Reasons To Start Large-Scale Conflicts

[TheMirrorMage]

A list of possible reasons why one country, county, state, realm, race, religion or other group or region would attack another, on a large scale. This ranges from aliens attacking a planet in the first few days of July, Nazi Germany attacking Poland to Communists opposing capitalism in Vietnam, students opposing Communism in China and different "houses" opposing each other for the "iron throne". Basically, it's bigger than a fist-fight over a stolen loaf.

I was thinking that a list of reasons why one group might attack another would be useful. Writers struggling to create a large-scale conflict in their world might like a number of options to choose from, and find the most suitable one/ones. Perhaps I'll add references to real-world conflicts as examples if people want to research into each cause further (eg 'World War One' or more specific examples such as 'Germany invading Norway in WW2'). I'll accept new suggestions and add them to this list below:

• Resources
• Control of a strategic location
• Death of a leader
• Persecution of a religion
• Pursuit of a religion
• Persecution of your population by another group
• Persecution of another civilian population by their ruler (thereby going to war to protect the civilians)
• Large debts on goods or loans ("so we'll take your land as payment" kind-of-thing)
• Natural disaster forcing a population to move into a new area
• An act of violence committed against one group by another
• Religious differences
• Racial differences
• Control of the group or region
• False leader (ie someone who is not meant to be the leader)
• Political differences
• Economic differences
• Civilian uprisings
• Gaining military strength for a bigger war (by capturing or forcing soldiers into your army)
• "Lunacy" (simply going to war for the war itself, not for any end result) [psychotick aka Greg]

Reply below with additional reasons for why one side will go to war with another. I'll give credit to the user who first suggests the reason when I edit the list. If the list gets too long to browse through easily, I'll sort the reasons into categories.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

You left out my favourite one - absolute lunacy. Whenever I play Civ III I always nuke my enemies at the end! And my allies! It's simply my nature. I love to watch those little cities go boom! And you'd have to argue that a number of world leaders overthe years have had a similar viewpoint. Pol Pot, Hitler, probably the new Kim since he just had his own uncle machine gunned to death. Forthese people I suspect that all the reasons you give are fine and dandy, but they're really just excuses they use to do what they always wanted to do.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[skip.knox]

Be sure to distinguish between immediate causes and underlying causes. For example, the American Civil War was fought because of slavery. Or, it was fought because someone fired on Fort Sumter. Both are valid statements but they tell you very different things about the war itself.

In general, you need both for a war. War doesn't happen unless deep-seated antagonisms are in play, whether economic or ideological. But people generally need something very specific before they will actually start killing each other. Some outrage has to happen. So, when you are plotting, be sure to consider both.

Also, think about justifications for war. All sides in a conflict fight only in self-defense. All sides in a conflict are justified in their actions by a higher power or higher ideal. Here again, underlying and immediate are relevant. For example, Nazi Germany had a whole list of affronts and threats against it, going back years and even decades. But the actual excuse for the invasion of Poland was (entirely bogus and invented) that Poland had attacked first.

Those reasons, especially the really flimsy ones, can provide high drama in a story.

 

[skip.knox]

Oh, one other thing. We seem to be talking about war between nation-states. War in tribal society or in other pre-modern societies can proceed from other motives and triggers. These include such things as personal honor or that guy stole my cattle, and other high-minded causes.

For the fantasy writer, it's worth thinking how magic might skew all of this. That is, how the existence and practice of magic might affect both causes of war and justifications for war. Also of interest would be to ask, would the logic be different for elves? Other non-humans? There could be some interesting possibilities there.

 

[TheMirrorMage]

Be sure to distinguish between immediate causes and underlying causes.

I'm probably going to try and split the list up into these two categories (duplicating those that fit into both), it's a very important consideration, vital for the war to seem "necessary" or at least partly "justified". I think the terms could be "Gunpowder" and "Spark". Seems a fitting description of events, fits the "won't happen when it's one without the other" argument.

It's also worth mentioning that often, it's the "spark" which is remembered, since it's normally the most outrageous or shocking event. Perhaps, in some way, writers could factor that into their stories. Not necessarily glaze over the "gunpowder", but focus in on the "spark" more than any other cause.

For the fantasy writer, it's worth thinking how magic might skew all of this. That is, how the existence and practice of magic might affect both causes of war and justifications for war. Also of interest would be to ask, would the logic be different for elves? Other non-humans? There could be some interesting possibilities there.

I guess this is where the freedom of the writer comes in; we can decide how forgiving or temperamental an elf or dwarf can be, and of course, which things they care about enough to go to war over. Magic could be considered to be similar to religion, and those who don't practice it fear it's power and seek to destroy those who use it. Equally, it could be a manipulation tool for instigating a war for the wizard/witch's own reasons.

Those reasons, especially the really flimsy ones, can provide high drama in a story.

Especially if two sides are already in open or political war when a humanitarian crisis occurs. One side could act the savior of the people and appear to be in the war for more than their own personal gain, proving the fight is right and just to their own people.

This subject will be different from writer to writer, and world to world. I guess it depends on what suits your world the best. I think the most important part of the plotting of a conflict is to have enough gunpowder and at least one spark, to make a believable war. If it's believable to the people in your world, it should be to the readers.

 

[Nagash]

While the reasons you listed are sufficient in a non-manichean world, you have to consider that classic fantasy often bases itself upon a bi-polar system of good and wrong. Hence people fighting for absolute chaos and spreading despair, death, evil and others fighting for life, hope, Good. Of course this is an incredibly naive - or religious - way to orientate a story, but after all it is the core mechanism of Tolkien's work. Thus the necessity of imagining good being done for good and evil for evil.

If you prefer a world like Martin's, well then I guess you won't have to go through much troubles with this.

 

[TheMirrorMage]

Thus the necessity of imagining good being done for good and evil for evil.

Ah yes. A type of conflict you'd likely never find in another genre.

If you prefer a world like Martin's, well then I guess you won't have to go through much troubles with this.

I think there could be a twist in tales like that. Have one faction just acting in the interests of spreading evil and destroying all the good in the world. Martin created a world where each faction would have both good and bad morals, and therefore it made it less easy to choose a side, which I think is more like other types of fiction. In standard fantasy, I think the choice is more obvious.

There are ways of writing a story so that one side appears demonically evil, and still have them fighting for a justifiable reason. Acting out of desperation, for example, could drive a nation to do terrible things to other nations. And yet the story would portray them as inherent evil, because that is the POV of the main character, or because of the crimes their soldier's committed.
"Bad being done for good".

I'm going to be adding all this advice once I get the ability to edit the original post.

 

[Nagash]

There are ways of writing a story so that one side appears demonically evil, and still have them fighting for a justifiable reason. Acting out of desperation, for example, could drive a nation to do terrible things to other nations. And yet the story would portray them as inherent evil, because that is the POV of the main character, or because of the crimes their soldier's committed.
"Bad being done for good".

Well, hell is paved with good intentions, eh ? That is another kind of scenario I could imagine, yes.

I guess the Fantasy genre, especially Tolkien's, relies on the same logic you can find in the Bible. The fragile good, facing the forces of evil, and vainly resisting "temptation" and the attraction of power (which crystallizes in the one Ring). This genre also introduced the concept of moral determinism, which is fascinating. Following this natural logic, people would do evil, destroy, because it is in their nature, juste like we eat, breathe and reproduce.

In itself, moral determinism doesn't give images of pure evil, or pure kindness. Its simply natural, normal - some kind of an instinct. This helps you to create sympathetic foes, for they are seen as creatures manipulated, trapped by their inner-selves, and forced to do evil since it's what they were made for.

I always figured that the Burden of Evil was a way to humanize the monster. For they are just puppets, powerless in the face of their nature.

 

[Alexandra]

... Of course this is an incredibly naive - or religious - way to orientate a story, but after all it is the core mechanism of Tolkien's work.

The roots for the conflicts in Tolkien's world are more 'our-worldly' than a straight-forward good vs evil conflict. JRR was profoundly affected by World War I and Frodo's journey to Mordor is reminiscent of a soldier's trek through Europe from west to east, through the various no-man's lands as the fronts fluctuated between 1914 and 1918. As to the politics, a slow plod through the Silmarillion (a journey I've not undertaken for a long, long time) might reveal more parallels between Middle Earth and our Earth.

 

[Nagash]

Actually, there is enormous connection between the middle earth and our world. Some might even speculate that Tolkien's books and novels, are actually a rework of our Dark Ages. An era of darkness, trouble, conflict, where magic was omnipresent through the beliefs and superstitions. As the lord of the rings closes in to an end, dwarves disappear in their mountains; elves set sails to the undying lands; the legions of Sauron are disbanded and most surviving orcs, trolls and goblins crawl back in their caves, in the far east. Long gone are the darkness, might and magic of the Silmarillion, since this is the dawn of the world of men - and, as it is implied, our world. Thus began our history, all the fantasy of the past being slowly wiped clean. There has been many theories about what Tolkien tried to convey through this imagery; some believe it was a way to represent the disenchantment of the world as faith and biblical conception stepped back as our history went forward.

This being said, all you said Alexandra is true. The fact that Tolkien's world is religiously driven, however, is also true, giving Middle-Earth some bi-polar morality; our world however, seems slightly more complex in this regard.

 

[Braveface]

I heard their junk was bigger than mine.

 

[Malik]

 

[Alexandra]

I was thinking that a list of reasons why one group might attack another would be useful.

War is the backdrop to The Songs.... The White Wolf, Lord High King of the Lands of Light and of the Easterlies, has a serious problem at home. He wishes to marry his mistress but believes his people will not accept her as his Queen; He's right, she is a noble but not a royal and has a questionable reputation. Depending upon which part of the realm you are visiting she is known as the Grand Whore, the Weaver of Tears, that woman, or Child Eater. The Wolf believes that if she were made royal before marriage and sat upon the throne of another kingdom the Wolf's people would accept her, albeit grudgingly. Eventually even the most cynical would grow to love her as he does.

The Western Isles are controlled by a confederation of petty kings and warlords and has been a trading partner of the Easterlies for generations. The Easterlies, and hence the White Wolf, is the dominant player in the relationship but everyone has profited through it. The Wolf, thinking a takeover will be peaceful and mutually agreeable, invades the Western Isles, planning to unite the petty kings and warlords under their new High Queen, the Wolf's mistress. Once she has been made queen he will wed her and everyone – from small folk, to merchant prince, to the White Wolf himself – will be very happy. Ha!

Rebellion brews in the Wilds and a heroine, the Lady of Ravens, emerges. Depending upon whose side you are on she is your last hope for true freedom or she is a new kind of deadly, unscrupulous warrior—a terrorist.

Regardless of the motives of others the White Wolf went to war for love.

 

[TheMirrorMage]

Regardless of the motives of others the White Wolf went to war for love.

Another example would be Helen of Troy and the Trojan War

 

[Alexandra]

Another example would be Helen of Troy and the Trojan War

Yes indeed, but neither the White Wolf, his mistress Seyja nor anyone else in The Songs... is being manipulated by jealous busybody gods. That sort of thing comes later :wink:

 

[Shockley]

I want to object to the 'false leader' idea, especially since it seems so common in fantasy. Yes, there are some rulers that came to the throne by what their system considers legitimate methods and what that same system would consider illegitimate methods. That said, it was a rare occurrence for a war to start solely because one person viewed the ruler as 'illegitimate.' Usually, that was a justification - never the cause.

Take, for instance, Henry Tudor. Henry had, at best, a tenuous claim to the throne of England. Henry's father was the son of Catherine of Valois (Queen Consort of England) and her second husband - no nobility on this side, save Catherine's connection to the French Crown (to which she had no claim vis a vis Salic Law). His mother, Margaret Beaufort, was descended (through a bastard) from John of Gaunt (himself rumored, incorrectly, to be a bastard) the son of Edward III and forerunner to the Lancastrian kings. Still, Henry Tudor managed to become king because he deposed (the very legitimate if under-handed) Richard III through battle. There was never an attempt to depose him just because he was the 'false leader.'

Take another look down the road, at William III. James II was very Catholic at a time when England was very not-Catholic - he was also the legitimate heir of Charles II. Despite that legitimacy, William III (whose only claim to the throne was marriage to James II's daughter - James had a son, who was next in line to the throne) managed to waltz in and take the English crown for solely religious reasons. The legitimate heir, James ('The Old Pretender,' father of Bonnie Prince Charlie), never had wide support in England.

Just two examples, but I think it's an overplayed motivation.

 

[Thranduil]

I think national identity is one often overlooked in Fantasy. Think of the Irish war for independence, and later the Troubles; it was really over cultural differences between Britain and Ireland and how those cultural differences should reflect the ruling of the two. Sure, it could be argued that religion was the core motivation, but really religion was just one component of the differences between the two cultures and how those cultures represented national identity.

Say if elves and humans were living in one country under the rule of dwarves, and the elves and humans had major friction between their two cultures, resulting in separate elven and human identities, then the whole country erupting into civil war would not be overly surprising. Especially if the elves were given a higher place in society because they were favoured by the dwarves.

 

[James G Pearson]

To be fair, I think you pretty much covered most instances of war. Of course, most things are still personal. Everything mainly falls to the man in charge, the king/emperor/lord/saviour and so on. Either if they're being goaded by one of their lords, like in Troy. Helen of Sparta is stolen as far as the king of Sparta is concerned and wants her back, he goes to his brother to help him and, of course, Agamemnon see's his opportunity to seize Troy for himself. So while one wants war for revenge, the other wants it for power.

There's also Guerrilla Warfare, for resistance fighters; they go to war against occupation. I think that would be interesting to write about. But war is subjective, there's a lot of grey areas. Someone could go to war because of alliances, not being directly involved in the first instance. It could be a war of attrition, just one kingdom stopping another from gaining too much power, trying to keep a balance.

 

[stephenspower]

In the novel I'm finishing, one city in a trading league, ruled by an oligarchy, starts a war with another ostensibly for standard reasons: protect borders, secure markets and take over trade, but secretly so some of the oligarchs can make a killing rebuilding their own city. Pure disaster capitalism.

 

[skip.knox]

Carthago delenda est!

That particular dodge goes back *way* before capitalism, but it still works, don't it?