I think you had me beat!
>I think what is being missed in this is that societies don't evolve
>through entirely rational military paths. There are any number of
>responses or evolutions that a culture makes that don't make much sense
>when viewed from a purely military (or economic, or social - depending on
>which angle you look at things) angle, but might be perfectly
>understandable when viewed from another perspective. There are countless
>examples where, even when faced by a long-term threat, a society did not
>develope the most "rational" _military_ response. This might be for
>example an inherant conservatism in the culture, religious reasons,
>economics, the desire for the elites not to have anything erode their
>powerbase, etc. All of these are exacerbated in Glorantha where not
>behaving like your ancestors, for example, has real and tangible
>effects!
I agree with this summation of the often illogical things people and cultures do. The world is not full of Spocks and as such exhibits odd behaviour on many occasions. My view is that military evolution is what would happen if all things were in place. Naturally this never happens so the evolution is often skewed and sometimes _devolution_! There are too many variables to be smug about it.
>The danger, therefore, of looking at responses to a particular pressure
>from only a military (or social, or economic) perspective is that you
>potentially miss a great deal of other reactions and responses.
Yes, there are awlays other factors. Conversely, I've met many a sociologist, historian, economist etc who has consistently underplayed the value of military evolution. Niall Fergusons recent book on WW1 - "The Pity of War" was a classic example of a non-militarist writing about a very military subject and missing vital info out in his conclusions. Anyway, mea culpa, I do this, but so do you Dave! We all do :)
>I think that, particularly in Glorantha, one must take a more holistic
>view or cultural evolution.
I think that we can take all of those things into account, and I try to do so. Believe it or not, before I worked out Imperial manpower requirements I had to sketch out the basic economic model of the Empire to determine pay scales and sources of revenue. I also take into account the problems of a culture beset by long spells of peace in its military evolution, like the Lunar Empire.
>The Arrolians, for example, seem to have a tendancy toards pacifism,
>inclusiveness and "equality" that would tend to inhibit the growth of a
>stratified society and a military/feudal elite. In particular they reject
>the lunar empire model - highly stratified, militarised and expansive.
The Lunars are mostly unstratified, very lightly militarised and expansive only in a marginal way.
>Zoria, in particular, is not going to react to the threat of raiders in
>a classical military fashion or they wouldn't be Zoria anymore...
True, I can't begin to imagine the composition of their field regiments. The Whips and Chains regiment is probably pretty nasty.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail