Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. In My Learning the same topic also comes with:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
The big idea: Some independence movements did not just protest or negotiate — they picked up weapons and went to war.
They used armed struggle, guerrilla warfare and full conventional battles to force a foreign ruler out.
Movements rarely began with violence. Most tried petitions, boycotts or talks first, and turned to force only when peaceful routes seemed blocked.
When a ruler refused all reform, jailed leaders, or answered protest with troops, many concluded that only fighting could win them freedom.
- Armed struggle — organised fighting against the ruling power to force it out or wear it down
- Guerrilla warfare — small, fast bands ambushing a larger army, then vanishing; useful when you are weaker
- Conventional campaign — regular armies meeting in open battle, like Bolívar's decisive victories
- Revolutionary war — a wider armed uprising aimed at completely overthrowing foreign rule
Why turn to violence?: Movements usually turned to force when the ruler left no peaceful path: reforms were refused, leaders were arrested, and protests were crushed by the army.
A weakened or distracted ruler — Spain torn apart by Napoleon, or wartime Britain — also created the opportunity to strike.
Violent methods
- Can force out a ruler who refuses to talk
- Exploits a moment of imperial weakness
- Builds soldiers and leaders for the new state
- But: huge human and economic cost
Non-violent methods
- Wins wider public and world sympathy
- Keeps a movement united and disciplined
- Cheaper in lives and money
- But: slow, and useless if the ruler ignores it
Spot it: the trigger for violence: Ask two questions of any case: Was the peaceful path blocked? and Was the ruler weak enough to beat? When both answers are yes, movements tend to fight.
The clearest case of independence won by war is Spanish America (1810–1826). When Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808 and removed its king, Spain's grip on its colonies suddenly weakened.
Colonial-born leaders known as creoles seized the moment to fight for independence.
Bolívar in the north: Simón Bolívar, 'the Liberator', led the northern campaigns. His genius was daring, mobile warfare — most famously a brutal march over the Andes to surprise the Spanish.
His armies mixed disciplined battle with guerrilla-style speed, and his goal was a free, united Spanish America.
Boyacá, 1819
Bolívar crossed the freezing Andes and smashed the Spanish in Colombia (New Granada), freeing the region and creating Gran Colombia.
Carabobo, 1821
A decisive victory in Venezuela that effectively secured Venezuelan independence and confirmed Bolívar's power in the north.
Ayacucho, 1824
Fought in Peru, this battle destroyed the main Spanish army in South America and ended Spanish rule on the continent.
Boyacá → Carabobo → Ayacucho: north to south, 1819 → 1821 → 1824.
San Martín in the south: José de San Martín liberated the south. In 1817 he led one of history's boldest moves — crossing the high Andes with his army to free Chile by surprise.
He then sailed north to attack the Spanish stronghold of Peru, entering Lima and declaring its independence in 1821.
The meeting at Guayaquil, 1822: In 1822 the two liberators met in secret at Guayaquil to decide who would finish freeing Peru.
We do not know exactly what was said, but San Martín stepped aside and left Peru to Bolívar — whose forces then won the final victory at Ayacucho. It shows how armed struggle could also divide its own leaders.
| Year | Event | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1808 | Napoleon invades Spain | Spain weakens — the opening for revolt |
| 1817 | San Martín crosses the Andes | Bold campaign frees Chile |
| 1819 | Battle of Boyacá | Bolívar frees New Granada (Colombia) |
| 1821 | Battle of Carabobo | Secures Venezuelan independence |
| 1822 | Guayaquil meeting | San Martín withdraws; Bolívar leads on |
| 1824 | Battle of Ayacucho | Ends Spanish rule in South America |
Use the battles as evidence: For Spanish America, name the three decisive battles — Boyacá, Carabobo, Ayacucho — to prove independence was won by conventional military victory, not negotiation.
See how examiners mark answers
Access past paper questions with model answers. Learn exactly what earns marks and what doesn't.
India is famous for non-violence under Gandhi, but it also had a violent, armed strand that examiners want you to weigh.
Some nationalists believed the British would only leave if they were forced out, and acts of revolutionary violence ran alongside the peaceful mass movement.
- Revolutionary violence — bombings and assassinations by radicals who rejected Gandhi's non-violence
- Bhagat Singh — a young revolutionary executed in 1931, who became a martyr and hero to many Indians
- Armed uprisings — scattered violent revolts against British rule across the colonial period
The Indian National Army (INA) and Bose: The boldest armed effort was the Indian National Army (INA), led by Subhas Chandra Bose.
During the Second World War, Bose allied with Japan and raised an army — partly from captured Indian soldiers — to invade British India by force and win independence through war.
Did the INA succeed militarily?
No. The INA's 1944 push into India failed and it was defeated. Militarily it did not free India.
So why did it matter?
The 1945 public trials of INA soldiers sparked huge protests and unrest in the British Indian Army — showing Britain that its control was crumbling.
Violence vs non-violence in India
Independence in 1947 came mainly through mass non-violence and negotiation, but armed pressure like the INA helped convince Britain it could no longer hold on.
The costs of armed struggle: Fighting was expensive and destructive. Wars killed thousands, ruined economies, and left new nations poor and unstable.
Worse, violence often split movements: leaders fell out (Bolívar and San Martín), and armed men who won the war expected to rule the peace.
Human cost
Long wars killed soldiers and civilians and displaced whole populations.
Instability
In Spanish America, war left caudillos in charge, and Bolívar's dream of unity collapsed.
Division
Violence bred rivalry between leaders and factions, weakening movements from within.
Cost, instability, division — the three prices of choosing the gun.