We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
The question is based on this line from the book "Cataclysm 90BC" by Matyszak. He says ,
" this book is a study of some very odd events, of nations so desperate to give up their independence they fought a war against a state that refused to take it; of the Roman Republic losing that war, itself a rarity, then winning by giving their enemies exactly what they wanted. So the only instance in history of the opposite of a war of independence, was also one of the few cases where surrender brought victory to the losing side."
I have discussed this with friends and we were unable to come up with any other example. So was the Social War the only instance of a subject nation fighting to be fully integrated into the existing political system (without the goal of destroying said political system,) a sort of "reverse" war of independence to paraphrase the author?
Many of the Germanic tribes fought the Roman Empire to integrate in the Empire as foederati or settle inside Roman territory.
A notable example would be the Gothic War (376 -382). After being displaced by the Huns and seeking protection, the Goths revolted in the process of land allocation when running out of supplies (being forced to sell their children into slavery) and fearing dispersion. After the Roman defeat of Adrianople, which led to the death of Emperor Valens, an eventual peace allowed the Goths to formally settle and incorporate into the Empire without dispersing their population.
Further germanic migrations consistently sought out lands and titles for themselves, but often operated (sometimes only nominally) within the framework of the Empire. For instance, Odoacer, after deposing the last Emperor in the west in 476 gained the title of patrician and the legal right to rule Italy by the remaining eastern Emperor Zeno. His peoples settled in Italy and ruled nominally under the imperial overlordship of Zeno (with Zeno eventually sponsoring his rival and successor Theodoric the Great).
During the Ming dynasty, there were at least two major armed conflicts between China and its northern neighbours (Oirats and Mongols) because the Ming dynasty wanted to restrict the frequency and size of tribute missions, or refused to allow tribute missions at all. I am referrjng to the Tumu crisis of 1449 and Altan Khan's attack towards Beijing in 1550.
From the point of view of the Mongols, paying tribute to China was politically more or less meaningless and the tribute itself was merely of symbolic, not monetary, value. Paying tribute was more a method to go on an all-inclusive vacation in China, with all expenses being covered by the Chonese side and also getting nice presents in return.
So this fits your question only in name, or only from the point of view of the Ming dynasty.
The German Revolution of 1848-1849 can be viewed as a war between the liberal nationalists and the established states where the liberal nationalists ultimately offered all of the German Confederation to Prussia. It wasn't so much that they were thrilled with Prussia as that it was the only way of achieving their ends, but it's also not like the Italians of the 90s BC were all that thrilled with the Romans, either--it was a way of achieving their ends.
Of course, the end was very different--Friedrich Wilhelm IV refused "the crown from the gutter"--which was easy to do since by this time (April 1849) the individual German states had the upper hand against the revolution--and the German Confederation limped forward for another couple of decades until (the then deceased) Friedrich Wilhelm's younger brother Wilhelm I became German Emperor on what he described as "the saddest day of my life"… saddest because it meant the death of Prussia as a fully sovereign state.