Do warrior cultures that focus on individual fighting such as barbarians lack common sense teamwork?

Griffith

Banned
An interesting post I found online.


http://lustyvenusianjuuza.deviantar...ghter-Warrior-Culture-and-Team-Work-581995798

Although the writer focuses on criminal activities and civilian violence, he does have a point.

I mean if drunkards in a bar are able to work together in such coordination that one angry customer pins you down while his drinking buddies are stomping on you.......

It makes me doubt the notion the cultures emphasizing individual fighting EG barbarian tribes who lost to Roman Legions such as the Celts lacked any notion of team work. I can understand the military cultures like the Romans being far superior in their coordination and team-based tactics.

But after reading the link's statements about lower class civilians able to work together in riots-despite typically being individual brawlers in most fights they participated in and lacking ANY TRAINING what so ever- it makes doubt that warrior cultures fought completely as individuals who only knew how to battles as one-on-one duelists.

If civilians like prisoners, angry farmers in a riot, and even some people drinking at a bar could work together to surround you and hit you from blind angles or stomp you on the ground while you try to pin down one of them in a BJJ style move, I find it ridiculous warriors who have the "individual one-on-one fighter" mentality wouldn't think of something as simple as "my friends take on those Spanish conquistadors in a melee to distract them while I sneak behind them and behead them".

I mean not just many movie but even many history books even describe warrior cultures such as the Mamelukes lacking the common sense to do something as basic as dogphiling a French soldier who was knocked to the ground and stab said French soldier to death.

Which is sounds utter BS to me because guys at bar do such teamwork all the time. Hell even high school jocks (who tend to be egotistic enough to prefer one-on-one fights) can call their friends to surround you should you prove too tough to take on!

So I seriously doubt warriors who fight for a living couldn't think of something as simple as "Mahican throws stones and spears at colonists to distract them while some other Mahican with tomahawks charge in and hack the distracted demoralized colonist with axes".

I have no doubt Warrior Cultures and societies emphasizing individual toughness tend to train more as dueling and other individualist style fighting and military based cultures like the Mongols and Germans are far better organized in their teamwork. But to claim warriors only knew to fight as individuals and lack any sense of teamwork is a slap in the face against human nature because even untrained civilians who never been in a fight before could work together to overwhelm a much tougher opponent using basic "common sense" teamwork tricks like one of my friends rearchokes the person while I beat him up.

When I was young I seen a gang of little kids younger than 10 can easily surround someone they're mad at, tackle him to the ground, and start stomping on him in a coordinated attack. So are you telling me that the Celts lacked any notion of distracting a Roman scout in the woods while other Celtic warriors sneak up on the Roman scouts and behead them? Or that African tribes man were so individualistic that they would literally take turns trying to fight British soldiers one-on-one in a duel (rather than charging all their superior numbers of strong hunters at once in a flanking attack while calling younger African men to throw spears)?

How can historians seriously believe that Japanese airmen who conducted bombing raids did not know something as basic as protect bombers or surround an isolated ship? That Americans have teamwork in their aerial warfare while Japanese didn't?
 
Last edited:
rather than charging all their superior numbers of strong hunters at once in a flanking attack while calling younger African men to throw spears

IIRC the Zulu were quite fond of flanking attacks. Worked well at Isandhlwana where the British were not able to concentrate their fire or get behind defensive palisades, but wasn't quite an effective tactic at Rorke's Drift where the British were behind walls, concentrated in a small space while able to fire outward safely, and on the peak of a hill to boot.

So are you telling me

I ain't telling you shit. Who exactly are you arguing with here? Because I feel there's a debate that turned personal going on somewhere and you're fishing for information to win from this forum :/

Anywho, whoever they are I think you two may be talking past each other. For the pre-modern military conflicts you described, it's not that the Celts or Mahicans or Zulu wouldn't think of using teamwork against their enemies, it's that they did not drill fighting in formation to the same degree and so their teamwork was not as effective or deadly in the scenario of a pitched battle where fighting is expected and their opponents are as well or better armed than them. And in the case of the Mahicans and possibly some of the Celts, they didn't have the numbers to field an army that could match their opponents while using anything but hit and run tactics anyway. In addition, the military of some of the opponents you've described such as the British and Roman was highly specialized and could spend their full time drilling and planning strategies and tactics, fighting opponents who were full time farmers taking up arms to defend their homeland and who had to make choices between fighting until starving or going home to help in the harvest.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
I won't deny cultures emphasizing military rather than warrior castes such as the Roman Legions have far superior teamwork than say a Gaulish horseman or 8th century knight and thus will lose in the end.

is contradictory with

But if rioters and prisoners are able to utilize teamwork despite having an MO of fighting one-on-one, why aren't warrior cultures and hunter tribes able to use teamwork?

I mean is the notion of for example a Celtic Warrior engaging in a melee with a Roman Legionnaire while his fellow friend goes behind and behead the Roman soldier such a foreign idea because of how much Celtic warfare emphasize warrior traditions and individual fighting?

I just find it ridiculous a Mahican wouldn't have the common sense to try to get his buddies to throw stones at a Colonist while said Mahican swings his ax and successfully cracks the skull of several colonists because they were distracted by stones and spears being thrown at them.

In the First Quote he acknowledge that there are varying degree of teamwork, then in Second Quote he use example of 'simple' teamwork to criticize the idea that Discipline, Training, and Cohesion matter in group fighting.

The First Quote is the accurate one. There are various degree of fighting together. Group of rioting untrained people will be crushed easily by Group with Leaders and Formation (peasant fyrd throwing shieldwall or organized vikings raiders). Untrained people, even with leadership and formation would be crushed by 'elite' who had experience fighting together and capable of more sophisticated formation (Vikings huscarl perform boar head formation to break shieldwall). Trained professional military (Roman Legion) would be capable of more serious tactics, breaking army into column that converge in battlefield, feigned retreat, holding one wing while another launch flanking attack, etc. Modern Professional army would be capable of unimaganable complicated tactics, simultaneous bombing from naval vessels, marine amphibious formation, and air support to destroy enemy artillery.

And that only in 'fighting'. Political Organization matter. Powerful Empire who had bureaucracy could easily bribe, encourage infighting, even hire various warrior bands led by chief as mercenary. Disunity could create disaster during confrontation. The one with most stable, long-term thinking organization would defeat multiple bands that had only bound by personal agreement between chief.
 
If civilians like prisoners, angry farmers in a riot, and even some people drinking at a bar could work together to surround you and hit you from blind angles or stomp you on the ground while you try to pin down one of them in a BJJ style move, I find it ridiculous warriors who have the "individual one-on-one fighter" mentality wouldn't think of something as simple as "my friends take on those Spanish conquistadors in a melee to distract them while I sneak behind them and behead them".

I mean not just many movie but even many history books even describe warrior cultures such as the Mamelukes lacking the common sense to do something as basic as dogphiling a French soldier who was knocked to the ground and stab said French soldier to death.

When I was young I seen a gang of little kids younger than 10 can easily surround someone they're mad at, tackle him to the ground, and start stomping on him in a coordinated attack. So are you telling me that the Celts lacked any notion of distracting a Roman scout in the woods while other Celtic warriors sneak up on the Roman scouts and behead them? Or that African tribes man were so individualistic that they would literally take turns trying to fight British soldiers one-on-one in a duel (rather than charging all their superior numbers of strong hunters at once in a flanking attack while calling younger African men to throw spears)?

How can historians seriously believe that Japanese airmen who conducted bombing raids did not know something as basic as protect bombers or surround an isolated ship? That Americans have teamwork in their aerial warfare while Japanese didn't?

I think you're beating up a strawman here. As PhilippeO said, just because a group of fighters have good man to man tactics doesn't mean they can coordinate in a larger fashion. And "one guy distracts from the front, others take off head" won't work because anyone with a brain makes sure they have allies covering their flanks and rear.

Many cultures fought in inefficient ways like focusing on duels to limit the damage-if you just chuck spears at a safe distance, have a few champions duel and then go home, there will be much less carnage than two armies fighting it out in melee. It being an inefficient way to fight is the point-but it can backfire horribly when dealing with an enemy who doesn't play by the rules(like, say the Romans).
 

Griffith

Banned
I am curious though whats often meant by individual fighting in regards to Barbarians?

The popular image as portrayed by many movies and TV documentaries such as Ridley Scott's Gladiator and Doctor Who is that barbarians would try to fight in war one-on-one. I remember this scene from a cheap sci fi movie pretty much is how individual warriors are portrayed:

As in say a Gaul would try to fight a group of Romans expecting to see Romans volunteer to go out alone and take turns dueling until the Roman dies and Barbarian seek next Roman or Barbarian is killed and next Barbarian comes to fight Romans (and as a result they are shown shocked as Romans attack in solid rectangular formations of shield and would go nonstop charging instead of trying to duel one-on-one

(I can't remember the name of the film but I'll link a Youtube clip once I get hands of it).

Even when Barbarians are shown fighting as an army in mass formations, they are shown in most movies, TV shows, and video games fighting in the manner shown at the opening of Gladiator. In which they are shown charging with no concept of "my friend behind me, try doing an overhead spear attack at his weak points while I'm fending him off with my sword".

I mean even after Roman formations broke and the fighting became an disorganized mass blob of one-on-one fighting, the Romans are still shown winning because they are using "common sense teamwork" examples I mentioned in the OP (such as I rearchoke a jock from behind as he's beating my friend up so my friend can recover and counterattack).

Direct example from the film.

Since Alternate History Forum doesn't allow the clip to start automatically at the scene I am referring to, you'll have to manually skip to 5:23 to see the scene I am referring to.

Remember before you watch the clip, before to go to 5 minutes and 23 seconds (because its a 10 minute long clip)!



As the clip shows after one Roman stabs the barbarian, immediately a nearby legionnaire followed up charging and sending another stab attack. One more Roman soldier suddenly rushes from behind, pins down the already dying barbarian and gives an instant killing blow to the back of the Barbarian's neck.


Were the Barbarians the Romans fought so disorganized and individualistic they lack the common sense to even do a simple teamwork-based coordinated attack as seen in the Youtube clip above? I seen pre-school kids do the exact same thing (with fists instead of swords) when someone decides to pick a fight and proves too tough to take on alone as what the Gladiator scenes show the Roman legions were doing against that Barbarian who was killing multiple soldiers. I find that difficult to believe Barbarians could not think of something as simple as that considering they were trained warriors. and even little kids can use that tactic without any training in hand-to-hand or experience in violence.

I mean if drunks can work together to attack you from multiple angles at once and even egotistic jocks will quickly come in to support their fellow player on the football team who's getting a good beating, why can't Celts who have far more experience in war and violence commit such basic (common sense) coordinated attacks?


Also another example from the same link above, move to 5:40 and thats a prime example of "common sense teamwork" I am referring to. Maximus was knocked down and a barbarian was about to chop him with his ax when a fellow Roman horseman passes by and slashes the distracted barbarian (who's too focused on Maximus) from behind.

I mean are these historians seriously telling me that none of the barbarians thought of saving their friends who's about to be killed by doing a sneak attack from behind? I wonder how much of these Roman historians who claim the individual warrior culture thing have any experience in violence let alone been to war? The way they describe the barbarians in combat is so cartoonish that its as though none of them have ever been into a fight in their childhood.

I mean even at 7 years old when I was beating someone who stole my candy, his brother suddenly hit me from behind
much like the cavalry man did in Gladiator when Maximus was knocked down.

But the scenes I pointed out in Gladiator are how movies, many video games, TV shows (HBO's Rome had a similar battle scene with Barbarians), and Roman historians typically portray how barbarians fight as individual warriors (and they also display other warrior cultures such as knights fighting in the same manner; inf act a common shown cliche is knights being defeated by organized soldiers from lower classes because the common folk soldiers used the same tactics the Romans are using in scenes above).
 
Movies and video games are not reality. Stop using them as a basis for knowledge of history. Movie battle scenes are not based on historical accuracy but rather what looks good to the director on-screen and appeal to popular stereotypes. Furthermore I'd argue that the concept of a "warrior culture" is pretty much fiction in that most groups of humans throughout history have prided themselves on their martial prowess even though most people weren't really warriors. Your typical Zulu adult man wasn't likely to be a guy with several kills under his belt, he was a herdsman with some military training. Likewise Romans didn't look down on people skilled at fighting and even gave awards to soldiers for distinguishing themselves in single combat.
 
Romans fighting Celts, British fighting Zulu, World War 2 era air battles, and fights between kids or drunks aren't really analogous situations. Even so, there's a big difference between the random coordination that springs from seeing a friend in peril or an opportunity for a sneak attack, versus being part of a trained unit meant to fight collectively in an ordered manner.
 
I am curious though whats often meant by individual fighting in regards to Barbarians?

The popular image as portrayed by many movies and TV documentaries such as Ridley Scott's Gladiator and Doctor Who is that barbarians would try to fight in war one-on-one. I remember this scene from a cheap sci fi movie pretty much is how individual warriors are portrayed:

As in say a Gaul would try to fight a group of Romans expecting to see Romans volunteer to go out alone and take turns dueling until the Roman dies and Barbarian seek next Roman or Barbarian is killed and next Barbarian comes to fight Romans (and as a result they are shown shocked as Romans attack in solid rectangular formations of shield and would go nonstop charging instead of trying to duel one-on-one

(I can't remember the name of the film but I'll link a Youtube clip once I get hands of it).

Even when Barbarians are shown fighting as an army in mass formations, they are shown in most movies, TV shows, and video games fighting in the manner shown at the opening of Gladiator. In which they are shown charging with no concept of "my friend behind me, try doing an overhead spear attack at his weak points while I'm fending him off with my sword".

I mean even after Roman formations broke and the fighting became an disorganized mass blob of one-on-one fighting, the Romans are still shown winning because they are using "common sense teamwork" examples I mentioned in the OP (such as I rearchoke a jock from behind as he's beating my friend up so my friend can recover and counterattack).

Direct example from the film.

Since Alternate History Forum doesn't allow the clip to start automatically at the scene I am referring to, you'll have to manually skip to 5:23 to see the scene I am referring to.

Remember before you watch the clip, before to go to 5 minutes and 23 seconds (because its a 10 minute long clip)!



As the clip shows after one Roman stabs the barbarian, immediately a nearby legionnaire followed up charging and sending another stab attack. One more Roman soldier suddenly rushes from behind, pins down the already dying barbarian and gives an instant killing blow to the back of the Barbarian's neck.


Were the Barbarians the Romans fought so disorganized and individualistic they lack the common sense to even do a simple teamwork-based coordinated attack as seen in the Youtube clip above? I seen pre-school kids do the exact same thing (with fists instead of swords) when someone decides to pick a fight and proves too tough to take on alone as what the Gladiator scenes show the Roman legions were doing against that Barbarian who was killing multiple soldiers. I find that difficult to believe Barbarians could not think of something as simple as that considering they were trained warriors. and even little kids can use that tactic without any training in hand-to-hand or experience in violence.

I mean if drunks can work together to attack you from multiple angles at once and even egotistic jocks will quickly come in to support their fellow player on the football team who's getting a good beating, why can't Celts who have far more experience in war and violence commit such basic (common sense) coordinated attacks?


Also another example from the same link above, move to 5:40 and thats a prime example of "common sense teamwork" I am referring to. Maximus was knocked down and a barbarian was about to chop him with his ax when a fellow Roman horseman passes by and slashes the distracted barbarian (who's too focused on Maximus) from behind.

I mean are these historians seriously telling me that none of the barbarians thought of saving their friends who's about to be killed by doing a sneak attack from behind? I wonder how much of these Roman historians who claim the individual warrior culture thing have any experience in violence let alone been to war? The way they describe the barbarians in combat is so cartoonish that its as though none of them have ever been into a fight in their childhood.

I mean even at 7 years old when I was beating someone who stole my candy, his brother suddenly hit me from behind
much like the cavalry man did in Gladiator when Maximus was knocked down.

But the scenes I pointed out in Gladiator are how movies, many video games, TV shows (HBO's Rome had a similar battle scene with Barbarians), and Roman historians typically portray how barbarians fight as individual warriors (and they also display other warrior cultures such as knights fighting in the same manner; inf act a common shown cliche is knights being defeated by organized soldiers from lower classes because the common folk soldiers used the same tactics the Romans are using in scenes above).

Your examples of backstabbing the guy attacking your friend are highly unlikely in actual combat, because unless the formation has completely broken down-which normally means someone or other is either currently getting massacred, or will get massacred once the enemy throws in their reserves-everyone's flanks and rear are covered by their teammates. The barbarians couldn't use those tactics, because only one or two people could get at any given legionnaire at a time, and only from the front, so they wouldn't have to worry about such an attack. Neither could the Romans, unless individual barbarian warriors rushed their lines alone or in small groups.

There's also plenty of evidence that the idea of the wild barbarian berserker was a literary trope. For example, Tacitus says that the Germans arranged themselves in wedges(an early version of the Viking boar snout, perhaps?), and considered it to be prudence, not cowardice, to fall back, provided it was to regroup for another attack, not to escape. An experienced and well led warband could be every bit the Romans equal man to man, even if they lacked the Roman's willingness to learn from their mistakes and come back for more after being beaten.

Also, movies, tv and games should be ignored as anything but inspiration when it comes to historical accuracy, and even re-enactment taken with a pinch of salt.
 
Romans fighting Celts, British fighting Zulu, World War 2 era air battles, and fights between kids or drunks aren't really analogous situations. Even so, there's a big difference between the random coordination that springs from seeing a friend in peril or an opportunity for a sneak attack, versus being part of a trained unit meant to fight collectively in an ordered manner.
In addition, all things being equal trained units have better equipment and have been taught what works and what does not.
 
You can have a "warrior ethos" or "military ethos" in an existing culture, but no culture in history has been a "warrior culture". People still need to eat, drink, sleep, earn money or supplies, repair stuff, build some form of housing for themselves. The idea that you can have a properly working society of people who focus on nothing but training fighting skills, fighting itself, and pillaging, is pure fantasy. Not even the most "rawwrrr, pillage !" cultures in history could live off the land like that indefinitely. The occassional attempts of warlords to form entire empires based on nothing but riding and running around and burning everything to the ground have, predictably... failed every single time it's been tried in real history.

Realistically speaking: If you live in a self-proclaimed "warrior culture", chances are you're actually a member of a band of 10 or so bandits, wandering the highways and wilderness and killing off passerbys to earn some edible and bankable loot. A "warrior culture" like that is often very short-lived, for obvious reasons.

"Barbarian cultures" is also a relative term, as is the assertion that they couldn't do teamwork, whether in fighting or in supportive military operations. They could. Otherwise, even in European antiquity, you'd never see any sort of success or sensible fighting by "barbarians", be they Celtic, Germanic, Iberian and other tribes. They often fought together, ambushed enemies, or tried to overrun them, or gradually overwhelm them with multiple units of warriors and soldiers (ones on foot and on horseback). The idea that "barbarians" were brain-dead morons who only ran towards an enemy yelling and swinging weapons around, is bunk.

The issue lies more with the fact that Greek or Roman or Carthaginian armies were armies trained to fight in a formation and think as formation fighters. Even some of their weaponry was designed to encourage this. For example, sarisa-wielding spearmen in a phalanx had shields that only worked well while they were in formation. These shields were rather rubbish if you just tried to leg it away from the battlefield, hoping the stolen shield would protect you on an individual basis, like most shields. Nope. Also, as your main weapon was an overlong spear (some even 5 meters long), would you throw it to the ground and run away or bet on staying with the others in a more defensible formation ? Yeah, those ancient military commanders were crafty. Also, let's look at the typical AD Roman legionaire. He has his javelins, of course, but he relies on his short sword and his scutum. That sword isn't the sort you want to use for running into a crowd and swinging about, hoping you'll magically hit someone with it. No. But it's perfect for peering its blade from behind your tall, slightly curved shield. A shield that protects you rather comprehensively (similar to a modern day riot shield, really). Now multiply that by tens of other, equally armed guys, all of them trained to fight in formation just like you. Your merry formation creates a simple shield wall (yes, shield wall, not tortoise, that's a movement formation), and if some barbarians come running at you, they're going to be facing your tall, sturdy shield... and the blade of the gladius sticking from the small gap between the shields. Now multiply that one example tens of times and you get the idea. You and your fellow fighters are basically a living wall of wooden plates with short but sharp blades. And you can move in unison, if you've all trained well enough. Now imagine a group of hardy "barbarian" fighters attacking your formation. Not just any warriors, though. These are smart and disciplined too. They are not behaving like gloryhounds, they are attacking as sensibly and skillfully as possible, as a group doing true team-work. Despite all that, they still face massive issues breaking through your Roman shield wall ! And you guys, unless you're overwhelmed, you can walk forward. And forward. And push, and stab lightly forward, and push the enemy back like some sort of weird human-powered broom-of-war. Now, concerning cultures favouring formation fighting, formations weren't everything, of course. For specialised fighting, these cultures had specialised, often less rigidly formation-focused units, or irregular/skirmish units. In antiquity, a lot of these specialists were foreign mercenaries, though the Romans also had some semi-professional auxilliaries of their own too. Weapon-wise, think spearmen, archers, slingers, various cavalry. And even siege engineers and other support staff. That sort of thing.

This is actually quite similar to the early standing armies of Europe, especially the line infantry of the 18th and 19th century. Strenghth lay in the overall coordination and firepower of a formation, and to achieve that, tens or hundreds of soldiers in a formation had to fight side-by-side, as a "single organism". (Each of them being a figurative organ crucial to the success of said organism.) Before that, you had pike-and-shot formations in the 16th and 17th century, which had a slightly more complicated mutual interplay between melee-focused pikemen (primarily for defence and slow-moving offence) and shooting-focused gunners (arquebusiers, pre-bayonet musketeers, etc.). And for skirmishing, there were... well, skirmirsh units, irregular units. Ambush units. The modern concept of the military sniper actually solidified during the 18th century and the Napoleonic wars, when many irregular infantrymen were trained as sharshooters, for clandestine, hit-and-run, weakening of the enemy (from places where line infantry couldn't get to and wouldn't be effective from).
 
Last edited:
Movies and video games are not reality. Stop using them as a basis for knowledge of history. Movie battle scenes are not based on historical accuracy but rather what looks good to the director on-screen and appeal to popular stereotypes. Furthermore I'd argue that the concept of a "warrior culture" is pretty much fiction in that most groups of humans throughout history have prided themselves on their martial prowess even though most people weren't really warriors. Your typical Zulu adult man wasn't likely to be a guy with several kills under his belt, he was a herdsman with some military training. Likewise Romans didn't look down on people skilled at fighting and even gave awards to soldiers for distinguishing themselves in single combat.
I mean, there is a distinction in types of warfare and how much the men are expected to participate in battle. For example Native American tribes like the Sioux or Comanche, or the various steppe peoples where practically all men were expected to be warriors, even if they participated in mostly just low-level raiding. That's necessarily going to be different from a culture where only a specific class of people are fighters, or soldiery is a paid profession.
 
"Broom of war" would by itself have made this post totally worth reading but well done points :)

Thank you.

On a side note, this is why the Ironborn from ASOIAF piss me off to no end: A culture that, even in the books, is apparently stable, despite teaching everyone that you shouldn't do any physical work and the slaves should do that for you, while you go raiding. Just the sheer amount of captured thralls and serfs needed to do the everyday work on the Iron Islands would be staggering. They'd also quickly outnumber the Ironborn, and basically take over (if not violently, then bit by bit, expanding their influence). And it isn't exactly good having a population that mostly consists of a caste of people the "ethnic elite" holds in contempt. A recipe for disaster/revolution.

See, kids ? This is why even "realistic" fantasy worlds need to have some thought and logic put into them. It's not just about the grim-n'-gritty factor.
 
Last edited:
This is why even "realistic" fantasy worlds need to have some thought and logic put into them.

b-b-but it's just a fantasy setting it isn't real!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

(Seriously though I completely agree with you that you need some level of real world concepts and ideas in fantasy).
 
Thank you.

On a side note, this is why the Ironborn from ASOIAF piss me off to no end: A culture that, even in the books, is apparently stable, despite teaching everyone that you shouldn't do any physical work and the slaves should do that for you, while you go raiding. Just the sheer amount of captured thralls and serfs needed to do the everyday work on the Iron Islands would be staggering. They'd also quickly outnumber the Ironborn, and basically take over (if not violently, then bit by bit, expanding their influence). And it isn't exactly good having a population that mostly consists of a caste of people the "ethnic elite" holds in contempt. A recipe for disaster/revolution.

See, kids ? This is why even "realistic" fantasy worlds need to have some thought and logic put into them. It's not just about the grim-n'-gritty factor.


Well the thing keeping the revolutionary spirit of slaves at bay is the mortality rate of slaves in societies where a major slave trade was present.
 
Thank you.

On a side note, this is why the Ironborn from ASOIAF piss me off to no end: A culture that, even in the books, is apparently stable, despite teaching everyone that you shouldn't do any physical work and the slaves should do that for you, while you go raiding. Just the sheer amount of captured thralls and serfs needed to do the everyday work on the Iron Islands would be staggering. They'd also quickly outnumber the Ironborn, and basically take over (if not violently, then bit by bit, expanding their influence). And it isn't exactly good having a population that mostly consists of a caste of people the "ethnic elite" holds in contempt. A recipe for disaster/revolution.

See, kids ? This is why even "realistic" fantasy worlds need to have some thought and logic put into them. It's not just about the grim-n'-gritty factor.
It works better (though not by numbers) if you cast the Ironborn as the nobility & fishermen of the islands, and the thralls and slaves as the peasants. Sure, you shouldn't be able to do anything useful if your entire army is only nobility and retainers without a peasant levy to back it up, but the fishermen can help make it a (temporary) decent naval raiding force.
 
Okay, fair points. But let's not turn this into an ASOIAF thread, this isn't the right forum.

That's necessarily going to be different from a culture where only a specific class of people are fighters, or soldiery is a paid profession.

True, but that's partly down to these particular tribes usually consisting of communities which were at most in their tens. They are also mostly nomadic cultures, so the prerequisite of potentially every man being a warrior is actually sensible. It would be another thing entirely if they were a sedentary culture with numbers in the thousands. That's where a focus on warrior skills for all wouldn't make much sense.
 
Last edited:
Top