"Scifi; the difference between a Civil War and a Rebelion?" Topic

Howdy all!

I have this obsession, in 3mm, 6mm and 15mm, of mixing something like the American Civil War into Scifi.
I blame books like A Small Colonial War, and films like Gettysburg.

But it's made me contemplate things…
I envisage ACW mixed with AWI..
So a colony in the future, of about ACW level tech / tactics / "theme", rebels against the government of an empire.

Would this be a Rebellion, or a Civil War?
I imagine a rebellion; as a fight for independance, but as that's what the states were doing in the ACW, is it a Civil War instead??

So really, what im asking is, in scifi terms, the difference between a Rebellion and a Civil War??

Consider scifi canon like the Clone Wars, Horus Heresy, Earth Alliance Civil war in Babylon 5, etc.

Any help would be grand!

Thanks, Ben.

I think the real world difference is a matter of organization and/or size of the forces involved.

Also, a Civil War implies 2 sides that both claim to be the legitimate government for whatever reason. Typically, a Rebellion is more of a throw out the current government and replace it with something better later.

Your example is more of a Rebellion – the colonists are not claiming they are the legitimate rulers of the empire.

In the case of the ACW, the situation gets murky, as the Confederacy was already an up-and-running government (based on the existing state governments, with a new federal government patterned more or less after the US Government) when the hostilities got going. At that point they claimed to be the legitimate rulers of the Southern States.

Depends I guess on scope and all of that.

If for example the entire planet were to revolt, and they simply wanted to be left alone (or similar goal) I would consider that to be a rebellion.

You might have something that was more civil war though if for example there were two somewhat distinct groups of people on the planet. For example an agrarian group and an industrial group. The industrial group holds most the governmental powers and reports/interacts more with incoming Imperial ships. The agrarian group feels as though they are being taken advantage of and wants to overthrow the existing industrial group. Imperial agents are largely indifferent (at least until the supplies stop coming). That would give you more of a civil war type situation.

A civil war is a rebellion that has gotten entirely out of hand.

If the South had succeeded in breaking away, it would have been a War of Independence.
If they had succeeded in supplanting the Federal government (not actually one of their goal AFIK) it would have been a Revolution.
They failed so it is a Civil War.
If the South had lost early, say at Bull Run/Manassas and the secession had then collapsed, it would have been a Rebellion.

Rebellion definition: An act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.

Civil War Definition: A war between citizens of the same country.

They are kinda interchangeable but a Civil war is an organized rebellion. The war for Independence started as a rebellion and became a civil war. It is not called a civil war because the rebel side one. The ACW started as a rebellion and became a civil war but never a war for independence because the south lost.

It's hard to define because a civil war is an act of rebellion.

Also of note: The ECW didn't end with the creation of a different country just different government. So it is a Civil war not a war for independence.

In your case, I'd call it a Civil War from the empire side and a war for Independence from the colony side :)

In general, I'd say rebellions are smaller, and civil wars are larger, with the latter involving a greater proportion of the populace.

I was always under the impression that a rebellion was an attempt to change the existing government to favor a particular position, up to an including secession, whereas a Civil War was an attempt by a faction internal to that state to replace the then existing government with one of their own making. IMHO the actual size of the event is immaterial, but the objectives of the combatants are…

Damon.

I thought a Civil War aims to change the government, a Revolution aims to change the system of government, and a rebellion aims to make the government go away.

the only difference is the side your on. There is a reason that the south was referred to as the Rebs or rebels. During the time of the civil war the confederacy was rebelling against the rule of the US. In today's world view any attempt to change the government of a nation is started by rebel forces. If the rebels are unsuccesful its insurection, uprising or any other term for bad people. If they win, its revolution and freedom fighters and patriots. Civil War is used when the underdog loses and we want to make nice.

The civil war can be used pretty much every where the same nation is involved. There is an argument that the american revolution could have been referred to as a civil war if the British won. A large protion of the colonists felt that they were British citizens. The fact that the fight took place in a colony would erode the civil war label. Since the US won and a new governent was elected its revolution.

As for your question. If the planet as a whole tried to break away then I would offer that is a revoltion to the empire or government holding multiple planets. If its warring factions on a planet it could be a civil war but I would still put money that CNN would label one side the rebels.

its only mutinous and seditious if you lose.

In general, I'd say rebellions are smaller, and civil wars are larger, with the latter involving a greater proportion of the populace.

It's more a matter of time than size.

Quick = coup.
Fairly quick = rebellion
Long = civil war

Sometimes a coup is immensely popular and quickly gains the support of all the population, and then the government is overthrown. Egypt recently, perhaps, could be thought of this way. Large numbers of people were involved, but it was too fast to be a civil war.

It only grows into civil war if the sides are equally matched and so resolution is slow. Generally even civil wars start small, and only over time do they suck in pretty much everyone.

The American Civil War is relatively unusual in being a major war from the get go. Some civil wars remain tiny – say the German one of 1919.

Can be just an alternative perspective.
The English Civil War has also been known as the Great Rebellion and the English Revolution.

Libya, I would class as a civil war, since there are organized units fighting on both sides. Well, as organized as you can get in that environment.

Egypt was a popular uprising that barely made it *to* the rebellion stage. Note that large parts of the government are unchanged in Egypt, and it was largely peaceful. Remember, the army stayed out of the fighting.

The various terms you would use vary mainly based on the goals and sizes of the factions involved.

Civil War: Any armed conflict between two organized and fairly equal forces within the same nation.

Rebellion: An armed attempt by a geographical region to overthrow and escape from a strong central authority.

Revolution: A violent attempt to replace one system of government with another.

Resistance: Using violence, covert actions, espionage, or sabotage to disrupt the operations of a foreign, occupying power.

Coup: An attempt by one part of the government (usually an element of the military) to seize control from the current regime.

Mutiny: A refusal by military units to perform their duties, usually until stated demands are met.

Sedition: Urging others to overthrow the government, either through force or more subversive methods.

Any or all of these actions are usually branded as treason, along with other actions such as spying for a foreign power.

As noted, depends on the size and objectives of the two sides – to my mind, a Civil War is one in which both sides are about equal – Spanish Civil War, American Civil War, English Civil War, etc.

In contrast, rebellions are often between opponents of very disparate sizes – the American Revolution springs to mind, the TaiPing Rebellion, etc.

Also it depends on who wins – as noted, if the Confederacy had achieved independence it would not have been a Civil War!

It's all based on whose side you are on …

I've always thought it simple: Civil War = two or more groups vying for control of a "nation" while a a rebellion is an attempt to establish a separate government for an area. I always taught my students that the ACW wasn't a "civil war' but a rebellion/secession. Hard to change traditional names at this point despite the confusion.

Hey, thanks to all for your input!

After considering it all, i've decided that it's going to start out as a Civil War between two factions on the colony planet over inclusion in the Empire and progress to a Rebellion depending on the victors!

Ben.

Shagnasty,
I agree with your definitions. The fact the offical records call it the "War of the Rebellion" should be a hint…

Jason
Stafford, VA

Shagnasty, you are indeed correct: a breath of fresh air for your students. Now, 'revolution' and 'rebellion' can mean the same thing: history is written by the victors…;)

It is a rebellion if you lose. If you win, it was a revolution. If either drags on and on, it is a civil war. If it ends quickly in the favor of the original power, it was an insurrection.

The difference is who's writing the history books.

I guess it depends upon your point of view.

I don't see Libya as a civil war, since there don't appear to be too many citizens pulling for "Daffy's" side.

Then again, perhaps there are, and the usual suspects are just giving us their preferred side of the conflict.

Mako11,

I think Shagnasty's definitions

Civil War = two or more groups vying for control of a "nation" while a a rebellion is an attempt to establish a separate government for an area.

make sense for most conflicts but can see your point with Libya, where is the dividing line between a civil war and a coup? The number of rebels involved? I suppose a coup should have a quick resolution which may disqualify Libya…

Jason
Stafford, VA

A coup is led by the military. Libya's revolution was joined by military forces eventually, but was started by citizen forces with no real military organization.

Libya is/was hardly a civil war, but more of an imperialist aggression.

I would believe that most of the terms dicussed in this thread are applied according to the loyalties of those talking.

A civil war has tea breaks and adheres to the rules. A rebellion is not civil.

but seriously…

History provides the best examples, since that's how the terms are defined. The Dictionary is the best guide. Generally speaking, a civil war involves two groups both claiming to be the legitimate government of the same place, ie the English Civil War. A rebellion either wants to overthrow a government and replace it with something else entirely, or to break away and gain independance over a certain area.

Therefore, Star Wars might be seen as a civil war, as the goal was to overthrow the empire and restore the Republic. If their goal had been to create a seperate Republic by carving out a portion of the Empire for themselves or to depart and settle a new area completely, that would be a rebellion. IMHO.

If it's any help, the opening titles of Star Wars say "it is a time of civil war". YMMV.

I disagree with those who say the American Civil War wasn't a civil war. It was two sides trying to resolve the nature of the sitting government. Had the South won a quick victory and marched on Washington, there's little doubt that the country would've been a confederacy rather than a federal system, with all the states being much more independant than they are now. I doubt they would've won the war and then seceded. They would've succeeded in imposing their vision of the USA, and after a while it would've blown over largely and we still would have moved to a certain amount of centralization as it makes for a more peaceful and efficient union.

But the federal monstrosity we have now wouldn't exist, I'd say.

Had the South won a quick victory and marched on Washington, there's little doubt that the country would've been a confederacy rather than a federal system, with all the states being much more independant than they are now.

I think there's significant doubt regarding that point; sacking a capital doesn't win a war, and that would not have removed any of the elements that allowed the Union to succeed (manpower, logistics, and overwhelming industrial capacity). Would the war have played out differently? Yes, of course, but I don't see how sacking the nation's capital (which would likely relocate) would suddenly reverse the opinions of all involved (especially if the means to "discuss" those opinions remained).