This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
One could argue that absolute monarchy-theocracy was also historically a “proxy for war”, precisely because the masses lacked the capacity to commit large-scale violence at the time.
The ownership of weapons and the skill of warfighting was restricted to a warrior-elite class, so a simple count of ballots from the masses would be useless as a measure for each side’s strength. Instead, war was avoided (sometimes) by each member of the warrior-elite taking whatever territory he could hold by himself, through force of arms or cunning diplomacy. The franchise didn’t have to exist as a proxy conflict to prevent a war of all against all, because hardly any were capable of waging it. Instead, the elite wrangled amongst themselves to signal their strength and deter invaders—often unsuccessfully, in which case, vae victis.
This system became unsustainable once fielding giant armies of commoners via peasant levies became the norm. Suddenly, the capacity for waging war was proportional to the number of men one could conscript. Thus was the power of the old warrior-elite undone, and thus did democracy become war by other means.
Or so some people say.
I am no expert in this period but that is my understanding as well. The stereotypical Middle Ages nobility with its kings, lords, and knights basically grew out of various warlord-led tribes that roamed around Europe fighting each other during and after the collapse of the Roman Empire. I do not know how much actual genetic descent the average noble of, say, 1200 AD, would have had from a successful warrior of 600 AD, but in any case it was the same sort of principle across the connecting centuries. Feudalism was partly based on the fact that almost no number of peasants could realistically consistently defeat a even a small army of nobles and their retinue. Partly this was caused by the limited military technology of the time and how expensive it was to obtain the good stuff. Partly it was caused by the fact that the nobles and their retinues could spend a lot of their time practicing war-related skills.
Despite ostensible connections of blood, culture, and religion between noble and peasant, if push came to shove the reality was that each group of nobles was basically a warlord gang camped in the middle of and exploiting a certain territory filled with productive peasants. Like Sparta, but probably a bit less brutal I would imagine. Of course it was not all fun and games for the lords. Much as during certain periods in ancient Greece and Rome, the flip side of the benefits that the nobles had was that the very core essence of their lives underneath everything else was that potentially, at any moment, they would need to go risk those lives fighting either against other bands of nobles or against a peasant rebellion. In that they were significantly different from modern elites, who virtually never have to personally risk battle.
The fact that modern elites can convince large groups of commoners to fight on their behalf probably would not have shocked a feudal lord. Similar things sometimes happened back then, too. But the fact that modern elites can do it without ever risking battle themselves may have been a bit surprising to feudal lords, even if it probably would not have been surprising to some of the Roman Empire's leaders (though far from all, since a very large number of Roman Emperors personally commanded armies).
Roman law didn't allow anyone to run for any political office without spending ten years in the army, which in practice would mean actually seeing combat. And even after that, the higher offices were generally considered successful when they involved winning battles; consuls and praetors seemed to see their roles as elected generals even if there's other responsibilities.
By the imperial period the principle of 'legitimacy comes from controlling the troops' was well established; that's how the republic ended. Roman emperors who didn't personally command troops had short reigns and lives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link