Warrior Cultures

[Demarquis]

I beleive (correct me if I'm wrong) that Loroi culture is loosely based on Japanese society leading up to WWII. So the parallel you see is probably not just coincidence (two authoritarian cultures having quite a bit in common).

Loroi society is informed by several examples of human warrior societies, including the Japanese but also specifically the Spartans and Maasai. Early human cultures were mostly warrior cultures, which had developed from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and they were almost universally very strict and harsh. I think today we tend to think of ourselves as naturally democratic and egalitarian, but for 99.9% of human history we have been ruled by authoritarian systems.

Not technically true. The vast majority of our species "history" (if you are including pre-history) was spent as hunter gatherers. Cultures that were more centrally organized specifically for warfare were always a minority. Most human beings didn't live within formal kingdoms or empires until comparatively recently. That said, the Loroi do bear more than a passing resemblance to several such human societies. The Polynesians come to mind as well.

[Arioch]

Not technically true. The vast majority of our species "history" (if you are including pre-history) was spent as hunter gatherers. Cultures that were more centrally organized specifically for warfare were always a minority. Most human beings didn't live within formal kingdoms or empires until comparatively recently. That said, the Loroi do bear more than a passing resemblance to several such human societies. The Polynesians come to mind as well.

In hunter-gatherer cultures, hunters and warriors are the same thing; hunter culture is warrior culture. Such societies are usually run by a chief, who is the strongest hunter. That's a form of autocracy.

It's rarely that simple, of course, and there are always exceptions... and we can't know for sure exactly how the earliest tribes were run. But they almost certainly weren't liberal democracies.

[Bamax]

Not technically true. The vast majority of our species "history" (if you are including pre-history) was spent as hunter gatherers. Cultures that were more centrally organized specifically for warfare were always a minority. Most human beings didn't live within formal kingdoms or empires until comparatively recently. That said, the Loroi do bear more than a passing resemblance to several such human societies. The Polynesians come to mind as well.

In hunter-gatherer cultures, hunters and warriors are the same thing; hunter culture is warrior culture. Such societies are usually run by a chief, who is the strongest hunter. That's a form of autocracy.

It's rarely that simple, of course, and there are always exceptions... and we can't know for sure exactly how the earliest tribes were run. But they almost certainly weren't liberal democracies.

Hell... there is not a single human family that is run successfully as a liberal democracy... for tye simple fact that kids are far too immature to be vested with the same powers and liberties as adults.

[GeoModder]

Not technically true. The vast majority of our species "history" (if you are including pre-history) was spent as hunter gatherers. Cultures that were more centrally organized specifically for warfare were always a minority. Most human beings didn't live within formal kingdoms or empires until comparatively recently. That said, the Loroi do bear more than a passing resemblance to several such human societies. The Polynesians come to mind as well.

In hunter-gatherer cultures, hunters and warriors are the same thing; hunter culture is warrior culture. Such societies are usually run by a chief, who is the strongest hunter. That's a form of autocracy.

It's rarely that simple, of course, and there are always exceptions... and we can't know for sure exactly how the earliest tribes were run. But they almost certainly weren't liberal democracies.

Hell... there is not a single human family that is run successfully as a liberal democracy... for tye simple fact that kids are far too immature to be vested with the same powers and liberties as adults.

Well, over the course of a generation, you can call it an emerging democracy (if succesfull). And then it dissipates.

[Demarquis]

It is well documented (I can cite if you wish) that the majority of contemporary and historical hunter-gathering culture were significantly more egalitarian in their inter-personal relationships than the more urbanized societies that came later. This is attested to by a wide variety of cultural artifacts, including grave goods. Some of them (like the Iroquois) were even proto-democracies.

"In hunter-gatherer cultures, hunters and warriors are the same thing; hunter culture is warrior culture. Such societies are usually run by a chief, who is the strongest hunter. That's a form of autocracy."

You must realize, of course, that the reverse is also true: that warrior culture was hunter culture. In most of these societies day to day activities were organized by groups of elders, who frequently had more tribal authority than the chiefs. The chiefs typically only "take over" during emergencies of some kind, such as when they are being attacked, or a peace treaty has to be negotiated. Also, the chief isn't the "strongest hunter", whatever that would mean. In those societies where the chiefdom must be chosen, it's the elders who choose him, and they typically rely on leadership qualities like wisdom, charisma and courage, not sheer strength or performance at any one task.

There is a very wide range of governance structures between "autocracies" and "liberal democracies".

[QuakeIV]

To be honest I think its vaguely moronic to try to axially arrange societies from 'autocracy' to 'liberal democracy'. The vast majority of percieved authoritarianism has to do with what people think is and isn't other peoples business, or the business of the states and institutions. One groups liberal democracy can be another groups tyranny because of how disruptively the state involves itself in their business, where they can feel they have little to no practical freedom whatsoever.

I'd be really surprised if anyone alive today would have felt particularly free in any given ancient society, because we tend to kindof expect a lot of behavior today to be acceptable that would have been unbelievably disruptive to a tribe of say 20-30 or even 300 people. In a nomadic group for instance, you can't just go haring off in any given direction, they will be forced to leave you behind.

[Demarquis]

Formal categories make less and less sense the smaller the polity involved. Small communities tend to have very informal governing processes, because interpersonal relationships matter more than institutionalized responsibilities. It's only when communities become large enough that most members are strangers to each other that formal processes, like laws or weights and measures, become necessary. Still, you can document indicators of how hierarchical or egalitarian a community is, by such cultural artifacts as grave goods and health at death.

[SaintofM]

I think early society was strictly survival in its framework. They had art and leisure, and room to innovate (hence why stick became sharpen stick, and enemy wolf became man's best friend). However as things progressed, societies shifted. How big a warrior society it was or what kind also differs.

Japan, Aztecs, and most Christian parts of Europe for most of the Middle Ages had a warrior class (Samurai, Jaguars, Knights respectively) but most people were farmers. Even the various peoples we lump as Vikings (which includes modern day Norway, Sweeden, and Russia) were mostly Farmers and Fishermen who went, and some very good traders (they have fund Gold Buddhas in Viking sites, and Damascus Steel, and Russia was named after the people Arab traders called the "River Folk" or the Rus). However raids were one for necessary supplies, slaves, glory, and maybe to show who is stronger.

So even with "We like a good fight", the reasons for it changed from culture to culture.