>That is intuitively wrong. Surely, the probability to have a violent revolution must be minimal right after the end of the last one, when the new status quo is

>That is intuitively wrong. Surely, the probability to have a violent revolution must be minimal right after the end of the last one, when the new status quo is in its most well established, everyone is tired of fighting, etc etc. Is that intuitively wrong? How many civil wars and revolutions have we seen spiral into madness after the official end to hostilities between the "governments" involved? Iraq, Libya, and South Sudan are among dozens of examples we can pull from recent memory. The defeat of a government or other high level of societal organization does not imply the defeat of the reasons why the war began in the first place. The rise of the Jim Crow laws and the incessant waves of black emigration fron the South after the collapse of the Union state's Reconstruction efforts speaks to the inherent instability of post-war societies. There are more historical examples of "post-conflict" societies which almost immediately descend into further conflict than one can count. Once the seal of peace is broken, it's incredibly hard to recreate.