A world war is just a big military conflict fought in most of the globe or at least the effects of the war reach nearly every economy and affect even people that are not directly participating in the conflict. There is nothing that tells who is fighting, it could be 2 European countries with massive colonies or Asian countries allied with others etc.
Should the Seven Years War be seen as the 1st World War?
- Thread starter Emperor Palpatine
- Start date
Wasn´t there also some native American tribes involved on both sides in the American part of the Seven Years War? Anyway, I think calling a war a "world war" is more about the war taking part in several parts of the world than that powers from different parts of the world are involved. I wouldnt call a war between for instance Portugese and Indonesian powers a world war unless it also involved a larger world wide war (for instance bettween Portugal and other European powers).
You're seriously arguing that during the 1600s the Iberian Union couldn't be considered a major power? It had influence over a far greater area than any of the three you mentioned.
Fighting in North america and India were different theratres thatn Europe yet both are considered aprt of 7YW
Well, as you've said, it was aprt of conflict that spanned generations and separate wars. It would be like calling Napoleaonic wars aprt of some long lasting French-British/English war
You can look at it that way. But by same criteria you can say same thing for early Muslim expansion and called that world war since it included 3 continents, compared to Mongol 2.
True, however in WW1 you had military action on 3 continents, ilitary involvemend of country from fourth and some small action close to fifth one
WW1 was first such war where you had fighting on several continents and participants form different continents as independant powers (not counting antiquity)
I'm saying why I think WW1 is considered first wolrd war. Because previous such wars were fought betweeh European powers on different continents wheres in WW1 countries on these continents joined as separate powers.
Napoleonrules
Banned
I agree with the assertion that WWI became WWI simply because WWII came so soon after. WWI came 100 years after the Napoleonic Wars, a name that had a long time to sink in over more than a generation. Depending on your region and when you consider WWII to have started, we had less than a generation between WWI and WWII. There are historians who argue that WWI and WWII should be considered one really long war (remember the Napoleonic Wars had several intervening peace treaties and peace times for varying lengths, though none as long as between WWI and WWII).
What is called the French and Indians Wars in the USA are several separate wars in Europe.
As for these arguments about Eurocentrism, well... history is written by the victors, surely we all know that. Though I guess AH.com should logically then, by default, be written by the losers!
Wars have consequences, you lose territory, resources, people, and the winner gets more territory, resources, and the ability to have its people invent things first and use the losers inventions to their own profit for more effective than the loser. Wars create superpowers. Even China's future plans recognizes that historical fact, though if they do become the next superpower and manage it through economic domination without a war that would be best for the world.
What is called the French and Indians Wars in the USA are several separate wars in Europe.
As for these arguments about Eurocentrism, well... history is written by the victors, surely we all know that. Though I guess AH.com should logically then, by default, be written by the losers!
Wars have consequences, you lose territory, resources, people, and the winner gets more territory, resources, and the ability to have its people invent things first and use the losers inventions to their own profit for more effective than the loser. Wars create superpowers. Even China's future plans recognizes that historical fact, though if they do become the next superpower and manage it through economic domination without a war that would be best for the world.
1st World War: 1739-1748
2nd World War: 1756-63
3rd World War: 1792-1815
4th World War: 1914-1918
5th World War: 1937-1945
2nd World War: 1756-63
3rd World War: 1792-1815
4th World War: 1914-1918
5th World War: 1937-1945
IF you define a World War as a war where troops from all (most?) continents fought on MORE than one continent the OTLs nomenclature is correct.
During the 7 years war Brits and French fought on other continents - even with and against native nations. BUT the difference to the later wars is that for example troops from teh Mughal empire did NOT fight in Europe or North Africa, the Indian allys of Britain and France did not leave the American theater. IF you define Australia and Oceania as ONE continent European troops did even fight in this continent (even if only a short time
)
In the Great war (WWI) you got European troops fighing in Europe, Asia Africa and if you count in Coronel and Falklands even in the Americas. At the same time you have troops from the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australia fighting in Europe and on other continents too. Independent states from ALL continents were involved in this war (Counting South Africa - not many other Independent states in Africa - maybe Egypt as semi Independent)
THE Napoleonic wars don't qualify IMHO opinion as the fights as troops from the other continents did not participate in European campaignes 8or campaigns outside their home continent - Russia and the OE are borderline. the War of 1815 was not really part of the Napoleonic wars, but more an Anglo American affair...
Another criteria is that in earlier wars the alliances were less formal. Only the European nations were in blocs while for example the Mughals or the Indian tribes were no formal part on the "coalitions".
But in reality ist only a matter of Definition... (US sailors pressed in UK sevice could make a case for american involvement in the Napoleonic wars and UK owned Australia...
During the 7 years war Brits and French fought on other continents - even with and against native nations. BUT the difference to the later wars is that for example troops from teh Mughal empire did NOT fight in Europe or North Africa, the Indian allys of Britain and France did not leave the American theater. IF you define Australia and Oceania as ONE continent European troops did even fight in this continent (even if only a short time
)In the Great war (WWI) you got European troops fighing in Europe, Asia Africa and if you count in Coronel and Falklands even in the Americas. At the same time you have troops from the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australia fighting in Europe and on other continents too. Independent states from ALL continents were involved in this war (Counting South Africa - not many other Independent states in Africa - maybe Egypt as semi Independent)
THE Napoleonic wars don't qualify IMHO opinion as the fights as troops from the other continents did not participate in European campaignes 8or campaigns outside their home continent - Russia and the OE are borderline. the War of 1815 was not really part of the Napoleonic wars, but more an Anglo American affair...
Another criteria is that in earlier wars the alliances were less formal. Only the European nations were in blocs while for example the Mughals or the Indian tribes were no formal part on the "coalitions".
But in reality ist only a matter of Definition... (US sailors pressed in UK sevice could make a case for american involvement in the Napoleonic wars and UK owned Australia
...Napoleonrules
Banned
If you make the definition broad enough one could even claim the US Revolutionary War as a World War. Spain, the Netherlands, and France all declared war on Great Britain and there were naval engagements in Europe and around the world associated with the war.
Alexander's campaign against Persia did involve three continents and over 1/4 of the entire Earth's population.
Alexander's campaign against Persia did involve three continents and over 1/4 of the entire Earth's population.
If I may repeat myself.....
You could maybe find some Byzantine war that was fough in europe, Asia and Africa. Or, if you stretch things further you can say 5th Crusade was such since it involved European powers fighting in Asia and Africa (though not in Europe)
Last edited:
It depends on the definition of "world war", but realistically no war has ever even come close to matching WW2 in it's scale - WW1 was almost entirely fought in Europe or around the med with very little fighting elsewhere.
Calling the Napoleonic Wars a single world war also ignores the fact that these were several wars interspersed with localised outbreaks of peace. It was only really Britain and France that stayed at war more or less continually from 1792 to 1815, with only a short peace in 1802.
Calling the Napoleonic Wars a single world war also ignores the fact that these were several wars interspersed with localised outbreaks of peace. It was only really Britain and France that stayed at war more or less continually from 1792 to 1815, with only a short peace in 1802.
The Mongol conquests might not count as a world war, as you argue, but why and how would you be better off with "some Byzantine war"?
Because then you'd get three continents in a single war (Mongols managed two).
But, as I've said, I wouldn't count that as world war because continents are so close together.