10 ms·
Is it? Were males not the primary fighters? Men are more built for combat (higher testosterone, more muscle mass, endurance etc.).
by d0lph 8y ago
Is it? Were males not the primary fighters? Men are more built for combat (higher testosterone, more muscle mass, endurance etc.).
- toomuchgov 8y agoWhat was the weapon technology during that time?
- woodandsteel 8y agoggggtez is not disagreeing with that. He is saying that when one society beats others at warfare, it is not because its males had more testosterone and larger muscles, rather because it had better agriculture and so on.
- d0lph 8y agoThat is not how I read it. > And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine. He states that there tends to be a correlation, but not causation.
- ggggtez 8y agoIt's an argument of semantics at this point. I'm saying war isn't won by bigger muscles alone. If you can't feed your troops, or equip them with more efficient weapons and armor, and train them with better tactics, then you'll lose at "war" to a society which can.
- Spooky23 8y agoYou had a caste system in these civilizations. Warrior/hunters, farmers, priests, etc. Neolithic civilization wasn’t just a band of 50 and a few yurts. There were complex societies, but they had scale limits due to technology and knowledge constraints.