In Thinking Geographically (Hubbard et al. 2002), a student-centred guide to the theoretical landscape of human geography, we began by noting the different ways of writing geography’s histories. One way, we suggested, was to present the disciplinary landscape as a battlefield populated by warring factions, each led by totemic figureheads who fire intellectual potshots at one another in the attempt to overwhelm other forms of geographical thinking. While alliances may be drawn, and truces occasionally brokered, the overwhelming picture is one of intellectual spats, simmering resentments and outright hostility between those situated in different ‘camps’. In short, if we follow this metaphor through, we reach the conclusion that geography is a discipline riven by division, with the clash of personalities and intellectual positions manifest in constant battles. Even when the war is seemingly won, and a particular way of thinking becomes dominant, civil wars break out, and the cycle of violence begins again.