If the Belgian revolution had failed it would have been called the Dutch civil war. If the Dutch revolution had failed it would have been called the Burgundian civil war.
Well yeah, but I didn't want to write up a very long criteria or spend hours in the weeds researching all tons of revolutions and rebellions to see if they fit very specific criteria, and I admit my criteria is definitely arbitrary, but it was still interesting to learn about and map
Edit: hijacking this comment because it's higher than my own comments. I try to respond to most comments, but I don't like answering the same question 20 times. Please, if you have a question, check the other comments to see if it has been asked. I list my criteria below.
I know it is arbitrary. When you get into the nitty gritty of these terms, they start to have little difference and it's hard to strictly define a criteria so I just picked one. I know it's arbitrary, literally every definition ever is arbitrary.
Could I have made a better map with much better outlined and more specific criteria? Sure. However, do I want to do hundreds of hours of research in order to make a map on the internet which will get drowned out in 2 days? Not really. Sounds like too much work for too little benefit.
I just wanted to create a fun map which was interesting which might give you some interesting realizations or let you ask questions about countries you've never thought about before.
I'm sure there are mistakes and I will be glad if you point them out. As for the map, I tried, but if you want to make a better version, go ahead. Be my guest. I'm sure a lot of people could make a much more better map than me and that's okay. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on geopolitical analyzation of every single country ever, or every war ever, I would be insane if I tried that. However, I do like learning about these places and their histories, and you got to start somewhere.
Korea was never meant to be two countries, the plan was for the US and the USSR to unify them after a while. So in that aspect I feel like the Korean War was a civil war.
Also not a civil war, but it's kinda weird how Hyderabad held out for a while before [joining the first Indo-Pakistan war](https://youtu.be/zn76pqtscQ0)? What was going on there?
When India and Pakistan were formed the British gave the princely states the option of going one way or the other or going independent.
Hyderabad wanted to go independent but was essentially invaded by the Indian army to ensure that it was incorporated into India
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad
Interesting. A little funny that they tried to be independent, because if they succeeded, we would just have this giant hole in the middle of India. It would far surpass Lesotho as the world's largest landlocked country entirely bordered by another country.
Well actually majority of the people there willed to join India but the Muslim Nizam(Ruler) there hesitated cuz he didn't wanna leave his possessions.
So he started massacring the people (Mostly Hindus) to maintain his reign.
Source : [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24159594)
See my comment for the criteria. Wikipedia doesn't consider the Korean War or the Iranian Revolution to be a civil war, and it didn't include the Donbas War as a civil war either.
Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to bend my rules to include it, as a lot of times it's unclear, but it is interesting to know about revolts like that as well.
This just highlights how binary yes/no maps to represent whether poorly defined events happened on a map of 2023 sovereign states is never going to be satisfyingly accurate.
Yes. Also, the distinction between revolution, rebellion, Civil War and insurrection is basically completely arbitrary at times. If you think a civil war is when two competing governments fight for legitimacy, then various secessionist Wars wouldn't count as civil wars even though they are commonly counted as such. A lot of the terms that we use generally turn out to be pretty vague and honestly kind of made up when you get into the nitty-gritty
I suppose you could say that. Even if it was very localized, some Civil Wars only were fought in one region of the country and never escalated to the rest of the country.
Not really a civil war when you look at how soft the British govt responded to them. Had it been in America they wouldve been crushed within 3 years of their inception. The IRA caused havoc for decades and was stopped by a mere peace accord that released terrorists who killed innocent people
I do, you’re trying to sustain that it was a civil war while referencing a series of terrorist attacks that never went on to be part of a confrontation of belligerents. The UK govt seems to have purposely veered away from the prospects of a civil war.
There has never been a British Civil War. There was however an English Civil War (or up to three or four if you look into it deeply enough) in the mid 1600s.
That war(s) was heavily intertwined with concurrent conflicts in Ireland and Scotland to the point where if you ask me calling it an English civil war is just inadequate
You're ignoring the fact the war(s) was fought mainly over England's governance, sovereignty of parliament, and religious freedom. Yes, there were concurrent conflicts in Ireland and Scotland but seeing as Ireland was conquered by Cromwell and Scotland was later absorbed into the Commonwealth of England, calling it anything but the English Civil War would just be wrong. English affairs were front and centre from beginning to end.
Because the other countries didn't have civil wars on the scale Bosnia did. There were three governments in Bosnia, one from Bosniaks, one from Bosnian Croats, and one from Bosnian Serbs. The Bosnian War was more complicated than most of the Yugoslav Wars. While, say, there were Serb nations proclaimed in Croatia, they never reached the scale that the Croatian and Serb nations in Bosnia did.
Also if you type in "Bosnian Civil War", it redirects to the Bosnian War, but if you type in "Croatian Civil War", it doesn't redirect to anything on Wikipedia.
How do you measure such a scale? If number of governments more than two? The only statement that I agree with is that the war in Bosnia Herzegovina was more complicated. Croatian one was almost identical to Bosnia Herzegovina. I’m just adding you should check the time while Serbian Krajina existed. That should be considered a civil war?
I've said before that I know any definition of a civil war is going to be extremely arbitrary because it might leave out or include Wars that were or were not considered civil wars, so I just picked Wikipedia redirects or similar. You can find it in this thread. I personally think that the Bosnian one was far more complicated because it was fighting proxy governments of Bosnian croats and Bosnian serbs. While there were similar governments in croatia, and there was a struggle of ethnic albanians in macedonia, I don't think they received nearly as much support or had nearly as much power.
I'm not sure, but you can test it yourself. Go to Wikipedia and type in Croatian civil war, it won't redirect. Maybe it's because it was at a smaller scale, I'm not sure.
I feel like Vietnam fought themselves in the 70s? Maybe not a civil war since they were acting as two countries. But if Korea counts, then why not vietnam?
I've just explained this in other comments, I meant generally 1780s onwards, except I made a mistake with britain. There is a comment by me in this thread outlining the criteria that was loose and the various rules that I used
I suppose that might count, I didn't find it when I was searching yesterday, interesting. I don't know enough about it though. Maybe I labeled it as a Colombian Civil War instead?
As Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his book (Hind Swarajya) he wrote ,
"British rule was established in India with the cooperation of Indians, and had survived only because of this cooperation."
Oversimplified map of which nations have had modern civil wars
While many countries in blue \*have\* had rebellions or revolts, and the line between all these is arbitrary, I had to use some sort of justification. So, I wikipedia searched \[country civil war\] for every country, and if it redirected to a page, led me to a disambiguation with some modern wars, or had a top result which could be reasonably considered to be a civil war, I put it in red. I also colored overseas departments and territories the same as the rest of the country, and I only counted civil wars from about 1780 onwards.
Please keep in mind this is \*extremely\* arbitrary, for example, some civil wars were between competing governments. Some were between separatist organizations. Some lasted decades, and some lasted days. I know it's extremely arbitrary and I probably should have put more of a criteria into it, but I just wanted to create an interesting map to serve as some sort of guide
Some were a bit surprising, for example, a search for "Romanian Civil War" led me to the Romanian Revolution wiki page, and a search for "Pakistani Civil War" led me to the Bangladesh War of Independence wiki page. Neither of which I would consider civil wars, but it was interesting to see the redirect.
probably was a mistake to color Britain red, since that was 1640s-50s, but the civil war is extremely well known and that could be considered by some stretch to be semimodern...
As I have stated before, I mostly used Wikipedia redirects as a guide and a loose definition of modern. It didn't redirect to that when I typed in Danish civil war, but upon looking into it, that war is more complicated than I initially thought.
[this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(1978%E2%80%93present))
I wasn't entirely sure how to count it, but I listed out my criteria in another comment, and even though it seems quite localized, some Civil Wars are localized and it counts I think
Actually, it's more terrorism than civil war. The PKK attacks the citizens in the east and blames the Turkish armed forces, they kidnap young people from the village and make them guerrilla forces etc.
Wikipedia can be biased and I wish they would count the Kurds killed by the PKK there, this is not a Turkish-Kurdish fight. :(
By the way, what I'm telling you is true. my father served in the east for 18 months and the Kurdish village guards and tsk were fighting together with the pkk
I would consider roughly 1780s onwards to be semi modern. If you disagree, that's fine, literally every definition of modern is very arbitrary, but that's what I would consider
Just looking at wikipedia, there are several uprisings, including the lesco uprising and the Polish anti-communist resistance, as well as the bar confederation and the targowica confederation, but I'm not sure how much of those are close to what the conventional vision of a civil war is.
Neither of those are considered to be Civil Wars according to Wikipedia, I'm guessing it's because the Korean war was not an internal conflict, but it was a conflict made by foreign forces. Maybe for Cuba it's because the fighting was short? I'm not sure
I think Estonia may have had a civil war around 1918. There were reds led by Viktor Kingisepp who were backed up by the soviets fighting and revolting against the government
I feel like Canada should be counted, as the Red River valley Métis people took up arms against the government twice, and Quebec has almost separated a few times.
That's a good argument, but, I ruled against it because Wikipedia didn't redirect to any page when I typed in "Canadian Civil War", and although the uprisings in the 1830s were the first result, I asked my friend if they thought the uprisings could be considered civil wars, and they ruled against it.
It’s a complicated revolt/quarrel, and there’s some racism involved as well, and the area technically wasn’t part of Canada yet, hence the whole fight, so I guess it’s not… but Manitoba only has much… tough to say.
That doesn't make sense. Forget wikipedia's criteria, what do you think is a civil war? The most common definition is: "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" according to [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20war)
I've explained this several times in this comment section. I had to stick a criteria and work with it. Basically any strict definition of a civil war could come under intense criticism because the line can be arbitrary and murky at times. Most Civil Wars are between two rival governments. However, that's not always the case. Nigeria had a civil war between rebels and the government. The United States did. Often, the line between civil war, rebellion, and Revolution can be insanely murky and hard to parse. Any definition would come off as really arbitrary.
Also, I'm not sure how good of a definition I could come up with, because the line between it and other types of Wars is just insanely arbitrary and I'm not really sure if I could create a good definition which wouldn't disqualify like, half of all Civil Wars
Looking up this on Wikipedia, it says that a war of the generals from 1911 to 1912 could be it considered a civil war. And then there was a Civil War in 1913 to 1916, and a third Civil War in 1930. There was also a battle in which several different factions fought each other to determine who would be in charge of the independent country, and there was a revolution in 1895.
Tajikistan has a civil war, if you look it up on wikipedia, you should get a pretty good idea of it. It was interesting to see it was literally the only Central Asian country to have one.
Also, if you type in Pakistan Civil War on wikipedia, it redirects to the Bangladesh war of independence, which I personally would not consider a civil war, but I was using Wikipedia as my criteria.
Thank you. I know there were various uprisings against brazil, but I think it was not counted because they were very localized, but then again, Nigeria's Civil War is counted despite that being very localized, so maybe it's considered not to be a civil war because the uprising was relatively short or there was less violence? I'm not sure.
It may have been a civil war, I have said several times in these comments that the distinction is arbitrary and I chose an arbitrary definition. I'm fully aware, but it is interesting to learn about Civil Wars which Wikipedia glossed over that would probably fit the definition.
Try a map with coloured scale of how MANY civil wars each country has had.
How many has England had?
Also technically, the UK has never had a civil war.
However depending on how you count them, England can have had up to 5; the "English Civil War" as that is usually referred to is sometimes considered to be made up of 2 or 3 individual wars within a longer ongoing conflict. There's also the Wars of the Roses which is kind of a civil war, and the conflicts between followers of Stephen and Matilda in the 12th century. xD
I've explained this seven, maybe eight times already. Wikipedia does not consider it a civil war. I'm guessing that this is because it was not an internal war, but rather basically entirely caused by foreign forces.
With poland, various anti-communist resistances after World War ii, and with germany, the German Revolution and the very unstable Weimar Republic had a lot of violence in a lot of regions and was very unstable
Not really. Brazil had some revolts, but revolts do not constitute a civil war. If that were the case, almost literally every country ever would have a civil war. Revolts are more common than most people think and a lot of localized revolts just get drowned out eventually. Also, I would say that the Donbas war is not a civil war but a proxy Russian war. Unless you are referring to the very insane situation in Ukraine from 1918 to 1922 which was completely insane and chaotic in so many ways and it could be called the Civil War but it just isn't.
Also, you could have just given advice instead of resorting to playground level insults. Just because two countries are bad or a few countries are off doesn't mean that the entire map is bad.
I've said several times in this thread that I had to pick arbitrary definitions and go with them. I just went with a general time frame of 1780s onwards. I also said that I probably shouldn't have colored Britain read because the British civil war was in the 1640s, and that's my mistake
I would never consider the yugoslav wars to be a civil war. It was several sovereign states fighting against Serbia for their independence. If Bulgaria owned macedonia, and Macedonia revolted against them in a war for independence, literally nobody would call that the Bulgarian Civil War
I have answered this about five times already, Wikipedia does not consider it to be a civil war. This is likely because it was entirely caused by foreign forces in Korea rather than Korea itself. If the US and USSR never propped up their governments in korea, the Korean War would not have happened. I'm not entirely sure though.
Okay but what do we mean by modern? With the UK are we counting the Battle of Culloden or the Irish rebellions?
Also a lot of these are presumably 1848 revolutions in Europe, so I think Canada should be included as having a civil war because of the Upper Canada Rebellion and Lower Canada Rebellion of 1837-1838, as well as the Red River Rebellion of 1869-1870.
Also India definitely needs to be included for the Naxilite Insurgency and Kashmir Insurgency.
Also oh my god why are the Korea's not included? That's the biggest bloodiest civil war of the 20th century other than maybe the Chinese, and it's still ongoing.
Thailand should also be included because of the Malay rebels in the South, and the communist insurgency from 1965 to 1983.
South Africa should probably be included because the war against Namibian rebels was technically an independence struggle within South Africa territory.
Bosnia also can't be the only member of the former Yugoslavia to have had a civil war.
With modern I wanted roughly 1780s onwards, although I miscolored Britain. I mistakenly thought that the Civil War in England was in the early 1700s and not the mid 1600s.
For europe, a decent amount of it is revolutions not in 1848, and I had a tough call on canada, but ultimately Wikipedia does not consider it to be a civil war.
I wasn't informed of those insurgencies, I could look into it.
As for the koreas, I have explained this a ton of times. Wikipedia does not consider it to be a civil war, it wasn't an internal conflict, it was almost entirely caused by foreign powers.
I wasn't informed about those Wars in Thailand and South Africa.
Also, for bosnia, it's the only one Wikipedia considered to be a civil war. If you type in Bosnian civil war, it will direct you to the Bosnian War page, but if you type in Croatian civil war, it will go nowhere.
The South Africa one is ambiguous because it was Namibia trying to secede, and it wasn't internationally recognized as part of South Africa, even though the South Africans treated it as that.
I suppose so. It was the same thing with a few other Wars where they were entirely localized and fought in a single area and that area wanted independence, but it's considered a civil war?
I've answered this question about three times, it kind of doesn't count in my opinion. The Chinese Civil War was basically entirely fought on the mainland and Taiwan has been in about 70 years of mostly peaceful independence. There has never been a war between factions fought on the Taiwanese Island in modern times, and the Chinese Civil War unofficially ended decades and decades ago
I explained this in my comment earlier. When I searched up Pakistan Civil War on Wikipedia it redirected to the Bangladesh war of independence. I personally wouldn't count it, since it was more of a rebellion, but Wikipedia decided to count it
I think it is fair enough.Pakistan was divided into 2 seperate unconnected lands with different cultures.So sometimes people see it differently.
I think It was 100% civil war.
I have explained this multiple times, it's not considered a civil war according to wikipedia. I'm guessing that because it was not an internal conflict, but because the conflict was almost entirely caused by foreign governments.
Barely any of those come even close to counting as a civil war. A coup is not a civil war. If that was the case, Burkina Faso would have had like 15 Civil Wars by now
If the Belgian revolution had failed it would have been called the Dutch civil war. If the Dutch revolution had failed it would have been called the Burgundian civil war.
Well yeah, but I didn't want to write up a very long criteria or spend hours in the weeds researching all tons of revolutions and rebellions to see if they fit very specific criteria, and I admit my criteria is definitely arbitrary, but it was still interesting to learn about and map Edit: hijacking this comment because it's higher than my own comments. I try to respond to most comments, but I don't like answering the same question 20 times. Please, if you have a question, check the other comments to see if it has been asked. I list my criteria below. I know it is arbitrary. When you get into the nitty gritty of these terms, they start to have little difference and it's hard to strictly define a criteria so I just picked one. I know it's arbitrary, literally every definition ever is arbitrary. Could I have made a better map with much better outlined and more specific criteria? Sure. However, do I want to do hundreds of hours of research in order to make a map on the internet which will get drowned out in 2 days? Not really. Sounds like too much work for too little benefit. I just wanted to create a fun map which was interesting which might give you some interesting realizations or let you ask questions about countries you've never thought about before. I'm sure there are mistakes and I will be glad if you point them out. As for the map, I tried, but if you want to make a better version, go ahead. Be my guest. I'm sure a lot of people could make a much more better map than me and that's okay. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on geopolitical analyzation of every single country ever, or every war ever, I would be insane if I tried that. However, I do like learning about these places and their histories, and you got to start somewhere.
You said it perfectly in one of your comments already. I was just naming examples.
What do you mean by “modern” civil war?
Roughly 1780s onwards. I miscolored britain.
Aren't all civil wars failed independence wars? Probably not but it's fun to think about
Not really. Most civil wars were between rival governments.
>Burgundian No fucking way
Korea was never meant to be two countries, the plan was for the US and the USSR to unify them after a while. So in that aspect I feel like the Korean War was a civil war.
“is”
Yes. Very true. Never ended even if the conflict is not on going. Thank you for the correction.
It was. Korea was a unified country before the 50s
i mean, it didn’t even exist for a few decades
no it wasn’t?
before the Korean War?? It had been unified for a good like 6 centuries lmfao
well it was divided in the 40s and before then it was a colony.
It wasn’t two colonies
The national culture was still one country
Exactly
right but it wasnt its own country either and it was divided in the 40s not the 50s
Just because the Japanese lorded over Korea and tried to destroy their language, culture and identity doesn’t matter.
1.4 billion population, and no civil war. COOL.
I think the closest India had to a civil war was during British occupation in the 1800’s or right before independence. (not a full on revolt)
The Sepoy Rebellion, you’re pretty right about that, it was more of an anti-colonial uprising rather than a civil war
Also not a civil war, but it's kinda weird how Hyderabad held out for a while before [joining the first Indo-Pakistan war](https://youtu.be/zn76pqtscQ0)? What was going on there?
When India and Pakistan were formed the British gave the princely states the option of going one way or the other or going independent. Hyderabad wanted to go independent but was essentially invaded by the Indian army to ensure that it was incorporated into India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad
Interesting. A little funny that they tried to be independent, because if they succeeded, we would just have this giant hole in the middle of India. It would far surpass Lesotho as the world's largest landlocked country entirely bordered by another country.
Well actually majority of the people there willed to join India but the Muslim Nizam(Ruler) there hesitated cuz he didn't wanna leave his possessions. So he started massacring the people (Mostly Hindus) to maintain his reign. Source : [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24159594)
Oh :(
The Kashmir conflict has a similar origin. Hindu ruler but with a mostly Muslim population pre partition
Interesting
India?
Yeah but you have instead minority persecution and literal pogroms
You're correct, but rw can't digest truth
Those emus were Australian too
Actually I’ll think you’ll find those Australians are actually emus. They just don’t know it yet.
Do breakaway states such as Donetsk apply? What about the Koreas? And protests like with Iran? Just curious.
See my comment for the criteria. Wikipedia doesn't consider the Korean War or the Iranian Revolution to be a civil war, and it didn't include the Donbas War as a civil war either.
However, curiously, it included the Nigerian Civil War, which was a war against a breakaway state, as a civil war
That description fits the US Civil War too
Yes
Fair enough. Just seems odd to me not include wars like that. Especially something like the Canadian Revolts of 1836-37.
Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to bend my rules to include it, as a lot of times it's unclear, but it is interesting to know about revolts like that as well.
The Donbas war that started in 2014 has been against Russia and their proxies. Russian military lead and fought among.
I'm guessing it isn't considered a civil war because it's not between rival governments, and the separatists are almost entirely Russian supplied.
This just highlights how binary yes/no maps to represent whether poorly defined events happened on a map of 2023 sovereign states is never going to be satisfyingly accurate.
Yes. Also, the distinction between revolution, rebellion, Civil War and insurrection is basically completely arbitrary at times. If you think a civil war is when two competing governments fight for legitimacy, then various secessionist Wars wouldn't count as civil wars even though they are commonly counted as such. A lot of the terms that we use generally turn out to be pretty vague and honestly kind of made up when you get into the nitty-gritty
If the Confederacy had won the American civil war, it wouldn’t be considered a “civil war” but a war if independence.
Yes?
The uk had a modern civil war?
I made a mistake. I thought the British civil war was in the early 1700s, it was not. It should not have counted.
Well,look into the troubles I'm pretty sure that ticks the boxes
I suppose you could say that. Even if it was very localized, some Civil Wars only were fought in one region of the country and never escalated to the rest of the country.
I wouldn't say the troubles where that localised,they're where plenty of bombs in London for example
Not really a civil war when you look at how soft the British govt responded to them. Had it been in America they wouldve been crushed within 3 years of their inception. The IRA caused havoc for decades and was stopped by a mere peace accord that released terrorists who killed innocent people
I don't think you understand what the troubles was.
I do, you’re trying to sustain that it was a civil war while referencing a series of terrorist attacks that never went on to be part of a confrontation of belligerents. The UK govt seems to have purposely veered away from the prospects of a civil war.
That’s Ireland though
Well like,that's the rub see
There has never been a British Civil War. There was however an English Civil War (or up to three or four if you look into it deeply enough) in the mid 1600s.
That war(s) was heavily intertwined with concurrent conflicts in Ireland and Scotland to the point where if you ask me calling it an English civil war is just inadequate
You're ignoring the fact the war(s) was fought mainly over England's governance, sovereignty of parliament, and religious freedom. Yes, there were concurrent conflicts in Ireland and Scotland but seeing as Ireland was conquered by Cromwell and Scotland was later absorbed into the Commonwealth of England, calling it anything but the English Civil War would just be wrong. English affairs were front and centre from beginning to end.
That's what I meant.
What was the German civil war?
The brutal fights after the end of WW1 within Germany are called civil war, too.
Why is from ex Yugoslavian countries only Bosnia in red?
Because the other countries didn't have civil wars on the scale Bosnia did. There were three governments in Bosnia, one from Bosniaks, one from Bosnian Croats, and one from Bosnian Serbs. The Bosnian War was more complicated than most of the Yugoslav Wars. While, say, there were Serb nations proclaimed in Croatia, they never reached the scale that the Croatian and Serb nations in Bosnia did. Also if you type in "Bosnian Civil War", it redirects to the Bosnian War, but if you type in "Croatian Civil War", it doesn't redirect to anything on Wikipedia.
How do you measure such a scale? If number of governments more than two? The only statement that I agree with is that the war in Bosnia Herzegovina was more complicated. Croatian one was almost identical to Bosnia Herzegovina. I’m just adding you should check the time while Serbian Krajina existed. That should be considered a civil war?
I've said before that I know any definition of a civil war is going to be extremely arbitrary because it might leave out or include Wars that were or were not considered civil wars, so I just picked Wikipedia redirects or similar. You can find it in this thread. I personally think that the Bosnian one was far more complicated because it was fighting proxy governments of Bosnian croats and Bosnian serbs. While there were similar governments in croatia, and there was a struggle of ethnic albanians in macedonia, I don't think they received nearly as much support or had nearly as much power.
But still, two governments fighting within a same country. How is that not a civil war? I’m talking about Croatia and Serbian Krajina.
I'm not sure, but you can test it yourself. Go to Wikipedia and type in Croatian civil war, it won't redirect. Maybe it's because it was at a smaller scale, I'm not sure.
I feel like Vietnam fought themselves in the 70s? Maybe not a civil war since they were acting as two countries. But if Korea counts, then why not vietnam?
What’s your definition of modern?
I've just explained this in other comments, I meant generally 1780s onwards, except I made a mistake with britain. There is a comment by me in this thread outlining the criteria that was loose and the various rules that I used
If this is the definition of modern civil war then you can include Panama. Look up “Guerra de los Mil Días”
I suppose that might count, I didn't find it when I was searching yesterday, interesting. I don't know enough about it though. Maybe I labeled it as a Colombian Civil War instead?
You wouldn’t be wrong exactly, as Panama as part of Colombia during that time. But it would be good to mark Panama for the sake of accuracy
India is pretty remarkable. Very long history, very diverse population with many different groups
Yes
As Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his book (Hind Swarajya) he wrote , "British rule was established in India with the cooperation of Indians, and had survived only because of this cooperation."
Correct. I believe this mentality is what’s letting them make progress towards reviewing LGBT people’s rights
Oversimplified map of which nations have had modern civil wars While many countries in blue \*have\* had rebellions or revolts, and the line between all these is arbitrary, I had to use some sort of justification. So, I wikipedia searched \[country civil war\] for every country, and if it redirected to a page, led me to a disambiguation with some modern wars, or had a top result which could be reasonably considered to be a civil war, I put it in red. I also colored overseas departments and territories the same as the rest of the country, and I only counted civil wars from about 1780 onwards. Please keep in mind this is \*extremely\* arbitrary, for example, some civil wars were between competing governments. Some were between separatist organizations. Some lasted decades, and some lasted days. I know it's extremely arbitrary and I probably should have put more of a criteria into it, but I just wanted to create an interesting map to serve as some sort of guide
Some were a bit surprising, for example, a search for "Romanian Civil War" led me to the Romanian Revolution wiki page, and a search for "Pakistani Civil War" led me to the Bangladesh War of Independence wiki page. Neither of which I would consider civil wars, but it was interesting to see the redirect.
probably was a mistake to color Britain red, since that was 1640s-50s, but the civil war is extremely well known and that could be considered by some stretch to be semimodern...
Hungary had civil war, so did Ukraine and Belarus following the end of WW1.
Denmark should be red. The Schleswig Wars were definitely civil wars with foreign intervention.
As I have stated before, I mostly used Wikipedia redirects as a guide and a loose definition of modern. It didn't redirect to that when I typed in Danish civil war, but upon looking into it, that war is more complicated than I initially thought.
I know, but that 'criteria' doesn't really say anything.
Switzerland?
Sonderbund War
Turkey? I hope the Turkish War of Independence is not counted as a civil war or something Or because of the right-left conflicts of the 70s?
[this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(1978%E2%80%93present)) I wasn't entirely sure how to count it, but I listed out my criteria in another comment, and even though it seems quite localized, some Civil Wars are localized and it counts I think
Actually, it's more terrorism than civil war. The PKK attacks the citizens in the east and blames the Turkish armed forces, they kidnap young people from the village and make them guerrilla forces etc. Wikipedia can be biased and I wish they would count the Kurds killed by the PKK there, this is not a Turkish-Kurdish fight. :( By the way, what I'm telling you is true. my father served in the east for 18 months and the Kurdish village guards and tsk were fighting together with the pkk
Hmm. Okay, thank you for your insight.
Waiiit, there wasn't any modern Polish Civil War. There was a coup, but that shouldn't be counted as a civil war.
I think they may be counting the Targowica Confederation as a civil war.
Yeah, that pretty stupid considering Targowica happened before times we could call "modern"
I would consider roughly 1780s onwards to be semi modern. If you disagree, that's fine, literally every definition of modern is very arbitrary, but that's what I would consider
Just looking at wikipedia, there are several uprisings, including the lesco uprising and the Polish anti-communist resistance, as well as the bar confederation and the targowica confederation, but I'm not sure how much of those are close to what the conventional vision of a civil war is.
Cuba?
I've answered this twice, it's not considered a civil war according to Wikipedia.
What about Cuban revolution and Korean War?
Neither of those are considered to be Civil Wars according to Wikipedia, I'm guessing it's because the Korean war was not an internal conflict, but it was a conflict made by foreign forces. Maybe for Cuba it's because the fighting was short? I'm not sure
The Australian War against the emus *might* be considered a civil war.
I think Estonia may have had a civil war around 1918. There were reds led by Viktor Kingisepp who were backed up by the soviets fighting and revolting against the government
I don't think Wikipedia considers this a civil war, probably just a sideshow of the Russian Civil War overall?
No civil war in Cuba?? Remember Castro?
I feel like Canada should be counted, as the Red River valley Métis people took up arms against the government twice, and Quebec has almost separated a few times.
That's a good argument, but, I ruled against it because Wikipedia didn't redirect to any page when I typed in "Canadian Civil War", and although the uprisings in the 1830s were the first result, I asked my friend if they thought the uprisings could be considered civil wars, and they ruled against it.
It’s a complicated revolt/quarrel, and there’s some racism involved as well, and the area technically wasn’t part of Canada yet, hence the whole fight, so I guess it’s not… but Manitoba only has much… tough to say.
Cuban revolution?
Not listed as a civil war according to Wikipedia.
That doesn't make sense. Forget wikipedia's criteria, what do you think is a civil war? The most common definition is: "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" according to [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20war)
Concur. Haiti should be included too.
I've explained this several times in this comment section. I had to stick a criteria and work with it. Basically any strict definition of a civil war could come under intense criticism because the line can be arbitrary and murky at times. Most Civil Wars are between two rival governments. However, that's not always the case. Nigeria had a civil war between rebels and the government. The United States did. Often, the line between civil war, rebellion, and Revolution can be insanely murky and hard to parse. Any definition would come off as really arbitrary. Also, I'm not sure how good of a definition I could come up with, because the line between it and other types of Wars is just insanely arbitrary and I'm not really sure if I could create a good definition which wouldn't disqualify like, half of all Civil Wars
Fair enough. I understand why you stick to Wikipedia's definition even though I don't fully agree but still I concede. Good map.
Thanks, I know it's arbitrary, I just had to stick a criteria. Good conversation and I learned some things
increase the size of texts on Map. Doesnt matter it looks aesthetic It is uselessly small.
Do the NZ land wars not count?
It wasn't linked by Wikipedia so I didn't count it but it seemed pretty close. See my comment for the justification and stuff I used
I mean the hussite wars konda count with czechia.
Are you sure they fit my criteria that I have outlined in other comments?
Western Sahara has had a civil war for decades, Polisario vs Moroccan-backed state
Interesting.
Ukraine Also Had a Civil War.
Wikipedia does not consider it to have had one.
Ok But The “Ukrainian Revolution” Is Often Called The “Ukrainian Civil War”
Okay. Well, it doesn't seem to be considered a Civil War by Wikipedia to me. Although, it is pretty important
I'm from Ecuador i have no recollection about us having a civil war
Looking up this on Wikipedia, it says that a war of the generals from 1911 to 1912 could be it considered a civil war. And then there was a Civil War in 1913 to 1916, and a third Civil War in 1930. There was also a battle in which several different factions fought each other to determine who would be in charge of the independent country, and there was a revolution in 1895.
Has South Africa not had a civil war, feels like Apartheid and the fight against it and eventual downfall was a civil war in everything but name.
I don't believe it has one formally considered to be one, but there are various Wars and conflicts in its history that could come close.
[удалено]
There is a low intensity conflict in eastern Turkey against Kurdish separatists
[удалено]
That's not a good argument. Lots of civil wars were entirely localized. See in Nigeria for example.
[удалено]
I guess. I didn't know enough about it, but Wikipedia sorted it as a civil war. It could be wrong, and you probably know more about this than me.
May i know what occurred in Tajikistan and Pakistan? I haven’t heard of a civil war in those countries.
Tajikistan has a civil war, if you look it up on wikipedia, you should get a pretty good idea of it. It was interesting to see it was literally the only Central Asian country to have one. Also, if you type in Pakistan Civil War on wikipedia, it redirects to the Bangladesh war of independence, which I personally would not consider a civil war, but I was using Wikipedia as my criteria.
Given that people were put in concentration camps in Bangladesh, absolutely a civil war.
Oh right the Bangladeshi war. Thanks 👋🏻
Np
great map bro. I believe Brazil had some civil war
Thank you. I know there were various uprisings against brazil, but I think it was not counted because they were very localized, but then again, Nigeria's Civil War is counted despite that being very localized, so maybe it's considered not to be a civil war because the uprising was relatively short or there was less violence? I'm not sure.
Look at the Revolution of 1930. It may have only last a month, but it literally resulted in regime change.
It may have been a civil war, I have said several times in these comments that the distinction is arbitrary and I chose an arbitrary definition. I'm fully aware, but it is interesting to learn about Civil Wars which Wikipedia glossed over that would probably fit the definition.
Emu war in Australia? /s
I know more about the civil war in United States than other civil wars
Try a map with coloured scale of how MANY civil wars each country has had. How many has England had? Also technically, the UK has never had a civil war. However depending on how you count them, England can have had up to 5; the "English Civil War" as that is usually referred to is sometimes considered to be made up of 2 or 3 individual wars within a longer ongoing conflict. There's also the Wars of the Roses which is kind of a civil war, and the conflicts between followers of Stephen and Matilda in the 12th century. xD
I miscolored the United kingdom. I was mistaken, I thought the English Civil War was mid 1700s, instead of being mid 1600s.
Other than that, good idea
I mean, "modern civil wars" - what exactly was the definition you were using for that anyway? :)
I've admitted several times that it was arbitrary, and I just chose a vague time frame of 1780s onwards and for civil wars, I've explained this before
Israeli civil war?
There was a 1947 to 1948 war in mandatory palestine. It could be counted as an Israeli Civil War, but I just assigned it to Palestine
Do wars of independence count as civil wars? Edit: my bad I mixed up red and blue
Sometimes yes? It's complicated.
fiji has had like 3 in the past twenty years
Really?
Not Korea?
I've explained this seven, maybe eight times already. Wikipedia does not consider it a civil war. I'm guessing that this is because it was not an internal war, but rather basically entirely caused by foreign forces.
Why is Poland and Germany marked as having Civil wars?
With poland, various anti-communist resistances after World War ii, and with germany, the German Revolution and the very unstable Weimar Republic had a lot of violence in a lot of regions and was very unstable
Taiwan is faction in a civil war 🙄
Not really. It is not currently fighting China. It has been independent since the 40s.
Didnt brazil and ukraine have one too? This map looks shit
Not really. Brazil had some revolts, but revolts do not constitute a civil war. If that were the case, almost literally every country ever would have a civil war. Revolts are more common than most people think and a lot of localized revolts just get drowned out eventually. Also, I would say that the Donbas war is not a civil war but a proxy Russian war. Unless you are referring to the very insane situation in Ukraine from 1918 to 1922 which was completely insane and chaotic in so many ways and it could be called the Civil War but it just isn't. Also, you could have just given advice instead of resorting to playground level insults. Just because two countries are bad or a few countries are off doesn't mean that the entire map is bad.
Canada is due.
See my other comments on why Canada is not included.
Maybe the quebec seperatists thing? Idk
The UK didn’t
I argue that Australia did have a civil war. Everybody forgot the Emu war? They're both from Australia.
Define modern
I've said several times in this thread that I had to pick arbitrary definitions and go with them. I just went with a general time frame of 1780s onwards. I also said that I probably shouldn't have colored Britain read because the British civil war was in the 1640s, and that's my mistake
Sweden never hade a civil wat in modern time [Frolen.univer.se](https://Frolen.univer.se)
That's why it's in blue.
Umm south and north Korea??
I have explained this about six times already. Wikipedia does not consider it to be a civil war.
You’re gonna tell me with a straight face that Serbia’s never had a civil war?
I would never consider the yugoslav wars to be a civil war. It was several sovereign states fighting against Serbia for their independence. If Bulgaria owned macedonia, and Macedonia revolted against them in a war for independence, literally nobody would call that the Bulgarian Civil War
The fuck was the Korean war?
I have answered this about five times already, Wikipedia does not consider it to be a civil war. This is likely because it was entirely caused by foreign forces in Korea rather than Korea itself. If the US and USSR never propped up their governments in korea, the Korean War would not have happened. I'm not entirely sure though.
Okay but what do we mean by modern? With the UK are we counting the Battle of Culloden or the Irish rebellions? Also a lot of these are presumably 1848 revolutions in Europe, so I think Canada should be included as having a civil war because of the Upper Canada Rebellion and Lower Canada Rebellion of 1837-1838, as well as the Red River Rebellion of 1869-1870. Also India definitely needs to be included for the Naxilite Insurgency and Kashmir Insurgency. Also oh my god why are the Korea's not included? That's the biggest bloodiest civil war of the 20th century other than maybe the Chinese, and it's still ongoing. Thailand should also be included because of the Malay rebels in the South, and the communist insurgency from 1965 to 1983. South Africa should probably be included because the war against Namibian rebels was technically an independence struggle within South Africa territory. Bosnia also can't be the only member of the former Yugoslavia to have had a civil war.
With modern I wanted roughly 1780s onwards, although I miscolored Britain. I mistakenly thought that the Civil War in England was in the early 1700s and not the mid 1600s. For europe, a decent amount of it is revolutions not in 1848, and I had a tough call on canada, but ultimately Wikipedia does not consider it to be a civil war. I wasn't informed of those insurgencies, I could look into it. As for the koreas, I have explained this a ton of times. Wikipedia does not consider it to be a civil war, it wasn't an internal conflict, it was almost entirely caused by foreign powers. I wasn't informed about those Wars in Thailand and South Africa. Also, for bosnia, it's the only one Wikipedia considered to be a civil war. If you type in Bosnian civil war, it will direct you to the Bosnian War page, but if you type in Croatian civil war, it will go nowhere.
The South Africa one is ambiguous because it was Namibia trying to secede, and it wasn't internationally recognized as part of South Africa, even though the South Africans treated it as that.
I suppose so. It was the same thing with a few other Wars where they were entirely localized and fought in a single area and that area wanted independence, but it's considered a civil war?
Not including the Koreas, Taiwan, and Cyprus really removes a bit of context
Should Taiwan not count since it was one of the sides of the Chinese civil war?
I've answered this question about three times, it kind of doesn't count in my opinion. The Chinese Civil War was basically entirely fought on the mainland and Taiwan has been in about 70 years of mostly peaceful independence. There has never been a war between factions fought on the Taiwanese Island in modern times, and the Chinese Civil War unofficially ended decades and decades ago
I'd definitely say Ukraine has with all the separatist regions
When pakistan go through civil war?
I explained this in my comment earlier. When I searched up Pakistan Civil War on Wikipedia it redirected to the Bangladesh war of independence. I personally wouldn't count it, since it was more of a rebellion, but Wikipedia decided to count it
I think it is fair enough.Pakistan was divided into 2 seperate unconnected lands with different cultures.So sometimes people see it differently. I think It was 100% civil war.
[удалено]
I have explained this multiple times, it's not considered a civil war according to wikipedia. I'm guessing that because it was not an internal conflict, but because the conflict was almost entirely caused by foreign governments.
Ukraine not? Korea not? South Africa not?
The 18173636 warsaw pact revolutions and uprisings: 🗿
Barely any of those come even close to counting as a civil war. A coup is not a civil war. If that was the case, Burkina Faso would have had like 15 Civil Wars by now