The kingdom your campaign is set in has two distinct human ethnic groups and cultural castes, who split apart long ago...

The kingdom your campaign is set in has two distinct human ethnic groups and cultural castes, who split apart long ago, before the land became a cohesive nation.
The first group rear and graze cattle, while the second group plant crops and farm the land.

What long-term effects does this segregation have on your setting? How do you write the eventual results of this in your setting's "present tense"?

Just look up history of Mali.

there would often be troubles. catttle would eat and stomp on crops, and the farmers would destroy cattle grazing land for more farmland. just look up homesteader and rancher rivalries in the old west

It reminds me of the Hutus and Tutsi (your pic helps too). It really depends of the crops, if they are more valuable than cattle or not.

Well, I guess meatbread wouldn't exist.

Actually, the first agricultural farms as we know them today came after the dry period that forced previous hunter-gatherers in the Fertile Crescent to diversify into farmers and herders. They later re-united into the first farming villages and towns.

Cain kills Abel. Humanity is expunged from the Garden.

Thoae terms were solely class distinctions before the Belgians came along and spread the myth that actually both were ethnically distinct and that only the land owning "ethnic group" were worthy of being their spear carriers, planting the seeds of division in order to facilitate their colonial rule.

OP is either ignorant or trolling.

OP, you might consider looking up Tanzania and the Maasai within it - it's the exact thing you're talking about as far as I can tell. I'm here now, because reasons, and their current shenanigans are pretty fascinating. I've seen them walking around in Dar es Salaam and Dodoma the few times I've been there.

This.

Alternatively, the complex agrarian society is conquered by the aggressive semi-nomad horse-riders.

Map out the land and officially designate it based on old traditional boundaries as much as possible.

Mark fields out with Hawthorne or Gorse or the nearest local equivalent.

Fucking hell, what's up with the Belgians? You think they're just some jolly "literally who" people, one among many of the European joke nations, but they're fucking evil. Second only to the Germans I'd say.

According to Ghosts of Cannae:

All war is ultimately derived from the first one; shepards vs farmers.

Actually, first. Without declaring war or waging one, they've managed to kill roughly as many civilians as Germans during WW2 and created a backdrop for few bloody feuds in Africa.
So whenever everyone is "lmao, Africans killing each other again", there is a 75% chance Belgians are the reason why

>Second only to the Germans
Are you talking about colonial rule or what? All of that is historic anyway, there are good and bad people among Germans, Belgians, Hutu and Tutsi all the same.

>there are good people
Nope

>there are good and bad people among Germans
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

You know, this thread SOMEHOW didn't turn into /pol/-inducted pile of shit, while being openly a bait...
... and then you showed up

What else would you expect from a country full of pederasts?

Why would you even reply to that

fuck off back to /pol/

Yeah because Africa was a land of peace with no tribal warfare or murder before whitey came

Germanophobia is more of a Veeky Forums thing, Francophobia is /pol/'s jam.

When you literally have a handful of people to control something in size of half of Europe and with few millions of natives living there already, what's a better way of rulling them than pitting them against each other, while setting up a brutal opression each time someone doesn't listen (so you chop down their entire village) or didn't meet their plantation quota? Add to this the grand concept of "know your place, or your entire tribe is going to be wiped out" and intentionally kick locals each time they even look up, usually by sending other tribe after them...
Yeah, pretty much this. Leopold wanted to squeeze as much money as possible from Kongo without actually spending any money on it. While every other colonial power was investing into their colonies one way or another and committing minor atrocities in the process, Belgians were simply looting the place for first two decades, and then "improved" the system by no longer killing entire village for single misbehaving local.

So whenever people are like "colonies were the best thing to happen in Africa"... yeah, they weren't.

>Turn minor tribal skirmish into all-out industrialised war and outright genocide
>For the glory of the white men!

tl;dr
defend your racist views somehwere else

>Saying Belgians fucked over Kongo and destabilised entire central Africa forever is racism
Wut?

>tl;dr
>should've read it

>tl;dr
You definitely should have read this one first, react later

I want /pol/ to leave

Yeah Africans didn't regularly genocide each other until whitey showed up!
Oh wait...

>Yeah because Europe was a place with no crime before the Muslims came

I'm not sure you understand the concept of genocide.
But then again, with claims like this, I'm not sure you understand anything at all

Are you at least aware it's a /pol/ bait thread? Please don't tell me you took OP's post as anything else than weak bait.

Oh wait, they actually didn't.

>So whenever people are like "colonies were the best thing to happen in Africa"
The Congo Free State wasn't a colony though. That didn't happen until Albert I, who was so utterly based it's criminal nobody knows about him.

>The first group rear and graze cattle, while the second group plant crops and farm the land.

So: like Tuaregs and settled Berbers?
That is actually a pretty interesting case of cohabitation and cooperation between two culturally very distinct groups coexisting fairly well.

That is a load of bullshit. Shepards and farmers exist because each lifestyle can take advantage of a different environment. If you are in fertile region where crops can be grown, you stop being a shepard and become a farmer, because it's more efficient that way. If you are in a region with meager soil, you'll switch to shepherding because that way you can get the most of your environment.
Most societies combine both: farm on fertile soul and let a few stock animals graze on the bits you can't farm, of course.

Shepards and farmers are in no way "natural" enemies or opposing each other. they fucking compliment each other, make sure that no part of the land goes entirely un-used.
Societies where original base population eventually divides into nomadic (or semi-nomadic) herders vs. farmers - such as the Berbers and Tuaregs simply existed because the land the original ethnic group populated had diverse ecology: north coast of africa was actually fairly fertile, while the central regions of north africa were not. That is why the two populations separated and co-existed fairly peacefully for thousands of years.

Of course, SOME conflicts arise, but that is normal.

The only real problem would probably come with extensively modern societies if they would go through both industrialization AND the process of establishing national states (which is when a lot of old cultural barriers often seep up and things start to fuck up), but I don't think that is really matter suited for Veeky Forums discussion).
In a pre-industrial society, there is nothing that would necessiate major conflicts between the two ethnical sub-groups.

You mean like the genocides carried out by the Zulu people against other african peoples during the time of empire lead by Shaka Zulu?

I think you are the one that doesn't understand anything at all.

...

Reminds me of a fun bit of symbolism in C&C from 95, Kane using the developing world (Cain) to attack the developed world (Abel).

Well, assuming that there is no way for the pastorial guys to leave, they'll be either extinguished or absorbed sooner or later.
Might take a bit longer if they have horsearchers.
See every instance of this in history.

>So: like Tuaregs and settled Berbers?
Came here to post this, you're alright.

Except that history is full of agricultural societies clashing with pastorial ones, usually initiated by the former encroaching on the territory of the latter.

>usually initiated by the former encroaching on the territory of the latter.
Actually, history is full of clashes of settled populations with populations on major migration or on a flat-out invasive and looting spree. You are confusing conflicts between two different parts of one ethnical group who adopted different lifestyle, with clashes like the Hun or Mongolian invasions. They are NOT THE SAME THING.

Again, pastoral cultures and agrarian cultures rarely fight over territory. Sometimes pastoral cultures (nomads) use their mobility and combat prowess to conquer and loot. But Huns and Mongolians were not motivated by gaining more territory so they could herd their animals. They were motivated by gaining gold and goods and slaves.
Neither are there many cases of agrarians incroaching on pastoral cultures until very modern history that allows agrarian transformation of previously un-farmable lands.
Otherwise: pastoral regions are not good for farming: that is why people herd there instead of farming in the first place.

I didn't know Rome fought the south Italians because they got invaded, same for the various european nations taking apart Africa.

South Italians were not pastoral culture you moron.
>same for the various european nations taking apart Africa.
Industrial countries making taking colonies mostly for natural resources and not for farming land are PERFECT example of a political invasion, not a cultural clash between settled and pastoral people.

>Industrial countries making taking colonies mostly for natural resources and not for farming land are PERFECT example of a political invasion, not a cultural clash between settled and pastoral people.
It comes down to the same thing though; conflict.
And I didn't say anything about the agricultural guys looking for more farmland,
The most common reason would be to chase raiders, exploit ressources or secure trade routes, all three of which existed way before the industtrial revolution.

>The first group rear and graze cattle, while the second group plant crops and farm the land.

genocide is the only option

>It comes down to the same thing though; conflict.
Conflict between englithenist, expansive imperial culture seeking gold, spices, ebony, wood and most of all: MARKET, vs. less advanced feudal or tribal societies with no options for global agency.
NOT A conflict between settled and pastoral cultures. The same motivation drove the colonial exapansion to central/south Americas, India or China, all of whom were highly settled, agrarian cultures.

The point here is that settled and pastoral lifestyle does not inherently produce major fundamental conflicts: the two lifestyles are complimentary.

Wars were waged for all kinds of reasons. Conflicts exist and are as natural to humanity as culture itself. But OP was specifically asking about conflict between settled and pastoral populations of a single ethnical origin. My point was that such conflicts don't emerge in particularly dramatic fashion.

>Wars were waged for all kinds of reasons. Conflicts exist and are as natural to humanity as culture itself. But OP was specifically asking about conflict between settled and pastoral populations of a single ethnical origin. My point was that such conflicts don't emerge in particularly dramatic fashion.
They do if there is finite living space.
Unless there is some mechanism keeping the populations stable, one or the other will eventually be destroyed or absorbed by the other.

>They do if there is finite living space.
They don't. Because "living space" actually means "living space suitable for certain kind of exploitation". Pastoral and agrarian lifestyles do not actually fight for the same environment. A pastoral culture will shift to settled, agrarian lifestyle if there is fertile land to accommodate for that and vice-versa.

Agrarian culture is going to be limited by available AGRARIAN SPACE. And that is where it's going to end. They are not going to "conquer the pastures" because there is FUCK ALL TO GROW THERE. And simultaneously, pastoral culture is not going to conquer fertile lands and turn them into pastures because that would be INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENT. They'll settle down and farm instead, becoming an agrarian society. For fuck sake, it's not rocket science.

THE ENVIRONMENT DETERMINES WHENEVER YOU ARE A FARMER OR AN ANIMAL HERDER, NOT VICE VERSE.

>Being this fucking stupid
>Seriously simplifying things this much
Not sure if this is still bait, or already genuine retardation

>it's not rocket science.

Do you happen to be a rocker scientist, user? Because you certainly know fuck all about anthropology.

Not him, but kindly shut the fuck up. Your whole "argumentation" boils down to "ha, but you are wrong!" and posting something so stupid, it takes to be literally junior high student to think this is going to work out or it's even remotely possible to use such simplified models.

But sure, when out of arguments, just go and isult the other guy, who literally plowed your ass right here, you fucking mongoloid.

>Because you certainly know fuck all about anthropology.
The irony here is that I'm an anthropologist by trade, actually. Degree, job as a teacher, publishing history, all that jazz.

And not only that you don't seem to know anything about anthropology, the argumentation that you presented was actually not even related to anthropology in the first place. You talked about colonial rule around Africa as an example of conflict of argrarian and pastoral societies for fuck sake, and now you are trying to tell me "pastoral and agrarian lifestyle compete for environment - SOMEHOW, despite the fact that one can't translate to the others enviroment at all and the other translates poorly".
I don't know what to tell you here.
Again, look at the fucking case point I presented: Tuaregs and settled fucking Berbers, one of the most famous examples of MAJOR cohabitation of settled and agrarian cultures in the same environment and sharing similar ethnical background.
Or look into history Khazaks and Uzbeks, hell Turks and settled Arabian population until the formation of Ottoman dynasties. Fuck sake.

>Agrarian culture is going to be limited by available AGRARIAN SPACE
This.
Just check the extend of Chinese borders during the imperial period, before Manchu take over and conquered places where they could send their own guys for pastoral activities. Literally every single piece of farmable land was under Chinese and everything else - left to "barbarians" or outright barbarians, who then used the useless for farming steppes as great grazing land.
Mongols took over China? Great, because within few years they were farmers themselves, since there was no fucking point trying to turn all those fields and paddies into grazing areas.

Dude, you can farm most lands that produce enough grass to graze cows or sheep on.
It might not be as efficient as, lets say, the Nile delta, but it's stil gonna turn out more food per acre than you'd get with cattle.

And, humans started to shape their enviroment to their will/needs pretty early on.
A famer looking to make a living isn't gonna magically turn into a pastoral nomad, just because the available land might be slightly less fertile than his dad's farm.

The same case was with Turkmen tribes in Middle East. The ancestors of Turkish people were pastoral nomads who were basically invited and assimilated by Arabs during the early conquest and became settled folks. There were times when there were still Tengri-worshiping settlements near large Arabian cities in Anatolia.

They re-settled and changed their lifestyle.

>Dude, you can farm most lands that produce enough grass to graze cows or sheep on.
Uh... no. If you produce enough grass to keep cattle without having to move around seeking new pastures periodically, you are probably living in a fairly good fertile farm region.
The problem starts when you can't provide rich enough pastures to keep your cattle count settled, that is where pastoral, nomadic cultures come from.

Also diary and cattle farming as an exclusive (and not merely complimentary, crop-rotation strategy) is a fairly modern invention, something that historically has not been practiced very often.

>And, humans started to shape their enviroment to their will/needs pretty early on.
While that is true, Central Asian Steppes, North African Hoggar Mountains or New Mexico drylands are not going to become fertile land easily without access to industrial technologies.

>A famer looking to make a living isn't gonna magically turn into a pastoral nomad,
He is, if he lacks the option to transform the land or to settle somewhere else. That is how most pastoral cultures emerge. Tuarges come from Berbers, who come from populations coming from the fertile crescent region - all originally primitive agrarians slowly colonizing north africa east-to-west, forming major formally agrarian civilizations, including Egypt. Tuaregs descend from them as the amount of farmable land was exhausted and many Berberian people were forced to seek new lifestyle options in the dry, steppe regions of Sahel.

>While that is true, Central Asian Steppes, North African Hoggar Mountains or New Mexico drylands are not going to become fertile land easily without access to industrial technologies.
OP was asking about two peoples living within one nation, so I assume the actual country isn't all that different.

>so I assume the actual country isn't all that different.
Have you EVER left your house? You think most countries don't have hugely diverse fucking ecologies?

>so I assume the actual country isn't all that different.
That is using the logic backwards. The fact that a certain ethinical group / realm / "nation" (you know nation is actually a concept that really only emerges in 19th century, right?) develops both considerable agrarian and pastoral population ALREADY NECESSIATES that the landscapes both involve considerable farm lands AND considerable unfarmable regions.

Otherwise you'd never develop both: if your entire country is relatively fertile, you are going do develop settled agrarian civilization (where pastoral population is a despirsed minority, like bača's in slavic regions or something).
If your entire country is uniformly infertile (like Mongolia), then you are going to develop almost uniformly pastoral, non-settled population.

The lack of uniformity of landscapes is indicated by the lack of uniformity in lifestyles.

>you can farm most lands that produce enough grass to graze cows or sheep on.
>it's stil gonna turn out more food per acre than you'd get with cattle
>A famer looking to make a living isn't gonna magically turn into a pastoral nomad, just because the available land might be slightly less fertile than his dad's farm.
You've just confirmed you know jack shit about agriculture.

I especially like this bit:
>just because the available land might be slightly less fertile than his dad's farm.
>slightly less fertile

Since you are really stupid and use retarded instead of metric, let's adjust it for examples you can grasp.
I'm living in a geographical region roughtly in size of Massachusetts. It combines a mountain ranges that are absolutely useless for farming due to steep slopes AND pastoral activities due to thick forest, a riverside plains useful for agriculture, a low-fertility upland covered with limestone formations and a fucking desert. It's also an industrial heartland of my country, due to large quantities of coal.
And that's within area in size of Massachusetts, mind you.

>The irony here is that I'm an anthropologist by trade, actually.

that explains it.

As a farmer by "trade", with a technical degree in agriculture and currently going through Agricultural University, I couldn't laugh harder. Hell, my grandpa, who only has a primary school behind his belt and blacksmith certification would probably laugh his ass about the sheer audicity of your claims.

Have you ever heard about Lysenko? Because you are literally sprouting bullshit on tier with this Soviet "genius"

>Get rekt by a professional
>Try being dismissive about it

Complain that I'm don't have anthropological education.
Turns out that I have.
Mock that I do.

Dude, this just went from awkward to flat out sad. Get a grip for fuck sake. Act like an actual human being.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""Holy"""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Roman""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Empire"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Please tell me you are just trolling hard here and didn't write this all in a sincere tone

...

Veeky Forums why are you being baited this hard?