I also disagree with "violent anarchy." When calling something "violent," we usually refer to the whole thing. For example, if there is a murder in chicago, we don't say "violent residents of chicago cause another victim." In the same spirit, I don't think the violence was widespread enough to warrant that label.
EDIT: But violent here can be argued, I just think the common use is less in line with the literal "there was violence."
Comments
I also disagree with "violent anarchy." When calling something "violent," we usually refer to the whole thing. For example, if there is a murder in chicago, we don't say "violent residents of chicago cause another victim." In the same spirit, I don't think the violence was widespread enough to warrant that label.
EDIT: But violent here can be argued, I just think the common use is less in line with the literal "there was violence."