4 ms·
> For example, early in ancient empires, many rose in status via winning military battles, or perhaps by building new trading regimes. But later in such empires
by zhdc1 5y ago
> For example, early in ancient empires, many rose in status via winning military battles, or perhaps by building new trading regimes. But later in such empires, status was counted more in terms of your connections to other statusful people. Which led to neglect of military success, and thus empire collapse.
I've always wondered if this was true, or if it's an artifact of the survival of records/histories that over-promote governing coalition members instead of non-governing but wealthly and influential citizens.
I.e., most ruling autocratic dynasties are founded through violence, so it makes sense that official records reference individuals who took part in this. Similarly, most autocratic dynasties are sustained through peaceful transitions of power to the next generation of governing members through the acquiescence of coalition members, so it makes sense that - over time - official records will reference individuals who succeeded through their connections instead of their military merits.
If you assume that autocratic governments are unstable over long periods of time, and if you intentionally ignore the large number of ruling coalitions that came to power through war but failed to survive a peaceful transition of power, the author's perspective here makes sense. However, this doesn't mean that it's necessary accurate.
- enkid 5y agoThe quoted passage seems strange to me, and is probably incorrect for the normal interpretation. If you were in a position to win a battle, say you were a general or led a large force of fighting men, you were probably already an elite of some sort. The only examples I can think of where this isn't true is either in modern times (US Grant being a possible example) or things like slave rebellions. But those are still the exception instead of the rule.
- zhdc1 5y agoWhile it's pedantic, in sociology and related fields, status is almost always conceptualized in terms of peer-group connections anyway. So it would be incorrect to say that General John Smith had high status simply because he was a General. Instead, John Smith's 'status' depended on whether or not he was a peer of other high-status individuals. In other words, it was always a matter of 'who you know'. It's just that, as you pointed out, in the early stages of a new ruling regime or dynasty, being a General or holding a similar military position pretty much guaranteed that you had the 'right social connections'. This is true even if you gained those connections as a byproduct of your military rank. This is likely true even in many or most modern states.
- enkid 5y agoSurely there is some sort of acknowledgement of an elite class in societies that have disproportionate power. For example, the Spartans over the Helots, the planter class of Antebellum American South, the caste system of India, etc.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago> The only examples I can think of where this isn't true is either in modern times (US Grant being a possible example) War tends to effectively flatten societal hierarchy. When a society is in trouble the best people for the job tend to rise to the top because results are what matter and when the alternative is bad enough people don't care that someone doesn't have the right pedigree if they have the necessary skills.
- enkid 5y agoHistorically, not really. It was the norm for people leading the fighting to be some sort of elite. Think the nobility in middle ages Europe, the Spartans' control over the way more numerous Helots, the caste system of India, and the Samurai of Japan. There are probably exceptions I'm not thinking of, but for the vast majority of history, it was the already powerful that were leading the forces, not some plucky newcomer with the right stuff.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoNobody's realistically expecting anyone to go from peasant to general. That's an obtuse red herring. What does happen is that everyone worth a crap gets their career fast tracked. People go from machinist to plant operator or from junior officer to general in a year, etc, etc. People who would have been promoted because they know someone are passed over because when things are serious like in wartime people feel they cannot get away with forgoing more promising people for those kinds of people. People who would have had to work a whole career to break between class levels can do it in a fraction of the time.
- enkid 5y agoLook, the article is making a historical argument, and your talking about the modern ways wars are fought. I believe the author has an incorrect belief about how historically battles were won, and I pointed to several historical examples. Now, you can either refute my examples or provide your own, but pointing to the way the military runs today does nothing for my argument that historically "winning a battle" was not a great method of social mobility yo "elite" status.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]