| Korvessa | 05 Aug 2025 11:08 a.m. PST |
A response to a recent post reminded me of something I think on from time to time. Namely, what is the difference between a Civil War and a Revolution? It seems to me the definition has become quite blurred – almost to the point of the difference being meaningless.
These may not be the dictionary definition, but to me, a Civil War is when two or more factions are fighting for control of a country, but aren't necessarily trying to overthrow the form of government. The English War of the Roses would seem to be a good example of that: multiple factions attempting to gain control of the country, but all sides still wanted a monarchy.
I think a Revolution can take two forms: a new faction wants to completely overthrow the government and install a new and different form. The French Revolution being a good example of this. A second type would be when a portion wants to break away from an existing government and form their own independent government, with no desire to rule the whole country. The American Revolution being a good example.
The Roman Civil Wars, seem to be aptly named: multiple individuals trying to take control, but no one was really trying to overthrow the type of government. But I don't know much about the politics of this era.
To me, the so called English Civil War seems to be more along the lines of a failed revolt of the first type, than a Civil War. The Royalists were revolting against the current parliamentary form of government and were trying to reinstall the absolute power of the monarchy. Seems similar in some ways to the French Revolution, except the revolting side lost.
The American Civil War would seem to be of the second type. I think it is more along the lines of a failed revolt with the south failing in their independence bid, rather than any attempt to gain control of the entire nation.
Then again you have the Russian Revolution and Civil War. Hard for me to know where one starts and the other ends. Their Civil War consisted of several factions, each of which wanted their own form of government.
I suppose it can be argued that a Civil War is any war in which multiple parties are fighting to take over the whole country. Which would make both the English Civil War and the French Revolution Civil Wars, but then the American Civil War wouldn't be.
Maybe the only real difference is which side won the war?
Thoughts? |
 John the OFM  | 05 Aug 2025 11:32 a.m. PST |
The real difference is who gets to name it. As you imply, it's usually the winners.
Compare and contrast named "Civil Wars":
American
Russian
French
English
Roman
More modern ones have yet to be formalized with a Civil War name.
Yeah. They're all different. But historians, and pedants, name them. At what point did the 7 Years War get its name? The 30? The 100? God forbid, but should Russia win in Ukraine, will their pedant historians name that Military Operation the Ukrainian Civil War? Will Ukraine then revert to being called "The Ukraine", as simply a formerly rebellious region? |
| Frederick | 05 Aug 2025 12:03 p.m. PST |
Being winner definitely helps – revolutions can be complicated and get named by the winner |
Old Glory  | 05 Aug 2025 3:58 p.m. PST |
I wonder if Georgie-porjie would have been as forgiving to Washington,etc as Lincoln was to Lee, etc? Russ Dunaway |
| Grattan54 | 05 Aug 2025 6:28 p.m. PST |
They can be both. The American Revolution was clearly a civil war. I think when there is more of an ideology behind the conflict that intends to change society or the political reality we refer to it more as a revolution. |
 Parzival | 05 Aug 2025 7:23 p.m. PST |
The war for Texas independence was not a "civil war," despite being a war by one group to assert their political independence from a nominal nation to whom they were (sort of) subjects. |
| Oberlindes Sol LIC | 05 Aug 2025 8:41 p.m. PST |
The American Revolution was clearly a civil war. To the contrary, it was clearly a revolution because it sought to establish a new form of government. The colonies rejected the colonial power's form of government -- a hereditary autocracy supported by hereditary noble classes together holding essentially all political power -- and created a new form of government -- a democratic republic with checks and balances on the various power centers. That's what made the fight at Concord the Shot Heard Round the World. The American Revolution was, in addition, a revolt by colonies seeking independence from the colonial power. That, I think, is neither a civil war nor a revolution, but a third type of conflict, which I would call a colonial revolt or a war for independence. Unlike most if not all other wars for independence since the Enlightenment, the American freedom fighters were of the same ethnicity as the colonial power. That highlights the revolutionary nature of the conflict: English (and other British) people decided to reject the king of England and his dukes and other hereditarily titled henchmen. The Spanish and Portuguese colonies of Central and South America present a much more complex picture of class and ethnicity, with greater native-to-colonist ratios at the beginning, and more intermarriage through time. Post-WW2 Africa and Asia present the other extreme, where an insulated European colonial class stood on top of the entire native structure. |
| John the OFM | 05 Aug 2025 9:31 p.m. PST |
Throw in the Loyalists, and the American Revolution becomes a Civil War. |
| Grattan54 | 06 Aug 2025 10:13 a.m. PST |
+1 John. That is what I meant. some 25% of all Americans stayed loyal to the British government. Some 5,000 American men fought for the British. The war in the South was a brutal war between Americans. That makes it a civil war as well as a revolution. |
| Korvessa | 06 Aug 2025 11:17 a.m. PST |
I suppose that depends on if you define Civil War to mean a significant amount of folks fought on both sides, or if you define it as meaning an effort to control the entire country. Which was my original point/question. |
| Parzival | 06 Aug 2025 6:40 p.m. PST |
Seems similar in some ways to the French Revolution, except the revolting side lost. Gotta say that in both wars, both sides were more than a little "revolting." YouTube link It had to be done.  |
| robert piepenbrink | 07 Aug 2025 4:40 a.m. PST |
Civil War and revolution are very different things. The problem is that one may entail the other. A revolution is a change in from of government--usually violent, but not necessarily so. See the American "Revolution of 1800" and the British "Glorious Revolution." A civil war is a war fought within one state. It may involve a secessionist element--see the 13 North American colonies, Biafra and the "late unpleasantness" of 1861-1865, but it needn't. See the Spanish Civil War, or Ireland in the early 20's. Secessionist sturggles are usually civil wars if the central power wins and "revolutions" or "wars of independence" if the secessionists get to write the school textbooks. But I'd agree that the overlap is large. Not many revolutions without domestic opponents, secessionist movements seldom have universal support in their territories and even the sort of civil war which is a pure squabble over the succession may have a lasting effect on the form of government. Me, I go with the most widely accepted label for communications purposes. But I'd say they're mostly called revolutions if the object is a change of government, shading into civil war if both sides raise formal armies, and pretty much always is called a civil war if the fighting is largely confined to one state, no change in form of government is intended or the central power wins. The alternative is usually "revolt" rather than "revolution" in such instances. But except when it aids clear reasoning, I am not the Vocabulary Police. |
| jefritrout | 07 Aug 2025 7:40 a.m. PST |
Now analyze the Farropilhan Revolution or what I would call a rebellion. The rebels won for a short period of time, but when they tried to spread their revolutionary ideas to neighboring states, the federal government took it much more seriously and defeated the rebellion. |
| TimePortal | 07 Aug 2025 8:55 a.m. PST |
I am glad that the political aspects of the wars mentioned by John were examined.
Of those listed only the Roman Civil wars did not try to changed the government. All of the successful ones,,based on who was revolting won.
We can all think of a few wars that left out that were also significant. These include the Red Chinese Revolution or Civil War, Spanish Civil War, the Korean Wars of the Three Kingdoms era was definitely a civil war. The more I ponder, the more I think of other wars. |
| Oberlindes Sol LIC | 07 Aug 2025 10:34 a.m. PST |
Civil War and revolution are very different things. The problem is that one may entail the other. I generally agree with Robert Piepenbrink's analysis (although I note that the Biafran conflict took place 100 years later than he indicated). But except when it aids clear reasoning, I am not the Vocabulary Police. Are they hiring, though? |
| robert piepenbrink | 09 Aug 2025 5:58 p.m. PST |
Are they hiring, though? Yes, always. But they pay in smug satisfaction, which is hard to pay rent with. As regards Biafran secession, I am maligned or misunderstood. I gave three examples--the AWI, the Biafran secession and the "late unpleasantness" of 1861-65, (which is also known as the War of the Rebellion, the War of Southron Independence and the War of Northern Aggression--"civil war" being the issue under dispute.) You merged two of them. Perhaps I should have jointed Team Oxford Comma? |
 20thmaine | 10 Aug 2025 6:54 a.m. PST |
You should: it has several reasons that give it merit: clarity, aesthetic form, and it is correct. |
| John the OFM | 11 Aug 2025 2:56 p.m. PST |
I used to be the TMP Grammer, and, Speling, Facscist.
But I retired after one of my old unpleasantnesses.
So now, I'm Emeritus. Just an unpaid consultant. |
| robert piepenbrink | 11 Aug 2025 6:03 p.m. PST |
I try, 20th, but Junior High English left scars. Hard to work past the sort of trauma which is K-12 education. |
| Korvessa | 12 Aug 2025 10:39 a.m. PST |
I learned more about English Grammar when I studied Finnish then I ever did from my high schoool English teachers (though I suppose they tried). |
| John the OFM | 15 Aug 2025 9:24 a.m. PST |
Somewhat similar, I had 3 years of Latin in high school. Taught by hardass nuns.
This is how I learned that English actually does have a Future Pluperfect.
The Subjunctive mood was really eye opening. |
reports from OrcCon 2008.
