Cthonia vs. Nostramo/Horus vs. Curze

[b1soul]

 they organize raids to other gangs to practice killing. They could've opted for blood duels among themselves or raiding for resources. Instead, they practice killing in order for it never to become strange or hard to perform.

 

There were real human tribes who killed because intertribal warfare was a way of life. Warlike Native American tribes, South East Asian headhunting tribes etc.

 

I think another distinction is that violence on Cthonia probably has a more honest quality. Different tribes (or gangs if you want to call them that) were in open hostility with each other. None of them had to work around/appease a system of law and order. Nostraman violence probably involved a lot of backstabbing, treachery, hypocrisy, deceit...

 

The survival rate on Cthonia may have been lower but Curze may have been more exposed to the ugliest aspects of human nature. A lot of tribal cultures are hyper-violent but have strong concepts of honour and loyalty. Nostraman culture seems to have been a culture of treachery and uninhibited selfishness  

[Greyall]

Agreed, b1soul.

 

I can't make any statement, but I'd like to know how the most warrior-like (not conquerers, necessarily) cultures of our History translated into more complex societies, if they did at all. I have a feeling that honing killer instincts doesn't allow for a smooth transition into civilization's higher echelons.

[b1soul]

Agreed, b1soul.

 

I can't make any statement, but I'd like to know how the most warrior-like (not conquerers, necessarily) cultures of our History translated into more complex societies, if they did at all. I have a feeling that honing killer instincts doesn't allow for a smooth transition into civilization's higher echelons.

 

The headhunter tribes of SE Asia were either colonised/assimilated (thereby losing their original honour-based warrior culture) or were wiped out. I believe a few might still maintain their traditional lifestyles in isolation.

 

These cultures were honour-based, not law-based. A warrior was only respected if he aspired to a ferocious sense of personal honour. He would have to avenge any slight to his manhood with extreme violence. He'd be responsible for protecting his reputation as a man.

 

In contrast, modern civilisation is law-based. You don't cut off someone's head over an insult. You might be able to take him to court for slander. Everyone defers to the legal system.

[jeremy1391]

 

All true but that wouldn't necessarily be worse than life in a ghetto district of 19th century New York City (look up Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall if you're not familiar with how corrupt and :cuss up NYC was back then).

.

 

What do you mean was ;) still is as far as I'm concerned!

[Greyall]

@b1soul: what I meant was if there were current or relatively recent communities/civilizations which are direct descendants of said warrior cultures. I expressed myself badly, muchos sorries.

[Conn Eremon]

I suppose that depends on your definition of recent. Technically most nations have some basis on a warrior culture. Italy was once Rome, Greece has Sparta, both Japan and China have strong warrior traditions. But by our standards many of those influences are gone, crushed under by our own advances. In 40k, that happens at an exceptionally slower state. 10,000 years go by and people on thousands of worlds are stuck in a society we passed through in a couple centuries.

[b1soul]

@b1soul: what I meant was if there were current or relatively recent communities/civilizations which are direct descendants of said warrior cultures. I expressed myself badly, muchos sorries.

 

Pretty sure a lot of historical warrior cultures have modern day genetic descendants.

 

The point I'm making is that these cultures don't have cultural descendants among civilised states. Traditional honour systems are incompatible with civilisation. When I speak of traditional honour systems, I'm not talking about Bushido or knightly chivalry. I'm talking about systems under which every man is free to respond with extreme violence to perceived slights to his manhood.  

[Greyall]

That's the answer I wanted. Thanks =)

[Kol Saresk]

Yep. Chivalry is sexist. How that works out, I'll never know.

[Greyall]

Well, my view is that its 'sexism' comes from the 'Thou shall protect thy ladies from any harm' mandament - which ranks right up there in chivalry code.

 

But how did you infer that from b1soul's comment?