[ggggtez]

It's more correct to say that the "society" is the most adept at warfare, because warfare is largely when two groups compete, not individuals.

And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine.

[d0lph]

Is it? Were males not the primary fighters? Men are more built for combat (higher testosterone, more muscle mass, endurance etc.).

[Spooky23]

You had a caste system in these civilizations. Warrior/hunters, farmers, priests, etc.

Neolithic civilization wasn’t just a band of 50 and a few yurts. There were complex societies, but they had scale limits due to technology and knowledge constraints.

[woodandsteel]

ggggtez is not disagreeing with that. He is saying that when one society beats others at warfare, it is not because its males had more testosterone and larger muscles, rather because it had better agriculture and so on.

[d0lph]

That is not how I read it.

> And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine.

He states that there tends to be a correlation, but not causation.

[ggggtez]

It's an argument of semantics at this point. I'm saying war isn't won by bigger muscles alone. If you can't feed your troops, or equip them with more efficient weapons and armor, and train them with better tactics, then you'll lose at "war" to a society which can.