# The worst reason to start a war?



## The Unseemly (May 15, 2013)

I have noticed that, the more I delve into history, the more stupid the causes of wars are. And, I just wonder... what can people show me/come up with for the most magnificently stupid reason to start a war? Which is relatively simple (say, could be explained in a few sentences?)


----------



## A. E. Lowan (May 15, 2013)

Oh, that one is easy.  "My god is real, and yours is not, therefore my god says you're going to hell and I should send you there."  My favorite is when both religions share the same origins, making both gods *the same god*!

Oh, and another good one, and this one can be traced right to the beginning of civilization - "You have more stuff than me.  Gimme."


----------



## tlbodine (May 15, 2013)

I think in many cases, the cause of war gets oversimplified in hindsight.  Like, it's really easy to point at a single particular event and say "THAT DID IT!" when in reality, the case was much more complex.  On the whole, I think most wars boil down to issues of economics, even the ones that claim to be about other things.  (For example: The Crusades, while ostensibly about religion, also happened to conveniently secure silk and spice trade routes).


----------



## Sparkie (May 15, 2013)

The war-triggering agenda in Gulliver's Travels is still my favorite.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (May 15, 2013)

Sparkie said:


> The war-triggering agenda in Gulliver's Travels is still my favorite.



Oooh, been a loooong time for me on that one.  What was it, again?


----------



## adampjr (May 15, 2013)

tlbodine said:


> I think in many cases, the cause of war gets oversimplified in hindsight.  Like, it's really easy to point at a single particular event and say "THAT DID IT!" when in reality, the case was much more complex.  On the whole, I think most wars boil down to issues of economics, even the ones that claim to be about other things.  (For example: The Crusades, while ostensibly about religion, also happened to conveniently secure silk and spice trade routes).



^this.

Does anyone who understand the first thing about causality really think the death of some duke threw _all of Europe_ into war?


----------



## Sparkie (May 15, 2013)

aelowan said:


> Oooh, been a loooong time for me on that one.  What was it, again?



Which end of the egg to crack.


----------



## Rob P (May 15, 2013)

Over a woman, ie Helen of Troy but that could be dissected down to reveal lack of respect, theft, saving face and other delightful egocentric failings.

Actually, the stupidest is saving face. When going to war to preserve one's status in the eyes of your people is far more important than their lives.


----------



## psychotick (May 15, 2013)

Hi,

More recently we've had some absolutely awful reasons to go to war. To bring democracy to the people springs to mind. Yeah the people really loved that one and welcomed us with open arms! Or how about a benighted country with bugger all technology to speak of is getting ready to nuke us with their super cannon, and that after the UN inspectors had gone through and found nothing. I wonder what Hans Blix is doing this day - laughing maybe!

On another continent entirely we've got the control of precious resources as our motives, diamonds, oil and drugs. Also tribalism and ancestral feuds between them.

There are no shortage of stupid reasons to go to war. The question is, are there any sensible ones?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike (May 15, 2013)

Don't let this branch off into contemporary politics, please. One of the few topics that is verboten on the forums


----------



## Devor (May 15, 2013)

Sparkie said:


> Which end of the egg to crack.



Do you eat toast butter side up or down?


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 15, 2013)

My "favorite", so to speak, is when a cold conflict turns hot by a complete accident.


----------



## Guru Coyote (May 15, 2013)

Ok, it seems obvious that there is no shortage of stupid reasons for war - in history and elsewhere. 

Maybe the better question (for a fantasy forum) could be:
Who can think of any *really original* stupid reasons for starting a war?
I thought Douglas Adams had a nice one in regards to the Babelfish... but that's not Fantasy.

One idea I'm mulling over right now is the inversion of the "Our god is real, your's not" argument. How about a religion finding out that their god is fake, and another country is the target of actual miracles by a deity? "We can't have this!" combined with the afore mentioned "saving face" idea... 

Or... how about a people going to war because they have been spurred by their deity, who chose another peoeple in their stead? "We are the true children of XY, and we will prove it by killing all of his/her chosen deciples..."

Hmm... actually I'm not so sure those are original. I'd hope they are, but then... nothing is weirder than reality.


----------



## Alexandra (May 15, 2013)

I think the reasons for going to war are the same as the reasons for committing murder, but on a larger scale. Greed and love drive the actions of many of my characters much as they've motivated people throughout history.

War plays a large role in _The Songs..._. The Western Isles has mineral and timber resources and lots of high quality arable land, the Easterlies has lots of people, lots and lots of people, so the High King of the Easterlies invades the Isles in order to "better provide for his people", at least that's the overt reason. There is an underlying reason—love; he wishes to conquer the Isles in order to make his lover Queen of the Isles, thereby making her happy (very happy) and raising her status in the eyes of his people, who think she's a manipulating strumpet and little more than a whore (she's much more than that). The King feels the people of the Isles will welcome his coming but...well...they don't. Let the fighting begin.


----------



## Sheilawisz (May 15, 2013)

My first Fantasy novel opens with a description of the Candles War, a terrible and devastating conflict between two cities of Mages that, by the time when the story starts, had already been raging for over three hundred years and cost the lives of over a million Mages of both cities.

The Candles War started because of this:

These particular Mages were very fond of creating magical candles to illuminate their cities with, and everything was fine... but one day, a crazy Mage decided to create a storm of plum juice (that's right, a storm of _plum juice!_) that caused a magical disturbance in the candles of both cities.

The candles exploded causing a supernatural darkness that was very difficult to dissipate, and then the Mages decided to invent a new style of magical candles that would be immune to accidents like that. The problem came when two "perfect" designs of candles were created in the two cities, and the Mages could not agree over which style was the best.

War broke out.

That is a really bad reason to start a war, but it's necessary because the plot focuses on the main characters' efforts to finally stop the disaster =)


----------



## wordwalker (May 15, 2013)

Sheilawisz said:


> The candles exploded causing a supernatural darkness that was very difficult to dissipate, and then the Mages decided to invent a new style of magical candles that would be immune to accidents like that. The problem came when two "perfect" designs of candles were created in the two cities, and the Mages could not agree over which style was the best.
> 
> War broke out.



It would have been better to light one... well, you know.


----------



## The Unseemly (May 16, 2013)

Holy cow, the amount of publicity this thread's gotten...

I like Guru Coyote's point. Indeed, what are some very original ways that people can think of about starting a war... which is, of course, completely ridiculous? This was the main idea of the thread.

I remember that Plotholio posted a perfectly good reason (as far as this thread's concerned) about starting a war. I paraphrase him:

King: "I think its about time we wage war on those scumbags over the border!"
Servant: "Begging your pardon, my lord, but why?"
King: "Why, he says? Well, we haven't done so for eight years, now have we?"

Being at the top of hierarchy must be fun...


----------



## rhd (May 16, 2013)

I struggled with this too, I wanted conflict in my story and there seemed no dearth of silly reasons to prod another country into war. I settled for land and things and 'gimme', and inspired by colonialism also settled for _ You can rule but I own you and I get so much percentage of your things_, I will civilize you, you barbarian (on both sides) and plenty of lost characters with identity crisis to add to the drama. Or perhaps, the good old plot of-- they've been fighting forever but they don't remember why or who threw the first stone. Ah, history. It can cough up some weird stuff.


----------



## Sia (May 19, 2013)

Is Cracked's The 5 Most Retarded Wars Ever Fought any use to you?

People have gone to war over a stool, flagstaffs, by accident! (alcohol was involved but still!), a pig (the actual animal you get pork from, not golden) and someone's ear. It's more complicated than that but humans are still pretty stupid about that kind of thing.


----------



## ecdavis (May 19, 2013)

The worst reason to start a war is 'to preserve peace'.   The logic goes something like this:
Our country is peaceful and happy, but our neighbor is growing more and more powerful and is building up his military.
This country will one day endanger us, so we need to neutralize the potential threat.
So let's strike them first, wipe them out, (not to mention loot their land and take possession of it) then we can return to being a peaceful people.

Some examples from history include the ancient Egyptians who would often invade a neighboring land that they feared would pose a threat, slaughter a bunch of people, put up a big slab of rock telling the beaten people that they had lost and who had whipped them, then return back to Egypt with plunder, but without leaving as much as a garrison of soldiers in the conquered land.   Of course they had to repeat the same war over and over again, as soon as the other nation regained their strength and found the courage to stop paying yearly tithes to Pharaoh.  

Another example of War to preserve peace is many of the tribes of American Indians.   Especially the Eastern Woodlands tribes, who would often go to war against a neighboring tribe just because they feared that the tribe was too prosperous and would one day attack them.   They would invade the tribal territory, kill a bunch of the men, sometimes take their women and children back to their tribe and then just hope that peace would return, though they knew that usually it just led to years of ambushes and raids.


----------



## Guru Coyote (May 19, 2013)

Have we mentioned starting a war to end all wars? That never earned anyone any cookies, although it's debatable if they had all their's in the jar to begin with.


----------



## Xaysai (May 19, 2013)

I've placed a great deal of thought into this, and I've come to the conclusion that the worst reason to start a war is over a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

I mean, even if you don't like peanut butter, you've still got the jelly deliciousness (or vice versa). It goes great with a glass of Milk (cow or goat, take your pick). If you don't like to eat the crusts you can just eat through the center of the sandwich and end up with an adorable little "PB&J Joker's Smile" with peanut butter and jelly all over your cheeks (the top ones, not the bottom - that's a PB&J suppository).

To me, the PB&J reminds me of my childhood days of coming in from playing in the sandbox to a plate of sandwiches cut into little squares. Those little squares represented a worry free time of innocence.

Who the hell is going to go to war over that? Unless of course, you put banana's in your PB&J. But then again, if you do, then you probably put celery into your tuna fish, or raisins into your chicken salad, which might I remind you: are all war-worthy offenses.


----------



## Guru Coyote (May 19, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> I've placed a great deal of thought into this, and I've come to the conclusion that the worst reason to start a war is over a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
> 
> I mean, even if you don't like peanut butter, you've still got the jelly deliciousness (or vice versa). It goes great with a glass of Milk (cow or goat, take your pick). If you don't like to eat the crusts you can just eat through the center of the sandwich and end up with an adorable little "PB&J Joker's Smile" with peanut butter and jelly all over your cheeks (the top ones, not the bottom - that's a PB&J suppository).
> 
> ...



I now feel a vicious urge to share my cookies with you. But I don't have any, so we will need to raid the neighbors first.


----------



## adampjr (May 19, 2013)

ecdavis said:


> The worst reason to start a war is 'to preserve peace'.   The logic goes something like this:
> Our country is peaceful and happy, but our neighbor is growing more and more powerful and is building up his military.
> This country will one day endanger us, so we need to neutralize the potential threat.
> So let's strike them first, wipe them out, (not to mention loot their land and take possession of it) then we can return to being a peaceful people.
> ...



That is common cause for war, but depending on the context, its probably one of the more sensible reasons to go to war. You don't want another country being able to compete against your interests, if you can stop them before they get to that point, its better fight them when they're weak then when they are strong, right?
It would depend on the story, but if someone is trying to think of an excuse for a war - this is a very rational and realistic cause.


----------



## Sia (May 20, 2013)

*A war over a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?*

Oh, that one's _easy_

Earis: Civilized people put put peanut butter on first and the jelly on second. Only Barbarians put the jelly on first. We must conquer you barbarians for your own good! 

Dolaris:  Civilized people put put jelly on first and the peanut butter on second. Only Barbarians put the jelly on first. We must conquer you barbarians for your own good! 

Solaris: Who the hell puts jelly in a sandwich?  You're both countries of barbarians. We civilised people need to conquer both countries. It's for their own good. 

Lunaris: Seriously? Guys, you're going to war over a _*beep* sandwich_ of all things.  Clearly, you all need to be conquered. It's for your own good because we are ... and you are ...

((Getting the picture? That's not even counting whether you should use white or brown bread, whether you should cut the sandwich into halfs or quarters or which way you cut it.))


----------



## Jess A (May 20, 2013)

Seems a lot of 'stupid' reasons are actually excuses to start a long-desired war (due to economics etc as someone else mentioned).


----------



## Sia (May 20, 2013)

Sounds about right, Sir/Ma'am.


----------



## wordwalker (May 20, 2013)

Actually, a real reason to fight a war can be: because the new generation doesn't know it's bad. Or just because there _was_ enough of a new generation to replenish the army after the last war.

This was a real factor in medieval wars. Nobles genuinely loved war, it was vastly more exciting than peace and not nearly as dangerous for them (elite guards, armor, ransoms...) as for the troops. And it helps if you genuinely believe the fate of the world depends on the duchy next door being ruled by your great-grandfather's legitimate son's line rather than his oldest's son's, or whichever one happens to put you on the throne. So, whenever enough proud and ignorant young men had grown up to fill an army again, off they marched.

The worst of it is: look at history. There are other factors involved, but so much of the ebb and flow of war is a flat 20-year generational cycle. *TO THIS DAY.*


----------



## skip.knox (May 20, 2013)

I don't know about ridiculous, but this thread has made me wonder if I can come up with *different* reasons for difference fantasy races.

Orcs make war because, well, they're orcs. Maybe I could come up with more interesting reasons for them. Or for ogres, trolls, whatever. One possibility could be that it's because they were ordered to do so. Or some gigantic spell forced them. Or that they don't understand that it's a war that they started. Maybe they just thought they were picking up a snack.

The reasons why dwarves go to war might be different from the reasons why elves go to war, and neither would exactly match why humans go to war.

Again, I don't have anything especially useful to offer here. I'm just noting that it feels like an interesting alley to explore.


----------



## skip.knox (May 20, 2013)

Here's another angle to think about. What do we mean by "a war" and what do we mean by "to start" a war?

Much of our understanding of both comes from 20th century wars, but those were remarkably formal affairs. Medieval wars, like all things medieval, were very messy and one is hard-pressed to distinguish between a war, a skirmish, and a simple act of vendetta. 

How big does an armed conflict have to be in order for it to be a war? How long does it have to go on? Is a siege the same thing as a war (e.g., it's called the Siege of Constantinople, not the War of Constantinople)?

How do you know a war has started? Is some sort of written document required? I always loved the ancient Roman ritual, which included having a patch of foreign ground handy and a representative of Rome throws a spear into it. The Romans were wonderfully clear in their approach to war, but that wasn't the case in the Middle Ages. So in our fantasy stories, we might get some mileage out of this matter of how a war starts.

Similarly with how a war ends. The Hundred Years War ended bunches of times. Technically, it went on for hundreds of years more, in the sense that no peace treaty was ever signed. So why isn't it the Five Hundred Years War? Again, how a war ends could provide some interesting depth to a fantasy story.

Once again, I have only questions to contribute. But the thread has definitely sparked my interest.


----------



## Guru Coyote (May 20, 2013)

Yes, definitely thoughts to ponder.

With that in mind, I guess "war between races" becomes another interesting bundle of questions.

Elves and Dwarves might likely be in the same formal mind as the historical Romans, in declaring and ending wars formally. But how is this with Orcs then? They'll likely not even consider fighting and killing those others war, just migration and foraging.

While both Elves and Dwarves might dismiss Orcs as animals and fight them more like one would defend against a force of nature... will these two races recognize the 'war formalities' of the other? What if 'planting a spear' just meant nothing to the locals?


----------

