How does the past shape modern conflicts? Analogies between historical and modern events have been used to guide leaders in contemporary crises. Existing works have argued that leaders confronted with complex decisions concerning war and peace often use these comparisons, but historical analogies also hold the potential to shape and inspire strategies of resistance and domestic insurgencies as well. In this paper, we examine how historical analogies derived from mandate-era resistance against foreign domination in Iraq and Syria were used to mobilize and legitimize later insurgencies. The paper adopts a multi-method approach, using discourse analysis to analyze the use of these historical analogies during the 2011 Syrian uprising and the insurgency which followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Archival data and existing datasets on modern insurgencies (including “the events” of the 1970s and 1980s in Syria and regional uprisings which took place in Iraq in the 1990s) are also used to quantitatively evaluate the impact of previous types of armed resistance in a given geographic region on future armed mobilization in that region. We argue that historical analogies vary in their salience and effectiveness, with analogies based on historical, national uprisings proving more successful than comparisons to local or sectarian revolts. This paper thus shows how historical analogies can play a role in shaping intrastate conflict by mobilizing and legitimating insurgent armed groups, and that they thereby play a role in intrastate conflicts as well as interstate relations. We also contribute to discussions on what shapes the salience of particular analogies, challenging existing literature that argues more recent analogies have a greater role to play than more historical comparisons and instead centering the discourse on the inclusiveness of the analogy.