A Historical Overview of Terrorism: From Ancient Times to Modern Day

The word “terrorism” tends to bring to mind images from the last two decades. But the tactic of using violence to spread fear and force political change is far older. It stretches back to the ancient world, long before dynamite, hijacked planes, or the internet existed. Understanding this long history helps us see terrorism not as a single, unchanging threat, but as a shifting phenomenon that adapts to the politics, technology, and grievances of each era. This overview traces that evolution, from daggers in crowded Roman marketplaces to the global movements of today.

The ancient roots of terror
The Sicarii
The Hashishin
The four waves of modern terrorism
The first wave: anarchist (1880s-1920s)
The second wave: anti-colonial (1920s-1960s)
The third wave: New Left (1960s-1990s)
The fourth wave: religious (1979-present)
Why the wave model matters and where it falls short
Continuity across the centuries

The ancient roots of terror

Terrorism is not a modern invention. Scholars often point to two early groups as the ancestors of the tactic, both of whom used calculated violence to achieve political and religious goals.

The Sicarii

The Sicarii were a group of Jewish zealots active in the Roman province of Judaea during the first century CE. Their name comes from the sica, a small curved dagger they carried hidden under their cloaks. Their method was chillingly simple. According to the historian Josephus, they would mingle with crowds at large festivals, stab their targets, and then vanish into the panicking masses. Their victims were not only Roman officials but also Jewish elites they considered collaborators. The goal was to make Roman rule feel impossible and to provoke a popular uprising. Their most famous killing was that of the high priest Jonathan. This pattern of public assassination designed to instil fear and incite revolt is why many consider them one of the earliest terrorist groups in recorded history.

The Hashishin

Centuries later, in the late eleventh century, a sect known as the Hashishin emerged in the mountainous regions of Persia and Syria. Founded by Hassan-i Sabbah, they were an offshoot of the Nizari Ismaili branch of Shia Islam. With limited manpower, they relied on precise, targeted assassinations of political and religious leaders, often in public to maximise the shock. They killed caliphs, viziers, and Crusader figures over nearly two centuries. The English word “assassin” is widely traced back to “hashishin,” a term linked to this group, though historians debate whether the drug association was real or simply a smear used by their enemies.

The four waves of modern terrorism

While these ancient cases show that the tactic is old, modern terrorism as a global phenomenon has a more specific starting point. The most influential framework for understanding it comes from political scientist David C. Rapoport, who argued that modern terror has unfolded in four overlapping “waves” since 1879. Each wave is driven by a distinct ideological energy, lasts roughly a generation, and is shaped by the politics and technology of its time. The framework has its critics, but it remains the standard map for studying the subject.

The first wave: anarchist (1880s-1920s)

The first wave began in Russia and was powered by anarchist ideology. The pioneering group was Narodnaya Volya, or “The People’s Will,” a band of young revolutionaries who assassinated Tsar Alexander II with a dynamite bomb in 1881. Their core idea was “propaganda by the deed.” Rather than relying on pamphlets and speeches, they believed a dramatic act of violence could communicate a political message and inspire the masses to revolt.

Two factors made this wave possible. First, the invention of dynamite gave small groups destructive power that had previously belonged only to states. Second, advances in mass communication and transport meant news of an attack could spread quickly and widely. This wave produced a string of high-profile assassinations across Europe and the United States, including the killing of American President William McKinley in 1901. Notably, this method spread globally and was known in India as “the Russian method” and in China as “assassinationism”.

The second wave: anti-colonial (1920s-1960s)

The second wave was driven not by abstract revolution but by a concrete political aim: ending colonial rule and creating new nation-states. It rose largely within the territories of empires like the British, particularly after the First World War weakened the moral authority of the imperial powers. Groups in places such as Ireland, Cyprus, Algeria, and Palestine used violence to make colonial administration too costly to sustain. The second wave focused primarily on the elimination of colonial control and the formation of new states.

This wave is especially relevant to the freedom struggle here. Revolutionary nationalists drew directly on the tactics that had spread from Russia. Bhagat Singh, for instance, in deliberate emulation of European anarchists, hurled two bombs into the Central Legislative Assembly in 1929 to “make the deaf hear.” A key feature of this wave was a shift in language. Many of these activists rejected the label “terrorist” and called themselves “freedom fighters,” highlighting how the same act can carry very different moral meanings depending on who is judging it.

The third wave: New Left (1960s-1990s)

The third wave emerged in the mid-1960s, fuelled by a blend of revolutionary Marxism and anti-imperialist sentiment. Its energy came largely from opposition to the Vietnam War and a wider wave of global anti-Americanism. Groups in this wave saw themselves as fighting on behalf of the oppressed in the developing world.

Organisations like the Red Army Faction in West Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, and the Japanese Red Army adopted new methods suited to a more connected world. The signature tactics of this period were taking hostages and hijacking aeroplanes. These acts were designed for a global television audience. Kidnapping a diplomat or seizing a plane guaranteed international media coverage, turning a single act into a worldwide spectacle and a bargaining tool for releasing imprisoned comrades.

The fourth wave: religious (1979-present)

The current wave is defined by religious motivation, though it is concentrated in but not limited to the Islamic world. Rapoport dates its beginning to 1979, a pivotal year that saw the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, both of which energised religiously framed political violence. The September 11 attacks in 2001 became the most visible expression of this wave, prompting Rapoport to expand his theory in an influential essay written shortly afterward.

The defining innovation of this wave is the systematic use of self-martyrdom, or suicide bombing. Unlike earlier waves where attackers tried to escape, this tactic treats the attacker’s death as part of the act itself. The goals of this wave are often more sweeping and less negotiable than political demands for territory or reform, which makes it particularly difficult to counter through conventional bargaining.

Why the wave model matters and where it falls short

The wave model is useful because it shows that terrorism is not random. Each wave reflects the dominant grievances and available technology of its era. Dynamite enabled the first wave, the collapse of empires shaped the second, television amplified the third, and modern media and weaponry define the fourth. When one wave’s energy fades, another rises to take its place.

However, the model is not without serious critics. Some historians argue that the idea of neat, generation-long waves is under-evidenced and that the theory should give way to genuine historical study. Others note that it does not fit every region well. For example, scholars studying Latin America point out that the framework largely ignores state terrorism and narcoterrorism, both of which are central to understanding violence there. These criticisms are a healthy reminder that any neat model simplifies a messy reality.

Continuity across the centuries

Looking across this long history, certain threads connect the Sicarii to today. In every era, terrorism has been the weapon of the relatively weak against the strong, a way to project power and fear far beyond a group’s actual numbers. In every era, the act has been performed for an audience, designed to communicate a message rather than simply to destroy. And in every era, the tactic has adapted to the tools available, from the hidden dagger to the dynamite bomb to the hijacked plane. What changes is the ideology and the technology. What stays constant is the basic logic of using violence as a form of communication.

What do you think? If the same violent act can be called “terrorism” by one side and a “freedom struggle” by the other, how should we decide which label is fair? And given that each wave seems to be driven by the technology of its time, what might a future “fifth wave” of terrorism look like?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 3.7 / 5. Vote count: 3

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

The ancient roots of terror 🔗

The Sicarii 🔗

The Hashishin 🔗

The four waves of modern terrorism 🔗

The first wave: anarchist (1880s-1920s) 🔗

The second wave: anti-colonial (1920s-1960s) 🔗

The third wave: New Left (1960s-1990s) 🔗

The fourth wave: religious (1979-present) 🔗

Why the wave model matters and where it falls short 🔗

Continuity across the centuries 🔗