Any Earth History of 3 v 1?

[Ry Vor]

I'm trying to recall a time where three kingdoms or nations in Earth history coordinated together to attack a neutral country?

I'm wondering, if this is true (not 3 allies retaliating against an aggressor, but three aggressors against a neutral), should we discuss why that would be and perhaps how to stop it from happening in Alamaze?

[Destitute Noble]

I'm trying to recall a time where three kingdoms or nations in Earth history coordinated together to attack a neutral country?

I'm wondering, if this is true (not 3 allies retaliating against an aggressor, but three aggressors against a neutral), should we discuss why that would be and perhaps how to stop it from happening in Alamaze?

The Six Day War in the Middle East...not really a neutral. All in all not a great example, as the "1" struck first...still, a "gang-up" of sorts.

[Ry Vor]

I'm trying to recall a time where three kingdoms or nations in Earth history coordinated together to attack a neutral country?

I'm wondering, if this is true (not 3 allies retaliating against an aggressor, but three aggressors against a neutral), should we discuss why that would be and perhaps how to stop it from happening in Alamaze?

The Seven Day War in the Middle East...not really a neutral.

True. And that one ended in 7 days against the misguided attackers. Any example of a successful 3 v 1?

[Brogan]

I'm trying to recall a time where three kingdoms or nations in Earth history coordinated together to attack a neutral country?

I'm wondering, if this is true (not 3 allies retaliating against an aggressor, but three aggressors against a neutral), should we discuss why that would be and perhaps how to stop it from happening in Alamaze?

Is there ever truly a neutral country? In the real world there are always past transgressions to exact revenge for even if countries wait a generation or two. Generally you would show a casus belli even if you had to fake one up.

There were all kinds of combinations of countries fighting each other during Napolean's time as alliances shifted back and forth. You could probably find a 3 on 1 there without a lot of trouble.

You could consider the war against Afghanistan a 3 on 1 if not greater, I guess they were neutral, just hosting an enemy army inside their borders.

Even in alamaze there is no such thing as a neutral kingdom unless you specifically work out truces to make yourself neutral. A neighbor sitting there that is not a forgone ally is just a future enemy.

Lord Brogan

[Jumpingfist]

I guess if you call Indians at the time separate nations. In 1810 chief Tecumseh was able to get 7 Indian nations to combine together vs the US. They won some battles and even allied with the British during the war of 1812. In the end he died in 1813 and they disbanded basically.

The most obvious is WWII where they had a anti-German coalition. Which was basically all the allies except Russia at first.

[HeadHoncho]

Medieval history is stuffed to the gills with 3-on-1 wars. Just glance at the history of any number of regions with numerous kingdoms (e.g. pre-unification Germany and Italy).

[Ry Vor]

In WWII, Germany was the aggressor and did fight against three nations beginning in 1943 with Russia and the USA and Britain in North Africa and Italy. But the USA and England were also fighting Japan, who likewise was the aggressor and also was fighting China.

HH, maybe you can give a medieval example or two. In terms or wars rather than battles its normally thought of as a series of wars between England and France. the Holy Roman Empire had various skirmishes, but again I would think they would generally be considered the aggressor.

I should have thought of the Napoleonic Wars earlier, at least once in maybe five wars the French fought against Britain, Russia, Prussia. Again it was the one, who was the aggressor against the three.

Likewise if we consider American Indians to be different nations.

I'm still not coming up with three aggressor nations attacking in coordination a defensive single nation.

[kevindusi]

I'm not really coming up with any Earth History of dwarfs or elves attacking anyone, really.

[Brogan]

The first Balkan war 1912 to 1913 pitted the Balkan league (Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, and Bulgaria) against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire lost. I believe the Balkan league were the aggressors.

Lord Brogan

[Lord Thanatos]

In WWII, Germany was the aggressor and did fight against three nations beginning in 1943 with Russia and the USA and Britain in North Africa and Italy. But the USA and England were also fighting Japan, who likewise was the aggressor and also was fighting China.

HH, maybe you can give a medieval example or two. In terms or wars rather than battles its normally thought of as a series of wars between England and France. the Holy Roman Empire had various skirmishes, but again I would think they would generally be considered the aggressor.

I should have thought of the Napoleonic Wars earlier, at least once in maybe five wars the French fought against Britain, Russia, Prussia. Again it was the one, who was the aggressor against the three.

Likewise if we consider American Indians to be different nations.

I'm still not coming up with three aggressor nations attacking in coordination a defensive single nation.

"Wave after wave of Germanic barbarian tribes swept through the Roman Empire. Groups such as the Visigoths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Franks, Ostrogoths, and Lombards took turns ravaging the Empire, eventually carving out areas in which to settle down. The Angles and Saxons populated the British Isles, and the Franks ended up in France.

In 476 C.E. Romulus, the last of the Roman emperors in the west, was overthrown by the Germanic leader Odoacer, who became the first Barbarian to rule in Rome. The order that the Roman Empire had brought to western Europe for 1000 years was no more."

Arguably, the numerous barbarians attacked the once-mighty Roman empire in a coordinated effort. Nevertheless, I think the better argument is that there was only the shared goal of destroying the empire/living free from its rule, not necessarily a high degree of coordination.