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]

[Myth]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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


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).

[Ironside]

[QUOTE=Myth;2053589840]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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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, 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.

[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.