Blackadder Goes Fourth is probably one of the finest representations of WW1 ever put on a screen - nothing else quite captures the levels of confusion, misery, pathos & absurdity of the conflict.
@@edgecases If you follow the conflict closely the reasons for fighting become clearer. We just see a distilled version of history now and wonder what they were thinking. There's a good channel to follow that have covered the great war on a week by week basis, the Great war channel did a reasonably good breakdown of events. And when you see the events unfold it makes more sense, as they were living the conflict day by day. Not years by years as we see it.
@@edgecases We plan to all rise up out of the trenchs in neat straight lines and charge the machine guns " but thats what we have done the last 3 times" "ah yes thats why they will never expect us to do it again " paraphrasing as it has been many years since viewing but you get the jist of the scene from blackadder goes fourth .
My favorite thing about you Matt is that you inspire ideas. I watch many other d&d content creators, but when I listen to you my mind always seems to grasp onto a new angle and a seed is planted that I can run with to create my own content. You really cut to the heart of the topic and it's more than just "hey, this is how you play d&d", and I really see that d&d version whatever.0 is just a tool to create and share something fun and really something unique with friends. Anyway, sorry for the cheese, just wanted to share what I think sets you apart and it's really I think a great thing.
I absolutely agree. I watch SO much d&d related content, and dming advice stuff, it's just absurd, and I really enjoy loads of it, but Matt Colville and Guy from "How to be a Great Game Master" somehow both sort of shift the gears in my mind and I somehow get SOO much more creative from watching their stuff. There's lots of good and great d&d based channels out there imo, but these two do absolute wonders for me!
Also, other D&D channels specifically concentrate only on D&D, but Matt's stuff is applicaple to any system. Listening to this channel has enriched many campaigns I've ran.
Agreed 100%! And it’s also his way of speaking in videos. A lot of really good, well-spoken youtubers have a lot of smart things to say, but can feel really monotonous in their pattern of speech, making it somewhat difficult to engage. Matt gets it, and he speaks with dynamic energy that makes nearly every video easy to get into and understand
Agreed! To think I learned more in a 15 minute video than I did during the month my world history class discussed WWI from the perspective of the british
Man, I've always like Matt's videos, but this one is tops. A solid central idea, clarity of script, execution, even his vocal delivery, this guy continues to get better. Keep it up, mate.
There was definitely something different about his voice this time. It also seems like all of his topics are perfectly timed to be relevant to the campaigns I'm running- addressing the questions I have as I have them...
dante ferno I think his point is that resources aren’t necessarily the end goal of the war- that the reason they’re going to war for resources is out of pride, fear, or self interest. But honestly I’m a little confused as to the difference between “self interest” and “a desire for resources and land”, so your point is very valid
Resources and land are a self- interest, but not the most compelling one, and certainly not enough to go to war over without ulterior motives. They are the gravy on the meat and potatoes of international conflicts. They add a lot of appeal, but no one eats the gravy alone.
@@MaxParks Well as he said, Britain got into WW1 not for resources, but definitely for self interest. They wanted to seem committed to their word, that it wasn't something to be taken lightly, because if it WAS taken lightly, it would undermine them around the world. 'Are you really going to go to war for a scrap of paper?' becomes 'Are you really going to go to war for this small farming region in India?' to 'Are you really going to go to war for the independence of this small naval fort?' It was in their self interest to get involved in this conflict, because it could prevent future conflict in the colonies and worldwide. Sure, when they were cutting up the carcass they certainly took resources from Germany, but that was just the cherry on top of the cake
"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.” -Ferdinand Jean Marie Foch, Supreme Allied Commander, 1918 Twenty years, and sixty five days later, the wold was at war again.
Otto Von Bismarck literally said after he got fired by Wilhelm II that in 20 years the world would be at war thanks to him too. Very similar circumstances.
@@LordVader1094 Not publicly but in the early negotiations around reunification France's diplomats made it clear it would go to war before accepting a version of a unified Germany it considered a threat to France. Considering the preceding 1000 years it wasn't that unreasonable of a position to take
The thucydides trap isn't inescapable of course but yes there's a serious issue. Arguably China's massive economic growth does eventually peak that could increase the chance of conflict, it might attempt to translate its economic muscle at that point into a sphere of influence that would allow them to continue growth of a different kind. A Chinese Monroe doctrine, one China policy a Brezhnev Doctrine with Chinese characteristics.
One thing to note here - war is regular, but war between superpowers is less common. History suggests that it is almost inevitable for superpowers to go to war when they have overlapping spheres of influence, but generally, they dance around each other for quite some time before they do. They conquer smaller nations to block off their rival's expansion, they seize major areas of economic or military importance, and they consolidate their power, but they tend to avoid direct conflict for as long as possible. When nations go to war, it often means they are certain that they will win (or that they are desperate, or feel like they have an incredibly good reason). Very few people will get themselves into a war that they don't think they can win quickly unless they feel that they absolutely have to. If the major powers of your world are at war, there should either be a good reason, or one side thought they had a clear advantage. A side effect of this is that alliances (and coordination between allies) have often been the deciding factor in a battle between superpowers, and securing a key alliance could be enough to convince one party that they can win the war. Superpowers tend to fall when two or more of their major rivals unite against them.
Except...it is not. You are using modern vision of the Cold War. Rome and Carthage had three devastating wars in a lifetime span. The Successor Kingdoms had lots of wars. Rome and Parthia had wars for nearly 150 years. Rome and Sassanids had wars for nearly four centuries. Then Rome was at war with The Caliphate and its successors for eight centuries. France and England had the Hundred Years War and, if you think they weren't superpowers, they were strong enough to intervene in Iberia while at war. I think examples from before Christ to the beginning of the Modern Age should be enough. Tell me if you need more.
@@mikerodrigues9822I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. War between major powers is almost entirely inevitable, it just doesn't tend to be done on a whim. It is usually the culmination of mounting tensions, and has often been preceded by minor conflicts and mutual land grabs. It's not that they won't go to war, but major wars between empires tend to come as the culmination of a lot of tension and resentment. (and no, my main historical reference point is not the Cold War. I cited that because it's what people know, but I was looking more at my knowledge of ancient wars and the build up that led to them)
It's worth pointing out that the exact definition of "super powers" in politics is not only difficult, but often changes with the context of history... Today (for instance) unless you have enough nuclear fire-power to wipe out the planet at least a couple times over, stockpiled and reasonably at hand, then you are not a super-power... In the late Roman Age (prior to the black-plague) there was a FAR different identifying nature to a "super power" term than pretty much anytime in the middle or "dark" ages... Even the difference between the bronze age and iron age technologies and weapons wouldn't alter that detail... Right now, we live in a socio-economic space where World-Wide has a complete meaning, unlike any other time in history... Even much of the twentieth century, when someone said, "worldwide" it had a different and considerably more limited scope... more on the line of what you and I would call "multi-national"... but not necessarily entirely encompassing the whole of the world. In the end, we ARE still only humans... and very much animals, not so separate from our nature or the natural world as we would like to believe. All over the rest of the natural world, conflict is a daily practice... eat or be eaten, as it were... Yet, we humans have INVENTED society, civilization, and all the supposed "trappings" that so intangibly come along with those concepts. We're taught from our earliest formative activities and moments to avoid fighting and violence and conflict if at all possible... but it's still inevitable. Right now, is THE most peaceful and economically advantageous term of all of mankind's history... The chances of our planet surviving another super-power conflict at the scale we even CAN imagine today is right next door to zero... but that's a far and wide difference from every other part of history (and pre-history for the matter)... SO no, historically, either you've mistaken the differences between super-powers from the lesser lists... OR they're not so prone to avoiding conflict as you seem to indicate. While it's credible that "nobody willingly goes to a war they can't win"... There's a lot more to be said around the starting stages of "jockeying for position" in longer winded "preambles" to wars of the past... and this is where you're seeing the "minor conflicts" and resentment or equivalent land-grabs and skirmishing... Those are still every bit tactical... so warfare, no different from the flashy and (more fun) dramatics of "direct invasion"... Maybe don't limit your view in scope, and you'll see the discrepancy disappear. ;o)
I am close to finishing Richard Miles' 'Carthage Must Be Destroyed', and the Punic Wars, especially the Second one, are really phenomenal for displaying every aspect of war in action, especially motivations and propaganda.
@@LuvLikeTruck It really is quite stellar. Prior to now, I hadn't really read many books on history, but after reading it, I'm certainly eager to read more. Miles is quite good at keeping things interesting, and weighing the accounts of many people while also considering their biases, as any good historian should. If you don't mind my asking, what was the name of the book on the Crimean War you said you were reading?
@@kendoweeb2766 "Crimea" by Orlando Figes. It's been ok. A little slow in the start, but had to set up the the cultural reasons for the war. If you want two other good military history books I'd strongly recommend "A Frozen Hell" by William R. Trotter (Russo-Finnish Winter War) and "Castles of Steel" by Robert K. Massie (Germany vs U.K. at sea during WWI)
@@LuvLikeTruck Thank you! I will certainly take a look at the 3. The Russo-Finnish Winter War seems the most interesting right now, so I might read that one first.
Hi Matt! I am a 25 years old young man from Italy and I started following your channel back in 2016, when I accidentally stumbled in your "Running the Game" playlist: maybe the best channel I found in these years, no kidding. I have been a DM for at least twelve years and I have gained a fair amount of experience myself, but watching your videos helped really a lot both in seeing things from a different point of view and in trying things I had never thought. My girlfriend knew that I liked your videos and so she bought your books as a gift for me. I have already finished "Priest" and I am reading "Thief" and I can say that I am enjoying them very much 'cause they are full of interesting characters, plot-twists and drama. After another of your outstanding videos I just wanted to let you know that you have followers even here in Italy and that I praise your experience, your books and your work on this channel. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your advices in such an entertaining way !
Sheesh, seen this video before but it still SLAPS. Please keep talking about history the way you present it is so engaging. Thank you for another awesome vid 🙏
I'm running a game in Eberron, where each of the five nations want to rule a new Galifar and each of those factions has subfactions vying for power to rule the winning side. This video has helped me formalize my thoughts on the higher level details of the politics and decisions of it all so thank you very much.
I have been running D&D for about 25 years. Written for Legend of the Five Rings and played a ton of games. I say that to say this: videos like yours help reinvigorate the imagination. You're a goddamn hero.
I love how you are able to take a complex topic that most people don't really encounter unless they go to college for a degree in political science or history and are able to break it down and present its fundamental essence in less than twenty minutes. This is honestly something that should be taught in high school, it really changes the way you view both contemporary and historical politics and makes some seemingly irrational decisions people had made make perfect sense.
When I first heard the quote it sounded so serious, but the source is definitely aiming for dark comedy: ...and they have not. He marked them in their rude advance, He hushed their rebel cheers ; With one extremely vulgar glance He broke the Mutineers. (I have a picture in my book Of how he quelled them with a look.) We shot and hanged a few, and then The rest became devoted men.
3 years later and this video is still giving me inspiration as a DM; narrative history and D&D rolled into one punchy guide. In fact, this is probably my favorite videos on the TH-cam.
This is all well and good from the perspective of dramatic fiction, which Matt is very knowledgable about and talented with, having dedicated his life to it. For anyone who wants a clearer understanding of what people think when they dedicate their life to the actual study of real war and are equipped with data, I’d recommend The Better Angels of Our Nature as a starting point.
Matt, you should watch "The Expanse" if you haven't. I think it encapsulates a lot of what you talk about in this video, and is an overall fantastic show. This was an amazing video and i think it might be one of my personal favorites of yours. Keep up the great work! Or don't I'm not your boss or anything.
3 years after this video: I remember watching episode one because I wanted to play D&D because I didn’t have any friends to play with. Now I’m getting philosophical lessons and studies in the art of war.
Time to make some notes: Go to war: Self-interest, Pride, Fear War in D&D: Someone keeping the peace now dead, old military power vs new economic powerhouse
and as Matt said in prior videos this doesn't need to be a good person keeping the peace. The nations beneath Ajax do not war because Ajax rules with an iron fist. Remove Ajax and you get everyone fighting to avoid being subservient to the others.
Here's another note for you: our contemporary notion of "country" is largely a construct developed through the 18th & 19th century. Prior to then, going back all the way till the end of the Roman Empire, your "country" was just the person you owed loyalty to. Be that a duke, king, or emperor, or all of the above. If your liege woke up one morning and decided to go to war against a neighbour because their cattle had been grazing on his land, you went along. Up until fairly recently, war was largely interpersonal conflict, made nastier and deadlier by the fact that both parties usually commanded the loyalty of loads of men with pointy sticks.
This is one of the single best videos you have produced. Based on this, whenever I start a new campaign, I am going to begin with either "a war has just ended" or "a war is brewing." From there I will determine the who, what, where, when and whys of the recently ended war or brewing war. This concept will add so much more depth than 'evil bad guy A is trying to execute evil idea B against good people C.' Thank you, Matthew!
12:10 this section made me tear up. I didn’t live in this era and have never lived in any of these nations. Your storytelling and clarity of details forced me to understand the development of beginning of the war and the consequences of it. Well done and happy Friday.
When WW1 was declared, there were major celebrations in London, Berlin, and even Paris. The French knew they were about to get attacked by a far more prepared army than their own. They responded to this threat by throwing parties in the capitol.
I've seen this video a few times, and only on this watch did I notice Matt saying writers at the time all wrote articles about how countries couldn't possibly go to war, which was ridiculous of course, and then later in the video said how wars just don't happen anymore because of military might. Love this vid
I actually think there should be a link to Blueprint for Armageddon in the dooblidooo. Both as a nod to important source material and to let people find some of the best material out there on WWI.
Which is too bad because Hardcore History is just sensationalization for the purpose of entertainment. And when it comes to material on World War 1, The Great War series on TH-cam is far superior.
I agree with your posits. I would add, as a student of history the following: 1) No war is ever fought unless it can be justified both financially (by expected gains or affordability from the current resources) and ethically (by the legal standards of the time from which a moral argument can be made against the opposing force about which to rally troops to oppose "their injustice"). 2) The 14 Points of Woodrow Wilson which became the inspiration for the League of Nations, and ultimately the United Nations, in which war does not end in the conquest of territory from which the victor will recoup their losses in resources and manpower is an utterly new development in the human condition undermining and undermined by our intrinsic and instinctive evolutionary development. 3) Anecdotally: When my grandfather fought from horseback as a cavalryman in WW I, using saber and pistol, there were also planes dropping darts, rocks, etc. flying over head, trenches with mustard gas, machine gun nests, and rows of barbed wire. WW I was, in my studied opinion, the weirdest conflation of ancient traditional war and modern industrial war ever to occur.
@@Madhattersinjeans Not especially. Woodrow Wilson was originally put in office by the Bankers because of the Banking Crisis of 1907. The first two national banks were incredibly powerful. The first national bank harmed the assets of members of Congress resulting in their being unwilling to renew its charter. This indirectly caused the collapse of our logistics and supply as no bank would exchange currencies printed by another at equitable rates - ship masters attempting to move materials to support the War of 1812 couldn't get paid for the bullets, blankets, food, etc. that they moved up and down the coast for the troops. The next bank was created after we lost the War of 1812 and the charter protected the property rights of the elite, but let the bank prey upon the less established and the pioneer. Thus the Jacksonian Democrat was born and at the end of Jackson's final term the charter for the second bank was allowed to run out. We then entered the States Chartered Era of banking where each state had a state bank that printed its own money, and southern states used that to prohibit northern industry from buying their products so they could sell more to Europe for a higher revenue. A part of Lincoln's mandate when elected was to establish a third national bank - another reason the South walked out that is not often discussed as other reasons are considered less dry and more sexy. To make reentry into the Union more appealing, Lincoln's administration came up with something utterly new in world economics. Instead of a national bank printing a national currency, the treasury would control a mint system for providing currency based on the accounts at banks which justified the printing of it. To increase the availability of currency, government bonds would be sold so that the generated interest would provide inflationary measures for monetary expansion. This went into effect in the Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864. However, the rush to invest by the general public during the Trust Era that followed the Civil War resulted in a cyclic series of depressions roughly every 10 years based on speculation of the bonds being cashed. No one particularly cared until this cycle struck Madison Avenue in 1907. Woodrow Wilson had throughout his career been an architect of organizational systems. Each time he came to prominence in an organization he would take over and rewrite its fundamental charter, restructure its management system, and rework the flow of production. This suited the corporate interests of the period which put him in office in order to create the Federal Reserve as a means of moderating the relationship between interest and inflation rates and prevent the cycle of depressions that unregulated banking and public investment had effected on a regular basis. However, as President, he couldn't get others interested in rewriting the Constitution as he saw fit. No one was interested in his back channel pushes to restructure the country. So, when he put so much effort into the League of Nations, and then suggested we submit our national sovereignty to these foreign powers entanglements with which had led to WW I, and who had just spent the last few months reneging on or undermining every agreement we had attempted to make to bring about peace diplomatically, the Senate wouldn't agree. Wilson's attempt at an end run around the Constitution in order to remake the nation failed.
How are you coming up with points 1&2? They remind me of certain economic theories, perfectly reasoned for machines but terrible at describing human behavior.
@@scriptoriumludi5698 Simply put, because I am degreed in both history and communications theory/human relations. To point one: No war is fought without the assets to fight it. No nation enters into a state of war knowing that it cannot field the assets to fight that war. A nation may be forced into a defensive posture when invaded and occupied by another that has the resources to effect war, but the occupied nation neither engaged in the war, nor did they have the resources to fight it: hence the occupation. Also, to point one: There is no war initiated in the history of humanity that was not justified based upon moral standards of the jurisprudence of the time. It simply does not happen, from the myths of China, Greece, India, Ireland, etc. or the histories of Egypt, India, Persia, etc. All wars are justified by an accusation of unethical conduct, that is the breaking of a law (sacred or mundane), by those against whom the war will be waged. To point two, this is a fact of history. Whether Indigenous People's of North America, or elsewhere, taking PoWs was done to recoup population losses during the conflict. The headwoman of the longhouse for instance would decide which PoWs to assimilate and which would be ritually tortured to death. The right of conquest in migration is not only the human standard, but even true of plants. This is a biological fact. When a pride of lions becomes weak, another replaces it. When a herd of antelope dwindles, other things replace them in the niche of their territory. To the victor go the spoils is as true of lemurs as it is of naked apes. Woodrow Wilson, arguably one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States, was attempting to rewrite the nature of reality; it is still failing.
This is EXACTLY what i needed to hear today. Youre an ever present reference whenever i question my story telling. If it wasnt for you i probably wouldve given up being a Dungeon Master a long time ago! My players are about to get caught in the start of a war. Your videos have influenced my word in SO many ways. As a player in one game and a dungeon master in another i say thank you for your videos Matt.
I might also recommend Richard K. Reihn's 1812: Napoleon's Russian Campaign. It covers the reasons why war was inevitable on both the French and Russian sides as well as the way peace was maintained for so long. The duality of Napoleon as Emperor and Napoleon as General is interesting as well.
I'm just now discovering this channel and have been burning through as much of the back log as I can because it is so good and breaks down the concepts I am struggling to put to paper or explain to other. This one though... definitely the best of the bunch...
Blase Pascal said that men have to find an occupation because is they don't they start having the ennuie that makes them think of death. In his mind it war was the biggest distraction of all, warlords went to war because it was the biggest and fastest hare you could find, you would be sure to never catch that rabbit. Just rembered it and though it was neat.
It should be noted that warfare in Pascals time was much less likely to end in lethal injury. While still very dangerous armies would often retreat if they took 20% casualties sometimes less. The soldiers would gain pride/prestige and it was one of the few avenues for the poor to find some level of social mobility. Modern wars changed this, and turned the previously almost "honourable" conflicts into brutal killing matches annihilating armies in mere days.The use of heavy artillery barrages, machine guns and poison gas put an end to any kind of honour there might have been. Which basically traumatised the soldiers families and returning soldiers to push for more restraints against more war. And even the aristocratic generals were aghast at the casualties. And the infrastructure that gets damaged by modern war is so badly brutalised, entire towns emptied of their populations of men. Villages being abandoned. Even today there are areas that are too dangerous to develop or walk across due to decaying poison gases and ammunition. There's a yearly "Iron harvest" near some of the warzones that regularly turns up lots of old explosives from a war that is now over 100 years old. Which helps explain some of the fairly extensive peace we have between the great powers today. War is just far too costly to the population to be a real option now.
You managed to distill a complex historical theory into a 16 minute video- This is why I watch your channel & hang on your every word. I love that your love of drama was raised in the house of historical literacy. Bravo, sir.
what you are talking about with the excuses and the real reasons to go to war world one is something we discussed in my school - its in my tests! well done! you are very interesting!
There are the reasons we tell ourselves that war is needed. There are reasons we tell ourselves we need to fight this war. There are reasons we tell ourselves why the war was inevitable and why we had to fight it. ... And then there's the truth of the matter. Seldom these four sentences ever line up with each other.
That's one great video ! No words to say . You are most right ... I hope that many see this and understand you , not only for the game , but as a lesson for history and the horror of war .
It's scary and sad how much this aligns with what's happening today with Ukraine and Russia. It makes me more sad when Matt said that financial incentives never stopped a war. I think in these times, it's obvious that history is always doomed to repeat itself.
FML Matt. I've read numerous books that try to detail how to deal with political intrigue in games surrounding war and peace and none of them touch what you just laid out. That is such a stellar outlook about what causes or delays war and why people support regimes that are warlike. Masterclass.
This is a good video BUT, it's worth noting that Donald Kagan's opinions about the causes of war weren't limited to Classical Greece. He was an original signer of a statement of principles from the neo-conservative thinktank, The Project for the New American Century, which was co-founded by his son, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. PNAC helped shape the Bush Administration's foreign policy, most notably on the Iraq War. So that's worth keeping in mind when he argues that conflict/war comes naturally from the actions of states.
The Iraq war is an interesting one to bring up here but I haven't read enough by the authors Matt cites to know if it contradicts or strengthens their arguments. Who were the important people working to maintain peace between the US and Iraq and when were they removed prior to the Iraq war? I suppose it could be argued that it was laws or conventions preventing US oil companies taking over Iraq that were keeping the peace if you see the conflict along the Self-Interest lines of consolidating their power and wealth partnered with the Fear/Pride of the US government in the wake of 9/11 that led to those conventions no longer existing. While the Iraq war does seem like an example of a war the broke out after shooting the archduke, as mentioned, it could be argued that the ball was already rolling due to US oil companies interest in the region not to mention the arms industry and the fact it needs big american wars to keep making money no matter where the war takes place. It is also always relevant to question why the archduke was shot since 9/11 was, to my understanding, generally accepted to be in response to US interference in the middle east for however many decades prior. I'm not very learned on this subject but those smarter than me could analyse the interference along the lines of the 'natural actions of states' which is, I think, what op was referring to in their comment. This is mostly conjecture, I don't have anything backing this up conclusively and bringing up the Iraq war might be irrelevant since Matt mentioned that this conversation is focused on classical warfare, not modern warfare but since the Iraq war is nowadays seen less as a patriotic defense of the US and more a cloaked movement by corporations to take the resources of a foreign country it is interesting to consider how it fits in with the Kagan analysis and Thucydides (had to google that one) analysis of war. I'm not trying to start an argument here btw, bringing up the Iraq war just inspired some questions and considerations in me.
The archduke was shot because of German meddling in the Balkans. Gavrilo Principe (the shooter) is regarded as a hero and a freedom fighter by some and a terrorist by others. In the case of WWI, once Otto von Bismark wasn't around to keep the peace, a war was probably inevitable.
@Ryan Toppin The idea of war breaking out in this Shoot the Archduke/911 way might be a separate form of analysis to the fear/pride/self-interest one communicated by Matt here. This structure implies a default peace between nations maintained by geographical distance (Germany and the Balkans, USA and Iraq) which is tested and strained by the larger, more powerful nation flexing its muscles in a colonial style in the weaker nation such as making economic grabs for resources, aiding this by manipulating the government and elections, etc. A resistance movement is then fostered in response to the corruption, the abuse of power, the manipulation of catastrophies and the ostracising of certain minority groups and the archduke is shot. The dominant country then feels victimised and manufactures a justification for a massive, oppressive, dominating war. Immediately theres a flaw in this analysis here since the Iraqis were not responsible for 9/11 however US imperialism and interference had been occuring all over the middle east and a general resentment and desire for resistance did exist. As with my last comment I'm not an expert on these matters. I've read a lot about it but at the end of the day this analysis is all from an amateurs perspective who's young enough to barely remember 9/11. I think it would also be interesting to analyse American imperialism in South America with regard to CIA sponsored and run coups of nationalist or just left leaning governments or the manipulating of politics to solely benefit american companies with interest in the region. These kinds of 'wars' feel like good material for a campaign, with puppet governments, corporate oligarchies and root-deep corruption. The idea of foreign intervention inspiring coups and civil wars and the propaganda given to citizens of the dominant nation and other nations around the world to hide the fact that it is all in the self interest of Coca Cola sounds like something very fun to write about.
You're confusing don kagan with his son rob kagan mate. Fair mistake, they are both conservative historians. Although rob backed the dems in 2016. Really tells you something about military intervention, neoconservatives and the death cult.
One big thing to note about Civil Wars is that they are always objectively wasteful, one side is almost always not professional military, and those jobs they should be doing are not being done. It's neighbor against neighbor, the people in power knew each other and so may many of the combatants.
I think the three motivations are still valid. Fear, pride, and self-interest were all factors in the American Civil War. Fear in the south that the election of Abraham Lincoln would mean the abolition of slavery and the way of life of the people in the south. Pride in the north of Union. Self-interest on both sides. Each side kept putting lines in the sand assuming the other would not cross them. Until they did. Once the shooting started even people who opposed secession rallied to The Confederacy. Once war starts you fight for the person next to you, not because of some grand principle. If you haven't watched Ken Burns' The Civil War I highly recommend it.
In the meantime before Matt makes that video, you can always look towards Civil Wars in history and other media for inspiration. My personal favourite on a conceptual level is the Civil War in Skyrim. You have an Empire that has recently lost a war with another power, and has been forced to sign a treaty that has compromised the core values of some of its citizens - which include outlawing the worship of Talos, the Nordic God, and allowing that oppressive power, the Thalmor, to walk all over Imperial land, abducting and/or executing anyone found in breach of these new laws. "If we don't get rid of these guys, who will?" (FEAR) You can easily draw parallels here to the Treaty of Versailles, depending on the slant you put on it. Now, the Stormcloaks seek to break free from the Empire's control so that they can resume worshipping their deity, kick out the Thalmor, and re-affirm Skyrim's position as a strong country (PRIDE). Or at least, that's what the Soldiers on the front line say. But they follow their leader, Ulfric Stormcloak, and it's easy to say he only started this war to claim the High King's throne for himself (SELF-INTEREST). On the other side you have the Imperials and their loyalists, who would say that despite everything, the Empire is still our best line of defense against future aggression, and we were just trying to gather our strength again to prepare to kick the Thalmor out anyway. Now, perhaps the Stormcloaks threaten to thwart those efforts by leaving the Empire weak via this conflict. Certainly, the Thalmor themselves see what's going on and want the war to continue. There's probably more angles to this that you can look at through playing the game, looking back through why the War started, what are the different slants and perspectives that the characters have about it, and what ideas can you pull out from that for your Campaign.
I have followed this playlist for a while, watching a few at a time, and always get something out of them. This one though... Just wow. After years of studying World Wars, this one spill painted the best picture I gave ever heard. This guy is simply amazing. Thanks for all that you do, Matt!
When I was taking a computer class in college, one of the things they made us do was research on early computers. In my research, I found that an early use for computers they came up with was going through all the history books to find how many years in the past 3000 years of history had the world been entirely at peace? The answer was 7. 7 years in all of recorded history there were no wars between major countries on the globe. (And if you think that's strange, just keep in mind that America's been conducting various wars against various shifting "terrorists" and nations in the Middle East for the past two decades, plus there's that war in Ukraine, and let's not forget the civil war in Syria and let's not forget Venezuela...) Most of these years were earlier on, when there simply may not have been records of wars fought because there were less literate societies. War. War never changes.
Check out Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon if you want a great overview of World War One told in dramatic fashion. I think Matt's mentioned Hardcore History before. Check it out!
It is insane how dramatic you presented this. I am a german history student, I know this stuff. I have heard it at least a dozen times from different people, all professors of history. Yet you made me listen on the edge of my seat. Fear, Pride and Self-Interest. God I am so stealing that for my campaign. Tip of the Hat to you Matt, that was incredible.
I have now listened to this video 3 times, because not only does it draw my attention because I’m a dungeon master hoping to make a campaign about war and politics but because it feels so real, the religion of why country’s proceed to go to war and how war was thought of before weapons of mass destruction felt so heavy, a great video about how we can draw upon what is thought as tragedy to make our games feel just that much more like real life
"Kings tremble when the gods of Fear, Pride and Self-Interest fight. But one day the three gods of War will make peace with each other, and the real war will begin." Prophecy of the Ragnohfuckohfuckweresofuckedrock, date unknown.
Love politics videos (the diplomacy one is my favourite) To add to the German reasons fro war. Russia was huge but still backward, still beatable. When they would go for an industrial revolution in 10/20 years they would be unstoppable. So Prussia had to strike soon. A similar view from France toward Germany superior numbers pushed them to try to cripple Germany at the Versailles treaty. Also England (to quote yes minister) had the simple politic of opposing any nation in Europe who was going to be egemonic (Napoleon, then Germany) to be safe from a possible invasion
Spectacular way to break down what seems to be very complex to a few factions and a few reasons, that many DMs can replicate! One of my favorite running the game videos. Thank you!
Less than three minutes in, you bring up Thucydides. My God, Man, I love your mind so much and this is the reason. People neglect the ancient thinkers far too often these days. You didn't, so you have my respect.
Matt, whether you see this or not, it has to be said that this is some of your best work. This video is brilliant mate, on many levels. I will use it as a gateway to introduce others to your wisdom. Thanks a heap.
I love the intro stories so much! I'm sure not everyone is a fan, but I like learning the unexpected and it's been a big influence on me. (Although Pastor Bloom might deserve more credit)
Revisiting this video after watching it a couple of years ago. Back then, it informed my DnD world. Now it's informing my Vampire the Masquerade chronicle!
Sources for some of the nonsense I spout; Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Deceit-Imperial-Making/dp/0307476413 Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia www.amazon.com/Hero-Life-Legend-Lawrence-Arabia/dp/0061712620 On The Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace www.amazon.com/Origins-War-Preservation-Peace/dp/0385423756 History of the Peloponnesian War classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html Blueprint for Armageddon www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-blueprint-for-armageddon-i/
This video was one of the best ones yet. I have no idea how to make wars occur naturally in my game, for the reasons you mentioned: war is a horrid act in our current reality. I made wars happen in my game as a racial thing (men vs elves. Gnomes vs Dragonkind or adjacent scaly creatures such as Lizardfolk), or an Other in the form of a Lich-king or other large force. This finally put it into terms for me. War is a natural state of those vying for power. My players evacuated the King of a continental trade out of his home to save him from an incoming invasion at the hands of Ancient Dragons, and now I know how that resolves: a war. Not only for the dragons, but for the people as well.
This hits differently in 2024. I'm Ukrainian and asking myself "Why did Russia attack my country?" and the answer "Fear. Pride. Self-interest." fits very well. Also, I'm running a Dune: Adventures in the Imperium campaign, and I need to let my players try the rules for battles, so I had writers block about "When and why would a war break out among minor houses on peaceful planet Caladan?"... This video gives me the answer: "When the Atreides leave. Because they leave." This video is very useful to me today, in more ways than one. Thank you.
I didn't initially agree with your assessment on war and history, but this video makes all the sense I need to understand and agree. It's a well made video explanation of the history of war and why it continued for so long (and continues to a large degree still). Thanks, Matt.
Matt, this was incredibly insightful. I majored in military history at West Point and this was still a quality lecture on a purely geopolitical basis as well. Nitpick, WWI was industrialized but not truly mechanized as the use of motor vehicles was comparatively small as opposed to horse-drawn, and tanks were primitive and small in quantity.
While I find your perspective fascinating, and I can see the importantance of war as a dramatic set piece, I think you're ignoring the thing our DnD cultures have that our ancestors didn't: Tangible Divinity. The existence of clerics/paladins and spells such as Augery and Commune behooves the DM to have Divine Perspectives on mortal affairs. Unlike purely Human cultures, the Divines represent all things - nature, ideas, perspectives, and so on. Thus, where there wasn't a voice for the Old Grove Forest that lies on the border of a budding nation, in our DnD world, there may be druids who stand opposed to that expansion, willing to grant the nation's fields with gifts of plenty in exchange. This presents an added layer of complexity that a DM should keep on mind (you can always get away with winging it, but little notes help), especially since there is a very real chance your Divine Magic users will try to get information from their deities.
While I agree divine intervention is an additional degree of freedom worthwhile for DMs to consider, how often do the motivations of those deities differ from the fear, pride or self-interest of their human counterparts? Your druids are fighting for the grove. Where? Are they content with waiting until the army enters its canopies, at which point they might scorch it instead if that's a quicker solution? Or do they fight in the fields beyond, and maybe a bit beyond that to ensure a buffer of land, and maybe a bit further away to prevent countermeasures? To me, this sounds like self-interest, perhaps fear. With deities, we can also look at more mythological wars like the Troyan war. In those, the gods are depicted to be just as prone to taking sides as any other power. In Troy, it was Zeus vs (iirc) Poseidon, and they both blessed the heroes of their sides with boons. But (classical) gods, unlike nukes, are fallible like humans. And if a god would intervene and enact the nuclear-like destruction, other gods would join the frey - for fear, pride, or self-interest.
I have to be nay sayer on your point. How many people have been killed in wars over religion in the last 2000 years? All we have are false prophets preaching true power unlike real power wielding clerics in game. Modern wars love to use religion as a basis. In gAme magic and relics are all the reason to go war cause they hold tangible power.
I think gods just add another lever for fear, pride and self-interest to work. Mythology is littered with examples of gods fighting for the most human of reasons.
@@DristanRossVII While certainly there can be a case made for the Divines directly taking sides in mortal affairs, there is also a fine line to tiptoe to not avoid a Deus Ex Machina "You must go to War because your God demands it". This can make players feel like their agency has little affect on the world because it's already being driven by Divine will. That's why many DMs prefer that deities have a more "hands off" approach, instructing their followers to best represent their portfolio. In the case of the Druids, perhaps they want to avoid war at any costs, because every blade of grass that is tread on in their Grove is a loss in their eyes. There would be factions who exist to live peacefully, pushing for homeostasis rather than war. Not saying that every setting has to have these things, but these themes swirl around certain player classes, and we build these worlds go present players with, and we should have an answer to them regarding themes their classes are built around.
@@CobwebsandCandlesticks Aye, but these Divines have realms of their own, of which that war would inevitably spread to. This would in turn cause a Cascade of events that would lead to other Divines becoming embroiled in war as well. Not all settings want to have the backdrop of a Divine World war, or even a Divine War. Most DnD games I've played in have Divines who deliver a more "hands off" approach.
Matthew, I don't normally comment because it's rare that I have anything worth saying. But I really do believe that this is one of your best videos. Dramatic, informative and educational. A true pleasure to watch from start to finish.
You know, I don't fully agree. (Great video by the way, your Running The Game series has inspired me to write again and I don't even play D&D!) The model of politics you've put forward has some merit but shouldn't be assumed to be the primary explanation of all wars, especially in the modern period (and has some flaws in terms of drama too). There is always the tendency for humans to form ideologies in order to justify their self-interest, but the reverse can hold too as people who believe something on ideological grounds seek to convince others to follow in terms of their self-interest. As people become richer and safer they are more prone to consider (and act upon) ethical or ideological considerations, hence the rise of vegetarianism and ecological concern (and subsequently, "But it's in your own best interests! Vegetarians are healthy!"). The two world wars are at that hinge point in history, when ideology becomes itself a causative factor. It is quite possible, perhaps necessary, to have a moral discussion about what Britain should have done, because that is the world we want to live in and are seeking to materialise. After all, most people don't hate North Korea because they pose any serious threat. Maybe this seems like an unnecessary ramble, but some more positive perceptions of modern politics are sorely needed, lest we forget the huge (and ethically motivated) achievements of the Declaration Of Human Rights or the Genocide Convention, or the rise of international law and the banning of napalm. If you want drama and tension, nothing could be more satisfying than a group of people doing the right thing against their own self-interest, the suicidal stand against tyranny, or the tension of whether a King will do the right thing.
Right on. While I generally agree with Matt's view, and especially in broad strokes it can help understanding and help a writer write some serious drama... some of the rattling in the comments about 'peace being a lie, this current state of peace being false' sounds less like observations on the human condition, and more like wanting way more death since we're not having quite enough of it lately. Like arguments I've seen (modern, safe, comfortable, online) people have against "the rules of war" and the idea that war "can" have any rules at all. Like we should just repeal it all and go back to the point when the only reason 'genocide' wasn't a word was because it was so omnipresent and ubiquitous that nobody thought twice about it.
As a German, I think the explanation of how or why the first world war started is a bit too simplified. It wasn't just the Germans wanting to start a war and waiting for an excuse. That leaves out austria and it's important role in starting the war and leaves out the general animosities which developed between the countries at the time. Also, after Bismarck kicked the bucket, the system of treaties, which a couple of years prior secured the peace, transformed a bit, resulting in a chain reaction with Germany and Austria on one side and basically everyone else on the other side. It's late, so if there is any interest I can outline the exact conditions under which who went to war with who and why at a later date. Funnily enough, I had to deal with that stuff the last couple of days because my history finale is in three days and world war 1 and its circumstances could be one of the things I will be tested in.
It seems unlikely that Austria would have tried to start the war without German backing or that Serbian independance would have even been a threat without Russian support. Enough leaders on both sides clearly wanted war and no doubt thought it would be an easy victory for their side.
@@quinnwilder6990 Yeah, WWI was a mixture of nations' seeking to advance their national interests at any cost. Austria and Russia were competing for Balkan influence, Russia and the Ottoman Empire were competing in the Caucasus, as well, on top of that, Russia wanted to take control of the strait to both secure the entrance to the Black Sea and bolster their influence in the Balkans. Germany wanted eastward expansion (an early form of "lebensraum"), and, more importantly, they were deathly afraid of Russia being allowed to modernize and industrialize, as they believed that a modernized Russia would be a major threat to every other European power, and wanted to take them down before that was allowed to happen. At the same time, Germany wanted its time in the sun as a colonial empire, and was eyeing France's colonies as their way in, and they sought to strong-arm the UK into an alliance against France, but they did so through a military and navy build up that only pushed the UK towards France. Also Germany industrialists were rather interested in Belgium's industries. And the UK and France, especially the UK, both wanted to maintain the status-quo, as it benefited them the most, so they were trying to keep the German upstart under wraps.
This video makes me think of the classic Blackadder line.
"Why are we at war, sir?"
"Because it was too much effort NOT to have a war."
Blackadder Goes Fourth is probably one of the finest representations of WW1 ever put on a screen - nothing else quite captures the levels of confusion, misery, pathos & absurdity of the conflict.
@@edgecases If you follow the conflict closely the reasons for fighting become clearer. We just see a distilled version of history now and wonder what they were thinking.
There's a good channel to follow that have covered the great war on a week by week basis, the Great war channel did a reasonably good breakdown of events.
And when you see the events unfold it makes more sense, as they were living the conflict day by day. Not years by years as we see it.
@@edgecases We plan to all rise up out of the trenchs in neat straight lines and charge the machine guns " but thats what we have done the last 3 times" "ah yes thats why they will never expect us to do it again " paraphrasing as it has been many years since viewing but you get the jist of the scene from blackadder goes fourth .
@@soulfirez4270 last 14 times
The poor ostrich died for nothing
if i may point out a horrific mistake: there has never been a moment when Belgium could not defend against an invasion from Luxembourg xD
[Luxembourg has left the chat]
Belgium will always maintain the inexpugnable stall at the border with its mighty garrison of the transit police and his cat.
This is blatant Belgian propaganda.
Fear, Pride and Self-Interest
Sounds like a good title for your Kingdoms and Warfare book, Matt
Matt is an angry Jane Austen.
I think Kingdoms and Warfare is a perfect name- it’s concise and descriptive. Fear, Pride, and Self-Interest should be a chapter name or something
@@lechauvesouris2969 Wow that caught me so off guard. I dont know why I found this so funny.
Fear and Loathing on the Ramparts
@@idontcare6736 Or the subtitle :-)
My favorite thing about you Matt is that you inspire ideas. I watch many other d&d content creators, but when I listen to you my mind always seems to grasp onto a new angle and a seed is planted that I can run with to create my own content. You really cut to the heart of the topic and it's more than just "hey, this is how you play d&d", and I really see that d&d version whatever.0 is just a tool to create and share something fun and really something unique with friends. Anyway, sorry for the cheese, just wanted to share what I think sets you apart and it's really I think a great thing.
I absolutely agree. I watch SO much d&d related content, and dming advice stuff, it's just absurd, and I really enjoy loads of it, but Matt Colville and Guy from "How to be a Great Game Master" somehow both sort of shift the gears in my mind and I somehow get SOO much more creative from watching their stuff.
There's lots of good and great d&d based channels out there imo, but these two do absolute wonders for me!
It's a bit like reading Asimov, ain't it?
I haven't read them. But I intend to.
I just think Matt''s videos kind of get the same creative juices as Asimov's flowing in me.
Also, other D&D channels specifically concentrate only on D&D, but Matt's stuff is applicaple to any system. Listening to this channel has enriched many campaigns I've ran.
Agreed 100%! And it’s also his way of speaking in videos. A lot of really good, well-spoken youtubers have a lot of smart things to say, but can feel really monotonous in their pattern of speech, making it somewhat difficult to engage. Matt gets it, and he speaks with dynamic energy that makes nearly every video easy to get into and understand
If you're wondering if your confidence in the script for this was misplaced, it wasn't. This was really informative.
Agreed! To think I learned more in a 15 minute video than I did during the month my world history class discussed WWI from the perspective of the british
@@kathrynrovito6855 I know. I think the softening and whitewashing of our history classes has done a severe disservice to our DMing skills...
@@nextlevel8822 You can say that again, friend
If you enjoyed Matt's bit about early WW1 you're going to love Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman.
@@Gstrangeman96 I'll have to give it a listen then!
Man, I've always like Matt's videos, but this one is tops. A solid central idea, clarity of script, execution, even his vocal delivery, this guy continues to get better. Keep it up, mate.
There was definitely something different about his voice this time.
It also seems like all of his topics are perfectly timed to be relevant to the campaigns I'm running- addressing the questions I have as I have them...
but its not solid at all. To instantly rule out wars for resources is just plain silly
dante ferno I think his point is that resources aren’t necessarily the end goal of the war- that the reason they’re going to war for resources is out of pride, fear, or self interest.
But honestly I’m a little confused as to the difference between “self interest” and “a desire for resources and land”, so your point is very valid
Resources and land are a self- interest, but not the most compelling one, and certainly not enough to go to war over without ulterior motives. They are the gravy on the meat and potatoes of international conflicts. They add a lot of appeal, but no one eats the gravy alone.
@@MaxParks Well as he said, Britain got into WW1 not for resources, but definitely for self interest. They wanted to seem committed to their word, that it wasn't something to be taken lightly, because if it WAS taken lightly, it would undermine them around the world. 'Are you really going to go to war for a scrap of paper?' becomes 'Are you really going to go to war for this small farming region in India?' to 'Are you really going to go to war for the independence of this small naval fort?' It was in their self interest to get involved in this conflict, because it could prevent future conflict in the colonies and worldwide. Sure, when they were cutting up the carcass they certainly took resources from Germany, but that was just the cherry on top of the cake
"Fear, Pride, and Self-Interest" is my favorite Jane Austen novel.
"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.” -Ferdinand Jean Marie Foch, Supreme Allied Commander, 1918
Twenty years, and sixty five days later, the wold was at war again.
@Fake Wings considering France had to be talked out of invading Germany to prevent reunification in 1990 I believe it
Indeed. An armistice is an agreement to stop fighting. Quite different from a treaty of peace.
Otto Von Bismarck literally said after he got fired by Wilhelm II that in 20 years the world would be at war thanks to him too. Very similar circumstances.
@@nicholashurst780 Wait what?
@@LordVader1094 Not publicly but in the early negotiations around reunification France's diplomats made it clear it would go to war before accepting a version of a unified Germany it considered a threat to France. Considering the preceding 1000 years it wasn't that unreasonable of a position to take
"An old military power versus a new economic power"
This just gives me the opposite of the warm fuzzies about the United States and China.
Except that China is peaking and threatened from within by internal divisions. They spend more policing their own people than on the military.
@@newtype0083 Doesn't sound like the US at all lol
newtype0083 people are saying that the United States has never been more divided
THIS.
The thucydides trap isn't inescapable of course but yes there's a serious issue. Arguably China's massive economic growth does eventually peak that could increase the chance of conflict, it might attempt to translate its economic muscle at that point into a sphere of influence that would allow them to continue growth of a different kind. A Chinese Monroe doctrine, one China policy a Brezhnev Doctrine with Chinese characteristics.
Matt Colville proves himself yet again as not only an amazing Dungeon Master, but also as a very well learned student of history and socio politics.
The crab man speaks
This video should be watched by everyone regardless of their involvement in D&D.
😢😢🎉😢😢😢😮
P😢I 8lo😢u9o😢I 🎉l
One thing to note here - war is regular, but war between superpowers is less common. History suggests that it is almost inevitable for superpowers to go to war when they have overlapping spheres of influence, but generally, they dance around each other for quite some time before they do. They conquer smaller nations to block off their rival's expansion, they seize major areas of economic or military importance, and they consolidate their power, but they tend to avoid direct conflict for as long as possible. When nations go to war, it often means they are certain that they will win (or that they are desperate, or feel like they have an incredibly good reason). Very few people will get themselves into a war that they don't think they can win quickly unless they feel that they absolutely have to. If the major powers of your world are at war, there should either be a good reason, or one side thought they had a clear advantage.
A side effect of this is that alliances (and coordination between allies) have often been the deciding factor in a battle between superpowers, and securing a key alliance could be enough to convince one party that they can win the war. Superpowers tend to fall when two or more of their major rivals unite against them.
Except...it is not. You are using modern vision of the Cold War.
Rome and Carthage had three devastating wars in a lifetime span. The Successor Kingdoms had lots of wars.
Rome and Parthia had wars for nearly 150 years.
Rome and Sassanids had wars for nearly four centuries.
Then Rome was at war with The Caliphate and its successors for eight centuries.
France and England had the Hundred Years War and, if you think they weren't superpowers, they were strong enough to intervene in Iberia while at war.
I think examples from before Christ to the beginning of the Modern Age should be enough. Tell me if you need more.
@@mikerodrigues9822I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. War between major powers is almost entirely inevitable, it just doesn't tend to be done on a whim. It is usually the culmination of mounting tensions, and has often been preceded by minor conflicts and mutual land grabs. It's not that they won't go to war, but major wars between empires tend to come as the culmination of a lot of tension and resentment. (and no, my main historical reference point is not the Cold War. I cited that because it's what people know, but I was looking more at my knowledge of ancient wars and the build up that led to them)
It's worth pointing out that the exact definition of "super powers" in politics is not only difficult, but often changes with the context of history... Today (for instance) unless you have enough nuclear fire-power to wipe out the planet at least a couple times over, stockpiled and reasonably at hand, then you are not a super-power...
In the late Roman Age (prior to the black-plague) there was a FAR different identifying nature to a "super power" term than pretty much anytime in the middle or "dark" ages... Even the difference between the bronze age and iron age technologies and weapons wouldn't alter that detail...
Right now, we live in a socio-economic space where World-Wide has a complete meaning, unlike any other time in history... Even much of the twentieth century, when someone said, "worldwide" it had a different and considerably more limited scope... more on the line of what you and I would call "multi-national"... but not necessarily entirely encompassing the whole of the world.
In the end, we ARE still only humans... and very much animals, not so separate from our nature or the natural world as we would like to believe. All over the rest of the natural world, conflict is a daily practice... eat or be eaten, as it were...
Yet, we humans have INVENTED society, civilization, and all the supposed "trappings" that so intangibly come along with those concepts. We're taught from our earliest formative activities and moments to avoid fighting and violence and conflict if at all possible... but it's still inevitable.
Right now, is THE most peaceful and economically advantageous term of all of mankind's history... The chances of our planet surviving another super-power conflict at the scale we even CAN imagine today is right next door to zero... but that's a far and wide difference from every other part of history (and pre-history for the matter)... SO no, historically, either you've mistaken the differences between super-powers from the lesser lists... OR they're not so prone to avoiding conflict as you seem to indicate.
While it's credible that "nobody willingly goes to a war they can't win"... There's a lot more to be said around the starting stages of "jockeying for position" in longer winded "preambles" to wars of the past... and this is where you're seeing the "minor conflicts" and resentment or equivalent land-grabs and skirmishing...
Those are still every bit tactical... so warfare, no different from the flashy and (more fun) dramatics of "direct invasion"... Maybe don't limit your view in scope, and you'll see the discrepancy disappear. ;o)
This is a great video. I agree with you, though I do think war sometimes starts because of manipulation - counter peace-makers if you will.
Hey Guy! These people are often called spoilers in diplomacy and negotiation studies.
Wow, HTBGM commenting on Matt Colville. It's a star wrapped up in a star.
#self-interest
But they do those things for a reason, and that reason is often self-interest.
"Peace... Out."
Definitely takes on a new connotation after this video.
OD's cameo was the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. God save the Queen!
There is also good historical examples of a new military power fighting an old economic one. Rome vs Carthage in the Punic Wars
I am close to finishing Richard Miles' 'Carthage Must Be Destroyed', and the Punic Wars, especially the Second one, are really phenomenal for displaying every aspect of war in action, especially motivations and propaganda.
@@kendoweeb2766 that sounds like a good book. I just bought it on Audible so I have something to listen to after I finish a book on the Crimean War
@@LuvLikeTruck It really is quite stellar. Prior to now, I hadn't really read many books on history, but after reading it, I'm certainly eager to read more. Miles is quite good at keeping things interesting, and weighing the accounts of many people while also considering their biases, as any good historian should.
If you don't mind my asking, what was the name of the book on the Crimean War you said you were reading?
@@kendoweeb2766 "Crimea" by Orlando Figes. It's been ok. A little slow in the start, but had to set up the the cultural reasons for the war.
If you want two other good military history books I'd strongly recommend "A Frozen Hell" by William R. Trotter (Russo-Finnish Winter War) and "Castles of Steel" by Robert K. Massie (Germany vs U.K. at sea during WWI)
@@LuvLikeTruck Thank you! I will certainly take a look at the 3. The Russo-Finnish Winter War seems the most interesting right now, so I might read that one first.
This is one of my favourite video of all times: it's full with useful informations and has an insane rythim. I love this
With current events being what they are I’ve found myself rewatching this video. Still spot on and well done.
Hi Matt!
I am a 25 years old young man from Italy and I started following your channel back in 2016, when I accidentally stumbled in your "Running the Game" playlist: maybe the best channel I found in these years, no kidding.
I have been a DM for at least twelve years and I have gained a fair amount of experience myself, but watching your videos helped really a lot both in seeing things from a different point of view and in trying things I had never thought.
My girlfriend knew that I liked your videos and so she bought your books as a gift for me.
I have already finished "Priest" and I am reading "Thief" and I can say that I am enjoying them very much 'cause they are full of interesting characters, plot-twists and drama.
After another of your outstanding videos I just wanted to let you know that you have followers even here in Italy and that I praise your experience, your books and your work on this channel.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and your advices in such an entertaining way !
Quality as ever Matt. While I prefer the 30min plus videos I like how concise and informative this was.
Sheesh, seen this video before but it still SLAPS. Please keep talking about history the way you present it is so engaging. Thank you for another awesome vid 🙏
I'm running a game in Eberron, where each of the five nations want to rule a new Galifar and each of those factions has subfactions vying for power to rule the winning side.
This video has helped me formalize my thoughts on the higher level details of the politics and decisions of it all so thank you very much.
I know this probably isn't what you want but, you're inspiring me to write both a novel, and a module, and a better campaign. Thank-you Matt.
This video was amazing. I was literally enthralled just hearing about the reasons for war. I need to catch up on the stream!
I have been running D&D for about 25 years. Written for Legend of the Five Rings and played a ton of games.
I say that to say this: videos like yours help reinvigorate the imagination.
You're a goddamn hero.
I love how you are able to take a complex topic that most people don't really encounter unless they go to college for a degree in political science or history and are able to break it down and present its fundamental essence in less than twenty minutes. This is honestly something that should be taught in high school, it really changes the way you view both contemporary and historical politics and makes some seemingly irrational decisions people had made make perfect sense.
Listening to this was like watching a boxing match. It came out swinging and didn't relent until the deed was done. An instant favourite.
14:05
"Do you want to bet everything on that?"
That line delivery is chilling. Goosebumps. Goosebumps every time.
Whatever happens we have got,
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
When I first heard the quote it sounded so serious, but the source is definitely aiming for dark comedy:
...and they have not.
He marked them in their rude advance,
He hushed their rebel cheers ;
With one extremely vulgar glance
He broke the Mutineers.
(I have a picture in my book
Of how he quelled them with a look.)
We shot and hanged a few, and then
The rest became devoted men.
3 years later and this video is still giving me inspiration as a DM; narrative history and D&D rolled into one punchy guide. In fact, this is probably my favorite videos on the TH-cam.
"But to me, that idea that peace is normal is very weird, unhistorical, and worst of all, it lacks drama."
Priorities right there! :V
This is all well and good from the perspective of dramatic fiction, which Matt is very knowledgable about and talented with, having dedicated his life to it.
For anyone who wants a clearer understanding of what people think when they dedicate their life to the actual study of real war and are equipped with data, I’d recommend The Better Angels of Our Nature as a starting point.
Matt, you should watch "The Expanse" if you haven't. I think it encapsulates a lot of what you talk about in this video, and is an overall fantastic show. This was an amazing video and i think it might be one of my personal favorites of yours. Keep up the great work! Or don't I'm not your boss or anything.
3 years after this video: I remember watching episode one because I wanted to play D&D because I didn’t have any friends to play with. Now I’m getting philosophical lessons and studies in the art of war.
A good time to rewatch this.
I really like this video, find myself re-watching every now and then. Just really interesting topics and you portray it really great. Thanks man.
Time to make some notes:
Go to war: Self-interest, Pride, Fear
War in D&D: Someone keeping the peace now dead, old military power vs new economic powerhouse
and as Matt said in prior videos this doesn't need to be a good person keeping the peace. The nations beneath Ajax do not war because Ajax rules with an iron fist. Remove Ajax and you get everyone fighting to avoid being subservient to the others.
Here's another note for you: our contemporary notion of "country" is largely a construct developed through the 18th & 19th century.
Prior to then, going back all the way till the end of the Roman Empire, your "country" was just the person you owed loyalty to. Be that a duke, king, or emperor, or all of the above.
If your liege woke up one morning and decided to go to war against a neighbour because their cattle had been grazing on his land, you went along.
Up until fairly recently, war was largely interpersonal conflict, made nastier and deadlier by the fact that both parties usually commanded the loyalty of loads of men with pointy sticks.
And don't forget, it doesn't have to be death, or even physical removal.
This is one of the single best videos you have produced. Based on this, whenever I start a new campaign, I am going to begin with either "a war has just ended" or "a war is brewing." From there I will determine the who, what, where, when and whys of the recently ended war or brewing war. This concept will add so much more depth than 'evil bad guy A is trying to execute evil idea B against good people C.' Thank you, Matthew!
its contradictory as fuck and to pass off war as NOT being about grabbing resources is a little silly to say the least
Yes! More politics!
12:10 this section made me tear up. I didn’t live in this era and have never lived in any of these nations. Your storytelling and clarity of details forced me to understand the development of beginning of the war and the consequences of it. Well done and happy Friday.
When WW1 was declared, there were major celebrations in London, Berlin, and even Paris. The French knew they were about to get attacked by a far more prepared army than their own. They responded to this threat by throwing parties in the capitol.
I've seen this video a few times, and only on this watch did I notice Matt saying writers at the time all wrote articles about how countries couldn't possibly go to war, which was ridiculous of course, and then later in the video said how wars just don't happen anymore because of military might. Love this vid
I see, Matt is a fan of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History.
Was just thinking the same thing
Hardcore History's summary of World War I was spot-on.
I actually think there should be a link to Blueprint for Armageddon in the dooblidooo. Both as a nod to important source material and to let people find some of the best material out there on WWI.
Which is too bad because Hardcore History is just sensationalization for the purpose of entertainment.
And when it comes to material on World War 1, The Great War series on TH-cam is far superior.
THANK YOU FOR WRITING IT DOWN!!!
I've only heard the name out loud and kept thinking he was saying Dan Harmon!
In February/March of 2022 this video has totally new relevance and insight outside of TTRPGs. Thanks again for your wisdom Matt.
Just wanna say these Running the Game videos are awesome!
Also, I can't wait to get my hard copy of S&F in the mail. SOOOOO EXCITED!!!!!!!!
Same. WWWOOOOOO
Keep coming back to this video, one of your absolute best in my opinion.
I agree with your posits. I would add, as a student of history the following:
1) No war is ever fought unless it can be justified both financially (by expected gains or affordability from the current resources) and ethically (by the legal standards of the time from which a moral argument can be made against the opposing force about which to rally troops to oppose "their injustice").
2) The 14 Points of Woodrow Wilson which became the inspiration for the League of Nations, and ultimately the United Nations, in which war does not end in the conquest of territory from which the victor will recoup their losses in resources and manpower is an utterly new development in the human condition undermining and undermined by our intrinsic and instinctive evolutionary development.
3) Anecdotally: When my grandfather fought from horseback as a cavalryman in WW I, using saber and pistol, there were also planes dropping darts, rocks, etc. flying over head, trenches with mustard gas, machine gun nests, and rows of barbed wire. WW I was, in my studied opinion, the weirdest conflation of ancient traditional war and modern industrial war ever to occur.
About the 3° point, "the narrator" by Walter Benjamin might be a good article to read!
Ironic that the Country that inspired the league of nations refused to join it.
@@Madhattersinjeans Not especially. Woodrow Wilson was originally put in office by the Bankers because of the Banking Crisis of 1907.
The first two national banks were incredibly powerful. The first national bank harmed the assets of members of Congress resulting in their being unwilling to renew its charter. This indirectly caused the collapse of our logistics and supply as no bank would exchange currencies printed by another at equitable rates - ship masters attempting to move materials to support the War of 1812 couldn't get paid for the bullets, blankets, food, etc. that they moved up and down the coast for the troops. The next bank was created after we lost the War of 1812 and the charter protected the property rights of the elite, but let the bank prey upon the less established and the pioneer. Thus the Jacksonian Democrat was born and at the end of Jackson's final term the charter for the second bank was allowed to run out. We then entered the States Chartered Era of banking where each state had a state bank that printed its own money, and southern states used that to prohibit northern industry from buying their products so they could sell more to Europe for a higher revenue. A part of Lincoln's mandate when elected was to establish a third national bank - another reason the South walked out that is not often discussed as other reasons are considered less dry and more sexy.
To make reentry into the Union more appealing, Lincoln's administration came up with something utterly new in world economics. Instead of a national bank printing a national currency, the treasury would control a mint system for providing currency based on the accounts at banks which justified the printing of it. To increase the availability of currency, government bonds would be sold so that the generated interest would provide inflationary measures for monetary expansion. This went into effect in the Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864. However, the rush to invest by the general public during the Trust Era that followed the Civil War resulted in a cyclic series of depressions roughly every 10 years based on speculation of the bonds being cashed. No one particularly cared until this cycle struck Madison Avenue in 1907.
Woodrow Wilson had throughout his career been an architect of organizational systems. Each time he came to prominence in an organization he would take over and rewrite its fundamental charter, restructure its management system, and rework the flow of production. This suited the corporate interests of the period which put him in office in order to create the Federal Reserve as a means of moderating the relationship between interest and inflation rates and prevent the cycle of depressions that unregulated banking and public investment had effected on a regular basis. However, as President, he couldn't get others interested in rewriting the Constitution as he saw fit. No one was interested in his back channel pushes to restructure the country. So, when he put so much effort into the League of Nations, and then suggested we submit our national sovereignty to these foreign powers entanglements with which had led to WW I, and who had just spent the last few months reneging on or undermining every agreement we had attempted to make to bring about peace diplomatically, the Senate wouldn't agree. Wilson's attempt at an end run around the Constitution in order to remake the nation failed.
How are you coming up with points 1&2? They remind me of certain economic theories, perfectly reasoned for machines but terrible at describing human behavior.
@@scriptoriumludi5698 Simply put, because I am degreed in both history and communications theory/human relations.
To point one: No war is fought without the assets to fight it. No nation enters into a state of war knowing that it cannot field the assets to fight that war. A nation may be forced into a defensive posture when invaded and occupied by another that has the resources to effect war, but the occupied nation neither engaged in the war, nor did they have the resources to fight it: hence the occupation.
Also, to point one: There is no war initiated in the history of humanity that was not justified based upon moral standards of the jurisprudence of the time. It simply does not happen, from the myths of China, Greece, India, Ireland, etc. or the histories of Egypt, India, Persia, etc. All wars are justified by an accusation of unethical conduct, that is the breaking of a law (sacred or mundane), by those against whom the war will be waged.
To point two, this is a fact of history. Whether Indigenous People's of North America, or elsewhere, taking PoWs was done to recoup population losses during the conflict. The headwoman of the longhouse for instance would decide which PoWs to assimilate and which would be ritually tortured to death. The right of conquest in migration is not only the human standard, but even true of plants. This is a biological fact. When a pride of lions becomes weak, another replaces it. When a herd of antelope dwindles, other things replace them in the niche of their territory. To the victor go the spoils is as true of lemurs as it is of naked apes. Woodrow Wilson, arguably one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States, was attempting to rewrite the nature of reality; it is still failing.
This is EXACTLY what i needed to hear today. Youre an ever present reference whenever i question my story telling. If it wasnt for you i probably wouldve given up being a Dungeon Master a long time ago! My players are about to get caught in the start of a war. Your videos have influenced my word in SO many ways. As a player in one game and a dungeon master in another i say thank you for your videos Matt.
For further reading: Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August.
I might also recommend Richard K. Reihn's 1812: Napoleon's Russian Campaign. It covers the reasons why war was inevitable on both the French and Russian sides as well as the way peace was maintained for so long. The duality of Napoleon as Emperor and Napoleon as General is interesting as well.
I keep coming back to this vid. One of Matt's greatests
“The far more powerful oil company”. I mean, you’re not wrong
I'm just now discovering this channel and have been burning through as much of the back log as I can because it is so good and breaks down the concepts I am struggling to put to paper or explain to other. This one though... definitely the best of the bunch...
“War ought to be the only study of a Prince.” Nicollo Machiavelli. The Prince
This historical storytelling and how it ties into the advice is masterful and I keep coming back to this video.
Blase Pascal said that men have to find an occupation because is they don't they start having the ennuie that makes them think of death. In his mind it war was the biggest distraction of all, warlords went to war because it was the biggest and fastest hare you could find, you would be sure to never catch that rabbit.
Just rembered it and though it was neat.
It should be noted that warfare in Pascals time was much less likely to end in lethal injury. While still very dangerous armies would often retreat if they took 20% casualties sometimes less. The soldiers would gain pride/prestige and it was one of the few avenues for the poor to find some level of social mobility.
Modern wars changed this, and turned the previously almost "honourable" conflicts into brutal killing matches annihilating armies in mere days.The use of heavy artillery barrages, machine guns and poison gas put an end to any kind of honour there might have been. Which basically traumatised the soldiers families and returning soldiers to push for more restraints against more war.
And even the aristocratic generals were aghast at the casualties. And the infrastructure that gets damaged by modern war is so badly brutalised, entire towns emptied of their populations of men. Villages being abandoned.
Even today there are areas that are too dangerous to develop or walk across due to decaying poison gases and ammunition. There's a yearly "Iron harvest" near some of the warzones that regularly turns up lots of old explosives from a war that is now over 100 years old.
Which helps explain some of the fairly extensive peace we have between the great powers today. War is just far too costly to the population to be a real option now.
You managed to distill a complex historical theory into a 16 minute video- This is why I watch your channel & hang on your every word. I love that your love of drama was raised in the house of historical literacy. Bravo, sir.
what you are talking about with the excuses and the real reasons to go to war world one is something we discussed in my school - its in my tests!
well done! you are very interesting!
There are the reasons we tell ourselves that war is needed. There are reasons we tell ourselves we need to fight this war. There are reasons we tell ourselves why the war was inevitable and why we had to fight it.
...
And then there's the truth of the matter. Seldom these four sentences ever line up with each other.
I have probably watched this video 50+ times. It's how history should be taught.
This is, in my opinion, the best video so far! It's super interesting and informative. Thank you so much!
That's one great video ! No words to say . You are most right ... I hope that many see this and understand you , not only for the game , but as a lesson for history and the horror of war .
It's scary and sad how much this aligns with what's happening today with Ukraine and Russia. It makes me more sad when Matt said that financial incentives never stopped a war. I think in these times, it's obvious that history is always doomed to repeat itself.
FML Matt. I've read numerous books that try to detail how to deal with political intrigue in games surrounding war and peace and none of them touch what you just laid out. That is such a stellar outlook about what causes or delays war and why people support regimes that are warlike. Masterclass.
This is a good video BUT, it's worth noting that Donald Kagan's opinions about the causes of war weren't limited to Classical Greece. He was an original signer of a statement of principles from the neo-conservative thinktank, The Project for the New American Century, which was co-founded by his son, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. PNAC helped shape the Bush Administration's foreign policy, most notably on the Iraq War.
So that's worth keeping in mind when he argues that conflict/war comes naturally from the actions of states.
thats hardly surprising
The Iraq war is an interesting one to bring up here but I haven't read enough by the authors Matt cites to know if it contradicts or strengthens their arguments.
Who were the important people working to maintain peace between the US and Iraq and when were they removed prior to the Iraq war? I suppose it could be argued that it was laws or conventions preventing US oil companies taking over Iraq that were keeping the peace if you see the conflict along the Self-Interest lines of consolidating their power and wealth partnered with the Fear/Pride of the US government in the wake of 9/11 that led to those conventions no longer existing. While the Iraq war does seem like an example of a war the broke out after shooting the archduke, as mentioned, it could be argued that the ball was already rolling due to US oil companies interest in the region not to mention the arms industry and the fact it needs big american wars to keep making money no matter where the war takes place.
It is also always relevant to question why the archduke was shot since 9/11 was, to my understanding, generally accepted to be in response to US interference in the middle east for however many decades prior. I'm not very learned on this subject but those smarter than me could analyse the interference along the lines of the 'natural actions of states' which is, I think, what op was referring to in their comment.
This is mostly conjecture, I don't have anything backing this up conclusively and bringing up the Iraq war might be irrelevant since Matt mentioned that this conversation is focused on classical warfare, not modern warfare but since the Iraq war is nowadays seen less as a patriotic defense of the US and more a cloaked movement by corporations to take the resources of a foreign country it is interesting to consider how it fits in with the Kagan analysis and Thucydides (had to google that one) analysis of war. I'm not trying to start an argument here btw, bringing up the Iraq war just inspired some questions and considerations in me.
The archduke was shot because of German meddling in the Balkans. Gavrilo Principe (the shooter) is regarded as a hero and a freedom fighter by some and a terrorist by others. In the case of WWI, once Otto von Bismark wasn't around to keep the peace, a war was probably inevitable.
@Ryan Toppin
The idea of war breaking out in this Shoot the Archduke/911 way might be a separate form of analysis to the fear/pride/self-interest one communicated by Matt here. This structure implies a default peace between nations maintained by geographical distance (Germany and the Balkans, USA and Iraq) which is tested and strained by the larger, more powerful nation flexing its muscles in a colonial style in the weaker nation such as making economic grabs for resources, aiding this by manipulating the government and elections, etc. A resistance movement is then fostered in response to the corruption, the abuse of power, the manipulation of catastrophies and the ostracising of certain minority groups and the archduke is shot. The dominant country then feels victimised and manufactures a justification for a massive, oppressive, dominating war.
Immediately theres a flaw in this analysis here since the Iraqis were not responsible for 9/11 however US imperialism and interference had been occuring all over the middle east and a general resentment and desire for resistance did exist. As with my last comment I'm not an expert on these matters. I've read a lot about it but at the end of the day this analysis is all from an amateurs perspective who's young enough to barely remember 9/11.
I think it would also be interesting to analyse American imperialism in South America with regard to CIA sponsored and run coups of nationalist or just left leaning governments or the manipulating of politics to solely benefit american companies with interest in the region. These kinds of 'wars' feel like good material for a campaign, with puppet governments, corporate oligarchies and root-deep corruption. The idea of foreign intervention inspiring coups and civil wars and the propaganda given to citizens of the dominant nation and other nations around the world to hide the fact that it is all in the self interest of Coca Cola sounds like something very fun to write about.
You're confusing don kagan with his son rob kagan mate. Fair mistake, they are both conservative historians. Although rob backed the dems in 2016. Really tells you something about military intervention, neoconservatives and the death cult.
An in depth look, simply done, at a very intense subject. Thank you.
I'd love to see a 5th Politics video about civil wars, because I think my D&D kingdom might erupt into one.
One big thing to note about Civil Wars is that they are always objectively wasteful, one side is almost always not professional military, and those jobs they should be doing are not being done. It's neighbor against neighbor, the people in power knew each other and so may many of the combatants.
I think the three motivations are still valid. Fear, pride, and self-interest were all factors in the American Civil War. Fear in the south that the election of Abraham Lincoln would mean the abolition of slavery and the way of life of the people in the south. Pride in the north of Union. Self-interest on both sides. Each side kept putting lines in the sand assuming the other would not cross them. Until they did. Once the shooting started even people who opposed secession rallied to The Confederacy. Once war starts you fight for the person next to you, not because of some grand principle. If you haven't watched Ken Burns' The Civil War I highly recommend it.
In the meantime before Matt makes that video, you can always look towards Civil Wars in history and other media for inspiration.
My personal favourite on a conceptual level is the Civil War in Skyrim. You have an Empire that has recently lost a war with another power, and has been forced to sign a treaty that has compromised the core values of some of its citizens - which include outlawing the worship of Talos, the Nordic God, and allowing that oppressive power, the Thalmor, to walk all over Imperial land, abducting and/or executing anyone found in breach of these new laws. "If we don't get rid of these guys, who will?" (FEAR) You can easily draw parallels here to the Treaty of Versailles, depending on the slant you put on it.
Now, the Stormcloaks seek to break free from the Empire's control so that they can resume worshipping their deity, kick out the Thalmor, and re-affirm Skyrim's position as a strong country (PRIDE). Or at least, that's what the Soldiers on the front line say. But they follow their leader, Ulfric Stormcloak, and it's easy to say he only started this war to claim the High King's throne for himself (SELF-INTEREST).
On the other side you have the Imperials and their loyalists, who would say that despite everything, the Empire is still our best line of defense against future aggression, and we were just trying to gather our strength again to prepare to kick the Thalmor out anyway. Now, perhaps the Stormcloaks threaten to thwart those efforts by leaving the Empire weak via this conflict. Certainly, the Thalmor themselves see what's going on and want the war to continue.
There's probably more angles to this that you can look at through playing the game, looking back through why the War started, what are the different slants and perspectives that the characters have about it, and what ideas can you pull out from that for your Campaign.
I have followed this playlist for a while, watching a few at a time, and always get something out of them. This one though... Just wow. After years of studying World Wars, this one spill painted the best picture I gave ever heard. This guy is simply amazing. Thanks for all that you do, Matt!
When I was taking a computer class in college, one of the things they made us do was research on early computers. In my research, I found that an early use for computers they came up with was going through all the history books to find how many years in the past 3000 years of history had the world been entirely at peace? The answer was 7. 7 years in all of recorded history there were no wars between major countries on the globe. (And if you think that's strange, just keep in mind that America's been conducting various wars against various shifting "terrorists" and nations in the Middle East for the past two decades, plus there's that war in Ukraine, and let's not forget the civil war in Syria and let's not forget Venezuela...) Most of these years were earlier on, when there simply may not have been records of wars fought because there were less literate societies.
War. War never changes.
Terrorists in the middle east are how we train our Sardaukar
I love every bit of content that is provided nowadays, yet this video is a reminder of why I jumped onboard in the beginning. Amazing.
Check out Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon if you want a great overview of World War One told in dramatic fashion. I think Matt's mentioned Hardcore History before. Check it out!
Yes he did, in avideo similar to thia one. Politics of peace, #24 i think
It is insane how dramatic you presented this. I am a german history student, I know this stuff. I have heard it at least a dozen times from different people, all professors of history. Yet you made me listen on the edge of my seat. Fear, Pride and Self-Interest. God I am so stealing that for my campaign.
Tip of the Hat to you Matt, that was incredible.
The far more powerful Oil company.
SOLD!
I could listen to you just talk about history even if it had nothing to do with D&D! Lol. Great video, Matt. Thanks!
11:21
Britain: "If we ignore this treaty, folks will think we could ignore any treaty."
The Good Friday Agreement rn: "Am I a joke to you?"
I have now listened to this video 3 times, because not only does it draw my attention because I’m a dungeon master hoping to make a campaign about war and politics but because it feels so real, the religion of why country’s proceed to go to war and how war was thought of before weapons of mass destruction felt so heavy, a great video about how we can draw upon what is thought as tragedy to make our games feel just that much more like real life
"Kings tremble when the gods of Fear, Pride and Self-Interest fight.
But one day the three gods of War will make peace with each other, and the real war will begin."
Prophecy of the Ragnohfuckohfuckweresofuckedrock, date unknown.
How is it I can learn so much about the real world listening to a (nominally) DnD video? Matt Colville, you never cease to amaze
Just finished Dan Carlin’s WW1 podcast and all this resonates. Great video!
Blueprint for Armageddon is so good.
Was about to say the same thing. A lot of quotes from here are used in Blueprint for Armageddon. Great series.
Outstanding. Utterly excellent video. This is the scope and atmosphere I love. Thank you
Love politics videos (the diplomacy one is my favourite)
To add to the German reasons fro war. Russia was huge but still backward, still beatable. When they would go for an industrial revolution in 10/20 years they would be unstoppable. So Prussia had to strike soon.
A similar view from France toward Germany superior numbers pushed them to try to cripple Germany at the Versailles treaty.
Also England (to quote yes minister) had the simple politic of opposing any nation in Europe who was going to be egemonic (Napoleon, then Germany) to be safe from a possible invasion
Spectacular way to break down what seems to be very complex to a few factions and a few reasons, that many DMs can replicate! One of my favorite running the game videos. Thank you!
Less than three minutes in, you bring up Thucydides. My God, Man, I love your mind so much and this is the reason.
People neglect the ancient thinkers far too often these days. You didn't, so you have my respect.
Matt, whether you see this or not, it has to be said that this is some of your best work. This video is brilliant mate, on many levels. I will use it as a gateway to introduce others to your wisdom. Thanks a heap.
I love the intro stories so much! I'm sure not everyone is a fan, but I like learning the unexpected and it's been a big influence on me. (Although Pastor Bloom might deserve more credit)
Revisiting this video after watching it a couple of years ago. Back then, it informed my DnD world. Now it's informing my Vampire the Masquerade chronicle!
I'm reading Guns of August, and you really reflected the process of events in the book.
What a great book!
Brilliant Matt. Simply Brilliant. Thank you!
Now I really want a Matt Colville history podcast
Sources for some of the nonsense I spout;
Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East
www.amazon.com/Lawrence-Arabia-Deceit-Imperial-Making/dp/0307476413
Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia
www.amazon.com/Hero-Life-Legend-Lawrence-Arabia/dp/0061712620
On The Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace
www.amazon.com/Origins-War-Preservation-Peace/dp/0385423756
History of the Peloponnesian War
classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html
Blueprint for Armageddon
www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-blueprint-for-armageddon-i/
And professor Kagan's Ancient Greek History series;
th-cam.com/video/W7xOLKKcm2s/w-d-xo.html&t=4357
The timestamp talking about Corcyra and Corinth.
I'm kind of shivering. Excellent lecture, my man.
This video was one of the best ones yet. I have no idea how to make wars occur naturally in my game, for the reasons you mentioned: war is a horrid act in our current reality. I made wars happen in my game as a racial thing (men vs elves. Gnomes vs Dragonkind or adjacent scaly creatures such as Lizardfolk), or an Other in the form of a Lich-king or other large force.
This finally put it into terms for me. War is a natural state of those vying for power. My players evacuated the King of a continental trade out of his home to save him from an incoming invasion at the hands of Ancient Dragons, and now I know how that resolves: a war. Not only for the dragons, but for the people as well.
This hits differently in 2024. I'm Ukrainian and asking myself "Why did Russia attack my country?" and the answer "Fear. Pride. Self-interest." fits very well.
Also, I'm running a Dune: Adventures in the Imperium campaign, and I need to let my players try the rules for battles, so I had writers block about "When and why would a war break out among minor houses on peaceful planet Caladan?"... This video gives me the answer: "When the Atreides leave. Because they leave."
This video is very useful to me today, in more ways than one. Thank you.
I didn't initially agree with your assessment on war and history, but this video makes all the sense I need to understand and agree. It's a well made video explanation of the history of war and why it continued for so long (and continues to a large degree still). Thanks, Matt.
Truly spectacular video, Matt. You laid this out beautifully!
Matt, this was incredibly insightful. I majored in military history at West Point and this was still a quality lecture on a purely geopolitical basis as well. Nitpick, WWI was industrialized but not truly mechanized as the use of motor vehicles was comparatively small as opposed to horse-drawn, and tanks were primitive and small in quantity.
While I find your perspective fascinating, and I can see the importantance of war as a dramatic set piece, I think you're ignoring the thing our DnD cultures have that our ancestors didn't: Tangible Divinity.
The existence of clerics/paladins and spells such as Augery and Commune behooves the DM to have Divine Perspectives on mortal affairs. Unlike purely Human cultures, the Divines represent all things - nature, ideas, perspectives, and so on.
Thus, where there wasn't a voice for the Old Grove Forest that lies on the border of a budding nation, in our DnD world, there may be druids who stand opposed to that expansion, willing to grant the nation's fields with gifts of plenty in exchange.
This presents an added layer of complexity that a DM should keep on mind (you can always get away with winging it, but little notes help), especially since there is a very real chance your Divine Magic users will try to get information from their deities.
While I agree divine intervention is an additional degree of freedom worthwhile for DMs to consider, how often do the motivations of those deities differ from the fear, pride or self-interest of their human counterparts?
Your druids are fighting for the grove. Where? Are they content with waiting until the army enters its canopies, at which point they might scorch it instead if that's a quicker solution? Or do they fight in the fields beyond, and maybe a bit beyond that to ensure a buffer of land, and maybe a bit further away to prevent countermeasures? To me, this sounds like self-interest, perhaps fear.
With deities, we can also look at more mythological wars like the Troyan war. In those, the gods are depicted to be just as prone to taking sides as any other power. In Troy, it was Zeus vs (iirc) Poseidon, and they both blessed the heroes of their sides with boons. But (classical) gods, unlike nukes, are fallible like humans. And if a god would intervene and enact the nuclear-like destruction, other gods would join the frey - for fear, pride, or self-interest.
I have to be nay sayer on your point. How many people have been killed in wars over religion in the last 2000 years? All we have are false prophets preaching true power unlike real power wielding clerics in game. Modern wars love to use religion as a basis. In gAme magic and relics are all the reason to go war cause they hold tangible power.
I think gods just add another lever for fear, pride and self-interest to work. Mythology is littered with examples of gods fighting for the most human of reasons.
@@DristanRossVII While certainly there can be a case made for the Divines directly taking sides in mortal affairs, there is also a fine line to tiptoe to not avoid a Deus Ex Machina "You must go to War because your God demands it". This can make players feel like their agency has little affect on the world because it's already being driven by Divine will.
That's why many DMs prefer that deities have a more "hands off" approach, instructing their followers to best represent their portfolio.
In the case of the Druids, perhaps they want to avoid war at any costs, because every blade of grass that is tread on in their Grove is a loss in their eyes. There would be factions who exist to live peacefully, pushing for homeostasis rather than war.
Not saying that every setting has to have these things, but these themes swirl around certain player classes, and we build these worlds go present players with, and we should have an answer to them regarding themes their classes are built around.
@@CobwebsandCandlesticks Aye, but these Divines have realms of their own, of which that war would inevitably spread to. This would in turn cause a Cascade of events that would lead to other Divines becoming embroiled in war as well.
Not all settings want to have the backdrop of a Divine World war, or even a Divine War. Most DnD games I've played in have Divines who deliver a more "hands off" approach.
Matthew, I don't normally comment because it's rare that I have anything worth saying. But I really do believe that this is one of your best videos. Dramatic, informative and educational. A true pleasure to watch from start to finish.
You know, I don't fully agree. (Great video by the way, your Running The Game series has inspired me to write again and I don't even play D&D!)
The model of politics you've put forward has some merit but shouldn't be assumed to be the primary explanation of all wars, especially in the modern period (and has some flaws in terms of drama too). There is always the tendency for humans to form ideologies in order to justify their self-interest, but the reverse can hold too as people who believe something on ideological grounds seek to convince others to follow in terms of their self-interest. As people become richer and safer they are more prone to consider (and act upon) ethical or ideological considerations, hence the rise of vegetarianism and ecological concern (and subsequently, "But it's in your own best interests! Vegetarians are healthy!"). The two world wars are at that hinge point in history, when ideology becomes itself a causative factor. It is quite possible, perhaps necessary, to have a moral discussion about what Britain should have done, because that is the world we want to live in and are seeking to materialise. After all, most people don't hate North Korea because they pose any serious threat.
Maybe this seems like an unnecessary ramble, but some more positive perceptions of modern politics are sorely needed, lest we forget the huge (and ethically motivated) achievements of the Declaration Of Human Rights or the Genocide Convention, or the rise of international law and the banning of napalm.
If you want drama and tension, nothing could be more satisfying than a group of people doing the right thing against their own self-interest, the suicidal stand against tyranny, or the tension of whether a King will do the right thing.
Right on. While I generally agree with Matt's view, and especially in broad strokes it can help understanding and help a writer write some serious drama... some of the rattling in the comments about 'peace being a lie, this current state of peace being false' sounds less like observations on the human condition, and more like wanting way more death since we're not having quite enough of it lately.
Like arguments I've seen (modern, safe, comfortable, online) people have against "the rules of war" and the idea that war "can" have any rules at all. Like we should just repeal it all and go back to the point when the only reason 'genocide' wasn't a word was because it was so omnipresent and ubiquitous that nobody thought twice about it.
I genuinely enjoy hearing you talk about history, matt. glad to see it be a part of this series
As a German, I think the explanation of how or why the first world war started is a bit too simplified. It wasn't just the Germans wanting to start a war and waiting for an excuse. That leaves out austria and it's important role in starting the war and leaves out the general animosities which developed between the countries at the time. Also, after Bismarck kicked the bucket, the system of treaties, which a couple of years prior secured the peace, transformed a bit, resulting in a chain reaction with Germany and Austria on one side and basically everyone else on the other side. It's late, so if there is any interest I can outline the exact conditions under which who went to war with who and why at a later date.
Funnily enough, I had to deal with that stuff the last couple of days because my history finale is in three days and world war 1 and its circumstances could be one of the things I will be tested in.
It seems unlikely that Austria would have tried to start the war without German backing or that Serbian independance would have even been a threat without Russian support. Enough leaders on both sides clearly wanted war and no doubt thought it would be an easy victory for their side.
@@quinnwilder6990 Yeah, WWI was a mixture of nations' seeking to advance their national interests at any cost. Austria and Russia were competing for Balkan influence, Russia and the Ottoman Empire were competing in the Caucasus, as well, on top of that, Russia wanted to take control of the strait to both secure the entrance to the Black Sea and bolster their influence in the Balkans. Germany wanted eastward expansion (an early form of "lebensraum"), and, more importantly, they were deathly afraid of Russia being allowed to modernize and industrialize, as they believed that a modernized Russia would be a major threat to every other European power, and wanted to take them down before that was allowed to happen. At the same time, Germany wanted its time in the sun as a colonial empire, and was eyeing France's colonies as their way in, and they sought to strong-arm the UK into an alliance against France, but they did so through a military and navy build up that only pushed the UK towards France. Also Germany industrialists were rather interested in Belgium's industries.
And the UK and France, especially the UK, both wanted to maintain the status-quo, as it benefited them the most, so they were trying to keep the German upstart under wraps.
Amazing Sir...thank you for brilliant and "extremely active" mind...and for sharing