upvote
It makes sense as a universal dynamic.

When living in contact, hunter gatherers and farmers are in natural conflict since the most concentrated food source you could gather (or hunt) from is a farm. Raiding must have been fairly common.

In a conflict like this, it seems natural that the farming community would prevail, since they would naturally be more motivated to do so (this is their primary food source, they are the ones being attacked), and as a stationary community might be expected to build up more resources and be better prepared to defend themselves.

reply
And because the farming communities would simply outnumber the hunters, since they are exploiting photosynthesis more directly. A given area of land can sustain many more farmers than it can hunters.
reply
Interestingly enough, agrarian societies being invaded (and then ruled) by nomadic tribes has been a recurring phenomenon in the past two millennia (by the Arabs, the Turks, the Mongols, etc.)
reply
I think that's something a bit different though - a later era, with some of these nomadic tribes being more inherently inclined to war and violence, and "war technology" such as horses, advanced bows, etc, playing a role.

The suggested universal dynamic of neighbors in conflict is different from that of well equipped, well trained, expansionist cultures preying on everyone.

reply
I also wholeheartedly recommend it. In the beginning, the narrator is warned that after embarking on his journey he’ll never be able to see the world the same way again. I definitely felt the same after reading it.
reply
> the total extermination aspect in particular is a novel aspect of farming culture

Perhaps there wasn't a change in culture, but rather that farmer tribes were able to grow bigger? A hunter-gatherer tribe could be size-limited according to the available resources. Likely 2 neighbouring tribes would therefore be roughly the same size. Which would make it hard for a tribe to fully exterminate other tribes. Would you send all your fighters to take on another tribe, with the risk of none of them coming back, leaving you defenseless? What if a dangerous animal walks into camp while all fighters are away?

If a farming tribe could sustain double population, that would mean double the amount of fighters, thus it would reduce the risk greatly of sending out a large group of fighters.

reply
Chinese history says otherwise. Nomadic tribes always get an upper hand despite disadvantage in numbers.
reply
Yes, as I understand it the population growth of the arable community is far faster than the hunter gatherers. This is because hunter gatherers often did not wean children off breast milk until they were 5, whilst arable farmers breast fed there children only up to 1 year.

Breastfeeding is a natural contraceptive.

reply
Having got my wife pregnant while she was still nursing our 1 year old, I think the contraceptive nature of the nursing period is overstated.
reply
Why?!
reply
Food. In Arable societies children could be weened onto porridge or milk from cows. Food that hunter gatherers survived on is less digestible for babies.

So you would get higher population growth in Arable societies but not necessarily healthier.

reply
Excellent novel but, as a non native English speaker, the analogy with the Third assassin was puzzling, Shakespeare wasn't on the cursus when I learned English.
reply