How war has influenced ancient, classical and medieval societies

[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 I find them horribly stupid and outdated.

I find men outdated and stupid.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.

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. 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.

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

[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.

[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.

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.