Paper 2: Causes and Effects of Wars 750–1500 — Types and Causes of Conflicts

· Exact syllabus area: World history topic 2: Causes and effects of wars (750–1500), subtopic Types and causes of conflicts.
· Official IB focus: dynastic, territorial and religious disputes; economic causes and competition for resources; political causes; religious causes; long-term, short-term and immediate causes.
· Main exam expectation: students must use specific conflicts, not general medieval background, to explain why wars broke out and to judge the relative importance of different causes.
· Regional expectation: IB questions may require examples from two different regions of the world. The syllabus examples are suggested only, not compulsory, but students must study conflicts from more than one region.
· Cross-regional warning: conflicts such as the Crusades (1095–1291) may be used in one regional context, for example Middle East, but not reused as a second region in the same essay.

What this subtopic is really asking you to do

· This is not just “what caused the war?” It is about classifying causes and weighing them: was conflict mainly driven by dynastic rivalry, territorial ambition, religious ideology, political instability, or economic/resource competition?
· Strong IB answers separate long-term causes from short-term triggers and immediate causes.
· The best essays show that medieval wars usually had overlapping causes: for example, the Crusades combined religious causes with political leadership, territorial conquest, and elite ambitions; the Hundred Years’ War combined dynastic claims with territorial disputes and economic interests.
· Students should avoid treating the categories as isolated. The key skill is explaining how causes interacted and then judging which cause was most significant.

Core IB cause categories: what to look for in every war

· Dynastic disputes: conflict caused by contested succession, rival claims to kingship, inheritance, or legitimacy. Use for Norman conquest of England (1066), England and France at war (1154–1204), Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453), Wars of the Roses (1455–1487), Toluid Civil War (1260–1264), and the Great ‘Abbasid Civil War (809–813).
· Territorial disputes: conflict caused by control of land, frontiers, fortresses, cities, or strategic routes. Use for Byzantine–Seljuq Wars (1048–1308), Byzantinian–Bulgarian Wars under Khan Krum (807–814), England and France at war (1154–1204), and the Hundred Years’ War.
· Religious causes: conflict justified or intensified by religion, holy places, crusading, jihad, conversion, or defence of faith communities. Use for the Crusades (1095–1291) and, where relevant, Byzantine–Seljuq Wars.
· Economic causes / competition for resources: conflict over wealth, taxation, tribute, trade routes, plunder, land revenues, or access to resources. Use for the Crusades, Tepanec War with the Aztecs (1428–1430), Hundred Years’ War, and conflicts where control of land meant control of revenue.
· Political causes: conflict caused by state-building, elite rivalry, rebellion, weak authority, competing rulers, or attempts to centralize power. Use for Wars of the Roses, Great ‘Abbasid Civil War, Toluid Civil War, and Tepanec War.
· Long-term / short-term / immediate causes: every essay should distinguish deep conditions from the spark. For example, in the Hundred Years’ War, long-term Anglo-French rivalry over French lands mattered, while immediate claims and royal decisions turned rivalry into open war.

European conflicts: dynastic and territorial causes

· Norman conquest of England (1066) — Use as a compact example of dynastic dispute and political legitimacy. The competing claim to the English throne made succession the central cause; the invasion turned a succession crisis into conquest. Best exam use: argue that dynastic legitimacy could become a direct military cause when supported by elite ambition and military opportunity.
· England and France at war (1154–1204) — Use for territorial conflict and political rivalry. The Plantagenet kings of England held major lands in France, creating tension with the French monarchy. Best exam use: show how medieval kingship blurred personal inheritance and state territory, making dynastic issues also territorial.
· Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) — Use as a major example of overlapping dynastic, territorial, political, and economic causes. Dynastic claims to the French throne mattered, but so did disputes over English-held lands in France, especially areas such as Aquitaine, and the political prestige of monarchy. Best exam use: argue that the war cannot be reduced to one cause; dynastic claims provided justification, while territorial and political interests sustained conflict.
· Wars of the Roses (1455–1487) — Use as a strong dynastic and political example. Rival noble factions and royal legitimacy crises turned elite competition into civil war. Best exam use: contrast with the Hundred Years’ War: both were dynastic, but one was mainly internal English political instability, while the other was also a war between kingdoms.

The Bayeux Tapestry is useful for visualising how the Norman conquest of England (1066) was remembered as a dynastic and military conflict. It helps students connect a succession dispute to invasion, conquest, and political legitimacy. Source

Religious and cross-regional conflict: the Crusades

· The Crusades (1095–1291) — Use as the clearest syllabus-linked example of religious causes, especially crusading ideology, holy places, and religious mobilisation.
· Do not write that religion was the only cause. A stronger IB argument explains that religious language helped mobilize warriors, but crusading also created opportunities for territorial conquest, political prestige, and economic gain.
· Useful leaders from the syllabus: Nur al-Din (1118–1174), Saladin (1137/1138–1193), Richard I of England (1157–1199), and Louis VII of France (1120–1180).
· Exam-use angle: if asked about religious causes, argue that the Crusades show religion could be both a genuine motivating force and a legitimizing framework for political and territorial objectives.
· Comparison warning: in a two-region essay, use the Crusades only once, for example as Africa and the Middle East or Europe, not both.

Images and maps of the Crusades (1095–1291) help students see why this is a cross-regional conflict. Use the visual to link religious causes to territorial control in the eastern Mediterranean and the Levant. Source

Asia and the Middle East: succession, empire and political fragmentation

· Toluid Civil War (1260–1264) — Use for dynastic dispute inside an imperial system. The key analytical point is that succession problems in a vast empire could cause civil war because rulership depended on legitimacy, military support, and elite recognition.
· Great ‘Abbasid Civil War (809–813) — Use for dynastic and political causes. A succession struggle within the caliphate shows how rivalry at the top could destabilize a major state. Best exam use: compare with the Toluid Civil War to show that succession disputes were a common cause across regions and political systems.
· Byzantine–Seljuq Wars (1048–1308) — Use for territorial, political, and religious causes. These conflicts can support arguments about frontier pressure, imperial defence, and the political consequences of contested borderlands.
· Byzantinian–Bulgarian Wars under Khan Krum (807–814) — Use for territorial disputes and political expansion. This example is useful when an essay needs a non-western European conflict focused on state rivalry and frontier control.
· Strong judgement: in these cases, dynastic or political causes often mattered more than religion, because the immediate problem was control of rule, succession, territory, or imperial authority.

This map helps explain why succession conflict in the Mongol Empire had huge political consequences. The empire’s size made a dynastic dispute also a problem of imperial cohesion and regional power. Source

The Americas: political power and resource competition

· Tepanec War with the Aztecs (1428–1430) — Use as the key syllabus example from the Americas. It is especially useful for political causes, territorial control, and competition for resources/tribute.
· The most useful IB angle is not to narrate the war, but to explain why control over city-states, tribute networks, and regional dominance mattered.
· Use this example to avoid Eurocentric essays. It gives a strong comparison with European dynastic wars because the central issue is less about hereditary monarchy and more about political dominance, alliances, and tribute-based power.
· Comparison point: the Tepanec War and Hundred Years’ War both involved territorial and political power, but the Tepanec War is especially useful for showing how economic resources and tribute could be embedded in political control.

Compact evidence bank: examples you can adapt quickly

· Norman conquest of England (1066) — Type: dynastic dispute and political conquest. Demonstrates: succession crisis can become invasion. Exam use: explain immediate cause as contested kingship, with conquest as the outcome.
· England and France at war (1154–1204) — Type: territorial and political dispute. Demonstrates: overlapping feudal obligations and royal power could cause long conflict. Exam use: compare with Hundred Years’ War as another Anglo-French territorial struggle.
· Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) — Type: dynastic, territorial, political, and economic. Demonstrates: major wars often had layered causes. Exam use: excellent for weighing relative importance of causes.
· Wars of the Roses (1455–1487) — Type: dynastic civil war and political instability. Demonstrates: weak monarchy and elite rivalries could turn succession into repeated conflict. Exam use: compare with Toluid Civil War or Great ‘Abbasid Civil War.
· Crusades (1095–1291) — Type: religious, territorial, and political. Demonstrates: religion could motivate and legitimize military expansion. Exam use: best example for questions on religious causes, but evaluate non-religious motives too.
· Toluid Civil War (1260–1264) — Type: dynastic succession conflict. Demonstrates: imperial succession disputes could fragment authority. Exam use: strong non-European comparison for civil conflict caused by succession.
· Great ‘Abbasid Civil War (809–813) — Type: dynastic and political. Demonstrates: contested caliphal authority could destabilize a state. Exam use: compare with Wars of the Roses to show internal political causes across regions.
· Tepanec War with the Aztecs (1428–1430) — Type: political, territorial, and economic/resource competition. Demonstrates: alliances and tribute systems could drive war. Exam use: strong Americas example for two-region comparison.

Cause chains: turn evidence into analysis

· Long-term cause → short-term pressure → immediate trigger → war.
· Example: Hundred Years’ War — long-term Anglo-French rivalry and landholding in France → short-term disputes over royal authority and territory → immediate dynastic claim/conflict escalation → prolonged war.
· Example: Wars of the Roses — long-term noble rivalries and instability after royal weakness → factional competition → immediate armed contests for control of kingship → civil war.
· Example: Crusades — long-term Christian-Muslim rivalry and importance of holy places → preaching and papal mobilisation → immediate armed expedition → cross-regional war.
· Example: Toluid Civil War — long-term difficulty of governing a vast empire → succession uncertainty → immediate rival claims → civil war and weakening of central authority.

How to compare causes across regions

· Dynastic causes across regions: compare Wars of the Roses (Europe) with Toluid Civil War (Asia) or Great ‘Abbasid Civil War (Africa and the Middle East). Similarity: contested succession and elite backing mattered. Difference: the scale and political consequences differed, from English internal instability to imperial fragmentation.
· Religious causes across regions: use Crusades carefully as one regional example. Compare with a non-religious conflict such as the Tepanec War to show that not all medieval conflict was primarily religious.
· Territorial causes: compare Hundred Years’ War with Byzantine–Seljuq Wars. Similarity: control of land and strategic frontiers mattered. Difference: the Hundred Years’ War also had a strong dynastic claim, while Byzantine-Seljuq conflict is more useful for frontier and imperial defence arguments.
· Economic/resource causes: compare Tepanec War with Hundred Years’ War. In both, political power gave access to wealth; however, the Tepanec example is especially useful for tribute/resource competition, while the Hundred Years’ War links resources to land, taxation, and royal power.
· Judgement formula: “Although X was the immediate trigger, the deeper cause was Y, because it created the conditions that made war likely.”

The maps help students see why the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) was not only a dynastic dispute but also a struggle over territory. They are useful for comparing long-term territorial rivalry with immediate dynastic claims. Source

IB-style argument patterns for essays

· For “causes” questions: organize by cause type, not by story. Use paragraphs on dynastic, territorial, religious, economic, or political causes.
· For “to what extent” questions: make a judgement about relative importance. Example: “Religious causes were highly significant in the Crusades, but in many other medieval wars dynastic and political causes were more decisive.”
· For “compare and contrast” questions: keep both examples in every paragraph. Do not write one mini-essay on Europe and one on Asia.
· For two-region questions: state the region clearly, for example Europe: Hundred Years’ War and Americas: Tepanec War.
· Strong paragraph structure: claim → specific war/date → cause category → evidence → analysis of importance → link to question.

High-value comparison pairings

· Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) + Tepanec War (1428–1430): best for comparing territorial/political/economic causes across Europe and the Americas.
· Wars of the Roses (1455–1487) + Toluid Civil War (1260–1264): best for comparing dynastic civil conflict and the political consequences of succession crises.
· Crusades (1095–1291) + Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453): best for evaluating whether religious causes or dynastic-territorial causes were more important.
· Great ‘Abbasid Civil War (809–813) + Norman conquest (1066): best for comparing contested legitimacy in different political and cultural settings.

Exam traps and common mistakes

· Do not write a narrative of battles; this subtopic is about types and causes, not the course of warfare.
· Do not treat suggested examples as compulsory; they are syllabus suggestions, but your examples must still be specific and regionally appropriate.
· Do not use the Crusades twice in a two-region answer; use it in one regional context only.
· Do not say “religion caused medieval wars” as a blanket statement; many syllabus examples are mainly dynastic, territorial, political, or economic.
· Do not list causes without judging importance; IB essays need evaluation, especially for “to what extent” and “evaluate” questions.
· Do not confuse immediate causes with long-term causes. A succession claim may trigger war, but long-term rivalry may explain why it escalated.