The Spartans were a warrior society in the exact way that Lindybeige describes, and they did indeed fall prey to depopulation.
Eventually there were too few Spartans to keep the Helots (the horrifically mistreated Spartan slave class) down and to protect themselves. As Aristotle wrote: "the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin".
What was my second point? Oh, yes: the whole notion of a "military society" is a moot one in the current age of industrial/electronic/internet warfare.
There has always been the argument that "our soldiers are better because our society promotes martial virtues". History tells us this notion is patently false, yet it is repeatedly promoted for political reasons. Two outstanding examples that come to mind are Imperial Japan vs. US in WW2 and pretty much every war between Pakistan and India.
1: "Battle hardened" doesn't always mean a fight to the death mano-a-mano. IIRC, many military actions were raids or sieges. And even in battles you can rack up a lot of kills once the enemy army broke.
Considering how reluctant people generally are to murdering others for fun and profit, a warrior society would be one that essentially brainwashes them to overcome this reluctance. Naturally, the pychopaths in this society tend to stand out.
Yea its not a 50/50. Maybe if its just normal untrained then yes. But if you take like the spartans (not the OP 300 spartans) They were based around battle, and vigorous training. Its not long 50/50 if your opponent is trained since a young age and his hiding behind a big shield.
@thispandaispurple If you take one man at random and put him up against one other random man, and people have to take bets on the winner before the men are selected, the odds are 50/50. Yes, in reality, if every man in a society had to kill one other man, then the strongest would probably pick out weak opponents before someone stronger picked them.
I always imagine warrior societies as being like gangland societies. Not all of the men had killed, but a lot had, and they developed some kind of coping mechanism to deal with the psychological damage of battle, and nobody was untouched by the violence. The death toll would have been high, but people would have had more babies for exactly that reason.
@yerk3 I doubt that people had more babies to compensate for a violent society. People have other reasons, cheif among them the desire to have sex. There were no contraceptives.
Sparta. Celt Iberians(as raiders). Sweboz. Plenty of societies made their living or based their reputation on their military prowess. Does that mean they fit the Hollywood mold? No. But it doesn't mean these cultures never existed ether. They are part of our cultural identity for a reason.
What can I say? I enjoy pouring beer on my face, going all 'HAHA!' over the place during parties. Then of course I proceed to kill a hundred people. With by foam sword. Oh I love padded swordfighting.
LOL heeey i know you, your the same pussy who said throwing knives arent made to kill, just scare the opponent or minor wound at the most...
Yeah i remember, your the pussy why cant throw knives like a pro, so you say their purpose is just to confuse and distract, not to kill, because your weak pussy ass couldnt make a kill shot wiht a knife if you tried all day.
Guys guys guys, all you guys hating on my main man here...heres what you have to understand...
A Point about this duche:
You see, theres a 50% chance that this man is either a pussy and cant fight, or he cant fight and hes a pussy...either way, he likes walking around in the snow pretending like he would have a place in the "not-all warrior-society"
According to his last words:
This homo is impossible, and he still percists, and i wish he would go away.
1) Your points about populations being halved down would be true only if NO children were born and raised. If, that is, the number was fixed in all eternity.
2) There were cultures that men were not of course one-man-army each of them but they were indeed seasoned warriors that NOT ALWAYS met opponents that equally matched them in number or in training. Pillaging cultures like the vikings for example.
3) You base your argument on the incorrect premise that fights were always one on one.
You don't really have to kill a man to be a veteran. Just participating in a battle where people are dying all around you is enough to make a brave man soil his pants. Heck a good game of paintball with multiple opponents on each side gets the blood flowing and its an incredible rush. In the North Hollywood shootout(LA CA) the cops who survived were criticized for high fiving each other once the robbers were dead, which may be a natural reaction to a live threatening moment where you lived.
Oh man the number of armchair historians in the comments section scares me. I'm a geographer and definitely don't know enough about military history to have an opinion either way. But I can tell an expert from a general Youtuber pretty easily and I can also notice people who simply want to argue over semantics...
This video is totally false, battles are not fought to the last man, once it's clear you're losing, you retreat. How does a warrior society get food you ask? Simple, grow it, herd it and rob it from someone else.
@lindybeige This is exactly what you suggested when you said after each battle 50% of the population would be gone and therefore no warrior societies exist, or something similar if I recall correct.
@RealmEternal I was just saying that if every man fought just one other man in his life. I was making no comment on the nature of battles. They could be one-on-one fights.
@RealmEternal My point was people very rarely fight to the death, whether in battles or in duels. I don't know how you can conclude warrior societies didn't exist based on this.
Men had 5-10 kids in those days. Heroes could lay any woman they wanted. If you -didn't- kill off your population, you ran into Malthusian issues with land apportionment. The difference between a triumphant warrior & a maimed or dead one is training. Do what has to be done while the other guy is still lost back in the 'Observe' portion of his OODA loop killing, dominantly, is normal. Just leave some for next year but not so many that they gain experience enough to know your tactics in turn.
In the strictest sense you are spot on, Lindy. But there were societies which replicated 'battle conditions' in every day life. The Spartans easily come to mind, but also even in people like the Mongols, who more or less adapted from herding cattle for a living to herding people and then putting lots of arrows in them.
Anywho, I agree with this premise in general. Village folk will always outnumber the hardcore warriors, else in a very short time there would be no one left to fight.
@whitehunter88 The Spartans could be warriors, and had to be because of the Helots, slaves. So their society consisted of warriors, but also of slaves. Rather like the antebellum US south: More than half the population of South Carolina was slaves, and so their society was less than half warriors.
The Hollyweird version, and sword&sandal/sword&sorcery lot (Conan the Barbarian,) are the cartoon versions of warriors. This cartoon version serves some strange need to ameliorate the terror and stress of real fighting, which most men are not well able to endure. We collectively create a kind of mass psychic bandaid to make the pain and fear and loss endurable.
Real fighting men that I've known, and some were hard men indeed, were always a LOT quieter about battle.
Warrior society means a society that puts a lot of pressure on military training, therefore increasing fighting ability of their members. Therefore its not 50/50, its one guy who trained fighting for the most of his life and theres another guy who was chopping crops for the most of his life.
Just the existence of mercenaries invalidates your whole view.
@brandy1999 I think you have missed my point. Mercenaries do not make a whole society. How does the society that does nothing but soldiering get food?
I think its far more complex and the 'x society' is just a simplifying tag. So the main thing I wanted to say in here that yes, the idea in films that everyone is a berserker is hilarious, and no, it doesnt mean that we cant say that a certain group of people was focused mainly on profiting from pillaging.
My point about mercenaries was about that guy who has seen war doesnt want to fight again ( 1:45 ), since thats what one could deduct from your presented point of view.
in mind, mine is a society focused on its military aspect and profits greatly from utilising its advantages versus other groups, who cannot withstand its military power. That however doesnt mean that a) said warrior society does nothing but raiding and pillaging (even if thats one of the main sources of income) b) the other society cant protect itself in some level, because in short its not A v ~A,
I dont see how "warrior society" equals "a society that does nothing but soldiering". If we take for example, as an opposite, farmer society, we would have to say aswell that the members of this society do nothing but harvest crops and are completely unable to function in other areas, that means inability to do hunting, fishing, whatever. In short, I think we have different definition of 'warrior society'
@brandy1999 There is a difference between a 'warrior society' and a civilization like the Greeks who had a militia culture. Most Greeks never saw a war, but they all trained to be soldiers. Training alone does not make you a "Warrior Society."
@lindybeige Make war on others? Take their food and supplies.
Also the Spartans were broken up only citizens were soliders. Metics and non citizens were the craftsmen and farmers There is evidence of this in texts but I can't quote them for you without digging into my books. However I can't speak for other 'warrior' societies but Spartans are what everyone thinks of generally.
@lindybeige part-time soldiers, meaning they probably attended to other duties after a certain age/time- yet the emphasis on strong military training is there. Kinda like israel, where everyone is military trained
@lindybeige say a man who has been trained better and has more battle experience than the opponent hes fighting.. would you say then that the battle is no longer 50/50 but maybe 70/30 favoring the more experienced fighter
@mouthforwar17 Quite possibly, yes, or it might be 70/30 in favour of the man who has not been mentally traumatised by battle, wounded by battle, and doesn't how dangerous battle is and so is comparatively reckless.
@brandy1999 you also have to factor in just blind luck, it could be good or bad for both, some one could make a tiny mistake and get his kneecap stuck or lose finger and drop his weapon. Also unless the fight is a fair duel between parties most "battles" wouldn't divulge into 1 on 1 struggles between soldiers, it would just either be a suicidal "Packing In" effect or just people taking opportunity shots at anyone in front of them
There have been "warrior societies" but they're not complete civil societies or cultures. Rather, "warrior societies" are like "reenactment societies" or "worker's societies"; they're social classes or groups that specialize in violence and warfare. The Spartans themselves are usually given as the paradigm case of a warrior society, but in truth they were no more a society than the knights, or the samurai, or the huscarls: Spartans were professional soldiers and politicians supported by slaves.
The Spartans alone would already counter your point.
But the numbers you say aren't correct. If you think of continious 1 on 1 battles to the death it would be correct. But if you think battles which is what happened then the victors most of the time have the biggest part of men still living and the losers aren't all killed.
It is a fallacy that you describe, but there is actually a certain truth to it. In any army or fighting unit subject to attrition it is generally the tougher, more skilled and talented that will remain, hence veterans. A nation or tribe that wages constant war will have many veterans.
Then too, but that's unrelated. Training. It is quite possible to have a higher level of training than any other given army. Like english longbowmen, though conscripted, were bound by law to practice archery daily
When anthropologists refer to "warrior societies", we refer to specific groups within a culture-the Hawaiian Koa, European knights and men at arms, the Gallic Gaesatae, the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers, and the Aztec knights.
Most "all men have to fight" societies were rigidly disciplined as a tool of a despotic state. For example, the Spartans and Zulu. A society like, say, the Klingons, has never historically existed.
u mentioned the vikings, and seemed to base you're steriotype on them.
now, even though it's true that most of the vikings weren't proffesional warriors, al males had battle excperiece. since they clearly didn't go around killig eachother in these "duells" every day, they got their battle excperience figthing oter nations like the english, the french, and other viking GROUPS.
u mentioned the vikings, and u seemed to base ur steriotype on them by saying that all of them are depickted as warriors. we know that this was not true. though, almost every viking male had som form of battel experience, cause if they had to figth for survival, they would. ther's an old norse saying "never leav you're weapons at home, you'll migth need them".
what happens is the people who survive in those, typically seem to start going... insane lol, so repeated fights... make the propensity to shrug off fear by going manic is... probably slightly improved, so there was probably small selection pressures for those within a society to a degree if you've been in school, you know what I'm talking about, the bullies usually, and SOMETIMES the quiet one is the most dangerous period when they get angry but it's really hard to do...
In medieval Ethiopia men were expected to show their worth by killing; in war time at least one enemy warrior and during peace time a terrifying beast. They fared quite well compared to the rest of Africa.
In fantasy realities the idea may be that there is this small society that has to from generation to generation beat down hordes and hordes of faceless enemies that keep on coming.
I bet 2-3 thousand years from now people will see America as a warrior society, drinkin' beer with the right hand, a women on the left and an assault rifle latch on to every men's back whilst watching American football; a sport which seemingly depicts the practices of war (in their own eyes) and of course a pedigree of war starting from it's birth and about every five to ten years after that. All the mambo jumbo such as the Nato alliance and it's huge military industrial complex to back it up :D
I unno mate, I agree with your logic, but i still see societies like the one you describe. Maybe not a warrior society, but a thuggish life. For example the vikings were more of raiders or pirates. Life was less disciplined than any empire. Blackbeard the pirate died with a hangover. The night before he and his crew were partying hard. I'm sure thats the closest you can get to a 'warrior society', Drunk criminals.
@theshadowduke In what way is it the model? That everyone is made a soldier from birth? That women are made to train for strength, to strengthen babies? That homosexuality is encouraged? That the army has two king commanders? I'd say that the links between Sparta and the modern army and well and truly broken.
No the model is not broken, your taking cultural references from the time period and twisting them out of proportion.
The modern military does have multiple commanders, but never two that occupy the same position, and the reason is because we didn't want to follow Rome by having one that wanted one thing an the other wanting something completely different screwing up a war.
The modern western military is based on extreme discipline founded in the Spartan tradition, one Rome copied,
@theshadowduke Do you have any evidence that Rome copied Sparta on this matter? Given that Sparta went down the tubes, it would be a strange model to pick. Can you point out any similarity between Spartan and Roman training methods? I can think of none. All armies require discipline.
if you judge stuff on a conflict by conflict basis its very possible that there could be one sided butchery like these movies make it out to be. wikipedia "gallic wars" and look at the numbers part. do the mathand that ends up being some 15-25 kills per man. thats a fucking lot if you ask me
Another thing is that all the movie warrior societies are full of berserker types, who'd get slaughtered in a proper battle, with formations and tactics and everything. So that means they'd all have to be veteran ~raiders~, doesn't it? And staging enough raids to ensure that every man was a grizzled, fearless veteran... that'd take a bit.
Also, where would such a society get beer to pour on their faces, if all the men were always away fighting?
Films love to stereotype, and these stereotypes tend to be believed by the not very well read. You have the vikings, samurai, Spartans, Zulu etc. who supposedly would never, ever run away because it would be against their warrior code, and having this warrior code naturally means that everyone observed the code. Of course! And there are stories of exceptional individuals that people use to prove this point. Except they don't seem to realize that those stories are about *exceptional* individuals.
Sure not every spartan male killed someone, but they were all trained as warriors. You would not go up to a Navy Seal or SAS solider and pick a fight with him just because he was never in combat. There are plenty of ways to be tough as nails without killing someone. Just because your own mock battle training hasn't sculpted you into Gerard Butler does not mean that actual combat training wouldn't. And by the way, you pretend to be a warrior, how is that not buying into your "warrior fantasy"
Me, pretend to be a warrior? Hardly. Fair point about the SAS, but your example doesn't quite match the grizzled veteran-societies you see in films like "The Vikings".
@ItsYoursTakeIt I see what you're saying, just wanted to make a comment. Every Spartan male was tested constantly throughout his life to the point of "weeding out the weak" And as a final test, Spartan males would have to killed a helot(sp) slave and avoid being caught. This was a sort of "coming of age" test for males in Spartan society. So it would be fair to say every Spartan soldier killed someone, even an unarmed slave, right?
@TheUsrper1 The Spartans were a military society certainly, and as exceptional as they come. I know of no evidence for their laughing roaring, and pouring beer down their faces, though. In the film "300" the Spartans make speeches about fighting for freedom - utter nonsense.
@lindybeige another great video, love your work. But you haven't answered the Sparta question.
As far as we know, every Spartan male was expected/forced to serve in the army, all the work being done by helots.
I get that the popular view of a 'warrior society' is unsustainable, socio-economically, but if anything qualifies for the title, surely it's the tiny state that proved your theory by fighting itself to death at Leuctra and in the ensuing revolts.
.. and yet, there were countless warrior societies and still are. But sure, not 100% of the men can be warriors. You either have a warrior class that dominates the rest, or most of the men are warriors with many kills and battles - against other peoples. And sure, for every man to have killed 5 men, that means 500% of the warriors have been killed - usually other populations. Don't tell me Huns and Mongols did not exist and didn't conquer, you idiot. there have ONLY been warrior societies.
You should watch The Truth About Killing (if you can find it online, it's well worth it). It's about how humans have an innate resistance to taking life, and only 2% are capable of killing in cold blood
Well you have to remember that there will always be someone who has survived several fights and those that have died after just one So there would indeed be some veterans, but yes not a lot. Also, you have to factor in if there were neighbouring groups of individuals with whom the warriors fought with, however the warrior society was far superior and so could become battle hardened. I'm sure warrior societies did exist, but only to the point that only some of the men were like that.
I agree with you, and think such societies did indeed exist. What seems to be the problem is the portrayal of such societies as being too aggrandizing. There'd be a good reason why one "warrior society" would dominate another, or why it's men could be particularly battle-hardened. There's too much to take into account to say that one society of people were all great fighters. It's never so simple, and it's better to find the real reasons then believe what you're told.
The men can kill each over as much as they want. A stable population can still be maintained if polygamy is allowed. Other men are the still the majority cause of death of men in certain parts of Papua New Guinea. And to be fair those scenes in viking movies tend to be in the chiefs hall who has presumably surrounded himself with the best fighters. And being a chief he should be able to afford better amour for himself and his men increasing the likelihood of them surviving repeated fights.
Such beautiful country I would love to make it there someday. I am very disappointed with how the film industry is portraying the time period like that. Apart from showing the appearance of men being big bulky battle veterans, but showing an image that people and their day to day lives were nothing but dirty and unhealthy completely uncivilized. It makes me very sad that we now just want to see that false image
Anyone who survives the next few decades will likely do so by eating at least one human. As the industrial civilization that feeds over 7 billion people is dependent on finite resources which are all entering there depletion faze.
It's like this. They keep a very big cottage up in the mountains, very big. When guests arrive, especially from far away, they send away all the normal, not-massmurderers to the cottage, and lock them up. Then they only have the burly, hardy, rather shaken up (that's why they miss the mouth) super-killers left. After seeing that, and realising that they've killed hundreds of people each, no one will invade. There's only psycho-killers there, and they're probably wrecked anything you could loot.
Indeed, it's an old tradition. It's the same reason everyone thinks all Swedish women are blond, easy and big-breasted today. Then they come running, and we make tons of money on sub-par goods seld to tourists, and maps to where all the Ingas are hidden.
I must admit to some ignorance when it comes to Ferrero Rocher though, a quick google-search seems to indicate it's more of a local thing we uncultured vikings have missed out on. Care to elaborate?
William Golding makes a good point in "The Double Tongue" that before the Roman Empire, each Greek village thought it had a gods-given right to kill members of the other villages. I also know that when Georgians meet, they will spend a lot of time finding out where they are from to establish whether they are fueding. I think there are societies which have a lower threshold of violence to outsiders, usually in isolated mountainous areas where Kant's ideas of perfect peace have yet to arrive.
Maybe these warrior societies counted kills like conker fighting, so if you've killed 5 people you're a fiver, and if you kill someone who's killed 5 people you're a sixer. That way not so many people would have to die and yet you could have an impressive kill count.
people get confused between the idea of warrior and martial societies.
e.g. the Spartans were a martial society heavily trained as soldiers, however this was only possible due to their use of people such as the Helot slaves who served them.
Hmmm there is a possible link there that University students are in fact warrior culture-oriented. They often pour beer on their faces and think it incredibly funny...
what as the situation is diverent 2 men fight each other and one man misses a arm is it than 75 against 25 ? otherwish what does that man with 1 arm on the battlefield ? could you explame that ?
That 50% figure is only true in cases where the two people involved are exactly alike, and if you consider how lots of nomad steppe people regularly raided settled societies pre-gunpowder and all that other stuff you would have little trouble imagining a small society where most of the people had a bodycount of at least 1.
Or vikings versus farmers, monks or other soft targets. Assyrians versus their conquered lands.
Not claiming this to be true, merely casting some doubts.
I said "on average", so the 50% figure is reasonable. Men in violent societies spend most of their time fighting other men from the same or very similar neighbouring societies.
How about spartans and helots? There was a period of each year where there was open season on helots, during which a spartan could kill a helot without fear of legal punishment or religious contamination.
While it's improbably that everyone took part in them, it would at least markedly raise the kills per capita.
There's also the point to be made that one doesn't need to kill someone in battle to be a veteran, taking part in a battle would rather toughen someone up, wouldn't you say?
Yes, sorry about that. The wind didn't seem that strong to me, and what you hear here is after most of the wind noise was removed by computer editing software, but I suppose that, being British, I tend to ignore the weather, as I am of course naturally impervious to it.
@lindybeige Yeah :p at the time it doesn't sound like much but then when you listen back it's as if you were stood in a tornado. The only time I pay attention to the weather is when it's pretty snow :D
While whole nations couldn't be battle hardened elite badasses... that is not to say that you didn't have certain concentrations of them, especially when large groups tended to fight other large groups. Look at ancient greece. Not all of the greek men were extraordinary warriors, but when you have an intensive militaristic society (eg. sparta) where the men are free all day to train intensively, you have a greater concentration of beer (or in this case, wine) pouring badasses.
Pouring beer to your face is the ultimate enterteinment :D
ShitCrap 1 month ago
This lindybeige bloke comes up with some good points and is bloody well hilarious with it!
oarfrost 1 month ago
The Spartans were a warrior society in the exact way that Lindybeige describes, and they did indeed fall prey to depopulation.
Eventually there were too few Spartans to keep the Helots (the horrifically mistreated Spartan slave class) down and to protect themselves. As Aristotle wrote: "the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin".
sortedm 3 months ago
What was my second point? Oh, yes: the whole notion of a "military society" is a moot one in the current age of industrial/electronic/internet warfare.
There has always been the argument that "our soldiers are better because our society promotes martial virtues". History tells us this notion is patently false, yet it is repeatedly promoted for political reasons. Two outstanding examples that come to mind are Imperial Japan vs. US in WW2 and pretty much every war between Pakistan and India.
Bankstercide 3 months ago
Two points to make here:
1: "Battle hardened" doesn't always mean a fight to the death mano-a-mano. IIRC, many military actions were raids or sieges. And even in battles you can rack up a lot of kills once the enemy army broke.
Considering how reluctant people generally are to murdering others for fun and profit, a warrior society would be one that essentially brainwashes them to overcome this reluctance. Naturally, the pychopaths in this society tend to stand out.
Bankstercide 3 months ago
Thumbs Up
Sound mathematics - as always.
But why complain about movie warriorn societies. I mean fairies aren`t real as well - I hope - still they are depicted all over the place.
I think by the way the har-haring beer-to-face crowd where probably the nameless youngsters who had never done battle.
Every veteran I know has a very sober attitude towards these things.
my guess is that was also the case in warrior societies of the past. But the teenager dream of valhalla sells so much better.
;-))
blacksilkblacksilk 4 months ago
Yea its not a 50/50. Maybe if its just normal untrained then yes. But if you take like the spartans (not the OP 300 spartans) They were based around battle, and vigorous training. Its not long 50/50 if your opponent is trained since a young age and his hiding behind a big shield.
thispandaispurple 4 months ago
@thispandaispurple If you take one man at random and put him up against one other random man, and people have to take bets on the winner before the men are selected, the odds are 50/50. Yes, in reality, if every man in a society had to kill one other man, then the strongest would probably pick out weak opponents before someone stronger picked them.
lindybeige 4 months ago
I always imagine warrior societies as being like gangland societies. Not all of the men had killed, but a lot had, and they developed some kind of coping mechanism to deal with the psychological damage of battle, and nobody was untouched by the violence. The death toll would have been high, but people would have had more babies for exactly that reason.
yerk3 4 months ago
@yerk3 I doubt that people had more babies to compensate for a violent society. People have other reasons, cheif among them the desire to have sex. There were no contraceptives.
lindybeige 4 months ago
"Where men were men, and women were men, and horses were men....and sheep were...very, very nervous....
yerk3 4 months ago 2
you need one man to breed 1234613846132487 women.
LedKenji666 5 months ago
Sparta. Celt Iberians(as raiders). Sweboz. Plenty of societies made their living or based their reputation on their military prowess. Does that mean they fit the Hollywood mold? No. But it doesn't mean these cultures never existed ether. They are part of our cultural identity for a reason.
Lukos0036 5 months ago
You mentioned Taras Bulba?
MEEHOWtv 6 months ago
What can I say? I enjoy pouring beer on my face, going all 'HAHA!' over the place during parties. Then of course I proceed to kill a hundred people. With by foam sword. Oh I love padded swordfighting.
DiabolusIgnis 6 months ago
LOL heeey i know you, your the same pussy who said throwing knives arent made to kill, just scare the opponent or minor wound at the most...
Yeah i remember, your the pussy why cant throw knives like a pro, so you say their purpose is just to confuse and distract, not to kill, because your weak pussy ass couldnt make a kill shot wiht a knife if you tried all day.
AcdcStoner 6 months ago
Guys guys guys, all you guys hating on my main man here...heres what you have to understand...
A Point about this duche:
You see, theres a 50% chance that this man is either a pussy and cant fight, or he cant fight and hes a pussy...either way, he likes walking around in the snow pretending like he would have a place in the "not-all warrior-society"
According to his last words:
This homo is impossible, and he still percists, and i wish he would go away.
Bye
AcdcStoner 6 months ago
Or, maybe, ya know they didn't fight each other...
SuperEnderWiggin 6 months ago
1) Your points about populations being halved down would be true only if NO children were born and raised. If, that is, the number was fixed in all eternity.
2) There were cultures that men were not of course one-man-army each of them but they were indeed seasoned warriors that NOT ALWAYS met opponents that equally matched them in number or in training. Pillaging cultures like the vikings for example.
3) You base your argument on the incorrect premise that fights were always one on one.
GhostXDog 7 months ago
Some ancient Greek city states got quite close to being warrior societies in that every male citizen would fight at some point in his life.
Slaves can be very useful if you want that kind of warrior society, which was probably also how the Vikings operated.
scepticthinktank 7 months ago
You don't really have to kill a man to be a veteran. Just participating in a battle where people are dying all around you is enough to make a brave man soil his pants. Heck a good game of paintball with multiple opponents on each side gets the blood flowing and its an incredible rush. In the North Hollywood shootout(LA CA) the cops who survived were criticized for high fiving each other once the robbers were dead, which may be a natural reaction to a live threatening moment where you lived.
xmorg 7 months ago
Have you not read The Warlord Chronicles (about the Arthurian Legend) by Bernard Cornwell, and his depiction of the Mithras cult?
checkboard 7 months ago
I have to say I like how you ask the big & small questions in that we have some thing in common!
crypter27 7 months ago
Oh man the number of armchair historians in the comments section scares me. I'm a geographer and definitely don't know enough about military history to have an opinion either way. But I can tell an expert from a general Youtuber pretty easily and I can also notice people who simply want to argue over semantics...
Mackinstyle 8 months ago
It frustrates me when people think that Spartans were actually all hardened warriors with a six pack. Legends tend to overgrow truth.
Roflcopter4b 8 months ago
@Roflcopter4b Yeah. Most only had a two pack until they reached the age of 7.
Pyrela 6 months ago
This video is totally false, battles are not fought to the last man, once it's clear you're losing, you retreat. How does a warrior society get food you ask? Simple, grow it, herd it and rob it from someone else.
RealmEternal 9 months ago
@RealmEternal When do I suggest that battles are fought to the last man? They almost never were.
lindybeige 8 months ago
@lindybeige This is exactly what you suggested when you said after each battle 50% of the population would be gone and therefore no warrior societies exist, or something similar if I recall correct.
RealmEternal 8 months ago
@RealmEternal I was just saying that if every man fought just one other man in his life. I was making no comment on the nature of battles. They could be one-on-one fights.
lindybeige 8 months ago
@RealmEternal My point was people very rarely fight to the death, whether in battles or in duels. I don't know how you can conclude warrior societies didn't exist based on this.
RealmEternal 8 months ago
I think it depends on how you define a "warrior society".
The vikings for exemple were a culture in wich fighting was a very honorable thing.
Also the common people used to train for fight as often as they could because they needed to.
The vikings never had proffessional armies until they christianized themselfes.
They didn't need them because they recruited these trained peasants. Who were part of this society focused on fight.
Wikingersohn93 9 months ago
Men had 5-10 kids in those days. Heroes could lay any woman they wanted. If you -didn't- kill off your population, you ran into Malthusian issues with land apportionment. The difference between a triumphant warrior & a maimed or dead one is training. Do what has to be done while the other guy is still lost back in the 'Observe' portion of his OODA loop killing, dominantly, is normal. Just leave some for next year but not so many that they gain experience enough to know your tactics in turn.
Mixelplic 9 months ago
Windgags is quite a kinky word.
animematt 10 months ago
"or women... they were men too or ... horses probably" LOL XD
spectraldistortion 11 months ago
In the strictest sense you are spot on, Lindy. But there were societies which replicated 'battle conditions' in every day life. The Spartans easily come to mind, but also even in people like the Mongols, who more or less adapted from herding cattle for a living to herding people and then putting lots of arrows in them.
Anywho, I agree with this premise in general. Village folk will always outnumber the hardcore warriors, else in a very short time there would be no one left to fight.
whitehunter88 1 year ago
@whitehunter88 The Spartans could be warriors, and had to be because of the Helots, slaves. So their society consisted of warriors, but also of slaves. Rather like the antebellum US south: More than half the population of South Carolina was slaves, and so their society was less than half warriors.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
The Hollyweird version, and sword&sandal/sword&sorcery lot (Conan the Barbarian,) are the cartoon versions of warriors. This cartoon version serves some strange need to ameliorate the terror and stress of real fighting, which most men are not well able to endure. We collectively create a kind of mass psychic bandaid to make the pain and fear and loss endurable.
Real fighting men that I've known, and some were hard men indeed, were always a LOT quieter about battle.
Polymarkos 1 year ago
This is simply not true.
Warrior society means a society that puts a lot of pressure on military training, therefore increasing fighting ability of their members. Therefore its not 50/50, its one guy who trained fighting for the most of his life and theres another guy who was chopping crops for the most of his life.
Just the existence of mercenaries invalidates your whole view.
brandy1999 1 year ago 12
@brandy1999 I think you have missed my point. Mercenaries do not make a whole society. How does the society that does nothing but soldiering get food?
lindybeige 1 year ago
I think its far more complex and the 'x society' is just a simplifying tag. So the main thing I wanted to say in here that yes, the idea in films that everyone is a berserker is hilarious, and no, it doesnt mean that we cant say that a certain group of people was focused mainly on profiting from pillaging.
My point about mercenaries was about that guy who has seen war doesnt want to fight again ( 1:45 ), since thats what one could deduct from your presented point of view.
brandy1999 1 year ago
@lindybeige
in mind, mine is a society focused on its military aspect and profits greatly from utilising its advantages versus other groups, who cannot withstand its military power. That however doesnt mean that a) said warrior society does nothing but raiding and pillaging (even if thats one of the main sources of income) b) the other society cant protect itself in some level, because in short its not A v ~A,
brandy1999 1 year ago
@lindybeige
I dont see how "warrior society" equals "a society that does nothing but soldiering". If we take for example, as an opposite, farmer society, we would have to say aswell that the members of this society do nothing but harvest crops and are completely unable to function in other areas, that means inability to do hunting, fishing, whatever. In short, I think we have different definition of 'warrior society'
brandy1999 1 year ago
@brandy1999 There is a difference between a 'warrior society' and a civilization like the Greeks who had a militia culture. Most Greeks never saw a war, but they all trained to be soldiers. Training alone does not make you a "Warrior Society."
Dragdamar 1 year ago
@lindybeige Make war on others? Take their food and supplies.
Also the Spartans were broken up only citizens were soliders. Metics and non citizens were the craftsmen and farmers There is evidence of this in texts but I can't quote them for you without digging into my books. However I can't speak for other 'warrior' societies but Spartans are what everyone thinks of generally.
luc1as 9 months ago
@lindybeige part-time soldiers, meaning they probably attended to other duties after a certain age/time- yet the emphasis on strong military training is there. Kinda like israel, where everyone is military trained
superoriginalname 7 months ago
@lindybeige say a man who has been trained better and has more battle experience than the opponent hes fighting.. would you say then that the battle is no longer 50/50 but maybe 70/30 favoring the more experienced fighter
mouthforwar17 6 months ago
@mouthforwar17 Quite possibly, yes, or it might be 70/30 in favour of the man who has not been mentally traumatised by battle, wounded by battle, and doesn't how dangerous battle is and so is comparatively reckless.
lindybeige 6 months ago
@brandy1999 Precisely right, Brandy.
Gnorian 2 months ago
@brandy1999 you also have to factor in just blind luck, it could be good or bad for both, some one could make a tiny mistake and get his kneecap stuck or lose finger and drop his weapon. Also unless the fight is a fair duel between parties most "battles" wouldn't divulge into 1 on 1 struggles between soldiers, it would just either be a suicidal "Packing In" effect or just people taking opportunity shots at anyone in front of them
minigun20 2 weeks ago
There have been "warrior societies" but they're not complete civil societies or cultures. Rather, "warrior societies" are like "reenactment societies" or "worker's societies"; they're social classes or groups that specialize in violence and warfare. The Spartans themselves are usually given as the paradigm case of a warrior society, but in truth they were no more a society than the knights, or the samurai, or the huscarls: Spartans were professional soldiers and politicians supported by slaves.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 1 year ago
The Spartans alone would already counter your point.
But the numbers you say aren't correct. If you think of continious 1 on 1 battles to the death it would be correct. But if you think battles which is what happened then the victors most of the time have the biggest part of men still living and the losers aren't all killed.
Spartiatai300 1 year ago
It is a fallacy that you describe, but there is actually a certain truth to it. In any army or fighting unit subject to attrition it is generally the tougher, more skilled and talented that will remain, hence veterans. A nation or tribe that wages constant war will have many veterans.
Then too, but that's unrelated. Training. It is quite possible to have a higher level of training than any other given army. Like english longbowmen, though conscripted, were bound by law to practice archery daily
Xandros999 1 year ago
A society where men were men and horses were horses and women were.. men as well possibly... or maybe horses.
maine1600 1 year ago 21
When anthropologists refer to "warrior societies", we refer to specific groups within a culture-the Hawaiian Koa, European knights and men at arms, the Gallic Gaesatae, the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers, and the Aztec knights.
Most "all men have to fight" societies were rigidly disciplined as a tool of a despotic state. For example, the Spartans and Zulu. A society like, say, the Klingons, has never historically existed.
Tareltonlives 1 year ago
u mentioned the vikings, and seemed to base you're steriotype on them.
now, even though it's true that most of the vikings weren't proffesional warriors, al males had battle excperiece. since they clearly didn't go around killig eachother in these "duells" every day, they got their battle excperience figthing oter nations like the english, the french, and other viking GROUPS.
ShittyGarfunk 1 year ago
u have alot of good points, but...
u mentioned the vikings, and u seemed to base ur steriotype on them by saying that all of them are depickted as warriors. we know that this was not true. though, almost every viking male had som form of battel experience, cause if they had to figth for survival, they would. ther's an old norse saying "never leav you're weapons at home, you'll migth need them".
ShittyGarfunk 1 year ago
"And I whish it'd go away" 10 points!
Scarrus666 1 year ago
what happens is the people who survive in those, typically seem to start going... insane lol, so repeated fights... make the propensity to shrug off fear by going manic is... probably slightly improved, so there was probably small selection pressures for those within a society to a degree if you've been in school, you know what I'm talking about, the bullies usually, and SOMETIMES the quiet one is the most dangerous period when they get angry but it's really hard to do...
noobler9 1 year ago
In medieval Ethiopia men were expected to show their worth by killing; in war time at least one enemy warrior and during peace time a terrifying beast. They fared quite well compared to the rest of Africa.
In fantasy realities the idea may be that there is this small society that has to from generation to generation beat down hordes and hordes of faceless enemies that keep on coming.
Cyberspine 1 year ago
I bet 2-3 thousand years from now people will see America as a warrior society, drinkin' beer with the right hand, a women on the left and an assault rifle latch on to every men's back whilst watching American football; a sport which seemingly depicts the practices of war (in their own eyes) and of course a pedigree of war starting from it's birth and about every five to ten years after that. All the mambo jumbo such as the Nato alliance and it's huge military industrial complex to back it up :D
adobo777 1 year ago
What about the Mongols? Weren't they a warrior meritocracy? Or am I victim to the myth?
wesmatron 1 year ago
I unno mate, I agree with your logic, but i still see societies like the one you describe. Maybe not a warrior society, but a thuggish life. For example the vikings were more of raiders or pirates. Life was less disciplined than any empire. Blackbeard the pirate died with a hangover. The night before he and his crew were partying hard. I'm sure thats the closest you can get to a 'warrior society', Drunk criminals.
AnthonyReigns 1 year ago
You should probably research sparta, the model for the modern western military.
theshadowduke 1 year ago
@theshadowduke In what way is it the model? That everyone is made a soldier from birth? That women are made to train for strength, to strengthen babies? That homosexuality is encouraged? That the army has two king commanders? I'd say that the links between Sparta and the modern army and well and truly broken.
lindybeige 1 year ago 2
@lindybeige
No the model is not broken, your taking cultural references from the time period and twisting them out of proportion.
The modern military does have multiple commanders, but never two that occupy the same position, and the reason is because we didn't want to follow Rome by having one that wanted one thing an the other wanting something completely different screwing up a war.
The modern western military is based on extreme discipline founded in the Spartan tradition, one Rome copied,
theshadowduke 1 year ago
@theshadowduke Do you have any evidence that Rome copied Sparta on this matter? Given that Sparta went down the tubes, it would be a strange model to pick. Can you point out any similarity between Spartan and Roman training methods? I can think of none. All armies require discipline.
lindybeige 1 year ago
if you judge stuff on a conflict by conflict basis its very possible that there could be one sided butchery like these movies make it out to be. wikipedia "gallic wars" and look at the numbers part. do the mathand that ends up being some 15-25 kills per man. thats a fucking lot if you ask me
makingsnsux 1 year ago
@makingsnsux Rome was not a warrior society. At the peak of militarism, one man in 300 was in the army.
lindybeige 1 year ago
It's not really 50/50% chance of winning/loosing a proper fight. Spartan vs a militia soldier is a lil one sided... I watch too many movies.
brovell 1 year ago
@brovell Under 0.01% of men at that point in time were Spartan soldiers, so that's rather pointless.
LucanJacups 1 year ago
Another thing is that all the movie warrior societies are full of berserker types, who'd get slaughtered in a proper battle, with formations and tactics and everything. So that means they'd all have to be veteran ~raiders~, doesn't it? And staging enough raids to ensure that every man was a grizzled, fearless veteran... that'd take a bit.
Also, where would such a society get beer to pour on their faces, if all the men were always away fighting?
Very interesting, good point. As usual.
KiwiPhoenix6 1 year ago
Interesting point and well made.
But worth noting that a veteran is not necessarily someone who has killed another warrior, merely someone who went on campaign(s).
keithwouldstay 1 year ago
lol...you could write new monty python material
1x93cm 1 year ago
300 !!!!!!!!!!!
hivelocity100 1 year ago
Films love to stereotype, and these stereotypes tend to be believed by the not very well read. You have the vikings, samurai, Spartans, Zulu etc. who supposedly would never, ever run away because it would be against their warrior code, and having this warrior code naturally means that everyone observed the code. Of course! And there are stories of exceptional individuals that people use to prove this point. Except they don't seem to realize that those stories are about *exceptional* individuals.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Sure not every spartan male killed someone, but they were all trained as warriors. You would not go up to a Navy Seal or SAS solider and pick a fight with him just because he was never in combat. There are plenty of ways to be tough as nails without killing someone. Just because your own mock battle training hasn't sculpted you into Gerard Butler does not mean that actual combat training wouldn't. And by the way, you pretend to be a warrior, how is that not buying into your "warrior fantasy"
ItsYoursTakeIt 2 years ago
Me, pretend to be a warrior? Hardly. Fair point about the SAS, but your example doesn't quite match the grizzled veteran-societies you see in films like "The Vikings".
lindybeige 2 years ago
@ItsYoursTakeIt I see what you're saying, just wanted to make a comment. Every Spartan male was tested constantly throughout his life to the point of "weeding out the weak" And as a final test, Spartan males would have to killed a helot(sp) slave and avoid being caught. This was a sort of "coming of age" test for males in Spartan society. So it would be fair to say every Spartan soldier killed someone, even an unarmed slave, right?
TheUsrper1 1 year ago
@TheUsrper1 The Spartans were a military society certainly, and as exceptional as they come. I know of no evidence for their laughing roaring, and pouring beer down their faces, though. In the film "300" the Spartans make speeches about fighting for freedom - utter nonsense.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige another great video, love your work. But you haven't answered the Sparta question.
As far as we know, every Spartan male was expected/forced to serve in the army, all the work being done by helots.
I get that the popular view of a 'warrior society' is unsustainable, socio-economically, but if anything qualifies for the title, surely it's the tiny state that proved your theory by fighting itself to death at Leuctra and in the ensuing revolts.
JossJossJoss1 1 year ago
@JossJossJoss1 Yes, the Spartans did eventually die out, which is not a great advert for such societies.
lindybeige 1 year ago
.. and yet, there were countless warrior societies and still are. But sure, not 100% of the men can be warriors. You either have a warrior class that dominates the rest, or most of the men are warriors with many kills and battles - against other peoples. And sure, for every man to have killed 5 men, that means 500% of the warriors have been killed - usually other populations. Don't tell me Huns and Mongols did not exist and didn't conquer, you idiot. there have ONLY been warrior societies.
magarhe 2 years ago
You appear to have missed my point.
lindybeige 2 years ago
well... if the other man was a simple peasant without a weapon i don't think it's 50% :) and the warrior can afterward that this was a huge enemy ;)
another thing is that i think it does not a society if they fight alone
Maillor 2 years ago
You should watch The Truth About Killing (if you can find it online, it's well worth it). It's about how humans have an innate resistance to taking life, and only 2% are capable of killing in cold blood
tharg112 2 years ago
Seen it. Yes, this was established after WW2.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Were can I fine it?
255Knights 2 years ago
Well you have to remember that there will always be someone who has survived several fights and those that have died after just one So there would indeed be some veterans, but yes not a lot. Also, you have to factor in if there were neighbouring groups of individuals with whom the warriors fought with, however the warrior society was far superior and so could become battle hardened. I'm sure warrior societies did exist, but only to the point that only some of the men were like that.
Th3BritishGuy 2 years ago
I agree with you, and think such societies did indeed exist. What seems to be the problem is the portrayal of such societies as being too aggrandizing. There'd be a good reason why one "warrior society" would dominate another, or why it's men could be particularly battle-hardened. There's too much to take into account to say that one society of people were all great fighters. It's never so simple, and it's better to find the real reasons then believe what you're told.
000majorwinters000 2 years ago
This guy would have been quite the asset for Monty Python! A good way to brighten up the day!
goldenscales 2 years ago
The men can kill each over as much as they want. A stable population can still be maintained if polygamy is allowed. Other men are the still the majority cause of death of men in certain parts of Papua New Guinea. And to be fair those scenes in viking movies tend to be in the chiefs hall who has presumably surrounded himself with the best fighters. And being a chief he should be able to afford better amour for himself and his men increasing the likelihood of them surviving repeated fights.
MrMonkeybat 2 years ago
Such beautiful country I would love to make it there someday. I am very disappointed with how the film industry is portraying the time period like that. Apart from showing the appearance of men being big bulky battle veterans, but showing an image that people and their day to day lives were nothing but dirty and unhealthy completely uncivilized. It makes me very sad that we now just want to see that false image
BrazenMudrain 2 years ago
Blinking flip is now my favourite new expletive. Good work.
exjedi74 2 years ago
Anyone who survives the next few decades will likely do so by eating at least one human. As the industrial civilization that feeds over 7 billion people is dependent on finite resources which are all entering there depletion faze.
MrMonkeybat 2 years ago
Well, that's one way to get rid of all the vegetarians.
lindybeige 2 years ago
I hope there will be effective regulations in place. I don't want to eat anyone with a gammy leg.
KarenIntertubes 2 years ago
It's like this. They keep a very big cottage up in the mountains, very big. When guests arrive, especially from far away, they send away all the normal, not-massmurderers to the cottage, and lock them up. Then they only have the burly, hardy, rather shaken up (that's why they miss the mouth) super-killers left. After seeing that, and realising that they've killed hundreds of people each, no one will invade. There's only psycho-killers there, and they're probably wrecked anything you could loot.
Ellanion 2 years ago
By gad that's brilliant. It beats the Ferrero Rocher plan hands-down!
lindybeige 2 years ago
Indeed, it's an old tradition. It's the same reason everyone thinks all Swedish women are blond, easy and big-breasted today. Then they come running, and we make tons of money on sub-par goods seld to tourists, and maps to where all the Ingas are hidden.
I must admit to some ignorance when it comes to Ferrero Rocher though, a quick google-search seems to indicate it's more of a local thing we uncultured vikings have missed out on. Care to elaborate?
Ellanion 2 years ago
William Golding makes a good point in "The Double Tongue" that before the Roman Empire, each Greek village thought it had a gods-given right to kill members of the other villages. I also know that when Georgians meet, they will spend a lot of time finding out where they are from to establish whether they are fueding. I think there are societies which have a lower threshold of violence to outsiders, usually in isolated mountainous areas where Kant's ideas of perfect peace have yet to arrive.
thetwentinch 2 years ago
Maybe these warrior societies counted kills like conker fighting, so if you've killed 5 people you're a fiver, and if you kill someone who's killed 5 people you're a sixer. That way not so many people would have to die and yet you could have an impressive kill count.
Geshmaal 2 years ago
I like that idea. It has everything: it is logical, explains a lot, and it's totally bats.
lindybeige 2 years ago
people get confused between the idea of warrior and martial societies.
e.g. the Spartans were a martial society heavily trained as soldiers, however this was only possible due to their use of people such as the Helot slaves who served them.
TrekkyRudd 2 years ago
Hmmm there is a possible link there that University students are in fact warrior culture-oriented. They often pour beer on their faces and think it incredibly funny...
AndrewGirle 2 years ago
what as the situation is diverent 2 men fight each other and one man misses a arm is it than 75 against 25 ? otherwish what does that man with 1 arm on the battlefield ? could you explame that ?
nlw00t 2 years ago
Good points.
Like the coat.
oOoxelAoOo 2 years ago
Pretty good, though the air kinda hurt my ears.
blackshade9 2 years ago
That 50% figure is only true in cases where the two people involved are exactly alike, and if you consider how lots of nomad steppe people regularly raided settled societies pre-gunpowder and all that other stuff you would have little trouble imagining a small society where most of the people had a bodycount of at least 1.
Or vikings versus farmers, monks or other soft targets. Assyrians versus their conquered lands.
Not claiming this to be true, merely casting some doubts.
stotelheim 2 years ago
I said "on average", so the 50% figure is reasonable. Men in violent societies spend most of their time fighting other men from the same or very similar neighbouring societies.
lindybeige 2 years ago
How about spartans and helots? There was a period of each year where there was open season on helots, during which a spartan could kill a helot without fear of legal punishment or religious contamination.
While it's improbably that everyone took part in them, it would at least markedly raise the kills per capita.
There's also the point to be made that one doesn't need to kill someone in battle to be a veteran, taking part in a battle would rather toughen someone up, wouldn't you say?
stotelheim 2 years ago
The Spartans didn't drink beer, so your argument crumbles.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Why, I suppose it does.
stotelheim 2 years ago
@lindybeige Like the much idealized "noble savages" of tribal societies... which often have murder rates that would make Detroit blush.
MisericordeConcern 2 years ago
Loud Noises!
MrDeverill 2 years ago
Yes, sorry about that. The wind didn't seem that strong to me, and what you hear here is after most of the wind noise was removed by computer editing software, but I suppose that, being British, I tend to ignore the weather, as I am of course naturally impervious to it.
lindybeige 2 years ago
@lindybeige Yeah :p at the time it doesn't sound like much but then when you listen back it's as if you were stood in a tornado. The only time I pay attention to the weather is when it's pretty snow :D
MrDeverill 2 years ago
@lindybeige I suppose maybe a sponge in front of the mic might work.
MrDeverill 2 years ago
Yes. Trouble was it really didn't seem windy enough to warrant one, and I didn't have any headphones with me to test the sound.
lindybeige 2 years ago
While whole nations couldn't be battle hardened elite badasses... that is not to say that you didn't have certain concentrations of them, especially when large groups tended to fight other large groups. Look at ancient greece. Not all of the greek men were extraordinary warriors, but when you have an intensive militaristic society (eg. sparta) where the men are free all day to train intensively, you have a greater concentration of beer (or in this case, wine) pouring badasses.
guiltybystander77 2 years ago
But not masses of men all of whom have killed many other men. Most will never have killed anyone.
lindybeige 2 years ago
I'll agree there. Training is no substitute for experience.
guiltybystander77 2 years ago
THIS IS (insert warrior society here)!
Xzazazazia 2 years ago
wow i herd you had 600 subscribers ,but your video only has 16 views lol
MrBrian987987 2 years ago
Long time no see. Good video my friend.
pigfaceddog 2 years ago