Has a war involving more than 2 sides ever been fought?

I fucked up hard, I'm sorry user. I'll have to ask this again some other day when everyone has forgotten this thread was made.

>Succession of Alexanders territory

This doesn't really count because different generals would ally themselves to each other at different point in times of the conflict. I'm sure this applies to some of the other conflicts as well.

Wars that begin with more than two sides usually result in two sides joining against each other. In fact that is how many tribes created civilisation.

>posts meme pic about crusade
>doesn't even know about the first crusade
Fatimid Egypt fucking hated the Seljuks and lost a lot of ground to them, including Jerusalem about 20 years before (the Seljuk occupation of the Levant was one of the primary causes for Crusade, Europe was pretty much okay with Fatimid rule). When the Crusaders started wrecking house for the Turks in Anatolia/NW Syria the Fatimids, assuming they were in alliance due to their friendship with the Byzantines, made their move to recapture Jerusalem, which they did, under the assumption that they would re-open the city to pilgrims and stomp on roaches with the Europeans.
Imagine how much more successful and longer lasting the Crusader states would have been if they established an early alliance with one of the biggest power of the region and continued fucking Turks with their bros for the next several centuries.

WW2

Has a civil war involving only 2 sides ever been fought?

What about set piece battles involving more than 2 sides?

world war 2
soviet union worked with the allies but kept to themselves

american civil war idiot

90s balkan wars

Bosworth, kinda, one side hung back and watched to see who was winning and then joined that side

the Spanish Civil War and the American Civil War

if a war was fought with more than 2 sides then who was phone?

>Spanish Civil War
franco won because anarchists, republicans and the fifty flavors of communists couldn't stop fighting between each other

>i thought Veeky Forums was supposed to at least a little bit intelligent
i thought that too until i kept seeing people trying to say arrows could pierce plate armor, and even if it didn't, it was meant to dent the armor so the wearer would have difficulty moving in it

some guy posted pic related and tried to tell us it was from arrows

just greaves-on-head retarded

>i thought Veeky Forums was supposed to at least a little bit intelligent
hahaha

Makarov vs Shepherd vs Price and Soap

At this point I just regard all conflicts in the Middle East as "Part of That Clusterfuck I Can't Be Assed to Care About Anymore"

>Two sides
You are like a little baby.
Watch this.

Spring and Autumn period, Jin-Song wars, Taipei Rebellion, Warlord period, Sino-Japanese war, Russian civil war, Thirty Years' War, the list goes on.

Isn't Syria right now in a three sided war?

The Congo Wars really need more recognition in the West. Shit was so absolutely crazy.

What sides are there?
Is it assad, rebels, kurds, isis?

Native Americans fought against both the Confederacy and the Union.

Oh it's far worse than that user

assad, rebels, kurds, isis, us, turkey and a bunch of other nations
that whole war is such a clusterfuck with everyone supporting their own alphabet soup groups that it will probably confuse historians for centuries