[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.42145046 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Is it possible for a warrior race to exist in a modern tech-based world?

>> No.42145068


>> No.42145093

Well firstly, they're only a few tribes and not a race or a large enough ethnicity. And secondly the last time they've been deployed en masse is during WW2.

So do they still fit within the modern definitions of a warrior race?

>> No.42145095

Gurkhas are not a "race", they're a group of Nepali. The concept of warrior or "martial" races is colonialist garbage, the kind of romanticist fantasy that idealized empire and the funny colored people who died for it.


>> No.42145097

dude, in a weird sense modern america, though many of us don't like to admit it. It's in our everyday mythology. Most of our popular movies (not like critically acclaimed but generally popular) center around the idea of a great warrior fighting some shit. In many less liberal places you are expected to thank a soldier whenever you see one, give them your airplane seat, buy them shit for no reason other than the fact that they are the warrior class. huge swaths of the country teach gun use at a very young age. just make an even more extreme version of that (Izrael).

>> No.42145104


>> No.42145108

>implying implications

>> No.42145125


>a race


>a race

>> No.42145145

>martial races

>all Indians

>no Spartans

>no Mongols

>no Japanese

>no Turkics

>no Arabs


>> No.42145150

>Well firstly, they're only a few tribes and not a race or a large enough ethnicity. And secondly the last time they've been deployed en masse is during WW2.
True, but you could still argue that they still have a strong martial tradition which you could characterize within the context of a "warrior race" which see here >>42145095 explains that the very idea of a group of people being natural warriors and nothing else is a product of post colonial romanticism.
>So do they still fit within the modern definitions of a warrior race?
They're as close as you're going to get to that sort of thing.

>> No.42145199

I guess they can, but a warrior race probably needs a lot of wars to qualify for the title, and that's not gonna be good for the economy in the long run, even if they manage to stay internally civil. So apart form all the shouting and fireworks, their spot on the map will probably be an underdeveloped backwater of little overall importance. Israel at best. And if they end up having to fight each other instead then the place will quickly turn into Afghanistan.

Now this kinda assumes a largely "slow burn" conflict. You could go for boing ones instead, but neither world war lasted all that long, and start too many of those and the rest of the world might get fed up with your shit. Germany was chopped and ended up as the first line of defence for both sides after starting one and a half, imagine where five or six ones might take you. And of course, too big a conflict nowadays and it'll all get nuked back to a pre-modern low-tech world.

>> No.42145200

I guess i wasn't clear enough. America is a culture at best, what i meant to say is extrapolate this onto a race. anyone who actually wanted to converse instead of shitpost and be contrarian would have understood that.

>> No.42145201

America also gave birth to the hippie movement...

>> No.42145203

>Martial race was a designation created by Army officials of British India after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, where they classified each caste into one of two categories, 'martial' and 'non-martial'.

How about you read the fucking article next time

>> No.42145220


The clans of battletech

>> No.42145225

Culture begets counter culture, if we spawned a counterculture whose main tenets are peace and love it says something about the mainstream they oppose. Just say that in this made up society the counterculture was more or less put down so they are more secretive and subtle. more of a hippie cult than a country wide movement that went mainstream.

>> No.42145244

Or they could demand tribute from neighbors in exchange for protection as a economic supplement

>> No.42145246

A strong martial tradition is born out of need for one. The Spartans needed a warrior class because they lived in the hills and where regularly beset upon by rivaling Greek city states and pirates. The Turks needed the Jannisarries because they were surrounded by enemies and were conquerors in totally foreign lands. The Sikhs had a strong martial tradition because it was the only empire of its kind surrounded by much bigger does that wanted them dead.

The idea that a race can be defined within the context of being "warriors" for no reason other than cultural is a falsehood often perpetuated in history classes.

>> No.42145286

Fine. Rural whites. The American military is more-or-less evenly composed from all ethnic & economic groups (to be fair, it's also richer and more educated than the American average) but the parts of the military that specifically do fighting like infantry or fighter jets, instead of cooks or radio network operators, are overwhelmingly middle to upper middle class rural Caucasians.

>> No.42145304

In a tech based world? Absolutely. In a modern world? Not so much

>> No.42145309

alternatively just create a race who meets these criteria. A formerly enslaved race, or a race whose homeland is also inhabited by another race which had some advantage over them (number, size, whatever) and seeks to destroy them. This warrior race could have spent thousands of years fighting for independence, or domination over their previously superior neighbors. I think that would create a warrior culture, now just give them a fetish for the past, make them traditionalists, or just some reason not to change their culture and now you have a basic framework of a perpetual warrior race.

>> No.42145319

Not unless multiculturalism and liberals are out of the picture.

>> No.42145341

/pol/ please
There's nothing stopping a multicultural empire from becoming martial based. Hell, I think it would be more likely if it was multicultural for it to have a strong military.

>> No.42145375

Diversity + proximity = conflict.

While making any given social group or fighting unit diverse instead of homogeneous decreases trust, coordination, and morale; a diverse empire is likely to have many opportunities for conflict.

>> No.42145432

I don't think the average German really embodied any warrior race or ubermensch ideals at all

The French are ironically more militarily-cultured than the Germans

>> No.42145533

Rome remained both incredibly cosmopolitan and incredibly Martial, partially because it was composed of a large number of different peoples with a love of hitting things really hard and because hitting things really hard was a great path to citizenship and land. There was a cultural incentive to it. When that incentive was eroded by universal citizenship and the need to recruit from outside of the culture in order to make up for population issues, they started to have problems and got bullied by everyone else. The Provinces were very, very far from homogeneous with the rest of the Empire contrary to popular culture.

>> No.42145585

Not a race, but a culture. I've heard it argued that modern groups like the Kurds, Maoris, Anglo Australians, West and Southern Russians, Slavs, Central Americans and West Africans all fit the bill, as they tend to recognise that war and violence are unavoidable, so incorporate it into their cultures as a sort of necessary evil that it's best to practice at, rather than suppress.

I hesitate to call the US a "warrior race", due to the public's long history of despising international action.

>> No.42145613

Sikhs and Gurkhas.

>> No.42145632

While neither are a race, both modern America and ISIS fit, somewhat.

Although the majority of Americans are by no means violent people, their government has a reputation for getting involved in things that it probably shouldn't.

>> No.42145692

I think the idea of a warrior people producing a sort of 'hippie' movement makes a lot of sense as far as worldbuilding goes.
There will always be people who don't fit in with social norms, and having them form their own subcultures is very likely to happen.
As much as the "peaceful orc" trope has been overplayed, I'm going to add a group of them in my otherwise extremely war-like orc culture. They protest the constant BLOOD AND THUNDER and ZUG-ZUG nectar they're just so damn tired of people getting hacked to bits. Sometimes relaxing by the ocean is just as nice as cracking a man-thing's skull open.

>> No.42145710


>Americans are by no means violent people

have you read news? ever?

>> No.42145730


sorry that comment cafe off as too snarky, what i meant to say was yes, most americans aren't violent, but rates of violence are on average much much higher, which is worth noting

>> No.42145799

You need to define warrior race first.

Is the entire race geared for and trained for war? Then no, probably not. Technology and manufacturing power trumps individual skill in modern settings and the race that's too busy being awesome at wooo fiiightiiiing won't really be a threat to the "races" that have the best engineers and the most people.

Being an awesome spartan stops being meaningful when war is fought with bombs and tanks, not counting the Halo variety, and those exist thanks to tech, not thanks to hoo-raa warrior culture.

>> No.42145835


You know very well what the OP was talking about. Stop trying to shove your degree in Colonial India down everyone's throat.

>> No.42145853

>Dat apology
You're a good guy, anon. I like you.

What I meant was that the majority of Americans aren't actively trying to wage war. I guess.

What are we using as the definition of a "warrior race"?
I don't think there are any solely violent "races" anymore. Large groups might be easier.

>> No.42145858

we are talking about warriros
not terrorists

>> No.42145894

what do you define as a "warrior race"

if all that is necessary is for a culture to be highly militarised and have a generally martial outlook on life then sure, why not

>> No.42145977

I would of thought it would be possibly for any race to become the warrior race if circumstances conspired against them. If they are forced in to a conflict in which they are not overwhelmed completely but at a serious enough disadvantage to change their life to turn the tables, then yes, they can be a warrior race within a few generations.

The Brits during WW2, during the blitz (the Nazi bombing) all healthcare professionals, Generals believed that continued bombing would ruin a population through mental torture, that shell shock cases would skyrocket. Society would break down. Lawlessness would reign. It did not. That potential could of easily been tapped in to a Spartan-esque agoge.

Instead they did not they remained average despite major cities being bombed nightly. It was reffered to as weather "It was a bit blitz last night, wasn't it?

>> No.42146092


good point, piggy backing of that idea that most people think war is bad (or at the very least unpleasant), I wonder how important it is for the health and perpetuation of a warrior culture to remove the "realities" of war from the public eye. I think that would put a cool spin on it where once the need for war is over as a means of survival, the people only still support war because they are never shown what war actually means. To them it's all glory and honor, like colonial england i guess.

>> No.42146136


>> No.42146221

I like your multiculturalism where people are not part of the system.

>Secretly everyone is out to get everyone and don't give a fuck about the country

>no born out of the country but raised in another feels duty toward institutions

>No poor immigrants who cross the borders does it because he thinks it will be a better life

>Not one minority struggles to improve the life of people around him.

>Tell are just bidding their time to destroy everything form inside

>> No.42146239







>> No.42146249

They are paid for, trained by, protected by and aided by the US, they are historically a victim race, not a warrior race at all.

By all rights they should be, having been kicked around by every nation they should be. Perhaps now they are, ruling from their shadowy Zionist Cabals?

>> No.42146256


> cruise control to coolsville

>> No.42146279

And yet the Indians themselves had a warrior caste for thousands of years, and some races were much more commonly kshatriya than others.

>> No.42146303


use your imagination to fill the gaps man.

There are two types of people in this world, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.

>> No.42146349

>Is it possible for a warrior race to exist in a modern tech-based world?
Just a few more years. Why were they the bad guys again?

>> No.42146600

Most societies had a martial caste, they just often served in two roles.

>> No.42146672

Up until the end of WW1, France was seen as the biggest nation of warriors in all of Europe, with Germany being a nation of thinkers and poets and philosophers. After two bloody world wars (One of which that saw France crushed completely by their neighbor to the point where some of their leaders began collaborating with their enemy.), Germany developed a reputation as warlike and offensive partially due to their tenacity and military strength and partially because of propaganda, both internal and external.

There used to be an English writer who was predicting what the nations of Europe would be like in a hundred years (From 1850), and the ideas were wildly different than what actually transpired.

>> No.42149405


Because they were extremely selfish and had a hard time cooperating unless it was directly to their benefit.

>> No.42149490

No. There is no such thing as race.

>> No.42149670

pre Babylonians they were a warrior people, flattening anyone that got into their way. even YHWH, their word for god, used to be the god of war in their pantheon, which was slowly abandoned over time until only yhwh existed

>> No.42149950

>Rome remained both incredibly cosmopolitan and incredibly Martial
Nigga please, Rome did not become cosmopolitan until it stopped being martial, and Rome becoming cosmopolitan was the beginning of the end.

The height of Roman power was not the empire but the republic. Let me tell you about the Roman Republic: you had to have had at least ten whole years of military service before you could even enter the lowest positions in the Roman senate. Every single senator, from the lowest pleb to the highest consul, had at least ten years of experience in sleeping in a ditch, washing himself with old urine and hacking his way through a pool of blood and unwashed barbarians for the Republic. Naturally this resulted in extremely loyal senators, which makes it unsurprising that every dictator (except one upstart that ruined everything) gave power back to the Senate and People after six months had passed. Every one except Caesar. Marian reforms even ensured that even the lowliest, poorest peasant could enter military service as equipment would be provided for him by the state. This means that any lowly peasant who could survive ten years of military service could one day dream of becoming a consul, theoretically speaking.

The problem with the empire is that people became decadent, lazy, and eventually conscription was more or less abolished. The empire faced a crisis and lacked good soldiers. This is why, only in the 3rd century AD, Roman citizenship was extended to all within the Roman Empire and not just those in Rome proper and a select group of others. THIS is the point where Rome becomes cosmopolitan, and the point where shit hits the fan. This is also the point where unwashed Germanic borderhoppers who don't speak Latin and refuse to adapt to Roman customs settle in Roman lands and do the work nobody else wants to do anymore: fighting. Of course, when push comes to shove, these borderhopping immigrants are more loyal to their tribes than to Rome.

>> No.42149999

And if my modern day parallels weren't heavy-handed enough for you, have this:

The Swiss today (who are the only Europeans who still have a conscript army, making them extra interesting) have the exact same problem the Romans had 1500 years ago: no matter how hard they try, they simply cannot guarantee the loyalty of their immigrants.

Cosmopolitan empires make for bad warriors as the warrior's greatest virtue, loyalty, is in jeopardy.

tl;dr: Warrior-Rome and Cosmopolitan Rome were two completely different places and these two never coincided. In fact, the decline of the former led to the rise of the latter.

>> No.42150054


>> No.42150073

Well a race is a pretty arbitrary concept, where do you draw the line between races? It is certainly possible to have a group of people related by blood who are raised to fight in warfare even in the modern world. Many families have traditions of the sons join a specific branch of the military or something, a warrior race is simply that taken to its logical extreme.

>> No.42150096

America also hated the hippies.

>> No.42150110

Yes, we're called Americans.

>> No.42150119


>70% of Americans too fat to join the army

Combine that with a rather unimpressive military past (and they have the gall to ridicule the French of all people) and you realize that the Americans aren't a warrior-race by far. All they have is through sheer volume (no pun intended) and every single one of its competitors being ruined by Germany in one way or another.

>> No.42150172

You wonder why YHWH was a dick in the Old Testament?
Because this was the height of their war god's influence, a ruthless, brutal, conniving dick that would fuck you up if you didn't worship him hard enough, and just might fuck you up because one day, figured "Imma fuck THIS GUY right here", and then your day was fucked.

>> No.42150254


>> No.42150265


>> No.42150277

If you actually lose to Germany you were never in the contest for the greatest military power anyway.

>> No.42150295

Yeah, pretty much. Take any 3rd world failed state in perpetual combat, those guys are the very definition of a warrior race.

>> No.42150361

Sounds like Mongols settling down to be (relatively) peaceful Buddhists.

>> No.42150411

>The height of Roman power was not the empire but the republic.
This is entirely false. The height of Roman power was most certainly the early Empire, as Rome moved from strength to strength. The Republic, especially in its latter days, was certainly powerful, but no more so than the Empire later, and far more riven with civil conflict. The Marian reforms, far from being a strengthening factor, was indeed a source of great internal conflict, as it put the loyalty of the soldiers, who unlike their pre-marian counterparts were often impoverished directly in the hands of the person that provided them their retirement- the General, not the Republic. This can easily be shown by the fact that Marius himself was Consul for seven years in a row, in direct contravention of Republican law, and died after investing Rome with his own soldiers, slain by another dictator in the making, Sulla. Not long after came the conflicts of Pompey and Caesar, both of whom, especially the latter were strengthened by the loyalty of their legions, and both of whom were effectively dictators- the only difference being which senators you listened to, and their exact titles. The only difference is that the Senators that supported Pompey did so out of hatred of Caesar. The conflict between the two was a fucking bloodbath. And THEN came the second Triumvirate and the Octavian-Antony conflicts, which largely stemmed from Republican flaws. Only with the centralization of power within one figure did the corruption and conflict of the Republic abate, for a time. And even then, the fact that the poor citizen soldiers of Rome owed their futures more to their general than to the State would lead to much civil conflict and woe.

>> No.42150428

Makes sense, actually.

What religion did the Mongols follow during the whole "raid everything" period?
>I apologize for knowing nothing about history

>> No.42150430

Not to mention that theoretically any "peasant" (plebeian please) who could become a Legionary could already theoretically become a Senator- military service in the Legions did not grant citizenship- it required it. In order to become a citizen one had to join the Auxiliaries, who were founded as a part of the codified Roman Military under Augustus, in the pre-Imperial Principality, not the Republic!

Get rekt, you inbred Samnite.

>> No.42150451

This if you count barbarians

>> No.42150492

We're actually a republic based largely on Roman ideals- rather than a monarchy built from Germanic conquerors, like the Visigoths, or Saxons.

>> No.42150500

They were basically pantheist animists ing Genghis Khan's time, though surprisingly tolerant of other religions. Eventually they mostly went Muslim in the West (becoming "Tatars") and Buddhist in the East.

>> No.42150579

Of course the late Republic was running into some problems during it's latter days -which is why it collapsed after all, properly functioning Republics don't collapse due to internal pressure- but the early empire proves very little. In fact, it may even be seen as some sort of "tail-end" of the Republic. After all, Augustus' reign was marked by a desire to return to the virtues that made the Republic great (hence why he ordered among others the writing of Ab Urbe Condiate, a romanticized loveletter to the early Republic). After the Julio-Claudian dynasty collapsed (hell, even during the reign of some of its early rulers like Caligula and Nero) the empire was a damned mess.

>military service in the Legions did not grant citizenship- it required it
Of course. I was talking about pre-Cosmopolitan (ie. pre-universal citizenship) Rome after all. That entire story only applied to those in Rome proper and a few lucky outsiders, you boy-loving Greek fruitcake.

>> No.42150609

Have you looked at the statistics? America is less violent on average than many countries in Europe.

>> No.42150657

Not really.

The US really hasn't done all that much compared to other superpowers, due purely to changing economic conditions after its rise and the fact they had a serious case of isolationism previously. Their biggest engagement is the tale end of the Second World War.

However, Europeans are in general the real warrior race. Why? Well, because Europe is rich enough to advance tech and make loads of weapons and infrastructure, but not rich enough to allow any one state to sit back and think "yep, I've got enough shit now" as happened in China. And it's criss-crossed with mountains, preventing the easy creation of superstates.

The end result being near constant low-level warfare. The Franks (that is, Germanic Europeans) were famous for being incredibly warlike.

You could make a good argument for central Africans, too.

>> No.42150683

>America is less violent on average than many countries in Europe.

Only Albania, Estonia, and some French and British overseas territories (and how European they are is questionable) are more violent.

>> No.42151034

That only counts homicides. I'd like to see all violent crime charted like that to really determine the relative violence of the nations.

>> No.42151078

that's difficult because countries define "violent crime" differently. if you look at specific crimes america is usually pretty high (for the developed world).

>> No.42151126


Shaka is the exception, not the rule.

>> No.42151150

it all depends because anyone who goes missing or runs away or dies spontaneously is considered a homicide legally in america unless they have evidence proving otherwise.
in places like England they count missing people and shit like that as accidents not murders so as you can imagine the statistics are a little skewed,if i recall correctly if we counted our crimes like the English counted theirs our crime rate would only be slightly higher than England
don't quote me on that

>> No.42151162

That's why I said central and not southern you mongoose.

>> No.42151175

Are you trying to imply colonialism was bad?

>> No.42151200

What are you talking about? The US military is more of a backdoor draft than anything.

It specializes in hiring the poor and stupid.

>> No.42151219

It was neither good nor bad, it was just a repetition of what humanity's always done.

In many cases, however, it spread the industrial revolution (which is obviously a very bad thing, even if what it ended up producing over a century later is very good).

>> No.42151301

>The Brits during WW2, during the blitz (the Nazi bombing) all healthcare professionals, Generals believed that continued bombing would ruin a population through mental torture, that shell shock cases would skyrocket. Society would break down. Lawlessness would reign. It did not. That potential could of easily been tapped in to a Spartan-esque agoge.

Giulio Douhet was an idiot and his theory was crap.

>> No.42151565

>He doesn't know about the Taliban

>> No.42151585

Rude tbh

>> No.42151591

Backpedal any harder and you'll find yourself in the ruins of Carthage.

And Legionary service requiring citizenship and being open only to the limited pool of citizens was always true, and the role of the Auxiliaries as an enfranchising agent was established by Augustus, and was entirely limited in effect- hardly "everyone" was a citizen. Far from it.

Not to mention the role of Romanization turning Rome from a city that ruled provinces it looted annually to an actual Empire worthy of being called virtuous.

>> No.42151595

The Blitz was fucking nothing, though.

You want to look at what happened to the Germans and Japanese. The Allies were a hell of a lot better at bombing than the Axis ever were.

And yeah, the bombing rekd people.

Afghans in general, anon. It's their defensive strategy. No one wants to conquer them because they're so much fucking work.

>> No.42151624

Afghans are basically muslim scots.

>> No.42152672


>> No.42152792

>they're so much fucking work
Iran is larger than both Afghanistan and Iraq combined yet the retards in the Senate not only want to wage a war on the Persians, but think it will WORK.

>> No.42152841

>The US wants to go to war with Iran
Wait, what?

>> No.42153029

If you sort crimes by ethnic group, American Caucasians are about the same as European Caucasians; while American Africans tend to resemble African-dwelling Africans.

It's almost as if human nature doesn't arbitrarily change based on geography.

That's ignorant propaganda, anon. It's an empirical fact that the educational average of the American military is higher than the average of American society as a whole.

>> No.42153088


>> No.42153089

you know, the Republicans are always beating the war drums especially so to election

>> No.42153099

Mild variations in size as a crippling setback died as a respectable argument with the first Gulf War.

It's never gonna happen. But the theory is that if Iran publically gets nukes, Saudi is virtually guaranteed to follow; which is why there's so much hubbub regarding diplomacy over the past couple years.

>> No.42153131

>If you sort crimes by ethnic group, American Caucasians are about the same as European Caucasians; while American Africans tend to resemble African-dwelling Africans.

>It's almost as if human nature doesn't arbitrarily change based on geography.

America's whitest state is Maine at 96% whites. The Maine population is 1.33 million, Maine murder rate is 1.9 per 100,000 inhabitants

Britain is 87% white, population 61 million, its murder rate is 1.0 per 100,000 inhabitants


Why are white americans so violent? Is it because their genital skin was ripped off from them when they were children?

>> No.42153169

>It's almost as if human nature doesn't arbitrarily change based on geography.
What. I guess you're right. It doesn't *arbitrarily* change. It just changes.

Unless you're literally telling me people don't adapt to their environments.

>> No.42153395

I don't see why you're focusing on immigrants from Georgia and Armenia.

>> No.42153547

It's because Brits are spineless cowards who prefer to solve their problems with sneering.

>> No.42153562

>Why are white americans so violent? Is it because their genital skin was ripped off from them when they were children?

You know, that may be it. People wonder why the middle east and parts of Africa have so much violence too. You may be onto something.

>> No.42153575

Probably because in Britain you need ID to buy silverware.

>> No.42153624


Next you'll be going on about how Aryans are Indo-Persian.

As a brit, I guarantee you are wrong. It's not because we're spineless cowards, it's because we're either too repressed to do anything more than mumble something we think is witty or we're too stinking drunk to do more than flail ineffectually at each other, depending on class.

You're thinking of The French.

>> No.42153637

Americans are allowed guns. Brits aren't and need ID even when buying cutlery. As a people they're probably more violent. Nothing more fun than going to a footy match, getting drunk outside the pitch then starting a fight when leaving. If you don't get arrested or hospitalised, head to the pub for Saturday night drinks and start another fight or 2.

>> No.42153657

Britain might be a nanny state, but the US is a police state.

The key word here is "state".

>> No.42153994

It would probably cause you to into a coma to learn there are millions of gun owners in the UK and that you do not need ID to buy kitchen forks or butter knives like people keep saying.

>> No.42154201

Britain also doesn't report their crimes in the same way the US does, they effectively fudge their numbers to be lower by not counting unsolved cases and a few other tricks.

>> No.42155065

No, the French are a morass of small minded idiocy, inbred elites, great culture, and unending arrogance. Brits are what happen when you strip the culture away.

>> No.42155642


That's somewhat misleading too, I'd wager crime in general is more reported, studied, and investigated in America than most places.

The media is the biggest problem, with their hysteria and over reporting of any violent crime.

Basically, it's a pointless argument. Between different definitions, % of reported/investigated crimes.

Also, the tards that will scream MERIKA SO VIOLENT GUNS EVERYWHERE. They will scream that no matter the facts.

>> No.42156423

Not really by the definition I think you mean to employ. If you took modern military practice and added a kind of elitist drafting system it might work close to what you mean, a government drafting only the most fit specimens then running them through a brainwashing bootcamp and sending them off to war. Otherwise the issue is that there is no way for an insular race to actually function on any kind of modern level while being a warrior race. War's just not profitable in this political climate, military action can be used as an excuse to mobilize an economy but winning or losing the war doesn't actually make a difference on its own.

>> No.42156776

Actually, you could call them breeds, just like you do with dogs. It would be appropriate, seeing that the whole "race" idea started with dog breeders.

>> No.42156965

Evolution is surprisingly fast and can cause adaptations in just a few thousands of years; adaptations significant enough that computers given random samples of DNA and told to categorize them will match them by ancestral geography, resulting in genetic groups that match common, stereotypical races almost identically.

>> No.42157237

>hurrr durr race doesn't exist

Are people actually this retarded?

>> No.42157288

Yes, like Israelis. They have two castes, warrior and rabbi.

>> No.42157325

>resulting in genetic groups that match common, stereotypical races almost identically.

It turns out that phenotype is an expression of genes. Who would have thought?

Well, everybody except leftists, apparently.

>> No.42157750


>using that chart as evidence

French at the top? Please.

>> No.42158149

Yes, but it's not economical to keep them around.

>> No.42158172


>> No.42158219

>Is it possible for a warrior race to exist in a modern tech-based world?

>> No.42158904

Your DNA is your identity. A youtube vid will never prove that otherwise. But it CAN lie to ignorant people.

>> No.42159221

I'd imagine that a "warrior society" in a modern setting would wind up looking like some variation of the basic concept of a fascist state.

>> No.42159406

Jesus Christ, I can tell just from the thumb nail that this is ideological trash not worth watching.

>> No.42159473

You do know what they say about books and their covers, right?

>> No.42160395

It does, it's just that it doesn't matter.

>> No.42161255

Is any race that is currently waging war and doing well at it a warrior-race?

>> No.42162562

>doesn't fucking understand anything about culture, history, warfare, race, or sociology in general
>fucking posts anyway

>> No.42163635

Brits never had culture. We're like the US, in that we've always been a mish-mash of lots of other dude's cultures (namely French, Italian and German). It's been a stereotype for a long time (as in centuries), especially that we copy the French in anything they do.

Only a conservative wouldn't understand the left as much as you.

>> No.42163641

What a fucking brilliant post.

>> No.42163696

Anyone who says the USAmericans aren't a warrior race best look at the whole gun control debate and their military history.

>> No.42163725

Not wanting the government to stick their nose into your business does not necessarily make you a 'warrior race'.

>> No.42163735

>Every one except Caesar.
Recently discovered evidence suggests he was in the process of devolving power back to the Senate.
Also, the guy you really want to blame would be Augustus.

>> No.42163745

>every single one of its competitors being ruined by Germany in one way or another.
They would have been ruined by a rapidly devolving colonial situation anyway. Only one didn't lose money was India.

>> No.42163812

>We're like the US, in that we've always been a mish-mash of lots of other dude's cultures (namely French, Italian and German).
The modern suit was invented in England, Industrialism was invented in England, awful food with penis names were invented in England, economics, anti-Papism, etc. You guys have a culture.

>> No.42163892

Anti-Papism? Buddy, that's not exactly an English phenomenon.

Industrialisation? That's not part of your culture. And hell, nearly everything in terms of culture popularised in the industrial revolution was French in origin, or Indian, or Chinese, or in some cases German. Like the famous Christmas tree thing.

I genuinely don't know what you mean by awful food with penis names. Hell, I don't even get the awful food stereotype.

For one thing, it would imply we have our own food that isn't just our version of a McDonalds. Which is kind of what I mean; we have French restaurants, we have Indian restaurants, we have Chinese restaurants, we have Italian restaurants, we do not have English restaurants. Just fish and chips (cheap and Jewish) greasy spoons (American and cheapest of the cheap) and pubs (mostly repurposed to sell continental food).

We don't have our own culture- or, much more accurately ('cause I feel like you're getting the wrong idea), our own culture is made up of other people's cultures. Which is good, in my opinion, just in that it's less boring.

For another, our food- that is, food you can buy here- is really not that bad. Not great, but way better than places like New Zealand (seriously, everything food-related fucking sucks there).

>> No.42163928

>The Spartans needed a warrior class because they lived in the hills and where regularly beset upon by rivaling Greek city states and pirates

Like every single fucking greek polis. The spartans just decided that only spartans are fit for war. They were basically Tau from 40k. They had different nations doing different work. Helots were the slaves who did all the farming. Some other peoples did the happy merchant shit and crafting. And spartans of course were the warrior caste who ruled them all. It was purely born out of choice since no other polis did what Sparta did despite having exact same crap.

>> No.42163957

>The Swiss today (who are the only Europeans who still have a conscript army, making them extra interesting)

Fuck you you uneducated burger.

>> No.42164023

>pubs (mostly repurposed to sell continental food).

No, they mostly sell British food and burgers. The hell kind of pubs do you go into? And you realise that a restaurant is not the only place you can eat food right? People eat tons of British dishes at home if they actually bother to cook.

>other peoples culture

The English have their English culture, its 'German' because the English came from Germany.

>> No.42164126

In a future setting, given the distances one finds in space travel, yes. How many people would be willing to throw away forever their lives with their family and never see them again? How about returning and finding that your family died 200 years ago?

>> No.42164210


>actually trying to eradicate the value of black lives
get out

>> No.42165055


>> No.42167426


Nope it was fucking terrible especially how it destroyed the wealth and culture of the older Asian civilizations. Westerners like to think that their cultural abstractions are universal when they're not, very few cultures in the world seek sought to enslave and exploit less technology advanced peoples.

>> No.42168085

If it is feasible to have defensive technology contest against offensive technology regarding firearms, then yes, you may.

>> No.42169113

I know this is shit posting, but I'll bite into it.

Black lives matter. Same with white lives, asian lives, ect.

People's problems are that they isolate themselves from other communities, making them more wary and hateful of others who are different.

>> No.42169175

>People's problems are that they isolate themselves from other communities, making them more wary and hateful of others who are different.

That's a hypothesis modern social sciences have disproved. IRL, wariness and hate increase the more two separate communities are mixed together, while minimal interaction and restrictive boundaries increase positive opinions of each other between groups.

>> No.42169182

There's no asian culture and civilization other than the chinese, and they themselves destroyed it with communism.

No, street shitters are not a civilization, or human beings.

>> No.42169237

But that's wrong you dumb dick. If you paid any attention to history, you'd see that things tend to get heated when communities STOP being isolated and different cultures start to meet and clash.

The only time strangers in real life didn't dislike eachother was when money was when commerce was involved, which is why maritime commercial towns tended to be the "tolerant" places.

>> No.42169343

>street shitters


>> No.42169371

>being this new

>> No.42169407

did you seriously post this?

you dont fucking know??

>> No.42169554


As a Kiwi who spent two years in Liverpool, I feel the way about British food quality as you do about New Zealand's food. Different strokes and all that.

Also you're forgetting that piece of original Anglo culture you have that's distinctly your own: Morris dancing.

>> No.42169594

>designated shitting streets

>> No.42171573

So it's not a problem that people are willfully ignorant of the world around them? It's not problematic that they rather trust biased, narrow-visioned news services that propagate hysteria and sensationalism?

Nobody tries to research anything anymore. Instead of developing opinions, they look towards social media and privatized news rooms; both of which are funded by different organizations that are intent on keeping you fearful and outraged constantly. Why? Good for business.

It is ironic, really. We live in the age of information; where the entirety of the world is at our finger tips, yet we are still ignorant.

We have the capability to become more learned, but we squander it. In a way, the mass media has made us stupider when, by all rights, it should of made us smarter, perhaps even ascending us to the next level of social comprehension.

>> No.42171887

>, and they themselves destroyed it with communism.

Opium wars and western colonialism in China is why Chinese adopted communism in the first place

>> No.42172061

>There's no asian culture and civilization other than the chinese

>> No.42172428

>Can caste-based division of labor work in a modern tech-based world?
Yes. Just give people a reason to cede that much power to who or whatever is assigning the casts.

>> No.42175058

Is /tg/ just fantasy /pol/?

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.