Why did Europe and Japan independently develop warrior-nobility (at least in theory) in knights and samurai? Did this also happen in the Middle-East, India, China, and Mesoamerica?
Because they entered time periods where military force became relatively independent from the state (or lack thereof)
Ihindus had rajputs and the ottomans had sipahis
>>18590511Yes it happened in China, Korea, Regional states of India.
Most civilisations were traditionally based around warrior nobilities. China is the one major exception, and even there if you go back far enough, to the waring states and earlier, you'll find them as the dominant force in society there too.
>>18590511warrior nobility were pretty much the norm for most civilizations, reason being that to be a proficient soldier back then required far far more training and by extension far more time, which meant they were a rarity that necessitated them essentially being of noble status
