Colonial war

Last updated

Colonial war (in some contexts referred to as small war [1] ) is a blanket term relating to the various conflicts that arose as the result of overseas territories being settled by foreign powers creating a colony. The term especially refers to wars fought during the nineteenth century between European armies in Africa and Asia.

Colony Territory under the political control of an overseas state, generally with its own subordinate colonial government

In history, a colony is a territory under the immediate complete political control and occupied by settlers of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign. For colonies in antiquity, city-states would often found their own colonies. Some colonies were historically countries, while others were territories without definite statehood from their inception.

New Imperialism period of colonial expansion by European powers, the United States and the Empire of Japan

In historical contexts, New Imperialism characterizes a period of colonial expansion by European powers, the United States, and Japan during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The period featured an unprecedented pursuit of overseas territorial acquisitions. At the time, states focused on building their empires with new technological advances and developments, expanding their territory through conquest, and exploiting the resources of the subjugated countries. During the era of New Imperialism, the Western powers individually conquered almost all of Africa and parts of Asia. The new wave of imperialism reflected ongoing rivalries among the great powers, the economic desire for new resources and markets, and a "civilizing mission" ethos. Many of the colonies established during this era gained independence during the era of decolonization that followed World War II.

Europe Continent in the Northern Hemisphere and mostly in the Eastern Hemisphere

Europe is a continent located entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and mostly in the Eastern Hemisphere. It is bordered by the Arctic Ocean to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, Asia to the east, and the Mediterranean Sea to the south. It comprises the westernmost part of Eurasia.




Traditionally, wars could be divided into three categories: wars of conquest, wars of liberation, and wars between states. [2] These classifications can likewise be distinguished among colonial wars. Still, the term "colonial war" typically refers to a war of conquest. [3] Wars of conquest, in a colonial context, can be further broken down into two stages: a period of typically brief, regular warfare between an invading power and an indigenous force (which may be, in comparison to the invader, irregular in composition or organization) followed by a period of irregular warfare. [4] Counter-insurgency operations may be undertaken in order to prepare territory for settlement. Once a foothold has been established by an incoming power, it may launch expeditions into neighboring territory in retaliation against hostility or to neutralize a potential enemy. [5]

Wars of national liberation Conflict fought for national liberation

Wars of national liberation or national liberation revolutions are conflicts fought by nations to gain independence. The term is used in conjunction with wars against foreign powers to establish separate sovereign states for the rebelling nationality. From a different point of view, these wars are called insurgencies, rebellions, or wars of independence. Guerrilla warfare or asymmetric warfare is often utilized by groups labeled as national liberation movements, often with support from other states.

Irregular military Any non-standard military organization

Irregular military is any non-standard military component that is distinct from a country's national armed forces. Being defined by exclusion, there is significant variance in what comes under the term. It can refer to the type of military organization, or to the type of tactics used. An irregular military organization is one which is not part of the regular army organization. Without standard military unit organization, various more general names are often used; such organizations may be called a "troop", "group", "unit", "column", "band", or "force". Irregulars are soldiers or warriors that are members of these organizations, or are members of special military units that employ irregular military tactics. This also applies to irregular troops, irregular infantry and irregular cavalry.

Irregular warfare is defined in United States joint doctrine as "a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations." Concepts associated with irregular warfare are older than the term itself.

Common characteristics

The Battle of Isandhlwana by Charles Edwin Fripp, portraying a colonial conflict between the Zulu Kingdom and the British Empire in 1879. Isandhlwana.jpg
The Battle of Isandhlwana by Charles Edwin Fripp, portraying a colonial conflict between the Zulu Kingdom and the British Empire in 1879.

Colonial wars differed from "regular" wars (conflicts between neighboring states) in several ways. The first was that they were more political affairs than military ones. [7] In contrast to regular wars, in which the goals of the belligerents were limited, colonial wars were absolute; conquering powers sought to exert total and permanent control over a territory and its population and ensure lasting stability. [8] In spite of this, resources allotted to colonial campaigns were with few exceptions limited. [9] The meanings of defeat and victory were usually more complicated in colonial wars, as in many cases the invading power would face a belligerent that was not encapsulated by a city, government or ruler. There was often less of a distinction between indigenous citizens and the regular armed forces of defending nations. [10] This lack of centralized authority meant that formal peace agreements were rarely made. [8] Without government structures that could be taken over, administration of conquered peoples and territory was more difficult. To counter this colonial armies would establish or rebuild markets, schools and other public entities following a conflict, as the Americans did in the Philippines following the Spanish–American War. [9] [Note 1]

Spanish–American War Conflict in 1898 between Spain and the United States

The Spanish–American War was an armed conflict between Spain and the United States in 1898. Hostilities began in the aftermath of the internal explosion of USS Maine in Havana Harbor in Cuba, leading to U.S. intervention in the Cuban War of Independence. The war led to emergence of U.S. predominance in the Caribbean region, and resulted in U.S. acquisition of Spain's Pacific possessions. That led to U.S. involvement in the Philippine Revolution and ultimately in the Philippine–American War.

In contrast to indigenous forces, European armies (the most common colonizing forces) were always professional forces, removed from the general population. Tasked with the work of rebuilding and administering colonies, colonial armies were often active while regular armies in mother countries remained idle until conflict arose. As such, soldiers in these armies would develop their own military culture and practices. Most of a colonial soldier's knowledge would come from direct experience and not from a formal military education. [9] European armies were almost always technically superior to the indigenous forces they faced, though this could not always be used to their advantage, as equipment like heavy artillery required roads (often not present) and deploying formations such as cavalry presented great logistical challenges. European armies also maintained good discipline, had high morale, were well trained and were educated in their possible deployments and in performing maneuvers. Regardless of the skill of their commanders, native armies usually lacked such cohesion and understanding of warfare. [12] [Note 2] Colonial powers also employed colonial troops in their campaigns, most of whom were of a mixed composition between metropolitan men and officers and indigenous conscripts. [15]

Cavalry soldiers or warriors fighting from horseback

Cavalry or horsemen are soldiers or warriors who fight mounted on horseback. Cavalry were historically the most mobile of the combat arms. An individual soldier in the cavalry is known by a number of designations such as cavalryman, horseman, dragoon, or trooper. The designation of cavalry was not usually given to any military forces that used other animals, such as camels, mules or elephants. Infantry who moved on horseback, but dismounted to fight on foot, were known in the 17th and early 18th centuries as dragoons, a class of mounted infantry which later evolved into cavalry proper while retaining their historic title.

Morale, also known as esprit de corps, is the capacity of a group's members to maintain belief in an institution or goal, particularly in the face of opposition or hardship. Morale is often referenced by authority figures as a generic value judgment of the willpower, obedience, and self-discipline of a group tasked with performing duties assigned by a superior. According to Alexander H. Leighton, "morale is the capacity of a group of people to pull together persistently and consistently in pursuit of a common purpose". Morale is important in the military, because it improves unit cohesion. Without good morale, a force will be more likely to give up or surrender. Morale is usually assessed at a collective, rather than an individual level. In wartime, civilian morale is also important. Esprit de corps is considered to be an important part of a fighting unit.

Maneuver warfare, or manoeuvre warfare, is a military strategy that advocates attempting to defeat the enemy by incapacitating their decision-making through shock and disruption.

Historical era

Colonial warfare became prevalent in the late 15th century as European powers increasingly seized overseas territories and began colonizing them. [16] The era of colonial wars is generally considered to have ended following the conclusion of the Portuguese Colonial War in 1974, though some consider the Falklands War of 1982 to be the last true colonial war. [3] Colonial wars are considered to be some of the first instances of irregular warfare and resulted in some of the first studies of counter-insurgency practices. [17]

First wave of European colonization aspect of history

The first European colonization wave began with Castilian Conquest of the Canary Islands, and primarily involved the European colonization of the Americas, though it also included the establishment of European colonies in India and in Maritime Southeast Asia. During this period, European interests in Africa primarily focused on the establishment of trading posts there, particularly for the African slave trade.The wave ended with British annexation of Kingdom of Kandy in 1815 and founding of colony of Singapore in 1819.

Portuguese Colonial War 1961–1974 armed conflicts in Africa between Portugal and independence movements

The Portuguese Colonial War, also known in Portugal as the Overseas War or in the former colonies as the War of Liberation, was fought between Portugal's military and the emerging nationalist movements in Portugal's African colonies between 1961 and 1974. The Portuguese conservative and authoritarian regime at the time, Estado Novo, was overthrown by a military coup in 1974, and the change in government brought the conflict to an end. The war was a decisive ideological struggle in Lusophone Africa, surrounding nations, and mainland Portugal.

Falklands War War between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982

The Falklands War was a 10-week undeclared war between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982 over two British dependent territories in the South Atlantic: the Falkland Islands and its territorial dependency, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Policy, strategy, and tactics

"Colonial warfare is the only form of encounter in battle remaining where the forces are sufficiently small that the meaning of conflict is comprehensible to the participant. Whatever else fails, a flanking movement is always possible. In such a campaign you feel the clashing wills of the opposite leaders directly instead of remotely. Colonial warfare retains here what has been lost in the mass conflict of Europe."

Force Publique Major Antoine Duperoux's remarks to war correspondent George Weller following the 1941 Siege of Saïo [18]

George Anthony Weller was an American novelist, playwright, and journalist for The New York Times and Chicago Daily News. He won a 1943 Pulitzer Prize as a Daily News war correspondent.

Siege of Saïo Siege during the East African Campaign of World War II

The Siege of Saïo or Battle of Saïo took place during the East African Campaign of World War II. Belgo-Congolese troops, British Commonwealth forces and local resistance fighters besieged the fort at the market town of Saïo in south-western Ethiopia in 1941. The siege lasted for several months, culminating in an Allied attack on the Italian garrison thereby forcing it to surrender.

Colonial military practices and tactics were usually regarded as secondary to regular warfare. Due to this emphasis on more direct conflicts, imperial operations and development in colonial ventures often received less attention from the armed forces of nations responsible for them. [7] Locally stationed military officials sometimes developed and conducted their own war policies free from metropolitan restraint. Other times, metropolitan policy was implemented at their discretion. French commanders cared little for state policy when conducting their campaigns in Western Sudan in the 1870s and 1880s, while German soldiers in Africa frequently operated contrary to the directions of the colonial bureaucracy. Colonial wars often strained relations between civil and military officials, who competed for control over policy. [19]

As in total war, invading powers often directed actions against indigenous non-combatants and local economies. [1] This included the burning of villages, theft of cattle, and systematic destruction of crops as committed by the French in pacification campaigns in Algeria, and the Germans in the Herero Wars of southern Africa. [20] In extreme cases, some powers advocated for the extermination of troublesome peoples, as the Germans did following the Herero conflict, resulting in the Herero and Namaqua genocide. [21] Such actions were usually undertaken when there was a lack of political or military goals for an invader to achieve (if there was no central government to seize or organized army to subdue) as a means to subjugate local populations. [22] European powers held the common perception that Asians and Africans "only understood the language of violence" so that they would not be subdued but through heavy-handed means. They refused to make concessions to indigenous forces for fear of appearing weak. [23]

Invading powers were much more easily frustrated when an indigenous force chose to wage a guerrilla war instead of committing to pitched battles, such as in the Franco-Hova Wars or the First Indochina War. [8] Indigenous leaders such as Abdelkader ibn Muhieddine of Algeria, Mahmadu Lamine of Senegal, and Samori Ture of the Wassoulou Empire were able to resist European colonialism for years after disregarding traditional methods and using guerrilla tactics instead. [24] In practice, regular and irregular forms of warfare generally happened within quick succession of one another. [10] A handful of traditional battles were won by indigenous Asian and African forces with numerical superiority or the element of surprise over colonial powers, but over time they faced staggering losses and discouraging defeats. Such trends were marked by the German suppression of the Maji Maji Rebellion, the defeat of the Zulus at the hands of British forces at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, and the destruction of Mahdist cavalry by British Maxim machine guns at the Battle of Omdurman. [24]

Britain and France developed field manuals to prepare soldiers for colonial warfare, whereas Germany lacked a defined system for educating its troops on colonial deployment. [25] Artillery was used by colonizers primarily as a means to demoralize indigenous fighters. [26]

Indigenous forces were usually made up of foot soldiers. [6]

North America

The death of British General James Wolfe at the 1759 Battle of Quebec during the French and Indian War Benjamin West 005.jpg
The death of British General James Wolfe at the 1759 Battle of Quebec during the French and Indian War

The first major colonial wars in North America were fought by Spanish conquistadors. [27]

Up until the American Revolutionary War, most of the colonial conflicts in North America, if they were not amphibious operations, took place in the wilderness. [28] Most of the first British colonists in the region were farmers and merchants, not professional soldiers. At the onset of the Colony of Virginia they underwent military drilling and fortified their settlements. However, this practice was soon abandoned and a militia system was adopted. Regular militias consisted of all able males from 16–60 years of age who used their own firearms and served without pay. Training was minimal and occurred once a year, at which point militiamen would have to demonstrate their proficiency with their weapons. In the areas under the greatest threat from Native Americans, the militias would garrison several fortified dwellings, though militiamen usually defended their own homes. From these militias, paid "rangers" were hired to patrol the frontier line and occasionally conduct offensive raids on Native American villages. [29]

With the exception of the raiding expeditions of the French and Indian War, the majority of early colonial campaigns between colonizing powers in North America were fought in order to secure strategic forts. The purpose of nearly all movements against forts was to bring sufficient artillery close enough to breach their walls. As such, any typical attack involved the transport of cannon by a labor force, covered by an escort of troops, which would then be used to secure a compromised fort. [28]

On the American frontier in the United States, experienced Native trackers were employed as auxiliary scouts to gather intelligence on hostile Native Americans' positions and movements. Most Native Americans performed hit-and-run attacks on United States troops and settlers, often with horses. If their camp was discovered, their activities would be disrupted, usually via an early morning surprise assault. Trackers were usually native or mixed-race, though some were white. Indigenous people were often demoralized when they saw other natives working with United States forces. [30]

Native American tribes in west were culturally predisposed to political and military independence. In turn, they struggled to unite against white settlers from the east, and were often distracted from doing so by internal conflicts of their own. Some individual tribes even had trouble uniting among themselves. Still, some managed to form coalitions, such as the alliance between the Sioux, Arapaho, and Cheyenne which dominated the northern region of the Great Plains during the mid-nineteenth century. Regardless, all native peoples were at an economic and industrial disadvantage to the United States. [31]


French conquest of Algeria Defense heroique du capitaine Lelievre a Mazagran by Jean-Adolphe Beauce.jpg
French conquest of Algeria

The first colonial wars in Africa occurred between the Portuguese and various coastal inhabitants as the former sought to expand its trading empire with Asia. In spite of their efforts, the Portuguese conquistadors were only able to establish limited territorial holdings in Sub-Saharan regions, facing tropical disease and organized resistance from Africans armed with iron weapons. They were also greatly outnumbered and encountered difficulty in getting their muskets to function in the humid climate. [32]

In the 1600s and 1700s, other European powers such as the Dutch, the British, and the French began to take interest in Africa as a means to supply slaves to their American colonies. They gradually established their own enclaves along the West African coast where they could actively trade with local rulers. This remained the state of affairs up through the early 1800s, as few Europeans showed interest in claiming large territories in the continent. [33]

The European colonial campaigns in Africa were generally conducted by European forces with support from native troops. [1] While European soldiers were generally more reliable, they were susceptible to diseases in tropical climates that local Africans had adjusted to, making it more optimal (less money had to be spent on medical treatment) for the latter to be deployed in Sub-Saharan environments. As such, European formations were often deployed on the continent for limited periods of time, while native units were used for longer expeditions. [34] The powers concurred that the "African methods of warfare" were "inherently cruel". Such logic was used to justify the commission of atrocities in conflict. [23]

African peoples were relatively disjointed, leading European powers to employ a strategy of divide and rule, aggravate internal tensions, and make use of collaborationism. [12] In response, African leaders sometimes formed coalitions. [35] General Thomas Robert Bugeaud oversaw the first deployment of mobile columns in a colonial war in 1840 when he ordered formations to raid and plunder Arab settlements to aid in the French pacification of Algeria upon realizing that local civilians were playing a key role in the war effort. [36]

By the early 20th century, colonial campaigns in Africa had become increasingly "modern". Colonial powers were forced to commit larger bodies of troops for conquest or to suppress rebellion, as the British had to in the Second Boer War or the Italians did in their conquest of Libya. Some of this was due to the fact that in many —but not all— places the technological gap between European armies and native forces had shrunk considerably, mostly with the proliferation of quick-firing rifles. [37] Most of this change was brought on by the evolution of Africans' tactics and strategy. They had abandoned pitched battles and had instead adopted methods of guerrilla warfare. In this fashion, the Boers (in South Africa), the Herero and Nama (in German South-West Africa), the Moroccans, and the Libyans all enjoyed considerable success against their opponents before their eventual respective defeats. [38]


The First Anglo-Sikh War Battle of ferozeshah(H Martens).jpg
The First Anglo-Sikh War

Asia, like Europe, was home to several powerful empires. Between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries both dramatically increased their commercial activities, especially with one another. However, unlike Europe, Asia's military capabilities developed very little. Most Asian armies were drawn up by local ruling elites from fighting classes of men with whom they had personal ties. They were funded by plunder, rent payments, and taxes. However, payment through taxes was frequently undermined by corrupt individuals in imperial bureaucracies, who would embezzle the funds for personal use. [39]

This changed significantly with the widespread adoption of gunpowder between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, giving rise to renewed imperial power in China and Japan. Cannon capable of breaching fortified walls and ending sieges was the principal weapon. However, once the new artillery was incorporated into imperial forces, there was little incentive to experiment with new military technologies or forms of organization. Any major recruitment overhauls were likely to upset local power structures. [40] With the suppression of nomadic steppe raiders (through the use of muskets) and the relatively limited presence of European merchantmen, there was little external pressure to alter their methods of warfare. [41] The Asian empires also began to experience internal divisions. Competition between local elites over tax revenue burdened populaces, contributing greatly to the collapse of the Mughal Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Population growth also strained farmers and their children, breeding sectarian violence in China in the 1770s. [42]

Meanwhile, European states were frequently warring with one another, and developed new weapons and tactics to maintain military dominance. Drilling allowed for the conscription and recruitment of masses of unskilled men who would be disciplined in the performance of maneuvers. New tax systems made it possible to fund standing armies and ensure soldiers a regular salary. Enhanced power structures solidified the control commanders and political leaders had over their forces, making them effective even when operating far from seats of authority. [41] The Industrial Revolution further increased Europeans' technological capabilities. [42]

Ultimately, Asia's antiquated governments and military establishment were unable to match the Europeans'. [42] European military dominance over Asia would become apparent in India in the eighteenth century and in China and Japan in the nineteenth century. [41]

As in Africa, European colonial ventures in Asia were usually bolstered by native soldiers. [1]

Australia and Oceania

An illustration of native police in Australia during 1865 Native Australian police 1865.jpg
An illustration of native police in Australia during 1865

The Queensland Native Mounted Police Force regularly employed native trackers against Indigenous Australians' communities. The force was disbanded in the 1890s after all of the native populations had been subjugated. [30]

See also


  1. De Moor and Wesseling label this method tache d'huile and translate it to "oil slick". [9] Angstrom and Widen attribute tache d'huile as "oil spot" to French General Thomas Robert Bugeaud's strategy in Algeria whereby colonial forces would gradually expand their conquests from fortified bases. [11]
  2. The warriors of the Zulu Kingdom were an exception to this standard, being well disciplined and capable of precise maneuvers in battle. [13] [14]


  1. 1 2 3 4 Roy 2013, p. 55.
  2. de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 1.
  3. 1 2 de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 2.
  4. Callwell 1906, p. 26.
  5. Callwell 1906, p. 25.
  6. 1 2 Bruce 2009, p. 7.
  7. 1 2 Rid & Keaney 2010, p. 15.
  8. 1 2 3 de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 3.
  9. 1 2 3 4 de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 5.
  10. 1 2 de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 4.
  11. Angstrom & Widen 2014, p. 122.
  12. 1 2 de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 6.
  13. Callwell 1906, p. 30.
  14. Bruce 2009, p. 22.
  15. Killingray & Omissi 1999, pp. vii, 9, 10.
  16. Bruce 2009, p. 8.
  17. Angstrom & Widen 2014, p. 121.
  18. Weller 1942, p. 24.
  19. Killingray & Omissi 1999, p. 9.
  20. Roy 2013, p. 56.
  21. Vandervort 2015, p. 187.
  22. Callwell 1906, p. 40.
  23. 1 2 Kuss 2017, pp. 130–131.
  24. 1 2 Daum, Gardner & Mausbach 2003, p. 36.
  25. Kuss 2017, p. 125.
  26. Kuss 2017, p. 115.
  27. Gallay 2015, Introduction.
  28. 1 2 Hamilton 1968, p. 1.
  29. McCarl 2012.
  30. 1 2 Stapleton 2015, p. 28.
  31. Brinkley 2007, p. 435.
  32. Stapleton 2016, p. xxiii.
  33. Stapleton 2016, p. xxiv.
  34. Kuss 2017, p. 273.
  35. de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 7.
  36. Kuss 2017, p. 129.
  37. Vandervort 2015, p. 185.
  38. Vandervort 2015, p. 186.
  39. de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 13.
  40. de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 14.
  41. 1 2 3 de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 15.
  42. 1 2 3 de Moor & Wesseling 1989, p. 16.

Related Research Articles

The French and Indian Wars is a name used in the United States for a series of conflicts that occurred in North America between 1688 and 1763, some of which indirectly were related to the European dynastic wars. The title French and Indian War in the singular is used in the United States specifically for the warfare of 1754–63. The French and Indian Wars were preceded by the Beaver Wars.

Maxim gun The first self-powered machine gun, invented by Sir Hiram Maxim in 1884

The Maxim gun was a weapon invented by American-born British inventor Hiram Stevens Maxim in 1884: it was the first recoil-operated machine gun in production. It has been called "the weapon most associated with the British imperial conquest", and likewise was used in colonial wars by other countries between 1886 and 1914.

Herero Wars Series of German colonial wars in South West Africa

The Herero Wars were a series of colonial wars between the German Empire and the Herero people of German South West Africa. They took place between 1904 and 1908.

German colonial empire

The German colonial empire constituted the overseas colonies, dependencies and territories of Imperial Germany. Unified in the early 1870's, the chancellor of this time period was Otto von Bismarck. Short-lived attempts of colonization by individual German states had occurred in preceding centuries, but crucial colonial efforts only began in 1884 with the Scramble for Africa. Claiming much of the left-over uncolonized areas in the Scramble for Africa, Germany managed to build the third largest colonial empire at the time, after the British and French.

Herero people ethnic group

The Herero, also known as Ovaherero, are an ethnic group inhabiting parts of Southern Africa. The majority reside in Namibia, with the remainder found in Botswana and Angola. There were an estimated 250,000 Herero people in Namibia in 2013. They speak Otjiherero, a Bantu language.

Lothar von Trotha German general

General Adrian Dietrich Lothar von Trotha was a German military commander during the European new colonial era. As a brigade commander of the East Asian Expedition Corps, he was involved in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion in Imperial China on behalf of the Eight-Nation Alliance. He later served as governor of German South West Africa and Commander in Chief of its colonial forces, in which role he suppressed a native rebellion during the Herero Wars. He was widely condemned for his brutality in the Herero Wars, particularly for his role in the genocide that led to the near-extermination of the Herero.

Military history of Spain

The military history of Spain, from the period of the Carthaginian conquests over the Phoenicians to the current Afghan War spans a period of more than 2200 years, and includes the history of battles fought in the territory of modern Spain, as well as her former and current overseas possessions and territories, and the military history of the people of Spain, regardless of geography.

Colonial troops Military units raised in ir for service in a countrys colonial possessions.

Colonial troops or colonial army refers to various military units recruited from, or used as garrison troops in, colonial territories.

The military history of Europe refers to the history of warfare on the European continent. From the beginning of the modern era to the second half of the 20th century, European militaries possessed a significant technological advantage, allowing its states to pursue policies of expansionism and colonization until the Cold War period. European militaries in between the fifteenth century and the modern period were able to conquer or subjugate almost every other nation in the world. Since the end of the Cold War, the European security environment has been characterized by structural dominance of the United States through its NATO commitments to the defense of Europe, as European states have sought to reap the 'peace dividend' occasioned by the end of the Cold War and reduce defense expenditures. European militaries now mostly undertake power projection missions outside the European continent. Recent military conflicts involving European nations include the 2001 War in Afghanistan, the 2003 War in Iraq, the 2011 NATO Campaign in Libya, and various other engagements in the Balkan and on the African continent. After 2014, the Russian annexation of Crimea and ongoing crisis in Ukraine prompted renewed scholarly interest into European military affairs.

Military history of Africa military history of the African continent

The military history of Africa is one of the oldest military histories in the world. Africa is a continent of many regions with diverse populations speaking hundreds of different languages and practicing an array of cultures and religions. These differences have also been the source of much conflict since a millennia.

Military history of Ethiopia

The military history of Ethiopia dates back to the foundation of early Ethiopian Kingdoms in 980 BC. Ethiopia has been involved many of the major conflicts in the horn of Africa, and was the only native African nation which remained independent after the Scramble for Africa, managing to create a modern army. 19th and 20th century Ethiopian Military history is characterized by conflicts between Ethiopia and Italy, which repeatedly attempted to annex the mineral rich nation, and unite its East African holdings.

Henk Wesseling Dutch historian

Henk Wesseling was a Dutch historian. He was a professor emeritus of contemporary history at Leiden University, former rector of the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study between 1995 and 2002. In 1974, shortly after he was appointed to the chair of European history, Wesseling founded the "Center for the History of European Expansion and Reaction" within the Leiden University history department. It included specialists in China and India, as well as Indonesia, and funding was found to hire young specialists in Atlantic and African and other topics. Colonial history had been defunct for nearly two decades, but Wesseling insisted on its importance in Dutch and European history, although some colleagues remain dubious. The department was custodian of hundreds of kilometers of shelf space devoted to primary sources that were exploited by advanced students. An annual workshop brought in leading scholars and a new specialized journal Itinerario was launched. Wesseling published widely-read studies on imperialism, the partition of Africa, French military, intellectual, and cultural history, and a biography of Charles De Gaulle. As an academic manager, he collaborated in establishing and funding numerous projects such as the European summer schools, an international project for the comparative study of India and Indonesia, and the Transfer of Science and Technology Program.

Racism in Africa is multi-faceted and dates back several centuries. It was originally strengthened by European colonialism, under which boundaries were drawn that did not take into consideration the different peoples dwelling within the newly formed provinces. The boundaries were little changed when former European colonies gained independence. As a consequence, some African nations have been plagued by inner conflicts, prejudiced attitudes and tribal warfare.

Indian auxiliaries Indigenous peoples of the Americas who aligned with the Spanish conquest

Indian auxiliaries or indios auxiliares is the term used in old Spanish chronicles and historical texts for the indigenous peoples who were integrated into the armies of the Spanish conquistadors with the purpose of supporting their advance and combat operations during the Conquest of America. They acted as guides, translators, or porters and in this role were also called yanakuna, particularly within the old Inca Empire and Chile. The term was also used for formations composed of indigenous warriors or Indios amigos, which they used for reconnaissance, combat, and as reserve in battle. The auxiliary Indians remained in use after the conquest, during some revolts, in border zones and permanent military areas, as in Chile in the Arauco War.

African military systems to 1800

African military systems to 1800 refers to the evolution of military systems on the African continent prior to 1800, with emphasis on the role of indigenous states and peoples, whose leaders and fighting forces were born on the continent, with their main military bases, fortifications, and supply sources based on or deriving from the continent, and whose operations were conducted within the continental mass or close to its borders or coasts. Development of the military arts in this framework generally moved from the simple to the more sophisticated as economies and cultures became more elaborate. Areas such as Carthage, Egypt and Nubia are reflected in the antiquarian period. The pre-colonial period also saw a number of military systems- from cavalry empires on the grasslands, to kingdoms in more tropical and forested areas. The emergence of the gunpowder era, alongside developments in indigenous organization and culture, was to spark far-reaching consequences cutting across all regions, with ripple effects in culture, politics and economies.

African military systems (1800–1900)

African military systems (1800–1900) refers to the evolution of military systems on the African continent after 1800, with emphasis on the role of indigenous states and peoples within the African continent. Only major military systems or innovations and their development after 1800 are covered here. For events prior to 1800, see African military systems to 1800. Coverage of the 20th century and beyond is provided in African military systems after 1900. For an overall view of the military history of Africa by region, see Military History of Africa. See individual battles, empires and leaders for details on activities after 1800.

African military systems after 1900 Military History of Africa

As the 20th century began, most of Africa, with the exception of Ethiopia, Somalia and Liberia, was under colonial rule. By the 1980s, most nations were independent. Military systems reflect this evolution in several ways:

The military history of North America can be viewed in a number of phases.

German South West Africa former colony of the German Empire

German South West Africa was a colony of the German Empire from 1884 until 1919. With an area of 835,100 km², it was one and a half times the size of the mainland German Empire in Europe at the time. The colony had a population of around 2,600 Germans.

Pacific Islands home front during World War II

The civilian population, culture and infrastructure of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia were completely changed between 1941 and 1945, due to the logistical requirements of the Allies in their war against Japan. At the start of the war the islands had experienced 200 years of colonialism from Europe and its colonies, some on the verge of being fully annexed, others close to independence. The early Japanese expansion through the western Pacific then introduced a new colonial system to many islands. The Japanese occupation subjected the indigenous people of Guam and other Pacific Islands to forced labor, family separation, incarceration, execution, concentration camps, and forced prostitution, but also created opportunities for advanced education.


Further reading