History books. Pretty much every single history book ever written going back the invention of writing.
A war of succession, or rather a civil war, will be the bloodiest war you can imagine. And at the end, the most bloodthirsty bastard is most likely going to win on the promise of ending the bloodshed via any means necessary (totalitarian dictatorship)
So you haven’t actually read any of those history books, have you?
There is no war of succession that involved the destruction of a state in history, genius - that would defeat the whole point of succession, wouldn’t it?
And nearly every civil war in the history of humanity was fought either over the control of the state or independence from it, nutburger - not the state’s destruction.
So again… do you have any proof of your claims that doesn’t involve Mad Max movies?
Minor correction, the Soviet State destroyed the Provisional Government, which was the successor state to the Tsarist state. By technicality, 2 states were destroyed while one was solidified.
No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!
The State, the organization and apparatus of control.
In a civil war, you must either A, seize control of the State, or B, build your own State and push the old one out.
You obviously don’t know that the Russian Civil War was more of a situation B kind of thing, so by definition a State was destroyed.
And yeah, you can have multiple would be States competing for control, because control is all that matters.
You can either gain control via violence, which can and will fail against a modern State, or via the will of the governed. That second one is only possible via processes seen as legitimate by those governed.
Once one has control of the State, it can be reshaped to suit one’s desires. We’ve all watched it happen half a dozen times over the last decade alone.
What’s your proof of this?
Zombie apocalypse movies?
History books. Pretty much every single history book ever written going back the invention of writing.
A war of succession, or rather a civil war, will be the bloodiest war you can imagine. And at the end, the most bloodthirsty bastard is most likely going to win on the promise of ending the bloodshed via any means necessary (totalitarian dictatorship)
So you haven’t actually read any of those history books, have you?
There is no war of succession that involved the destruction of a state in history, genius - that would defeat the whole point of succession, wouldn’t it?
And nearly every civil war in the history of humanity was fought either over the control of the state or independence from it, nutburger - not the state’s destruction.
So again… do you have any proof of your claims that doesn’t involve Mad Max movies?
A war of succession is a civil war.
Go read the war of the roses. Hell, read up on the Russian Civil War that Lenin started.
Or the Chinese Civil war.
Or read up on what’s happened in any country that’s had its government couped or toppled.
As I said, a history book, any one of them will do if they don’t gloss over shit that the Party doesn’t like.
As for destroying the State, every civil war does that, it’s the first thing to happen, the war is what happens next.
Guess what, Clyde? No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!
The Bolsheviks, quite literally, seized the state! History is amazing, isn’t it?
You have, so far, not managed to prove that you’ve read any, bright spark.
Lol! Do you even have the foggiest idea what it is you are talking about?
Minor correction, the Soviet State destroyed the Provisional Government, which was the successor state to the Tsarist state. By technicality, 2 states were destroyed while one was solidified.
The State, the organization and apparatus of control.
In a civil war, you must either A, seize control of the State, or B, build your own State and push the old one out.
You obviously don’t know that the Russian Civil War was more of a situation B kind of thing, so by definition a State was destroyed.
And yeah, you can have multiple would be States competing for control, because control is all that matters.
You can either gain control via violence, which can and will fail against a modern State, or via the will of the governed. That second one is only possible via processes seen as legitimate by those governed.
Once one has control of the State, it can be reshaped to suit one’s desires. We’ve all watched it happen half a dozen times over the last decade alone.