Revolution vs. civil war

[Johnny L.A.]

Is there a meaningful difference between a revolution and a civil war?

I vaguely think that a revolution is a war to overthrow a government and set up a new one -- in the same territory as the old regime. But a civil war seems to have similar goals, in as much as the prevailing side in a civil war might take over (or retain) an entire country. Also, the American Revolution did not seek to overthrow England -- as in setting up an American government in England -- but to break away and become autonomous. This seems to be the same as the Confederacy in the American Civil War.

[etv78]

Revolution implies an outside government is being overthrown.

[Johnny L.A.]

What about the French Revolution?

[Little Nemo]

Revolution implies an outside government is being overthrown.That's rarely true. Most revolutions are considered to be internal.

A revolution is basically where one side is attempting to change the form of government rather than just changing the regime that heads the government.

[Apollo]

A revolution is the complete overthrow and replacement of an “ancien regime” be they political or ideological whilst a civil war is a conflict between factions over the existing power structure.

[Cheshire Human]

While it's going on, outsiders call it a civil war. After it's over, the winner calls it whatever they called it while it was going on.

[friedo]

It's only a revolution when the revolutionaries win.

[Mops]

Revolution without civil war: successful attempt to topple the present structure of government.
Revolution with civil war: attempt at the same, succeeding or failing after a drawn-out major violent internal conflict.
Civil war without revolution: drawn-out major violent internal conflict over other issues.

[Colibri]

A revolution is the complete overthrow and replacement of an “ancien regime” be they political or ideological whilst a civil war is a conflict between factions over the existing power structure.

I think this is close to the most basic distinction. A revolution implies an attempt to change the basic system of government, whether democratic vs monarchic or dictatorial, communist vs capitalist, or the eviction of a colonial regime.

In a civil war, however, the conflict is between two factions which aspire to control an existing governmental structure rather than replace it entirely. It can involve two sides which both want to control the entire national territory; or a secessionist movement which wants to be independent of the central government.

Revolution implies an outside government is being overthrown.

Only in the case of colonial rebellions.

[Mijin]

My WAG is that "revolution" is the name given to a civil war in retrospect by the (overthrowing) victors.

I mean, how many revolutions are in progress right now?

(And I see since drafting this that wiki also suggests that the label "revolution" is only given after the fact, if it has been successful)

[Alessan]

If Charles II hadn't been restored to the throne, the English Civil War would be known today as the English Revolution.

[Little Nemo]

My WAG is that "revolution" is the name given to a civil war in retrospect by the (overthrowing) victors.Not necessarily. In many cases the victors want to invoke legitimacy by claiming that they're the representatives of the old traditions - it was the guys they kicked out who were the usurpers.

The Confederates, for example, didn't consider themselves as revolutionaries. They felt they were upholding the traditional values of Washington and Jefferson and Madison.

[Deeg]

It's only a revolution when the revolutionaries win.
I dunno if it's official, but this is what I've always thought. In a revolution, the rebels win, in a civil war, they lose.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I never heard of a revolution that failed

A revolt perhaps.

[Crafter_Man]

One of my pet peeves is when someone calls the U.S. war with Britain from 1775 to 1783 the "Revolutionary War." I do not think this is accurate. It was not a revolution; they simply wanted independence from GB. I think a better term is War of Independence.

[barbitu8]

The CSA contended that they were applying their rights that the American Colonies used: People have the right to secede when they are being oppressed by the existing government. The Confederates believed they were seceding the same way the Colonies seceded. "Johny Reb" was the moniker both sides used. If the Colonies lost, it would have been an attempted secession and not a revolution. As others have said, if you win it's a "revolution"; if you lose, it was an attempted secession.

[Zoe]

But secession is not always the issue. Sometimes a group of rebels want to change the government rather than secede from it.

[Colibri]

As others have said, if you win it's a "revolution"; if you lose, it was an attempted secession.

If you lose, it can also be a rebellion, revolt, or uprising.

[Johnny L.A.]

Sire! The peasants are revolting!

[Colibri]

Aside from history being written by the victors, fundamental political changes can't actually be realized unless the ones seeking the changes are successful. So rebellion often can't be declared to be a revolution until after the rebels are in power and have changed the system.

[SanVito]

One of my pet peeves is when someone calls the U.S. war with Britain from 1775 to 1783 the "Revolutionary War." I do not think this is accurate. It was not a revolution; they simply wanted independence from GB. I think a better term is War of Independence.

I agree. In fact, growing up in the 70s/80s, I was taught about the 'American War of Independence'. This was in the UK.

[Alessan]

Sire! The peasants are revolting!

You said it! They stink on ice!

[barbitu8]

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (Preamble to the Declaration of Independence)

Based on this, the CSA averred that their right to secede was based on the same grounds that the Colonies seceded; i.e., separated from the existing government to form their own government. If the South were victorious, it would've been America's second revolution, which is the way many in the South refer to it. So, call it a "revolution" or "civil war" it is, as the Brits say, a war of independence.

BTW, many in the South refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression. :)

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally posted by Ovid

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

The classic difference between a 'rebellion' and a 'revolution' is who got hanged when it was over and done.

[Deeg]

One of my pet peeves is when someone calls the U.S. war with Britain from 1775 to 1783 the "Revolutionary War." I do not think this is accurate. It was not a revolution; they simply wanted independence from GB. I think a better term is War of Independence.
I'm going to disagree some. There were some revolutionary ideas that come out of the US revolution, largely related to self-governance. The US Constitution was the first time that the citizens of a country voted for/against the form of government proposed.
The CSA contended that they were applying their rights that the American Colonies used: People have the right to secede when they are being oppressed by the existing government.
The difference, however, is that the American colonies did not have direct representation in the government. The Southern states did.