Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight • Hacker News Board

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#11

Post by usrnm » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:23 AM UTC

RobotToaster wrote: post #7

Morromist wrote: post #4

One of my favorite dynamics: Warrior class that really kicks butt, takes control over the state and then slowly becomes obsolete but is so embedded in the social structure that it just sticks around sucking up vast resources for hundreds of years. I've read the Ottoman Empire had this happen with the Janissaries, but there are lots of other instances of the military becoming a colossal useless but dangerous parasite,…

Sparta, their entire civilization basically atrophied because of it.

Sparta was built on slavery, their obsession with war was necessary to keep their slaves in check and deal with constant uprisings, it was very practical for their way of life.

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#12

Post by SJC_Hacker » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:25 AM UTC

paradoxyl wrote: post #5

I'm sorry, this is just sententious bloviation. The sources are so thin, there's no reason to go around imputing all these fantastical ideas that somehow benefit your own beliefs. It's just boring and insipid to watch people fall into this trap over and over.

Agreed, the article contained a lot of speculation and not many historical examples. It was more about what the author thought “made sense” than what reality was.

It was also quite long winded. Probably could have been summarized to maybe 3 reasons. Oddly enough I don’t see “money” mentioned, at least not simply, and that should probably be reason #1

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#13

Post by altmanaltman » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:28 AM UTC

RobotToaster wrote: post #7

Morromist wrote: post #4

One of my favorite dynamics: Warrior class that really kicks butt, takes control over the state and then slowly becomes obsolete but is so embedded in the social structure that it just sticks around sucking up vast resources for hundreds of years. I've read the Ottoman Empire had this happen with the Janissaries, but there are lots of other instances of the military becoming a colossal useless but dangerous parasite,…

Sparta, their entire civilization basically atrophied because of it.

Its also because they built it entirely on slaves and refused citizenship to most. 300 was an entertaining movie but it left out the slavery that was central to Sparta.

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#14

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:41 AM UTC

jsomedon wrote: post #10

Morromist wrote: post #4

One of my favorite dynamics: Warrior class that really kicks butt, takes control over the state and then slowly becomes obsolete but is so embedded in the social structure that it just sticks around sucking up vast resources for hundreds of years. I've read the Ottoman Empire had this happen with the Janissaries, but there are lots of other instances of the military becoming a colossal useless but dangerous parasite,…

IIRC, the samurai class after Meiji reform period kinda fall into this category, they eventually emerge into Yakuza.

I think Tokugawa-era samurai fits the description better. The Meiji era saw the samurai stripped of most of their stipends and privileges, and with little left but their pride they had to go find respectable jobs.

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#15

Post by throwiudjd » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:47 AM UTC

Morromist wrote: post #4

One of my favorite dynamics: Warrior class that really kicks butt, takes control over the state and then slowly becomes obsolete but is so embedded in the social structure that it just sticks around sucking up vast resources for hundreds of years. I've read the Ottoman Empire had this happen with the Janissaries, but there are lots of other instances of the military becoming a colossal useless but dangerous parasite,…

Sounds like current US. Military industrial complex just starts wars randomly, and does not bother with approval from senate.

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#16

Post by throwiudjd » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:48 AM UTC

RobotToaster wrote: post #7

Morromist wrote: post #4

One of my favorite dynamics: Warrior class that really kicks butt, takes control over the state and then slowly becomes obsolete but is so embedded in the social structure that it just sticks around sucking up vast resources for hundreds of years. I've read the Ottoman Empire had this happen with the Janissaries, but there are lots of other instances of the military becoming a colossal useless but dangerous parasite,…

Sparta, their entire civilization basically atrophied because of it.

No, it was because of the low fertility rate. Most powerful class in Sparta were rich widows, even kings had to borrow money from them.

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#17

Post by gspetr » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 8:04 AM UTC

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #12

paradoxyl wrote: post #5

I'm sorry, this is just sententious bloviation. The sources are so thin, there's no reason to go around imputing all these fantastical ideas that somehow benefit your own beliefs. It's just boring and insipid to watch people fall into this trap over and over.

Agreed, the article contained a lot of speculation and not many historical examples. It was more about what the author thought “made sense” than what reality was. It was also quite long winded. Probably could have been summarized to maybe 3 reasons. Oddly enough I don’t see “money” mentioned, at least not simply, and that should probably be reason #1

You're right about reason #1. And you've probably heard about strong contenders for #2 and #3.

There's a famous quote attributed to the Italian military commander Gian Giacomo Trivulzio in 1499.

When asked by King Louis XII of France what preparations were needed to invade the Duchy of Milan, Trivulzio responded: "To carry out war, three things are necessary: money, money, and yet more money."

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#18

Post by jitl » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 8:22 AM UTC

RobotToaster wrote: post #6

jhbadger wrote: post #3

"it is very hard to square the circle whereby coexisting in alliance with the Klingon Empire as we see it is the right and moral thing for the Federation to do." You have to understand that the Klingons in TOS were a metaphor for the Soviets/Russians and TNG was reflecting the 1980s/1990s hope that democracy was taking root there and by working with them they would be Westernized.

It's also stated in enterprise that Klingons do have other castes, the warrior caste is just the most dominant. (Although the caste system doesn't seem strictly hereditary)

is it really that far fetched that instead of bikes, football, and basketball, klingon society decided to give all their kids batleths, so everyone grows up really into it?

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#19

Post by jameshart » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 8:33 AM UTC

paradoxyl wrote: post #5

I'm sorry, this is just sententious bloviation. The sources are so thin, there's no reason to go around imputing all these fantastical ideas that somehow benefit your own beliefs. It's just boring and insipid to watch people fall into this trap over and over.

This is a blog post (not a paper) written for a general audience by an academic summarizing content he has gone into greater detail on in his other blog posts which generally have more links to further reading - and this one also opens with suggestions of three or four books that provide a deeper overview of the topics it goes into.

It also doesn’t pretend to be anything other than the author’s opinion about how fantasy world builders might better incorporate real world historical analogues into their stories for greater verisimilitude – and, yes, to further Bret Devereux’s explicit agenda which is to counteract what he sees as historical misinformation perpetuated by fantasy authors adopting a sheen of ‘based in realistic history’ while actually doing a disservice to ancient and modern people and their histories.

Re: Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part I: Why They Fight

#20

Post by jameshart » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 8:37 AM UTC

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #12

paradoxyl wrote: post #5

I'm sorry, this is just sententious bloviation. The sources are so thin, there's no reason to go around imputing all these fantastical ideas that somehow benefit your own beliefs. It's just boring and insipid to watch people fall into this trap over and over.

Agreed, the article contained a lot of speculation and not many historical examples. It was more about what the author thought “made sense” than what reality was. It was also quite long winded. Probably could have been summarized to maybe 3 reasons. Oddly enough I don’t see “money” mentioned, at least not simply, and that should probably be reason #1

I guess it’s so long-winded you never made it to the four paragraph section, about 20 paragraphs and two subheadings in, about economic motivations for recruitment?

> The first place most modern folks’ mind goes, of course, is to pattern this task off of their own jobs and so to assume that these fellows are under arms because they are paid to be, which I am going to term the employment principle.