The Warrior Society

[Steel Tiger]

Nothing against any of you personally, but I have a difficult time seeing most of the modern Islamic cannibal terrorists as warriors at all... what these cowards think of themselves in their delusions is immaterial.

I don't see murdering defenseless civilians with bombs or box cutters as being either "honourable" or "death in battle"... As a former soldier, I seeth at seeing these hyenas receive any honor or recognition of the type granted to soldiers... these sneak bombers and child killers have more in common with Thuggee adherents than with warriors - and I am ashamed of my own government's - and media's - passivity on this score.

In one needs examples of true Islamic warriors, one could cite Saladin or Sulieman and the fearsome opponents faced by said Hospitalers and Templars during the crusades, before Vienna, at Rhodes or on Malta. Now THOSE were warriors.

Exactly! This is not my view of these people, it is their view of themselves. They trick people into their way of thinking with tales of martyrdom and paradise, but are unwilling to take that step themselves. Comparing them to the Thuggee is very appropriate; mass murder of uninvolved people to achieve some poorly defined goal.

One of the biggest problems I see is that the world's media keeps presenting the extremist position in a way that appears to sympathise of justify it (even if this is not the intention). This, I think, feeds the fire and encourages them to think they can get away with just about anything.

They remind me of the religious fighting orders because they are small groups who have taken their beliefs to an extreme and distasteful point. Atrocity is never far away when this happens. Look at what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem in the 1099. Its not brave, its not honourable, and its not right.

I think that Saladin and Sulieman would be ashamed of what is being done in the name of their faith.

 

[meth18au]

First time I have read this thread- so I feel like posting in it and resurrecting it!!! I've seen many people on here give their opinions on which societies in their view are warrior societies. All societies are going to have a militaristic aspect and a civilian aspect, amongst others. We still make our opinions based on pictures painted of those societies by historians and other people living in our times. It just got me thinking a little bit about it. In 1000 years time, people in new societies may look back and think 'oh the Americans, they were a great warrior society..." or "the British conquered half the world with their ships...they were a great warrior society" Sorry for taking you guys as the examples!!! But these opinions would be formed on their interpretations of historical sources from their time.


How can we really know to what degree that a society was a warrior society? And how do we define a warrior society? Mate, people in 1000 years time, could come across Australian government propaganda after WW1, going on about ANZAC bravery. Or come across documents revealing Australian involvement in wars. Or a multitude of information, that may eventually lead them to form the opinion that Australians were a warrior society. But I tell you, if any Australian heard this in their right mind, they would be pissing themselves laughing!!! So we don't really know. We may just be mystifying past races and societies. That's just my view!!!


Now I will choose my personal favorite warrior society of the past- The Spartans- I watched 300 a few weeks ago- it's fresh in my mind!!!

 

[CuongNhuka]

Silly Australians, you don't fight wars! LOL. Anyways, you do make a few good points. Also, 300 was really bad for historical perspective. When compared to what really happened, it's rather funny.

 

[Steel Tiger]

In 1000 years time, people in new societies may look back and think 'oh the Americans, they were a great warrior society..." or "the British conquered half the world with their ships...they were a great warrior society" Sorry for taking you guys as the examples!!! But these opinions would be formed on their interpretations of historical sources from their time.

In a thousand years? Perhaps. But I think we keep just too much information nowadays. These societies might very well be interpreted as administrative societies.

But I tell you, if any Australian heard this in their right mind, they would be pissing themselves laughing!!! So we don't really know. We may just be mystifying past races and societies. That's just my view!!!

Australia, a warrior society?:lfao: :roflmao:

Now I will choose my personal favorite warrior society of the past- The Spartans- I watched 300 a few weeks ago- it's fresh in my mind!!!

Yeah, the Spartans were definitely a warrior society. Another so dedicated to producing fighting men that they were collapsing in on themselves.

 

[grydth]

First time I have read this thread- so I feel like posting in it and resurrecting it!!! I've seen many people on here give their opinions on which societies in their view are warrior societies. All societies are going to have a militaristic aspect and a civilian aspect, amongst others. We still make our opinions based on pictures painted of those societies by historians and other people living in our times. It just got me thinking a little bit about it. In 1000 years time, people in new societies may look back and think 'oh the Americans, they were a great warrior society..." or "the British conquered half the world with their ships...they were a great warrior society" Sorry for taking you guys as the examples!!! But these opinions would be formed on their interpretations of historical sources from their time.

I'm afraid we'll be remembered as being able to cause incredible death and destruction while still yet managing to lose the war or squander the peace.

We'll be remembered as almost never having gone into war prepared, and for having cleanly a third of the people and most of the media rooting for the enemy - no matter how ghoulish the enemy may have been.

We will be remembered for castigating ur own Commander in Chief worse than the enemy's (Note: Not just Bush...but the incredible abuse Lincoln took, and the volumes of venom that was said about FDR....)

When we were right, we almost never heard "Thank you" from the world, but rather another two word phrase ending in "you".

When we were wrong, it almost always took years before we figured it out. (Look back at our wars - how many of them should we even have been in, irrespective of the result?)

Well, seeing as "History" will likely be written by a Post Putin neo-comm.... or an Allmadjihad 'scholarly' ayatollah.... or...... I'm sure it will be most flattering.

 

[Marginal]

As to the modern USA, I believe our society is far too divided, across many planes and fault lines, to be generalized as being anything. I believe those divisions are so deep and so profound that we may well lapse into civil war in the next 5 years. Don't wish for it, don't advocate it.... but I think its coming. United We Do Not Stand - and I believe that a militarized/warrior society needs that consensus to exist and thrive.

Most warrior societies arose from multiple fragmented peoples banding together until one of the groups produced a warlord strong enough to subdue the other warlords. If you're right about the US fragmenting, then you'll get your warrior society in a hurry.

Personally, I think the bulk of these faults in Amercian society are superficial. They make good talking points, and that's about it. Abortion's not a civil war worthy topic, red vs blue is petty and largely void of content etc.

 

[grydth]

That's wonderful, but I never cited abortion or mere red/blue as my basis for fearing a civil war is coming.

If you wish to believe the growing tension between citizens and the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA is "superficial", then you may believe that.

If you think the differences between the various races and ethnic groups aren't a threat to erupt in further widespread violence, go ahead and believe that.

If you think that the sheer volume of hate directed at Presidents Clinton and Bush is not indicative of a collapse in rational discourse and ability to disagree civilly is only "petty", go ahead and believe that as well.

If you think a major terrorist act or a natural tragedy such as a bird flu pandemic won't strain our fragile society to the limit and bring out the worst....believe that's "void of content", too.

If you think the damage done to religion, a traditional stabilizing factor, won't exacerbate any of the above, go ahead. Just a "talking point"

How many other fault lines..... gay vs straight....soldiers vs protestors....corporate vs independent.....gun owners vs gun control...etc, are there?

If you think two or three outbreaks of factors above might not cause widespread disorder, go ahead.

Now - how many and how strong are the unifying factors?

No, this house of cards we live in isn't a warrior society..... with the growth of the divisive "--- community" classifications.... might not even be a society before long.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Marginal]

That's wonderful, but I never cited abortion or mere red/blue as my basis for fearing a civil war is coming.

To be honest, they were just examples of superficial issues that are typically presented as deeply divisive.

If you wish to believe the growing tension between citizens and the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA is "superficial", then you may believe that.

The country tends to cycle through bouts of pointless xenophobia every few generations. I personally don't think a civil war's going to develop now any more than one did over the the Germans, Irish, the "Yellow Peril" etc when they apparently posed some kind of epic threat.

If you think the differences between the various races and ethnic groups aren't a threat to erupt in further widespread violence, go ahead and believe that.

People of different races and ethnic backgrounds are capable of living together. We've demonstrated that since the country's inception. Letting in new groups tends to take years worth of adjustment, but the adjustments are always eventually made. Things sail along fine until the next big group starts knocking on the door, and we go though the same sorry cycle all over again.

If you think that the sheer volume of hate directed at Presidents Clinton and Bush is not indicative of a collapse in rational discourse and ability to disagree civilly is only "petty", go ahead and believe that as well.

Ok, but that's more a side-effect of deregulation of the TV industry etc.

If you think a major terrorist act or a natural tragedy such as a bird flu pandemic won't strain our fragile society to the limit and bring out the worst....believe that's "void of content", too.

I can't see how worrying about things that are increasingly unlikely is especially productive personally.

If you think the damage done to religion, a traditional stabilizing factor, won't exacerbate any of the above, go ahead. Just a "talking point"

Damage done? If anything, the US is continually recognized as one of the better governments for handling religion. Most damage done to religion is self-inflicted. (Loons pushing for a Christian state aren't any better than folks demanding that only Sharia law apply to them)

How many other fault lines..... gay vs straight....soldiers vs protestors....corporate vs independent.....gun owners vs gun control...etc, are there?

All of which I'd argue are superficial. Some of them (soldiers vs protesters for example) don't actually exist in the first place.

If you think two or three outbreaks of factors above might not cause widespread disorder, go ahead.

I can see a riot or two. I don't see widespread rebellion against the government etc developing from any of these things unless we start spiking the water supply with lead paint or something.

Now - how many and how strong are the unifying factors?

Stronger than you'd think. People are people, and it's simply easier to get along for the most part. Most people simply want their routine, and don't want to be unsettled.

I doubt that you want to be stuck in the middle of a civil war. Few actually do.

No, this house of cards we live in isn't a warrior society..... with the growth of the divisive "--- community" classifications.... might not even be a society before long.

Hope I'm wrong.

That's when warrior societies emerge. The social order unravels completely, and then survival of the fittest kicks in. The guys with guns etc end up being the hardest people to ignore, and they set up the society from there. That's your warrior society. It's not really highly ordered. It's simply suppressed.

Burma's a warrior society. There's still deep strife boiling under the surface. Same for feudal England, Japan, China etc where all these gegaw notions of this idealized romantic myth of the warrior society stemmed from in the first place.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Burma's a warrior society. There's still deep strife boiling under the surface. Same for feudal England, Japan, China etc where all these gegaw notions of this idealized romantic myth of the warrior society stemmed from in the first place.

I have to disagree, Burma is not a warrior society. It is a society that has been hijacked by its own military. But then I don't agree with your basic premise that warrior societies develop from an amalgamation of fragments of other societies. Mongol society was not like that, neither was that of Japan, Mexico or Greece. Rather, I see the development of a warrior society coming from some need for defence that has transformed into something more paranoid. So much so that all aspect of society have to be geared in some way toward the production and support of the warrior or soldier.

Most modern societies are far from this. Yes, most have a military wing but the whole society is not dedicated to its maintenance, even in places in which the military has taken control - Burma, Fiji, Pakistan. The very fact that there is strife boiling under the surface in Burma is a clear indication that it is not a warrior society. A junta yes, a totalitarian state without a doubt, but not a warrior society.

I would also say that the romantic notions of the warrior society are older that feudal Japan or medieval China and Europe. The Mahabarata, an Indian epic written down in about 1500BC, describes the idealised Indo-Aryan warrior society. There is much praise of the Spartan society from Greek authors from other states (even Athens). The idolisation of the warrior has been with us for a very long time. Its power is fading now but it is not quite gone.

I think we are living in a world of militarised societies. These are not warrior societies because the soldier is not held in as high an esteem as he would be in a warrior society. An unfortunate consequence of this miltarisation is that we see a lot of military coups. But just because the military is in charge does not make a society a warrior one.

 

[Marginal]

I have to disagree, Burma is not a warrior society. It is a society that has been hijacked by its own military. But then I don't agree with your basic premise that warrior societies develop from an amalgamation of fragments of other societies. Mongol society was not like that, neither was that of Japan, Mexico or Greece.

Greece didn't really have a unified society until the Macedonians conquered the other groups then marched through the world. Before that, you have a loose collection of city states, each with its own culture and ideas of what a warrior was etc. Mexico wasn't much different, nor was Japan.

Rather, I see the development of a warrior society coming from some need for defence that has transformed into something more paranoid. So much so that all aspect of society have to be geared in some way toward the production and support of the warrior or soldier.

As I see it, that usually happens when the warriors are in charge though. Or it happens when the ruler generates a warrior force that eclipses the might of the ruler. At which point, the ruler is either deposed or minimized. (Cromwell for example.) Then the military becomes the defacto government. Usually warrior societies weight social status to the warriors. That really doesn't happen in a stable society unless it's relatively small, and most threats are coming from outside. The larger the society, the harder it is to quash discontent though force, and the more likely you are to generate discontent. So you get Burma.

Most modern societies are far from this. Yes, most have a military wing but the whole society is not dedicated to its maintenance, even in places in which the military has taken control - Burma, Fiji, Pakistan. The very fact that there is strife boiling under the surface in Burma is a clear indication that it is not a warrior society. A junta yes, a totalitarian state without a doubt, but not a warrior society.

IMO, that's a shaky distinction. Warrior societies don't have to be nice, or even effective.

I would also say that the romantic notions of the warrior society are older that feudal Japan or medieval China and Europe.

True, but that's where the popular notions are largely being drawn from in pop culture at the moment.

I think we are living in a world of militarised societies. These are not warrior societies because the soldier is not held in as high an esteem as he would be in a warrior society. An unfortunate consequence of this miltarisation is that we see a lot of military coups. But just because the military is in charge does not make a society a warrior one.

True, it has to make the folks in the millitary the top class too.

 

[SKB]

Our soceity is losing the "warrior". In the big picture of history we have had a long run of peace. As defined by not being invaded, like say France or Russia. This is a sad state of affairs! One day the wolf will knock at the door and there will be very few to answer the call!!!! And if you think some kind of civil war can not happen here you are just wrong, sorry but really. Come out here to southern california, or northern mexico!

 

[Marginal]

And if you think some kind of civil war can not happen here you are just wrong, sorry but really. Come out here to southern california, or northern mexico!

Those pressures have been there for a long time, and they build up and ease constantly throughout the nation's history. What's happening now is not new. It's not unique. Why do you think there have been mass deportations in the past? Why the mass amnesties? This isn't an unsolvable problem that can only be resolved through bloodshed.

 

[Guardian]

Geez, it takes awhile to traverse this whole site and find all the topics and discussions.

I would like to point out again as it's been done here already, there is a difference between a Soldier and a Warrior when you specifically address the two (though many consider the two as the same), in my view they are not.

Now with that said, I haven't seen it here yet or couldn't find it, what about the Zulu Nation of Africa (Shaka Zulu), this tribe was mostly warrior class in nature as ever one was.

I agree the Aztec nation was militaristic in nature and alot of their society was built up around that, but they also had major religious and artistic capabilities play into making their society also as where the Zulu Nation was particulary warring for the most part.

Just my view, darn good conversation and topic.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I would like to point out again as it's been done here already, there is a difference between a Soldier and a Warrior when you specifically address the two (though many consider the two as the same), in my view they are not.

I agree the Aztec nation was militaristic in nature and alot of their society was built up around that, but they also had major religious and artistic capabilities play into making their society also as where the Zulu Nation was particulary warring for the most part.

Just my view, darn good conversation and topic.

I agree there is adifference between a warrior and a soldier. It is often very difficul to define, however. I like to think of it this way, the Romans had soldiers and the German tribes had warriors. Something about orderly methods of fighting I guess.

Just a point about Aztec religion. Their chief god was Huitzilopochtli, a tribal war god. The sponsors of the Eagle and Jaguar warriors were Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, both with martial aspects. Venus was personified as the god Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli ("Warrior of the Dawn Star") and it was this planet's movements that regulated the cycle of sacred war (Xochiyaoyotl, "Flower War").

War and religion were so firmly intertwined for the Aztecs that the merit system of prisoner taking in war also applied to the priesthood. The Calmecac, where priests were trained, was also considered the premier military training school with the sons of nobles being trained there. The relationship between religion and war was such that the symbol for conquest was a burning temple.

As to Aztec art. Almost all of it depicts religious themes and most of these involve conflict. Most gods are portrayed armed in some way, usually with either an atlatl (a dart thrower) or a maquahuitl (one of those obsidian edged sword/clubs).

The warrior nature of Aztec society is prevalent in all its facets, especially religion and art.


Shaka's Zulu nation never really had a chance to fully develop, and I don't think it ever would have. It is an almost archetypical example of a warrior society. Shaka had taken the Zulu's along such a path that war was the entirety of their existence. It is interesting that some 50 or 60 years later when the Zulus fought the British they had reverted to some of the practices they had before Shaka (javelins and other throwing weapons for instance). If they had kept on the way Shak had wanted them to they wouldn't exist today I think.

 

[grydth]

Those pressures have been there for a long time, and they build up and ease constantly throughout the nation's history. What's happening now is not new. It's not unique. Why do you think there have been mass deportations in the past? Why the mass amnesties? This isn't an unsolvable problem that can only be resolved through bloodshed.

Such is what occurred in the country during the 1840's and 1850's... then the pressures became unbearable, the compromises stopped coming, extremists came to the fore and the first Civil War broke out.

I don't see the issue as whether the problems are solvable so much as whether people want to solve them. The mutual hatred I'm seeing does not bode well - check out the tone and content of some of the political forums across the Internet, on both sides. See how Republicans speak of the Clintons and Democrats of Bush.

I hope we're around in a few years so you can prove me wrong.

 

[Marginal]

Such is what occurred in the country during the 1840's and 1850's... then the pressures became unbearable, the compromises stopped coming, extremists came to the fore and the first Civil War broke out.

The question of state's rights has been put to bed since then. States cannot withdraw from the union. At the time, it was presumed that they could pull out at any time.

I don't see the issue as whether the problems are solvable so much as whether people want to solve them. The mutual hatred I'm seeing does not bode well - check out the tone and content of some of the political forums across the Internet, on both sides. See how Republicans speak of the Clintons and Democrats of Bush.

I've hit upon more than a few political discussions. The funny thing about all those flames etc was, most of the people on the other side seemed to be put totally off balance once they realized the guy they were arguing with was basically the same decent kind of person that they were.

I hope we're around in a few years so you can prove me wrong.

I won't be disappointed to say "I told you so." if that's the case.

If the converse proves true, I'm going to hit you with the hat I happen to be wearing though, 'cause human nature obviously wasn't what I thought it was.

 

[grydth]

What issues are really put to bed in a permanent way.... and which are merely resting just below the surface like vampires waiting to return worse than ever?

I believe it was Solzhenitsyn who remarked how thin our veneer of civilization is in America when he observed how quickly things went to pieces during a blackout. You haven't seen anything yet.

Yes, there is hope if we see the humanity in our opposition. That is more of a wonder drug than aspirin. Yet, see how many are not realizing in places like Democrat Underground or Chronwatch....

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

Aside from the cost of life and the damge to the wounded, wars have by and large been good for America, even the ones that did not go so well.

We gained our independence through war, we gained much of our nation through war with Mexico and the native tribes.

We gained possesions in the Carribian and Pacific due to victory in the Spanish-American war.

We gained bizz oppertunities in Nicaruaga and Panama.

We joined the world in WW1, We were the major cause of saving it in WW2.

We became the most powerfull nation on Earth after WW2, we showed that we were not soft and weere willing to fight communisim in Korea and Vietnam.

We have made alot of money, advanced scienc and medicine and much of our trade is backed up by the strongest Navy in the World.
Allthough we are not billegerent, the World knows that if we so chose to, we could allmost shut down trade on the sea's with that Navy.

Having a strong Military and a good number of warriors has done us well, but it does curse us with the fact that we can not step down as Hegemin, to many other nations hate us or are jealous of us to do that.

Sadly I think the only way to really have world peice is if we were willing to obliterate a few nations and obsorbe the rest into an Empire or Confederation. That will come after WW3 as the UN has not worked, but if we survive WW3 (and I think we will, but alot of us wont) we will rule this planet and it will be better off for it.

Every family needs a head, the world is no different. Better us a nation that rebuilds the ones we defeat, than the Chinese, the Russians or the EU.