Reply With QuoteThe 7 years/French and Indian War was fought in Europe, Africa, North America, and Asia. Maybe South America too, I mostly know about the North American land war, not naval stuff or Spanish involvement.Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend
Well, it sure helps to have Russia onboard. It brings war to two continents with one stroke of pen.
The 7 years/French and Indian War was fought in Europe, Africa, North America, and Asia. Maybe South America too, I mostly know about the North American land war, not naval stuff or Spanish involvement.
It sure was global enough for the time !
"Weltkrieg" was definitely used in german language almost immidiately after the end of WW1.
But as other said, the first World War was less global than the 7 years war, but the difference was that this was far in the past, and too localized.
It was more like serveral major wars fought at once, especially as the alliances between the major powers that fought it were also very fickle.
Prussians didn't care for english successes in American and vice versa, while the French stayed out of the Prussian theater after Rossbach and the english stayed out of Europe alltogether except for Hannover and the naval war.
Also the 7 Years War was a war between subject of kings, not nation states.
De Jure it was a german war against "Rogue States", Prussia and Hannover, but that was because French and Austrians controlled the institutions of the Holy Roman Empire, but nearly all protestant and even many catholic germans regarded Prussia as their champion against foreign powers.
I see lots of problems with these comments, so I'll respond in parts.
- If an interim treaty or armistice prevents a war from being called a discrete war, then what would you call the Hundred Years' War, or the Thirty Years' War, or the War of the Spanish Succession, all of which were interrupted several times?
- Why would only a war of alliances be considered a world war? By same token, the Second World War was about Germany and a couple of hangers-on which the Germans picked up along the way. No, not at all. A war between one powerful state (with minor supporters) and a coalition of states can still be called a world war as long as other criteria are fulfilled.
- My definition of a World War is a conflict involving all great powers of a given time-frame which is not limited to a single region, but spreads to most parts of the world. This is why I have an issue with the Seven Years War, since the Ottoman Empire (a major power) is completely missing from it, Swedish and Russian participation is nominal bordering on non-existent and the conflict doesn't take place in near East or most of Asia.
Are there universally-accepted qualifications for the term "world war"? I don't know if there are, but, if I had to take a stab at it, I would think that the following would have to be met, minimally:
1. The belligerents must be nation states, and there must be more than just two of them.
2. The belligerents must originate from more than one continent. It is not enough if the belligerents simply have far-flung battlegrounds on continents which are separate from the one their origin. This is true even if their forces are augmented by local, non-state auxiliaries.
3. There must be some connection between all parties involved, as in, say, military pacts. It can't be simply a case of otherwise unrelated conflicts occurring simultaneously.
Last edited by That One Guy; 05-24-2012 at 12:22 PM. Reason: Added point #3.
By that definition, WWII didn't start until December 11, 1941, when Germany declared war on the United States. Mainstream historians will tell you that the war began on September 1, 1939, even though at that time it was only a war between Germany and Poland.
I believe that it would be defined as coalition warfare on a global scale.
It doesn't really matter, I can't imagine anyone going back to re-define things that have been widely accepted around the world for many decades. No one is going to re-label WWII as WWIV, etc.
Naming of wars can be a bit arbitrary.
France and England were more at peace during the Hundred Years War (considered a single event) than during the whole 18th century, but those are considered seperate wars.
The whole time between the Glorious Revolution or at least the Accession of the Hannovers and Waterloo was a single anglo-french war.
In a way, the second world war was the only one, as WW1 was largely limited to Europe and the Middle East, except for some short lived actions in the colonies which were largely over by 1915.
To the same extent, no one considers the defensive wars of the Roman Empire in late antiquity as one conflict, despite Rome having to fight multiple enemies on serveral fronts (usually Persians and Germanic tribes in Germany and Balkans, later also Huns), same for the east Roman Empire which often had to fight Muslims and Bulgarians/Slavs at the same time.
It makes me wonder: can we say that WW2 started around 1937, when Japan invaded China? And after that Italy did invade Abyssinia...
Yeah, now that I have thought about it some more, I think you're right. "World war" is not a general catagory, but a specific name given to two historic conflicts. Even if it could be effectively argued that there were essential similarities with certain other conflicts, it's not as though historians are going to start officially renaming things.
They always do that.
For example, the term "Byzantine Empire" didn't exist until the 18th Century.
Before that it was called "Roman Empire" as well.
^ Well, that may be true, but I was referring to modern historians renaming or recategorzing major, historic conflicts of the past. Do you know of any instances where that has occurred?
The Term "Holocaust" for the genocide on the Jews wasn't used until the book came out in the 60s.
An in Germany it was not widely used until the 80s, before that it did not have a specific name, it was simply called "killing of the jews" or "genocide on the jews" or so.
^ Okay, but that was renaming an event within a war, not the entire war, correct?
Posting Permissions
