posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:23 PM
a reply to: CapstonePendulum
Wouldn't the skilled hunter have military dominance over the agricultural?
He would not. Consider history. When has the spread of agricultural society ever been limited for long by nomad resistance?
Agricultural societies have numbers and discipline on their side. They have walled forts and stored supplies. And for them, military defeat means
death and disaster so their soldiers fight like cornered rats.
Hunter-gatherers and nomads have none of these advantages. Warfare is never inevitable for them; they can always withdraw to fight another day, or
simply migrate away from their enemies. Combat is a form of sport and status competition for them. It is rarely inevitable.
Agricultural societies are
occasionally vulnerable to barbarian incursions on a large scale. Examples include the overthrow of the Roman
Empire by the Goths and the conquest of China by the Mongols. But note what happened in each of these cases: the conquerors were assimilated by the
conquered. Alaric the Visigothic leader was more Roman than the Romans, and the Mongol invaders became the Yuan dynasty of China. And we all know what
happened to the Plains Indians of North America.
The farmers always win.