Does anybody know the anthropological/military term that refers to this trait?

Factual Questions
1

(needed for something I’m writing on the Scots)

Okay, you and I are both Scots, but we are in different clans. Your clan, McDoper, and mine, McCecil, have been hacking away at each other for years- you killed my father, I killed your brother, all kinds of cousins and others have gone down on both sides, etc… We hate each other.

So, along come the English (or the Romans, or the Vikings, or whoever’s attacking Scotland that era). Their first war leader offers your clan a chance to side with them as an inside alliance against me, in exchange for which you’ll get big rewards. You refuse, so they make the same offer to me, and I refuse. Not only do we both refuse the offer to fight with another against our mortal enemy, but you/your clan and I/my clan momentarily forget our differences and we link shields and march into battle side by side. I have your back, you have mine, we kick the ass of the outsiders.

The Romans/English/whoever are defeated and they leave. We celebrate with a huge banquet and drinking and merrymaking. A few months (if not a few weeks or days) later we’re on the field facing each other as enemies again, it having been understood all along that our personal quarrels aren’t forgiven or forgotten, just suspended until we drive out the mutual enemy (who is an outsider).

Okay, the reason I use clans in the above is that I can swear I have heard the above called Scot’s Love (or maybe Scots Loyalty), though it was used in a generic term: it could be applied to Indian tribes or bedouin tribes or any other culture where internal hostilities are halted in the case of a common enemy (and resumed when common enemy is dealt with). I can’t find Scots love (I even searched for Caledonian love) on the Internet, however, and the closest term I can find is complimentary opposition, though that’s not really what I’m looking for.

So-
1- Has anybody ever heard this called “Scots Love”

and or

2- Any idea what this is referred to as in anthropology/military history?

Thanks for any insight.

2

Unholy alliance?

3

It sounds like the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Haven’t heard of Scots Love. Similar to the Afghan/Russia thing that happened a few years back (just finished reading Charlie’s War - before I knew they had made a movie out of it :smack: )

4

I thought “Scots Love” had to do with sheep and kilts. :smiley:
Sorry, other than that, I got nothin’.

5

In the Arab world, one sees this proverb quoted often:

“Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; and me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger (or foreigner)” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG29Ak03.html for instance, but you will see it quoted all the time.

Obviously the Middle Eastern world does not have a lock on tribal society. In my opinion tribalism and clannishness are built into our genetic heritage. What you are describing is common to all societies. It certainly exists in my family. Growing up I fought my brothers unless we both had to fight an outsider…

6

If this had a name, it could be talked about. I suspect this is something that, traditionally, must not be talked about.

7

Don’t you mean “I got mutton”?

8

Hmm- thanks. That’s good and will work for what I’m writing (I’ll just quote it and call it the "all of us against the stranger alliance style that applies to the Scots).

I don’t have my copy of Good Omens handy, but one of my favorite quotes has to do with a ritual that was (paraphrasing) “used by the Scots whenever they went to war with their archenemies the Scots.”

9

I wonder if there’s any Highland porn studios called MUTTON JEFF.

(work safe link for those who don’t get the baaaaaad pun).

10

The term is "Co-belligerents.

Rather than “allies”.

11

No, that is what the Scots say. :smiley:

12

From sociology, there’s the concept of “in-group solidarity,” but that doesn’t necessarily imply the members of the in-group hate each other in the absence of an outside threat.

13

The scenario you describe remind me of the game “Risk”.

Often there will be three remaining players where ultimately there can be only one victor. The players will start to flesh out alliances. The correct strategy for the middle-strength player is counter-intuitive. It may seem prudent to ally with the strongest player and not the weakest, but to ally with the strongest will mean that once the weakest is eliminated the middle-strength player is now the weakest of the two remaining. To ally with the weakest will mean that should you eliminate the strongest player, the middle-strength player will now be the stronger of the two remaining.

14

I don’t know what it’s called but there’s not much sign of it in Scottish history, which is packed full of clans siding with the enemy (mainly the English) against other clans.

15

“Brothers and sisters are natural enemies. Like Englishmen and Scots. Or Welshmen and Scots. Or Japanese and Scots. Or Scots and other Scots. Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!” - Groundskeeper Willy

16

Isn’t this exactly what happened in China during WWII? The Nationalists and the Communists stopped shooting at each other to fight the Japanese. WWII ended, and then Chang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-Tung & Co. went back to shooting at each other instead…

17

Paradoxically in this case, being the strongest is usually a detriment to your survival. For the middle player, it’s advantageous to ally with the weakest, for the weakest player, there is a greater chance of beating the middle player so neither want to ally with the strongest.

During the end of the midgame, I sometimes find myself “accidentally” making blunders that drop me into the middle of the pack. Surprisingly enough, people rarely ever tend to notice this even as they gripe about how I always get lucky despite so many of my boneheaded moves :D.

18

I’ve never heard of “Scots Love.” I’d say the OP is an example either of “Politics [and clan warfare] makes strange bedfellows” or “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Several of the smaller city-states which had long resentfully been under the domination of the Aztecs flocked to help Cortes and his conquistadors when the Spaniards showed up in 1518. Once the Aztecs were conquered, the smaller city-states found that Cortes’s gratitude for their help was, shall we say, um… limited.

19

Yeah, the reverse of the idea is much more common throughout history. That’s how the English pacified Scotland and Wales and Ireland and eventually India, by exploiting rivalries between the locals. The weaker clan enlists the help of the English to fight the stronger clan, the weaker clan wins, but now they are dependent on the English to stay on top.