Warring Societies of Pre-colonial Southeast Asiacases, because it was too heavy to carry through a rugged and forested
landscape. On the other hand, individual warriors might carry a small
firearm, a handgun. However, the latter were clearly a small minority in
the force. The land forces were generally small, mainly because political
entities were still small-scale organizations. Usually, they were no more
than a few hundred, but sometimes, during conflicts covering a wider
area, up to a few thousand. Fortified places of retreat were usually located
on elevated spots, somewhat inland. In principle, such places earned
their defensive capabilities from being part of a sloping landscape. This
minimized the need for artificial constructions, such as walls of stone
and brick as well as stockades. In some of the areas under discussion, the
fortified places also had a few pieces of artillery.
Nevertheless, by the seventeenth century, state formation processes
were well under way in the regions under discussion, but on different
levels, even within the framework of one area. The most basic entity was
that of a single village or a cluster of a few villages headed by a chief,
with populations numbering a few hundred persons. William Henry
Scott would have called these entities “warrior societies”, where class
distinctions were to a large extent, but not exclusively, based on prowess
in battle. In each area under discussion one or two federations of vil-
lages might be noticed, numbering at least 5,000 inhabitants, which in
early European sources were labeled as “principalities” or “kingdoms”.
Following studies of scholars such as Henri Claessen, we might call these
entities “early states” or “proto-states”, with a group of chiefs, and some
sort of a hereditary “aristocracy” in charge of the leadership. Besides
prowess in battle, wealth and family ties, juridical and organizational
skills had become important for the elite to be recognized as an author-
ity. The paramount chief in these early states, often originating from a
single lineage, was usually no more than the first among equals. Over
time, such a position might develop into a true “monarchy”, with more
elaborate differentiations of the political duties at the top. In a few cases,
such monarchies, based on patron–client relations with neighbouring
political entities, were structured as core-periphery or overlord-vassal
states, stretching over vast distances. Oliver Wolters termed them “man-
dala” networks and Renée Hagesteijn “circles of kings”. The formation of
such centralized entities might, amongst other things, have been the re-
sult of armed capabilities leading to outright conquest and/or relations