Is a counter factual where Steppe Societies didn’t exist one where progress would have been faster or slower? Or is the question just too complicated.
It seems like the Vikings played a similar role to herding societies in the North Sea, though through very different means and nature.
I think there was something about the toughness they infused into that area combined with their being tamed during the high Middle Ages that created unique conditions in the North Sea that helped with NW Europe becoming what it became.
It is a little hard to understand why the larger population agricultural societies could not better resist the depredations of the smaller, if more mobile, herding society militaries?
Guessing: farmers could not take time away from their farming duties to train for military resistance? They were too dispersed geographically to coalesce in a timely way to upcoming threats? They did not find a way to capture and duplicate the bow and arrow technology for relatively better distance protections than swords? The herders were already 60% aligned to their military prowess due to well established and practiced horsemanship? Herders always had the benefit of surprise and greater numbers locally, or they did not fight?
Depending on stage of developmental maturity, wouldn't the excess wealth extracted by the agricultural elites to establish an army have provided enough/better protection from outside forces??
Clearly historically they did not, so I am missing something.
I plan to write an article about this topic, but there are a few reasons. But, yes, it is important to acknowledge how amazing it was for poor small Herding societies to dominate over far larger and richer Agrarian societies. And not just a few times. It was a perpetual cycle.
1) I believe the biggest reason was the dominance of horse archers as a weapons system. Before the invention of firearms, nothing could challenge them. They were far superior in strategic mobility, tactical mobility, and stand-off firepower. Horse archers could come and go at will and literally ride in circles around foot soldiers and peasants.
2) In Herding societies, every adult male was a warrior, while Agrarian societies typically had specialized warriors or soldiers who were a tiny portion of the population.
3) Both horse riding and bowmanship required huge amounts of practice that only people who needed those skills to acquire food would have the time to practice. Herding societies often taught boys to ride and shoot arrows at extremely young ages and then young males had a huge incentive to keep practicing to gain social status within the community.
The only viable solution for horse archers was other horse archers. The Chinese spent alot of money paying off one tribe to defend China against other tribes. But that assumed loyalty, which in the long-term was rarely true.
The main constraint was geography. Horse archers needed feed for their horses, and only grasslands could give that in abundance. Horse archers could conquer adjoining regions, but once they got too far from feed, they ran into problems feeding their horses. In those areas, foot soldiers regained the advantage.
Great work Michael, very in-depth and detailed. Regarding wealth inequality, suggest you take a deeper dive into causes. Countries with high per capita GDP may also have seriously damaging degrees of wealth inequality such as the United States. Strongly urge you to grasp the importance of the Henry George analysis from his masterwork Progress and Poverty! Call me if you wish at 717-357-7617 in Pennsylvania. - alanna
Is a counter factual where Steppe Societies didn’t exist one where progress would have been faster or slower? Or is the question just too complicated.
It seems like the Vikings played a similar role to herding societies in the North Sea, though through very different means and nature.
I think there was something about the toughness they infused into that area combined with their being tamed during the high Middle Ages that created unique conditions in the North Sea that helped with NW Europe becoming what it became.
It is a little hard to understand why the larger population agricultural societies could not better resist the depredations of the smaller, if more mobile, herding society militaries?
Guessing: farmers could not take time away from their farming duties to train for military resistance? They were too dispersed geographically to coalesce in a timely way to upcoming threats? They did not find a way to capture and duplicate the bow and arrow technology for relatively better distance protections than swords? The herders were already 60% aligned to their military prowess due to well established and practiced horsemanship? Herders always had the benefit of surprise and greater numbers locally, or they did not fight?
Depending on stage of developmental maturity, wouldn't the excess wealth extracted by the agricultural elites to establish an army have provided enough/better protection from outside forces??
Clearly historically they did not, so I am missing something.
Thanks for the comment.
I plan to write an article about this topic, but there are a few reasons. But, yes, it is important to acknowledge how amazing it was for poor small Herding societies to dominate over far larger and richer Agrarian societies. And not just a few times. It was a perpetual cycle.
1) I believe the biggest reason was the dominance of horse archers as a weapons system. Before the invention of firearms, nothing could challenge them. They were far superior in strategic mobility, tactical mobility, and stand-off firepower. Horse archers could come and go at will and literally ride in circles around foot soldiers and peasants.
2) In Herding societies, every adult male was a warrior, while Agrarian societies typically had specialized warriors or soldiers who were a tiny portion of the population.
3) Both horse riding and bowmanship required huge amounts of practice that only people who needed those skills to acquire food would have the time to practice. Herding societies often taught boys to ride and shoot arrows at extremely young ages and then young males had a huge incentive to keep practicing to gain social status within the community.
The only viable solution for horse archers was other horse archers. The Chinese spent alot of money paying off one tribe to defend China against other tribes. But that assumed loyalty, which in the long-term was rarely true.
The main constraint was geography. Horse archers needed feed for their horses, and only grasslands could give that in abundance. Horse archers could conquer adjoining regions, but once they got too far from feed, they ran into problems feeding their horses. In those areas, foot soldiers regained the advantage.
Great work Michael, very in-depth and detailed. Regarding wealth inequality, suggest you take a deeper dive into causes. Countries with high per capita GDP may also have seriously damaging degrees of wealth inequality such as the United States. Strongly urge you to grasp the importance of the Henry George analysis from his masterwork Progress and Poverty! Call me if you wish at 717-357-7617 in Pennsylvania. - alanna
Thanks for the comment.
My column is about human material progress, not inequality. I do, however, explore some of those topics in previous posts:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-a-land-value-tax-make-housing
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/countering-objections-to-the-concept