My take is more of a political-mindset dive: the proverb's authoritative early attestation is often traced to ancient South Asian political theory, namely 'Arthashastra' (classical dates debated, but roughly 4th century BCE). The core strategic logic — that a common adversary can create incentive for cooperation — is what made the phrase portable across Greek, Arabic, and later European diplomatic thought. I find it helpful to separate the proverb's historical origin from its life as a rhetorical device; historians point to Kautilya, while journalists and diplomats kept recycling the phrase during colonial era power plays and 19th-century imperial alignments.
The inverted version you mentioned — where the enemy of an enemy remains an enemy — is interesting sociologically. It shows up in modern commentary about coalition risks: sometimes those shared enemies are temporary, and hostility can persist or even spread. I teach or argue this point in discussions: alliances of convenience can store troubles for the future. If you want a deeper read, compare the original political context in 'Arthashastra' with case studies from 20th-century alliances to see how the proverb gets bent to suit narratives.
I've gotten into debates with friends about this line and the confusion is real: most historical traces point to the idea that teaming up with your enemy's enemy is useful, not that the enemy of my enemy remains my enemy. The pro-friend version is ancient — often credited to Kautilya's 'Arthashastra' from around 300–400 BCE — and shows up as a practical rule for statecraft. Across centuries the idea turns up in different cultures, because alliances are a universal headache.
The flip version, 'the enemy of my enemy is my enemy', reads like a modern contrarian joke or political warning: be careful who you ally with because they might become your foe later. I first heard that twist in a political podcast and it stuck as a neat one-liner about short-term realpolitik failing in the long run.
You could think of this proverb as ancient common sense. The more familiar line, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', goes back a very long time — people usually point to the Sanskrit political manual 'Arthashastra' from around the fourth century BCE as among the oldest written places the idea appears. That makes sense: early states needed rules for making and breaking alliances.
The version you asked about, where the enemy of my enemy is my enemy, is mostly a modern twist. I first heard it tossed out in a debate as a warning that short-term alliances can backfire; it’s a retort more than a classical proverb. In class we used it to discuss how wartime partners sometimes fight later — it’s a neat, skeptical flip that sparks conversation.
History nerd hat on: I get a little giddy about origins like this. The version most people recognize is actually 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' and its basic logic goes way back. Scholars usually point to ancient India — specifically the treatise known as 'Arthashastra' attributed to Kautilya (also called Chanakya) — as among the earliest textual expressions of that diplomatic idea, roughly around the 4th century BCE. So this kind of pragmatic alliance-making is at least two millennia old.
That said, proverbs and diplomatic maxims have popped up independently in many cultures, so similar formulations show in later Greek, Arabic, and medieval European writings too. The twist you asked about — 'the enemy of my enemy is my enemy' — reads like a modern, cynical inversion used to warn against short-term alliances that breed long-term problems. I’ve seen it in opinion pieces and alt-history novels where alliances backfire; it’s less of an ancient proverb and more of a contemporary rhetorical spin. If you like digging, read a bit of 'Arthashastra' and then scan some 19th–20th century diplomatic histories to see how the saying has been repurposed over time.
2025-09-03 12:00:42
12
View All Answers
Scan code to download App
Related Books
Fated to the Enemy
Solange Daye
9.8
122.0K
Lyra's life has been turned upside down when she learns that her father has groomed her for her whole life, never planning to let her find her true mate. His plans to force her into an unwanted mate bond cause her to run. She runs into the arms of a man that she assumes is her true mate. Once under her protection everything that she knows about the world around her is false. Lyra cannot even be sure of what she is anymore and what the future will hold for her, her mates, or her future children. Her survival is imperative to not only the werewolf race but other supernatural races as well. But can she survive every obstacle that is thrown at her and fulfill her destiny?
Walking through the hall, my wedding dress on when I heard them, my own mate with another. He was to mark me on our wedding night but instead I kicked the door open, my wolf pressing to the surface as she growled out in anger as he pushed the Omega to floor of the room.
"I reject you Beta! I, Dahlia Selene Knight, reject you Beta Christopher Lee Parker because you are an absolute piece of shit!"
I felt the tether snap, he went to reach for me but I swung my dress around, turning and running down the hall then out the doors and into the woods.
Tears streaming down my face as I ran when I run smack into a wall.
Wait, he isn't a wall.
Before I fall back onto the ground strong hands wrap around my waist, stopping me instantly, looking up to see the most beautiful honey colored eyes I'd ever seen before.
Alpha Damien Allister Diaz, the Alpha to our rival pack, known to be the most ruthless of Alphas, he lost his mate 5 years ago when she was delivering their baby. They both passed and he became a monster to all the bedtime stories told to young wolves.
"What have we here? And all dressed up to get married I see.
You wouldn't be Beta Parkers betrothed now would you?"
He is known for his devilish side, nobody dared to cross him. He's ruthless,cruel and dangerous to his enemies except to a certain cop who's hell bent on putting him behind bars. She is determined to take down the man who had caused her grief at a young age, the man who killed her parents before her. Things take a turn and she finds herself teaming up with the one person she loathes, a man who's too cocky and annoying for his own good. Despite fighting hard to keep her feelings contained, he's determined to break down the walls she has built and show her exactly what he wants. And he wants HER.
This book is part of a series:
Book 1: Badboy Asher
Book 2: His Blonde Temptress
Book 3: Loving The Enemy
Book 4: Bestfriends Shouldn't Know How You Taste
Since battling over a spade in kindergarten, Dior and Patricia have been life sworn enemies. Despite Dior being the future alpha, Patricia never respected or feared him. She was always a daring omega, not afraid of stating her opinion.
With age, the venom runs thicker in their veins. While Dior becomes popular and sought-after, Patricia finds herself bullied by the entire pack.
Sick of the treatment she receives, Patricia decides to go rogue, only for fate to laugh her in the face—it turns out the alpha she left is her mate.
Jeremy
He was my friend. The only one who understood me in my silence. I never needed anyone else with him by my side but...
Why does he have to do it? He agreed to marry me because my parent's company was in debt and getting married to me was the only option to get my company running. So, he backstabbed me and stole me away from my love.
If he thinks he will get my heart and body? He is mistaken. I am not a showpiece or a decoration. I only love Olivier and Magnus will never have me.
Magnus..
Jeremy thinks I have married him because of his parent's company. But he is wrong. So wrong. He doesn't even know that I have always loved him, and he is my only Love.
Yes, it hurts when he goes to his EX, but I will make him fall in love with me and I will tell him that I don't want his money, but his heart.
And I am sure of my love that one day I will.
It's an Enemy to Lovers, Happy ending book.
I met Oleg in junior school, and we clicked right away. Despite our fathers being rival mafia bosses, we never fell apart. But my feelings for Oleg changed with age. I felt frightened because I was torn between the comforts of friendship and the thrill of something more.
My dad was very homophobic, so it was even more difficult to express how I felt. I was faced with wanting to be truthful but endangering our families’ fragile peace So, my feelings stayed hidden, and I was just happy to be with Oleg.
Yet I couldn’t help but hope that Oleg would feel the same. Perhaps he was too scared to say anything. That hint of hope was what gave me the courage to take action.
And I did but things went terribly wrong. our worlds collided and exploded. It left us with nothing but hatred and resentment between our families. If I could turn back time, I would be content with the friendship we once shared, not the hurt and anger which we now have.
We parted ways with hatred in our hearts,a wound that never healed,years later,our path crossed again......
Funny how a short line can wander so far. In my digging through history books and casual reads, I've seen the kernel of the idea pop up in several places: ancient Indian political writing like the 'Arthashastra' is often cited as an early seed, while fragments of similar thinking show up in Middle Eastern and Greco-Roman diplomatic advice. Those regions were connected by trade routes and translators, so the notion—about how alliances shift when enemies overlap—migrated along with goods and ideas.
By the medieval and early modern periods the proverb, and variations of it, were part of courtly and statecraft discussions across Europe and the Islamic world. Later, colonial encounters, printed newspapers, and diplomatic correspondence spread the phrase even further. In modern times the line mutated into memes, Cold War shorthand for shifting alliances, and snappy quotes in political commentary. I still find it fascinating how a phrase about pragmatic relationships has traveled from carved clay tablets and manuscripts to timelines and Twitter threads—always reshaped by whoever uses it next.
I get a kick out of tracing how sayings twist over time, and this one is a neat little example of that. The straightforward proverb most of us know is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and that idea goes way back — you can find similar sentiments in ancient sources like the Indian political manual 'Arthashastra' and in Arabic proverbs. The original captures a practical, coalition-building logic: two foes of a common threat might cooperate to knock that threat out.
But the flipped line, "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy," reads like a sarcastic retort or a realist's warning. Its exact origin is murkier; it crops up in 20th-century political commentary and satire more than in antique texts. People started using it when they wanted to reject naive alliance logic, pointing out that a shared enemy doesn't erase deeper conflicts of interest, ideology, or morality. I first noticed it in op-eds and cartoons critiquing Cold War-era alignments and later in discussions about proxy wars and strange bedfellows in geopolitics.
To me, that inversion is useful: it reminds me to look beyond convenience in alliances. History gives us plenty of cases where cooperating with one adversary created worse long-term problems. It's a pithy way to flag that danger, and I still grin a little whenever someone drops it in a debate — it always sharpens the conversation.
I love digging into lines like that — they feel like little Easter eggs in political thrillers and spy movies. From my movie-buffing, the exact sentiment 'the enemy of my enemy is my enemy' is pretty rare on-screen; filmmakers usually prefer the punchier classic 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' or they paraphrase the idea. I can’t give a definitive, exhaustive list from memory, but I can share how I track these and what I’ve stumbled across.
When I want to confirm a quote I search subtitle databases like OpenSubtitles and script archives, or use websites that index film quotations. From that sleuthing habit, I’ve found a few instances where the line — or a near-exact phrasing flipping the usual proverb — pops up in political thrillers and noir-ish revenge movies. Often it’s used to highlight cynical alliance-making: a secondary character or a weary politician will drop it during a betrayal scene. If you want, I can walk through checking a specific film script with you or point to the best subtitle-search tricks I use to verify the exact phrasing.