The outcome of World War I can be described as the start of international civil wars??
The World Wars were the end of the great European colonial powers. So many resources went into them that European states couldn't maintain their overseas colonies against domestic rebellions. Across the world, native peoples began to rise up against their political masters. This trend is generally accepted to have begun in India, where the Indians threw off British rule. Throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, African and Asian countries freed themselves from European influence. Without the World Wars, this would not have happened.
How did the Civil War change the way wars are fought today?
There were so many FIRSTs in the Civil War.
First Manasses-Confederates brought in reinforcements using the railroad, tremendous impact on warfare.
Cold Harbor-Confederates were at one end of a field at a sunken road and there was a fallen tree that left about 6 inches between the log and the ground, just enough room to aim and shoot through. The log protected thier heads and thier bodies were lying in the sunken road, and they could reload without being at risk. TRENCH WARFARE!
Both armies learned to dig in.
Sherman & Sheridan-The First of the Modern Generals
Beginning in August of '64 continuing till Nov '64 Sheridan began his destruction of the Shedandoah Valley in Virginia and Sherman completed his march to the sea from Atlanta to Savanah. The goal was to deny the Confederacy the means of feeding its armies and it’s ability to prosecute war by ruthlessly, burning crops, barns, mills, and factories and confiscating livestock.
Anti personnel land mines used by the Confederacy.
First machine gun use (Gatling Gun).
Battle of the Ironclads, rendering all Navies obsolete
And last but least, a Union General provided female companionship for his troops and his name was HOOKER.
Why have there been so many civil wars and divisions of countries/territories over time?
A lot of the quest to expand has been, I think, a consequence of desire of rulers to increase their power and control.
Or sometimes it was a need or desire to enrich one's home country and/or oneself by seizing resources of another land or forcing payment of tribute. Sometimes when this occurs very rapidly because of some very ambitious leader (e.g. Genghis Khan or Tamerlane) the resulting empire is unstable and doesn't survive the death of the founder for very long.
I'd say the primary cause of the breaking up of countries nowadays is ethnocentrism -- the preference to be in a country where one is an ethnic majority. So for example, Slovakia got created from Czechoslovakia basically because the Slovaks wanted their own country.
How were the Indian Wars following the Civil War different than the wars of the antebellum era?
They were more likely to have the goals of extermination or imprisonment than exile. Before the war, the goals were often to drive the tribes further west or over the Mississippi, after the war the goals were no longer to merely move the tribes along. Just driving them into mexico or Canada was not considered good enough. Surrender or death were the alternatives they had left.
What was the main cause of the eight civil wars that were fought in France betweeen 1562 and 1598?
C. The latter half of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century brought about one of the most passionate and calamitous series of wars that Europe had ever experienced. The early Reformation had been, in hindsight, remarkably free from bloodshed; the honeymoon, however, lasted only a short while. It was inevitable that the growing division between Christian churches in Europe would lead to a series of armed conflicts for over a century. Protestants and Catholics would shed each other's blood in prodigious amounts in national wars and in civil wars. These struggles would eventually shatter the European monarchical traditions themselves. The monarchy, which had always seemed an impregnable political institution, was challenged by Protestants unhappy with the rule of Catholic kings. The final result of these struggles would be the overthrow and execution of Charles I in England in the middle of the seventeenth century, an historical earthquake that permanently changed the face of Europe.
How would subsequent wars have been affected the Confederates had won the Civil War?
I'd say we still would have fought WW1 and WW2 on the Allied side. Britain and France during the war sympathized more with the South because the South's government was similar to an aristocracy and also held more economic resources they needed.
I also believe slavery would have been abolished. Lee probably would have become president (like Grant did) and since he was more of an abolishionist (he didn't own slaves too) he probably would have ended slavery.
The North would be the one crippled economically, and in my opinion if this happened we would not be as strong a nation. With Northern railroads and mines in shambles, economic progession probably would be much slower than it was when the North won. the South would also be able to industrialize at its slow pace. Maybe the South would own Alaska?
The population would also suffer far greater, since the North's population at the time was much greater than the Souths. Business, the army, etc. would suffer.
Who knows how many great minds we would have lost, how many inventions would be lost, and what would happen to Lincoln. Maybe they would be arrested, maybe not. It depends on who would be elected into the government.I don't know the mindsets of every Confederate government member at the time, so i don't know what probably would have happened. Considering this, who knows how many great minds were lost anyways.
I also think the CSA would have expanded into Central America, and maybe even Cuba, considering the Souths relations with Mexico and such at the time.
There would probably be another war sometime in the future.
Just my opinions, you don't have to like/use them. I'd go to the library or bookstore and look for books on this. The book below is one i'd think you like. I haven't read it myself, but based on user ratings it seems very good.
How was the Civil War different from wars that Americans had previosly fought?
There were many differences (some good posts above mine):
1. Only war fought solely on American soil.
2. Only war where Americans fought each other.
3. The war threatened to tear the nation apart.
4. Americans in the South suffered mightily (during and after).
5. The war changed the dynamics of the political parties (the South voted predominately Democratic until the 1970s, 80s).
6. The South, assuming national status, had a President, an army, it's own money, it's own ambassadors.
7. The South, after surrendering, was violated and it's limited resources (cotton, land, the few factories) confiscated..
8. Southerners are still treated as an inferior brand of people although it's major cities are swelling from the influx of Northerners.
Just American Wars or any country? I'll list the American wars:
Indian Wars (entire 1800s-early 1900s)
Spanish American War (1898)
Phillipiane-American War (1899-1902)
World War 1 (1914-1918 though America didn't enter until 1917)
World War II (1939-1945 though America didn't enter until 1941)
Korean War (1950s)
Vietnam War (1963-1971)
Gulf War (Either 1992 oe 1993)
Wars in Afganistan and Iraq
Apart from the Civil War what other wars were there during Charles I's reign?
What about the 30 Years War? England was somewhat involved in these conflicts which took place over a 30 year period. Some of that time was during the reign of Charles I.
"The House of Stuart in England had been involved in attempts to secure peace in Europe (through the Spanish Match) and had intervened in the war against both Spain and France. However, due in part to the scale of the defeat (which indirectly lead to the assassination of the English leader the Duke of Buckingham), and also due to the lack of funds for war, which stemmed from internal conflict between Charles I and his Parliament, England stopped being involved in European affairs, to the dismay of Protestant forces on the continent."
"Charles had inherited disagreements with Parliament from his father, but his own actions (particularly engaging in ill-fated wars with France and Spain at the same time) eventually brought about a crisis in 1628-29.
"Two expeditions to France failed - one of which had been led by Buckingham, a royal favorite of both James I and Charles I, who had gained political influence and military power.
'Such was the general dislike of Buckingham, that he was impeached by Parliament in 1628, although he was murdered by a fanatic before he could lead the second expedition to France."
"Tensions between the King and Parliament centered around finances, made worse by the costs of war abroad...."
In the last source listed below, you can find more detailed info on Charles' primary concern during his reign which was foreign policy and how this policy was a failure. Another part of this was his belief in the "Divine Right" of the monarchy to rule without regard to Parliament
There was also more than one Civil War during his reign, although the last Civil War ended 2 years after his assassination.
"The term English Civil War appears most commonly in the singular form, although historians often divide the conflict into two or three separate wars."
Why would the number of casualties from the Civil War be so much more tha other US wars?
When the Civil War was fought, there had been a major change in weaponry without a corresponding change in tactics.
Rifles and better artillery had come about, but the generals were still marching men straight into the guns to attack. When General Lee once tried to conduct a defensive strategy from trenches, he was ridiculed as "The King of Spades"
Medicine had a hard time catching up. The Minie ball was more accurate and caused more damage when it hit. Doctors weren't able to repair the damage, and amputation was the only solution. Infection and disease killed as many soldiers as ammunition did. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until WW2 that more soldiers were lost to combat than disease.
I think some civil wars were necessary,if it was to overthrow a corrupted government,but if it were in reverse,then I don't think it is necessary.
In a good way,each war that occurred does bring the need to make your weaponry more advance than ever before and new military technologies are implemented.
how was foreign help provided in these wars America revolution. Civil, War of 1812 whom did they really on?
Certainly the American Revolution; the Battle of Saratoga guaranteed French aid and turned the tide of the war.
The War of 1812 was more likely won due to the fact that the British were weakened by the Napoleonic Wars. Outside aid was less important.
The Civil War did not rely on much foreign influence at all--the North was pretty much fated to win due to their greater population, economy, and infrastructure.
To what extent were the French Civil Wars Religiously motivated?
It was also a power struggle between pro and anti Spanish factions at court.The Catholic nobility were pro,the Huguenots anti Spanish.
Philip II of Soain provided substantial military and financial assistance to the Catholic side throughout the wars, which often resulted in regional sympathies for Huguenots not necessarily based wholly on religious lines.
Draft- Clone creation
Battle of Gettysburg- battle on Muunilist (where Obiwan killed Grievous)
Surrender at Appomatox- Anakin killing Sep leaders
States right to seceed from union- Seperatists leaving the republic
Yea, this looks more like your gonna have a contrast paper than a comparison paper, lol.
Can you name any Civil Wars involving the North and South?
I'm not sure about your question. There's only one US civil war, and only that civil war dealt with slavery of african americans. There have been other civil wars though. The civil war between North Korea and South Korea. Other countries that had civil wars were France, England, and Russia. None of those 3 had north vs south, it was more of a political status than a physical location. I'm not sure if this helped, I hope it did, but your question was kind of confusing.
is it true that women fought in wars side by side with men in the civil war and world wars?
She's telling you a partial truth at best. There were some female soldiers who managed by deception to enlist during the Civil War, but they were (it seems) all discovered and sent home.
There was a large nurse corps added in WW I, by all Allied Armies, who made vital contributions to the ill and wounded soldiers. They did not fight as soldiers.
The second Iraq war was the first war where females served in combat units, but even then in logistical components of fighting divisions. They have flown attack aircraft for some 20 years, and serve on Navy combat vessels. But this all recent.
How did land influence wars and their outcome from indian wars to the civil wars?
The rapid expansion of the nation's land area, coupled with dramatic military successes and developments in transportation (the railroad) and communication (the telegraph and the postal system), fueled theories of Anglo-Saxon supremacy that fused with national pride to produce Manifest Destiny, the conviction that white Americans were divinely ordained to dominate the continent, from sea to shining sea.
Do the Civil War and Reconstruction together represent a second American Revolution?
The definition of revolution is overthrow of government: the overthrow of a ruler or political system
or breaking away from an empire.The definiton of civil war is a war between opposing groups within a country. And finaly Reconstrucion was the recovery of the south after the war. So no, a revolution is and involves the removal of an empire or dictator from the goverment and is sucseful. A revolt is an atempt at a revolution that fails. In the civil war the south did not attempt to overthrow washington and the goverment, they wanted to secede from the union and you know the rest. So no, the civil war was nothing other than a "WAR" rather then a revolution.
what civil wars are happening in islam nowadays or in the modern days ?
Chechnya: Chechen are fighting against Russian invader for centuries.
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan: fighting among communist (Russia) and Islamic elements.
Pakistan: fighting against the Taliban intruders from Afghanistan in NWFP and Baluchistan.
Kashmir: Muslim fighting against Indian invasion for 65 years.
India: continuous tension between Muslim and Hindus.
Iraq and Afghanistan: muslins fighting against american invasion.
Middle East: tension among the Arabian countries over the leadership of Arab world specially Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Palestine: fighting between Muslims and Zionist Jews.
Sudan: Darfur problem with Ethiopia( supported by west).
Turkey: turks fighting against the Kurd nationalist.
Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo: Muslims are fighting freedom war against the Serbian invaders.
similar but minor conflict in Libya and Morocco
What are some civil wars that are going on around the world in 2011?
Iraq always seems to be the favourite nation in u.s. media for one.
Consider though if not wag question how constitutions as computer programs could reduce civil wars like iraq. also how the russian red vs. white civil war has an impact of iraq because iraq might become a green socialist nation with free heath care and such and hydro power after fighting of capitalists in similar way that russians fought off tzarist forces.
also that united nations forces can help either with constitutions of world and un. charter embeeded in the heads of robots or whetever you have fighting now. assume humans still part of it so programs come in handy.
How will the wars impact the world ( like the Civil War has done)?
We may be able to stave off Muslim world domination for a while longer because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When you talk about impacting the world, then in parentheses ask about the "Civil War"... you must realize that just about every nation has had a civil war of some sort. The War between the North and the South of the U.S.A., kept our union together. Other nations have not been so fortunate.
Is it the US Govt's job to go around taking sides in Civil Wars? Then why stop at Libya?
No it is not the job of our government to be involved in foreign military matters.
Liberals, are hardly peacemakers, they believe in war more so than any other political ideology. They're easily swayed to being involved in war when it is labeled "humanitarian". As if killing can ever be justified as being a humanitarian cause.
Czechen war - one group is supported by Russia others by muslim and before that american groups.
Somalia - the civil war there goes on for two generations or so now. But I expect it to end soon as Al Shabab controlls nearly all of the country now (the taliban are nothing compared to them)
Dafur - although with heavy influence of China, the US, islamic forces,...
Pakistan - the gouverment controlls only small parts of the country
Afghanistan - now that the US and allies are moving out has strong civil war characteristics. The same goes for Iraq
Motenegro war for Liberty from Serbia - were one people before for 50 or so years and inlcuded fight of neighbours against neighbours
Columbia: The ongoing war agaist the FARC
Mexico: War on drugs.
Struggle of Orders and Civil Wars in the Late Roman Republic?
The struggle of orders is basically rich vs poor. They were call the patricians (rich) and the plebeians ( poor). The Gracchus brothers are going to be a good place to start for that.
The Civil Wars happen later and they are mainly two different ones: sulla vs marius and pompey vs caesar.
I'd watch this to help you understand the first one better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wODHnZ77iE&list=UUEa52nOyTRLJ2rskl-q2PYA&index=55&feature=plcp
If you need a book resource try Rubicon by Tom Holland.
To answer the first question the politicians who tried to portray themselves as "man of the people" generally benefited the most. As for the second one, I think that's more of an opinion question. Personally I think it was better off after, it was significantly stronger economically, politically, and militarily after Rome was united especially since it cleared a path for Augustus. However, the common man lost many civil liberties.
Hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions.
What were the basics of the British Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution?
The whole was essentially a struggle for political power between the Stuart kings,who believed in Divine Right - the idea that their position and power as monarchs was God given,and therefore that it couldn't be taken away from them by earthly people or powers,and that everyone should obey the monarch as they would God,ie unconditionally - and Parliament,which believed that,as the elected representatives of the people (albeit on a very narrow franchise),that they should have the majority of political power in England.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 confirmed Parliament as the ultimate winners of the struggle,with England becoming a Constitutional Monarchy where the bulk of political power,particular in terms of decision making,was in the hands of an elected Parliament.
union was lead by abraham lincoln (president)
andrew johnson vice pres
1st inauguration william seward sec of state
salmon chase sec of treasury
simon cameron sec of war
gideon wells sec of navy
caleb smith sec of interior
montgomery blair postmaster general
edward pates attorney general
2nd inauguration william seward sec of state
hugh McCulloch sec of treasury
edwin stanton sec of war
gideon wells sec of navy
william dennison postmaster general
john usher sec of interior
james speed attorney general
pres of confederacy jefferson davis vice pres alexander stephens
judah benjamin feb17 1861 sept 18 1861
wade keyes sept17 1861 nov 21 1861
thomas bragg jr nov 21 1861 march 17 1862
thomas watts mar 18 1862 oct 1 1863
wade keyes oct 1 1863 jan 2 1864
george davis jan 2 1864 apr 24 1865
Assistant attorney general
wade keyes apr 21 1861 apr 1865
Sec Of Treasury
christopher memminger feb 21 1861 july 18 1864
george trenholm july 18 1864 apr 27 1865
Sec Of War
leroy walker feb 21 1861 sept 16 1861
judah benjamin sept 17 1861 march 23 1862
george randolph mar 24 1862 nov 17 1862
gustanus smith nov 17 1862 nov 21 1862
james seddon nov 21 1862 feb 6 1865
john brechinridge feb 6 1865 may 5 1865
Sec of Navy stephen mallory mar 4 1861 may 5 1865
Postmaster General john reagan mar 6 1861 may 5 1865
Did all the civil wars in Africa have the same effect on civilians?
if it's called a civil war, so yeah it pretty much involves civil casualties. and hey at least the amputations were not actually death--in some cses but a signal to other tribes that this is what happens when you tresspass, or have a different God. The serious question however is , who the f#$@ gave them firearms???? rocket launchers, machine guns, when they used to just have machetes and spears. Now that is the true question your teacher should adress--is whydo several countris have so much investment in a bunch of natives that actually needed to be taught how to use those weapons, and why they need to kill their neighbors. Hmmm I'm thinking mineral rights.
Similarity between the Civil war in the U.S and the wars going on in the world today?
The US Civil War didn't cause Unity. It was fought, by the north anyway, to keep the union together. Still, to this day, there are lingering regional hostilities (albeit, not really physical/military).
It took strong leadership on both sides to come together after the war was over.
The wars today will NOT be the cause of unity unless we have more people willing to lead the charge for peace in the world. More people around the world need to be stronger in their condemnation of war as a political option.
No, I don't think there are really any similarities between the US Civil War and any wars today.
What was the result of the civil wars between leaders of the wealthy and lower clas?
It is an absurd travesty of Roman history to say that the civil wars were between leaders of the wealthy and the lower class. For a start, class distinction was far more a matter of family than of wealth. An ex-slave could be (often was) immensely wealthy, but wold still not be part of respectable society, or have any prospect of leadership in society. By contrast, a well-born Roman could be penniless and deep in debt, but still politically powerful. Julius Caesar was, early in his career, a good example.
That said, although the question is silly, answer A is indisputable, while B, C & D are all indisputably false.
How has the Civil War changed the way wars are fought today?
The Civil War was the first major war that involved long-range battle. Also, communication and transportation was improved with the telegraph and railroad. Trench warfare was essentially invented by the American Civil War soldiers as a result of the rifled musket, a type of warfare that would reach world prominence during WWI.
Though not of primary importance during the Civil War, the following things invented during the Civil War paved the way for future wars: the flame thrower, land mines, iron hulled warships, and the submarine.
How did the English Civil War differ from all other European Wars?
The English people had no meaningful representation in Parliament - the franchise was limited to landowners whose land earned at least £2 a year in rents ("forty shilling freeholders") and as the average workingman earned about £20 a year and owned no land,the lower classes were entirely unrepresented in Parliament.
The wars on the continent during the first half of the 17th century were either about religion or dynastic struggles.The English Civil Wars were about political power,and whether the King or Parliament was going to be the one who exercised supreme political power within the country.
Another difference was that continental wars involved outside forces and armies comprised of mercenaries and often officered and led by foreign mercenaries. In the English Civil Wars, the armies and the officer corps of all armies were comprised almost entirely of British nationals.The chief exception was the German Prince Rupert, a Royalist army commander, but he was the nephew of King Charles, so was no mere mercenary serving for pay.
Why did civil wars break out in japan during the feudal age if most armies were small daimyo ones?
Alright, each daimyo is a lord of his own providence. Because of this, each daimyo had their own army that they would build up in order to protect their clan's territory from bandits, rebels, and opposing lords. The shogun (the head of Japan's military) had their own army, but when a shogun dies and no one is present/capable of taking over the seat, the nation would naturally go into war with each daimyo fighting for control.
As such, the Feudal Era began with all the lords seeking to take control of the nation (as the shogun is essentially the actual power while the Emperor is more of a spiritual leader of the people [but this doesn't mean the Emperor does not have power over the shogun]). Within clans there were occasions of civil strife do to family members vying for control of the clan or generals of a lord's territory seeking to take over (such as the case with Akechi Mitsuhide turning against Oda Nobunaga at Honnoji).
So in short, the government (shogunate) had its own army; however, each lord had an army of their own to protect their territory(s) while being ready to muster at the call of the shogun.