Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 17th, 2011, 05:33 AM   #1

sturm's Avatar
миротворец
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 8,885
Blog Entries: 1
The Seven years war - First world war?


Why isn't usually the Seven years war, viewed as the first world war, in modern historiography?
After all this war was the first global conflict, with battles waged in Africa, North America, Europe, Asia.
sturm is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 17th, 2011, 05:52 AM   #2

blacksmit049's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Manila
Posts: 1,247
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm View Post
Why isn't usually the Seven years war, viewed as the first world war, in modern historiography?
After all this war was the first global conflict, with battles waged in Africa, North America, Europe, Asia.
I think everything is based on the scale of the war, the devastating effect of its frontier, and most especially by the number of casualties. World war I was earlier called 'The Great War' since it was first time in the human history that such conflict would lead to a very long struggle and the number of casualties is staggering. It was also a war where conscription is needed and machine guns, tanks and planes were used which hasten the death of people. It was the first time that Europeans suffered much unlike the Seven Years War, it is much more like a battle of monarchs only for the glory of empire. The world wars are much for the survival of humanity and the freedom against ideologies that appeared during that era.

Seven years war is definitely a global war, but only a war for colonialism and glory. But a world war can be said as a struggle for existence against another.
blacksmit049 is offline  
Old May 17th, 2011, 06:18 AM   #3

sturm's Avatar
миротворец
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 8,885
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksmit049 View Post
I think everything is based on the scale of the war, the devastating effect of its frontier, and most especially by the number of casualties. World war I was earlier called 'The Great War' since it was first time in the human history that such conflict would lead to a very long struggle and the number of casualties is staggering. It was also a war where conscription is needed and machine guns, tanks and planes were used which hasten the death of people. It was the first time that Europeans suffered much unlike the Seven Years War, it is much more like a battle of monarchs only for the glory of empire. The world wars are much for the survival of humanity and the freedom against ideologies that appeared during that era.

Seven years war is definitely a global war, but only a war for colonialism and glory. But a world war can be said as a struggle for existence against another.
Yes, i agree with you completely, World war I was bloody, with higher number of casualties.
However, by the time of World War I, humanity has already developed more sofisticated weapons, which were by far a lot more deadly then the weapons at the Seven years war. Besides, at the time of 18th century, the population wasn't as high as in the begging of 20th century, thus armies were bigger, and battles were far greater.
For example almost half a century after the Seven years war, Napoleon rised an army of 600,000 man to participate in his Russian campaign. An army which for that time was incredible, numerious. In the battle of Galicia during World war I, the russians used more then milion soldiers, against similar number of Austro-hungarian soldiers. Thats only in one battle.

But i don't think the term is used because the war was costly and deadly. It is called World war, for the fact that this war was global, not only fought in Europe or in Central America, or in Asia.
Almost every war has its miltiary innovation, has its purpose as you say the Seven years war was about colonism, every war has its leaders, as you say the Seven years war led by the monarchs, but that doesn't change the term used "World war". Of course it is a term used today, and that it was called "Great war" at the time, but im asking here about the modern historiography.
The Seven years war, wasn't called that way by the people who participated in it, the term is used after the war, thats absolutely normal.

In United States for example, the war is known as the 'French and Indian war' rather then the 'Seven years war', a term based on the North American theater of the war. In India, the war is called 'Carnatic war', while the warfare between Austria and Prusia is called 'Third Silesian war'.
It seems as if this war wasn't exactly seen as a global war, but rather as a conflict in different territories, seperated from the main war also known as the Seven years war. And maybe that is the answer to the question, but of course that is only my own interpretation of it.
sturm is offline  
Old May 17th, 2011, 06:45 AM   #4

Cicero's Avatar
The Adequate
Mostly Harmless
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Tennessee
Posts: 7,829

I have read of the Seven Years War as the first global conflict, yes, in several places I think. I have made reference to that fact in Historum posts as well.
Cicero is offline  
Old May 17th, 2011, 11:28 AM   #5
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Although the seven years war was fought on a global scale it was still a war between European powers. So you couldn't really say that nations around the globe fought against eachother like with Japan vs the USA. So the reason why it isnt called a world war is that large parts of the world were in European hands at that time so it remained a war between European powers. If China or Japan had joined the war then it would have been a different story.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Old May 17th, 2011, 11:43 AM   #6

sturm's Avatar
миротворец
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 8,885
Blog Entries: 1

But what about the Iroquois Confederacy, it fought against the british in North America, and some natives were on the side of the british.
Indian's participated also, in the battles led at the Indian subcontinent.
sturm is offline  
Old May 17th, 2011, 12:32 PM   #7

Frank81's Avatar
Guanarteme
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Canary Islands-Spain
Posts: 2,546

The very first global war was that between Spain-Portugal in one side, and England-Netherlands in the other between roughly 1590-1610, being France allied to the protestants during the 90's. That was a war fought in all oceans and continents, with the exception of the Antarctic. But including the Arctic, where the spanish corsairs chased the Dutch fishing fleets.
Frank81 is offline  
Old May 17th, 2011, 12:35 PM   #8
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

From the first moment any two European powers developed some significant overseas colonial possessions, the possibility of any of their never-ending conflicts to extend to a global level (i.e. involving non-adjacent regions) became a fact.

Even as early as the first decades of the XVI century, French and Spanish ships were already fighting at the Caribbean as the local part of their mutual wars.

Naturally, the colonial battles tended to be relatively minor in comparison with the direct main clashes in Europe.

However, once the colonial empires became progressively bigger, the colonial component of these wars correspondingly increased.

For example:
- The colonial component of the Dutch War of Independence was ostensibly greater than any previous colonial conflict;
- The colonial component of the War of the League of Ausburg (including the King's William War) was even greater ...

And so were in a progressively increasing order:
- The War of the Spanish Succession,
- The War of the Austrian Succession,
- The Seven Years' war,
- The American Revolutionary War,
- The French Revolutionary-Napoleonic wars,
- The Great War of 1914-1918,
- and of course the great double conflict of WW2 / II Sino-Japanese War.

From which exact point onwards of such continuum should any of such wars be named "world" is essentially a subjective issue, mostly in the eye of the beholder.
sylla1 is offline  
Old May 17th, 2011, 12:44 PM   #9

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,389
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
I have read of the Seven Years War as the first global conflict, yes, in several places I think. I have made reference to that fact in Historum posts as well.
I see it as the same as it wasn't virtually neighbor vs neighbor in close
proximity.
tjadams is offline  
Old May 18th, 2011, 07:11 AM   #10
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm View Post
But what about the Iroquois Confederacy, it fought against the british in North America, and some natives were on the side of the british.
Indian's participated also, in the battles led at the Indian subcontinent.
Yes true, but the Indians never acted as an independant enemy. Mostly they were bribed or had benefits by joining the French or the British. But I see something in your statement because it is true the war was fight around the globe, but like I said it was a war between Europeans it doesn't matter on which location.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seven Years War (17561763) "the first world war???" Speed37 European History 24 January 12th, 2011 11:50 AM
Why do historians say that Wilson "won the war but lost the peace" in World War I? DaisyLin88 American History 41 December 31st, 2010 01:35 AM
English Civil War and The Thirty Years War sorelhistory History Help 7 October 30th, 2010 05:44 AM
The English Civil War or the Thirty Years War? HelloMarcoPolo History Help 8 September 21st, 2010 03:42 PM
The Thirty Years' War - the first total war? HitEleven War and Military History 26 April 2nd, 2010 06:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.