The Warrior Society

[Steel Tiger]

Many societies have been described as warrior or warlike. The Samurai, Spartans, and the Normans fall into this category to name just a few. But in these there were efforts made to keep elements of society out of warfare, either from fear or a need to have industries not linked to the military. I would like, however, to put forward the Aztec society as the society most completely dedicated to warfare, in which almost every aspect of the society was turned to militarism. Let me give a brief description to illustrate what I mean.

All males in Aztec society were trained in fighting arts, not uncommon, many societies do this, but they were trained at state sponsored schools called telpochcalli (for commoners) or calmecac (for nobles and priests).

The entire society lived or died on the success of the military. The central parts of the hegemony, around the Basin of Mexico, could not produce enough food for the population and so additional food was imported as part of the tribute from the conquered provinces. Provincial revolts were controlled by bribing the nobility with luxurious gifts and the threat of the army. The luxurious gifts were also derived from the conquered provinces which meant that a near constant need for conquest was in play.

Furthermore, it was through the army that anyone could excel. Restrictions of class fell by the wayside if one was skilled in warfare. Success could see a common man made a member of one of the military societies. This would mean his children would be considered nobility and that meant access to the superior training at the calmecac.

The Aztec religion was based of placating the Sun with sacrifices of blood so it would not go out. Much of this blood came from victims who were captured in battle, either angry war or Flower War. For certain ceremonies people volunteered to serve society as a sacrifice, but in the main the sacrifices were battel captives.

By the time the Spanish arrived the Aztec society was so dedicated to producing and maintaining it military machine that it was destroying itself. The arrival of Cortez and the Conquistadors merely hastened a process that was already begun.

This is just a small look at some of the features of an Aztec society that was almost entirely dedicated to militarism. I was going to say that it is unlikely that we will see this level of militarisation of a society again, but who knows? We have seen nations go very close, Nazi Germany is one example.

What I would like to discuss is twofold:

I would certainly like to know if anyone can put forward another society as dedicated, if not more, to warfare.

And is this extreme pattern something we might see again in the future. Is it happening now?


Just as an interesting little side note. Did you know that the Aztecs held a special place for left-handed fighters? I think it is kinda cool being a lefty myself.

 

[grydth]

How about North Korea? It has been noted that a huge expenditure for several decades has been made on the military, while ordinary folks suffer famines and electrical outages.

 

[Steel Tiger]

How about North Korea? It has been noted that a huge expenditure for several decades has been made on the military, while ordinary folks suffer famines and electrical outages.

Ah Yes. North Korea is a good example.

I would have to say that for their program to be successful they would need to expand their territory. But that is not going to happen, is it?

 

[CuongNhuka]

How about Roman soceity? People don't normally realize that over half of there territory was conquered by just three men. And a few hundred years after that, Rome went stagent. And then fell.

Or, what about Celtic soceity? The major way to become king, depending on were (and when you are), was to be elected by the nobility based (largely) on your war record. And the way you attained the title of noble was based on the number of cattle you had. How did you get cattle? By stealing it from other tribes/nations in geurrilla-style battles.
By the way, the Celts were the first and second people to attack Rome itself. The third being the Visigoths.

Ohh, good one. The Zulu! My only real knowdge of there warrior culture is that everyone had to participate in a near Spartan level of training. And that to be a regional lord (think Feudal Lord), was to be a good spear fighter.

As for now adays, I would have to say the Catholic Church... does that count? I wont say the Islamic exremists, because I don't count terrorist organizations/gangs.

Really? For leftys? How strange....

 

[Steel Tiger]

How about Roman soceity? People don't normally realize that over half of there territory was conquered by just three men. And a few hundred years after that, Rome went stagent. And then fell.

The earliest Roman conquests were almost accidental as they sought to protect their territories. I would have to say that Roman society was more politically oriented than warrior. People like Ceasar carried out conquests to further their political careers.

Or, what about Celtic soceity? The major way to become king, depending on were (and when you are), was to be elected by the nobility based (largely) on your war record. And the way you attained the title of noble was based on the number of cattle you had. How did you get cattle? By stealing it from other tribes/nations in geurrilla-style battles.
By the way, the Celts were the first and second people to attack Rome itself. The third being the Visigoths.

Celtic society is definitely a warrior society but it was not so completely dedicated to war as was the Aztec. The society continued without the need for near constant military operations along the borders.

Ohh, good one. The Zulu! My only real knowdge of there warrior culture is that everyone had to participate in a near Spartan level of training. And that to be a regional lord (think Feudal Lord), was to be a good spear fighter.

Shaka's Zulu nation was completely dedicated to war and, like the Aztec, was destroying itself. After his death they changed their ways.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Ah Yes. North Korea is a good example.

I would have to say that for their program to be successful they would need to expand their territory. But that is not going to happen, is it?

We'll just have to see won't we?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Really? For leftys? How strange....

Why is that strange? I call it efficiant.:mst:
Sean

 

[Steel Tiger]

Why is that strange? I call it efficiant.:mst:
Sean

There is also a religious component involved. Left-handed warriors also had a semi-sacred position because the chief god of the Aztecs, Huitzilopochtli, was a war god. His name means "Left-handed Hummingbird".

 

[grydth]

Ah Yes. North Korea is a good example.

I would have to say that for their program to be successful they would need to expand their territory. But that is not going to happen, is it?

Geography has stifled poor Kim Jong Il. Imagine what havoc that Army could have played were North Korea centrally located among weak neighbors!

As it stands - To the south, a strong ROK force backed up by the still powerful USA. To the north, China, which in decline can be the ripest fruit for conquerors. or, when strong as now.... a cork keeping North Korea in the bottle.

Kim will likely go to Hell wondering about the 'could have beens'...

 

[CuongNhuka]

The earliest Roman conquests were almost accidental as they sought to protect their territories. I would have to say that Roman society was more politically oriented than warrior. People like Ceasar carried out conquests to further their political careers.

It was Ceasar and his freinds I was referring to. While it is true that politics were there motives, I'm sure they could have other things to get the same end. Ceasar was apparently pretty wealthy (indepent of war), he could have given procedes to the poor, set up charitys, so on. Instead, he went to the sword and spear. After Ceasar, many governers seeking to further their own position tried to conquer territory. Which is why Britian became a territoy, as I recall.
After Rome stopped attacking foreigners, the economy hit a wall, society went down hill (one could argue that serving in the military, and fighting, kept the wealthy upper-class from becoming as decedent), and so on. The military ended up being used for little more then fighting Romes constant Civil Wars (which could have even happened because Rome was no longer looking outside Rome). They stagnated, and they collapsed. A nation that is based on war, and then stops fighting, will surely crash.

See what I'm saying?

 

[Steel Tiger]

It was Ceasar and his freinds I was referring to. While it is true that politics were there motives, I'm sure they could have other things to get the same end. Ceasar was apparently pretty wealthy (indepent of war), he could have given procedes to the poor, set up charitys, so on. Instead, he went to the sword and spear. After Ceasar, many governers seeking to further their own position tried to conquer territory. Which is why Britian became a territoy, as I recall.
After Rome stopped attacking foreigners, the economy hit a wall, society went down hill (one could argue that serving in the military, and fighting, kept the wealthy upper-class from becoming as decedent), and so on. The military ended up being used for little more then fighting Romes constant Civil Wars (which could have even happened because Rome was no longer looking outside Rome). They stagnated, and they collapsed. A nation that is based on war, and then stops fighting, will surely crash.

See what I'm saying?

JUlius Ceasar was a very interesting case. He followed a perfectly normal political career until it came to his post censor or quaestor -ship (can't remeber which it is) when he was put in charge of Romes sanitation problem rather than given a military command. When given the opportunity to go to Gaul he started a war and military campaign for his political benefit like Marius and Pompey before him. The goal was power in Rome. There were other routes to this, being a governor for instance, that did not necessarily involve military success.

Rome never really stopped fighting its neighbours, it just found people it couldn't beat - the German tribes and the Parthians, for example. As it couldn't win it settled down to defend what it had. But I think you are right, that is when the economy started to decline and eventually collapsed.

The sentence I have put in bold is a very true statement indeed.

 

[CuongNhuka]

But I think you are right, that is when the economy started to decline and eventually collapsed.

The sentence I have put in bold is a very true statement indeed.

So then, would you then agree that Rome was a war-based state? Not so much maybe as other countries, but atleast that it was war based?

also, would you consider Parthia to be a war based state? My understanding of there tactics and organization makes me think they had put a lot of thought into it. Which doesn't seem like something a peaceful nation would do. I site Carthage as my example. They had little intrest in war, so they had no real standing army (aside from mercenaries).

I also came up with others. Russia at several points, Britian and France during the colonial era, and (in some ways) the U.S.
My argument for the U.S. is the fact they we fight a war almost once a decade. It may be "limited", but it is a war. It's also alot more then most other countries. Now, we're not as bad as the Aztecs, the Zulu, Persia, or so on, but we do have a heavy focus on the military. Our spending on the military is also off the chart.

 

[ppko]

here are two groups that noone has touched on, the Huns and the Khans

 

[Steel Tiger]

Parthia was definitely a warrior society and war may have been more important to them than it was to Rome. Their society could withstand long periods of peace just like Rome. unlike Rome, however, their economy was not so closely linked to the military.

Carthage is a good example of a society which does not have its economy linked to the military too closely. Sure there were conquests, the Iberian peninsula for example, but trade was the focus of the economy. They had no standing army but they did have a trained citizen militia. This is what formed the original core of Hannibal's armies.

I see Imperial Britain to be very similar to Imperial Rome. The economy became very tightly linked to the military.

The military spending of the US is positively insane but the American economy would still work without the military. The conflicts that the US has gotten into in the last 50 years were not to secure a new resource base to maintain the economy. The reasons may have ultimately been economic, but they were not so blatant.

The Aztec, and to a lesser extent the Zulu, economies were so completely linked to the military that they could not survive it removal or even long periods of peace. And if the economy collapses so does the society in general.

 

[Blindside]

Typically in warrior/militaristic societies the ideal of the warrior is given high standing. That is certainly not true of Rome, the armies and soldiers might have given their leader power, but that was only part of it. You won't see a sword on the side of a Roman senator. The Roman Empire's economic model failed, but I don't think it was because it was a militaristic society, all societies fail in time.

I'd look to the various asian steppe tribes (Huns, Mongols) as better examples of militaristic societies.

Lamont

 

[Steel Tiger]

Typically in warrior/militaristic societies the ideal of the warrior is given high standing. That is certainly not true of Rome, the armies and soldiers might have given their leader power, but that was only part of it. You won't see a sword on the side of a Roman senator. The Roman Empire's economic model failed, but I don't think it was because it was a militaristic society, all societies fail in time.

I'd look to the various asian steppe tribes (Huns, Mongols) as better examples of militaristic societies.

Lamont

This is a very good point. it is the difference between a warrior society and societies that are militaristic I think.

I would venture to say that the Roman Empire was a militaristic society. It was not a warrior society like many of its neighbours. Warriors and soldiers did not have an elevated status, politicians did. However, very little could be achieved without the military. It was very important to stability and prosperity.

But a militaristic society is not necessarily a warrior society. rome was a militaristic society, the German tribes were a warrior society, and the Aztecs were both a warrior society and a militaristic one.

The Mongols under Genghis might also be an example of a militarised warrior society.

 

[grydth]

As for recent examples, Nazi Germany was well on the way to becoming such a militarized society - had it not, thankfully, been snuffed out after only 12 years. When you look at the fantastic array of medals/badges/honors, the vast and varied propaganda machine under Goebbels which glorified military feats (and lied about de-feats), the growth of the Waffen SS and the fundamentally rabid expansionist views of Adolf Hitler - one wonders (with dread) what would have happened had they won...

One had much of the same poison on the other side with Soviet Russia... That never became the military state of this topic, but only because Stalin mistrusted the Army (along with everyone else) and purged it violently in the 30s and politically in the early 50s.

It will be interesting to see what path post-Soviet Russia and Mainland China take in the next decade...

 

[Steel Tiger]

The upper echelons of Nazi command had a definite obsession with the Teutonic past. Goebbels was definitely trying to use that sort of imagery to enhance the position of the military within German society. Even though the thought is very frightening, it would have been interesting to see where all that work would have led to. There were a lot of pseudo and para military organisations along side the military in Nazi Germany.

I think that both the new Russia and China will become swamped by market economies and capitalism. It is already becoming obvious in Russia. In ten years the Russian government might decide that the economy is strong enough to begin a significant remilitarisation of the nation. If this leads to the development of a militaristic or warrior society will be interesting, and perhaps a little worrying, to see.

 

[grydth]

There are many "what -ifs" as to the Nazis winning - and all of those alternate futures are horrifying. That work of theirs would have led to a nightmare world of more phonied up Teutonic myths and racist 'science', more Holocausts and eventual attempt at world conquest.

You are correct indeed as to the numerous paramilitary organizations permeating the Nazi state. Be it the NSKK, the Hitler Youth, the RAD... all had the same sinister ultimate purpose.

Given the chance, the Nazis would have made these others look like pikers. Thank the deity for folks like my uncle, who was a merchant seaman on the Murmansk run!

 

[CuongNhuka]

The military spending of the US is positively insane but the American economy would still work without the military.

I bet many companies would do like crap for awhile (like contracters/those companys that make Military weapons), but we would probably get out of debt pretty quickly.

Also, something a don't think many realise about hitler. First, he was Half Jewish. Second, there is a good deal of evidence to the fact that hitler may have been a represed Homosexual. Third, the guy was a brilliant, an lunatic beyond compare, but brilliant.
Think about it, who else could have done what he did? In a country with high Jewish, Russian, and Communist populations, who else could have become the political leader? His party was elected by the German equivent of Congress, and they suspected that he was going to put in charge as Party Leader, thus becoming the German Leader.
Who else could have organized the German economy so quickly? Who else could have organized the military so quickly? There are a lot theories that say that the German Military was probably stronger then that of the U.S, and that the only reason the Allies won the war was because we were fresh. We also massivly outnumber the German forces. Let's also not forget how quickly his forces ran through Europe.
It took him what, 8 years to take over a third a Europe? If he had settled down for about four years, he could have rebuilt his military and smashed through the rest of Europe with little resistence. It would have taken him about 30 years to take over all of Europe. the phrase "Fortress Europe" would have been more then just an exression.
But the guy is still NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And was more nuts then probably anyone else in the world, with very few exceptions.