Was WW1 really the first world war?

[Untitled.]

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.

A war like this would see Africa designated as international battlegrounds and combat elsewhere would be prohibited.

 

[kweassa]

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.

Which is why I questioned the definition of "world war" under the line of reasoning used in this thread, in the first place. The "continental" condition as mentioned in the opening post is basically not more than semantics, and in the first place relies on arbitrary lines drawn on the map and categorized as "continents".

This becomes pretty much apparent when you take for example -- the Marmara Strait that conceptually/traditionally divided where Europe ends and where Asia starts since ancient times. For the people living on either side it represented a clear-cut line that divides culture, and thus worlds apart.

Frankly speaking, some parts of the academic circles regarding ancient history consider the Greek invasion of Troy as the "first world war", as it was received as the first "East vs. West" clash in history, which was later repeated in the form of "Greek world" vs "Persian World", and then again, repeated in the form of Alexander vs. Persia, and then again repeated as Romans vs. Sassanids. Others consider the war between Ramses II and the Hittites as a conceptual 'world war' that predates the Trojan War.

To the people of the mediterranean civilization, it certainly qualifies as a "world war" since there wasn't any other important "worlds" that were known during that time. Asia beyond India, or Africa south of the northern shores were basically lands of legend and mystery, the far edges of the world which remained obscure. The known center of the world revolved around the mediterranean sea.

But ofcourse, in geographical terms, while people may argue it as "Europe" vs "Asia", (oh wow, TWO continents), the "theater of operations" in all of the above case is what, a small area centered around the Aegean sea, or the Levant, or maybe a bit more East to Susa? It's still one land mass.


So, in conclusion, once we remove the classical elements of the term "World War" -- such as total war, industrialized war, capitalism-influenced war machine, nationalism, basically everything 'modern' with it, then all it remains is the definition of the "world" itself.

...

Oh sure, sending a few thousand troops to duke it out on hardly-populated colonies on the far side of the world qualifies as a "world war" because the Europeans had superior boat-tech, whereas under this, narrow and biased definition, for example, sending more than 100 thousand troops to duke out against the Xiongnu at their home ground by marching by foot, into the steppe lands, through deserts, and reaching the Lake Baikal, doesn't qualify, because it's still on the same "continent", despite the Han-Xiongnu war was basically the "center of the world vs. everything north of the world" in those times.

Spoiler

Doesn't look too big? That's roughly the distance between Madrid and Athens to march through and fight all along the way, without a road system or civilized city or outposts to help out with logistics.


Or how about the 7-year Imjin War (Bunroku/Keicho no Eki to the Japanese) in the Korean peninsula, which featured all three major states in the Far East during the time, including a few more exotic ethnic tribes taking part? Fought for 7 years, ALL of the three major states of the era were involved?

The kingdom of Joseon mobilized 180 thousand men, maintaining 70 thousand combat troops with estimated 70 thousand losses throughout the 7 years. Chinese expeditionary forces mobilized 220 thousand with 90 thousand combat troops with 80 thousand losses, and the Japanese invasion force, due to the need to cross the sea and maintain logistics, mobilized a total 470 thousand men with 190 thousand combat troops and their total losses are estimated at 120 thousand.

Oh wait. Still doesn't qualify. *snicker*

Because everything happened in Asia, and Far-East at the time only had 3 major states in the region, unlike the rag-tag quilt pattern of gazillion itsy bitsy European states, principalities, free cities, etc etc.., and the the Japanese only crossed a narrow strait instead of an ocean, so having close to 200 thousand men fight in a land of totally different culture and totally different systems and principles don't mean anything, since they're all Asians. 

 

[Dystopian]

I sense a little salt.

Are you, by any chance, Asian or hold Asia close to your heart?

 

[Mamlaz]

The "continental" condition as mentioned in the opening post is basically not more than semantics, and in the first place relies on arbitrary lines drawn on the map and categorized as "continents".

The geographical condition is then also nothing more than semantics, as it relies on arbitrary notions of distance and geographical scale.

...

Frankly speaking, some parts of the academic circles regarding ancient history consider the Greek invasion of Troy as the "first world war"

Source?

Others consider the war between Ramses II and the Hittites as a conceptual 'world war' that predates the Trojan War.

Who does?

Who?

To the people of the mediterranean civilization, it certainly qualifies as a "world war" since there wasn't any other important "worlds" that were known during that time.

Well, a shucks then that the very concept of a world war was unknown to them making your entire line of reasoning ridiculous.

So, in conclusion, once we remove the classical elements of the term "World War" -- such as total war, industrialized war, capitalism-influenced war machine, nationalism, basically everything 'modern' with it, then all it remains is the definition of the "world" itself.

Yes, when we remove absolutely every aspect and element that forms the term "World War", we can then venture into your fantasy land.

sending more than 100 thousand troops to duke out against the Xiongnu at their home ground by marching by foot, into the steppe lands, through deserts, and reaching the Lake Baikal, doesn't qualify, because it's still on the same "continent", despite the Han-Xiongnu war was basically the "center of the world vs. everything north of the world" in those times.

Doesn't look too big? That's roughly the distance between Madrid and Athens to march through and fight all along the way, without a road system or civilized city or outposts to help out with logistics.

What of it?

Napoleon sent 600 000 troops to Moscow and barely anyone even considers the Napoleonic wars as a World War.

Or how about the 7-year Imjin War (Bunroku/Keicho no Eki to the Japanese) in the Korean peninsula, which featured all three major states in the Far East during the time, including a few more exotic ethnic tribes taking part? Fought for 7 years, ALL of the three major states of the era were involved?

Dear god?

All of the three major states?

That sounds like, nearly every other major war in human history.

Oh wait. Still doesn't qualify. *snicker*

Correct.

don't mean anything, since they're all Asians. 

Ridiculous.

You don't get your way and suddenly everyone is Eurocentric.

Pathetic.

I sense a little salt.

Are you, by any chance, Asian or hold Asia close to your heart?

Gee, noo, really?

What made you think that?

 

[BerserkerRezo]

Can the War of the Spanish Succession be considered a continental conflict? Since Queen Anne's war or the Second Intercontinental War was part of the Spanish war, but  in North America. Can it be a global conflict?

 

[Mamlaz]

It cannot be a global conflict since Asia and Africa were basically unfazed by it.

 

[BerserkerRezo]

Understood.

 

[kweassa]

Well, a shucks then that the very concept of a world war was unknown to them making your entire line of reasoning ridiculous.

Yes, when we remove absolutely every aspect and element that forms the term "World War", we can then venture into your fantasy land.

*sigh*

The point is, basically everything mentioned in this thread is a "fantasy" because the term "world war" coined here simply overexaggerates the scope of distance, because it doesn't take into account the variety of factors which people of different times, ages, and locations may consider the struggle so large and important as to consider it "worldly".

Even the Great War itself, from the standpoint of the variety of different people of a variety of different regions, is merely a traditional large-scale war mostly confined to the landmass of Europe in two fronts. Surely a variety of battles happened as well in different parts of the world as well, but you think any of them meant **** to the overall outcome of the war itself, as compared to stuff happening in places like Verdun?

To the rest of the "world", the "Great War", or the "the First World War", was still a mostly war in Europe if we strip it down to purely geographical distance. Or, conversely, by the definition you use (which is a fantasy as well) the American War of Independence can easily be coined a "World War" as well. A large fight with two belligerents having an entire ocean between them? World War in your book, no?

The reason we call the 'Great War' a 'World War' is not because of just the geographical distance involved. It was a lot more than that with many distinct features, the overall scale, and the importance it held to "global" politics (which, btw, is also a term relative to the perception of the ages), that we call it a "WORLD" War.

So frankly NONE of us can really call ANY of the wars before 1914 as a "WORLD" war in the traditional sense...

AND THEREFORE

...the specific term "WORLD WAR" we use in THIS thread is basically a concept which we define ourselves that has nothing to do with the "WORLD WAR" as referenced by the one that happened between 1914-1918.

You, and the thread opener abitrarily redefined it on basis of geographical distance, I define it by other factors. I claim your definition is biased, and mine is better, because the concept of the "world war" isn't really about the distance between two points of the 'world', but rather about "worldly importance".

Fantasy? Yours and mine both.

What of it?

Napoleon sent 600 000 troops to Moscow and barely anyone even considers the Napoleonic wars as a World War.

The entire Napoleonic campaign can easily be called a World War, yes. If the size and scope, political importance of Napoleon's wars don't qualify as a 'world war' then what does?

Dear god?

All of the three major states?

That sounds like, nearly every other major war in human history.

...as if any of the examples of wars this thread first started with have anything to do with the other side of the world?

Thanks for proving the point, btw, as in Eurocentric and biased.

Ridiculous.

You don't get your way and suddenly everyone is Eurocentric.

Pathetic.

Not everyone. Just you, for reasons you've displayed yourself.

The case of the Imjin War I've given as example in the prior post, is about the largest war that has happened in the entire world during those times, except it happened on the other side of the world as Europeans perceived and doesn't really pick up the gaze of modern day westerners. Besides, 16th century is hardly the time where the world was really integrated with each other, and therefore we can consider "global" scale operations as an option for considering what kind of war qualifies as 'wordly'.

So the fact that one's interest being usually limited to one's own familiarity, that by itself is not a bad thing, and not necessarily a bias. It's when you start being an ass about every theory or view point that's beyond your own pov, and start that "no-troll" ****.

That's when you become biased.

Source?

Who does? Who?

These parts I'll dig up some sources. One I can immediately give, is Herodotus himself, since virtually everyone studying Greco-Persian wars notes his stance on how Herodotus defines the war as an ideological one, and as a clash of civilizations. Frankly speaking I'm a bit suprised you're even questioning this, because I thought the studies on Herodotus was pretty much given, among people who like history. In case of the Trojan war, latter day Roman works also quite often have a habit of portraying the Trojans as an "Asian" state, and often maintaining the "Aisa vs Europe" stance I've mentioned.

I admit the reference to Battle of Kadesh will take a bit longer time to dig up, since I can't remember exactly which scholars said that. Gonna take some time with this one.

I sense a little salt.

Are you, by any chance, Asian or hold Asia close to your heart?

Do you ask the same questions about race or ethnicity to everyone that naturally bases their discussion on what happened in the European world, when we discuss history?

Yes, I'm of Asian decent, btw, and I probably 'hold it close to heart' as much as any of you for some reason hold your own skin color 'close to heart.' 

 

[Mamlaz]

To the rest of the "world", the "Great War", or the "the First World War", was still a mostly war in Europe if we strip it down to purely geographical distance.

The Ottomans and Japan made it a World War.

The reason we call the 'Great War' a 'World War' is not because of just the geographical distance involved. It was a lot more than that with many distinct features, the overall scale, and the importance it held to "global" politics (which, btw, is also a term relative to the perception of the ages), that we call it a "WORLD" War.

Yes, global.

...the specific term "WORLD WAR" we use in THIS thread is basically a concept which we define ourselves that has nothing to do with the "WORLD WAR" as referenced by the one that happened between 1914-1918.

Re-read the OP's rules.

your definition is biased, and mine is better

because the concept of the "world war" isn't really about the distance between two points of the 'world', but rather about "worldly importance".

Shucks that basically the entirety of modern historiography of the human species disagrees with you.

Fantasy? Yours and mine both.

No, just yours.

If the size and scope, political importance of Napoleon's wars don't qualify as a 'world war' then what does?

World War 1 and 2.

Thanks for proving the point, btw, as in Eurocentric and biased.

How?

How the hell is anything I stated so far Eurocentric in any way?

Not everyone. Just you, for reasons you've displayed yourself.

How did I do that?

The case of the Imjin War I've given as example in the prior post, is about the largest war that has happened in the entire world during those times

Irrelevant, it did not include even most of Asia, let alone other continents lol.

except it happened on the other side of the world as Europeans perceived and doesn't really pick up the gaze of modern day westerners.

I find it hilarious how you are limited to your own tunnel vision so much that you fail to realize that I am denying the same to western wars as well.

Besides, 16th century is hardly the time where the world was really integrated with each other, and therefore we can consider "global" scale operations as an option for considering what kind of war qualifies as 'wordly'.

Nope, even in those times it would not have been the world to those people, as the East Asians already knew about both Africa, Europe as well as the European discovery of America.

That's when you become biased.

How?

I beg of you, how?

Frankly speaking I'm a bit suprised you're even questioning this

Yeah, it is like...you state something wrong and I question it, weird.

Do you ask the same questions about race or ethnicity to everyone that naturally bases their discussion on what happened in the European world, when we discuss history?

Dude, you accused me of extreme bias in the first sentence you wrote on this thread.

You are the one screaming bias and centrism, not me.

The reason this was asked is because you are crying about Asian wars not being considered world wars and then crying Eurocentrism despite nobody else in this thread showing a grain of centrism of any kind.

The first reply was me denying the largest pre-ww1 European wars the same title, your own tunnel vision in this discussion is comical.

Yes, I'm of Asian decent, btw, and I probably 'hold it close to heart' as much as any of you for some reason hold your own skin color 'close to heart.'

...and there it is.

That is what I was waiting for.

Good of you to share your inner thoughts.

Pathetic.

 

[dinnerblaster]

Umm...

I'm not saying my personal standards aren't up to debate (because that was one of the points of the thread and jacobhinds challenged them with an excellent example), but I do consider them relatively accurate because I've based them on views and opinions given by historians.

But kweassa, we have to remember here that world war status is not a prize any major war can claim but a description of a single confined conflict's physical spread, which in the given context is directly global in contemporary sense. If we'd go by the standards you're giving then indeed many large area-covering wars from the Crusades to the Thirty Years' War, the war of the Spanish Succession, the American and Kongo Civil Wars as well as the ongoing War on Terror could be classified as world wars. However in my mind that would be biased nonsense and make the term seem more ambiguous than it actually is.

Though I'm glad that there are strong opinions on the subject, I must agree with Mamlaz that bringing race into the discussion is utterly tasteless and only shows lack of understanding regarding the near complete lack of value contemporary white people actually give to their skin color.

For example, I personally consider WW2 having started in 1937 in China instead of 1939 in Poland, a viewpoint that is getting discussed more and more in the west novadays. Reasons for my... reasoning aren't also based on abstract racial reasons, but on political ones.

And yeah, the Imjin War was a great one and absolutely worthy of more attention in the west. But a world war it wasn't in any reasonable sense. And there were multiple longstanding fronts and theaters in WW1 outside of Europe.

 

[Adorno]

Was WW1 really the first world war?

Yes.

 

[Dazzer]

Revolutions of 1848?

 

[Swissky]

Not really a conventional war, even if they were civil wars. Not only that, but it was limited to one continent.

 

[Dazzer]

Not really a conventional war, even if they were civil wars. Not only that, but it was limited to one continent.

Well there were small "revolutions" in Brazil and Canada

 

[Swissky]

Does that officially count as a part of the 1848 revolutions? I thought that they only included the European nations.

 

[Mamlaz]

Well there were small "revolutions" in Brazil and Canada

No Asia = not World War.