Reasons for War in Premodern Societies

[Aldarion]

Reasons for War in Premodern Societies

Wars do not happen without reason, even if some reasons may seem stupid to modern readers. This is important, because objective of the war also determines the conduct of the war. War whose objectiv…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Wars do not happen without reason, even if some reasons may seem stupid to modern readers. This is important, because objective of the war also determines the conduct of the war. War whose objective is completely conquering the enemy country will not be fought in the same way as a war whose sole objective is capturing slaves. No country, government or organization is evil simply to be evil – evil people are typically convinced they are doing good! – which means that a war has to have some purpose to achieve. Establishing believable reason for the conflict that drives the story can help in making both the world and the story more internally consistent and immersive.

 

[skip.knox]

Yep. I'd add that it's rare that everyone involved in the war--even those on the same side--all have the same objectives. I'd add further, and this is particularly relevant to writers, that motives aren't the same as objectives, and are usually the more interesting.

Evil to be evil does work in fiction. It's a lousy way to analyze real historical events, but it can work for fiction. But the evil that believes it is doing good is usually the more interesting approach.

I also like layers to enmity. This one wants vengeance. That one sees profit. Another is determined to strike first. And so on. All on the same side, all with the same objectives.

It's also worth flipping the formula. No country, government or organization is good simply to be good. There's potential there!

 

[pmmg]

Wait...there has to be a reason?

I kind of along the lines of Skip. Fiction, and especially Fantasy fiction, does allow evil for evil's sake, and I am sure many authors have success with that. So, I will withhold judgment on a work for simply that.

But....if we step away from the archtypes and try to tell tales with more human motivations and human reasoning, we do quickly come to things are not so cut and dry, and the reasons are many fold and overlapping upon each other. By the time it gets to war, there is a lot pressure built up that been waiting to burst. It would be hard to point to a single reason as the sole reason.

As an author, I do like complexity, and usually try to capture that. The bad guys have their reasons too...its just...they're bad.

 

[skip.knox]

I think it's worth considering the converse. In most conversations of this sort, the focus is on villains, on making them more nuanced, layered. But what about the hero?

I see two angles (at least) on this. One, "good" isn't exactly universally recognized to be the same thing. Good can do bad things, either intentionally or by accident. Good can do things that nevertheless have bad consequences, or even just unintended consequences. Good can look good to one generation yet be criticized by another. There's plenty to explore there.

On the other angle, if I'm going to have a hero who does really great things--saves the world--then the hero needs a suitable villain. Great good needs great evil as its opponent. So, weirdly, good for good's sake needs evil for evil's sake. There's a reason why it's called the Greatest Generation, even beyond the hyperbole, and that's because there was a corresponding evil that called forth greatness. Heroes don't live in uninteresting times.

Arguably, and I think this is what pmmg and others are driving at, the most interesting (to modern tastes, at least) stories are the ones that take place in a world where none of the above is especially clear. It might be that the stakes, the heroes, and the villains are clear but varied and shifting. Or, it might be that what seems good here seems bad there, what is heroic in one moment seems villainous in the next, and so on. I'm fine with all that, provided we get a good story told, and that the conclusion once reached feels suitable.

 

[pmmg]

Arguably, and I think this is what pmmg and others are driving at, the most interesting (to modern tastes, at least) stories are the ones that take place in a world where none of the above is especially clear. It might be that the stakes, the heroes, and the villains are clear but varied and shifting. Or, it might be that what seems good here seems bad there, what is heroic in one moment seems villainous in the next, and so on. I'm fine with all that, provided we get a good story told, and that the conclusion once reached feels suitable.

Actually, I was just making noise

I certainly agree that there is a lot interesting in the way things are not clear, and ambiguity between different perceptions of what is good leads to a great fertile field of pulling up great stuff to make stories from. But....pmmg is usually counter to the direction the crowd is trending towards. So personally, if I see everyone going grey, I tend to go black and white. And in my own story telling, I am looking to do just that. Go the direction everyone else is not. If everyone says, I think grey and blurred and ambiguous is the coolest, I am aiming to show they are not. But that's just me.

I do agree, that that does seem to be what is of most interest to modern audiences.

I'd also agree, that in a less fictional work, what Aldarion supposes seems true to me. Stuff does not really happen without reasons, and reasons are not really because of some side just choosing the evil course and another choosing good. And, I do think Skip is right in that there are a lot of angels to explore, even when one is trying to be good. A lot of stuff does not lend itself to escaping all squeaky clean.

 

[Aldarion]

Wait...there has to be a reason?

I kind of along the lines of Skip. Fiction, and especially Fantasy fiction, does allow evil for evil's sake, and I am sure many authors have success with that. So, I will withhold judgment on a work for simply that.

But....if we step away from the archtypes and try to tell tales with more human motivations and human reasoning, we do quickly come to things are not so cut and dry, and the reasons are many fold and overlapping upon each other. By the time it gets to war, there is a lot pressure built up that been waiting to burst. It would be hard to point to a single reason as the sole reason.

As an author, I do like complexity, and usually try to capture that. The bad guys have their reasons too...its just...they're bad.

RE: bolded... you don't need to have bad guys have bad reasons for war for said bad guys to be bad (wow, that's a lot of "bad"). For example, Sauron and Saruman - many people I suspect would in fact agree with their goal of establishing order in the universe, of preventing death, pain, war and suffering... but that doesn't mean they themselves weren't evil. And in our world, some of the worst evils (I'd argue nearly all of the worst evils) began with the best of intentions.