
Why polygamy breeds civil war - hliyan
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/03/economist-explains-16?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whypolygamybreedscivilwartheeconomistexplains
======
B1FF_PSUVM
You get civil wars when powerful families/factions decide to gamble on
violence instead of staying with whatever was the ongoing peaceful arrangement
for power sharing.

The supply of foot-soldiers has little to do with it.

The Roman republic had plenty of civil wars, and they had indissoluble
monogamic marriage for the aristocracy. And the Persian empire, with harems,
also managed to have plenty of successor conflicts. I doubt any wars were
started by poor wifeless men.

~~~
mcphage
> The Roman republic had plenty of civil wars, and they had indissoluble
> monogamic marriage for the aristocracy. And the Persian empire, with harems,
> also managed to have plenty of successor conflicts. I doubt any wars were
> started by poor wifeless men.

You’re getting the argument backwards. It’s not “conflict => polygamy”, it’s
“polygamy => conflict”. Of course other things lead to conflict as well;
nobody’s claiming that all conflict leads back to polygamy. So your arguments
about Rome and Persia are meaningless.

------
AstralStorm
When polygamy is blamed instead of the "buy in" custom - which is the true
cause - to get a more bait title.

------
Hnrobert42
Correlation != causation

~~~
orev
Can’t have causation without correlation.

