Example of country being invaded small battle by small battle

[Ashles]

Can any history buffs think of an example of a country that was invaded bit by bit?

For example there were skirmishes and individual towns were taken over but the central government didn't take the threat seriously enough (or for whatever reason couldn't) until more had been taken over than they thought, and it was too late?

I am wondering if any such situations occurred say, for example, with African Warlords taking over countries.

I am interested in examples from an era.
Even just a link will do.

Thank you. My history is pretty bad in general and it's a such a generalised thing to look up. Even pointers will be helpful.

[Piscivore]

Can any history buffs think of an example of a country that was invaded bit by bit?

For example there were skirmishes and individual towns were taken over but the central government didn't take the threat seriously enough (or for whatever reason couldn't) until more had been taken over than they thought, and it was too late?

I am wondering if any such situations occurred say, for example, with African Warlords taking over countries.

I am interested in examples from an era.
Even just a link will do.

Thank you. My history is pretty bad in general and it's a such a generalised thing to look up. Even pointers will be helpful.

European invasion of North America?

[theprestige]

I don't know if this counts, but the Brazilian oligarchy of the late 19th-early 20th century was brought to an end after a series of failed revolutions in the 20s, followed by a successful revolution in 1930.

Perhaps the Brazilian oligarchs could have retained power longer if they'd dealt more decisively with the early revolts?

[Ashles]

European invasion of North America?
There wasn't a centralised government or system in place beforehand though to repel the threat.

I was looking for a situation in which, had the government (or whoever was ruling the country) acted in harmony early enough and marshalled resistance (instead of perhaps assuming the skirmishes were of no real overall threat) they could have repelled the invasion/takeover.

Admittedly I didn't put that it my first post. :)

[Ashles]

I don't know if this counts, but the Brazilian oligarchy of the late 19th-early 20th century was brought to an end after a series of failed revolutions in the 20s, followed by a successful revolution in 1930.

Perhaps the Brazilian oligarchs could have retained power longer if they'd dealt more decisively with the early revolts?
Will check that out, thanks.

[theprestige]

What about the Nazi conquest of Europe? It started with successive invasions of Austria and Chechoslovakia (not to mention military buildup in the Rhineland neutral zone even before that), but did not draw military opposition from neighboring countries until after the invasion of Poland.

[madurobob]

How about Mexico? Didn't they lose most of their country to westward marching settlers who took it little by little until they had enough of a population to have an outright war for independence?

[MG1962]

I don't know if this counts, but the Brazilian oligarchy of the late 19th-early 20th century was brought to an end after a series of failed revolutions in the 20s, followed by a successful revolution in 1930.

Perhaps the Brazilian oligarchs could have retained power longer if they'd dealt more decisively with the early revolts?

Actually the whole of South America from the 1870's can be characterised this way. Bolivia in particular lost something like 9 wars, conceeding a little land after each loss.

The beginings of WW2 are similar. Small chunks became progressively bigger till the world blinked and the third reich was in business

[Akhenaten]

Does this fit the scenario?


http://mstecker.com/pages/egypthist_fp.htm
The Late Period (1085-322BC)

The Twenty-First Dynasty was established by successors of Herihor and Smendes who continued to rule Upper and Lower Egypt separately from Thebes and Tanis. But by this period external threats from Libyan invaders and others were eroding Egypt's power. The Tanites in the north (lower Egypt) were driven from power by Libyan warriors who established their own Twenty-Second Dynasty. Upper Egypt held out longer against Nubian invaders until being overrun by the armies of their ruler Piankhi all the way to Memphis. Piankhi's brother Shabaka marched north to conquer the Delta and reunite Upper and Lower Egypt under the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty of Nubian Kings (747-656BC). The Twenty-Fifth Dynasty ended when Assyrian armies captured Memphis and attacked Thebes, driving the Nubian pharaoh Tanutamun back to Nubia. The Assyrians found a willing Egyptian collaborator in the form of a prince from the Delta. Psammetichus I governed on behalf of the Assyrians until they were forced to withdraw their forces to wage war against the Persian Empire. On the departure of the Assyrians, Psammetichus I declared himself pharaoh and established the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, ruling over a re-united Egypt from his capital at Sais in the Delta. This was to be the last great Pharaonic age which witnessed the revival of majestic art and architecture and the introduction of new technologies. Gradually, though, the power of the kingdom was eroded through invasion. The Persians first invaded Egypt in 525BC, initiating a period of foreign domination of the country which lasted until 1952. The conquering Persians established the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty (525-404BC) which ruled Egypt with an iron hand. The Persians, under the emperors Cambyses and Darius, completed a canal connecting the Nile with the Red Sea which had been started by the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty king Necho II. They also constructed temples and a new city on the site of what is now called Old Cairo. This was called Babylon in Egypt. The harshness of Persian rule resulted in revolts, which led to the Twenty-Eighth dynasty of the Egyptian ruler Amyrtaeus. The Egyptian kings of succeeding dynasties were under continual attack by Persians until the Thirtieth and final Pharaonic dynasty was overthrown by Artaxerxes III, remaining under Persian domination until the arrival of Alexander the Great in 332BC. This ended the 30 pharaonic dynasties.


Sorry about the big slab of text, but it's the original formatting.

[Mark6]

For example there were skirmishes and individual towns were taken over but the central government didn't take the threat seriously enough (or for whatever reason couldn't) until more had been taken over than they thought, and it was too late?

If you want the invader (as well as invaded) to be a single coherent entity, then I do not think what you asked for ever happened. OTOH, if "chewed up piece by piece by many different invaders and rebellions" is acceptable, then Western Roman Empire died more or less that way. Emperors were more concerned with rivals for the throne than with distant provinces... until barbarians got to Italy.

[Pope130]

Perhaps the fall of the Islamic Empire would fit this. At one time all of the Middle East, Asia Minor, North Africa and a big chunk of Europe. Lost piece by piece, and finally broken up with the end of the Ottoman's.

[arthwollipot]

I think the Roman empire fell comparatively slowly, but I'd have to check my Gibbon.

[IMST]

Roman Empire jumped to my mind as well for this one.

[arthwollipot]

But did you check your Gibbon?

[Tolls]

But did you check your Gibbon?

I checked mine, but all he did was "WHOOP"...

(Badoom-TISH)

[RobRoy]

France at the beginning of the Hundred Years War (the Edwardian War) lost itself, bit by bit, especially after the capture of King Jean during the battle or Poitiers. But they did take the threat seriously, and moved to check it. They suffered a multitude of problems, not the least of which was their lack of military organization with the nobles acting almost completely independent in many cases. Following Poitiers, English and Navarrese "brigands" were able to secure castles, fortresses and large tracts of land, rendering the countryside completely unstable and setting the stage for the Jacquerie (Peasant) Rebellion.

Along those same lines, England (which was made up of multiple kingdoms at the time) was overrun by the Danish invaders in the late 9th century a peice at a time, before Alfred began to consolidate power and assert his authority. But again, this wasn't due to lack of opposition or taking the threat seriously.

[oggiesnr]

Possibly South Vietnam?

The problem with most of the earlier examples (Roman, Ottoman Empires for example) Is their expansion was made against tribal entities rather than nation states and their demise happened as a result of atrophy from the centre and the new kids on the block taking advantage. The Roman Empire of course found the ultimate solution by abandoning Rome and moving eastward to Byzantium (Constantonple).

The fall of Hitler, Napoleon and the English in France is again different as this was the result of the failure of wars of aggression as much as anything else.

Steve

[geni]

Bit by bit conquests are not uncommon. The reconquista. Potentialy the east india company's takeover of india. The fall of the Papal States. Nam Tiến would probably qualify.

Your problem is bit by bit conquest where the state being taken over doesn't react. At the very least you would expect an ambitious learder to from time to time try to retake old teritories.

These days you do get a simular process but generaly done through demographic shifts (Kosovo is the classic example).

[Soapy Sam]

The successive immigrations of "anglo-Saxons", Jutes, Scots etc., into Britain from about 300AD .

[NobbyNobbs]

Not exactly an invasion, as such, but Israel has lost the West Bank and the Gaza strip....

[gumboot]

Just thinking, another example would be the British settlement of New Zealand. Although there were a number of Land Wars, by and large the Maori didn't really appreciate the significance of what was happening. Not only did they not try stop it, but they actually often actively encouraged it, not realising what was actually happening (they had a very different understanding of land ownership).

I agree also on the point of the Roman Empire. Your issues with that example don't seem to really gel because they're specifics you didn't mention in the OP, and I am not sure I agree with some of them - for example most of the territory conquered by the Romans most certainly was the territory of well-established states. As well as the obvious ones like the Greek States, Egypt, Carthage, and so forth, the "tribal" areas were not as "tribal" as you might thing. During Caesar's Gallic wars, for example, he destroyed about 800 cities. Alesia, as example, had a population of about 40,000. For comparison, the very largest Ancient Greek cities only had a population of about 30,000 and the estimated population of the entire territory of Athens (Attica) was only about 250,000.

[charles brough]

The whole Ancient Roman Empire was a long series of conquests in which each was thought of only as a first strike against an enemy who they imagined was a threat to them.

I think the best example is how Israel has managed to take land from Muslim Islam one step at a time over more than a half century.

The US conquest of the West was a long series of wars with American Indians.

Feudal Japan was united in a long series of wars, one war lord at a time I think.

seems to me history is full of examples. That is how empires are built.

International corporate business is doing it now. It has used a treaty process to dominate the economy of every nation that ratifies it. Does that count?

[GreNME]

Does this fit the scenario?


http://mstecker.com/pages/egypthist_fp.htm



Sorry about the big slab of text, but it's the original formatting.

That would absolutely qualify, as would the gradual Hyksos domination nearly a millennium prior to that.

[Diagoras]

Would the Byzantine Empire count?

[miner74]

I think a good example would be the Americans taking over texas, then finally revolting in 1836, and after 10 years of independence joining the U.S.

[moon1969]

Didn"t Joseph Stalin try to do that to Finland in 1939? The Winter War? :mad:

[Damien Evans]

Didn"t Joseph Stalin try to do that to Finland in 1939? The Winter War? :mad:

No. Go Away.

[Ashles]

Belatedly, thank you for all the responses in this thread.

[RobRoy]

Belatedly, thank you for all the responses in this thread.

Out of curiosity only, was this information used for good, or evil?

[Comsat Angel]

Would the Revolt of the Spanish Netherlands count?

IIRC, the revolt was successful and the Spanish response was verrry slow, constrained by tactics and siege warfare - they only managed to get back what is now Belgium.

[ddt]

Would the Revolt of the Spanish Netherlands count?

IIRC, the revolt was successful and the Spanish response was verrry slow, constrained by tactics and siege warfare - they only managed to get back what is now Belgium.

And don't forget by the Spanish regularly not being able to pay their troops. Actually, the Dutch Revolt would be an example in both directions.

In 1576, the "rebels" controlled pretty much the whole of the Low Countries, having put Matthias on the seat of representative of the Spanish Crown - and Matthias pretty much did what William of Orange suggested him to.

Then Parma came in, closed a pact with the southermost counties (the Union of Arras) in 1579, and set out to reconquer the whole lot. By 1588, he had pretty much reconquered everything except Holland, Utrecht and a bit of Frisia. This was caused in no small part by the divisiveness within the ranks of the Dutch. Counties, towns, nobles, and calvinists all had their own gripes against the Spanish, and those didn't mesh all of the times; in fact, most of the time not.

After that, the initiative was on the side of the Republic. Until the 12-year Truce, which started 1609, Prince Maurice reconquered, city by city, everything north of the Rhine, and after the Truce, his brother Frederick Henry more or less the rest of what is now the Netherlands. If Spain had put their best effort against the Republic, they might have squashed it, despite the military genius of Maurice and Frederick Henry. But Spain wanted to wage war against everyone: eternal enemy France, against protestant England, and wanted to play its part in the German 30-years war too.

[ddt]

Another example would be Poland in the late 18th Century. Its neighbours - Russia, Prussia and Austria - decided to take large chunks out of Poland in 1772, in 1792 and in 1795, after which Poland had disappeared from the map.

Polish politics was heavily divided, all nobles including the King constantly being bribed by the one or the other. Effective policy was impossible, as every noble could cast a veto in the Sejm, the Polish parliament.

[9/11-investigator]

Can any history buffs think of an example of a country that was invaded bit by bit?

Sure, no problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/290306ethniccleansing.htm

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Absolut_Mexico_Original.jpg

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2006/290306flag.jpg

Anti Lou Dobbs propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgpWCQTvXo

Save you breath Lou, America is the last European colony after Rhodesia and South-Africa to fall. Can't be stopped. Come back to the heartland.

The organizers (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf) of this tragedy have won.


http://www.coverups.com/JFKphotos/jfk2.jpeg

===> (http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/mossadandtheassassination.htm)

http://cbertel.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/johnson-inaugural.jpg

===>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

===>

http://amightywind.com/images/rip_america.jpg

===>

http://e.static.blip.tv/TheUptake-TheEndOfAmerica723.jpg

[Kaylee]

I think the best example is how Israel has managed to take land from Muslim Islam one step at a time over more than a half century.

AFAIK, the land was originally under the control of the Ottoman Empire -- the same as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc.

So there is no more reason to point to Israel as an example for the OP than any of the other countries.

[Kaylee]

European invasion of North America?

There wasn't a centralised government or system in place beforehand though to repel the threat.


Hmmm. Why exclude the Iroquois Confederacy, Cherokee Nation and the alliance led by Tecumseh?

These Indian nations made alliances with the French, British and Americans during the various wars that took place in the 1700 and 1800s.

The founding fathers modeled some aspects of the American govt on the Iroquois Confederacy -- so there was a system in place.

The Apaches were powerful enough that Geronimo was able to lead a war against Mexico and the USA for about 20 years.

If Hollywood movies are half right ;), there's a long record of broken treaties that would satisfy your requirement in the OP also.

[The Fool]

Sure, no problem.


Thanks for the offer but I think he was after history buffs, not buffoons.

[arthwollipot]

In the words of Dr. Stephen Novella, that's a great example of the logical fallacy known as Making Up ************ and Pulling It Out Of Your Ass.

[Ashles]

Sure, no problem.


Thank you 9/11 for adding nothing to the thread.

[9/11-investigator]

Thank you 9/11 for adding nothing to the thread.

You're welcome. The contribution was on topic and to the point. Unfortunately, you are in denial.

[Ysidro]

In the words of Dr. Stephen Novella, that's a great example of the logical fallacy known as Making Up ************ and Pulling It Out Of Your Ass.

Also known as Argumentum ad Vodka Ad.

[Eddie Dane]

But did you check your Gibbon?

I tried to check my Gibbon, but I dropped it and it went straight through the floor.

I'm torn between getting it hoisted out of the basement or buying a paperback version.

[H3LL]

According to the excellent series A history of Scotland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00fgq72) the conquest of the Picts by the Gaels and the formation of Scotland almost exactly fits the OP scenario.

The Picts effectively faded away. Integrated into oblivion after many small (and not so small) battles.

This is, of course assuming the programme reflects good history and that most commonly accepted Scottish history is more myth than fact, as they posit.


.

[Marduk]

There wasn't a centralised government or system in place beforehand though to repel the threat.

I was looking for a situation in which, had the government (or whoever was ruling the country) acted in harmony early enough and marshalled resistance (instead of perhaps assuming the skirmishes were of no real overall threat) they could have repelled the invasion/takeover.

Admittedly I didn't put that it my first post. :)

you are describing what happened in Rhodesia quite well,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe#Independence_.281980.E2.80.931999.29
but when this happens its not usually regarded as a takeover unless the group taking over is obviously very corrupt and brutal. It is regarded as Independance.

the same situation has occurred in a number of other African nations
;)