Are you all familiar with the A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry (https://acoup.blog/) blog?
It might be up the alley of a few folks here. It's the musings of a historian (with a focus on ancient Greece & Rome and military history) applying analysis to pop culture (frequently The Lord of the Rings and A Game of Thrones, but other stuff too). He also has a series of posts for people interested in building realistic fantasy worlds.
He sometimes does political commentary too, viewed through the lessons of the ancient world. I don't always agree with him, but it makes for interesting reading IMO.
Some topics he's covered which I've enjoyed:
A Military Historian Analysis of the Battle of Helm's Deep (https://acoup.blog/2020/05/01/collections-the-battle-of-helms-deep-part-i-bargaining-for-goods-at-helms-gate/)
On the Fremen Mirage (https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/)
A Collection on Sparta (https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-i-spartan-school/)
... but there's lots more.
Goddamn that motherfucker is longwinded.
Definitely familiar, and I read him regularly. I know ulmont also reads him.
He's worth the time.
I am very much enjoying his articles on the Fremen Mirage.
Although I think maybe he is kind of stating the obvious. Nobody reads Dune and thinks "Yeah, that is totally and obviously how these things actually work!". It's an interesting concept because we know that actually is not at all how things really work.
But its a great set of essays about how human societies develop irrespective of that point.
And I very much love this kind of stuff - I think it is the very best antidote to the pseudo-libertarianism that is so popular these days.
The Fremen Mirage articles seem to be built on a whole series of strawman arguments. I've never seen any other author who has postulated what he proposes as the argument he wil set out to demolish:
QuoteFirst: That people from less settled or 'civilized' societies – what we would have once called 'barbarians,' but will, for the sake of simplicity and clarity generally call here the Fremen after the example of the trope found in Dune – are made inherently 'tougher' (or more morally 'pure' – we'll come back to this in the third post) by those hard conditions.
Second: Consequently, people from these less settled societies are better fighters and more militarily capable than their settled or wealthier neighboring societies.
Third: That, consequently the poorer, harder people will inevitably overrun and subjugate the richer, more prosperous communities around them.
Fourth: That the consequence of the previous three things is that history supposedly could be understood as an inevitable cycle, where peoples in harder, poorer places conquer their richer neighbors, become rich and 'decadent' themselves, lose their fighting capacity and are conquered in their turn.
I do note that he doesn't actually say who has made that claim.
It's an interesting read, by and large, but if one doesn't know much history it won't be clear to them that 25% of the time he is mistaken (e.g. neither the Inca nor Aztecs were one of the original civilizations), and if one does know history, 25% of his points are recognizable as either mere truisms or else not relevant to his argument.
As Yi noted, he is longwinded as well.
Isn't that more or less a claim from the life of Cyrus? Ive seen it used in the context of Mesopotamia and the successful invasions from the east. It's very often used in discussions about the fall of the Roman Empire. The Mongols in China also. I've seen it as a cause of the fall of the Achaemenids. The invaders go soft living in luxury, loses the properties that made them successful and fall for another barbarian.
Although I have no sources I would like to believe that his points are more or less truisms for people with a passing interest in history.
Dan Carlin, who has a great bunch of podcasts, including one set of outstanding ones about the Mongols, at least puts forth the idea of the "Hard men make good times, good times make soft men...." etc., etc. concepts.
I don't know if there is some singular historian who has made anything like such a positive claim, but I think it is a common sentiment in culture at least.
Why does he think that the movie 300 is "profoundly irresponsible"? He doesn't elaborate on that (just links to some YT video).
Love his analysis of the battles in LotR. Tolkien knew his shit.
Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2021, 04:53:56 AM
Dan Carlin, who has a great bunch of podcasts, including one set of outstanding ones about the Mongols, at least puts forth the idea of the "Hard men make good times, good times make soft men...." etc., etc. concepts.
I don't know if there is some singular historian who has made anything like such a positive claim, but I think it is a common sentiment in culture at least.
Yeah - I don't know if it's really claimed but that's definitely a Herodotus theme and I think it's a part of ibn Khaldun's theories too which is why they both have a pretty cyclical take.
Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2021, 04:53:56 AM
Dan Carlin, who has a great bunch of podcasts, including one set of outstanding ones about the Mongols, at least puts forth the idea of the "Hard men make good times, good times make soft men...." etc., etc. concepts.
I don't know if there is some singular historian who has made anything like such a positive claim, but I think it is a common sentiment in culture at least.
Carlin was, amongst others, what I was thinking of above. In his episodes on the mongols he mentioned it and on his episodes on Cyrus he mentions it. Carlin often uses dated sources and he paints compelling images, but he is not a historian. I expect that many people that listen to his podcast believes in the tough barbarian, weak farmer trope.
Quote from: Berkut on January 16, 2021, 04:53:56 AM
Dan Carlin, who has a great bunch of podcasts, including one set of outstanding ones about the Mongols, at least puts forth the idea of the "Hard men make good times, good times make soft men...." etc., etc. concepts.
I don't know if there is some singular historian who has made anything like such a positive claim, but I think it is a common sentiment in culture at least.
But the Fremen Mirage is not that "hard times make hard men, who make good times," but rather that unsophisticated, outnumbered, and poor societies will breed tougher men who will then "
inevitably [his emphasis] overrun and subjugate the richer, more prosperous communities around them."
The cycle encapsulated in "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" from
Romance of the Three Kingdoms is NOT the Fremen Mirage. Nor is the cycle between despotism and personal freedoms in Herodatus anything to do with the Fremen Mirage. The Fremen Mirage seems
de novo.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
The cycle encapsulated in "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" from Romance of the Three Kingdoms is NOT the Fremen Mirage. Nor is the cycle between despotism and personal freedoms in Herodatus anything to do with the Fremen Mirage. The Fremen Mirage seems de novo.
That's not my take on Herodotus. One of his themes is the cycle between hardship/hard-living (often nomads) who take over richer (often settled areas) become luxurious and are in turn taken over/fail against the hard-living.
You are perhaps interpreting it too literally groggy. The inevitably part is probably meant as to how the tripe is interpreted. When they go sissy they will inevitably fall rather than every empire will inevitably fall.
Also, his 4 points might be wrong in some details, but some minor details don't take everything away from his arguments.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2021, 11:18:12 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2021, 11:00:25 AM
The cycle encapsulated in "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" from Romance of the Three Kingdoms is NOT the Fremen Mirage. Nor is the cycle between despotism and personal freedoms in Herodatus anything to do with the Fremen Mirage. The Fremen Mirage seems de novo.
That's not my take on Herodotus. One of his themes is the cycle between hardship/hard-living (often nomads) who take over richer (often settled areas) become luxurious and are in turn taken over/fail against the hard-living.
I'm not seeing that at all, but it's probably not unusual to see very different takes on an author who is less interested in evidence than explanation. The Persians are not the Fremen in Herodotus.
Quote from: Threviel on January 16, 2021, 12:44:58 PM
You are perhaps interpreting it too literally groggy. The inevitably part is probably meant as to how the tripe is interpreted. When they go sissy they will inevitably fall rather than every empire will inevitably fall.
Also, his 4 points might be wrong in some details, but some minor details don't take everything away from his arguments.
If Devereaux is merely referring to a trope, as you say, then I don't have a problem with him defining it however he wants. That makes any extensive historical analysis rather absurd, however, since he's comparing whatever evidence he wants against a bunch of assumptions that he is simply making as he goes along. Tropes exist because of their pleasing artistic effects, not because they have any truth value.
Take away the trope, though, and his argument is a mere truism: most of the time, god is on the side with the big battalions (repeat 20 times).
Historical tropes have long, long, lasting lives - and retain explanatory power for much larger swaths of the population that whatever historians are writing. The trope of "barbarian virtues" understood as martial spirit against "civilization decadence" seen as the effete pursuit of pleasures has been inscribed in classic Roman discourse and has consequently been reactivated periodically ever since. It is not surprising that it subsists today as a valid form of explanation amidst casual history fans.
I always assumed that the Herbert was borrowing from the cycle of conquest of settled areas by nomads (and their subsequent "fall" into decadence) found in ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah. ibn Khaldun's point is not that "hard times" make men physically stronger and tougher and thus better fighters. Individually, fighters in settled areas may be as strong or tough as fighters from nomadic people just as the Sardaukar from Dune still maintain their individual strength and prowess. What hard conditions force is a form of close group solidarity or cohesion and a sense of common purpose and identity. Is is that social solidarity that makes the nomads/Fremen more effective the the urban garrisons/Sardaukar, who for all their training or access or equipment have a more mercenary mentality.
One can debate ibn Khaldun's thesis but Dune succeeds as an effective novelized account of it (among other things). The Pedantry Blogger disagrees and claims that the Muqaddimah is NOT the model for the treatment of the Fremen in Dune but in a way that really seems to miss the point. He argues that the harsh environmental conditions give the Fremen their strength rather than ibn Khaldun's asabiyah That's absurd. Harsh environmental conditions standing alone, don't strengthen people, they weaken and kill people. Harsh environmental conditions can make a people strong if and only if that people band together to cope with those conditions. The significance of harsh environmental conditions is that that necessity for survival forces close social cooperation and drives the formation of asabiyah. The causal linkage is: hard environment --> social solidarity to survive and thrive under those conditions --> military success. Thus, the real life nomadic and tribal societies ibn Khaldun theorized about tend to come form marginal environments, e.g. deserts and drylands.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 16, 2021, 01:21:23 PM
Historical tropes have long, long, lasting lives - and retain explanatory power for much larger swaths of the population that whatever historians are writing. The trope of "barbarian virtues" understood as martial spirit against "civilization decadence" seen as the effete pursuit of pleasures has been inscribed in classic Roman discourse and has consequently been reactivated periodically ever since. It is not surprising that it subsists today as a valid form of explanation amidst casual history fans.
I agree, but that is not relevant to the discussion of the Fremen Mirage. The Romans didn't see themselves as successful and vigorous because they were impoverished and unspecialized, and therefor lived such shitty lives that they were tough and could therefor beat advanced societies. That's the essence of the Fremen Mirage as described (and that accurately reflects Herbert's plot device), and that's not a serious historical thesis that I've ever seen.
So... Ass-burgery ass-hattery aside. What do you think of his military analysis of fantasy battles? I'm reading the Helms Deep one and it makes a lot of sense to my feeble amateur mind.
Quote from: Threviel on January 16, 2021, 03:42:24 PM
So... Ass-burgery ass-hattery aside. What do you think of his military analysis of fantasy battles? I'm reading the Helms Deep one and it makes a lot of sense to my feeble amateur mind.
I'm not sure why you decided to assert that analysis you disagree with is "Ass-burgery ass-hattery," but I find it amusing that you decided to insult just before you ask for some insights on another topic. I'll pass on that for obvious reasons.
Quote from: Threviel on January 16, 2021, 03:42:24 PM
So... Ass-burgery ass-hattery aside. What do you think of his military analysis of fantasy battles? I'm reading the Helms Deep one and it makes a lot of sense to my feeble amateur mind.
Does he use history of Tolkien's Middle-Earth to analyze the battle? Or does he use history of the real world? In Tolkien's Middle-Earth physics, biology, and human society work differently than in the real world. I'm not sure to what extent the real world can help there.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2021, 04:48:27 PM
Quote from: Threviel on January 16, 2021, 03:42:24 PM
So... Ass-burgery ass-hattery aside. What do you think of his military analysis of fantasy battles? I'm reading the Helms Deep one and it makes a lot of sense to my feeble amateur mind.
I'm not sure why you decided to assert that analysis you disagree with is "Ass-burgery ass-hattery," but I find it amusing that you decided to insult just before you ask for some insights on another topic. I'll pass on that for obvious reasons.
I'm afraid I don't translate well to text. It was meant as a light hearted "ok, you win, on to next". Sorry if I insulted anyone.
Just read it. It's at least entertaining and make sense to my uneducated mind. This particular take when talking about Saruman:
Quote
he strikes me as exactly the sort of very intelligent person whose assumes that their mastery of one field (effectively science-and-engineering, along with magic-and-persuasion, in this case) makes them equally able to perform in other, completely unrelated fields (a mistake common to very many very smart people, but – it seems to me, though this may be only because I work in the humanities – peculiarly common to those moving from the STEM fields to more humanistic ones, as Saruman is here).
I can really sympathize with :lol:
I've certainly never heard of a very intelligent historian who assumed that his mastery of history made him able to perform in unrelated fields.
It is generally known that lawyers are masters of all fields and areas of knowledge.
See: United States Senate.
Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2021, 01:05:50 PM
I've certainly never heard of a very intelligent historian who assumed that his mastery of history made him able to perform in unrelated fields.
I know several who assumed female students would be interested in sharing hotel rooms with them, for no apparent reason other than their fame*. Does that count?
* which of course did not exist outside his particular department.
Quote from: Maladict on January 17, 2021, 02:36:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2021, 01:05:50 PM
I've certainly never heard of a very intelligent historian who assumed that his mastery of history made him able to perform in unrelated fields.
I know several who assumed female students would be interested in sharing hotel rooms with them, for no apparent reason other than their fame*. Does that count?
* which of course did not exist outside his particular department.
You are sure they are very intelligent?
Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2021, 03:09:54 PM
Quote from: Maladict on January 17, 2021, 02:36:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2021, 01:05:50 PM
I've certainly never heard of a very intelligent historian who assumed that his mastery of history made him able to perform in unrelated fields.
I know several who assumed female students would be interested in sharing hotel rooms with them, for no apparent reason other than their fame*. Does that count?
* which of course did not exist outside his particular department.
You are sure they are very intelligent?
Intelligent people are perfectly capable of making poor decisions.
I thought that the best parts of the Rohan videos were then he explained how stupid an ideas was (e.g. Theoden marching his entire capital populace directly at an enemy army) and then explained why, from a movie-making perspective, that was a good idea (make the audience feel that the battle was existential; give Eowyn an opportunity to see Aragorn in action so her falling in love with him isn't pathetic groupie-ism). He's also good with his takes on how unnecessarily silly some of the battle was, but how safety concerns likely played a part in some of the silliness.
I do think he understates the extent to which Saruman is betting everything on the Ring being at Helm's Deep or in Rohan ready to be picked up by the winner of the battle. Saying that he wanted to be "established in Rohan" when Sauron turns up seems a bad take, since he could not come close to matching Sauron's power without the Ring.
A lot of his historical analysis is aimed at a less-well-informed audience, but his meta-discussions are great.
His GoT "Loot Train" video is quite good. I'm less versed on medieval logistics, so I was the "less-well-informed audience" he was aiming at.
I read a book years ago on Alexander and the logistics of the Macedonian army - it did a lot of this kind of analysis and showed how Alexander's campaigns and movements were shaped by the powerful logistical constraints on pre-modern armies. It's one of things that made me realize that ancient accounts of mass popular migrations had to have been exaggerated.
Next you will be telling me that Xerxes didn't really invade Greece with a million men.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2021, 06:18:29 PM
I read a book years ago on Alexander and the logistics of the Macedonian army - it did a lot of this kind of analysis and showed how Alexander's campaigns and movements were shaped by the powerful logistical constraints on pre-modern armies. It's one of things that made me realize that ancient accounts of mass popular migrations had to have been exaggerated.
Haven't mass migrations come back into fashion with the genetic proof of repeated wholesale population replacement in many areas?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2021, 10:50:29 PM]Haven't mass migrations come back into fashion with the genetic proof of repeated wholesale population replacement in many areas?
I think we've discussed this - the examples of complete pop replacement usually involve small base populations replaced over very long periods of times. I.e. prehistoric Neolithic peoples occupying Britain over centuries of time and replacing small bands of fisher-gatherers.
I'm talking about things like Caesar's account of the entire population of Helvetica moving en masse across the Massif Central, or the older accounts of "barbarian tribes" moving huge distances in massive numbers through German forests.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2021, 11:31:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2021, 10:50:29 PM]Haven't mass migrations come back into fashion with the genetic proof of repeated wholesale population replacement in many areas?
I think we've discussed this - the examples of complete pop replacement usually involve small base populations replaced over very long periods of times. I.e. prehistoric Neolithic peoples occupying Britain over centuries of time and replacing small bands of fisher-gatherers.
I'm talking about things like Caesar's account of the entire population of Helvetica moving en masse across the Massif Central, or the older accounts of "barbarian tribes" moving huge distances in massive numbers through German forests.
Different peoples have vastly different levels of mobility - depending on their economic and cultural basis.
The Germanic tribes Caesar encountered were, allegedly, largely pastoralists (though they also practiced opportunistic agriculture). Way it appeared to work was that Germanic tribes historically practiced both agriculture and pastoralism, but the more displaced a tribe was by violence (either among the tribes, or between the tribes and the Romans), the more it emphasized pastoralism, for exactly this reason: better mobility.
People whose income had way of life derive largely from herds of animals are often far more mobile, en mass, then settled agriculturalists who must grow a surplus then find some way of transporting it with them, or purchasing it (or stealing it) en route. The latter is never practical when a whole population is on the move, rather than a proportionally much smaller military force.
Now, I certainly would not want to have to drive huge herds of cattle through dank German forests ... as to whether it is possible or not, I don't know.
Been reading this every chance I've gotten. It's very interesting, I am very fond of academics that can make modern research accessible. Oftentimes the well written and well produced stuff (youtube, podcasts, any media really) are just re-hashes of older research previously made accessible.
So, any other tips like this?
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2021, 12:57:45 PM
I'm not seeing that at all, but it's probably not unusual to see very different takes on an author who is less interested in evidence than explanation. The Persians are not the Fremen in Herodotus.
Agreed and not unusual even with an author interested in evidence because what it means is always going to be interpretive.
I think they're sort of linked poverty and smallness = freedom; bigness and wealth = autocracy. The line from Cyrus that soft lands breed soft men and you can't have land that produces both good crops and good fighting men. I think it's, probably a Greek commonplace. It's not that Persia necessarily gets less free, but it does get softer, richer, more luxurious - like Egypt.
I haven't read the blog - because I tried one and just didn't find it that interesting (I've nver really been into military stuff :blush:) - butI feel like the Fremen of Herodotus are probably the Scythians?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2021, 10:22:46 AM
Agreed and not unusual even with an author interested in evidence because what it means is always going to be interpretive.
The fact that evidence is always going to be interpreted (and thus selected because it either confirms the interpretation or qualifies it) is an issue, of course. Good historians also include the evidence that introduces a "but..." in their interpretations. Devereaux cites (correctly, IMO) the book shattered Sword (on the battle of Midway - if you are at all interested in the battle, you've got to read that book) because the authors do just that: they present the evidence that the Japanese flight decks were pretty much clear of aircraft when the American dive bombers attacked, but also includes the eyewitness testimony of those who say differently.
QuoteI think they're sort of linked poverty and smallness = freedom; bigness and wealth = autocracy. The line from Cyrus that soft lands breed soft men and you can't have land that produces both good crops and good fighting men. I think it's, probably a Greek commonplace. It's not that Persia necessarily gets less free, but it does get softer, richer, more luxurious - like Egypt.
The Greeks city-states themselves were both prosperous and capable of producing good fighting men. It's certainly a trope that city-states that expanded too much became unfree (the Athenian Empire, for example) but that's not an element of the Fremen Mirage that Devereaux is claiming is a historical standard.
QuoteI haven't read the blog - because I tried one and just didn't find it that interesting (I've nver really been into military stuff :blush:) - butI feel like the Fremen of Herodotus are probably the Scythians?
If the Scythians are the Fremen and Herodotus believes in the Fremen Mirage, then he'd have expected that they'd have overthrown Philip of Macedon rather than losing to him. Remember that the Fremen Mirage proposes that "the poorer, harder people will
inevitably overrun and subjugate the richer, more prosperous communities around them." I'm just not seeing this expectation in the historians' accounts.
Grumbler, the blog in question is saying that the Fremen mirage is wrong though. His argument is that it is largely a myth. Am I missing something from your critique?
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2021, 12:34:34 PM
Grumbler, the blog in question is saying that the Fremen mirage is wrong though. His argument is that it is largely a myth. Am I missing something from your critique?
My critique is that the Fremen Mirage is a strawman. It's a plot device in a scifi book, not something actual historians have said or written about.
The extreme example the author uses is a strawman. If it was true we'd have been conquered by the Inuit by now, but the basic idea of civilization causing weak, decadent, soft men is a pretty common one and that the reverse, that privitation makes strong warriors is a common one. Am I spelling "privitation" correctly?Because the autocorrect does not like that word.
Privation.
Thanks.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2021, 08:21:04 PM
The extreme example the author uses is a strawman. If it was true we'd have been conquered by the Inuit by now, but the basic idea of civilization causing weak, decadent, soft men is a pretty common one and that the reverse, that privitation makes strong warriors is a common one. Am I spelling "privitation" correctly?Because the autocorrect does not like that word.
Two mediocre warriors > one strong one
I'd put money on a well-conditioned and trained US marine against a Congolese militiaman any day of the week.
That societies eventually become decadent and grow weaker than rising neighboring societies is a truism. That's not the Fremen Mirage as defined by the guy who invented the term, though.
There is an element of truth in the idea that tough conditions weed out the unfit, leaving only survivor-types, and that, the tougher the conditions, the stronger the survivors (as individuals). But the necessary corollary is that the tougher conditions leave fewer survivors, and it isn't at all clear that god is even more on the side of the tougher battalions than he is on the side of the bigger ones.
Yep, if given a choice, I think I would rather be on the side of the well fed, well equipped and well trained.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 25, 2021, 11:23:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2021, 08:21:04 PM
The extreme example the author uses is a strawman. If it was true we'd have been conquered by the Inuit by now, but the basic idea of civilization causing weak, decadent, soft men is a pretty common one and that the reverse, that privitation makes strong warriors is a common one. Am I spelling "privitation" correctly?Because the autocorrect does not like that word.
Two mediocre warriors > one strong one
Organized, competently-led, well-trained, logistically-supported warriors > strong ones.
Guy roaming the badlands with Lorenzo Lamas hair > trained militia type.
I reject the idea that any sort of poverty makes a warrior better. All it does is make warriors hungrier. I don't know what "decadence" is exactly in this situation or why it should make a soldier inferior.
Every organized, settled society faces the problem of civil-military relations. One common solution in pre-modern times is that the autocratic ruler is also the leader of the army, but that just pushes the problem into a succession problem - e.g. the weak heir in a purely hereditary system or disputed successions in other system. There are also many other kinds of solutions but no pre national solution can permanently fix the problem of how to ensure the simultaneous loyalty and effectiveness of a settled military force across time.
Nomadic or less organized societies don't face exactly this type of problem but they tend to a default state of disunity or tribal-based divisions. Every now and then such societies can be united by a some combinations(s) of a charismatic leader, an unusually effective or lucky military leader, or a wave of religious fervor. If that moment of unification happens to coincide with a relative low ebb in the civil-military cohesion of a neighboring settled society, then that settled society is in trouble. That is a dynamic described in ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah and it is one played out in Dune. It doesn't really have anything to do with individual warriors being made "tough" by privation - although that could be true in individual cases. Herbert's space Arabians live quietly for centuries in the long shadow of Herbert's space Perso-Byzantines; its not until the outsider Liet-Kynes activates them that they unify and become political conscious in a way that is catalyzed when other charismatic outsiders are suddenly thrust in their midst.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2021, 02:35:10 PM
Every organized, settled society faces the problem of civil-military relations. One common solution in pre-modern times is that the autocratic ruler is also the leader of the army, but that just pushes the problem into a succession problem - e.g. the weak heir in a purely hereditary system or disputed successions in other system. There are also many other kinds of solutions but no pre national solution can permanently fix the problem of how to ensure the simultaneous loyalty and effectiveness of a settled military force across time.
Nomadic or less organized societies don't face exactly this type of problem but they tend to a default state of disunity or tribal-based divisions. Every now and then such societies can be united by a some combinations(s) of a charismatic leader, an unusually effective or lucky military leader, or a wave of religious fervor. If that moment of unification happens to coincide with a relative low ebb in the civil-military cohesion of a neighboring settled society, then that settled society is in trouble. That is a dynamic described in ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah and it is one played out in Dune. It doesn't really have anything to do with individual warriors being made "tough" by privation - although that could be true in individual cases. Herbert's space Arabians live quietly for centuries in the long shadow of Herbert's space Perso-Byzantines; its not until the outsider Liet-Kynes activates them that they unify and become political conscious in a way that is catalyzed when other charismatic outsiders are suddenly thrust in their midst.
If we are going to Geek about this, I'd note that it was Pardot Keynes who was the outsider. His son Liet Keynes was a Fremen, pretending for the sake of his people to be an Imperial and an outsider to Arrakis.
And I think we cannot underestimate the impact of the Bene Gesserit in seeding the idea of a messianic/charismatic future leader amongst the Fremen. Paul Atreides didn't just luck into a situation made for him.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2021, 08:46:14 PM
If we are going to Geek about this, I'd note that it was Pardot Keynes who was the outsider. His son Liet Keynes was a Fremen, pretending for the sake of his people to be an Imperial and an outsider to Arrakis.
And I think we cannot underestimate the impact of the Bene Gesserit in seeding the idea of a messianic/charismatic future leader amongst the Fremen. Paul Atreides didn't just luck into a situation made for him.
You are correct; it's been a while since I read the books. But the point is the same - even reinforced - that without the influences and sparks from the outside, the Fremen would have remained quiescent.
The thing that really binds us together. A deep understanding of what is truly important - Sci Fi and Fantasy literature. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2021, 09:05:24 PM
You are correct; it's been a while since I read the books. But the point is the same - even reinforced - that without the influences and sparks from the outside, the Fremen would have remained quiescent.
I quite agree. Even the conquering groups like the Huns and Mongols only set out to conquering when the climate changed and they could no longer support their current numbers on the steppes. Without that influence they, too, would have remained quiescent (as, indeed, they did for most of history).
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2021, 10:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2021, 09:05:24 PM
You are correct; it's been a while since I read the books. But the point is the same - even reinforced - that without the influences and sparks from the outside, the Fremen would have remained quiescent.
I quite agree. Even the conquering groups like the Huns and Mongols only set out to conquering when the climate changed and they could no longer support their current numbers on the steppes. Without that influence they, too, would have remained quiescent (as, indeed, they did for most of history).
How about the Arabs, who are probably the most direct Fremen inspiration?
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2021, 10:15:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2021, 10:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2021, 09:05:24 PM
You are correct; it's been a while since I read the books. But the point is the same - even reinforced - that without the influences and sparks from the outside, the Fremen would have remained quiescent.
I quite agree. Even the conquering groups like the Huns and Mongols only set out to conquering when the climate changed and they could no longer support their current numbers on the steppes. Without that influence they, too, would have remained quiescent (as, indeed, they did for most of history).
How about the Arabs, who are probably the most direct Fremen inspiration?
The Arabs were hardly poor people. The Bedouin lived a pretty hard life (and Mohammed was a Bedouin) but the Arabs were at the heart of the global trade system in the classical and post-classical era, and Syria was notoriously rich.
The other super soldiers in that novel were the Sardukar and they were so tough because they lived on a hellish prison planet (I guess the one Alex Jones is always going on about). The freemen beat the Sardukar because they were even tougher, forged from by the desert planet Arakis. In reality hardened criminals make terrible soldiers.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
I reject the idea that any sort of poverty makes a warrior better. All it does is make warriors hungrier. I don't know what "decadence" is exactly in this situation or why it should make a soldier inferior.
I don't think this theory really works in the period after gunpowder was invented. Before that nomadic types were militarily comparable than the settled civilizations, sometimes better.
But how often has this worked out since 1500 or so?
Pastoralist weren't necessarily poor. Their wealth was just in a different form than the more sedentary peoples.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2021, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
I reject the idea that any sort of poverty makes a warrior better. All it does is make warriors hungrier. I don't know what "decadence" is exactly in this situation or why it should make a soldier inferior.
I don't think this theory really works in the period after gunpowder was invented. Before that nomadic types were militarily comparable than the settled civilizations, sometimes better.
But how often has this worked out since 1500 or so?
Steppe peoples were occasionally better militarily than settled peoples, but 90% of the time it was the nomadic types coming put second-best. We just hear less about it because it was the common occurrence, and so not noteworthy.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2021, 10:37:25 PM
The Arabs were hardly poor people. The Bedouin lived a pretty hard life (and Mohammed was a Bedouin) but the Arabs were at the heart of the global trade system in the classical and post-classical era, and Syria was notoriously rich.
Muhammad was a merchant himself (according to the stories) as were the early converts and other leaders of Islam; this is not an accident. The merchant communities would have been most exposed to the religious ideas floating around from Judaism and Christianity that were incorporated into Islam.
Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2021, 12:11:14 AM
Steppe peoples were occasionally better militarily than settled peoples, but 90% of the time it was the nomadic types coming put second-best. We just hear less about it because it was the common occurrence, and so not noteworthy.
As an example, nomadic peoples were a *constant* problem for whoever happened to be ruling the Iranian plateau from the time of the Achaemenids (themselves of nomadic origin) to the time of Reza Shah. Most of the time they were just a nuisance and their presence and raiding activities didn't prevent the formation of enduring dynasties. But when a dynasty weakened or a significant succession crisis occurred, they could take a more prominent role, either in supporting a claimant or supporting one of their own to form a new dynasty.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2021, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
I reject the idea that any sort of poverty makes a warrior better. All it does is make warriors hungrier. I don't know what "decadence" is exactly in this situation or why it should make a soldier inferior.
I don't think this theory really works in the period after gunpowder was invented. Before that nomadic types were militarily comparable than the settled civilizations, sometimes better.
But how often has this worked out since 1500 or so?
If nomadic types were comparable, hard to explain why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did in the East. Or the Egyptians. Sure there were periods of trouble, but hardly comparable during the whole time period.
Pastoralists did do some farming and they were able to support artisans. I don't know if their raiding was any more or less effective than raiding by more sedentary populations.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 01:30:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2021, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2021, 02:14:07 PM
I reject the idea that any sort of poverty makes a warrior better. All it does is make warriors hungrier. I don't know what "decadence" is exactly in this situation or why it should make a soldier inferior.
I don't think this theory really works in the period after gunpowder was invented. Before that nomadic types were militarily comparable than the settled civilizations, sometimes better.
But how often has this worked out since 1500 or so?
If nomadic types were comparable, hard to explain why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did in the East. Or the Egyptians. Sure there were periods of trouble, but hardly comparable during the whole time period.
I disagree completely that it is hard to explain. Vastly larger numbers and organization and wealth but that was not decisive militarily, the Eastern Romans often had little choice but to bribe other nomadic peoples to deal with their enemies as they were unable to defeat them militarily by themselves. How can you look at their problems with the Bulgarians and the Turks (and the Avars and the Pechenegs and others) and claim that nomadic warriors were not a serious military problem for the Eastern Romans? :hmm:
I don't understand this point unless the assertion is that "comparable" means vastly inferior. The nomadic nations were typically no more able to just roll over the civilized powers anymore than the civilized powers were able to dominate the steppe. They were comparable not dominant...with some exceptions when nomadic tribes conquered China (as happened more than once...) or usurped a powerful Islamic settled state (which happened more than once...). Those were exceptions, as noted, but the fact was that the nomadic tribes were capable of doing that. They were a powerful military force that the settled civilizations had to fear.
But this has not been true for at least 300 years.
You are ignoring a span of hundreds of years when nomads bothered the Romans not at all. Your thesis really gets reduced to claiming that when rich settled areas fail nomads can take advantage
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 02:18:27 PM
You are ignoring a span of hundreds of years when nomads bothered the Romans not at all. Your thesis really gets reduced to claiming that when rich settled areas fail nomads can take advantage
When was this period of time?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2021, 02:36:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 02:18:27 PM
You are ignoring a span of hundreds of years when nomads bothered the Romans not at all. Your thesis really gets reduced to claiming that when rich settled areas fail nomads can take advantage
When was this period of time?
Easier to talk about the years when it was a problem. If you are suggesting that nomads were a constant problem, then I am wondering whether the issue is the meaning of the word nomad.
Quote from: The Brain on January 25, 2021, 02:07:51 PM
Guy roaming the badlands with Lorenzo Lamas hair > trained militia type.
As in Joe Lara of American Cyborg or Steel Frontier fame ('90s video store fodder), admittedly a Lorenzo Lamas ('90s video store fodder) lookalike?
(https://www.nanarland.com/uploads/content/acteurs/joelara/joelara01.jpg) (https://www.nanarland.com/uploads/content/acteurs/joelara/lorenzolamas.gif)
(https://www.nanarland.com/uploads/content/chroniques/american-cyborg/affiche.jpg)
Ah, Joe Lara, "famous" in Spain for starring in the Epic Adventures of Tarzan.
American Cyborg riped off Terminator and somehow also Children of Men avant-le-lettre.
How good is American Cyborg? Is it essential viewing?
I don't recall it featuring lesbian sex, so I guess that's a no?
Quote from: celedhring on January 27, 2021, 05:33:24 AM
Ah, Joe Lara, "famous" in Spain for starring in the Epic Adventures of Tarzan.
American Cyborg riped off Terminator and somehow also Children of Men avant-le-lettre.
How many times do you need to be reminded that Children of Men is a rip-off of an Italian rip-off called 2019 after the Fall of New York? :contract: :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on January 27, 2021, 05:38:42 AM
How good is American Cyborg? Is it essential viewing?
Essential viewing as in Citizen Kane, no but I am sure you knew that.
It's US post-nuke B-movie territory with some kickboxing added to the mix, ripping off earlier '80s Italian post-nukes.
Not as crazy as say the finest Italian post-nukes but quite so-bad-it's good, your kilometrage may vary though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2021, 08:49:30 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2021, 12:11:14 AM
Steppe peoples were occasionally better militarily than settled peoples, but 90% of the time it was the nomadic types coming put second-best. We just hear less about it because it was the common occurrence, and so not noteworthy.
As an example, nomadic peoples were a *constant* problem for whoever happened to be ruling the Iranian plateau from the time of the Achaemenids (themselves of nomadic origin) to the time of Reza Shah. Most of the time they were just a nuisance and their presence and raiding activities didn't prevent the formation of enduring dynasties. But when a dynasty weakened or a significant succession crisis occurred, they could take a more prominent role, either in supporting a claimant or supporting one of their own to form a new dynasty.
When it comes to nomadic vs. Settled peoples, each side had certain inherent military advantages that stemmed from their chosen way of life, but the decisive advantage in the pre-gunpowder age usually came down to political factors, not the inherent value of each sides' soldiers or warriors.
Simply put, the side that was capable of mobilizing its society's resources more effectively tended to win.
Usually, this left the advantage in the hands of the settled peoples, because nomadic societies tended to be even more fractious than settled societies. However, this was not always the case, and on occasion someone was able to unite the nomads into a single force - and when they did, the settled peoples had to watch out.
It is also worth stating that in many cases it was not a case of nomad vs. Settled purely, but each "side" consisting of a mixture of both - with war leaders anxious to correct the deficiencies in their army's composition with allies and mercenaries from both settled and nomadic peoples. The Romans/Byzantines routinely accepted nomadic contingents as mercenaries; the Mongols conscripted Persian and Chinese troops, particularly siege specialists. Light horse is great in many ways, but settled peoples long ago worked out how to hamper them with a series of fortifications - if they worked alone, that often reduced their raiding to nuisance levels. Such measures did not work against the Mongols at their height.
Not to mention the speed at which successful nomadic war leaders simply *became* settled ...
Yeah I agree Malthus - you see that dynamic playing out back and forth between settled farmers in China and their nomad neighbours time and time again, in both directions. Not to mention the groupings that were semi-nomadic for long periods of time.
I'm less familiar with the interactions on the Western edge of the Steppes but I expect it's broadly similar.
What a fun discussion!
Quote from: celedhring on January 27, 2021, 05:33:24 AM
Ah, Joe Lara, "famous" in Spain for starring in the Epic Adventures of Tarzan.
American Cyborg riped off Terminator and somehow also Children of Men avant-le-lettre.
Joe Lara died yesterday in a plane crash. :(
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/diet-guru-gwen-lara-husband-actor-joe-lara-among-seven-n1269111 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/diet-guru-gwen-lara-husband-actor-joe-lara-among-seven-n1269111)
RIP
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2021, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 24, 2021, 12:34:34 PM
Grumbler, the blog in question is saying that the Fremen mirage is wrong though. His argument is that it is largely a myth. Am I missing something from your critique?
My critique is that the Fremen Mirage is a strawman. It's a plot device in a scifi book, not something actual historians have said or written about.
Plenty of pop-historians, pop-psychologists, and right wing internet nutters who are very popular believe in that kind of stuff and it is worth while to push against it. Just because no real historians believe it is besides the point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2021, 11:31:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2021, 10:50:29 PM]Haven't mass migrations come back into fashion with the genetic proof of repeated wholesale population replacement in many areas?
I think we've discussed this - the examples of complete pop replacement usually involve small base populations replaced over very long periods of times. I.e. prehistoric Neolithic peoples occupying Britain over centuries of time and replacing small bands of fisher-gatherers.
I'm talking about things like Caesar's account of the entire population of Helvetica moving en masse across the Massif Central, or the older accounts of "barbarian tribes" moving huge distances in massive numbers through German forests.
Isn't there lots of evidence that Cimbri and the Tuetons migrated en masse down towards Italy?
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2021, 01:07:12 AM
What a fun discussion!
It can't beat the story about the 13 year old Italian princess! Come on!!:P
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2021, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2021, 01:07:12 AM
What a fun discussion!
It can't beat the story about the 13 year old Italian princess! Come on!!:P
Which story is that?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 30, 2021, 09:52:02 PM
Isn't there lots of evidence that Cimbri and the Tuetons migrated en masse down towards Italy?
Anything in particular you are thinking about?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 31, 2021, 09:43:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2021, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2021, 01:07:12 AM
What a fun discussion!
It can't beat the story about the 13 year old Italian princess! Come on!!:P
Which story is that?
This one: (but it was 16, not 13, though)
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16322.msg1309699.html#msg1309699 (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16322.msg1309699.html#msg1309699)
Refering to this part:
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2021, 01:03:43 PM
Wow, that is really uninteresting.
;)
He's started a great series on CK3
https://acoup.blog/2022/09/16/collections-teaching-paradox-crusader-kings-iii-part-i-making-it-personal/
https://acoup.blog/2022/09/23/collections-teaching-paradox-crusader-kings-iii-part-iia-rascally-vassals/
https://acoup.blog/2022/09/30/collections-teaching-paradox-crusader-kings-iii-part-iib-cracks-in-the-house-of-islam/
https://acoup.blog/2022/10/07/collections-teaching-paradox-crusader-kings-iii-part-iii-constructivisting-a-kingdom/
Bret wrote a fantastic series of posts on the workings of the Roman Republic
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Part I: SPQR
https://acoup.blog/2023/07/21/collections-how-to-roman-republic-101-part-i-spqr/
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Part II: Romans, Assemble!
https://acoup.blog/2023/07/27/collections-how-to-roman-republic-101-part-ii-romans-assemble/
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Part IIIa: Starting Down the Path of Honors
https://acoup.blog/2023/08/11/collections-how-to-roman-republic-101-part-iiia-starting-down-the-path-of-honors/
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Part IIIb: Imperium
https://acoup.blog/2023/08/18/collections-how-to-roman-republic-101-part-iiib-imperium/
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Part IIIc: Ten Tribunes, Two Censors and Twenty-Six Guys
https://acoup.blog/2023/08/25/collections-how-to-roman-republic-part-iiic-ten-tribunes-two-censors-and-twenty-six-guys/
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Part IV: The Senate
https://acoup.blog/2023/09/22/collections-how-to-roman-republic-part-iv-the-senate/
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Part V: The Courts
https://acoup.blog/2023/10/06/collections-how-to-roman-republic-part-v-the-courts/
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Addenda: The Socii
https://acoup.blog/2023/10/20/collections-how-to-roman-republic-101-addenda-the-socii/
Collections: How to Roman Republic 101, Addenda: The Provinces
https://acoup.blog/2023/11/03/collections-how-to-roman-republic-101-addenda-the-provinces/
Here's some other good Roman posts.
Collections: How To Raise a Roman Army: The Dilectus
https://acoup.blog/2023/06/16/collections-how-to-raise-a-roman-army-the-dilectus/
Collections: The Marian Reforms Weren't a Thing
https://acoup.blog/2023/06/30/collections-the-marian-reforms-werent-a-thing/
Collections: Roman Infantry Tactics: Why the Pilum and not a Spear?
https://acoup.blog/2023/11/24/collections-roman-infantry-tactics-why-the-pilum-and-not-a-spear/
Bret has begun another cool collection on the twighlight of the Hellenistic way of war and the rise of the manipular legion.
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/26/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ib-subjects-of-the-successors/
More chapters to come
Thanks for reporting it. I love his articles.
Quote from: celedhring on January 28, 2024, 11:11:28 AMThanks for reporting it. I love his articles.
You're welcome. :hug:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 28, 2024, 11:00:57 AMBret has begun another cool collection on the twighlight of the Hellenistic way of war and the rise of the manipular legion.
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ia-heirs-of-alexander/
https://acoup.blog/2024/01/26/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-ib-subjects-of-the-successors/
More chapters to come
The latest updates
https://acoup.blog/2024/02/09/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triumph-part-iia-how-a-legion-fights/
https://acoup.blog/2024/02/16/collections-phalanxs-twilight-legions-triump-part-iib-handfuls-of-maniples/