A Tale of Two Cities

WARNING: This blog contains some minor spoilers for Where Liberty Lies

Classic historical rivalries always seem to be a dual affair. There is rarely a third party vying against each of the other two, making it a three way fight. The Americans faced off against the USSR in the Cold War, the Allies against the Axis powers in the Second World War and the Athenians against Sparta in ancient Greece. Other protagonists have their part but the ‘gravitational’ forces of power mean there are only two points of orbit in history’s pages. Even within the triumvirate of Rome, with its allusion to a three-way arrangement, significant events eventually played out around Caesar and Pompey, not Crassus. I suspect this is due to two (of course) factors: the binary nature of opposites, where you are either for or against and are obliged to gravitate to one side (the neutral is almost considered non-consequential because they don’t drive events), and the nature of a final showdown, where it can only ever be between two forces.

The Russian Civil War of 1917-23 had the potential to see multiple sides such as the democrats representing the middle-classes or the Social Revolutionaries representing the peasants but ultimately it was fought between the Reds (Bolsheviks) and Whites (Anti-Bolsheviks). The Reds won because the latter, despite having international support, lacked the cohesive strength to succeed, that ‘gravitational’ force mentioned earlier not powerful enough to create an effective prolonged opposition (The Bolsheviks controlled the geographical centre of Russia, which also proved a great logistical advantage). The Napoleonic Wars may have seen a number of nations fighting Napoleon’s armies but the battles of Leipzig (also know as the Battle of Nations 1813) and Waterloo (again a multi-nation affair) came down to the Allies verses Napoleon (The Little Corporal had a very good record at beating singular opponents). The American Civil War (1861-65) gravitated around the issue of succession from the Union, the opposing sides splitting geographically into North (Union) and South (Confederacy), underpinned by different economies and their position on slavery. However, it is ridiculous to believe that each state had a unanimous position amongst its population on the key issues, but it is only two points of view that emerged to fight the battle. As we see in modern America, political polarity gains momentum in times of crisis, as though the angles of an isosceles triangle steepen, sending more rolling down into the morass of the extreme, leaving the middle-ground (the peak of the triangle) harder to occupy and less relevant. At a more trivial level, in modern tennis we have a potential exception to the rule with three great rivals competing at the same time, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. But only two can face each other on a tennis court (though a three way game would be interesting) and so, as with all sports, a showdown will always come down to a final between just two.

So, let me take you into the world of Taliphia, the setting for my new novel, Where Liberty Lies. At least a dozen cities have arisen from the dust of civilisation’s collapse, born from one people and their arguments. With time, each has developed its own character, their own strengths and weaknesses. Location and circumstances play to the advantage of some. Parodis occupies a prime position with access to metal and lying on the main trading route, the river. This gives it wealth and control and a confidence bordering on arrogance. A few hundred miles to the south lies Adonelis with no such strategic advantage. What it does have is a singular attitude, focussed on military prowess. It has a mentality built around insecurity, neurosis and aggression. Sparta may be an obvious comparison, but let us consider a more modern example: Prussia. From an insignificant duchy in the 16th and 17th centuries with limited natural resources, it transformed itself into a kingdom and a state of European-wide influence by funnelling the majority of its resources and energy into its military, encapsulated in the reign of Frederick the Great (1740-1786). But in adopting an offensive strategy to survive amidst its traditionally more resource-rich and powerful neighbours, it played a risky game which was to see it undone and conquered by Napoleon (Battle of Jena 1806). Despite ultimate victory over Napoleon and a significant role in the battle of Waterloo (1815), Prussia retained a vulnerable, paranoic streak which was incorporated into the new united state of Germany, of which it dominated, in 1871. So, when the dual rivalry (there it is again!) of the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy) and Triple Entente (Great Britain, France, Russia) emerged at the start of the 20th century, those Prussian traits shaped Germany’s foreign policy. A fear of encirclement and invasion put it on an aggressive course with its Schlieffen Plan, designed to strike the first blow and knock France out of any war, allowing it the capacity to then focus solely on Russia to the east. And we all know how that played out in 1914!

So, with their personalities established, Parodis and Adonelis are set up nicely to provide an exciting canvas for Finbarl and Aminatra to stumble in to. On the topic of personalities, I’ve always seen geo-political entities as having similar personality traits to those we normally associate with individual people (as opposed to stereotype individuals from each nation), and it is within their histories that the shaping ingredients are found. For people we have the nature/nurture debate. On the nurture side, a childhood determines the character of the adult, with loss, trauma, rejection, success, comfort, wealth, poverty etc playing their part. On the nature side, DNA is the critical factor, determining physical attributes and some behavioural facets too. A country, region or city can have any of the experiences listed around nurture, while for nature, its DNA is its geography. Civilisation was born from suitable locality, with rich, fertile river valleys supporting communities to grow to such a size that they realised there was an advantage in staying put and sharing resources such as food and labour, while protecting each other. While island nations, such as Great Britain and Japan, have the sea and the protection and isolation it provides built into their DNA. A modern state with a long history will have a complex personality, a relatively new state perhaps one more straightforward. For France, the revolution of 1789 was such a dramatic and traumatic upheaval that it still resonates in their modern politics. One of the reasons you’ll find the displaying of the nation’s flag so popular in America, compared to elsewhere, is due to the relatively youth of the USA. Its short history has been to some extent about forging a sense of nationhood, separating themselves from the old world and bringing together the diverse states. If I were to describe a powerful and rich individual brought low and ruined, they may become bitter and resentful, seeking to blame others for their fall, hoping to regain what they once had. This happened to Germany after WW1 and the USSR at the end of the Cold War, with the behaviour we see at present from Russia reflecting, to a degree, that of Germany between the wars. Both the Napoleonic and Nazi invasion of Russia/USSR feed into the psyche of the modern nation, inculcating a sense of suspicion and superiority (Putin’s language often draws on this), and the fact the USA has never experienced invasion fosters a confidence and sense of invulnerability that sees it veer from isolationism to reckless foreign policy (e.g. Vietnam). China is a very interesting personality with the nation stretching back thousands of years. That’s a lot of baggage to carry. There is a pride which lies at its heart and perhaps a sense of destiny. The chaos of the 19th and 20th centuries with warlords and foreign interference have left a deep scar, and as it grows in economic and military strength we can see it keen to plough its own path, fulfilling its ‘divine destiny’, beginning to strut and throw its weight like many before it. For a former colony you may see some suspicion if offered help by a former imperial power, just as the bullied schoolboy will be reluctant to believe the goodwill of his former bully. And then we have long standing rivalries. France and England have been at each other’s throats for a large part of our history, not too dissimilar to suburban neighbours at war over a silly fence dispute. Allies for the last century, we have realised what we have in common out-weighs our differences but a unique suspicion still remains. While Athens’s and Sparta’s relationship could be described as that of siblings, arguing and fighting for dominance but coming together when the family (Greece) is threatened (Persians). It is, of course, more complicated than this with other factors involved, but there is some truth in it.

By creating Parodis and Adonelis, I have an unspoken, familiar history for them both to build those personalities and determine their behaviours and actions. For rivals must have something to fight over.