Was WW1 really the first world war?

[dinnerblaster]

I have no strong opinion on the subject, but the question has crossed my mind multiple times recently. Since the beginning of the modern age, European colonial powers have waged many major global wars that have taken place across more than one continent and thus could be considered world wars. I'm going to list below my candidates for such conflicts and my personal requirements for a war to be named a world war candidate.

Requirements:

- Must take place during the modern era (approximately AD 1490-)

- There must be great powers on both warring sides

- Action has to take place on three or more continents and the seas surrounding them

- There has to be a point during the war when there is warfare simultaneously on three or more continents

- Directly unrelated wars can be considered parts of a larger conflict if they involve even partly the same belligerents


The world war candidates:

The Great Turkish War/War of the Reunions/Nine Years' War (1683-1699)

Belligerents:

France and Jacobites
Ottoman Empire and its vassal states

vs.

The Grand Alliance
The Holy League

Reasons to be a world war:

At that point of history the partaking powers were already multi-continental, which brought the fighting not only to Europe, but to the Americas, India and the Caribbean as well. These two wars aren't often thought of as one, but there are many factors that speak for them to be more or less the same. The most obvious one is that the Holy Roman Empire was a major player in both conflicts, fighting for many years on two fronts (something Germany would end up doing in subsequent global struggles). Having the same enemy thus made the French and Turks basically co-belligerents. Besides that France also gave the Ottomans diplomatic support and retained warm relations with them despite not being an official ally.

___

The War of the Austrian Succession (1740-174

Belligerents:

Pro-Habsburg German states
Great Britain
Dutch Republic
Sardinia
Russia

vs.

Pro-Prussian German states
France
Spain
Naples
Genoa
Sweden

RtbaWW:

The same ones as the previous conflict, the colonies and trading posts gave the war a multi-continental scale that spanned multiple overseas theaters on Europe, India and North America.

___

The Seven Years' War (1754-1763)

Major belligerents:

Great Britain
Prussia
Portugal

vs.

Austria
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Mughal Empire

RtbaWW:

Yet again pretty much the same reasons as the two previously mentioned ones. The area of operations in Europe wasn't as wide as in the previous struggles, but the overseas theaters were larger and more vital than ever and this time also involved, though briefly, Africa. Many historians have posthumously given the conflict a world war status, with none other than Winston Churchill going as far as calling it the "real" world war 1.

___

American Revolutionary War (1775-1783)

Major belligerents:

Great Britain
German states (non-combat supportive role)

vs.

United States
France
Spain
Netherlands
Mysore

RtbaWW:

Though warfare on European soil was limited, the war nonetheless spread over three continents and especially the waters surrounding them. Also for the first time in history there was an ideological factor involved in a global conflict.

__

The Great French War (1792-1815)

Major belligerents:

France
Denmark
Mysore
United States
Mexican and South American Revolutionaries

vs.

The seven coalitions and their co-belligerents
Haiti

RtbaWW:

This war has more than enough names, enough for me not to start listing them here. The wars that followed the French Revolution spanned nearly every part of Europe either directly or indirectly. Nearly every great power on the planet, save for China and Japan, took part in it and the warfare it caused spanned wider area than ever before. The entirety of Europe was involved but there were also theaters and linked action and/or proxys in India, Caucasus, Northern Africa, Middle-East, Caribbean, Haiti, all over the American continent as well as the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The war had a strong ideological background and massive social and economic consequences and the roots of both 20th century world wars can be linked directly to this conflict. The war (and the revolution preceding it) also introduced in practice the concepts of total war, nationalism, social liberalism, secularism, pan-continentalism, gender and racial equality and direct democracy, ideals that would come to change the face of the world forever. The war is usually split into two phases, the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, but I personally prefer to consider them a single conflict with a short armistice in the middle.

___

What are your opinions on the matter? Do you agree that there conflicts preceding the war that started on 1914 that could be considered world wars or is that nonsense to you? To clarify, I'm not trying to persuade people to think my way, I'd be glad to hear all kinds of opinions on the subject.

 

[Mamlaz]

In my opinion, the only war that could be considered a World War out of that list is the Seven Years War.

For the sole factor of it being the first war of its kind that actually had major consequences for the rest of the World instead of just Europe.

It basically reshaped North America as a Continent.

However, even that is a stretch, because of Asia.

So I do not think any of them could be considered World wars since they either miss out on the Americas or they miss out on Africa and Asia.

 

[Wulfburk]

The Seven Years war was also very important in India, so there is that.


Id say that the first two real "world" wars were indeed the Seven Years war, and then the  Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. (on the last, notable fightings in south america and north america as well as north africa/middle east, the indian and pacific oceans and of course europe and the atlantic and the mediterranean)








But then ive also heard that some people only consider a war to be a world war IF there is active (meaning not just declaring war and sitting back like all those countries did on germany in the end of 1944 forward) independent beligerents across the whole globe. And not having the war take place in all or most continents because of the colonies of for example Britain and France. That way its just an extension of the european war.


On that i'd say probably the Second World War is the only one that fits alongside all the other requirements. (i mean even Brazil sent 25.000 men to fight in Italy. When that occurs u know that some crazy **** is happening)

 

[matmohair1]

Spoiler

 

[dinnerblaster]

In my mind the Mongol conquests were too unconnected and spanned too long a timespan to be considered a single conflict. Besides, they took place on only two continents and saw little to no naval action (the only time I remember that happened were the failed invasions of Japan, though I'm very uneducated on the subject).

There are of course the conquests of Alexander the Great and the first three phases of the Wars of the Diadochi which could be considered kind of proto-world wars. The primitive infrastructure and lack of advanced communications technology however forbid international alliances and simultaneous theaters of war from forming during the said wars, which in my opinion disqualifies them from the bunch of later global conflicts.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The "continents" requirement is a bit silly in my opinion. Asia is practically half the world, Europe is only a tiny portion of it, but World War 1 is still called a world war even though almost all of it was in a small part of Europe.

The Mongol Civil War (1260s) is probably the earliest example of a "world war". We don't know much about it because the mongol spin doctors played it down, and most of the battles would have happened away from major centres of Iranian literacy and population (Mongol history was recorded by Iranians), but it took place in a short period over a massive area, with hundreds of thousands of men on each of the four sides, and everyone from cumans to armenians to indians to chinese involved in the fighting.

The entire Old World except for subsaharan africa and western europe was affected by it, and the result of the war was a long period of fragmentation in Iran/Syria and Russia and a complete reversal of Islamic ideology.

 

[Mamlaz]

That is still not a World War even by a longshot.

At least the above mentioned examples had factions with territories on all continents, your example was basically a large land war in Asia.

A World war is a war that includes the World in whatever matter.


Heck, if the Japanese and the Ottomans managed to stay out of ww1, even it could be argued against as a World War.

 

[dinnerblaster]

The Australian invasion of German colonies in the Pacific would have likely still happened. The unstable political climate in China combined with the close proximity of British colonial possessions would've most likely made the German owned Tsingtao-area also a battlefield sooner or later. Lack of Japanese involvement would have probably allowed the Far-Eastern theater to actually last longer because it was the Japanese siege on the city that forced the Central Powers' Asian fleet to flee. If they had a port to return to they might have had a chance to wage war on the Pacific Ocean for longer and with more efficiency. The German supported Singapore Mutiny and the African theater would have also still been there so a world war would've occurred nonetheless but on a more restricted scale.

 

[kweassa]

That is still not a World War even by a longshot.

At least the above mentioned examples had factions with territories on all continents, your example was basically a large land war in Asia.

A World war is a war that includes the World in whatever matter.


Heck, if the Japanese and the Ottomans managed to stay out of ww1, even it could be argued against as a World War.

Severely biased view, if you ask me.

If anything it overly emphasizes the element of 'multiple continents' or the term 'world' in relation to merely geographical distance, rather than the overall scope and size of the struggles that happened. Like others have already mentioned, pre-modern Asia was basically by itself a "world" without needing to cross any oceans to qualify as a "world war".

Under the definition used in this thread, one would be able to call a relatively minor clash that happens in the Carribean or the northern territories with merely thousands of combatants at most, a "world war", wheras just because the landmass was so large that no ocean was crossed, a struggle happening in the Far East would be merely a 'local trouble' despite armies numbering in hundreds of thousands fighting for years.

A "World War" is a war that includes the World in whatever matter, except the very definition of the term 'World' itself is relative -- the "world" as we recognize and acknowledge only appeared in the modern times. Before that, there was the 'mediterranean world', 'European world', 'steppe world', 'far-east world', 'south asian world', and god knows how many more "worlds" people perceived differently.

Heck, even nowadays the Asian continent and the African continent still has "worlds" that aren't fully integrated and considered a part of the "world = globalized regions sharing similar paradigms and maintaining certain amount of basic compatibility with each other in terms of economy and politics".

 

[Mamlaz]

Severely biased view

=

Asia was basically by itself a "world" without needing to cross any oceans to qualify as a "world war".

Re-read what you just wrote and contemplate what was written in the discussion above.

**** comical.

Under the definition used in this thread, one would be able to call a relatively minor clash that happens in the Carribean or the northern territories with merely thousands of combatants at most, a "world war", wheras just because the landmass was so large that no ocean was crossed, a struggle happening in the Far East would be merely a 'local trouble' despite armies numbering in hundreds of thousands fighting for years.

No.

Re-read the thread.

The argument was that conflict, in whatever severity, has to happen on most inhabited continents for it to be a World War.

You know, because of what the word world means...

A "World War" is a war that includes the World

Yes.

except the very definition of the term 'World' itself is relative

No.

-- the "world" as we recognize and acknowledge only appeared in the modern times. Before that, there was the 'mediterranean world', 'European world', 'steppe world', 'far-east world', 'south asian world', and god knows how many more "worlds" people perceived differently. 

Wrong, we have Atlases of all continents apart from Australia and Antartica already in the late 1490s.

In fact, the first physical Globus representing Earth was constructed in 1492 by Martin Behaim.

Heck, even nowadays the Asian continent and the African continent still has "worlds" that aren't fully integrated and considered a part of the "world = globalized regions sharing similar paradigms and maintaining certain amount of basic compatibility with each other in terms of economy and politics".

Spewing such dippy babble in a discussion about determining when a war is a World war is ridiculous.

 

[kweassa]

Severely biased view

=

Asia was basically by itself a "world" without needing to cross any oceans to qualify as a "world war".

Re-read what you just wrote and contemplate what was written in the discussion above.

**** comical.

Under the definition used in this thread, one would be able to call a relatively minor clash that happens in the Carribean or the northern territories with merely thousands of combatants at most, a "world war", wheras just because the landmass was so large that no ocean was crossed, a struggle happening in the Far East would be merely a 'local trouble' despite armies numbering in hundreds of thousands fighting for years.

No.

Re-read the thread.

The argument was that conflict, in whatever severity, has to happen on most inhabited continents for it to be a World War.

You know, because of what the word world means...

A "World War" is a war that includes the World

Yes.

except the very definition of the term 'World' itself is relative

No.

-- the "world" as we recognize and acknowledge only appeared in the modern times. Before that, there was the 'mediterranean world', 'European world', 'steppe world', 'far-east world', 'south asian world', and god knows how many more "worlds" people perceived differently. 

Wrong, we have Atlases of all continents apart from Australia and Antartica already in the late 1490s.

In fact, the first physical Globus representing Earth was constructed in 1492 by Martin Behaim.

Heck, even nowadays the Asian continent and the African continent still has "worlds" that aren't fully integrated and considered a part of the "world = globalized regions sharing similar paradigms and maintaining certain amount of basic compatibility with each other in terms of economy and politics".

Spewing such dippy babble in a discussion about determining when a war is a World war is ridiculous.

Given your habitual trolling history of spewing "no" without much to go on - as in, total denial of conversation or debate and simply resorting to your small, bigoted cone of influence (which grows smaller every time you repeat that attitude), frankly I don't think you're in any position to demand others to go 'read' something.

In premodern times, the sphere of influence dictated what people perceived as the 'world'. Very clear to see and understand if you've ever actually 'read' the typical stance of China-based empires as they've constantly defined the 'world' to what was known to them -- which, also btw, isn't all that different in the mediterranean world where the Roman concept of the mundus also defined the 'known scope of the world' for centuries to come.

If you will contend this fact with your supposed, narrow, and western-centric fantasy of what defines a 'world', then by all means, continue. Like, as if the other side of the world never experienced stuff like multiple influemtial belligerants representing different cultures fighting by putting up 6-digit figure armies for many years. Oh sure, this isn't a 'world war', because there wasn't any ocean between them.

Everyone knows your next set of response is also another heap of "no"s, anyway. You'd do outdated crones like Hanson or Keegan proud.

 

[Mamlaz]

Given your habitual trolling history of spewing "no" without much to go on - as in, total denial of conversation or debate and simply resorting to your small, bigoted cone of influence (which grows smaller every time you repeat that attitude), frankly I don't think you're in any position to demand others to go 'read' something.

The no's are only reserved for the obvious noes, and you had some pretty obvious noes in your post.

In premodern times, the sphere of influence dictated what people perceived as the 'world'. Very clear to see and understand if you've ever actually 'read' the typical stance of China-based empires as they've constantly defined the 'world' to what was known to them -- which, also btw, isn't all that different in the mediterranean world where the Roman concept of the mundus also defined the 'known scope of the world' for centuries to come.

Yet that does not make a single feather swing to your argument.

It is utterly irrelevant, because World War is a modern concept and it relies on modern viewpoints.

Even the damn First World war was called Great War for quite a while.

If you will contend this fact with your supposed, narrow, and western-centric of what defines a 'world', then by all means, continue. Everyone knows your next set of response is also another heap of "no"s, anyway.

You'd do outdated crones like Hanson or Keegan proud.

How the hell am I being western-centric 

I am denying your point to all wars and all continents equally, which is evident by my very first post in this thread as I denied the same I am denying the Mongols to all other western wars mentioned in the OP 

Again;

Read better.



Now from that,

your arguments are ridiculous, as they would result in any major war in any region prior to the New Era a World War

Conquests of Alexander, Roman Civil Wars, heck even the damned Crusades as they all fall into your warped nonsense as they all accumulated a good portion of what was the known set political spheres for those peoples at that time.

Heck, the Spanish conquest of the New World was then also a World War.

Hitler apparently started World War 37 

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Asia is very big

Your'are an ass

No.

 

[kweassa]

Yet that does not make a single feather swing to your argument.

It is utterly irrelevant, because World War is a modern concept and it relies on modern viewpoints.

Even the damn First World war was called Great War for quite a while.

Here I get to say, "what's the title and theme of this thread, maybe you should read that first."

There's not a single person in this thread (I presume) that doesn't know the concept of a 'World War'. The modernized, industrial scale of a warmachine and all that stuff, preciously laid out and defined by wonderful historians like the late Hobsbawm and quite a lot of military historians as well.

Except the thread opener borrowed the wording to describe a sort of 'multi-national' war for us to discuss, even specified the timeline for it. Heck, your own comments which I disagreed to followed by that presumption, and then now, you suddenly fall back to defining the modern concept of WW, as if it needs explaining, or as if your pitiful attempts to salvage your non-existant argument means anything.

If not, I'm all ears to an actual opinion if you've had any in the first place, which I still don't see. It's probably either because I'm dyslexic, or you simply lashed out with your box of 'no's as you always do, without really thinking about what the discussion was about, which remained perfectly neutral before someone lashed out for no apparent reason.

How the hell am I being western-centric 

I am denying your point to all wars and all continents equally, which is evident by my very first post in this thread as I denied the same I am denying the Mongols to all other western wars mentioned in the OP 

Again;

Read better.

"non enim sciunt quid faciunt"... sweet Jesus Christ.  They weren't joking when they said, "the ignorant are invincible".

Hey, whatever works for you. You keep up your nonsense, I correct it.

Now from that,

your arguments are ridiculous, as they would result in any major war in any region prior to the New Era a World War

Conquests of Alexander, Roman Civil Wars, heck even the damned Crusades as they all fall into your warped nonsense as they all accumulated a good portion of what was the known set political spheres for those peoples at that time.

Heck, the Spanish conquest of the New World was then also a World War.

Hitler apparently started World War 37 

Which is exactly the type of suppositions which the original poster asked for, remember?

To talk about which wars were multi-national, large-scaled, featuring long distances and etc. etc., before industrial times, where the original poster even gave us a timeline for it.

...so who's not READING now?

 

[Wulfburk]

^ So for you a conventional war between the US and Russia where all the other countries sit back and watch including all of europe would be a world war? Because muh industrial scale of a warmachine and all that stuff.




No, id rather that be definition for total war or something, while a world war indeed talking about a multi national effort on both sides across several continents.


But that is just me.




Oh and IMO Hobsbawm is terrible. I literally closed his book when i saw retarded mistakes when he was "trying" to say anything on the paraguayan war.

 

[Mamlaz]

Here I get to say, "what's the title and theme of this thread, maybe you should read that first."

No, you don't.

There's not a single person in this thread (I presume) that doesn't know the concept of a 'World War'. The modernized, industrial scale of a warmachine and all that stuff, preciously laid out and defined by wonderful historians like the late Hobsbawm and quite a lot of military historians as well.

Except the thread opener borrowed the wording to describe a sort of 'multi-national' war for us to discuss, even specified the timeline for it. Heck, your own comments which I disagreed to followed by that presumption, and then now, you suddenly fall back to defining the modern concept of WW, as if it needs explaining, or as if your pitiful attempts to salvage your non-existant argument means anything.

If not, I'm all ears to an actual opinion if you've had any in the first place, which I still don't see. It's probably either because I'm dyslexic, or you simply lashed out with your box of 'no's as you always do, without really thinking about what the discussion was about, which remained perfectly neutral before someone lashed out for no apparent reason.


"non enim sciunt quid faciunt"... sweet Jesus Christ.  They weren't joking when they said, "the ignorant are invincible".

Hey, whatever works for you. You keep up your nonsense, I correct it.

Which is exactly the type of suppositions which the original poster asked for, remember?

To talk about which wars were multi-national, large-scaled, featuring long distances and etc. etc., before industrial times, where the original poster even gave us a timeline for it.

...so who's not READING now?

=

Requirements:

- Must take place during the modern era (approximately AD 1490-)

- There must be great powers on both warring sides

- Action has to take place on three or more continents and the seas surrounding them

- There has to be a point during the war when there is warfare simultaneously on three or more continents

- Directly unrelated wars can be considered parts of a larger conflict if they involve even partly the same belligerents

Read better next time.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

^ So for you a conventional war between the US and Russia where all the other countries sit back and watch including all of europe would be a world war?

I can't speak for kweassa, but in my opinion you can't compare the mongol successor states to the US or USSR. When the mongols warred against each other it really was a multinational war since many of the conquered states remained completely intact under them. Imagine NATO fighting against every communist or formerly communist country in the world for a better comparison with premodern "world wars".

 

[Mamlaz]

I can't speak for kweassa, but in my opinion you can't compare the mongol successor states to the US or USSR. When the mongols warred against each other it really was a multinational war since many of the conquered states remained completely intact under them. Imagine NATO fighting against every communist or formerly communist country in the world for a better comparison with premodern "world wars".

Not the same thing.

Because NATO fighting against all of those countries would include fighting on numerous continents.

The Mongol civil war was basically locked on a single continent or two if you count the Golden Horde merely having territory in Europe.

The Mongol conquests themselves, being numerous wars instead of a single war still do not count as they were fought mainly in Asia and then in Europe...so only two continents even with that enormous stretch.


A World War is a world war.

 

[Wulfburk]

Hm but this irks me too. I mean comon, lets say if a giant Anti EU alliance happened in the world, with main powers being UK*,FRA and Germany vs Russia, US and China, and with all the other non european countries in the russia and US side and sending troops too.

*before they activate their exit lel

So basically all the countries involved and the population of all those countries doing something to the war effort. (industrial and fighting and etc). BUT the fighting would only happen in Europe, 1 continent, and that is it. A eastern front and maybe some amphibious invasions and what not in western europe.

Woudnt it still be a world war? I think its more important if all the populations across the world are directly involved in the war, and not like have a naval battle of the river plate between Germany and the UK while all of south america sits tight and be neutral.

 

[Mamlaz]

A good point.

But it still does not help the examples mentioned in the thread, as they did not have anything close to such a scenario.