1. Three Kingdoms
2. War of the Roses
3. American Civil War
4. Roman Civil War (Antony vs Augustus)
5. Warring States Period
6. Thirty Years War (>H>R>E)
7. English Civil War
8. First Liberian Civil War
9. Boshin War
10. Russian Civil War
Based on levels of intrigue, personalities and general interest.
>>238876
Come on, man, Caesar's civil war has to be up there. For fuck's sake, he won an Egyptian civil war in the middle of his own damn civil war.
American Civil War doesn't belong there.
>>238876
What factors does one consider when making these power rankings? Size of opposing armies/insurgents? Death toll? Glory in victory? Personalities and intrigue don't really seem to cut it.
>>238876
>muh chinese civil wars that i saw in my video games and fictional shows
>>238906
>incredible death toll
>first war on there after rifles became widespread and actually used
>had a tremendous effect on history
>charismatic personalities
>very intriguing, even to non-americans due to easily accessible documentaries and written accounts
Its definitely important enough to warrant its spot on the list.
>>238955
>Murrican Civil War
>very intriguing
Americans actually believe this.
>>238881
This
Also, you could consider the war between Marius and Sulla.
You forgot Sengoku, the Warring States in Japan!
>>238876
>no mention of the Wars of the Diadochi and the break up of Alexander's empire
>>238973
not that guy, but please give you're rationale why it isn't intriguing. here has been no other civil war between a society that wants to keep slaves and another that doesn't and wants to eliminate it. the south, along with other slave countries in the caribbean and latin america, were unprecedented in history of the world. the more conventional civil wars that OP mentions didn't have this underlying difference and originated in political, religious and national/ethnic motivations.
The American Civil war is quite possibly the most unexciting conflict of all time
>>238876
>Warring States Period
>As if there was only one
>>238876
>not including Taiping Rebellion
THE largest civil war in history.
>>238974
You could if not for Marius dying before fighting Sulla for control of Rome
>inb4 Sulla was better because he beat an army of gladiators.
>>239322
It was also very lame.
I guess Finnish civil war but it's basically just Russian civil war where the whites won. I've also heard someone claim it was the first war to be fought entirely with guns but havent found any source to confirm it.
>>239379
>A war caused by a Chinaman that believed he was the cousin of Jesus
>Caused the largest amount of casualties of any war ever
>lame
Wew lad.
>>239425
>leading a bunch of peasants
>Against the failing Qing state
There's a reason no one remembers it. Go ahead, name me some major battles and generals without looking it up. Then do the same for the other conflicts on OP's list.
>American Civil War
>a Civil War
Not to go full Dixie autist but calling it a Civil War is history written by the victors. It was a failed nationalist uprising. Also, it was a fascinating war, anybody who says otherwise is just being edgy.
>>238876
>intrigue, personalities
>Russian Civil War not on top
>>239464
>nationalist uprising
lol wut. define what is a "nation" here, cause to me the idea that a part of the country with the same political structures, language, general cultural background is its own nation seems contrived. not to deny their aspirations for independence
>>239079
It was straightforward compared to the other ones, with no strategic events nor new weapons and technology. It's important to americlaps but not to anyone else.
>>238876
>Diadochi wars not even mentioned
Fucking American schools
>>241291
>with no strategic events nor new weapons and technology.
>>241291
>no new weapons or technology
If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about then fuck off and take your shitty opinions with you.
>>240352
They didn't have the same general cultural background though.
>The Thirty Years War isn't number one
>Implying it wasn't a civil war
>Implying it didn't shape modern Europe by giving birth to proto-nationalism
>>241328
And deployed regularly in battle? Not to mention the first fucking use of a military submarine.
>>241328
Also the second anon is talking about turreted guns more than the ironclad itself I think.
>>241291
>with no strategic events nor new weapons and technology.
Stop being retarded.
>>241328
>ironclad warships
Not Monitors.
Nor any submarine, or gatling guns (which admittedly saw very little use) or the blockade of nearly a third of a continent's worth of coastline, requiring the rapid construction of ships able to enforce such a blockade.
Yet you're saying it has no place on a list that includes the fucking Liberian war? Get real.
>>241291
>It's important to americlaps but not to anyone else.
Biggest American Civil War buff I know is from Scotland.
>>241348
gun turrets have been developed and built in europe before the civil war
>>238876
how is the war of the roses above the thirty years war when it involved more deaths and more nations?
>>241345
first submarines were built before the civil war, also first military use of submarines was before the civil war
you've probably only heard of those 10 civil wars
>>241360
Shitposting was invented by the ancient Egyptians IIRC
>>241366
i am not shitposting, i am merely correcting you
>>238876
>First Liberian Civil War
No one gives a flying shit about this.
If you're going to put that up there you might as well put up something like the Cristero war in Mexico which was actually interesting, it had rabid catholic martyr soldiers.
>>241350
>Yet you're saying it has no place on a list that includes the fucking Liberian war? Get real.
no all i am saying is that ironclad warships, gun turrets and submarines are not new weapons or technology of the civil war (unlike the gatling gun)
>>241350
>a third of a continent's worth of coastline
That's not impressive when you arbitrarily assign the term "continent" to things.
>>239464
This is an interesting point. Since a civil war is a war fought between citizens of the same country, dies it still technically count as a civil war if it was USA vs. CSA?
>>241387
why are you so angry? i am merely correcting your inaccuracies
>>241387
also
>one
>>241369
>Cristero war
Yeeeeeeeeeaaahh
>no Warlord period
One day they will write a book about it like the Romance of Three Kingdoms and you will all finally realize how amazing it was.
>>241397
>inadvertently admitting you're an autist and calling me one too.
fuck you.
>>241397
200 hours in paint
>>241387
You fucking did just arbitrarily call the US a continent faggot, dwi.
>>239379
>>239460
>Taiping Rebellion.
>Lame
Dude. A fucking christian ISIS dude with a peasant militia managed to #reckt the 250 year long supremacy of Qing Armies in the field.
They killed 3 out of 4 foreign advisors of the Qing and their armies. The last one, British General Charles Gordon, surviving because he just stayed in the rear.
Rekting foreign trained armies: even the Qing can't do that.
>>241401
But there is no good guy in that story. Just about every faction had such callousness for their soldiers and civilian populations (besides the gommies who really didn't have much of a choice desu).
That said, Mao versus Chiang with gigantic spears would be amazing.
>>241422
>Taiping wang
kek
>>241401
I really want to read about the Warlord period, but there's fucking nothing on it in English. Maybe two university press books that are long out of print dealing with a small subset, but nothing on the Great Plains War or the breakup of the Beiyang Army or even the fucking Northern Expedition.
It's looking like I'll have to actually learn Chinese to read about it in depth.
>>241350
>blockade of nearly a third of a continent's worth of coastline
>the gulf coast
>a third of a continent's worth of coastline
Mexico alone is more than twice that and you still have all of Alaska and Canada, west coast, New England, All of fucking Greenland, central America...and....do you know what distance actually IS sir? Like, as a concept, do you have it?
>>241382
"East Coast North American Continent" then. Is there any reason to pick at technicalities other than because you refuse to admit you had a retarded opinion?
You bring up armored ships that never fought each other, submarines that never sank anything, and turrets that were fixed firmly to solid earth, all in attempts to minimize the important events of the American Civil War, for what purpose? It's flimsier than the toilet paper in public stalls that's one ply and pissed on. Nothing you have said supports your statement of "oh it was completely insignificant and nothing interesting happened." Nigger, really?
>>241436
>Greenland
Oh come on. And he clearly meant the Eastern coast.
>>241401
Also this. Warlord Period is basically Feudal Modern Armies: the Era
>Large Private Modern armies with WWI tier organization, infantry, trains, artillery, private air forces
>White Mercenaries fighting for either one of the warlords, or idealistic fucks fighting for the ROC (i.e. Two Gun Cohen).
>White Russian Refugees fleeing Bolshevism and White Russian soldiers being mercenary fighters for the warlords.
>Swordsmanship was still a thing & a viable skill in combat.
>>241401
I got interested in this period after it got mentioned in a thread, sounds fucking amazing. Any good reading material for it?
>>241427
Having no good guys just makes it more interesting.
>>241441
Electronic warfare is an insignificant invention and not relevant to the 20th century because the antikythera mechanism and
>>241445
>Feudal Modern Armies: the Era
WHY IS THERE SO LITTLE ON THIS IN ENGLISH
>>238876
Gotta say Thirty Years since dat death toll, dunno why American civil war would be up there, Russian civil war should be much higher, literally changed the world on a global scale
>>241349
>lever action
Cool, but inferior to Chassepot and Dreyse, and actual tactics.
>>241304
Ironclads had existed before. And the monitor class ship was useless in the high seas, you seem to forget that the US navy had to abandon almost all monitors after the war since they were useless
>>241307
See above, turrets were cool though. Honestly, the civil war is irrelevant to anyone but the US, nothing to ashamed of really, it was a cool conflict, but other events were far more relevant than Britain's cotton source.
>>241441
>East Coast North American Continent
Part of it and all of the gulf coast....your'e still wrong.
>You bring up armored ships that never fought each other
I haven't brought anything at all up. Why the fuck do retards continue to insist that every ANONYMOUS user on the site is the same guy they've been talking to?
Why the shit do they assume the people in their convo even stay the same? How the shit do you know the original poster of the comment that filled you with so much anger you'd bitch at it in the wee hours of the morn has literally not posted anythign else since then?
You don't faggot.
You know about Assume, it's makes an Ass out of U and Me
>>241428
Wang means "King" in Chinese. The Taipings were organized with the Heavenly King being the top doge and sub-kings being the generals.
>>241443
even if you exclude Greenland (but why the fuck would you?), he's still off by several thousand kilometers.
>>241454
>I haven't brought anything at all up
Other than the fact that basic geography seems to confuse the fuck out of you that is.
>>241453
>And the monitor class ship was useless in the high seas
Well luckily, apart from commerce raiding, naval engagements in the civil war were almost entirely littoral.
>>241452
Uh. There is. Cambridge History of China has a bit on it.
Thing is, all the interesting shit-especially about the Northern Warlords- is NOT in English. Much of the English records are based on the PoV of the ROC, who is the ignored de jure government of China until Chiang Kai-Shek led his forces north and defeated major warlords there in 1928.
>>241458
>Wang means "King"
I know that feeling!
>>241453
>were far more relevant than Britain's cotton source.
India is pretty damn important
>>241445
ALso: Osprey is fucking retarded.
>Wade Giles
Who the fuck still uses this for Chinese Romanization? Holy shit, its the 1800's again.
>>241454
We're optimists and like to assume there's not this many raging autists on this board.
>>241471
>Thing is, all the interesting shit-especially about the Northern Warlords- is NOT in English.
Which is my point.
>>241471
>look at them in their little suits
>they think they're modern
Isn't that adorable?
>>241480
>We're optimists
We both know that's a fucking lie.
![ny_dailynews[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rFnuLZd.jpg "ny_dailynews[1].jpg")
>>241482
We thought they were funny too. They're not funny anymore.
>>238876
>1. Three Kingdoms
>2. War of the Roses
>3. American Civil War
horribly overrated by angloamericans
>4. Roman Civil War (Antony vs Augustus)
>not Sulla's civil war
>not Caesar's Civil War
>6. Thirty Years War
>implying it was civil war
>8. First Liberian Civil War
>not Ethiopia
>not Rwanda
>not Sierra Leone
>not Somalia
>not Bush Wars
>9. Boshin War
overrated by weabos
>10. Russian Civil War
>implying it hasn't largest impact on the recent modern history than any other mentioned
>implying it wasn't glorious clusterfuck
>no Taiping Rebellion
>no Spanish Civil War
>no Chinese Civil War
>no French Wars of Religion
tl;dr shit list
>>238876
The American civil war changed warfare forever and spawned one of the world's greatest generals while war of the roses only affected England.
>>241441
>You bring up armored ships that never fought each other, submarines that never sank anything, and turrets that were fixed firmly to solid earth, all in attempts to minimize the important events of the American Civil War, for what purpose? It's flimsier than the toilet paper in public stalls that's one ply and pissed on. Nothing you have said supports your statement of "oh it was completely insignificant and nothing interesting happened." Nigger, really?
that was me not him
the turrets were not fixed to solid earth, they were gun turrets on ships
the submarines did not sink anything, but they were submarines and were used for military purposes, let me quote presumably your own post >>241345
"first fucking use of a military submarine"
ironclad warships have been developed and built before the civil war, that is indisputable
so mentioning them as "new weapons and technology" is incorrect
why are you getting so worked up on the internet about a bunch of your historical inaccuracies?
>>241491
Here's your reply.
>>241490
>Taiwan not funny
Nigga the KMT is fucking hilarious.
>>241493
how did the american civil war change warfare forever? there was nothing in the ACW that would not happen in the crimean war, the italian unification wars, the prussian war in denmark (and the A-P and F-P wars) perhaps with the exception of combat between armored littoral ships, which could not have changed war forever by any stretch of the imagination
>>241502
>he's never read The Sand Pebbles
>>241498
also i have never said "oh it was completely insignificant and nothing interesting happened," i really think you should realize there are several people participating in this thread, i am merely correcting your statements about "new weapons and technology"
>>241508
No, I haven't.
>>241520
You should get on that. It's about the only novel written about what life was like on a Legation river gunboat, especially before the resurgence of the KMT.
Be prepared for a bad end of epic proportions, though.
>>241538
>reading english literature unironically
I think I'll pass.
You know you ruined the back and forth banter we were having right? Ruined it, killed it and buried it in a grave.
>bad end of epic proportions
The MC dies, read the wiki.
>>241445
The Warlord Period is funny because if you think about it: it's China descending to African Tier infighting and instability. Even had boy soldiers.
Except unlike ragtag iFricans, Chinks did theirs in style. You had trenchcoats, combie-caps, GOGGLES and sword-wearing.
>>241553
Yeah, he dies, after watching the lives of his ship and his comrades go completely to hell past the point of mutiny, while also fucking over the region unintentionally and handing it to the Communists. Oh, and he gets kek'd. The fall of the USS San Pueblo was something to behold considering how bright its future looked before the halfway point of the book. It's a masterpiece of American literature.
But you're a massive faggot who wouldn't know a good book if it hit you in the face, so fuck your banter and your shit taste.
>no Hundred Years War
>no French Religious Wars
>no French Revolution
Shit list to be honest.
>>238955
It wasn't very interesting though. It was more of an independence movement put down by the state than a proper civil war.
I've always been more fascinated by the English and Spanish civil wars. With all their factions and politics.
>>238876
>Antony vs Augustus over Marius and Sulla or Caesar and Pompey
Hmm
Also what's a good podcast or easily accessible books to learn about the war of the roses?
Or a fun Video Game about it (please don't recommend the Yugioh one I've already played it)
>>241595
Beiyang was the best army that the ROC ever deployed. Really, only the big warlords were able to effectively equip their troops - the smaller warlords and landlord armies were shit tier, to the extent that the Communists used them as recruitment pools.
>our civil war killed more foreigners than Poles
wew lad
>>241719
>hundred years war
>civil war
C'mon now
>>238876
>2. War of the Roses
>7. English Civil War
Why? The wars of the three kingdoms (british version) could take the top spot with how interesting it is. Its better than the wars of the roses at least
>>241880
Well, OP listed the Warring States and the Thirty Years Wars too.
Mexican Revolution was based.
>Pancho Villa
>Zapata
>Carranza
>>238876
Land wars in New Zealand were pretty interesting but that might be bias from me. Alot of revision to make the Maori seem more heroic lately tho.
>>241595
I like African Uniforms and their paratrooper fetish.
>>241880
How is it not a civil war?
It was a dynastic struggle between two French noble houses over the throne of France, it's exactly as much a civil war as the War of the Roses. And a lot more interesting.
>>242023
The kingdom of England and France were separate kingdoms
>>238876
The thirty years war was easily the most relevant of these.
>Only one mention of Sengokujidai
lmao
it's literally the only noteworthy time period for Japan, too.
>>242037
And? The hundreds years war was fought by claimants of the French throne, over the French throne.
>>239349
Sulla was better at small scale tactics, as per his role in the Jugurthine War, but I'd say Marius was the better commander, seeing as he defeated the Teutons almost single-handedly.
>>241309
how was it different in your eyes?
>>241366
It was invented by the mesopotamians
>>241433
4u
Graff, David, and Robin Higham, eds. A Military History of China. 2d ed. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2012.
>The best general overview of Chinese military history available. Broad coverage of time and subjects, aimed at nonacademic readers.
Worthing, Peter. A Military History of Modern China: From the Manchu Conquest to Tian’anmen Square. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007.
>The best military history of modern China in English. Clearly written and reliable. The best starting point for an overall perspective on the subject.
Graff, David, and Robin Higham, eds. A Military History of China. 2d ed. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2012.
>The best general overview of Chinese military history available. Broad coverage of time and subjects, aimed at nonacademic readers.
Jansen, Marius B. Japan and China from War to Peace 1894–1972. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1975.
>Jansen was among the United States’ foremost Japan experts. His excellent text puts military history in the greater context of Japanese political, economic, and social history.
Dreyer, Edward L. China at War, 1901–1949. London: Longman, 1995.
>Excellent standard work on the topic, focusing on the Chinese side.
Elleman, Bruce A. Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795–1989. London: Routledge, 2001.
>Excellent standard work on the topic, focusing on the Chinese side but with attention to Russia.
>>238876
What about the HYW?
Western France (which happened to own England) vs Eastern France
>>241840
war of the roses is notoriously complicated, but try any of these:
Pollard, Anthony J. The Wars of the Roses. 2d ed. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 2001.
>First published in 1988. Concise, accessible, reliable, and comprehensive survey of the whole sequence of wars. A student favorite.
Ross, Charles D. The Wars of the Roses. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976.
>Succinct and well-illustrated account of most aspects of the wars.
Goodman, Anthony. The Wars of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society, 1452–97. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.
>The best military history that deals thoroughly with recruitment, manpower, and logistics.
>>243341
also links I found on bookzz:
A Military History of China
http://bookzz.org/s/?q=A+Military+History+of+China&t=0
Modern Chinese Warfare
http://bookzz.org/book/698651/f87a37
>>238933
I actually read the long long long long books on the romance of the three kingdoms.
It clearly was an epic civil war.
>>238876
>Nothing from the Diadochs
>No Sulla
>No Caesar/First Triumvirate
>No Crisis of the Third Century
>American Civil War ranked higher than Second Triumvirate war
Was this purposefully made to be a shit list?
>>239079
Nobody gives a shit about it outside of th USA
>>243534
>why isn't it intriguing?
>because other people in my country don't talk about it :DDDD
because people outside the USA are the source of authority for everything, right?
>>238876
>not including the Sullan civil war for the finale alone
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Colline_Gate_(82_BC)
>>243341
Thank you, kind anon.
Funland's Civil War was great
Stupid commies got rekt real hard :DDDD
>>238876
The Thirty years' war and the Russian civil war should be tied for first. Also, the Chinese warlord period was really nice. The American civil war is honestly not that interesting.
>no spanish civil war
>russian civil war so low
>>241643
Well you're unpleasant
>>242693
>And?
we're not discussing it, it wasn't acivil war, we're not calling it a civil war, we don't care about it as a civil war, you can keep on being right by yourself because no one cares
faggot
>oooh look at me I have my point of contention
>I'm righty-o and know how to use technicalities oooie
no one cares and no one thinks of it as a civil war so there.
not the anon you were talking to btw, just thought I'd make fun of you a bit
>>243470
no because we dont like to think of it as a civil war
end of discussion
>>242018
The only people without a paratrooper fetish are dead people desu.
>>244062
Plus, the Kabarebe Blitz might be the coolest 'Paratrooper' operation in history.
>>244104
>Kabarebe Blitz
Google gives me nothing except a few mentions of a Rwandan general?
The wars of the three kingdoms weren't really a civil war. It was a couple of different civil wars followed by a parliamentarian invasion of England's neighbours.
>>244153
> three kingdoms weren't really a civil war
>three kingdoms
> followed by a parliamentarian invasion of England's neighbours
What?
>>238876
I feel like the one between Guelphs and Ghibellines is kind of underrated.
>>244125
OK, that General during the Second Congo War, Rwanda decides to invade the Democratic Republic of Congo. Which is a plan that makes Barbarossa look like a cakewalk. The Congo has like 6 times the population of Rwanda, and is seriously like a hundred times the size.
So what Kabarebe decided to do was, he takes his paratroopers, they cross into the Congo. They seize commercial airliners. They get on board them.
They fly them across the continent, near the Atlantic ocean, where they land in the Congo's primary air force base. Within days, a few hundred men had blocked of an entire nation's access to the sea, captured their airforce, cut of 40% of the electrical power generation by seizing a hydroelectric dam and were about to take the capital.
The only reason they didn't win the war right there themselves was the Angolans panicked and got involved. They suffered like 80% losses in the first day of fighting with Angola. The survivors retreated into UNITA held Angola however, and returned by airlift back to Rwanda in good order.
It's crazy to think 600 paratroopers nearly controlled the fate of 60 million Congolese.
>>241333
>>241356
>>241453
>>242547
>>243900
There can fine line between civil war and international conflict. For example, the Russian civil war saw "intervention" by the British in Archangel, Poland and Estonia, and the Americans and Japs in the East. The Spanish Civil war also had international volunteers and saw the intervention or aid of several major powers. But the Thirty Years' War imo was an international conflict more than anything else.
>>238876
>10. Russian Civil War
>Based on levels of intrigue, personalities and general interest.
Then why is it so low?
>intrigue
It had various plans to assassinate Lenin, one more nutty than the other (just read about Sidney Reilly)
Or general Dieterichs (who headed the White Russian remnant state around Vladivostok) who after examining the site of the execution of the Tsar, came to conclusion that it was a ritual murder by satanist Jews, who also orchestrated the entire revolution
>personalities
You have a guy who was a neo-medievalist Russian Orthodox-Buddhist warrior monk, whom Mongolians considered an avatar of their war god and a reincarnation of Genghis Khan, who wanted to reconstitute the Mongolian Empire in order to defeat the Reds and cleanse the entire decadent West. You don't get much more personality than that.
His best bro was the ataman of the Transbaikalian cossacks, established his autonomous state and went around it collecting rackets from the board of an armoured train. The train had a suite which contained his hand-picked harem of 30 women, but his favourite was a gypsy-Jewish cabaret actress who dabbled in occultism and embezzled large sums from the White government
>general interest
There's few wars which included, among others, troops from Britain, Canada, USA, Japan, Italy, Imperial Germany (on the same side as the Entente countries before), China, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Baltic countries in various flavours, at least three Ukrainian governments independent of each other, random guys just in it for profit, the last direct descendant of Genghis Khan to rule a country (different guy than the one above, this one ruled Bukhara in central Asia). While some of those forces were marginal, other weren't - the Czechoslovakians were the major anti-Red force in the opening months, and ruled thousands of kilometers of territory from Kazan to Vladivostok around the Trans-Siberian railway - all that before Czechoslovakia even became a country.
Top fucking kek, you American ignorant scum, your shitty "civil war" is the third on the list and the Spanish Civil War isn't there?
>>238876
The European Civil War is not up there. Can you even into history, m8?
>>241422
The Qing were fucking weak at that point. The only thing intriguing about the Taiping is the death toll and the fact that very few people have heard about it. The Boxer Rebellion was more interesting because of the six nation coalition and the fact that the boxers were pro-Manchu.
>>245005
It's very important on the global political scale, m8. Churchill even wrote a paper about how important it was.
>>245058
>The Qing were fucking weak at that point
Compared to the west: yes. But their banner armies ought to be something against local uprisings. Which the Taiping nearly ended.
>The Boxer Rebellion
Bigger failure than the Taiping were.
>>238876
>no Spanish Civil war
Shit list desu
>>238876
Hundred years War m8. Before that war England was a vassal given that they held territory in France after the Norman conquest of England.
The war was brought about by a succession crisis, when it was found by the Queen of England (daughter of the King of France) that her sisters-in-law, the wives of the Kings sons, were being unfaithful. She found out when she saw the men they were fucking wearing gifts she'd given her sisters-in-law.
After that there was no guarantee that the Princes of France had a legitimate heir.
It's also said there was curse involved. When the King of France burned the Templar grand Master at the stake, its said the Grand Master cursed the King, the pope and the keeper of the seals to die within the year, which they did. He also cursed the sons of the King., who all died quite soon after each other, starting the succession crisis and the war with England when the Queen of England wished to claim the throne of France for her son and the brother of the former King also wished to claim it.
10/10 civil war.
>>245097
but the coalition had lasting implications. Japan was trying hard to assert itself as a modernized nation in the conflict.
>>245173
>England was a vassal
no
The king of England held his continental holdings as a vassal of the French king but not in any other capacity. The Kingdom of England itself had no cliency to the French.
>>238955
It's garbage.
>>238994
This.
>>238876
>English Civil War
For a civil war it was oddly free of major atrocities (not complete, but remarkably few by any standard).
It doesn't really deserve to be on that list at all, let alone above something like the Russian Civil War.
>>238876
>Wars of the Roses
Meh. A bunch of posh people calling up their personal armies to decide who gets to wear the fancy hat.
Outside a few instances unless you were actually involved in the campaigning, you might not even have noticed it happened.
>>245074
It wasn't as relevant as the Spanish Civil War politically. That's a really anglo list, for example Russian Civil War should be much higher. Not even talking about memes like considering the Three Kingdoms wars a civil war or the Thirty Years War. Chinese Civil War should be on that list, and pretty high.
>>238876
Of all the civil wars in rome you pick Antony and Augustus? Sure the political implications were huge to posterity, but the 'war' itself was pretty dinky. Constantine's civil war or the civil wars following neros death were much more interesting
>>245741
>politically
maybe the immediate political implications of the american civil war did not affect europe, sure. but in the long run the preservation of a union stretching from coast to coast had major implications in the late 20th century. I think the argument boils down, though, to the question about whether the north would have gotten along fine without the south considering the latter became a backwater in the early 20th century, and whether the south would have been a thorn in the north's side in its path to global hegemony. If the answer is no to both, then you are right.
still interesting war nonetheless, and people underestimate the impact it had on european thinkers such as mazzini, marx and garibaldi and perhaps others
>>244871
Pic related to the last paragraph.
>>245807
also don't forget that the worldwide depression happened because of market failure, and that had major political consequences, including the rise of nazism and other such far right movements and even the spanish civil war itself. Also led japan to expand on the mainland
>>238906
Eurokek detected
>>239079
Dude just forget about it.
Europeans don't know what freedom means, or why it makes Americans exceptional in the scheme of world history.
>>241345
>first fucking use of a military submarine
Actually, that honor belongs to the American Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(submersible)
sorry Europoors, the America wins again.
>>246695
Americans are exceptional in the scheme of world history because we've effectively got an entire continent all to ourselves.
>>241880
it basically was
Sorry you so called "english man".
>>239464
As a Yank I fully agree. We would've done much better to just let the flyover states fuck off, instead of spending so many Northern lives just to preserve our claim on the land of Church's Chicken.
>>239464
Yeah, should really be disqualified for blatantly being a separatist war. It wasn't a civil war to control one government.
>>241983
It had over a million dead too and it still is kind of going on in various parts of the country. The spill over the US was noteworthy too. I wouldn't put it in a top 10 but it is a very complicated war with everyone betraying each other and ending because exhaustion of the winners fighting each other. Very illustrative of the Mexican temperament.
>>241983
Thirteen different factions brutally killing each other, shifting alliances constantly. One of the most complicated military conflicts ever.
>>243341
Would the Cambridge History of China's volumes on it work as well, Wade-Giles aside?
>>241291
>>241506
>>241441
I've literally written a paper on the massive influence the development of military and non-military technology had on the ACW.
I would argue that the integration and use of emerging technologies was one of the defining characteristics of the ACW.
A few HUGELY important technologies had just pretty much reached the level of adoption needed for them to have a transformational effect on warfare.
Just off the top of my head, a few emerging technologies that did nothing less then determine the course of the war:
Railroads
Telegraph
Rifles
Parrott Guns (Pretty specific to the ACW but and emerging tech that was important to the ACW nonetheless)
Ironclads
The first demonstration of ironclads turned current ship design theory on it's head so hard the fucking RAM became the most popular naval for around a decade. Most British officers came to the conclusion that the ram was going to replace the cannon.
The only civil war that showcased more emerging modern technology than the ACW was the Spanish Civil War, and that only due to the involvement of a distant superpower.
>>249545
Railroads, telegraphs, rifles and ironclads have all been used prior to the ACW...
In terms of sheer numbers of influential personalities, the Year of the Four Emperors has to be somewhere near the top.
>>249067
i think so. someone in this thread mentioned them, but i think he implied that the descriptions on warfare were insufficient. but i think if you want to learn about general chinese history then cambridge history books are good
>>249571
And the airplane was first used in warfare during the Second Balkan War. Does that mean its widespread use in WW1 didn't shape the concept of militarizing the air?
Besides, I know for a fact that the first time a railroad was used to transport troops to a battle was in the ACW.
>>249606
Notably, the railroad was both first used militarily in the ACW and used widespread for the first time in the ACW. Control/denial of rail lines was a vitally important objective during the fighting.
>>249606
>Besides, I know for a fact that the first time a railroad was used to transport troops to a battle was in the ACW.
But railways have been used in that capacity already in the Italian wars and even the war in Crimea had them.
>>249632
There's a difference between supply and transporting troops, you know. The railroad in Crimea was 7 miles long and purpose built.
>>242037
The Hundred Years War wasn't between France and England, it was between the houses of Valois and Anjou.
That the house of Anjou also happened to own England is irrelevant. The Hundred Years War had absolutely nothing to do with the kingdom of England. It was a French civil war.
>>241855
>32000 Austrians killed and wounded
SUPERIOR
HABSBURG
GENETICS
>>249545
>The first demonstration of ironclads turned current ship design theory on it's head
??? ironclads have been built before the ACW, and in fact, the coastal ironclads throughout ACW have been scrapped as their use was so limited
>Railroads
trains had been used to ship both supplies and more importantly large numbers of troops into battle already in the italian wars... (and austria, prussia, france, denmark... later on)
>Rifles
already in use
>Parrott Guns
weren't those just poorly built rifled guns?
>>249571
Did you read my post? I never said these things were invented during the ACW. I'm not retarded (but you might be)
And literally none of those things are true
The first time ironclads clashed was during the ACW (Unless you are counting 16th century feudal south-korean turtle ships)
Rifles were SO fucking new that American officers, having received an education in Napoleonic warfare (Which was based on the inaccuracy of the musket) were totally unprepared for the deadly accuracy of the rifle, and at the start of the war put their units in totally ridiculous situations because they underestimated the rifle.
The introduction of rifles in the ACW decimated the role of cavalry on the battlefield.
Rifles were also first mass produced during the ACW
I'm not even going to go into the ACW seeing the introduction of the military use of the railroad and telegraph, there is plenty of stuff on that subject out there already
>>249658
>??? ironclads have been built before the ACW
And the first time they were used in combat against other ships was at the Battle of Hampton Roads, as was the first time an ironclad fought another ironclad. The fact that the CSS Virginia was able to operate with impunity destroying the Federal squadron even in the face of modern shell-firing guns was world-shattering. The only reason it had to retire from the field before destroying it all was because its ram got stuck and ripped off.
>coastal ironclads throughout ACW have been scrapped as their use was so limited
Irrelevant. Technology moved so fast that they were obsolete by the end of the war anyways, even if the battlefield they had been built for had continued to exist (you don't need a massive river navy if the river system they were built for is entirely under your control from head to mouth in peacetime).
>weren't those just poorly built rifled guns?
Those were the upscaled naval versions. The battlefield Parrotts were the champions of the battlefield.
Hundred Years War should be number 1, no question.
I mean come on,
- it lasted 100 fucking years (130 or so actually)
- it destroyed France which had been the medieval superpower until then
- in doing so it led to the Italian Renaissance
- it led to the birth of English nationalism
- it's interesting as fuck, with a shitload of factions and civil wars within the civil war, not just between Valois and Angevins but also Armagnac and Burgundy, uprisings in Paris etc, and the war seeming all but won for either side several times over
- Joan of fucking Arc
>>245703
>free of major atrocities
where you dropped on your head as a child
>>249673
>And literally none of those things are true
Why do you lie on the internet?
The HMS Warrior was built before the war. The British had used rifles in Crimea. Both railroads and the telegraph have been used (militarily) in Europe in the years prior to the Civil War.
>>249658
Did you even read my post? I never said the Americans invented these things.
However, the military use of these technologies were rare
If you know of ironclads entering combat before the ACW then please share with the rest of humanity. Even outside of North America only a few existed before the ACW, and the first one wasn't even launched until the end of 1859
Yes there were a handful of troop movements by rail. However this is probably the first example of railroads playing such a key role in the outcome of a conflict.
Rifles weren't that common. The ACW represented an major increase in rifle production.
Yes they were unsafe. Often when the barrel ruptured, those manning the gun would chip off as much of the ruptured barrel as they could and continue firing.
>>249676
so you are saying that american ironclads "turned current ship design theory on it's head" (which they didn't but that is what you are saying) BUT at the same time "they were obsolete by the end of the war anyways"... (which they were because unlike the european ironclad warships they were highly unseaworthy and limited in use)
>>249755
>The HMS Warrior was built before the war.
And I'm sure you can name all the ironclads it fought.
>>249762
>Did you even read my post? I never said the Americans invented these things.
well you said they "turned ship design on its head" so see >>249767
>Yes there were a handful of troop movements by rail.
they were not handful, they were transports of entire divisions of tens of thousands of troops
>Rifles weren't that common.
except for e.g. the vast majority of british troops in the Crimean War?
>>249768
i have never claimed it did that, why are you imagining things
>>249767
>(which they didn't but that is what you are saying)
Oh, but they did. Notice how many rams suddenly got built in Europe after about 1862?
>BUT at the same time "they were obsolete by the end of the war anyways" (which they were because unlike the european ironclad warships they were highly unseaworthy and limited in use)
I don't know why obsolescence is such a hard concept for you to grasp. They were coastal designs to fight an enemy that could only threaten in coastal waters and on rivers; once that enemy was defeated they weren't useful anymore. European Ironclads of that era became obsolete quickly too; all of them were just armored broadside ships that fell by the wayside in under ten years because of the rapid advancement of gun technology and turrets.
>>249780
You're one to talk; fucking nobody is claiming that the ACW invented ironclads. Go ahead and reread all the posts that you think say that. You'll find that they say that they had a large impact on the war and that ironclad fought ironclad for the first time in the ACW, not that the Americans invented them.
>>249755
Are you still not fucking reading anything I'm writing? This shit hadn't been used in anything like the capacity it was used in during the ACW.
Yes ironclads were fucking floating in europe in Europe before the war, but they hadn't even entered combat. The HMS Warrior was launched only 5 months before the ACW started.
Yes there were rifles in the Crimean war. But they were used by SOME, British units. Not entirely adopted by both sides of the conflict.
There were occasional uses of military troop movements via train prior, yes, and the Crimean war saw the telegraph first actually used in some scale in combat, but it wasn't at all as significant as it was in the ACW, which is my fucking point. Yes the royal engineers managing to keep 20 miles of telegraph semi-operational is neat but it wasn't anything like it's use in the ACW, which saw the president receiving constant updates, observation balloons wired with telegraph cables, coded messages to prevent spying, and even special wagon trains to lay cable with marching armies.
>>249778
>>249767
A bunch of countries started building ironclads without actually seeing them used in combat, how is it fucking unthinkable to you that ironclads actually being used in combat could cause some rethinking to take place
Even the HMS Warrior was obsolete after 10 years.
>>249778
A handful of troop movements does not mean many movements of a handful of troops. I'm sorry if english isn't your first language
>The rifle-equiped british units represented 100% of all forces during the crimean war.
This is what you are implying. Rifles were not common in the Crimean war, some british units were an exception. In the ACW a soldier without a rife would have been the exception
>>249830
post number one: Railroads, telegraphs, rifles and ironclads have all been used prior to the ACW...
your response to the above post: And literally none of those things are true.
>>249851
>A handful of troop movements does not mean many movements of a handful of troops. I'm sorry if english isn't your first language
and "transports of entire divisions of tens of thousands of troops" is not "a handful of troops", i also am sorry if english is not your first language
>>The rifle-equiped british units represented 100% of all forces during the crimean war.
>This is what you are implying.
this is what i am implying by saying that the 'majority' which by definition does not mean 'all' british forces used rifles? i also am sorry if english is not your first language
>>249654
I'm not really sure, maybe it's the less charismatic figures. Other than Vespasian, none of the combatants in the Year of the Four Emperors were particularly notable, and Constantine's civil war was basically a man history remembers as a giant personality fighting Maxentius, whose name most people don't even know.
>>251979
Servius Sulpicius Galba is cool.
>>249942
>Claiming people said something that no one said
>Linking to posts that are literally just pictures of ironclads
Look, you probably have a disability, and I admire your courage in trying to communicate with other people even though it's pretty clear you can't read
>>249545
>>249673
>>249762
>>249830
>>249948
How many times do I need to fucking spell it out for you, yes this stuff all existed before the civil war started and had seen varying degrees of use, but in no previous conflict had these technologies played anything like the key role they played in determining the outcome of the ACW. If you still don't get it then you should probably walk away from your computer
>>249958
Just fucking stop, you seem to be totally incapable of parsing the English language.
I'll break it down for you so you don't have to strain your brain too much:
>A handful of troop movements
In this statement, I say there had been a couple of movements of military forces. This statement does not imply these forces were small, only that the number of times this happened were few in number.
The only example I can think of off the top of my head is something during the Franco-Austrian War.
>>249778
As for the second statement, you first compared some british unit's use of rifles during the Crimean war to the total use of rifles by both sides during the Civil War. For those to be the same, the british would have had to been the only forces present during the Crimean war. Which they obviously weren't. It would take a retard to imply something like that, but you did anyway.
If you still cant fucking understand it you should probably walk away from the computer.
>>252028
Have you missed the post those other posts are greentexting and replying to?
>>252089
>yes this stuff all existed before the civil war started
so why have you claimed the exact opposite of the above in >>249673 ? let me remind you, you said "And literally none of those things are true" when replying to the sentence "Railroads, telegraphs, rifles and ironclads have all been used prior to the ACW..."
>>244273
Sweet Jesus that's cool. This is why we need legitimate threads on African history, even if it's just recent history. The conflicts are absurdly difficult to follow since there are often a large number of factions involved and we're so unfamiliar with them, but then stuff like this goes under the radar.
>>244273
That's hardcore as fuck holy shit
>>252394
Once you get into it, the crazy number of factions is half the fun. There wars never stop twisting and turning.
At the start of the conflict, the raison d'etre for the Rwandans to be involved in the Congo was to crush the Hutu aligned ALiR, which used to be the Rwandan government.
But by the end of the war, the Rwandans were arming the Hutus, who still wanted to genocide them, in a conflict against Uganda, and Africa nearly not only got it's WWI, but it's WWII.
Uganda, BTW is like the last country on earth that get's it's way by being a military hegemon.
In the last twenty years they've:
1) Overthrown the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
2) Then occupied huge chunks of the Congo for nearly a decade.
3) Put a stop to Sudanese funded rebels in Uganda, and then chased them off so hard they broke off South Sudan into it's own country, with a government pliable to Ugandan interests.
4) Have basically militarily occupied chunks of Somalia, and periodically use that to blackmail Kenya.
And have made all that pay for itself.
African conflicts are freaking awesome. The problem is everything in the west has to be talked about through 'humanitarian' lenses. This makes the conflicts indecipherable, because the media refuses to talk about the actual politics (and African agency) in the wars, and also cuts out coverage of cool shit like a legion of Serbian Kebab removers fighting in the Congo, hired to Remove Cockroach.
>>252466
>>252394
Oh, and if you want to know what happened to Kabarebe, the crazy bastard who planned all this, he managed to survive the Angolan attack, retreat INTO hostile territory with his men, hook up with UNITA, fly back to Rwanda, where he was made Defense Minister.
And is still the Defense Minister to this day.
Rwanda is basically an African Prussia. Sure lots of African states have had military dictators, but Rwanda is really a case of an army acquiring a state by being hyper competent.
Because it has this core around a functional, professional organization, Rwanda is one of the few countries in Africa that has it's shit together, and functions well enough there's talk of an "African Singapore."
>>252512
Didn't they take a good chunk of the aid money from the genocide and spend it on military training?
Russian civil war is THE civil war. Everything else is shit in comparison.
>>252470
>a legion of Serbian Kebab removers fighting in the Congo, hired to Remove Cockroach.
Explain
And you gotta do threads on this sort of shit. Africa is sounding fucking awesome.
>>252531
Yes and no, for a few reasons.
1) They were very conscious, because they understood how to milk western donors, to make sure no aid money went to the military. At the same time, aid money meant they were able to spend like 15% of their GDP on the military, because everything else was covered.
2) Training wasn't really high on their needs. The RPA was one of the most professional forces on the continent. I've read one author who suggested that rather then sending American advisors to help the RPA turn into a modern fighting force, the RPA should have been sending advisors to teach the American army COIN operations.
A lot of it was focused on better equipping their army, training Congolese puppet armies, and getting their officers modern administrative skills.
>Inb5 I MUST UNITE THE PAN-AFRICAN PEOPLE UNDER ONE (Rwandan) BANNER
>>252567
How did the military figure into the Rwandan Genocide? Did they just put their hands up and say "not our problem" or something? It's incredible that a military that competent and battle-tested wouldn't have been able to stop that shit in its tracks.
>>251979
>it's the less charismatic figures
Nope. It's only your perception that those figures were less charismatic because they haven't been depicted in pop media as much as Caesar.
>>252543
OK, so first the Rwandans begin kicking in Zaire's door in the first Congo war.
The French are still Le butthurt over the Tutsis basically, well, existing. A lot of sources say they had financial investments in Zaire, but they really didn't.
The big thing was that they thought they were hegemons over Francophone Africa (even the Belgian part). They supported the Hutu dominated regime and got seriously embarrassed by the whole genocide thing, and then even more embarrassed when the RPA BTFO the old government of Rwanda and France couldn't do anything about it.
Mobuto has lost his American allies so he starts kissing up to the French, and the basic goal of French policy in Africa is to have someone, anyone kiss their ass.
Mobuto knows he doesn't have enough time to fix the MASSIVE problems in his army, and honestly thinks a competent army would be a threat to him. He wants mercenaries.
He wants mercenaries like they jack off to in Rhodesia threads. THOSE guys. So the French Foreign office tries.
First they actually call some of the Crippled Eagles asking them to fight, and they kindly inform the French that the Rhodesian Bushwar was nearly 20 years ago, and we are all super old now.
So the French negotiate a contract between Zaire and a super shady Serbian telecommunications company. A telecommunications company that doesn't seem to actually do anything telecommnications wise, and the contract with Zaire doesn't specify what the fuck they're supposed to be doing.
Conveniently, a group of Serbian veterans show up to fight for Zaire at the same time. These guys are exactly like our accordion wielding friend.
Sounds like a great plan. Battle hardened Serbs with a thousand yard stare who have extensive experience in nasty ethnic warfare. They're going to fuck the RPA up and show the Hutus how to do genocide properly.
>>252628
Problem: The Serbs don't care about Zaire, they have no idea what a Rwandan is or looks like. None of them speak any of the local language, and when deployed they mostly just get drunk, blast turbofolk, and rape the local Congolese, and when given some of Zaire's finest aircraft, they manage to crash them into each other. It would be the finest military outfit Mobuto could field in the first congo war.
I must unite the Han people under a single cross.
>>252635
>when deployed they mostly just get drunk, blast turbofolk, and rape the local Congolese, and when given some of Zaire's finest aircraft, they manage to crash them into each other. It would be the finest military outfit Mobuto could field in the first congo war.
Fucking Serbs.
>>252589
The RPA, which makes up the modern Rwandan Army, wasn't made up of people who were actually from Rwanda. Most of them were from exiles in Tanzania, and Rwandans from Uganda and the Congo.
They had been fighting a low level conflict with the government of Rwanda (their army was the RDF, Rwandan Defense Forces), for a few years, which served as a backdrop for the genocide.
There is some allegations that the RPA DID let the genocide happen to facilitate the take over. But on the other hand, the Rwandan genocide was devestatingly quick. It was only 100 days. At it ended when the RPA won the war and took over Rwanda.
The RDF, and Hutu Power government then fled into Zaire Fearing a counter genocide, most of their supporters went with them.
Mobuto actively courted them, and supported them, because they were a new factor in Congolese politics that he could easily woo, and were probably well armed enough to take the eastern Congo from him if he tried anyway.
About 2 million people left the Congo this way. Between that and the Genocide, like 40% of Rwanda's population was gone, and the Genocidiares had basically created a Hutu-Power nation in the Eastern Congo.
The RPA and their supporters moved into Rwanda, and once they were settled in, they weren't happy with the RDF run military training/refugee camps on their borders, so they decided to invade Zaire to chase them out.
>>252671
Wait, African mini-Prussia is a new thing? I thought the Rwandans had been making Africa their bitch with their Western-style army in the 1970s and 80s too.
>>245807
America wouldn't be as big as it is now if it wasn't for the South doing the political moves they did to start a war with Mexico to get land that stretched to California.
>>252683
I'll admit I don't know much about Rwanda in the 70s and 80s, but the core of the RPA was actually in Tanzania at the time.
After Idi Amin seized power in Uganda, his predecessor, Milton Obote flees to Tanzania, where, with the support of Tanzania, he starts training Militias to take back Uganda from various dissatisfied ethnic groups. One of these would be taken from Ugandan Tutsi.
Idi Amin decides to go full retard to deal with these militias, and tries annexing a bunch of Tanzania while he's at it.
He fails, badly, and Milton Obote gets Uganda back. He doesn't like having a bunch of armed Tutsi sitting around getting bored, so he suggest they start fucking with Rwanda.
This is the beginning of the RPA, and makes up their core leadership. Paul Kagame started his military career fighting against Uganda from Tanzania.
A significant chunk of the RPA leadership never even SAW Rwanda before the 90s. If Rwanda's army was cool in the 80s, that Army got BTFO by the RPA, exiled to the Congo, and eventually turned to banditry.
A new Rwandan state was imported in it's entirety focused around the RPA in the 90s.
>>241595
What are those boxes on their belts? They're like fanny packs/
>>252736
Ammo boxes, m8.
>>252736
Its boxes for your clipz.
>>249654
it's not touched upon in highschool (at least here in belgium)
I even studied latin for 6 years and we never saw anything other than basic info after 50AD
>>252738
Alright, let me bring this full circle and explain why Africa has a giant black boner for paratroopers.
First, stuff that other countries normally get excited for as shows of power, Navies, Armored Divisions, Ballistic Missiles, Air Forces, etc. don't really work with the strength and industrial base of African states.
It's not that they can't afford them, or use them, it's maintanence that is always the fucking problem. African warfare is a lot like theoreticians predicted warfare would be like before WWI, and we saw Europe was capable of industrialized warfare.
Basically, you deploy your tanks and what not, they get shot to shit, and you have no hope of rebuilding your forces by the time the war is over.
This is what happens to Zimbabwe in the Second Congo War. Zimbabwe actually inherited a well equipped army and airforce from Rhodesia. They decided to deploy these in the Second Congo war against Rwanda, in the hopes of being able to get access to mining contracts after the war and cockblock the South Africans (told you the multiple faction thing is great)
There were actually tank battles in Katanga, which is not what most people picture when they invision African warfare, but there you go. The problem was that after about a year of this, Zimbabwe's bomber fleet needed maintanence, and all their tanks and armored cars had been shot to shit, and the Katanga front was now basically artillery duels.
Zimbabwe called it quits (especially since the DRoC was courting South African investment anyway) and left. They still haven't replaced their tanks and aircraft and have become militarily irrelevant.
So Paratroopers are great because they don't suffer from this. The drop ships are few, easily maintained, and don't suffer a lot of wear and tear in usages, and the paratroopers themselves basically just have small arms.
>>238955
>tremendous effect in History.
No, it didn't.
>>252873
That last part, combined with the fact that they're well, paratroopers, makes it really great when dealing with Africa's geography. One base with a paratrooper brigade can assure military dominance over a larger area than an infantry division. Because the infantry division will take days or weeks to cross jungles, mountain ranges, etc.
This ability to quickly deploy is also a huge advantage with that attrition rate thing. Paratroopers have the capacity to end conflicts way quicker than conventional forces, and in doing so, preserve those conventional forces. The idea of quick, lightning strikes is especially tempting to African states.
Another factor is the espirit de corps. There's something about jumping out of planes that tends to mean paratroopers have huge brass balls, and don't care about anyone else.
Which is great, because that means they tend to be resistant to the factionalism that plagues other African military units. You tend to get the highest level of professionalism out of them.
And then lastly, there's the foreign connection. Two parts to this: Foreign militaries love training paratroopers for their African clients. They're cheap to train. You want to train an armored brigade, you're going to need loads of tanks, fuel specialized ammo, and yeah, most importantly tanks, just for TRAINING. Training them doesn't really solve the problems that the militaries already have.
If you train paratroopers though, most of the problem is in training. It's an intensive skillset, but again, light on equipment. So the training you can offer actually matters.
The other thing is, paratroopers are the only things African troops really need to fear from the west. They know no western state is going to deploy an amphibious assault on their countries. Hell, some of them are landlocked. But an airborne assault is quick and politically cheap for western powers.
>>238876
>tfw no Michael Collins or Ira :(
>>252932
Consider things like Operation Thunderbolt, where Israel popped in to the middle of Uganda to fuck shit up after Uganda let Palestinian highjackers land in Uganda.
30 Ugandan soldiers killed, and a bunch of MiGs lost in the middle of Entebbe.
So they're very conscious of the threat of them. They're massively adaptable to the environment, they're 'hard' units rather than vulnerable, and they achieve all of this by being professional, rather than being expensive.
Every African state wants paratroopers, and every African military unit wants to pretend it's paratroopers. I suspect as African states get their shit together, we'll see some cool fucking airborne operations from them in the future.
>>243341
Hows "Power of the Gun"
My teacher is asking me to write a paper about some chinese period, and warlordism looks interesting, but thats ine of the only books i could find about Warlordism
>>252236
No, because I can fucking read.
The first posts say there was no new technology in the ACW, and those two posts call those other posts out for being insanely bumfuck retarded (Which you seem to not be capable of understanding). No one ever said the ACW represented the conception of the ironclad.
Do you have a fucking point or are you just trying to waste my time by being a dumb piece of shit?
>>252961
>those two posts call those other posts out for being insanely bumfuck retarded
by posting images of ironclads and then further arguing specifically about ironclads, haha
>>252579
Personally, I've always dreamed of seeing sub-Saharan Africa united by a sort of Pan-African Fascist movement. They could redivide the administration levels to reflect the tribal structure many are under, modernize their agriculture, and finally drag them out from the gutter. A guy like Thomas Sankara seemed capable, but who knows.
>>252242
Holy shit are you that fucking incapable of following a causal chain?
I'll break it down for you like I would break it down for a retarded undergrad.
You brought up the irrelevant (but at this point I could forgive you for still being confused) point that these technologies had existed prior to 1861, and in disagreeing with my post, implied that this made their use in the ACW neither unique nor significant.
I (Trying to be understanding of your confusion, which at this point was forgivable), reminded you that no one ever said these things were invented during the ACW, shifting the subject back to my fucking point, which (I'll remind you again) is that these technologies did not see a military implementation of anything near the importance we saw during the ACW.
And then, in what was now obviously lapse of judgement on my part, I thought "hey, maybe this guy isn't a moron, and actually WAS addressing my actual point, and is trying to disagree with my actual point in weird language", and I thought I should point out that there is no truth behind a claim that any of these technologies had seen such a significant implementation prior to the ACW >>> "literally none of that is true"
Turns out I was wrong, and you were just sperging out hot air and were actually just replying to an argument that literally no one ever made.
Furthermore, that was one fucking line in a number of posts (all of which make you look like a fucking moron) and you honing in on one fucking sentence really does cement the fact that you're either unwilling to or incapable of engaging in critical thinking.
>>252982
Find me any statement in those posts that in ANY fucking way implies what you are saying they are implying. A fucking picture of a fucking boat can in no logical way be misconstrued as a claim that ironclads didn't exist prior to 1861
Unless you agree with those first dumb pieces of shit in saying that the ironclad was not a new technology at the time, which you would have to be total moron to agree with (But you seem to be a total moron so who knows), in which case congratulations! you're retarded
>>253067
although you have spent so many words on that post, and apparently so much time in conjuring up in your mind some imaginary things i have not said, i still do not see you addressing the fact that you have said that it is not true that things like railroads and rifles have been used prior to the ACW, which you have done as outlined in >>252242
>>253100
>A fucking picture of a fucking boat can in no logical way be misconstrued as a claim that ironclads didn't exist prior to 1861
no, a picture cannot
but, just thinking aloud here, a picture of a boat accompanied by the greentext reply >no new weapons or technology
and a vulgar tirade
certainly can
Syrian :^)
>>238876
I'd put Taiping Rebellion at #1, that shit was insane. The leader of the rebels was a Christian convert who thought he was the brother of Jesus. Biggest death toll of any war until then.
>>253266
I think its funny how the soldier casualty is like 10% of the total number of dead
>>253106
Can you read? He said that the first time those technologies were used in a manner that greatly impacted warfare was in the ACW, not that the ACW was the very first times those things were used.
>>252635
>when deployed they mostly just get drunk, blast turbofolk, and rape the local Congolese, and when given some of Zaire's finest aircraft, they manage to crash them into each other. It would be the finest military outfit Mobuto could field in the first congo war.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>252953
>>242018
thanks a lot, kind anon, most interesting thing I've seen on /his/ (yet).
I took the liberty to make screencap for future generations.
>>253309
your math is way off. less than 1% dead were soldiers
>>253403
This, one of the most interesting reads i've had browsing 4chins
>>252959
not sure senpai :(
>>253472
I never was good on math.
>>239079
>Slaves
You mean state's rights.
>>253403
>>253481
not that guy, but for anyone interested heres an article on mercenaries which includes books on private military companies in Africa
http://pastebin.com/cj0dyyaP
and a few on cold war in Africa:
Shubin, Vladimir Gennadyevich. The Hot “Cold War”: The USSR in Southern Africa. London: Pluto, 2008.
>Shubin places independence movements in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe into a broader Cold War context. Included in his analysis are both internal violence and foreign intervention into conflicted countries. Drawing upon his own experiences as well as documentary sources, Shubin presents a Soviet perspective of the Cold War in southern Africa.
http://bookzz.org/book/966939/2901f9
Devlin, Lawrence. Chief of Station, Congo: Fighting the Cold War in the Hot Zone. New York: Public Affairs, 2008.
>Devlin, the CIA’s station chief, relies upon first-hand observations and activities to chronicle the Congo’s tumultuous fight for independence and acknowledges his role in the events as they unfolded. This autobiography is a good starting point for an examination of America’s involvement in Congo’s fight for independence.
>>253525
lel, state's rights to maintain slavery. basically equivalent to whether states should have the right to determine the legality of gay marriage or the federal government
>>253559
anon, how do you know I was looking for some nice book about mercenaries? thx
>>238955
>incredible death toll
In the same period 40 million+ people died during the Taiping Rebellion in China.
>first war on there after rifles became widespread and actually used
The Italian Risorgimento began in 1848 and began wars between 1848-1871. France and Sardinia vs Austria.
The major change however that was shown in the civil war, was the ships of iron. Paris and the UK both began buildings entirely new fleets after their effectiveness was shown.
>had a tremendous effect on history
The south had no chance to win, it was terrible actions by the North in the beginning that made it a drawn out war. The North had no good generals, and it was a ridiculous idea from the beginning for the South to actually win. It was no different from normal rebellions that happened all the time in Europe.
>charismatic personalities
True, I guess. But I'd honestly argue there were more colorful personalities in the Franco Prussian war, the Risorgimento or in the Paraguyan War.
>very intriguing, even to non-americans due to easily accessible documentaries and written accounts
Actually, strategy-wise, most Civil War tactics were thrown out as it was shown to be ineffective in the Franco-Prussian War. French and Prussian generals and military observers outright considered the way they fought to be backwards, and the North and South themselves wanted to recruit foreign generals (Garibaldi was outright being poached for the American military)
>>253482
Thanks anyway senpai.
>>253705
who doesn't love mercenaries senpai? they are the trolls of military history.
