5 ms·

> War is part of society? To barbaric ones maybe. Civilized societies don't settle disputes by mass murder. It's quite the opposite -- only civilized societies

> War is part of society? To barbaric ones maybe. Civilized societies don't settle disputes by mass murder. It's quite the opposite -- only civilized societies can have the kind of logistics, range, military culture, ability to support the warrior class (or standing armies), and numbers to engage in organized warfare. Conflicts between small bands of foragers can hardly be even called war. Not to mention mass murder which absolutely requires the kind of discipline, organization and leadership only a very cohesive and civilized society can provide. It just doesn't happen outside of civilization, no one has the means, or could benefit from it. Anything of the scale of holocaust is only possible in a highly industrialized country. > So now poor kids with few options are recruited into the military. Problem solved. Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to richer kids: > Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented. This and much more on the topic: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...

gizmo 15y ago
I present to you: Ghengis Kahn. 40 million people died as a result of his campaigns. Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. > Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to richer kids Huh. I stand corrected.
- spindritf 15y ago
  > Civilized society? Yes, of course. It came to existence when Ghengis Khan united nomadic tribes but so did the countries in Europe -- Franks were a confederation of tribes, Poland was founded by a tribe subduing its neighbours, etc, etc. That is how civilization is born. If it wasn't for that they wouldn't be able to reach Europe. That is why we call them the Mongol Empire.
  - gizmo 15y ago
    Oh c'mon. If you define civilized society that broadly than anything capable of organized warfare is by definition a civilized society. It would be a pointless tautology. In that context my response that systematic murder is uncivilized (and that therefore a society that engages in systematic murder is an uncivilized society) becomes a direct contradiction in terms. So that's obviously not what I meant. When I speak of a civilized society it is in comparison to other societies. Not all countries violate human rights on the same scale, and therefore, not all countries are equally civilized.
    - spindritf 15y ago
      > When I speak of a civilized society it is in comparison to other societies. That's exactly what I did, I compared the Mongol empire to early medieval countries in Europe (Franks and Poland) which I definitely consider civilized, though as you mention not all are equally civilized. There is no tautology here.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - Scriptor 15y ago
      The Mongols may not have had cities (besides Karakorum, the capital). However, by the time Genghis Khan's conquests were under way they had a written alphabet, a very highly organized military structure, a complex legal code, freedom of religion, and a postal system that was unrivaled until the Pony Express was established in the US. They were generally far more sophisticated than you give them credit for and their system of warfare was more than just 'tribal'. Sure, they used hit and run tactics, but a great deal of logistics and organization is required to besiege cities. Sacking cities and killing the inhabitants was nothing new. The Crusaders did it at the end of the siege of Acre during the 3rd crusade. Khan actually gave the cities he attacked a chance to surrender and be spared. Also, the term "barbarian" is loose, vague, and sometimes downright irresponsible when talking about history. Different cultures have viewed others as barbarians throughout history. Unless we're talking about one of these specific cases (such as the Greeks calling those north of them barbarians, or the ancient Chinese calling everyone around them that) it's a meaningless term. Would you call tying peasants to the land and severely limiting their rights and freedom to even move around a barbaric practice? Or is it just cruel or unfair?
- qohen 15y ago
  > Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. The story may be a bit more nuanced that that: From a review of "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-khan-and-making-modern-world http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-kha...): "Arguably, however, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were the dominant force that shaped Eurasia and consequently the modern world. Not for what they destroyed – though they wrought much destruction all over the continent – but for what they built. They came close to uniting Eurasia into a world empire, and in so doing they spread throughout it technologies like paper, gunpowder, paper money, or the compass – and trousers. They revolutionised warfare. More lastingly, in the word's of the author: ' ...they also created the nucleus of a universal culture and world system. (...) With the emphasis on free commerce, open communication, shared knowledge, secular politics, religious coexistence, international law, and diplomatic immunity.' ". http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330718928&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/06...
  - qohen 15y ago
    >> Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. > The story may be a bit more nuanced that that: Make that a lot more nuanced: (From the same review cited above): "The Mongols' was the first modern army. It was built on a rational structure (based, like the Roman legion, on units in the multiple of tens) and promotion was strictly on merit. Thoroughly disciplined and highly mobile – infantry was unknown – it could execute complex tactical manoeuvres in silence upon orders from centralised command. Speed and efficiency in conquest were their trademark, and the source of the fear they struck in the enemy. Horse and bow where the Mongol warriors' strength – and it the end their weakness. Forests hindered the deployment of mounted armies, in the humid heat of India the bows failed, and the horses' strength faded when they could not find pastures in the Syrian desert. Warfare technology and logistics were other factors in the Mongols' superiority. The gunpowder formula was changed to yield explosive force, rather than slow burn as in fire-lances and rockets. Guns and cannon were developed. Specialised troops of craftsmen were skilled in building complex siege machines from local materials – obviating the need to move them over long distances. They perfected sapping of walls, thus making static defence impossible. A dedicated medical corps looked after the wounded. The army and its horses spread across the plains for forage and sustenance, thus obviating for the need for supply lines – yet a sophisticated communication system based on melodies to ensure accurate memorisation allowed the scattered troops to regroup at short notice and to remain in touch with the distant leadership. The intelligence system was second to none, and the Mongols knew much more about the lands they were about to invade than the defenders knew about the Mongols – if nothing else because the latter lived off the land and needed to know where water and pastures were to be found. In addition, the Mongols developed highly sophisticated methods of psychological warfare, spreading rumours about their cruelty and destruction. This unsettled the rural populations that then fled before the advancing army, hamstringing the defence efforts."
- ctchocula 15y ago
  You should pay attention to the website he gave as his source - a website run by the Heritage Foundation known for having a strong conservative bias. I found some criticisms to the study in the comments of a blog: 1. Authors show a graph showing the median income of the family of recruits is $48,616 then proceed to define any family making more than that as "affluent". 2. Authors didn't have income data of the recruits and their families so they based their study on what neighbourhoods the recruits came from using zip codes (!) and whether the neighbourhoods were considered low-income, high-income, etc. Source: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/04/who-serves-in-the-us-military-heritage-foundation.html?cid=6a00d8341c72e153ef01156f5e560d970c http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/04/w...

gizmo 15y ago

I present to you: Ghengis Kahn. 40 million people died as a result of his campaigns. Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. > Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to richer kids Huh. I stand corrected.

spindritf 15y ago
> Civilized society? Yes, of course. It came to existence when Ghengis Khan united nomadic tribes but so did the countries in Europe -- Franks were a confederation of tribes, Poland was founded by a tribe subduing its neighbours, etc, etc. That is how civilization is born. If it wasn't for that they wouldn't be able to reach Europe. That is why we call them the Mongol Empire.
- gizmo 15y ago
  Oh c'mon. If you define civilized society that broadly than anything capable of organized warfare is by definition a civilized society. It would be a pointless tautology. In that context my response that systematic murder is uncivilized (and that therefore a society that engages in systematic murder is an uncivilized society) becomes a direct contradiction in terms. So that's obviously not what I meant. When I speak of a civilized society it is in comparison to other societies. Not all countries violate human rights on the same scale, and therefore, not all countries are equally civilized.
  - spindritf 15y ago
    > When I speak of a civilized society it is in comparison to other societies. That's exactly what I did, I compared the Mongol empire to early medieval countries in Europe (Franks and Poland) which I definitely consider civilized, though as you mention not all are equally civilized. There is no tautology here.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Scriptor 15y ago
    The Mongols may not have had cities (besides Karakorum, the capital). However, by the time Genghis Khan's conquests were under way they had a written alphabet, a very highly organized military structure, a complex legal code, freedom of religion, and a postal system that was unrivaled until the Pony Express was established in the US. They were generally far more sophisticated than you give them credit for and their system of warfare was more than just 'tribal'. Sure, they used hit and run tactics, but a great deal of logistics and organization is required to besiege cities. Sacking cities and killing the inhabitants was nothing new. The Crusaders did it at the end of the siege of Acre during the 3rd crusade. Khan actually gave the cities he attacked a chance to surrender and be spared. Also, the term "barbarian" is loose, vague, and sometimes downright irresponsible when talking about history. Different cultures have viewed others as barbarians throughout history. Unless we're talking about one of these specific cases (such as the Greeks calling those north of them barbarians, or the ancient Chinese calling everyone around them that) it's a meaningless term. Would you call tying peasants to the land and severely limiting their rights and freedom to even move around a barbaric practice? Or is it just cruel or unfair?
qohen 15y ago
> Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. The story may be a bit more nuanced that that: From a review of "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-khan-and-making-modern-world http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-kha...): "Arguably, however, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were the dominant force that shaped Eurasia and consequently the modern world. Not for what they destroyed – though they wrought much destruction all over the continent – but for what they built. They came close to uniting Eurasia into a world empire, and in so doing they spread throughout it technologies like paper, gunpowder, paper money, or the compass – and trousers. They revolutionised warfare. More lastingly, in the word's of the author: ' ...they also created the nucleus of a universal culture and world system. (...) With the emphasis on free commerce, open communication, shared knowledge, secular politics, religious coexistence, international law, and diplomatic immunity.' ". http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330718928&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/06...
- qohen 15y ago
  >> Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. > The story may be a bit more nuanced that that: Make that a lot more nuanced: (From the same review cited above): "The Mongols' was the first modern army. It was built on a rational structure (based, like the Roman legion, on units in the multiple of tens) and promotion was strictly on merit. Thoroughly disciplined and highly mobile – infantry was unknown – it could execute complex tactical manoeuvres in silence upon orders from centralised command. Speed and efficiency in conquest were their trademark, and the source of the fear they struck in the enemy. Horse and bow where the Mongol warriors' strength – and it the end their weakness. Forests hindered the deployment of mounted armies, in the humid heat of India the bows failed, and the horses' strength faded when they could not find pastures in the Syrian desert. Warfare technology and logistics were other factors in the Mongols' superiority. The gunpowder formula was changed to yield explosive force, rather than slow burn as in fire-lances and rockets. Guns and cannon were developed. Specialised troops of craftsmen were skilled in building complex siege machines from local materials – obviating the need to move them over long distances. They perfected sapping of walls, thus making static defence impossible. A dedicated medical corps looked after the wounded. The army and its horses spread across the plains for forage and sustenance, thus obviating for the need for supply lines – yet a sophisticated communication system based on melodies to ensure accurate memorisation allowed the scattered troops to regroup at short notice and to remain in touch with the distant leadership. The intelligence system was second to none, and the Mongols knew much more about the lands they were about to invade than the defenders knew about the Mongols – if nothing else because the latter lived off the land and needed to know where water and pastures were to be found. In addition, the Mongols developed highly sophisticated methods of psychological warfare, spreading rumours about their cruelty and destruction. This unsettled the rural populations that then fled before the advancing army, hamstringing the defence efforts."
ctchocula 15y ago
You should pay attention to the website he gave as his source - a website run by the Heritage Foundation known for having a strong conservative bias. I found some criticisms to the study in the comments of a blog: 1. Authors show a graph showing the median income of the family of recruits is $48,616 then proceed to define any family making more than that as "affluent". 2. Authors didn't have income data of the recruits and their families so they based their study on what neighbourhoods the recruits came from using zip codes (!) and whether the neighbourhoods were considered low-income, high-income, etc. Source: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/04/who-serves-in-the-us-military-heritage-foundation.html?cid=6a00d8341c72e153ef01156f5e560d970c http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/04/w...