4 ms·
By that logic, no medieval castle would have survived any period of tumult. But they often did, and I think a similar gameplan would apply. I think it would tur
by krustyburger 5y ago
By that logic, no medieval castle would have survived any period of tumult. But they often did, and I think a similar gameplan would apply. I think it would turn out some of the toughest “Army buddy” types would rather have themselves and their families inside the fortress with the lord (or equivalent) and would fight like hell against any wayward “Army buddies” who tried to storm the place.
- ALittleLight 5y agoWhy do they need the Lord though? Wouldn't the new Lord be the army guy with the best buddies who might well hold the castle, even if over the body of its original owner?
- krustyburger 5y agoThat’s an age-old question that keeps the powerful up at night. Here’s the best answer I can come up with: It helps that throughout history, the best Army guys tend to have rigid personal moral codes and decades of experience conforming to strict honor systems. If the original owner’s claim to the enclave is seen as legitimate and he has the wherewithal to continue allocating resources to those he favors (and again, their families), this tends to add up to the potential for a great deal of personal loyalty to that person to form among any elite Army guys that happen to be on the scene.
- spoonjim 5y agoWell one reason to preserve the Lord is that if the Lord is killed, the power struggle to become the next Lord can claim you as a victim... cf Stalin’s Purges.
- spoonjim 5y agoBut the kings of yore were actual fighters... all lords were warlords to some extent or another. Kings rode out in front and died in battle. That’s a lot different than a Silicon Valley dweeb with some now-useless green paper.
- datameta 5y agoThere was a lot more grey area than you make it out to be. There were certainly plenty of kings/czars/emirs/sultans/khagans/emperors etc that ruled exclusively from the comforts of their estates.
- tablespoon 5y ago> There was a lot more grey area than you make it out to be. There were certainly plenty of kings/czars/emirs/sultans/khagans/emperors etc that ruled exclusively from the comforts of their estates. But how many of those people built a kingdom, rather than inheriting it?
- datameta 5y agoOne did not have to lead from the front line to expand territory. But I will grant you that many a ruler certainly wished to be perceived as having an iron will. These people would have had monikers such as "the Great" or "the Terrible" rather than the contrasting "the Wise" and the like.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoBut they will have TaZerrZ! And blinding BlInKeNlIgHtS!
- defen 5y agoSomeone like Larry Page is extraordinarily wealthy, but it is almost entirely financial instruments (thus, not "real"). In a hypothesized "complete societal breakdown", no one is going to be willing to die for Larry Page or any other tech billionaire.
- tablespoon 5y ago>> The global super wealthy think they can survive a complete societal breakdown in bunkers in New Zealand. I don’t know why they they think they’ll be able to keep those bunkers when the people who build them decide to take them back with their Army buddies. > By that logic, no medieval castle would have survived any period of tumult. But they often did, and I think a similar gameplan would apply. I think it would turn out some of the toughest “Army buddy” types would rather have themselves and their families inside the fortress with the lord (or equivalent) and would fight like hell against any wayward “Army buddies” who tried to storm the place. I'm not so sure: 1. Medieval castles were basically owned and operated by the "army buddies." IIRC, you became a "lord" by being part of the last invading army or descending from someone who was, and you stayed a lord by providing military capability. 2. The people that lived in them were part of the permanent social structure of the area. The global super wealthy who think they can parachute into a bunker in some remote location during a time of collapse, and proceed to become a local lord on account of their pre-breakdown social standing are probably going to be in for a rude awakening. The system that gave them their power and status will be gone or crippled, their skill-sets will be obsolete, and what little of their wealth that translates into the new order will be plunder for the people who are better adapted to the new circumstances. IMHO, at best such a bunker is a ticket to merely survive. After that, the bunker holder will revert to being a regular Joe, and maybe a somewhat disadvantaged one at that, due to lack of social connections.
- krustyburger 5y agoThose are interesting points. I’m not in the Armageddon bunker business, so I don’t have a horse in the race. I was pointing out that the potential that previously loyal warriors will immediately turn on their bosses in times of strife is not a new problem. It’s also worth noting that the event that prompted all of this discussion was Mr. Page’s move to New Zealand now, with plenty of time to build social ties before any hypothetical Mad Max scenario takes hold.
- spoonjim 5y agoExactly. The people who dominate a law and order based society are a totally different set of people from those who dominate a Hobbesian “state of nature.”