Warrior Cultures

Like Thucydides said, it's doggy dog world out there. Before the advent of universal morality (and for a long time after it) you need to look out for yourself and your own people or someone else will kill you and take your stuff.

They don't have to be savage barbarians, the early Roman Republic had a very martial culture, engaged in seasonal warfare and military victories were a major prerequisite of personal advancement (which is one reason they expanded so quickly).

>Like Thucydides said, it's doggy dog world out there.

Go home Snoop, you're too high

>the Mongols were warriors because everything had to be united under the blue sky for Tengri
The Mongols actually largely abandoned their nomad religions once they united and conquered other lands, because it was easier to rule foreign cultures if you adopted their customs and religions. That, and those foreign religions were better suited for that kind of lifestyle. Usually you had a political reason to fight, and then religious justifications sprung up to justify it.

>"It's a crazy mixed-up world." - Thugydides, around 440 B.C.

i've often bounced around the idea of a nomadic warrior culture based on a race/tribe of genocide survivors. a group so persecuted by everyone around them for so long that it has become a cultural obsession

Anthropologist here. I will try to answer to the best of my ability.
(Throughout the following I will be using the signs ‘…’ to denote words that I would spend much more time discussing, or avoid completely, before use in a serious report. These are simplified terms used in the interest of cutting down an already long post)

>How does it define them and how is it normalized?
The reality is that what fiction calls a 'warrior culture' is a gross simplification. Lots of cultures have placed great importance on war and warfare, though we in the modern day often associating it with a backwards, 'barbarian' society. This is an important thing to keep in mind. The Romans might easily be considered a 'warrior culture' for the importance they put on warfare as a way of winning personal glory and political influence for example, yet they are not what most people would associate with 'barbarians'.

What cultures, including the Roman culture, often attribute to 'barbarians' a lack of a proper honor code, a set of rules for 'proper' warfare - that is a code that fits into their own perception of honorable practices. Any victories can be attributed to the 'barbarians' not following a code (using 'cowardly' tactics for example) while also explaining defeats (the enemy was naturally inferior because they don't follow our warrior code).

The with the above being that it is hard to define what exactly a 'warrior culture' entails as most societies have certain rules for how war should be fought in a proper way. Just take the Geneva convention, which builds on a ton of assumptions about soldiers and warfare.

cont.

>What makes the act of killing something venerated that they want to repeat?
Just for the sake of an example I will use the Celts. The Celtic approach to warfare was vastly different from what we would call warfare, and what their enemies the Romans called warfare. Warriors represent the elite, a class of people who do not actually work for their food but are able to spend time honing their martial skills. This is extremely expensive in a pre-industrial society. You will need someone else to put food on the table for you. Thus, the warrior has to find a way to ‘monetize’ his skills.
The most likely way to do this is by stealing stuff with armed force. So, you raid the neighboring village, the Romans or whatever other convenient 'Other' you can find and take their stuff, which you distribute among your friends in exchange for some kind of upkeep – that is the price of keeping you fed, clothed, housed etc. This system can be more or less formalized, but it is found in almost every culture dominated by a warrior class. Essentially the warrior has to constantly get more stuff to by the good will of ‘his’ people or lose his basis for existence.
Now the thing is, if you raid the enemy, burn their town and massacre them all you quickly run out of people to produce the things you steal from them. To get around this problem, Celtic warfare becomes highly ritualized. A select group of people are warriors. Only warriors are permitted to fight each other, and a warrior can lose honor by killing someone who is ‘beneath him’ (e.g. a farmer). Wars and raids become affairs arranged one certain dates, challenges are issued and fights carried out as sporting events, complete with cheering crowds on both sides, lots of boasting, personal vendettas between participating warriors etc. Imagine the WWE, with more ritual chopping off heads.

cont.

>How does it relate to their goals?
As described above, the Celtic warrior has his livelihood secured by practicing a highly ritualized form of combat. The non-warrior population have a measure of security from other warriors seeking to take their stuff. And over time various religious and social practices evolve that tie into the whole system of warfare. Everyone has everything worked out.
Now come the Romans. The Romans are tired as shit of constant Celtic raids. Their society is not structured around combat as an exercise. They have more productive things to do with their time. The Romans don’t care about the Celtic rituals or their warrior code. The Romans care about winning the fucking war and shutting those asshole Celts down for good. To the Romans, the Celts are terrible barbarians – they raid seemingly, naturally, for sport, for goods they are too ‘lazy’ to produce themselves, as a way of life. Thus two warrior cultures clash. The Romans won of course, and the rest is history.

End.

everyone knows this, nobody needs your wall of text, faggot

Stop being such a gigantic faggot.

obviously not or OP wouldn't have made this thread

your post is stupid. you realise that EVERY MAN in celtic society was a warrior? It wasn't just an elite class. everyone knew how to fight.

OP should be given correct information next time

Thanks a bunch for typing that all out.

Wow rude

>your post is stupid
Guess fucking what, I'm not even the guy that made these posts. You seem confused about anything anyway.
>stop writing things, that's common sense what you are typing out
>one post later:
>wait it's stupid, here is a mistake
Well why didn't you tell the OP then instead of shitting on someone that took his time to make these entire posts? Why are you shitting on people that contribute something of worth instead of contributing yourself?

I would say it's a proof of worth thing. Killing worthy opponents emboldens your soul. So they don't kill cowards (women, children, weak men), but they're still pretty brutal because as long as a man is willing to fight they will fight to the death. So this means they still typically slaughter literally all the warriors and some more men beyond that, showing no mercy to fighting people, which is brutal, but they don't venerate killing literally any old thing.

i just hate his writing style and the way he writes. it's disgusting. and he made a mistake in his writing.

>i just hate his writing style and the way he writes
You say that while not being able to capitalize a single word.

>I hate that someone else puts effort into posting

Someone might have said this, but I'd say a warrior culture is one in which fighting is
A) Necessary for survival on a regular basis
B) Important for people of most classes
C) The primary profession of the elite

These things tend to be fulfilled when the culture lives in some really unpleasant region of the world where the environment is more dangerous than people. Why do Norsemen raid? Because farming in Scandinavia sucks. Why are central Asian steppe nomads hardasses? Because the wind is so strong there it can cut your face and it goes from 100 to -10 overnight. Raiding and being tough is not about war and conquest in these places, it's how you survive. This means that the toughest person gets the most stuff, and the guy with the most stuff can afford to get tougher and thereby get more stuff.

There are other ways of making a warrior culture, but this is the simplest one. In theory, propper feudalism could be like this, since the elite have their titles simply on the merit of protecting their overlord with military force. This makes them warrior elite and could be argued that Western Europe was a warrior culture even if the peasants didn't need to fight every week to survive.

Hell, if they fought long and hard against a people but finally got the upper hand in the end, they might just kill all of them, revering the strength of their souls. They don't stop when the fighting is over, they stop when the spiritual value is gone.

millenia later they invade an area thats associated with their vastly difstant ancestors and ethnic cleanse the locals: all the while claiming they're the victims.

i don't really care about capitalising.

no, the writing style, the "hey, anthropologist here (did you really need to mention that?) and the historical mistakes just annoy me

>i don't really care about capitalising.
And your writing style is ten times as triggering as his. You certainly have less weight in this argument just by how little you seem to care to make your posts readable.

so by not capitalising my sentences it automatically makes them unreadable? hhahaha

>Romaboo legit thinks Celts were "Raiders"

Celts were mercenaries, who roamed Europe being sellswords from Anatolia to Spain.

Read the Iliad, see Achilles and also the Homeric code.

Why are you such a stupid fucking faggot? You sound about as eloquent as a wet fart.

>i just hate his writing style and the way he writes.
>and he made a mistake in his writing

You honestly sound like a retarded toddler dictating to another retarded toddler through cans connected with string... in his second language... which the other retard doesn't even speak.

Dog eat dog user.

Tell us about another cool warrior culture!

We're there zany cool warrior cultures in Africa?

>you have proven yourselves worthy
>unfortunately, that means we do in fact have to kill all of you

Yes. Yes it does, you obtuse and pathetic mongoloid.

>have relevant experience to the topic
>mention it
Why is that wrong? Did you drop out of your anthropology degree or something?

Not that guy, but I'm sure Zulu had a pretty ritualistic kind of duels between individual warriors. They would basically stand pretty far from each other, throw spears without actually hitting anything and call each other a shit while their respective woman would do the same from the sidelines. At some point they would call it a day and honor on both sides was preserved.

Oh vey.

I think he made what people call a joke. Not even an original one I have seen people ironically say doggy dog world way more than I have ever heard the actual thing.

For the past several decades, they've fallen in love with paratroopers

Zulus actually had more of a Soldier culture.

Each Zulu was expected to have Discipline and understand battlefield tactics.

It's why they were able to have such a huge Empire and why they developed a massive fetish for the British Forces they fought against.

>eloquent
hahaha

stfu civilised "man"

because anthropology is 99% bullshit.

stfu civilised manfool

How about cossacks for your warrior culture needs?

It's all bullshit man, get off your technological marvel and go raid a small farming community, make off with some barnyard wenches. You need to cool your jets.

Who taught the barbarbar to read, anyway?

>your post is stupid. you realise that EVERY MAN in celtic society was a warrior? It wasn't just an elite class. everyone knew how to fight.

Anthropologist faggot here. The professional warrior was and remained an elite class. A non-warrior might have owned a spear and taken up fighting in certain situations, as did happen in some cases, but the distinction between professional warrior and non-professional warrior and its societal importance remained.

>no, the writing style, the "hey, anthropologist here (did you really need to mention that?) and the historical mistakes just annoy me

It is generally good practice to establish credentials before going on a long winded discussion. It helps establish from what perspective the participants have and what scientific traditions you draw on, to avoid confusion. An archaeologist might have a different perspective than a historian, for example, even though the two professions frequently overlap they methods and theories they employ are often different.

As for mistakes I consulted with books and a scientific journal before writing this. If I have made any mistakes, these are in the presentation of the facts and theories, not the facts themselves.

Speaking of presentation, your torture of english grammar and spelling is downright infuriating. I don't claim to be fluent in english, but as a non-native speaker I feel like obliged to do my best. You just shit all over it.

Also, I find it telling that you choose to illustrate a post criticizing my 'mistakes' with a druid wearing a wreath, a strictly modern symbol invented by American neo-pagans.

>Celts were mercenaries, who roamed Europe being sellswords from Anatolia to Spain.

You are right of course. 'Mercenaries' and 'raiders' are not mutually exclusive. The Celts were a large and diverse culture group. Some of them were mercenaries, paid warfare being a means of acquiring wealth that fitted perfectly in their culture.

To clarify:
- society where all able-bodied man is expected to be a warrior; all able-bodied women are supposed to be able to help defending settlements
- on the frontier between christian and islamic world
- natural stance: be underdogs to the enemies with much greater manpower, yet constantly be on offensive against them
- did i mention being staunch defenders of the Christendom?

>the Mongols were warriors because everything had to be united under the blue sky for Tengri

... the same Tengri that didn't really give a shit about non-Mongols and was famously tolerant of other faiths like the Muslims setting up shop?

You are too good for us and him, user.

Just keep making your peers and possibly students elated with your style, I dig it.

As guy below said, Zulus were the ones to break the mold of ritual duels and skirmishing "wars." Shaka decided total war was back on the menu and trained organized soldiers who attacked their enemies in formation and fucked their shit up. They used thrusting spears instead of throwing spears and went for the gut like the Romans did, and conquered other tribes instead of just killing/wounding a few guys on either side and going back to the status quo.

>What makes a warrior culture?

Look at medieval and renaissance Europe. The nobility started out as the warrior caste, and always held martial proficiency as foremost amongst virtues.

Japan, from the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate until the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate, was largely defined by the warriors doing war all the time. The Tokugawa shogunate is then in many ways a long attempt to rein them in.

Sparta, duh. And so on I'm sure, these are just the first few that comes to mind.

>Anthropologist faggot here. The professional warrior was and remained an elite class. A non-warrior might have owned a spear and taken up fighting in certain situations, as did happen in some cases, but the distinction between professional warrior and non-professional warrior and its societal importance remained.

No it wasn't. Ever heard of ritualistic warfare? every man in the tribe would grab their spear, shield, and knife and go fight on a hill for a few hours. there was never a warrior elite who did all the fighting.

also, my picture was unrelated to the post, and people would have worn wreaths back in the day. it isn't complicated to get some plants and put them around your head.

Your anthropology books and scientific traditions are bullshit.

dumb manfool

implying i'm not trying to do that anyway

>No it wasn't. Ever heard of ritualistic warfare? every man in the tribe would grab their spear, shield, and knife and go fight on a hill for a few hours. there was never a warrior elite who did all the fighting.

Where are you getting your facts? Because it cannot be from academia nor archaeology.

>also, my picture was unrelated to the post, and people would have worn wreaths back in the day. it isn't complicated to get some plants and put them around your head.

'Would' implies certainty. And we have no evidence to support this certainty. In fact we do not know much about the druids at all. That does not mean they could not have worn wreaths, but nothing supports that they did. And historical research is by nature reliant on firm evidence rather than unsupported theory.

>Your anthropology books and scientific traditions are bullshit.
The books I consulted are written by experts in the field. I trust their opinion more than yours.
And scientific methods are bullshit? How the fuck do you propose we conduct science then, by guesswork and prayers?

>implying i'm not trying to do that anyway
You can not be trying very fucking hard if you are sitting here and writing on the internet.

>Where are you getting your facts? Because it cannot be from academia nor archaeology.

From actual sources. Not from stupid academia or archerology where everything is a religious artefact and done for a religious purpose

>'Would' implies certainty. And we have no evidence to support this certainty. In fact we do not know much about the druids at all. That does not mean they could not have worn wreaths, but nothing supports that they did. And historical research is by nature reliant on firm evidence rather than unsupported theory.

People who have worshipped nature have always worn some kind of plantlife on their bodies. it's not a stretch to image that druids might have worn wreaths.

additionally, many academics and archeologists make use of "unsupported theory" and make up bullshit explanations

>The books I consulted are written by experts in the field. I trust their opinion more than yours.
And scientific methods are bullshit? How the fuck do you propose we conduct science then, by guesswork and prayers?

"experts in the field" can be dictated by anything. just because someone is an "expert in the field it doesn't mean what they say is right.

and modern day science is a religion anyway, scientists are the clerics of our world, anything they say is automatically worshipped and believed in.

>you can not be trying very fucking hard if you are sitting here and writing on the internet.

in my free time i like hunting, going outdoors and posting on Veeky Forums. What's the problem with that?

go on, give me some "evidence" that there was somehow an elite warrior class of celts who fought, and no other celts fought at all.

But your problem is a semblance of realistic verisimilitude. Now you're back to square one.

What is your narrative problem, because you seem to have it figured out?

Before this goes on for another twenty posts and completely derails the thread you could both provide the sources you are basing your positions from.
That would give you something substantive to argue about and would actually be of some use to everyone else in the thread.

roman sources (biased but far less biased than modern)

comparing modern tribes with celtic tribes

not being a slave idiot

>implying i'm not trying to do that anyway
You seem committed to sticking it out with the rest of us, so you could have fooled me.

If you think that either of them are going to give you any sources, you are mistaken.

Okay, firstly I do not think there has ever been an academic archeological institution that seriously claimed everything was of religious significance.

Secondly, how do you apparently know that modern academia is wrong, that the Romans are more reliable than modern historians and whatever else you claim?

You know what, fuck it. I do not care.

>56868406
Thomas Powell’s “The Celts” (some of the stuff there is outdated by modern discoveries but a lot of it is still good and the book is well written)

“Keltiske guder og helte” a Danish book by Morten Warmind among others.

Various issues of Skalk, a Danish archeological magazine.

>What makes the act of killing something venerated that they want to repeat? How does it define them and how is it normalized? How does it relate to their goals?
>I need to empathize with and understand people who kill early and often, why, and what it means to them.

worldhistoryexplained.blogspot.ca/2011/12/aristocrat-tribal-societies.html

I appreciate you, user, even if that other guy doesn't. You did your best.

read wheel of time
Aiel are nice

>roman sources (biased but far less biased than modern)
>comparing modern tribes with celtic tribes
>not being a slave idiot
user, what's your actual skin in this game?

can you cite SPECIFICALLY where your sources that celts had an elite warrior class that did all the fighting? The specific sources

you're either a toelicker or a same fag, either way stfu

in virtually all tribes, they were either peaceful or all the men did fighting. sure, there were/are specific warrior "classes" however, all men did do the fighting

Look up the Scythians.

>can you cite SPECIFICALLY where your sources that celts had an elite warrior class that did all the fighting?

Why, from actual sources of course. Not some stupid laymen or outdoorsmen where science is done for a religious purpose.

I'm not the guy your raging at but goddamn your "sources" are pretty fucking sad.

>roman sources (biased but far less biased than modern)
Yes, unverified and often embellished accounts from the civilization vehemently opposed to the Celts is far more unbiased than modern archaeological research. Do you also think pic related happened?

>comparing modern tribes with celtic tribes
Which tribes and how are you comparing them? I can tell you right now that none of the Celtic tribes had anything resembling something like the Flower Wars the Aztecs did. Also on the subject, you do realize Germanians =/= Celts, right?

>not being a slave idiot
Lemme guess: you're a "neopagan"

Based off of your whole concept of Celts and so-called "warrior culture" in general is based entirely off of pop culture. Yes, all males were expected to fight in the event a tribe went to war, but that didn't mean they were considered warriors by trade. By your logic, every man in Shogun-era Japan was a Samurai. The majority of Celtic men were levies who were only expected to take up arms in a time of need and otherwise were farmers, craftsmen, etc. by trade. The warriors the other user mentioned were upper class men who were rich and influential enough that they didn't have to commit to labor for a living and instead spent their time honing their martial skills.

Are you a celt, user?

That doesn't hold as strongly true for cultures like the Anglo Saxons or the Vikings - they were fighting for glory in this life and to be remembered.

celt here: elite in this context just means gangster prick who runs a protection racket & fights other gangster pricks in turf wars

Speaking of africans...

Rude

1: killing it's ok if the guy you killed was defending himself. (No, whimpering and putting his hands in front doesn't count)

2: you are a great man if you are fearless, disciplined, strong and able.

3: people die in wars, that's just natural.

4: if the enemy guys fight really really dirty, is okay to take revenge on them and set their stuff on fire. That's what they get for being bastards.

First steppe: Most of the society isn't a warrior and is not part of the warrior culture. Only societies like spartans where "100% warriors" and they achieved this by denying most of the society the righ to be considered part of it.

A warrior culture is basically America

Clearly (You) didn't, brainlet cuck

>you realise that EVERY MAN in celtic society was a warrior? It wasn't just an elite class. everyone knew how to fight.

wow even the slaves?

That is a hilarious way of putting it! I will have to remember that one.

For some examples of first hand observations treated in historical context I can recommend "The Philosopher and the Druids" by Phillip Freeman, which I just dug up from the shelf. It is excellent for putting everything in layman's terms and treating its sources seriously.

books.google.dk/books?id=PdZMbuVuElEC&lpg=PA103&ots=tfB_GrRpsh&dq=celtic warfare&hl=da&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=celtic warfare&f=false

The Cossacks were fascinating for the role they have played in Ukrainian and Russian nationalism while at the same time being anti-authority symbols. It's like the American cowboy in Eastern Europe.

>can you cite SPECIFICALLY where your sources that celts had an elite warrior class that did all the fighting? The specific sources
I did, here: and again in the start of this post (technically in reply to another user).

>the Mongols were warriors because everything had to be united under the blue sky for Tengri
It actually had far more to do with the steppes being highly unsuitable for a primitive civilization, forcing the people that inhabited it to become warrior nomads. It was really common for steppe people to abandon their nomad ways once they conquered more fertile land. What set the Mongols apart was that they Genghis realized that his greatest military advantage were his horse archers and so he had people regularly move back to the steppe so that their nomad traditions weren't lost to the next generation.

With all due respect user, you write like a fag and your shit’s all retarded.

People smart enough to wear body armor and not accessorize with jewelry that causes open wounds.

That’s more soldier culture isn’t it?

>”Get that shit in writing” - Young Tzu

If you want to make a generic Warrior factions here are some culture traits you should be looking for:
>Letters
Tales and Legends of undefeatable hercules who slayed many foes are known my hearth ever since childhood
>Visual Arts
Depictions of epic battles, tales of champions mentioned above in mural paintings and ornaments
>Architecture
BUILDING PALACES WITH THE BONES OF THE MOST FEARSOME BEASTS
Also everything must be either fortified or adapted to nomadic lifestyle, because if you're not fighting against invaders then you're the one invading
>Religion
Sacrifice time from aztecs, Valhalla from Nordic mythology, conquering the Infidels... as mentionned above, History gives you plenty to work with
>Laws
Trials by duel, Rule of the Strongest
>Music
War songs/drums/horns
>Traditions & beliefs that easily identifies your faction as a Warrior one
Every fight that doesn't kill you makes you stronger
All land that you set foot on is yours and yours to defend
Life is a fight that you only lose once
Don't make me look weak in front of my peers
If it's dead it can't do you any wrong
You can always kill your way out of things

No, that's more highly developed urbanized civilization capable of sustaining complex supply chains and industry, and access to resources... culture.

Often times it’s an abundance of men who can’t find jobs or wives. The solution typically is to find those things somewhere else. By taking them from the people living there.

And to complement that a culture that defines manliness by how brave and strong you are.

I could walk through Chernobyl, naked, and come out less cancerous than you.