On diplomacy and war · 4:24pm Sep 19th, 2014
I've noticed that, of late, the feature box has held a bunch of stories having to do with diplomacy and war. This is of some interest to me, given that I am currently writing a bit about war.
My problem is that these stories generally don't give anyone a fair shake. Yes, I think that ponies generally have advantages when it comes to war. But that doesn't mean that everything is going to be (or should be) a curbstomp. On either side. When it comes to war, we're missing a few things...
One is that each race has, presumably, its own skills and talents. Diamond dogs seem to be able to travel through earth as easily as over the earth. Think about how important sappers were to warfare, and consider that talent. Gryphons are pointy on five out of six ends and every single one of them can fly. We don't know much about Zebras or Saddle Arabians but we can presume they have their own specialties.
There's also the fact that they are different races. For humans, when you invade, you end up marrying the locals, your culture mixes with theirs...in three or four generations there's just people. That...doesn't work with Equestria. There is no integration. If you invade, you are either waging a war or extermination or enslavement. There are a few other options, but you're just begging for revolts regardless.
So overall, a serious clash between two species is going to be a terrible and terrifying thing.
As for diplomacy. Celestia is over a thousand years old. She has probably spent more time in negotiations than most rulers or diplomats have been alive. Celestia is going to be very good at it. And she's going to take it seriously. It's not a game. Hundreds or thousands of people, whether they're hers or others, might die if she doesn't handle it right. I realize a lot of these stories were written to be amusing, but...they're sort of fridge horror in that aspect.
I think my favorite method of Celestia's diplomacy is from Georg's "Diplomat's Daughter". It just made me say "Oh that's clever". Without spoiling it, she would basically invite rulers and their families over while their children are very young, and then act extra motherly to the kids. Makes things very awkward years later when that child succeeds their parents and has to negotiate with Celestia, whom they remember as a loving mother figure.
2466978 That's pretty well perfect, and a great way for Celestia to exploit an incredibly valuable asset (her immortality).
I believe that, for most nations, attacking Equestria might very well be as suicidal as those stories suggest. The fics seem inspired by the idea that the rest of the world is still in a largely tribal state, without any modernization whatsoever, whereas Equestria is largely modernized.
Given that, as far as we know, only Equestrians have magic, which is generally credited as the source of their technological advancement, this does make some sense.
They're also a lot more socially advanced, which makes sense for a lot of reasons, wise immortal rulers included.
So the idea that some random tribal group might mistakenly think Equestria is remotely in their league - when it isn't - doesn't seem so implausible. In fact, we've seen that sort of thing happen in real life, and it usually does result in an extremely one-sided conflict. Also, the presumption that the only thing preventing wars of extermination/enslavement was the possibility of marriage, and the only thing allowing marriage to occur in such groups was biological compatibility, seems really flawed... just in general, but also in specific. Ponies seem like they might be pretty prone to settling down with a group of friends, even if they can't produce offspring with them.
And we don't really know for sure that they can't.
2466993 It's not that biological compatibility prevents enslavement/extermination, it's just that every invasion in the history of the world has ended up merging with the native population in very short order. And the few times when a specific race has been kept separate Bad Things happened just as quickly.
2467000 Right. I was saying that the correlation/causation there might not be direct. In order to evaluate that, one would ask:
Did keeping the populations separate cause Bad Things to happen, or did the intention to do Bad Things to the invaded people prompt the nations to stay separate? I say that, in cases where there IS a causal relationship, it seems to have mostly been the latter.
Such has been my observation, anyway. And, as stated, there are some reasons to think that things might not be the same in Equestria, even IF one accepted the causal postulate.
2467002 Bit of both, right? The issue is, if you're invading, how on earth do you expect to live in harmony with the locals you've (clearly) displaced, stolen goods from, and killed?
In the Serviceverse Celestia's ultimate concern is to prevent war. Whatever it takes. And this means that the Equestrian state gets up to some... unpleasant things. The sort of things that give Dotted recurring nightmares. And there is no doubt that Pax Caeli is worth it, none at all. But...
It's also a matter of treaty that, if certain rules of engagement are followed—the Code of Civilized Warfare—Celestia and Luna don't get involved personally. That's sort of Epona's equivalent of nuclear weapons being used.
But, yes. If I may be a bit provocative, I think this attitude to war is profoundly American[1]. Americans have had fairly good luck when it comes to warfare. They haven't had one on their own territory in well over a century. American civilians rarely suffer in their wars. War is—in the popular imagination—something you go off and be heroic in, somewhere far away, opposed by undoubtedly evil people, whom you dispatch in honorable combat, modulo one's individual level of cynicism.
Not that I blame the fanfic authors as such for this. That's the nature of a large segment of media: War is just good clean fun. That the fanfics written conform to the spirit of the times is neither surprising nor, in and of itself, something one can be judgmental about.
[1] Civilian American, I should say. The service members I've met seem to view it with clear heads and considerable wisdom.
2467038 Yeah, the fact that Celestia and Luna have the power to, if not actually crack the planet like an egg, at the very least cast darkness on your lands long enough for your populace to starve, kind of creates a power gap.
The Apotheverse solves this with first, narrowing what gods are capable of choosing, and second, giving every (major) race deities so there's at least some sense of balance. It's still a bit wonky but what can you do.
I'm not sure it's so much American as civilian. Plenty of cultures romanticize fighting and war...partly because you have to actually convince some poor sonofabitch that going off and dying for nothing related to their own immediate survival is a good idea. If you don't at the very least give it a positive cultural or moral value you're going to end up being crushed by a culture that does.
2467056
In my case there's a diplomatic detente on the use of godly power in war, and also a few other gods, though no other race is actually _lead_ by its gods. Except in the sea, where Tethys rules the surface waters and the cetaceans[1], while Lady Deepwater[2] rules the benthic and the cephalopods[3]. The griffins have a sort of distributed god via the imperial line, the deity of the Zebras is dead but supposedly still haunts their land, the Camels have... divorced their God and have a distant relationship with that God's successors, the Dragon Emperor hasn't been heard from in two hundred years... Anyway. Complicated.
Ahem. Sorry.
As for your quibble—yes, there is a definite civilian component, sure, but in a lot of Europe war is seen as honorable, sure, but also terrifying to an extent that far exceeds America's opinion of it. There's scars from WWII that are still fresh. Not to mention places where the memory of war is still recent.
[1] And just to buck a trend, the dolphins are utterly horrible,
[2] Who's a column of jellyfish.
[3] Who are nice and not even a bit eldritch.
2467069 To roam further afield -
World War One and Two were utterly unlike any other war in the history of the world, and while nowadays we kind of think of them as the quintessential nature of war, they're kind of the opposite. It's not surprising they've altered our worldviews.
Also, dolphins are pretty horrible, and cephalapods are crazy smart. I think you've made some good calls.
(I'm quite regretful that the Apotheverse isn't compatible with the Civil Serverse but, c'est la vie.)
)
(Also you need to actually take a look at Cartography, especially after I post tonight's chapter
I'd imagine that the zebras would be pretty adept at chemical and biological warfare, if I were to put Zecora's skills as an example of all zebras' abilities. Saddle Arabians would probably just be like larger, stronger Earth ponies.
When warfare between differing races occur there tends to be a lot of enslavement. The losing side tends to lose most of or all of their rights and become property. In Africa when neighboring tribes went to war the losers became slaves. When the Europeans came around they were the first to be sold off, and then they started shipping off Africans by the millions. While interspecies reproduction is out of the question, there still may be cultural integration. Isn't Christmas as we know it cobbled together from pagan rituals and things?
Warfare between different races also is iffy since different strategies are always an issue. When the English first came to America they had a hard time fighting the natives since the natives were used to fighting between trees while the English always did that firing squad line thing. I'd like to think that at the front lines the Equestrians would be structured similarly, while griffons traveled in packs (prides? aeries?).
2467086
Why? Lots of older conflicts were incredibly brutal. The Mongol conquests killed more people than WW1 did. Cities and almost all the civilians in them were just destroyed.
2467205 WWI killed thirty seven million people in four years. WWII, 60 million in six years.
The mongols killed forty five million people over the course of most of a century, and over a far, far wider area. And they're probably the most devastating (human) force in history so far as deaths go prior to gunpowder. And keep in mind most of those deaths are due to disease and famine, while the bulk of deaths in WWI and WWII were due to direct military action.
All wars are brutal. This has always been true. But they've also involved a far smaller chunk of the population spread out over a wider area...and without record-keeping.
I assume by 'war' you're talking about large-scale continent-conquering invasionary wars. I'm fairly certain the American Indian wars, Yom Kippur War, Anglo-Zulu wars, Vietnam War(s), etc. did not end generally with settlement and intermarriage.
Interestingly the recent spate of war stories (mostly war declaration stories, really) has split between "OP Equestria" and "Equestria is Hosed".
2467237 Yeah, I'm thinking of, say, Kush, Rome, Vikings, and so on.
And yeah, the fact that there's no real balance irritates me.
2467038 I am slightly confused by how you drew this connection. The stories in question are focusing on the idea that declaring war on Equestria would be an untenable move, usually because the natural world itself seems to rely on the ponies to even survive.
The only group in the story that seems to think war is a clean, tenable enterprise are the villains, who spend the entire fic getting shot down. At least, assuming we're talking about the same fics; the two major ones I've seen crop up recently both involve letters to foreign monarchs who threatened war.
As for American views on war vs. other nations, it shifts. Compare America after WWII to America post-Vietnam, for instance. Isolationism and pacifism have been major forces in American politics and zeitgeist opinion numerous times, and things likewise shift up and down in Europe, and in most other places in the world.
So, saying that the idea that War is honorable, justifiable and 'good' is a 'profoundly American idea' seems a bit odd, to me. At the moment, America may be leaning a bit towards that way - but there's also a good bit of evidence to the contrary.
I feel I should clarify that my intent in this comment thread hasn't been to be combative. I'm just asking for clarification on some things that seem like odd inferences, to me. I'd appreciate clarification on how you came to your conclusions.
2467250
To be clear, that there haven't been many (if any) middle-ground stories doesn't mean we aren't getting good stories, just that there's an avenue being left unexplored.
2467283
Both kinds of stories are in the Featured box right now: Equestria winning a curb-stomp battle against an opponent who never stood a chance, and Equestria humbled by an opponent who outmaneuvered them without ever firing a shot.
2467283
Oh, I wasn't thinking about those fics. My apologies. I was referring to ones that take war lightly.
As for it being a profoundly American idea, I have to admit I don't have hard data—merely an impression. And, yes, I am aware that this is not the opinion of all Americans. Perhaps not even a majority of Americans, though I'd claim it is at least a plurality. As for the historical component: it's there certainly. America was sick and tired of war more than once during its history, but right now, the only nation that seems to regard it like a worthwhile enterprise in its popular culture[1] is America. The rise and current ascendancy of the Modern Military Shooter genre in video games is a nice example of this. Interestingly, those very shooters started off a bit more ambivalent about warfare only to descent into jingoistic rah-rah-rahing which shows a disturbing twist in the tastes of the audience.
But, again, this is not hard data. It's just my impression as a foreigner frequently immersed in American culture. The attitude to war just seems different in a way that's difficult to quantify. Normally I back up the things I say with something more substantial but here I have nothing solid and I think it is only honest to point that out.
[1] American foreign policy is a completely different issue I'm not addressing here in the slightest.
2467320 Ah, I see. That makes things much more clear, thank you.
The modern shooter thing, I think, is backlash as much against the idea of moralizing videogames as anything. A lot of people had that reaction to Spec Ops: The Line. The game had a strong anti-war undertone, and a lot of gamers basically responded with, "I don't support war, but don't try to shame me for enjoying a shooter by comparing it to doing so."
I've met a lot of gamers, but none who connected their support of shooters to actual combat in any way. On the other hand, games like Company of Heroes 2 seem to leave a pretty horrific anti-war sentiment, and that game has been quite successful despite the problems of its development company, and various launch issues. There was some backlash from the Russian community for perceived anti-Russian sentiment in the game, though.
I do know what you mean, though. There does seem to be a disturbing undertone of "violence is the answer" in a lot of media. A lot of people seem to intellectually default to it, even though they wouldn't lift a hand in violence in real life. That speaks of a disturbing way in which the conversation has made violence seem a natural choice DESPITE what people actually feel...
Writing Celestia 'realistically' is extremely daunting. How do you actually depict a thousand years of diplomatic and interpersonal experience? A lot of people simply give up after staring up at that mountain.
The most common other solution is to let her watch over the author's shoulder and unashamedly pilfer background information on the other characters.
2467345
Violence is easy. It's easy to write, it's easy to depict, and it's easy to resolve. Resolving things without violence is really, really hard. And it may simply be that, as the primary cultural exporter of the world, the fact that a lot of conflicts will be resolved by violence because it's the easiest conflict to deal with make American culture seem rather violence-oriented.
2467388 You almost have to cheat. It's more or less impossible to write someone smarter than yourself. If you want to, you have to have them do it off-camera or show off knowledge that wasn't necessarily supplied (or was otherwise buried, in the case of certain detective novels).
2467402 Yes--I don't mean to say it's a wrong answer. I mostly just wanted to express a funny mental image of a smiling Celestia watching over a nervous, sweating author.
It's a bit like writing Sherlock Holmes well--you have to cheat to make the jumps, but ideally, you should also have deliberately placed the stepping stones so the reader can see the path in retrospect. Sounds a lot like Compass Rose and physical paths, actually.
One thing everyone seems to ignore in war fics is the control the pegasi have over the weather. Leaving aside the princesses or speculation about magic, this seems like it gives the ponies an almost unbeatable advantage. Consider how invincible an army would be if every one of its offensives are heralded by bright, sunny days, while all their enemies attacks end up mired in mud. Why fear any navy when you can summon a typhoon and destroy it? Snow and rain can keep almost any air force grounded.
Now weather has limits as depicted in the show, it requires water and presumably other raw materials as inputs, and has a definite (and potentially vulnerable) base in the weather factory, pegasi are needed at every step of the process to manage everything. Using the weather as an industrial scale weapon of war could very easily lead to a breakdown at any one of these steps, but it would still be very effective, and there is precedent for nations ramping up their industrial capacity during wartime.
2467388 I haven't found it to be so daunting, but perhaps I'm just very conceited. Age comes with many benefits, but it doesn't make someone infallible - just more prone to recognizing things they've seen before, and less prone to uncertainty about their own motivations.
2467495 Kind of what I mean about giving everyone a fair shake. Ponies have enormous strategic and tactical advantages...but all gryphons can fly which cancels out quite a few of them (they could fly above most any weather system), and diamond dogs could just tunnel under the earth, so why would they care about weather?
2467708
That is true about diamond dogs, but can griffons fly that high?
2467763 It's more that weather systems, outside of a very few, are extremely low. And pegasus-induced storms seem to be even lower than usual, with the clouds something like fifty feet off the ground. Or less.
2467775
You're right, I wasn't thinking.
I don't care whether they're plausible or not. Stories that show Equestria being attacked by a bully and then beating that bully up are just another kind of Mary Sue.
2467926
That's a pretty large over-generalization, to the point of falseness.
It entirely depends on how the story is handled. Just as it does when a story features a single character being attacked and then defeating their attacker, a conflict between nations can be an entertaining struggle, something that serves to make a point about the real world, or a boring curbstomp where the author's favorite side destroys the opposition.
Such a story certainly can be (and frequently is) about a type of group Mary Sue, but it doesn't have to be.
2467926 That's why it was important to me to have the gryphon reasons for going to war in Cartography to be...defensible, at least.
2468180 Fair enough. I over-generalized. What I meant was ones in which the point of the story is to show that ponies are powerful.
Yeah, I'd be inclined to at least give every side a shot of winning, assuming one nation/faction/cause didn't have a war 100% thrust upon them. For one, assumedly each nation would have formed its own methods of defense in order to protect their borders and deal with the monsters that seem to populate the world. Second, because it makes for a much more entertaining story. An entire story based around a curb stomp tends to become rather tedious and boring, while a war story that goes back and forth can have more drama and suspense.
For myself, I would let the diamond dogs have their earth digging ability (no small factor in any kind of siege warfare or creating defenses), and probably some gifted members of their community known as earthspeakers with potent earth magic. Gryphons are of course dangerous for all the pointy ends, could have a more bellicose culture, and may have their own weather magic. I could imagine the zebras having their own shamanistic magic, as well as their alchemy. Given I imagine at least some of the zebras living under an Ottoman Empire-like nation, I could see them having alchemically boosted super-soldier Janissaries.
2468211 Sorry, I didn't mean your story, but the curb-stomping stories. Though I think "How an actual human vs. pony war would go", a fast curb-stomp, should be judged more as a blog post than as a story.
Here's me wishing I could "like" a blog post. Well said.
A balance of power that would result in a curbstomp is workable, even in situations where the nations with different power levels do get into conflict, but the setup for it is far harder to pull off in a believable and enjoyable way than one where the power is matched.
John Scalzi does it in the Old Man's War series, for example, though it's not the central conflict. One of the alien races is absurdly more powerful than all other races added together, due to a huge technological gap, but said race has religious reasons to not annihilate or subjugate all other races. They do get into conflict occasionally, driven by their religion, but at the same time their religion dictates certain rules of engagement that give whoever they are fighting a chance.
One thing to note is based on what we've seen of Celestia, she could easily take things very seriously, but seem to be entirely flippant about the whole thing. After all her response to eternal darkness and dealing with her sister's corruption was "go make some friends" and nothing else. Yes the particular story might really have her not caring, but sometimes not seeming to care can get things done the right way.
The other thing to note is why does anyone think that some race is going to go into battle alone. It's possible the races have all been entirely isolated from each other, but that seems unlikely. Also it's entirely possible there are ponies elsewhere, and they would be more than willing, especially if paid enough, to fight against Equestria. Then there is the issue of the races we haven't seen. The Zebra could easily have elephants, rhino, giraffes, and antelope as allies. The pony version of Ghengis Khan is probably a yak with ponies, or maybe actual horses, as allies. Reindeer and moose could easily be races and they are big at the very least. And I could go on. The point is any of these groups could easily be part of one nation. There is also who and what Equestria could call on if they truly went to war. Dragons seem likely unless Fluttershy really is just that terrifying in person there must be some sort of agreement. Zebras could in fact be allies, or for all we know a proper nation of diamond dogs. I know I couldn't resist putting Canidia north of Equestria. This could lead to the real reason Equestria easily curbstomps any to oppose them isn't ponies are just that awesome, or the reverse is awesome, but having lots of friends, including friendly nations, is a good thing.
Finally about conquest. Culture can change it lots of ways, not just marriage. Also while some sort of nastiness is inevitable if you have the conquerers holding down the oppressed, but it doesn't always work that way, and further the end result of the nastiness is certainly not always the banishment of the invaders. Especially if the invaders in question are actually third generation residents who've never known anywhere else. Obviously this can cause long term trouble as well, but the point is it doesn't really have to be any worse than reality. In fact the camels might be very happy the griffins come in and kill their Pharoh and most of his military, because he made everyone miserable, while griffin rule is harsh but fair. In fact if there is a sheep nation it might be they welcome with open hooves anyone who invades. War between two races could be terrifying, but it also could be relatively tame as neither really has any plans to get rid of the other and both know that. Or not, but I really doubt it would be more intense than humans.