What is the longest war in history?

Peloponnesian War, start date 431BC, end date 1994AD.

However the longest active war(that I can think of) is the Arauco war(1536) and didn't end till the occupation of the Araucania region(1861–1883)

Peloponnesian War, start date 431BC, end date 1994AD.


No, what I mean is the longest war in history that ended in a surrender of either side of the war. I mean, how can the Peloponesian War end if the city-states of Athens & Sparta were obliterated at the time of Alexander or the Romans. I have never heard of any conflict from the surrender of Athens onwards.

Yeah, I'd like to know that too. One recalls the Hundred Year War, would that qualify by your definition? I'm just asking. Could a "series" of wars like the Punic Wars be considered one war with pauses? Again, just asking. I'm not too clear on military history myself.

I'd say the 100 years war, but it's actually a collection of wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War

With that criteria, you could say the Crusades are one big 200 years war.

And if you run with that you could say the rise of the Islamic Caliphate and the Crusades are one big 600 years war. ;)

And while we're at it, England and France hated each other from 1066 to 1914, the Hunderd Year's War was just a period of heightened intensity within that time.

And while we're at it, England and France hated each other from 1066 to 1914, the Hunderd Year's War was just a period of heightened intensity within that time.

Only till 1914? French-hating is a national sport of the English!

Im not sure whether the French hate Englishmen or Germans more.

I'd guess the Thirty Years War (1618 CE) seriously, since peace was interrupted by foreign interventions prolonging the fighting. Any longer wars?

I'd guess the Thirty Years War (1618 CE) seriously, since peace was interrupted by foreign interventions prolonging the fighting. Any longer wars?
That one was actually temporarily interrupted too, between the end of the Danish intervention and the landing of Gustav Adolf, IIRC. :mischief:

Ok, so about maybe a 1-1/2 year interruption. Though perhaps the German princes made angry glances at each other during that peace?

Yeah, I'd like to know that too. One recalls the Hundred Year War, would that qualify by your definition? I'm just asking. Could a "series" of wars like the Punic Wars be considered one war with pauses? Again, just asking. I'm not too clear on military history myself.

I'd say the 100 years war, but it's actually a collection of wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War

With that criteria, you could say the Crusades are one big 200 years war.

And if you run with that you could say the rise of the Islamic Caliphate and the Crusades are one big 600 years war. ;)

Yes, I think that the Hundred Year's War is the longest war in history. The Crusades were just battles.

Ok, so about maybe a 1-1/2 year interruption. Though perhaps the German princes made angry glances at each other during that peace?
They certainly did. I suppose you could fudge and claim that the Stralsund episode brought Sweden into a state of war with the Habsburgs before the Danish intervention ended, which combined with the apex of the centralization struggles (i.e. the imposition of the Edict of Restitution) would keep the Thirty Years' War constant. Still seems a bit iffy to me, to be honest.

Are you looking for one long conflict without periods of intervening peace (by treaty or just extended lack of hostilities), a long series of conflicts (like the Hundred Year's War), or a strange case where places were nominally at war but actually peaceful or even allied.

The Arauco War is likely a major candidate for the first two categories. I believe it did have numerous periods of at least nominal peace, but even if that is the case, there may be long enough periods of sustained warfare to claim both titles.

Arauco War wins. If you want one long continuous war with no breaks at all, maybe the Peloponnesian. Technically there was a treaty signed, but neither side obeyed it. Can't thik of any more off the top of my head, even the Thirty Year War had a break, as Dachs mentioned. Though Montenegro only made peace with Japan a few years ago, and North and South Korea are still at war, if you want technicalities.

Yes, I think that the Hundred Year's War is the longest war in history. The Crusades were just battles.

No: your quote explains how the 100 Yrs War is a series of wars; the Crusades were campaigns, not wars. (Although war was fought.)

So, it's the 80 Years War (it had a 12 Year Armistice and then the conflict continued), which established both the independence of the Dutch United Provinces from the Spanish empire and the Republic as a world power in the 17th century. (Whence it's called their Golden Age.) Coincidentally, the peace treaty also concluded the Thirty Years War - in which the Netherlands played also a, minor, part - with the Treaty of Munster. (As also mentioned, the 30 Years War also was a series of conflicts.)

I read somewhere that the Netherlands declared war on some small British Isle a long time ago, and only technically ended that war a few years ago. However, I have no idea which British Isle it was, when exactly the war started, or for what reason.

War between humans and Neanderthals. I'm pretty sure that lasts for couple thousands of years :king::mischief:

The Great Turkish War easily lasted longer than the Thirty Years War.

The Great Turkish War easily lasted longer than the Thirty Years War.
Yeah, you're right - thirty-six years from Doroshenko to Karlowitz. Is that longer than both of the phases of the Dutch Revolt?

The Great Turkish War easily lasted longer than the Thirty Years War.
Maybe I just know a different name, but I don't know to what that refers. Google directs me to Russo-Turkish Wars, and I know none of them went that long.

Maybe I just know a different name, but I don't know to what that refers. Google directs me to Russo-Turkish Wars, and I know none of them went that long.
1663-1699. Began over the issue of Cossacks in the Ukraine and spread from there into Hungary and Transylvania. Included Siege of Vienna and subsequent Battle, and then the wider War of the Holy League which involved rolling back the Turks in Hungary. Ended with the Peace of Karlowitz in 1699.

1663-1699. Began over the issue of Cossacks in the Ukraine and spread from there into Hungary and Transylvania. Included Siege of Vienna and subsequent Battle, and then the wider War of the Holy League which involved rolling back the Turks in Hungary. Ended with the Peace of Karlowitz in 1699.
Ah, yes I know that one. Didn't realise it had anything to do with Cossacks though.

Ah, yes I know that one. Didn't realise it had anything to do with Cossacks though.
Well, that's how the Poles got involved anyway. I'm personally not as clear on the Hungarian portion of the conflict.

War between humans and Neanderthals.

That's no war, that's a myth.

So, everybody agreed on the 80 Years War?

That's no war, that's a myth.

So, everybody agreed on the 80 Years War?
Bah, then how do you explain Enkidu?

Seriously, I thought I replied to that post but apparently I shook my head and wandered off in confusion, because i didn't. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any conflict between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals - fictional Scandinavian battles aside - and regardless, how do you measure the length of a war between two sides without writing or even much technology if it did?

The war against our natural drive to indulge into sleazyness and apathy. No kidding.

Perhaps if we're going to get somewhat vague: how about the war between civilization and barbarism? As R. E. Howard wrote:

“Barbarism is the natural state of mankind,” the borderer said, still staring at the Cimmerian. “Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.”

In my games, that's often the case!

Well, that's how the Poles got involved anyway. I'm personally not as clear on the Hungarian portion of the conflict.

They were in the way. ;)

The war against our natural drive to indulge into sleazyness and apathy. No kidding.

I betcha the war against carbohydrates will beat that by over 100 years:

Letter on Corpulence (advocating a low-carbohydrate diet), published 1863 by William Banting, undertaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting

My suggestion was that our own self-destructive nature is the cause for most wars. Therefore, if you want to abolish war on our planet, you are required to change our species itself before you might have success with it.

So, everybody agreed on the 80 Years War?
Yeah, you're right - thirty-six years from Doroshenko to Karlowitz. Is that longer than both of the phases of the Dutch Revolt?
Not quite. :p

Yeah, you're right - thirty-six years from Doroshenko to Karlowitz. Is that longer than both of the phases of the Dutch Revolt?

The first phase of the 80 years war was from 1568 til 1607, 39 years. Still longer.

kingdom of jerusalem and the fatimids were at a near-constant state of war for 150 years...

Only till 1914? French-hating is a national sport of the English!

The feeling is reciprocated.

But I'm sure you knew that.

The first phase of the 80 years war was from 1568 til 1607, 39 years. Still longer.
Cool. That was easy.

I read somewhere that the Netherlands declared war on some small British Isle a long time ago, and only technically ended that war a few years ago. However, I have no idea which British Isle it was, when exactly the war started, or for what reason.
might you be referring to the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years'_War)?

but if "peace" terms are accepted in between, I'd say Arab-Israeli conflicts have gone on for a good 2.5 millennia.

Actually, the armistice lasted from 1609-'21, and sporadic fighting continued during that time.

but if "peace" terms are accepted in between, I'd say Arab-Israeli conflicts have gone on for a good 2.5 millennia.
No, they haven't. :D

Dachs would know better than I, but what about any of the Sassanid-Roman wars?

Even so, I would go with the Arauco War.

everything vs. everything

Dachs would know better than I, but what about any of the Sassanid-Roman wars?
Nah, they were mostly broken up by truces between periods of relatively intense fighting lasting from two to ten years or so. I suppose the only one that comes close would be the last one, from 602 to 628.

might you be referring to the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years'_War)?

but if "peace" terms are accepted in between, I'd say Arab-Israeli conflicts have gone on for a good 2.5 millennia.

Yes, that is exactly what I was looking for. And yes, I don't think it really counts.

Yes, that is exactly what I was looking for. And yes, I don't think it really counts.

It counts.

It counts.

Well, the Isle of Scilly wasn't specifically an entity, so was it really a war on the Isle itself? I would've thought that it was a war on the Royalist forces, and not the locality.

According to Wikipedia, the longest war (sourced, though not well) lasted from 149 BC to AD 1985, between the Roman Republic and Carthage.

According to Wikipedia, the longest war (sourced, though not well) lasted from 149 BC to AD 1985, between the Roman Republic and Carthage.

Now that's just plain silly...

Now that's just plain silly...

Who was the Fourth Rome... and who the successor of Carthage?

Who was the Fourth Rome... and who the successor of Carthage?

Well for Carthage that easy, its Tunisia.

For Rome, its either the Greeks, the Germans, the Turks, the Russians or the Italians. Lets get all of them to sign a treaty.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't count as an active war that needs a peace treaty if both governments that fought have long since collapsed.

Well, the Isle of Scilly wasn't specifically an entity, so was it really a war on the Isle itself? I would've thought that it was a war on the Royalist forces, and not the locality.

According to Wikipedia, the longest war (sourced, though not well) lasted from 149 BC to AD 1985, between the Roman Republic and Carthage.
If anyone still doubts that Wikipedia is a pathetic joke, let them read this post.

Well, the Isle of Scilly wasn't specifically an entity, so was it really a war on the Isle itself? I would've thought that it was a war on the Royalist forces, and not the locality.

According to Wikipedia, the longest war (sourced, though not well) lasted from 149 BC to AD 1985, between the Roman Republic and Carthage.

Umm no, read my first post in this thread.

If anyone still doubts that Wikipedia is a pathetic joke, let them read this post.

The wikipedia people are talking about technicalities, because the general surrendered and the city was occupied, but the government of Carthage did not officially sign a peace treaty or something like that. In essence, because they didn't end the war according to how our modern notions think a war should end.

Frankly, the mayors of Carthage and Rome are the only semi-legitimate representations of these classical powers (and I mean semi with heavy emphasis). Tunisia has little to do with ancient Carthage except for controlling some of the same territory.

If signatures on an official treaty are required, then we can probably find some little backwater Mesopotamian town that got squashed by Sargon and didn't a modern peace treaty. Doesn't really contribute to the intended purpose of the thread, though.

If anyone still doubts that Wikipedia is a pathetic joke, let them read this post.

Sounds more like a game of Civ:Revolutions.


Wikipedia is as pathetic as the people who contribute to it.

Well for Carthage that easy, its Tunisia.

lolwut

Tunisia has about as much relation to the Carthaginians as Ukraine has to the Sarmatians.

Which is enough to use some stupid little thing for publicity.

In essence, because they didn't end the war according to how our modern notions think a war should end.

Sense! Oh, how I miss thee! :D

Indeed, the technicalities being argued in Wikipedia over the length of war before a peace treaty occurs is a stupid waste of time and imposition of modern mentalities on things of the past.

Like Antilogic's example, the best candidate under those technicalities for the longest war would be the Bingo Bango Bongo tribe throwing stones at the Mbinguneyetuyetu tribe in 10,000 BC across the Rhine. So their successor states are obviously France and Germany

The wikipedia people are talking about technicalities, because the general surrendered and the city was occupied, but the government of Carthage did not officially sign a peace treaty or something like that. In essence, because they didn't end the war according to how our modern notions think a war should end.
Yeah, governments these days don't cease to exist anymore. Funny how that works.

It is simply a listing of pointless trivia.

I will always defend wikipedia as a casual source of information. It has its flaws, and if the issue is controversial stay the hell away from it, but in general it is accurate enough for the average person wanting to know a bit about something or check some facts. The next best option for the average person sitting at their computer, google, is a lot worse (sure it could link you to a good website, but more likely to a copy and pasted wikipedia article).

It is simply a listing of pointless trivia.

I will always defend wikipedia as a casual source of information. It has its flaws, and if the issue is controversial stay the hell away from it, but in general it is accurate enough for the average person wanting to know a bit about something or check some facts. The next best option for the average person sitting at their computer, google, is a lot worse (sure it could link you to a good website, but more likely to a copy and pasted wikipedia article).

Umm no, read my first post in this thread.

That had no citation, so I didn't count it. 'Cause the citation that the one I suggested was really credible and reliable.


My point in suggesting that war was to show that the war between the Netherlands and the Isle of Scilly doesn't really count. They are both counted as being long wars between localities, when they were wars between regimes.

lolwut

Tunisia has about as much relation to the Carthaginians as Ukraine has to the Sarmatians.

I was being sarcastic. If you did not realise I list Rome with 5 successors...

I think we're getting off topic...

Who was the Fourth Rome... and who the successor of Carthage?

That's easy: czarist Russia and none. (The successor of Carthage was actually Rome itself: after it salted the earth the city had stood on, Julius Caesar founded a colony there... named Carthage.)

Moscow was the third Rome (succeeding Constantinople), and if you look back the five countries given have a claim to the title.
Italy is obvious, ruling from Rome and all.
The Greeks are sometimes considered a successor to the Byzantine Empire as it was Greek.
Turkey has claim through the conquest of the Byzantines and Mehmed claimed the title of Caesar.
Russia through it claim as the third Rome. The Tsar's continued the Byzantine bloodline and they were the heart of the Orthodox church.
Germany as a successor of the HRE, even Austrai has a claim after being home to the Emperors for so long.

Sorry for miscounting. Actually, the Ottoman Turks appeared earlier than Moscovite Russia on the world stage, so I would count Russia fourth. And how can Rome be the successor of Rome? After the Roman Empire follows Charlemagne, leading to the Holy Roman Empire (second) and then... nothing. Despite Mussolini's obvious dreaming of a Mare Nostro, Italy never managed to reattain its former glory. (The count's again off if you count Byzantium as the second Rome, but - despite effeorts to the contrary - it had to acknowledge in the end that the Western empire was gone and could not be recovered.)

Actually, the Ottoman Turks appeared earlier than Moscovite Russia on the world stage, so I would count Russia fourth.
But nobody else does. It's a historiographical and historical convention to refer to the Moscow as the 'Third Rome'.

Don't care much for conventions, but the Rum-Selchuks named themselves after Rome. I gather the Ottomans took after that. Anyway, not wanting to get into numerology, I recognize only one Rome. Don't care much for pretenders either. (Guess the Romans must have gotten something right for all these pretentions about Second, Third, Fourth Rome...)

Anyway, I like your new avatar. Can I at least presume you are Greek (or should I say Hellene - another thing the Romans did: name the Hellenes after the tiny tribe of the Graeci... pars pro toto and all that)?

On the subject of Long Wars: the Long War (Austria vs Ottomans, 1593-1606) was unsatisfying. I want my money back.
Don't care much for conventions, but the Rum-Selchuks named themselves after Rome. I gather the Ottomans took after that. Anyway, not wanting to get into numerology, I recognize only one Rome. Don't care much for pretenders either. (Guess the Romans must have gotten something right for all these pretentions about Second, Third, Fourth Rome...)
Heh, yeah after a fashion as far as I'm concerned the 'second Rome, third Rome' crap is just that - crap, laying claim to a legacy that is at best only in part theirs. Turks, Bulgarians, Italians, and Russians all tried to call themselves inheritors of the Third Rome, and by and large Ivan III and his successors did the best propaganda number.
Anyway, I like your new avatar. Can I at least presume you are Greek (or should I say Hellene - another thing the Romans did: name the Hellenes after the tiny tribe of the Graeci... pars pro toto and all that)?
Partly Greek by descent, but not as much as I'd like. I'm actually German-American.

So you'd like a little more Greek in ya, huh? I think I can arrange that.

He needs a dose of the Greece Lightning, it seems.

He needs a dose of the Greece Lightning, it seems.
Is your avatar automatic? Systematic? Hy-aiiii-dromatic? Why it's Greece Lightning!

The count's again off if you count Byzantium as the second Rome, but - despite effeorts to the contrary - it had to acknowledge in the end that the Western empire was gone and could not be recovered.
While they didn't control the city of Rome I would definitely consider them a continuation of the Roman Empire, there is a direct line of Emperors in the East through the fall of the West, including some that ruled the whole empire. Sure it evolved into a Greek EMpire rather than Latin, but I would just count that as a change, not a cut off.

Bah. The Tsarist claim to being the Third Rome is extremely tenuous, with the marriage of a Byzantine princess to the heir of a dynasty that died out rather quickly.

It is weak, though they also have the religious claim, I would not call any modern state a successor to Rome (or anything beyond Byzantium).

My view is that it would have to have been part said empire, and a significant part, with direct continuation. Such as Russian Empire->Soviet Union->Russia

How about Mongolia, 100 and something years of continues expansion across a whole continent. I think this could possibly be the longest war(s) in history.

Obviusly the Hundred years war was the longest war. but England kept a small peice of land in france called Calis till the 1500's. it always seems like when we talk about history the English come up

mongolia is a good point but keep in mind the Mongol Empire broke up on Kublia Khans death in 1294 AD after this eventually in the future the diffrent factions of the empire fought against one another. The Russians fought against the Mongolians that were called the Tatars and the Tamerlans fought against china. Tamerlane the great was one of many that were decended from Gengis Khan.

im time we will find our life times in the history books in the year 2201 what will they besaying once the 23rd century begins will they talk much about the 21st century or will they be like us and think more about longer ago times. what is known is that in 3 more life times from now when its 2201 AD there will probably be a out post on Luna, the earths moon. but 2201 AD is a realistic point in the future time line casue from here they willl look back and say the USA is 400 years old casue in November 1800 washigton,DC began to be ocupied By americans. they will say this is the Quada Centienial of the USA.

present trends usally indicate future events when talking about Space Exsploration China and India are now taking baby steps into Space. also 4 new worlds will be exsplored that were never before in the 2010's decade they are Ceres,Vesta ,Pluto ,and Charon theres worlds were discovered in the period from 1801 till 1978 in just a few years to come all of these discoveres get exsplored not to mention the insatiable curiusity of mankind to exsplore Luna as indicated by Indias 4 year plan to Map Luna from 2008 to 2013.

perhaps in the year 2020 we will set our sights to exsplre other worlds for the first time . remember 2004 when Titan was exsplored? this was the first Moon to ever be exsplored since Luna the earths moon in the 1960's

the space race now has to mean more to come from now till some point in the future

Atheism vs. Religion

Evolution vs. Creationism

God vs. Satan

Rich vs. Poor

Atheism vs. Religion
This is like saying "Liberalism vs. Ideology".
Evolution vs. Creationism
...and this conflict isn't even all that old. :p

As far as the Barbary States were concerned, if you didn't have a treaty specifically describing your peace with the Deys, you were at war with them by default. I'm sure there was some nation who never had a treaty with one of them, so it could've been a few hundred years of war.

How about Mongolia, 100 and something years of continues expansion across a whole continent. I think this could possibly be the longest war(s) in history.

Continuous expansion is not the same as war.

Obviusly the Hundred years war was the longest war.

This has been discussed already. Both examples, like the 30 Years War, were a series of conflicts. so the best candidate to date is still the 80 Years War.

As far as the Barbary States were concerned, if you didn't have a treaty specifically describing your peace with the Deys, you were at war with them by default.

Always thought that was neat policy. Sort of like Risk.

Always thought that was neat policy. Sort of like Risk.
The Vandali did it too for their (shorter) existence. It's an interesting grand-strategy for a pariah thalassocracy.

Why couldn't you just say "Vandals"? This way i had to go look them up....

Why couldn't you just say "Vandals"? This way i had to go look them up....
That is precisely why. ;)

That is precisely why. ;)

Curse you and your lessons!

Well, I think to name them in the plural, you had to go Vandalii. :p Or not - my Latin is rubbish

Well, I think to name them in the plural, you had to go Vandalii. :p Or not - my Latin is rubbish
Not when the singular is Vandalvs. It'd be Vandalii if the singular were Vandalivs. Also, proof (http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandali)? :p

The War against the Workingclass - The Class war.

Not when the singular is Vandalvs. It'd be Vandalii if the singular were Vandalivs. Also, proof (http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandali)? :p

Dachs ite domum. :p

The War against the Workingclass - The Class war.

Pray tell when it started? As far as I know, if Marx is right the Class War has only started after the end of the Feudal economy. And Marx's theories are pretty outdated anyway.

Pray tell when it started? As far as I know, if Marx is right the Class War has only started after the end of the Feudal economy.

Marx's theory was that class warfare is the impetus for all major social change. It has been happening since mankind organized himself into oppressor and oppressed.

And Marx's theories are pretty outdated anyway.

:pat:

Meh. Marxist revisionism FTW!

It is also the most costly war. Out of it are the births of civilizations and their demise.
Popular revolutions, in normal peoples eyes seen as wars in a wise persons eyes they are only battles.

O_o DO I sound prophetic enough? :goodjob:




:ar15::king:

Tho I like our king and especially our queen to be.

Meh. Marxist revisionism FTW!

If you have another explanation, then by all means, forward it now. If you don't, then kindly be quiet and go away.

Marx's theory was that class warfare is the impetus for all major social change. It has been happening since mankind organized himself into oppressor and oppressed.
Male chauvinist pig. :mad:

Well, the struggle for power is a war that will never end.

Male chauvinist pig. :mad:

Come on, it's a reference to mankind. Are you going to say the word "human" is chauvinist as well because it does not include "huwomen" as well?

Come on, it's a reference to mankind. Are you going to say the word "human" is chauvinist as well because it does not include "huwomen" as well?
No. Apparently you're not good at recognizing mediocre-to-bad jokes. :shake:

If you have another explanation, then by all means, forward it now. If you don't, then kindly be quiet and go away.

Well, if you really must know - most history works that I've worked with for essays and all that have been relatively modern, and do not follow the old Marxist school of thought.
In fact, historiography has mostly shifted away from the idea of classes and pure economy to many other aspects like culture and society.

So, forgive my utter stupidity and idiocy that the many books I've read beyond the 1970s do not subscribe to the historiographical ideas based of the theories of a man who is naïve at best, and stupid at worst. I've read the Manifesto and it is an entertaining treatise - much like Gavin Menzies.

EDIT: Read my work on the Haitian Revolution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=310282) in this forum to see what I mean by Marxist/revisionist historiography.

No. Apparently you're not good at recognizing mediocre-to-bad jokes. :shake:

I'm very good at recognizing them, it's just the follow-up I post is never worthy of a :lol: smiley. :)

I'm very good at recognizing them, it's just the follow-up I post is never worthy of a :lol: smiley. :)
How about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War)? The war is still ongoing...;)

This train is running off-track...

Well, the struggle for power is a war that will never end.

Again: struggle does not equate war. (The 'war between the sexes' isn't a war either; it's a metaphor.)

Yeah but it's the cause of most wars.

The answer is:

Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years%27_War)

I think a war without battles is easily disqualified - as mentioned in my previous post. Sorry guys, our 80 Years War still tops the list.:king:

The Arauco War is still in the running, there were times of peace and other parts and other times where it was a series of campaigns, but long periods of conflict spread out over 350 years.

So you keep saying...

I think a war without battles is easily disqualified - as mentioned in my previous post. Sorry guys, our 80 Years War still tops the list.:king:

Well, that's only because this thread keeps going off-topic. ;) The first part of the war (before 12-year armstice) lasted 39 years right? I think the colombian civil war has been going on longer than that: 45 years.

How about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War)? The war is still ongoing...;)

The fact that dignity is listed as a casualty is just ridiculous.

The longest war was 752 years long.

1169 - 1921

800 years !:old:

The longest war would have to be the 900 year war beetween england and ireland

The longest war would have to be the 900 year war beetween england and ireland
Nah, Ireland lost. Many times.

Well, that's only because this thread keeps going off-topic. ;) The first part of the war (before 12-year armstice) lasted 39 years right? I think the colombian civil war has been going on longer than that: 45 years.

Didn't they have armistices as well?

@Shekwan/Antilogic/@irish-dojo: Don't just yell something - facts please.