4 ms·
That's true, but it operates at a different level than parent is talking about. Romans and Huns were both human, so they both had a capacity for violence. Perfo
by jessaustin 4y ago
That's true, but it operates at a different level than parent is talking about. Romans and Huns were both human, so they both had a capacity for violence. Performance improves with practice, however. Parent contends that the inherent (inter-species) violence of pastoral life functioned as practice for the Huns' violent conflict with Rome.
That isn't totally convincing, given that Rome at that time had dominated pastoral cultures for hundreds of years. It's possible that Rome had become more vulnerable, and the Huns just had good timing.
- 082349872349872 4y agoGood point, although I'll note that Romans were known for their infantry, and their armies tended to recruit non-Roman (pastoral?) auxiliaries for cavalry.
- krisoft 4y ago> Parent contends that the inherent (inter-species) violence of pastoral life functioned as practice for the Huns' violent conflict with Rome. But the Romans also butchered animals at massive scales. Why would there be more inter-species violence in pastoral life than in settled life?
- 082349872349872 4y agoButchering an animal that has been led to slaughter is distinct from driving a herd. In the former, an animal is led by rope/nose ring/etc. fairly directly. In the latter, the drover uses action from a distance[0] to indirectly control the direction and speed of a group[1] of animals. I contend that the skills practised[2] doing the latter are, far more than those practised doing the former, conducive to violently routing[3] a group of humans. Sources: discussions w/ ranchers, circus trainers, prison guards [0] changes in posture, etc. [1] who, depending upon excitement level, may be actively seeking to evade control [2] especially experience with manipulating the fight/flight bubble [3] mainly as in rout, not route
- jessaustin 4y agoI have cattle, and I generally consider that when violence occurs, I've made a mistake. I prefer to arrange facilities and practices so that cattle rarely feel fear, since they can be controlled almost completely by habit, annoyance, and gluttony. Of course, the Huns didn't have barbed wire or any other modern convenience, but they probably had a much higher herder-to-animal ratio than I have. I'm sure they were fabulous horsemen and experienced in killing mammals, but no cattle herd will prosper if it is regularly subjected to terror. I expect that other domesticated species such as sheep and goats would similar; horses certainly are. Not everyone agrees with my philosophy! Farm stores sell lots of electric "cattle prod" devices.
- 082349872349872 4y agoI completely agree! Walking livestock is best — that is what I tried to convey by excitement level. I have just watched videos of middle-eastern mounted police doing riot work, and their actions seemed very similar to (a) heading off stampedes, and (b) cutting out individuals from the herd. Just remember, that the same actions that calm a cow when drawing can be done "in reverse" to heat it up[0]. So someone practised in moving cattle, and calming them, is also not so far off from having the skills to influence the movement of groups of people, and terrorising them. [0] partner dancing is similar to duelling, in that in both you're paying close attention to your partner/opponent. It's different in that in the former you're paying close attention for small mistakes, in order to act so as to cover them up; in the latter you're paying close attention for small mistakes, in order to act so as to amplify them.