Sort of a sequel to the other thread about history I would like to open the discussion on creating a more realistic and dynamic war/warfare in RPG games.

Despite what the title says war doesn't just have to be in world building but often wars are a key part in the campaign. This a discussion to make the age old evil kingdom vs. good kingdom some realism.

First off I would suggest heavily that in order to recreate realistic war and warfare in your gaming sessions you have to study real war. I would suggest reading books like John Keegan's History of Warfare, a book which sadly I need to read. Now if you are ever in need to know more about World War II just check out the Military of History Channel, those channels will never stop talking about that. Which i would rather watch the hundredth show on D-Day than watch... watch ...Ax Men
For ancient history or pre-twentieth century history I would advise a book or Wikipedia or other internet sources.
To learn about battle tactics and strategy I would suggest going to the source and read Sun Tzu's Art of War (another book that i haven't read ).

Why are wars started? Like the question of how the Roman Empire Fell this question is a powder keg. But since this is the issue, start some fire works.
I would like to reemphasize that while i write like I'm an expert giving advise really I'm just a history enthusiast who is starting a discussion not giving a lecture (that's Dan's department ).
Well I would say that you can't answer that question in one sentence. War is the drug addicted child that everyone involved is trying to blame on the other. Atheists say that wars are caused by religion, Marxists say that wars are caused by economics and strife between the classes or by greedy capitalists, environmentalist argue that wars are caused by the want of resources, others say that war is the continuation of politics. other say that war is just humanities tribal instincts and impulses manifesting in war. And OTHERS say:
"GET ON WITH IT!!"--Monty Python

And I'm sure that other people will bring up more reasons than what I can think up on the top of my head. One thing to remember is that 99% of wars are avoidable. You give me enough time and I'll find a way out of that conflict. Probably the two most unavoidable wars that I can think of are the American Civil War and the First World War. You might think that it would be WWII that was unavoidable but I would argue that if The Treaty of Versailles wasn't so draconic to the Germans there would have never been the environment for Hitler to gain power. Hindsight is 20-20. So wars are very rarely started on purely logical reasoning.

The second point I would like to make is that usually of the population only a miniscule minority start the war. Every single German didn't start World War II, they were enthusiastic and gung-ho after the fact but it was Hitler and his men who invaded Poland. This is because most of the population isn't fighting the war. Armies number in the hundreds, thousands, even hundred thousands but nations number in the millions. So usually wars are caused by a sole leader, a government, politics, or business, and usually a heavy mixture of the four.
This must be balanced by the fact that people like a good fight now and then. Even though most people abhor violence and war whenever a fight gets started at school everyone cheers em on and then gossips about it for the rest of the week. This is usually what starts the unavoidable wars where two sets of people hate each other so much that things boil over and shots are fired. Something that is interesting is that sometime two nations recognize this and create mock wars. The Greek Olympics served this and the Medieval Tournaments were even more so. These controlled "games" allowed each side to compete without blood being spent.

Well that's all I got for now.

War... war never changes.

Colour me semi-Marxist, I guess.

External War has always been about population pressures.

The Persian Wars ... the Anatolian Greek colonies versus the expanding Persians.

The Punic War. Roman expansion into Sicily and towards (but not into) Iberia, both Carthaginian colonies.

The Crusades: The First Crusade was as much to do with the percieved "ownership" of the Holy Land, and the potential for expansion, as religious causes . And said causes were just a response to earlier expansion. Many of the noble lords who went, stayed, and formed "Outremer" -- the four independant "Catholic" states (largely made up of the indigenous non-Catholic peoples).

And so forth.

It is very hard to find an external war that wasn't based on population pressure.

Internal wars are invariable a result of authority issues. Coups, rebellions, revolts, and even things like the Cathar/Albegensian Crusades (or the Hussite issues) largely stem from an authority conflict.

Doug.

1. Nobody 'wins' a war, just loses less.
2. Wars are the worst possible solution. Unfortunately they are often presented as the only possible solution.

I think most GMs designing their histories often forget your second point Citizen Joe. They see all this empty space on their timelines and freak out so they fill the space with wars just so that something is happening. War, is expensive: weapons, men, maybe mercenaries, and food. Also war is dangerous, even if you defeat your enemy, if you don't do it quick you could lose an eye or worse. And obviously you could start a fight that you were woefully unprepared for. Uses words instead of the sword is often the way things go. So don't have every single conflict resolved through war. Stick a few treaties, negotiations, trades, etc.

I find that the more I talk about history the more I realize how little I actually do know.

I was thinking that we should try to give examples of tips of making wars in stories or campaigns more realistic/dynamic and interesting. I think most people can easily figure out the who's fighting, what are they fighting over, and how they are fighting. But they often forget about why. Why are these two nations fighting? I suggest making a list. And I think the best way of explaining is by example.
Mercian Empire invades Kalan Kingdoms:

1. The Mercian Emperor wanted his name to last through the ages and for his name to be immortal (Glory)
2. All of Mercia's economy was dominated by Kalan merchants. Kalan had the most stable economy in the West. If Kalan was conquered then all that money would be Mercian. (Economic expansion)
3. The Mercian Emperor was always in the shadow of his grandfather's achievements he has always been expected to meet that expectation set by his grandfather (Personal Reason)

the list can go on and on. The war could be one of these reasons or ten of them.

Also mention some lesser known wars in history that you would think would be good inspirational material. I've been reading about the Crusades lately and I read about the "Crusades" in the Baltic. It was a holy war between the Teutonic Knights and the Lithuanian pagans.

A Military History of the Western World by J.F.C. Fuller is a must-read for any GM that is looking to incorporate warfare into their setting.

It was written by the guy who inspired Guderian....and can still be comprehended by amateur history buffs like me.

Really, can't recommend it enough.

While I understand your sentiments, and I certainly think that these two rules apply to the modern world, I am pretty certain that the first rule is not true historically. Empires were crafted through war. Look at Rome. It fell eventually, but it only did so after it stopped making wars on its neighbors for territorial expansion. I would say that they certainly won many of their wars. Now, it wasn't especially moral, but they did gain territory and wealth, and their culture spread throughout their known world.

Lets not act as if any group defined by anything other than their beliefs in what starts wars will have a monolithic agreement in this. Using your examples, someone can be an environmentalist Marxist atheist, which gives three reasons right there. If anything I would say that most people recognize that any individual war emerged from a whole bunch of reasons, usually over an extended period, even ignoring the more minor reasons that trace back further.

I suspect that you'll find that Rome used war or rather the THREAT of war as a bargaining chip on the negotiating table.

Usually, they just kicked people's asses. Carthage, Gaul, and Greece did not go down with a fight.