“It seems warfare created intense pressure that drove these societies.”
This seems backwards. Wouldn't the intense pressure of societies bumping up against each other drive warfare, and not the other way around?
This seems backwards. Wouldn't the intense pressure of societies bumping up against each other drive warfare, and not the other way around?
Two societies pushing against each other lead to pressure. This pressure results in military conflict. Whoever wins the military conflict can exert increased pressure.
The necessity of winning wars put pressure on the society to develop better ways of winning wars. These better ways put more pressure on external societies, etc.
China was the most wealthy, educated civilization in the world in the 1400's. They stagnated basically becuase there was little to no fighting.
Meanwhile Europe was busy finding newer more elaborate ways to slaughter each other, and to avoid being slaughtered.
A fair assessment, but now I realize that another way to say this is -
They stagnated because there was little to drive innovation.
Stated this way, it at least makes us consider that there might be an alternative to constant warfare as a driver of progress. Maybe recognition of this is some kind of societal turning point as well?
How about the existential threat of climate change? Either way though, the driver is survival.
For China, Turchin talks of how the constant confrontations with unconquerable nomads kept the civilization alive much longer than it would've otherwise endured. Toynbee thought that China should've fallen apart for good during the Three Kingdoms -- that the Han Dynasty was its universal state. China eventually stagnated, but has been the same culture since the 200s BC; the only other civilization to endure like that was ancient Egypt.
I'd really strongly advise that you look up War and Peace and War. It sounds like you understand the book's premises well, and could get a lot out of it.