I often wonder why that isn't the case. It was after all the 1st truly global war. There were battles in Europe, North America, Africa and Asia so why isn't it called a World War?
I often wonder why that isn't the case. It was after all the 1st truly global war. There were battles in Europe, North America, Africa and Asia so why isn't it called a World War?
Because it was fought by european powers only, even if they fought on other continents. While in WW1 & 2 non-European powers joined in as independant powers
Well native Americans as well as the Mughals did fight in the 7 years war.
That's true but they were minor players comapred to European ones.
I think that's a very Eurocentric view.
It's your assertion that the Mughal Empire was a minor player. I'll let you have first crack at that.
They didn't operate as separate force but rather as adjunct to French. The conflict was between Britain and fRance, Mughals jsut got involved when fighting spread.
So like the US in both world wars?
US operated on their own and didn't have UK soldiers working their artillery.
In WW1 the majority of the ships that transported US troops across the Atlantic were British. IIRC much of their equipment was also of European design.
That's true but they were minor players comapred to European ones.
Calling the 1914 conflict the First World War is an enormous European conceit. Japan and China's involvement amounted to very little in the end. The Second World War involved non-European powers as major players, but the most common definition of the war almost sneeringly omits the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War and focuses on Poland.