[expand]The inequality generated resentment. The common warriors seeing aristocratic wealth, the conquered peoples resenting tribute demands, the slaves enduring exploitation—these created tensions potentially erupting into conflict. The successful leaders managed tensions through competent military leadership (unifying groups against external enemies), generous plunder distribution (sharing wealth downward), and strategic concessions (occasionally promoting capable commoners or integrating conquered elites). The incompetent leaders who hoarded wealth or failed militarily faced revolts, assassinations, or mass desertions.
The competition among elites created instability. The aristocratic families competed for dominance, the royal succession disputes triggered civil conflicts, and the ambitious warriors challenged established hierarchies. The competition drove military effectiveness—leaders needed to prove superiority through success—but also caused destructive internal conflicts that sometimes destroyed entire confederations. The balance between productive competition and destructive civil war was precarious, the wise leadership encouraging individual striving while preventing conflicts from fragmenting tribal unity.
The assimilation processes modified hierarchy. The conquered peoples gradually integrated through intermarriage, cultural adoption, and generational passage. The sharp distinctions between conquerors and conquered blurred as descendants intermingled and cultural boundaries faded. The process was gradual—perhaps several generations required for complete assimilation—but eventual result was often fusion creating new groups combining elements from both original populations. The hierarchy therefore wasn’t eternal but evolutionary, the specific status positions changing over decades and centuries even while general stratified structure persisted.
[/expand]