Guru Coyote
Archmage
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.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
The worst reason to start a war?
- Thread starter The Unseemly
- Start date
Xaysai
Inkling
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.
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
Archmage
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
Scribe
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
Sage
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.))
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
Archmage
Seems a lot of 'stupid' reasons are actually excuses to start a long-desired war (due to economics etc as someone else mentioned).
Sia
Sage
Sounds about right, Sir/Ma'am.
wordwalker
Auror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Archmage
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?
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?
Similar threads
