attitude, aka people with high dominance scores. Myth is covering them fairly well. That doesn't mean that they don't respect authority (some don't but that's a another trait), authority is one way to keep them in line. What it means is that they want things their way and will insist on keeping it that way. Ask them for 5 minutes of their time for a question and you might be granted it a day later, while the rest takes the question now as the default. You can work with them well, but a lot of it is working around them and adapting to their terms. In a conflict they'll mostly pick battle. That also means that many of them crash and burn because they picked the wrong battle.


A Soviet defence minister whose name I've forgotten (Sokolov?) was insistent on taking war to its utmost extent if it were to be started at all. It wasn't due to wanting to crush the enemy, as he was under no illusions over the costs involved when the other side did their thing. It was to discourage his civilian superiors from wanting to resort to war over minor things (IIRC Brezhnev might have been head at the time), to impress on them that the enemy would want to do their thing too, and the costs on both sides would be excessive.

Clever stance.

Karl X of Sweden is a prime example of a war junkie. He basically found his calling after his first battle, first time of being truely alive, from being a bit reluctant towards war before that. Did I mention that he started quite a bit of wars?

[Kadagar_AV]

I'll give you a hint. 2 alpha males functionally working together is luck, 3 is a miracle, 4 is literal proof of divine intervation. What you describe is perfectly normal for a cooperating group. Most has to be ok with submitting most of the time. The currently popular confidence boosting is causing fragile boasters, that can't handle problems well.

Imagine then my platoon in the military officer training program... 50 alphas being tossed in together under extremely though circumstances.

It took some weeks to solve the pecking order, but we did!!

Not that the pecking order was linear, it all depended on the task. Everyone around me shut up and listened when we were skiing, as an example, because they knew I had experience and knowledge they did not. Still though, the one highest in the pecking order ALLOWED me to step forwards there and then.



I don't really buy into the whole alpha/beta male thing. It has some truth but the way it categorizes people is misleading. Really it is just about being strong-willed, and some of the most strong-willed people I've met are women and children, and often for reasons that do not fit in with the wider alpha male notion (eg if they show autistic-like behaviours, or they are introverted and just like doing their own thing, etc).

I don't find alpha/beta/omega thinking misleading at all. In fact, it has helped tremendously in my life to have that perspective. Being strong willed and autistic makes you strong willed and autistic. No more no less.

Getting the people around you to bend to your will, has however nothing to do with stubbornest or autism. They need to look up to you, and few looks up to an autistic guy, no?



In some ways I would be classified as alpha male, in that I tend to go against the grain, will stand up to anybody over just about anything, would fight everybody on the few occasions when I used to get drunk, etc. And yet in other ways I would not be classified as alpha male. For example I prefer to be on casually good terms with people rather than trying to exert power over them, I don't go out of my way to be the head guy in the group, etc.

People are more complicated than these notions of being alpha or beta, our social intricacies are incomparable to other pack animals.

Wrong. You are not an alpha because you are stubborn, you are an alpha if you can make people do what you want them to do. Gladly!!


Four betas in a room will function better than four alphas in a room. That's what civilisation is, with a monolithic alpha state whom no-one can challenge. Civilisation rests on the realisation that alpha isn't necessarily the be all and end all, and beta isn't necessarily a bad thing. Constitutional monarchs are a way of having a single alpha who doesn't do anything, so that no-one else can challenge for that status and thus upset everyday life.

Wrong. 4 betas can work together, sure. But 3 betas and one alpha will speed up the process if they need to solve a problem.


I am happy to speak of people displaying alpha or beta traits, I just don't like the idea of categorizing them as alpha or beta, simply because the terms are designed for pack animals, and we are not pack animals - they can only be applied very vaguely to us as a species.

@Myth: I think the things you list are an example of what I speak of here. A lot of the traits you list as being 'alpha' are in fact just general traits that a lot of people can display in isolation without the whole alpha package. Think of how many people work hard while not attempting to dominate others. Or how many people are goal-driven without being stubborn or assertive.

Are you the one in your friendship group that the other adhere to? Do you make decisions for the group and have them follow? If so, you are an alpha.

Are you looking to someone for confirmation before you make decisions for the group when out with friends? Then you are a beta.

Are you just tagging along, never making decisions for the group as a whole when out with friends, you are an omega.


Clear example:

4 guys are out together.

Alpha: Come on guys, drink up and let's go to that other bar.
Beta: (to alpha) Don't you think it's time to go to that other bar?
Omega: Drinks up and gets ready to leave when the group so will.



I'm fine with being alphas and im fine being around betas. But one thing I can't stand are those omegas.

I sincerely look down on omegas. Grow some balls!!

They shut up even if they have expertise knowledge, unless being asked directly. Flaming idiots.

Granted though, they rarely have expertise knowledge of anything, and are generally meaningless in a group. Except for doing the mundane tasks, perhaps. Gah!!

[Noncommunist]

Wrong. 4 betas can work together, sure. But 3 betas and one alpha will speed up the process if they need to solve a problem.


And is probably a lot more vulnerable to groupthink unless one of the "betas" is a stubborn "beta" and came up with a reason why that solution will not work.


Are you the one in your friendship group that the other adhere to? Do you make decisions for the group and have them follow? If so, you are an alpha.

Are you looking to someone for confirmation before you make decisions for the group when out with friends? Then you are a beta.

Are you just tagging along, never making decisions for the group as a whole when out with friends, you are an omega.


Clear example:

4 guys are out together.

Alpha: Come on guys, drink up and let's go to that other bar.
Beta: (to alpha) Don't you think it's time to go to that other bar?
Omega: Drinks up and gets ready to leave when the group so will.


I sincerely look down on omegas. Grow some balls!!

They shut up even if they have expertise knowledge, unless being asked directly. Flaming idiots.

Granted though, they rarely have expertise knowledge of anything, and are generally meaningless in a group. Except for doing the mundane tasks, perhaps. Gah!!

If choice of bars is meaningless to them, going with the flow seems rational.

[rajpoot]

Unless I am mistaken the OP was not about the good effects war and/or military training can have one men, but the fact that there used to be a time when it helped build the character of a man. And to some extent that is true. People who have been trained and served are generally fitter, tougher and calmer and more in control that most who haven't.
But honestly there are other simpler ways to build character. Even the type of character those medieval soldiers used to have (if at all that is what we even need today).
The way I see it, boy should grow up to be tough, but not brutal. Some degree of sensitivity is required. They should have courage aplenty but also enough sense to remember that the stupid suicidal sort of courage needs to be broken out only in the most extreme cases. And they should also have a good measure of civility and common courtesy. Something akin to modern day chivalry.
And IMHO that is something that can be taught at home. Obligatory military service is not even required. Learn all this can easily be a part of growing up. Of course to teach this the parents should themselves have these qualities in the first place.

[HoreTore]

and calmer and more in control that most who haven't.

Now go compare homicide and suicide rates of servicemen vs non-servicemen.

And all the army ever taught me was how to steal.

[Kadagar_AV]

In the US Army they're almost even for the same demographics, after 13 years of war slowly eroded the longtime fact that the Army had much lower suicide rates for the same demographic. It only looks remotely bad for the US Military if you compare suicide rates to the entire population, with no regard for demographics.

Add to that - that suicidal people are more prone to join the army to "fix their lives".

[HoreTore]

In the US Army they're almost even for the same demographics, after 13 years of war slowly eroded the longtime fact that the Army had much lower suicide rates for the same demographic. It only looks remotely bad for the US Military if you compare suicide rates to the entire population, with no regard for demographics.

....And when you count the fact that the pre-sign up screening excludes those with psychological conditions which may lead to suicide?

[Kadagar_AV]

....And when you count the fact that the pre-sign up screening excludes those with psychological conditions which may lead to suicide?


... Yeah, because the screening catch 100 out of 100?? Aight?

You think suicidal candidates go "I am suicidal"?

Just admit that you have a lousy conscript training - and that you openly don't even respect your own country and its traditions - for adherence to a multicultural society... And move on with your life.

[HoreTore]

The preliminary screening at sesjon(no idea how to translate) catches the most obvious ones, ie. everyone with a history of mental illness. You also need to talk to a shrink there, which weeds out some more.

The recruit period(the first month or so), catches most of the remaining. IIRC, my squad lost 3 out of 20 or so, with at least one of them sent home for being a nutcase(the other was a pacifist, and I can't remember the last one).

To summarize, if you're going to compare anything, you would need to exclude everyone with a history of mental illness prior to age 18 from the control group. When that's done, the result is at least high enough to get the brass' attention, seeing as how mental illness after serving is actually taken seriously now.

....And the risk of suicides is the reason my service rifle in the home guard doesn't have a firing pin.



As for the comment on lousiness, well, I think that's a little too pathetic to comment on.

[Kadagar_AV]

The preliminary screening at sesjon(no idea how to translate) catches the most obvious ones, ie. everyone with a history of mental illness. You also need to talk to a shrink there, which weeds out some more.

The recruit period (the first month or so), catches most of the remaining. IIRC, my squad lost 3 out of 20 or so, with at least one of them sent home for being a nutcase(the other was a pacifist, and I can't remember the last one).

To summarize, if you're going to compare anything, you would need to exclude everyone with a history of mental illness prior to age 18 from the control group. When that's done, the result is at least high enough to get the brass' attention, seeing as how mental illness after serving is actually taken seriously now.

....And the risk of suicides is the reason my service rifle in the home guard doesn't have a firing pin.



As for the comment on lousiness, well, I think that's a little too pathetic to comment on.

Conscript talk with conscript knowledge.

Suicidal people are more prone to join the army than not.

If army keep suicidal statistics on par - it's a damn miracle.

No screening in the world can catch suicidal people who DO NOT openly state they are suicidal - like most people wont.

GAH, why am I arguing with a ******* Norwegian conscript who are adamant to prove me wrong while making a fool of his own case?

[HoreTore]

I am simply amazed at the wealth of sources you have used to back up your claim that suicidal persons have a higher concentration in the army than elsewhere.

I am also amazed at the academic backing you gave for your claim that spotting a suicidal person is impossible unless they openly state it. I suggest you notify the psychological association, it looks like quite a number of them are surplus personnel. After all, all they need to do is ask a simple question (http://www.suicideassessment.com/pdfs/PsychiatricTimesArticleparts1-2PDF.pdf).

[Kadagar_AV]

I am simply amazed at the wealth of sources you have used to back up your claim that suicidal persons have a higher concentration in the army than elsewhere.

I am also amazed at the academic backing you gave for your claim that spotting a suicidal person is impossible unless they openly state it. I suggest you notify the psychological association, it looks like quite a number of them are surplus personnel. After all, all they need to do is ask a simple question (http://www.suicideassessment.com/pdfs/PsychiatricTimesArticleparts1-2PDF.pdf).

Let's leave it for the rest of the posters to be the jury on this one. I've had enough of arguing you.

I only source when things are not blatantly obvious, except in La-la-la-land.

[HoreTore]

Let's leave it for the rest of the posters to be the jury on this one. I've had enough of arguing you.

I only source when things are not blatantly obvious, except in La-la-la-land.

Blatantly obvious like, for example, your utter failure to understand crime statistics? I see...


Guys guys... relax. Both your countries suck. 'Murica!

Now that's something we can all agree to!

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are probably both right. People with suicidal tendencies are more likely to join the army, and the experience of army life makes people more likely to be driven to suicide. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

[HoreTore]

PTSD makes you more likely to commit suicide (http://cms-uat.itc.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/518103/Suicide-Research-Text-Vol3.pdf#page=37), and PTSD is more common among veterans than others.

As for suicidal persons being impossible to spot, that is of course complete nonsense. Psychologists starts probing for suicidal thoughts from at least puberty, and it's quite a lot more complicated than just asking them if they're suicidal. I work at a school with a higher than normal concentration of such students, so I know the drill. Anyway, these things are of course logged, and the army won't take them in.

[Kadagar_AV]

PTSD makes you more likely to commit suicide (http://cms-uat.itc.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/518103/Suicide-Research-Text-Vol3.pdf#page=37), and PTSD is more common among veterans than others.

As for suicidal persons being impossible to spot, that is of course complete nonsense. Psychologists starts probing for suicidal thoughts from at least puberty, and it's quite a lot more complicated than just asking them if they're suicidal. I work at a school with a higher than normal concentration of such students, so I know the drill. Anyway, these things are of course logged, and the army won't take them in.

Absolute BS.

[HoreTore]

Absolute BS.

lol.

I bow to your superior argument.

[Kadagar_AV]

lol.

I bow to your superior argument.

Conscript talk with conscript knowledge.

Suicidal people are more prone to join the army than not.

If army keep suicidal statistics on par - it's a damn miracle.

No screening in the world can catch suicidal people who DO NOT openly state they are suicidal - like most people wont.

GAH, why am I arguing with a ******* Norwegian conscript who are adamant to prove me wrong while making a fool of his own case?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This is what I wrote before. It still stands, and what you wrote is BS coming from a conscript who have no clue what so ever.

[HoreTore]

lol.

The suicidal tag is latched onto students long before they're open about their thoughts. The very idea that you have to say suicide in order for a psychologist to understand it is just absolute rubbish. Psychologists are slightly more clever than that. I assume you just disregarded the paper I gave on methods to uncover suicidal thoughts? I'll give you a clue: it was longer than the sentence "are you planning to whack yourself?"

Added to that, the army bans you for a lot more than just suicidal thoughts; just about any record of mental illness will get you booted from service. And when you ban everyone with a history of teenage mental illness, you end up with a rather skewed population group. One where you would suspect a smaller amount of suicides.

[Kadagar_AV]

lol.

The suicidal tag is latched onto students long before they're open about their thoughts. The very idea that you have to say suicide in order for a psychologist to understand it is just absolute rubbish. Psychologists are slightly more clever than that. I assume you just disregarded the paper I gave on methods to uncover suicidal thoughts? I'll give you a clue: it was longer than the sentence "are you planning to whack yourself?"

Added to that, the army bans you for a lot more than just suicidal thoughts; just about any record of mental illness will get you booted from service. And when you ban everyone with a history of teenage mental illness, you end up with a rather skewed population group. One where you would suspect a smaller amount of suicides.

You talk about Norway now, aren't you?

And even that system - that is 10000% more legitable than the US - is still not fool proof.

Remember this is an international board.

[HoreTore]

You talk about Norway now, aren't you?

I talk of the system I know, and assume the difference isn't massive among comparable countries.

The US wont let people with a history of mental illness own a gun, and so I assume they won't let them join the army either.

[Kadagar_AV]

I talk of the system I know, and assume the difference isn't massive among comparable countries.

The US wont let people with a history of mental illness own a gun, and so I assume they won't let them join the army either.

Cool story bro.

I guess it makes sense because no one in the states commits suicide with a gun.

[HoreTore]

Cool story bro.

I guess it makes sense because no one in the states commits suicide with a gun.

Completely pointless post, as always.

[Husar]

All this talk is weird. PTSD only occurs if the army goes to war if I'm not mistaken. If the army goes to war, people will also usually die in the war. In this case, the benefits of being in the army probably do not outweigh the downsides of having war, such as the cost of lives and possible destruction of stuff on either or both sides. When we just assume the army never goes to war anyway because we have reached such peaceful times (despite some of the rhetoric in the Ukraine thread), then having an army is probably the most expensive and ludicrous way to prevent suicides in the first place. And it's no surprise that brainwashing people and pretending to give them a useful purpose in life (and new friends) can remove their suicidal thoughts.

[The Stranger]

Blatantly obvious like, for example, your utter failure to understand crime statistics? I see...



Now that's something we can all agree to!

I thought you figured out by now that if you dont share the view of Kad, you are insane.

[The Stranger]

All this talk is weird. PTSD only occurs if the army goes to war if I'm not mistaken. If the army goes to war, people will also usually die in the war. In this case, the benefits of being in the army probably do not outweigh the downsides of having war, such as the cost of lives and possible destruction of stuff on either or both sides. When we just assume the army never goes to war anyway because we have reached such peaceful times (despite some of the rhetoric in the Ukraine thread), then having an army is probably the most expensive and ludicrous way to prevent suicides in the first place. And it's no surprise that brainwashing people and pretending to give them a useful purpose in life (and new friends) can remove their suicidal thoughts.

are suicidal people also more likely to look for a dangerous situation in which their life may be at risk, and thus are more likely to get killed in the army? Or is this not something common? It wouldnt be so hard to imagine imo.

[Kadagar_AV]

I thought you figured out by now that if you dont share the view of Kad, you are insane.

Finally, someone who GETS me... I should put this in my sig - but RVG's idiocy still just happens to be soooo juicy...

Anyway, if you want to follow me as a apprentice or do I dare say, disciple... The first thing you have to do is put a cucumber in your ear. Not a whole one, silly, just enough so it fits neatly, and of course only in the left ear.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I sincerely look down on omegas. Grow some balls!!

They shut up even if they have expertise knowledge, unless being asked directly. Flaming idiots.

Granted though, they rarely have expertise knowledge of anything, and are generally meaningless in a group. Except for doing the mundane tasks, perhaps. Gah!!

https://i.imgur.com/fi4lmP5.jpg