3 ms·

I consider the way of life Macedon constructed -- allowing superior funding and training of armies -- a technological/logistical advantage accompanied with more

I consider the way of life Macedon constructed -- allowing superior funding and training of armies -- a technological/logistical advantage accompanied with more rapidly-evolving tactics. You call it just 'social'. It is a minor disagreement. I agree: For most of history battles were not based on technological advantage against superior numbers, but were simple wars of attrition between increasingly equal opponents in numbers and technology. (That mindset culminated in WWI.) Warrior aristocracies did control territories out of proportion of their numbers. Especially in times of peace, when subjugating their own populations. Being more steadfast can't defeat 10-1 odds (that requires significant technological advantage), but it was still worth a lot. --- I wasn't sure how to talk about cohesiveness. Cohesive can be just stubborn persistence, or it can be more harmonious tactics. Technology always has a social component. For the macedonian pike to arise you needed the social infrastructure around it that allowed Philip to train soldiers, then send them out to become battle-hardened defending trading routes from pirates. (That's a pretty common pattern, and explains why islands often grow into great powers; the right social infrastructure for warlike technology often arises after trade for several generations.) But by no means is it so simple a matter as just being more steadfast. I can't think of a single battle that was won against 10-1 odds in numbers without technological advantage (including dramatically superior generalship and training). In fact, it's battles like in WWI or involving General Marlborough that relied on steadfastness and attrition because there was no other advantage, of technology or of generalship or of numbers.

akkartik 19y ago
Here's how joining an ancient army is like joining a contemporary startup: your goal is to compete with more numerous enemies by means of superior technology. You mobilize a group of people with promises of loot, rape and pillage, a share of the profits. The people around you take on risk for a chance to make it big. It's not as volatile as before, of course. Instead of losing your life you take a paycut, a hit in opportunity cost. Here's how joining an ancient army is not like joining a contemporary startup: then your goal was to destroy and assimilate the enemy. Now it is to be happily assimilated. --- People tend to consider the feudal system a step back from the glorious states that were ancient Greece and ancient Rome. In reality it's a step forward, employing standing armies in a decentralized 'p2p' organization rather than mobilizing armies for specific invasions. Taking away loot as the primary incentive makes becoming a soldier more of a 'normal' career and less of a risk, more stable and less reliant on big payouts. This in turn gives a society as a whole less incentive to go marauding against its neighbors. The stability we have today in the west began then, with the barbarian Germanic tribes that later came to have knights and chivalry. Before we could have stock markets and acquisitions we had to stop fighting among ourselves. :) Happy holidays everyone!

akkartik 19y ago

Here's how joining an ancient army is like joining a contemporary startup: your goal is to compete with more numerous enemies by means of superior technology. You mobilize a group of people with promises of loot, rape and pillage, a share of the profits. The people around you take on risk for a chance to make it big. It's not as volatile as before, of course. Instead of losing your life you take a paycut, a hit in opportunity cost. Here's how joining an ancient army is not like joining a contemporary startup: then your goal was to destroy and assimilate the enemy. Now it is to be happily assimilated. --- People tend to consider the feudal system a step back from the glorious states that were ancient Greece and ancient Rome. In reality it's a step forward, employing standing armies in a decentralized 'p2p' organization rather than mobilizing armies for specific invasions. Taking away loot as the primary incentive makes becoming a soldier more of a 'normal' career and less of a risk, more stable and less reliant on big payouts. This in turn gives a society as a whole less incentive to go marauding against its neighbors. The stability we have today in the west began then, with the barbarian Germanic tribes that later came to have knights and chivalry. Before we could have stock markets and acquisitions we had to stop fighting among ourselves. :) Happy holidays everyone!