>You're missing the point! People or cultures are _not_ doing illogical
>things.
We were arguing about the military perspective, given that, to _not_ adapt to your military needs of survival in a rational manner because of other factors is illogical. Militarily. It might well be perfectly sensible otherwise.
>They are using a calculus different from one that only looks at
>the most immediate threat (for example). It is precisely this "logic"
>that is meant when, for example, Loskalm will lose to the Kingdom of War
>if it defeats them militarily if they do so by becoming what they most
>despise. Sometimes a "devolution" (sic - whatever the hell that might
>be?) is a winning strategy. It all depends on the bigger picture.
Yes it does. I agree. Saying that, the options one has in fighting the KoW is to either win, or be dead. Given that choice, I think any sane society would chose to survive, rather than die, even at a terrible social cost. Our heirarchy of needs places survival first, or at least it does to most people. Some people place other factors first, such as religion etc but that is not the rule.
>Yep, there are always wierd analyses of history based on particular points
>of view. This is always the problem when you only look at one aspect of a
>culture. For example if you look at the Rathori without taking into
>account that they are by (religious=magical) nature very conservative.
>If they change that very much, they cease to be Rathori.
Yes, and this happens. The Orlanthi were once shamanistic millenia ago and then history happened and now they are theists! This will likely happen to the Rathori too. However, the change is gradual and insidious and I think that even conservative cultures change under the pressures of the outside world. They'd still call themselves Rathori, even if they weren't the same as their grandfathers.
>In addition -
>and I have less experience of the american continental wildlife than that
>of africa, but I do have a substantial amount - I do believe that bears
>are by nature a fairly solitary bunch (I can quote the density figures for
>brown and black bears if you really want) I doubt that the Rathori are
>that prone to large gatherings! And if they do not do so socially, I find
>even less reason they should do so militarily. This is what I mean by
>significant barriers to a "rational" (sic) military response.
I think that they are bear people, it doesn't mean that they are bears. If we followed that logic, then their raids would be a couple of guys wandering into Arrolia to root through the garbage and molest a couple of camp sites and could be scared away by some pots and pans clashing in the wind on the terrace...They are people who use the bear spirits. RW totemic people do not act exaclty like their animal totems, they still think and act like humans on the whole. Humans are a gregarious race and I think that comes first. Those Rathori who were more bear than human would be less social yes, but they would be rare and talked of in awed tones.
> 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.
>Yes, but, for example, if the Arrolians have a basic distrust of the
>military similar to that of a culture that has been subjected to a forced
>draft for an unjust/unworthy war for a length of time then they will be
>less likely to be happy to jump at a military option to things.
They have no one else to turn to. They have to defend themselves. There is no govt other than them to do it. I think that most peacful people will resort to war if they are presented no alternative. The only alternative the Arrolians have is to fight to stop raids or pay tribute, either way they are at war.
>I do belive that you have worked out the military logistics of the empire
>in painstaking detail. I also believe that the phrase "the problems of a
>culture beset by long spells of peace in its military evolution" is fairly
>frightening. A culture _beset_by_long_spells_of_peace_? Lieber Gott!
>Um, isn't this when cultures make their most significant (non-military)
>advances? Forgive me if this particular phraseolgy doen't make me feel
>all that much better.
It is also the time when all cultures beset by peace weaken their defences and strategic capability to such a degree that they are inevitably caught short when the next inevitable war comes along. The peace dividend is just peachy as long as everyone likes it. Unfortunately history has proved time and again that not everyone buys it, some simply see it as an opportunity. If you like I could quote you a book worth of examples of military unpreparedness because everyone thought there would be no more war (after all who would get involved in such an insane thing? they reason).
Besides, in many ways wars are when a culture makes its strongest advances. Did Lenin not say that war is the engine of state?
> >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.
>And the Arrolians even less so. So why are you so insitant that they
>would have devloped a highly developed response system and military elite
>in such a short time in response to sporadic rathori raiding?
Highly responsibe? Military elite? I would hardly call the ability to have a warning system (a guy standing on a hill with a horn) and the capability of going to the aid of ones neighbours, something even primitive socieites can manage, to be highly developed. Its simply common sense stuff
I suppose the Arrolians you imagine simply stand around gawking while they are being looted. Look suprised while their women get raped and their kids carted off to thralldom and while the Rathori raiders kill them. I suppose when one of them suggests taking up arms to defeat the raiders, he is shouted down on the grounds that such unprovoked violence on the raiders would merely encourage more and they shoudl be left alone to do their thing because, after all, we must look at them from a relativistic point of view and realise that they are people too.
Bollocks. I've gamed with you Dave, I know fine well you'd be the first to be cutting their balls off with a big spear. So tell me, how do you think they Arrolians cope with the raids? What do they do? I know how I see it but I'm damned if I can get the details of it from you or the others who think they simple turn the other cheek.
>The cults for SGU:
>No more detail on Sedenya or Rufelza than in the Hero Wars book? Isn't
>this pretty much the basis of the lunar way? Maybe I'm missing
>something. I understand the importance of getting as wide as
>representaion as possible, but one has to have the basics, doesn't one?
There will be more on the philosophy yes, and perhaps more details of both cults, Rufelza especially.
>Maybe I'm being to picky, but it is better to worry now that when it might
>be too late!
Sure, pick away.
Martin Laurie
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #541
Powered by hypermail