HitEleven

I know technically many scholars regard WW2 as the first and only "total war", but there were undoubtedly many wars preceding it that contained elements of total war: marshaling of state resources, devastation of civilian populations, radical political and social change, etc.

It seems to me that the Thirty Years' War is a good candidate for the first European total war, and perhaps the catalyst that set in motion the events of the 20th century.

Written accounts of the war showed that it had a devastating effect on local populations, particularly in German lands, where armies often ran amok and lived off of the land. The war covered a large section of the continent, as well, meaning that this destruction was widespread.

The war seems to have involved a significant number of fighting men as compared to previous European wars...please correct me if I'm wrong.

Finally, the Peace of Westphalia cemented the nation-state as the de facto political unit in Europe, without providing any provisions as to how such states were to live in peace, setting the stage for another four centuries of warfare.

Labienus

I always thought that the Punic wars were Total wars. The two states concentrating all their efforts to annihilate the other.

HitEleven

Sorry, I should say in modern history. I don't know enough about the Punic wars to comment, though they certainly sound like an ancient candidate.

deadkenny

I would expect that most historians would recognized WWI as a 'European total war'. Agreed that the Thirty Years War was devestating. However, I am not sure that the armies were based on the 'total population', or that the total 'productive capacity' of the states involved was utilized in the same way as in WWI or WWII. Following the devestation wrought by the Thirty Years War, there were developments in the 'art of warfare' that were in a sense a 'reaction'. For example, during the Seven Years War, armies were for the most part smaller 'professional' forces that were supplied to a much greater extent by 'magazines'. This 'system' broke down in the Napoleonic Wars, as France in particular resorted to 'mass conscription' and 'living off the land' to a much greater extent.

So in terms of the 'modern era', I would say that the Napoleonic Wars, and certainly WWI are candidates that would proceed WWII. With the Thirty Years War, there are perhaps arguments on either side.

Sargon of Akkad

Well, they would have been if Carthage had actually tried to win the Second Punic War.

Hannibal had effectively gone rogue, but not entirely disproved of by the Carthaginian Senate. However, they did not turn their state over to total war, and I imagine most of the people in Carthage experienced the Second Punic War much like I am currently experiencing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - they're happening, but far, far away and it has no bearing on me.

Hannibal was sent reinforcements, but not directly by the Senate. They sent them to hold Spain, and Hannibal's brother (I forget which one at the moment!) lead 40,000 odd down into Italy, but the Senate was distinctly unsupportive of Hannibal's invasion.

Labienus

Ok, perhaps your right on the second punic war. But IMO the first punic war was really a total war. Both sides were really going for the kill.

Zeno

Could we call Genghis Khan's wars total wars?
Most resources were diverted to war and it was all about conquest.

pikeshot1600

We forget that war was considered a normal course of events before the nineteenth century. Peace was described by a 17th century statesman as "a period of cheating between two periods of fighting."

I would disagree that state resources were that much involved simply because early modern mechanisms and instruments of administration could not mobilize them. The remarkable thing was that private resources could be capitalized upon to support prolonged and widespread warfare. Interest aggregation of nobility, economic interests and rulers began to be recognized as a workable model of state formation, and elites began a symbiotic coexistence.

Not total war, but a nasty (if interesting) period.

HitEleven

Some good points. Could we at least say that the 30YW set up the European state system for total war? I know you say that armies got leaner for a while, but it seems that all subsequent wars became country vs. country (vs. country vs...), excepting civil wars. "Feudal" wars - that is, wars between feudal leaders that did not necessarily recognize "national" borders - seem to have ceased at this point. The Hapsburg empire was rapidly consolidating into a coherent state, and even the HRE began to coalesce into discreet polities.

Volkov

I'd say it was a total war, a good deal of the casaulties in that war were civilians. And according to it's uppermost estimates, 11,000,000 men died in that war, that's quite a lot of civilians