Talaharan Civil War: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
'''Constitutional Republicans'''</br>{{nowrap|[[File:Flag of Libya (1977–2011, 3-2).svg|23px]] Constitutional Army}}</br>[[File:Naval Ensign of Libya (1977–2011).svg|23px]] Constitutional Fleet | '''Constitutional Republicans'''</br>{{nowrap|[[File:Flag of Libya (1977–2011, 3-2).svg|23px]] Constitutional Army}}</br>[[File:Naval Ensign of Libya (1977–2011).svg|23px]] Constitutional Fleet | ||
| combatant3 = | | combatant3 = | ||
'''Communards'''</br> | '''Communards'''</br>[[File:Black flag.svg|23px]] [[Talaharan Black Guard Corps|Black Guards]]</br>[[File:Rechlag Uprising's flag.png|23px]] Central Commune Army | ||
| | | commander1 = [[File:Apprentice Boys Derry Flag.svg|23px]] Medur IV N'Zaraba</br>[[File:Apprentice Boys Derry Flag.svg|23px]] Karim Tsabunar | ||
| commander2 = [[File:Flag of Libya (1977–2011, 3-2).svg|23px]] Warmaksan Kabil</br>{{nowrap|[[File:Flag of Libya (1977–2011, 3-2).svg|23px]] Zemrassa Waguten}}</br>[[File:Naval Ensign of Libya (1977–2011).svg|23px]] Ili Kinawa | |||
| commander3 = [[File:Black flag.svg|23px]] [[Ziri Akli]]</br>{{nowrap|[[File:Black flag.svg|23px]] Kahina Markunda}}</br>[[File:Black flag.svg|23px]] Zidan Misibsen</br>[[File:Rechlag Uprising's flag.png|23px]] Baligan Amasen | |||
| units1 = | | units1 = | ||
| units2 = | | units2 = | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
==Historical context== | ==Historical context== | ||
Private industry continued to supersede the assets of the nobility who increasingly relied on them to finance projects and enterprises. On their part, the landowners began to clamour for additional political power while the vast majority of slaves and commoners languished under | ===Structural conditions=== | ||
Private industry continued to supersede the assets of the nobility who increasingly relied on them to finance projects and enterprises. On their part, the landowners began to clamour for additional political power while the vast majority of slaves and commoners languished under exploitative conditions. Despite the attempts of the nobles and the landowners alike to repress the lower classes, improved infrastructure and the geographic mobility demandeded by wage labour expanded the commoners abilities to communicate and mobilizatize. Further unrest and revolts pressured the nobility which ultimately criminalized vagrancy and vagabondism at beginning of the 19th century. | |||
The criminalization of vagabondism led to conflict with the minority of free Kel Hadar who had maintained nomadic pastoralist lifestyles for millennia. The cultural and religious elite, which included a large portion of the military, supported the preservation of the Kel Hadar’s rights to nomadism. Several clashes occurred between the nomads and authorities before the law was amended to carve out an exception for the Kel Hadar. | The criminalization of vagabondism led to conflict with the minority of free Kel Hadar who had maintained nomadic pastoralist lifestyles for millennia. The cultural and religious elite, which included a large portion of the military, supported the preservation of the Kel Hadar’s rights to nomadism. Several clashes occurred between the nomads and authorities before the law was amended to carve out an exception for the Kel Hadar. | ||
| Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
Liberal and revolutionary ideologies had become the dominant discursive forces in the nation among the religious, military, and common classes by 1833. Among all corners of the kingdom, the acceptance of the chiefs’ authority was rapidly waning. The liberal landowning class used their resources to spread their influence and agitate politically for abolishing noble privileges. While the wealthy landowners would be the primary beneficiaries of a new liberal order, their dogma was popular with many commoners as well, particularly those who were sold on narratives of opportunity and class mobility. The revolutionary ideology that was spreading among the peasants built on the theoretical foundations of rebels from the previous ceremony. While the revolutionaries agreed on abolishing privilege, it also sought to recentre the labourer as the core unit of society and redistribute wealth so that the landowners could not buy their own privileges at the expense of the poor. | Liberal and revolutionary ideologies had become the dominant discursive forces in the nation among the religious, military, and common classes by 1833. Among all corners of the kingdom, the acceptance of the chiefs’ authority was rapidly waning. The liberal landowning class used their resources to spread their influence and agitate politically for abolishing noble privileges. While the wealthy landowners would be the primary beneficiaries of a new liberal order, their dogma was popular with many commoners as well, particularly those who were sold on narratives of opportunity and class mobility. The revolutionary ideology that was spreading among the peasants built on the theoretical foundations of rebels from the previous ceremony. While the revolutionaries agreed on abolishing privilege, it also sought to recentre the labourer as the core unit of society and redistribute wealth so that the landowners could not buy their own privileges at the expense of the poor. | ||
== | ===Ideologies=== | ||
[[File:Abd el-Kader by Stanislaw Chlebowski.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Portrait of Mass Ziri Akli]] | [[File:Abd el-Kader by Stanislaw Chlebowski.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Portrait of Mass Ziri Akli]] | ||
=== | ====Talaharan traditionalism==== | ||
== | ====Liberalism==== | ||
===Overthrow of the Assembly of Chiefs=== | ====Social mutualism==== | ||
==Conflict== | |||
===Republican overtures=== | |||
====Overthrow of the Assembly of Chiefs==== | |||
====Rušadar campaign==== | |||
===Rise of the Central Commune=== | ===Rise of the Central Commune=== | ||
===Aftermath== | ====Siege of Maktarim==== | ||
==Aftermath== | |||
==Legacy== | ==Legacy== | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
[[Category:Ajax]] | [[Category:Ajax]] | ||
Revision as of 17:04, 5 March 2022
 | This article is incomplete because it is pending further input from participants, or it is a work-in-progress by one author. Please comment on this article's talk page to share your input, comments and questions. Note: To contribute to this article, you may need to seek help from the author(s) of this page. |
| Talaharan Revolution | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 The Burning of Rušadar | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Belligerents | ||||||||
Monarchists Royal Talaharan ArmyForeign mercenaries |
Constitutional Republicans File:Flag of Libya (1977–2011, 3-2).svg Constitutional Army .svg){kind=small} Constitutional Fleet |
Communards Black Guards Central Commune Army | ||||||
| Commanders and leaders | ||||||||
|
Medur IV N'Zaraba Karim Tsabunar |
File:Flag of Libya (1977–2011, 3-2).svg Warmaksan Kabil File:Flag of Libya (1977–2011, 3-2).svg Zemrassa Waguten Ili Kinawa |
Ziri Akli Kahina Markunda Zidan Misibsen Baligan Amasen | ||||||
The Talaharan Revolution was a conflict that erupted in 1834 between three factions in Talahara. The conflict began with the overthrow of the ruling class of the Third Talaharan Kingdom by the Constitutional Republicans, a group of wealthy independent liberals. The conflict rapidly evolved to include the Communards; a nascent movement of commoners and slaves demanding an upheaval of the social and economic order. The Communards ultimately defeated both the Constitutional Republicans and the monarchist remnants after four years of war.
The new Talaharan Commune was a radical state in its region and the Revolution left a lasting legacy on the world. To Talahara's immediate east, popular unrest would result in a syndicalist revolution within the century. In the future, writers including Arthurista's Werner, Jhengtsang's Tsenpo, and Tsurushima's Kitakami Yukichi drew on the theory and lessons of the Revolution and its core thinkers as well.
Historical context
Structural conditions
Private industry continued to supersede the assets of the nobility who increasingly relied on them to finance projects and enterprises. On their part, the landowners began to clamour for additional political power while the vast majority of slaves and commoners languished under exploitative conditions. Despite the attempts of the nobles and the landowners alike to repress the lower classes, improved infrastructure and the geographic mobility demandeded by wage labour expanded the commoners abilities to communicate and mobilizatize. Further unrest and revolts pressured the nobility which ultimately criminalized vagrancy and vagabondism at beginning of the 19th century.
The criminalization of vagabondism led to conflict with the minority of free Kel Hadar who had maintained nomadic pastoralist lifestyles for millennia. The cultural and religious elite, which included a large portion of the military, supported the preservation of the Kel Hadar’s rights to nomadism. Several clashes occurred between the nomads and authorities before the law was amended to carve out an exception for the Kel Hadar.
The results of the carve-outs for the Kel Hadar nomads had two major effects. The first effect was mass protests among the Kel Aman (nobles, landowners, and commoners alike) who begrudged unequal treatment in contrast to developing concepts of universal rights. The second effect was that many otherwise repressed Kel Hadar adopted nomadic lifestyles ostensibly as covers for fomenting unrest and revolutionary sentiment. Over the ensuing decades, violent outbursts and independent repression by landowners spread as the Assembly of Chiefs began to lose its grip over the state.
Liberal and revolutionary ideologies had become the dominant discursive forces in the nation among the religious, military, and common classes by 1833. Among all corners of the kingdom, the acceptance of the chiefs’ authority was rapidly waning. The liberal landowning class used their resources to spread their influence and agitate politically for abolishing noble privileges. While the wealthy landowners would be the primary beneficiaries of a new liberal order, their dogma was popular with many commoners as well, particularly those who were sold on narratives of opportunity and class mobility. The revolutionary ideology that was spreading among the peasants built on the theoretical foundations of rebels from the previous ceremony. While the revolutionaries agreed on abolishing privilege, it also sought to recentre the labourer as the core unit of society and redistribute wealth so that the landowners could not buy their own privileges at the expense of the poor.
.svg){kind=link}