Whats the proper way to do a warrior society?

Go research the Spartans.

They don't make/farm/craft nearly as much as they steal from their neighbors.

This is of course before socialists ruined that idea like every other idea they got a hold of.

What about a socialist warrior state? Where they collectively try to share everything they plunder from other people whom they often refer to as some privileged group that doesn't deserve whatever it is they have that the warrior socialists want, regardless of whether the people they're raiding are actually privileged or not. They just want to steal shit.

Basically the empire from Sword of Truth

Maybe its you who needs to research the Spartans. This is a string of posts I wrote so I'll repost them.
Recent scholarship has attacked the idea of Sparta being a exotic militarized society and instead it paints it as similar to the other Greek States. Indeed the Spartans were most admired for their political system more than their military might. It might be said that the Spartans were a professional leisure class rather than warrior class for they achieved what other Greeks envied, a life free from labor, away from the trouble of the poor, they were free to train their bodies, drink, dance, enjoy life, administer their estates and community. In this light the Spartans are more akin leisured gentlemen than warriors.

The notion of Sparta being a military society has been challenged. For all we know their training involved fitness exercises and practicing basic formations while on campaign. They never trained with their weapons.
Plato writes

"if this skill in arms is an accomplishment, as they say who teach it, and as Nicias terms it, it ought to be learnt; while if it is not an accomplishment, and those who promise to give it are deceiving us, or if it is an accomplishment, but not a very important one, what can be the good of learning it? I speak of it in this way from the following point of view: I conceive that if there were anything in it, it would not have been overlooked by the Lacedaemonians, whose only concern in life is to seek out and practice."
Plato, Laches

In this passage Plato tells us the merits of hoplomachia, or hoplite training. Here he completely dismisses it, claiming it's not worth learning and something the Spartans did not practice. The above, has it was called later, was not at all dissimilar from what was taught to other leisure class Greeks. The teaching of Greek values, fitness and obedience. Nowhere were they taught martial skills or even how to fight.

It's true they were admired as the "craftsmen of war" but you have to look at it through the lens of their culture.

The Ancient Greeks were amateurs in war. Nowhere is it actually stated that they even trained thrir citizens for war. And we have sources that blunty tell us this.

Xenophon writes
>“I tell you, just because the state does not publicly train for war, you must not cultivate it any less yourself". Xenophon, Mem . 3.12.5

We also have sources where the Ancient Greeks mock people who train with their weapons.

I'll post some next post

>I have come across more than a few of these [hoplomachia instructors] in actual operations, and I can see their quality. Indeed, we can estimate it offhand: for, as though it were of set purpose, not one of these experts in arms has ever yet distinguished himself in war. And yet in all the other arts, the men who have made a name are to be found among those who have specially pursued one or other of them; while these persons, apparently, stand out from the rest in this particularly hapless fate of their profession. (...)
Hence, as I said at the beginning, whether [hoplomachia] be an accomplishment, and one of but little use, or not an accomplishment, but only supposed and pretended to be such, it is not worth the trouble of learning it. For indeed I hold that if a man who was a coward believed that he possessed it, his only gain would be in rashness, which would make his true nature the more conspicuous; while if he were brave, people would be on the look-out for even the slightest mistake on his part, and he would incur much grievous slander; for the pretension to such skill arouses jealousy, so that unless a man be prodigiously superior to the rest in valor he cannot by any means escape being made a laughing-stock through professing to be so skilled.
-- Plato, Laches 182e-184c

Here Plato tells us that people who trained with their weapons were the laughing stock.

"And so is their lawgiver, through fear lest these training-bouts may appear ridiculous to some, to refrain from laying down laws whereby he will ordain field-operations, of which the minor kind, without heavy arms, will take place daily, if possible,—and to this end both the choristry and all the gymnastic shall be directed,—while the others, as a major kind of gymnastics in full armor, he shall order to be held at least once a month? "
Plato Laws 830d

Plato suggest that they should do some field exercises without weapons and in armor. He notes that it would appear ridicoulous.

“That means that it is a long march for our city to perfection. For when will Athenians show the Lacedaemonian reverence for age, seeing that they despise all their elders, beginning with their own fathers? When will they adopt the Lacedaemonian system of training, seeing that they not only neglect to make themselves fit, but mock at those who take the trouble to do so? "
Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.5.15

"Where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger."
Thucydides 2.39.1

Here the Greeks take pride in not having training.

As you can see the Greeks were amateurs in warfare. While what the Spartans did may seem barebones it was better than what the other Greek city states had, no training. When you consider the mythos they built around the 300 its little to no wonder they were also admired for their military has they had something rather than beikng completely amateurs. But no sources ever tell us the Spartans were superior individual warriors. We hear of the Spartans banning wrestling when challegend by young Thebans.

Towards the end of the 4th century BC the other Greek city states do start training their hoplites and the Spartans seem to have lost their edge.
Aristotle sums it very nicely
>And we know of the Lakonians(Spartans) that while they persisted by themselves in their hard exercises they surpassed all others, but now they are left behind by the rest both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used to stand out, not because they exercised their young men like this, but only because they trained, and others did not. Aristotle, Politics 1338b

So the Spartans seem to have lost their edge in combat around this time.

While sources focus mostly on the collective training of Spartan boys, we also hear that these boys were taught the finer things in life by private tutors. While sources stress Spartan austerity and aversion to luxury, there is a lot of evidence that wealthy Spartans liked to hunt, raise horses and fund chariot teams just as much as the rich in the rest of Greece. While we hear much about how Spartan society was shaped by their fear and surpression of the helots, we also know that slave classes similar to helots existed in states all over the Greek world. Like other Greeks, Spartans spent much of their spare time drinking, dancing and singing songs; like other Greeks, they vied with each other for status and influence. The notion of Sparta as the perpetual "other" is clearly the result of unbalanced reporting.

All of the famous Spartan social institutions are also attested elsewhere, with the sole exception of the dual kingship; indeed, Sparta seems to follow along with changing trends regarding these institutions throughout the Greek world. Helot-like classes existed elsewhere. The ideal of an all-leisure-class citizenry existed elsewhere. State-organised leisure-class education existed elsewhere. Generally, Sparta was not different but simply better at implementing things that other states tried to achieve for themselves as well. In this sense the Spartans would not have been considered odd to outsiders, but envied; they had achieved what many others (especially among the leisure class of Greek states) regarded as ideal..

>Athens is all of Hellas

Nice.

I ain't reading all this at 3am lower your autism levels and give me a link to a good source I can read later or fuck right off.
I didn't say shit about what the Spartans were, just cited them as a good reference for what OP might want.

no, dipshit, you told him to research the Spartans. What user gave you is modern scholarship on exactly that. Spartans weren't a warrior society. They were a society with warriors. A closer allegory to a warrior society is probably pre-christian Germany.

You dont have to read it all. But citing the Spartans has a base is foolish unless you want to base off your warriors off a leisure class that never even trained with their weapons. I cited my sources in my posts if youre inclined to look them up

I'm well aware you cited sources, I was looking for a complete document that sums up or contains what you said for ease of reading later.
Mainly because of this bit:
>Recent scholarship has attacked the idea of Sparta being a exotic militarized society and instead it paints it as similar to the other Greek States.
I'd rather read that recent scholarship.
Citing the Spartans is perfectly valid in my opinion, if you'd disagreed by citing something that's a better example, fair play, but you didn't do that.

My point is they're an interesting base if you want to do a more warrior-style society. I never said what they were.
So take your flawed interpretations of Plato's writings elsewhere.(Preferably Veeky Forums)

Yes. I told OP to research them as they're an interesting reference along the lines of what he wanted.
Every society has warriors, if you'd like to disagree and discuss how you think the Spartans weren't far more militarized than most societies then fair play.
Or if you'd like to discuss how another example is better then fair play, I don't know everything about every period of history so there could be examples I don't know about.
>pre-christian Germany
Could you be more specific?

The Ebenites believe in truth, justice and love and equality between all people. Too bad in Ebenite culture nonEbenites aren't "people." It's even culturally and religiously tolerant. There's no forced conversion to being an Ebenite. In fact, you must have an Ebenite sponsor to become an Ebenite.

I really hate this warrior culture meme.

Dumbass YOU LIVE IN ONE

In a non-fantasy, non-science fiction world EVERY society that exists is a warrior culture. If it wasn't, it wouldn't survive. For the vast, overwhelming majority of human history, including today, the main purpose of a state is to control and limit power to protect/exploit (depending on your interpretation) the population under that state. From ancient tribal chiefs who were the primary warriors, to bronze-age city states, to feudal farms and kingdoms, to modern military nations with atom bombs.

The primary purpose of these states is to wage war, directly, and to have a monopoly of force in the state. If you want to know how a warrior society works, look around you because you're in one, dumbass.

You realize he's taking about people that dedicate themselves just to weapon training rather than other arts of warfare?
Do you not comprehend what he's saying is that people who claim to be experts at weapons who then fuck up are laughed at?

Overall he's saying it's pointless to focus too hard on being a weapons expert alone, and that in actual warfare people who focus on learning other arts of war make better names for themselves.

Underrated post.

Here's the whole quote in proper context. He's writing how a veteran Athenian general can dismiss the practice althoghter. And he cites the Spartans as an example since they did no practice hoplomachia, or weapons training.

I conceive that if there were anything in it, it would not have been overlooked by the Spartans, whose only concern in life is to seek out and practise whatever study or pursuit will give them an advantage over others in war. And if they have overlooked it, at any rate these teachers [of hoplomachia] cannot have overlooked the obvious fact that the Spartans are more intent on such matters than any of the Greeks, and that anybody who won honour among them for this art would amass great riches elsewhere, just as a tragic poet does who has won honour among us. And for this reason he who thinks himself a good writer of tragedy does not tour round with his show in a circuit of the outlying Attic towns, but makes a straight line for this place and exhibits to our people, as one might expect. But I notice that these fighters in armour regard Sparta as holy ground where none may tread, and do not step on it even with the tips of their toes, but circle round it and prefer to exhibit to any other people, especially to those who would themselves admit that they were inferior to many in the arts of war.
I have come across more than a few of these [hoplomachia instructors] in actual operations, and I can see their quality. Indeed, we can estimate it offhand: for, as though it were of set purpose, not one of these experts in arms has ever yet distinguished himself in war. And yet in all the other arts, the men who have made a name are to be found among those who have specially pursued one or other of them; while these persons, apparently, stand out from the rest in this particularly hapless fate of their profession. (...)

Hence, as I said at the beginning, whether [hoplomachia] be an accomplishment, and one of but little use, or not an accomplishment, but only supposed and pretended to be such, it is not worth the trouble of learning it. For indeed I hold that if a man who was a coward believed that he possessed it, his only gain would be in rashness, which would make his true nature the more conspicuous; while if he were brave, people would be on the look-out for even the slightest mistake on his part, and he would incur much grievous slander; for the pretension to such skill arouses jealousy, so that unless a man be prodigiously superior to the rest in valor he cannot by any means escape being made a laughing-stock through professing to be so skilled.
-- Plato, Laches 182e-184c

The whole point of that quote is to demonstrate the amateur nature of the Greek Hoplite and the context of which the Spartans resided. More to the point he explicitly tells us that the Spartans did not train with their weapons which goes against with how people perceive them.

Klingons

Not even the full quote. You missed this bit from the beginning.

Well, Nicias, I am loth to say of any sort of accomplishment that it ought not to be learnt; for it seems good to know all things. And besides, if this skill in arms is an accomplishment, as they say who teach it, and as Nicias terms it, it ought to be learnt; while if it is not an accomplishment, and those who promise to give it are deceiving us, or if it is an accomplishment, but not a very important one, what can be the good of learning it? I speak of it in this way from the following point of view:

You continue to apply a quote that's in relation to
>experts in arms
As literally everyone who trains with weapons. It doesn't say they didn't train with weapons, it says whose who focused on only weapons were laughed at when they professed with skill.

Are you overlooking this part?
>I conceive that if there were anything in it, it would not have been overlooked by the Spartans, whose only concern in life is to seek out and practise whatever study or pursuit will give them an advantage over others in war.
He literally writes that the Spartans overlooked it. Hoplomachia refers to hoplite training.

>And if they have overlooked it, at any rate these teachers [of hoplomachia] cannot have overlooked the obvious fact that the Spartans are more intent on such matters than any of the Greeks, and that anybody who won honour among them for this art would amass great riches elsewhere, just as a tragic poet does who has won honour among us. And for this reason he who thinks himself a good writer of tragedy does not tour round with his show in a circuit of the outlying Attic towns, but makes a straight line for this place and exhibits to our people, as one might expect. But I notice that these fighters in armour regard Sparta as holy ground where none may tread, and do not step on it even with the tips of their toes, but circle round it and prefer to exhibit to any other people, especially to those who would themselves admit that they were inferior to many in the arts of war.
Here he's saying that the teachers of hoplomachia are ignoring Sparta who are reknown for their martial prowess among the other Greek City States. He likens it to a tragic poet circling around Attic towns rather than going to there.

Which still doesn't mean they didn't train with weapons.

How can you come to that conclusion? If the Spartans are overlooking hoplite training which is basically training with spear and shield than it stands to reason that they did not train with their weapons. I'll tell you right now, we have zero sources of the Spartans ever training with weapons. Zero. And here we have Plato bluntly telling us that the Spartans did not do this.

>How can you come to that conclusion?

Because it's patently absurd that no one trained with weapons.

"The SAS don't do SEALs training"
"Oh so the SAS don't train with firearms?"

If he was referring to the components wouldn't he have mentioned the components?
When someone says the whole, they're usually referring to the whole.
I'm taking it at face value. You're applying your own interpretation to it.

And I doubt we have sources for the Spartans breathing air or not being secretly ruled by reptilians either, so I guess they didn't breathe and were ruled by reptilians.

With a star spangled banner

Just a regular society where everyone is given some training in combat due to necessity. For defense or attacking neighbours isn't really important. The reason Romans were so shit scared of barbarians migrating is that every single one of them was a possible combatant down to the women and older children.

It's absurd to you but the Ancient Greeks had a different mindset. They put value in personal courage and fitness. Not in training with weapons. As I said the only things we know about Spartan training is that they did exercises and practiced basic formations out in campaign. Obviously people trained but it wasn't a skill that they valued. Plato notes that the coward would gain rashness if he learned it which would make his true nature conspicuous. He also notes that the brave man would be under scrutiny from his peers and it would incur slander. He claims that a man must be vastly superior in valor otherwise he risks being the laughing stock for professing to be so skilled at arms.

What you don't understand is the nature of Classical Greek Warfare. None of the City States trained their troops, the hoplites were untrained amateurs. Instead they put their values on fitness and valor, not skill at arms and drills.

Hoplomachia litral meaning is 'armed combat'. It's the art of fighting with hoplite equiptment. If Plato tells us that the Spartans did not practice fighting in hoplite equiptment I think it's a fair assetsment to say it wasn't something they generally did. And as I mentioned no sources tell us they did and we have one that states they didn't.

Look at the Germanic states between the Unification and the end of the First World War. A functioning industrial empire with a very strong martial tradition and a high emphasis placed on military service.

Sparta.

In its height it was the epitome of a warrior society, and for what is worth, pretty fucking equal and smooth running.

Turns how I don't have a high tech or cyberpunk Spartian Warrior. What the fuck.

Okay. Enough about Spartans!

I would imagine that a warrior culture would constantly test the fitness and courage of its citizens. If you are weak you lose respect.

The idea that greek armies as a whole, did not train in combat is just fucking nuts. You expect me to believe that armies that used a tight phalanx formation the required every soldier to march in unison and stay in formation was made up of completely untrained soldiers is just fucking absurd.

Its also Plato. Take it with a grain of salt.

The whole Realm of Forms things is fucking absurd as well.

For most of the Classical period Greek armies did not train in anyway. Xenophon mentions this as I said here.

>“I tell you, just because the state does not publicly train for war, you must not cultivate it any less yourself". Xenophon, Mem . 3.12.5

The problem is that you're assuming the Greek phalanx fought in the way that is often depicted in the media. That wasn't the case in real life. Greek phalanxes had trouble mainting cohesion of on the move, often turning into a mob of screaming men at a charge. They could only form anything resembling a formation when they were static.

And, as another sources writes, they were proud of this.

>"Where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger."
Thucydides 2.39.1

As I said, they put their values in their courage and they believed that valor was all they needed in battle.Greek citizens did not have the mentality to subject themselves to military training and discipline.

This is what made the Spartans have an edge up on them. In a world of amatuers they're the only ones with some military training and even if it's barebones it gives them the edge over the other states.

Xenophon cries at the Athenians for maintaining their ameutrism and not adopting similar training as the Spartans.

>“That means that it is a long march for our city to perfection. For when will Athenians show the Lacedaemonian reverence for age, seeing that they despise all their elders, beginning with their own fathers? When will they adopt the Lacedaemonian system of training, seeing that they not only neglect to make themselves fit, but mock at those who take the trouble to do so? "
Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.5.15

Here Xenophon bemoans the Athenians for not adopting the Spartan system of training since they fail to make themselves fit and even mock those that go through the trouble of training.

I think that a key aspect of making a warrior society is to consider the conditions that it exists in.
Every nation needs good fighters, without some kind of military power they would swiftly be crushed by their enemies. A warrior society appears when a group of people has to go above and beyond what other people do to survive, or when it benefits them to be ultra-aggressive. Think about societies that are commonly associated with the term "warrior society". Mongols, early Turks, Magyars, Skythians, early Germans, Norsemen, they all live in nasty places. All of them live on crappy land that can't be easily farmed, is full of wild animals that can kill you, and is difficult to travel in. Farming is hard, there are no cities, there's nothing good to trade, and overall life is hard.
The society that develops in this place will need to hunt or herd a lot for survival. Both of those are good training for war. Raiding also helps supplement their economy. Boom, you have a warrior culture. A smart warrior society will allow traders to pass through for a fee or will go out trading themselves (see Mongols and Vikings respectively).
The other option is that your warrior society is a small country that is surrounded by enemies (like the Prussians).

This all changes around the end of the 4th century BC as the Greek City States finally adopt military training. Aristotle writes:

>And we know of the Lakonians(Spartans) that while they persisted by themselves in their hard exercises they surpassed all others, but now they are left behind by the rest both in gymnastic and in military contests; for they used to stand out, not because they exercised their young men like this, but only because they trained, and others did not. Aristotle, Politics 1338b

Here Aristotle mentions that the Spartans had fallen behind both in gymnastics and military contest. Despite the fact that the Spartans like to present themselves as these badass guys who did hard exercises Aristotle mentions that it wasn't their training that made the Spartans special. Rather it was because they were the only ones that trained and others did not.

The sources are there. They tell us this.

>>“I tell you, just because the state does not publicly train for war, you must not cultivate it any less yourself"

Xenophon, a mercenary (of which by the way in the αναβασις there were 10,000 of them.) I.E a man who's profession was literally a warrior, is telling individuals that the state itself does not sponsor training but encouraging them to train themselves regardless is not proof, or even evidence of a non-present warrior society, in fact it contradicts it.

Training might not have been funded, or enforced by the state, because the state did not maintain a "professional" army, it was made up of citizen soldiers. It's almost granted that the majority of which would have at least familiarized themselves with the weapons they themselves owned. Some might not have, and they might not have undergone intense tutelage under an instructor, but that doesn't indicate a lack of training altogether.

I'm sorry but your argument is more than a bit weak, a society that built warrior myths directly into many of their greatest tales and deities definetely cannot be dismissed out of hand as a warrior society because a few sources claim that "training" wasn't done (weakly at that.)

>I'm sorry but your argument is more than a bit weak, a society that built warrior myths directly into many of their greatest tales and deities definetely cannot be dismissed out of hand as a warrior society because a few sources claim that "training" wasn't done (weakly at that.)
That's the thing, a lot of what you hear about Sparta is myth. They themselves built this on the myth of the 300 and it's been going on since.
To put it into perspective Plutarch writes that the Spartans practiced infanticide to kill inferior children. The problem with this is that this was written in the 2nd century AD.

In contrast Xenophon mentions that having lots of children is the duty of all Spartan citizens, this also includes sharing wives. Xenophon writes about how the Spartans encouraged fertility and the health of their children. Nowhere does he ever write of a selection process. Indeed, it would've been counter-productive to do so at the looming threat of a shrinking citizen body.

Agesilaos II, close friend of Xenophon and king of Sparta, was a man of short stature and was born lame. If this selection process is true than how did this guy become King of the Spartans?

A lot of the more definitive myths about Sparta arise during later periods past Classical Sparta. The Romans, for example, turned Sparta into a sort of Disneyworld of the Classical World where the Spartans would put on a show for Roman tourists.

There's a great example of the way in which the Spartans themselves distorted their own image for the sake of Roman tourists. In the 4th century BC, when Sparta was still relevant, Xenophon wrote about a ritual that took place at the temple of Artemis Orthia. A table was set up with a pile of cheeses on it, guarded by young men with whips. Boys were encouraged to try and steal as many cheeses as they could without being whipped. This was supposed to train their cunning and agility, and, if necessary, their endurance of pain. Now, we hear of this ritual again from Cicero, some 300 years later - but by his time it had taken a very dark turn. There were no more cheeses. Instead, youths were simply lined up and whipped until they collapsed. The contest was about who could last the longest. This was how the Spartans proved to the Romans that they were the hardest, most ruthless people of all. An entire theatre was built around the temple to allow tourists to watch the spectacle.

It is very important not to project onto Sparta what we expect a society of warriors to be. As far as we can tell from contemporary sources, the Spartan upbringing was focused entirely on obedience and endurance; the military training of adult Spartans, meanwhile, consisted only of formation drill. That was pretty much it. The perfect Spartan was an automaton, unflinchingly obedient, indifferent to cold, heat, hunger, thirst or fatigue, deferential to his elders and more afraid of disgrace than death. He was not a hulking badass action hero. No source utters a word about Spartans training in the use of weapons or working on their sheer muscle strength.

I'm not gonna disagree that the myths about the Spartans aren't grossly exaggerated, but that is not proof that they weren't a martial culture that valued those who fought heavily.

The Roman Republic, you pleb.

>Whats the proper way to do a warrior society?

>warrior society

Treat them just like any other pre-modern, hierarchical society, because there is no such thing as a "warrior society." There are aristocratic warrior classes WITHIN these societies, but the large majority of the population are just regular dudes who spend their time being farmers, fishermen, artisans, etc, and only take up arms during a crisis, if at all.

I'd make them a practical society, the likes of which Sun tzu would be proud of.

They make alliances with agricultural societies around them while slowly getting them dependent on their strong fighting ability. They go with whoever is most competent as a military leader, merciless to weaker opponents (reminding people not to fuck with them) while trying to induct those who are strong to bolster their ranks and bring new blood inside.

If there are "agricultural societies" living next to "warrior societies," what exactly is stopping the warrior societies from inevitably conquering the agricultural societies and becoming their new ruling class?

Why hasn't that already happened in the past? How do the agricultural societies still exist?

If this new society consists of a ruling class of warriors and a majority population of farmers, does it even constitute a "warrior society" anymore?

I know I'm going to eat flak over this. But consider the dothraki
>mostly nomadic
>slave intensive culture. You're a warrior, a women or a slave
>just civilised enough to deal with outsiders
>dangerous enough not to be worth wiping out
>within striking distance of several population centres
>stability via infighting. Idiots, the unworthy and their followers are slaughtered and balance out numbers and need

Ask the Turians. They did this basic thing and inducted little gasbag people to do their banking and shit. In exchange they assumed the client specie's percent of the fleet allowance- so the turians got more ships, more crew, more soldiers. A higher percent of their people could become warriors or follow a military career

The pastoralist cultures which the Dothraki are based upon didn't just have a warrior-woman-slave dynamic.

The "warrior class" would have just been an upper class related to chieftains and kings. Ordinary tribesmen would be herders who would own weapons and could fight when necessary, but not fully-dedicated combatants.

Don't look at GoT for lessons on history or how societies actually operate. It's all just HURR DURR GRITTY MUH VIOLENCE AND WAR

Hegemony requires less effort than conquest.

I am aware. They just had writer fiat to explain their shortcomings away and OP wants a "warrior society" a so-called proper one. Be it historically accurate or just one that can be handwaved and stand up to minor scrutiny

I'm pretty sure the entire point of the thread was that you are supposed to answer those questions in a way you think does it best, user.

I feel like this is one of those threads were people are talking about two different things, not realizing it, and getting mad.

One is thinking "culture that is more war like than others"

others seem to be thinking "culture that is almost exclusively warriors".

Dude was talking about traveling martial arts trainers teaching the tricks of the trade for a fee and whether spending cash on them was a good idea there though, not about weapon training in general.

The argument is that these folks clearly aren't active in Spartha, which is the most advanced in matters of war, so they can't be worth what they're charging.

I would imagine that said society would be egalitarian since everyone has the training and weaponry, meaning that they wouldn't put up with bad rulers for long periods at a time.

by knowin deh weh

#
Except for the fact that he clearly states that the Spartans overlooked the art of hoplomachia meaning it's something they didn't do.
It may seem bizarre but the Ancient Greeks did think hoplites training with their weapons was ridiculous. I had some sources where men are afraid to train with their weapons out of fear of being ridiculed I'll see if I can find them again. The thing is that the Ancient Greeks did recognize the advantages of weapons training with bows and javelins. However when it came to the hoplites all they needed was courage. In fact while men using ranged weapons were expected to train hoplites tried to achieve the "best body". (Xenophon,Hellenika3.4.16, 5.3.17). Being fit was more important than being a good fighter and being courageous was the base of hoplite combat. Plutarch also tells us that the Spartans "appointed no trainers to instruct in wrestling so that the rivalry might not be in skill, but in courage." (Moralia 233e).

Xenophon writes of a reform of a fictional army in which all men armed witb missiled are made into heavy infantry. One of the key factors of this is to level out both the poor and the rich. The poor men rejoice for the new way of fighting "demands courage more than skill," (Cyropaedia 2.3.11). Indeed this reveals the attitude the Ancient Greeks had towards the phalanx. It was an equalizer where all a man needed was valor.

This.

Indeed for war was something that affected all of the community. These men were levies, untrained, and amateurs. Most of these men have neither time not energy to train for war. These men had to believe that having the courage to fight for their community was sufficient. They had to believe that their lack of skill wasn't holding them back and that marching out in their gear with great courage. In this light profiency in arms is a hindrance and this is may be why the Ancient Greeks rejected it.

#
Indeed for war was something that affected all of the community. These men were levies, untrained, and amateurs. Most of these men have neither time not energy to train for war. These men had to believe that having the courage to fight for their community was sufficient. They had to believe that their lack of skill wasn't holding them back and that marching out in their gear with great courage was all they needed. In this light profiency in arms is a hindrance and this is may be why the Ancient Greeks rejected it.

I still think it's too far to claim that hoplites were ACTUALLY unskilled, rather than perceived as such. Yes, a phalanx, akin to a firing line doesn't demand individual skill so much as it demands some degree of cohesion via discipline or valor, but that doesn't actually create a scenario of "unskilled" or an otherwise non-martial culture.

Getting back to the idea of what constitutes a "warrior" culture, beyond feudal Europe and Rome, there doesn't seem to be an emphasis on martial training for most soldiers. Less so for what are usually broadly defined as "martial" cultures (I.E germanic tribes). In fact it's high unlikely any culture that doesn't depend on a large enslaved or enserfed class could ever actually do such a thing. Even the Germanic tribes didn't ever really maintain a significant force of experienced soldiers, that would be almost entirely restricted to the retinues of chieftains/strongmen/kings, the vast majority would have been simple freemen farmers or artistans.

cont.

Continued:

This is effectively what the Spartans did, and it did allow them to maintain at least partially militarized upper society, which you can argue about how effective this really was all you want, but it's fairly firmly attested by Xenophon and many others that they did value this, and sawit as a critical pillar of their state. A warrior culture isn't an attestation of the effectiveness of that culture in actual combat, but in their embrace of the values of being a warrior.

Not really, since hegemony has to be consistently mantained while after the conquest you can rest in your laurels while the conquered bureucrats mantain the statu quo for you.

We had a thread about this a while back, there are two main ways you can do a warrior society

1. A society with a very strict hierarchy, where the warrior classes are at the top, slaves are most of the population and do most of the work. Think of Sparta. These warrior societies are highly trained, disciplined, drilled, and usually fight in close formations, shieldwalls, phalanxes, etc.

2. "Barbaric" warrior societies. This is a society where EVERY MAN is a warrrior. The Germanic Tribes are the best example for this. Every man, along with being a hunter, a herder, and a farmer, trained to fight heavily. Keep in mind that the Germans weren't that big on agriculture, they mostly hunted, gathered and herded animals for their food, so they didn't need to spend that much time on tending crops. These societies value personal bravery, courage, individuality, shock tactics, hit and run, etc. They fight with highly ritualised forms of warfare, things like cattle raiding are also common. These societies will dominate in individual combat, but are BTFO when it comes to facing formations head on, and they adopt guirrella tactics against their "civilised" enemies.

Kievan Rust

What we call warrior societies today we're just regular societies that placed some form of importance (often highly overplayed today) on being a formidable and honorable warrior.

What about the free companies? Just ride around the place demanding protection monies?

In the ass!

To not do it. There are only a couple examples of actual warrior societies in history, and they were all short lived, because it's a model that doesn't work. Just have a culture with a warrior caste that exists as a socially closed minority within it. That is common and effective.

Stop

>Keep in mind that the Germans weren't that big on agriculture

This is objectively not true, they traded heavily for farming tools from the Romans and multiple archaeological cites confirm that they were absolutely practicing somewhat intensive farming in the days the the late empire. A society of hunter gathers would not have had the population surplus/density to threaten Rome.

There is no “best,” here. Different answers serve different purposes.

The way I did it was that in the past, a general overthrew the king of the land and the country has been ruled in a military Junta ever since, with the leader being the Grand Marshal, who was chosen by the previous Grand Marshal and the rest of the Marshals who are the leaders of the different branches of the military. A two year tour of service is required in one of the branches, but in order to work in government, you have to go career.

When did I say they were hunter gatherers?

As tacitus wrote, they mostly used hunting, gathering, and animal herding, along with some use of agriculture

reading comprehension

Wasn't Rome a soldier culture rather than a warrior one?

By drinking from your enemies' skull

Great insight user, thanks.

It was a warrior culture before the Marian Reforms.
Before then, the Republican armies were made up of regular citizens who owned/provided their own gear and were not regular soldiers.
More like a militia force of warriors than soldiers.

Warrior society != warrior culture.

"Warrior culture" is a description of culture, a culture that places special emphasis on war. E.g. Romans, Mongols, Vikings.

"Warrior society" refers to a society of warriors, a club essentially, usually in a tribal context, where such societies or brotherhoods often exist. E.g. Eagle Warriors, Jomsvikings, or knightly orders. In some cases warrior societies were special ethnosocial groups with their distinct culture and identity, ad often a great deal of autonomy from the culture they were integrated in, like the Cossacks, or the Rajput, or the Otomi.

second post comfiest post

spartans are pretty top tier, but generally any society with a caste system would work, since being a full time warrior is a very specialized profession that requires infrastructure to support it.

The Spartans first and foremost were valued for their political system. They were seen as having a government free from mob and the trouble of the poor. They were seen as the ideal LEUSIURE CLASS. They had no profession, did not have to work and basically had the free time to enjoy life. That including hunting, writing poetry, dancing, singing, raising horses, and drinking.

It's true that they were admired for their basic drills, Xenophone begs the Athenians to adopt this drill. However Xenophone praises are almost all political.

My point with framing the world the Spartans lived in is critical. By showing you how the Hoplite functioned, an untrained amateur who believed courage is all he needed, who took pride in being I'll prepared for war and who believed skilled in arms was a pretentious skill in the face of valor. When we examine the Hoplite and Greek Warfare in general we see what amounts to very simple militaries. Even in comparison to Hellenic and Roman militaries. In these lens it's no wonder the other Greeks praised the Spartans over their basic formation drills and organisation. But even than it was still very basic stuff compared to the Romans and the Hellenics. And as I said, no source ever tells us that the Spartans were individually superior. In fact we hear of young Thebans being instructed to take on the Spartans in wrestling matches during the Spartans banning wrestling.

So I ask you, how can you consider a professional leisure class a warrior society? What kind of warrior society doesn't practice with their weapons? What kind of warrior society lacks martial skills?

#
The Spartans first and foremost were valued for their political system. They were seen as having a government free from mob and the trouble of the poor. They were seen as the ideal LEUSIURE CLASS. They had no profession, did not have to work and basically had the free time to enjoy life. That including hunting, writing poetry, dancing, singing, raising horses, and drinking.

It's true that they were admired for their basic drills, Xenophone begs the Athenians to adopt this drill. However Xenophone praises are almost all political.

My point with framing the world the Spartans lived in is critical. By showing you how the Hoplite functioned, an untrained amateur who believed courage is all he needed, who took pride in being I'll prepared for war and who believed skilled in arms was a pretentious skill in the face of valor. When we examine the Hoplite and Greek Warfare in general we see what amounts to very simple militaries. Even in comparison to Hellenic and Roman militaries. In these lens it's no wonder the other Greeks praised the Spartans over their basic formation drills and organisation. But even than it was still very basic stuff compared to the Romans and the Hellenics. Aristotle tells us this as he claims the Spartan training wasnt anything specual but rather they trained and others did not. As I said, no source ever tells us that the Spartans were individually superior. In fact we hear of young Thebans being instructed to take on the Spartans in wrestling matches during the Spartans banning wrestling.

So I ask you, how can you consider a professional leisure class a warrior society? What kind of warrior society doesn't practice with their weapons? What kind of warrior society lacks martial skills?

honestly mandalorians are absolute shit but Canderous Ordo is a really good fucking take on it

Bump

Obviously by making them crab people.

if rome isnt a warrior culture then neither is any modern day empire

God bless (originally intended) America.