A house divided... but why?
July 11, 2012 11:22 PM   Subscribe

Thought experiment: Two factions seem extremely alike. Why would one of them choose exile?

In a fictional universe, these are the known facts:

There are two large factions within an area, and the slightly smaller one chooses exile.
They both are roughly equal in terms of demographics, politics, economics, ethics and religion. They both have approximately the same level of political power.
The area has been ravaged by a third, much smaller force that is politically and religiously opposed to the two factions. This force has been defeated, and will not rise again.

So... Why would the people be divided? Why would one faction choose to leave and never return? There's no right answer. I just want your best guesses.

I've been reading the "history" of this fictional universe, and can't figure out the story behind these "facts." It hasn't actually been written, and the whys are driving me crazy.
posted by ThisKindNepenthe to Grab Bag (6 answers total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Inviting guesses and there being no right answer makes this chatfilter. -- vacapinta

 
Lack of resources meaning that it is probably best for both factions that one of them leave to find a home elsewhere. This was actually the case in the real world on the island of Gotland in the 1st century AD.
posted by deanc at 11:28 PM on July 11, 2012


- An impressively charismatic leader plays on random tensions and sentiments and points them all in the direction of "Let's go."
- Animosity and competition increased once their common enemy was defeated.
- It was prophesied, and people have actually been sort of waiting for it to happen all their lives, when something small pushes them over the edge.
- Both sides were rigidly endogamous, but the side that stayed became lax and started allowing young libertines to marry into their families. The side going into exile wants to keep up the old ways.
- Some of the facts you have been told may be wrong, because they were handed down by biased or incompetent historians.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 11:43 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


- It doesn't sound as though exile is the correct term here.
- If "the area has been ravaged," why wouldn't it make sense to seek greener grass?
- If you're the leader of the slightly smaller group, even if your group can coexist peacefully with the other group, you'll never be the leader of it all.
posted by acidic at 11:48 PM on July 11, 2012


If the 2 factions are led by people who love each other (brothers, maybe?), each one may want the other to have what is best and would be willing to bow out and let the other win.
posted by CathyG at 12:24 AM on July 12, 2012


Love.

Either a person or an ideal.

Can't marry someone? Go elope and live elsewhere, if you have skills to survive.

Distaste for ruling.

Retreating to a log cabin (and being dug up from one) has lots of prior literary and popular precedence.
posted by porpoise at 12:42 AM on July 12, 2012


Their religion demands that they never submit to any other religious group. To do so is to risk eternal damnation.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 1:07 AM on July 12, 2012


« Older Lost Love, Lost Poem   |   Is this a good surveillance system? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.