Can the 7 years war be considered the first true World War

The Seven Years War may has the distinction of having occured in multiple theatres of wars. It was fought on all the known continents, the British, Prussians and Austrians fought the French and Spanish in Europe, while the British and French fought each other in North America, India and the Caribbean. Britain also fought the Spanish in the Caribbean and in the Philippines when the East India Company took Manila, as well as the obvious privateering in places as distant as the Indian Oceanin and the China Sea, as well as the Pacific. Look at the countless numbers of countries involved, as well as the size of armies involved outside Europe, and the scale of the changes of borders and campaigns all make the 7 years war a "world war"

It just depends on the definition of world war. Commonly, our society defines a world war as a war that was fought all over the world AND caused an immense loss of people. (I'd say so, I didn't looked up the exact definition as I would have to if I want this to be correct, but I hope you agree on my definition, won't you?)

And with this definition, the 7-years-war isn't really an WW. There are other wars that are thought to have been WW's. I heard the 'atlantis-invasion' been depicted as a WW. (What is the 'atlantis-invasion'? A theory about atlantis is that the atlantians were indogermanic tribes in North Europe that had to flee because of a natural disaster southwards and overrun Greece and the Mediterrannean and were finally stopped by the army of the Pharao of Egypt). I saw this written in a (News)paper and I just wanted to give an example that this term 'World War' is very flexible. So, in a way, you are (to some extent) right.

mfG mitsho

Its just Europeans fighting Europeans (with a little local assistance) in different parts of the world.

mitsho said:

It just depends on the definition of world war. Commonly, our society defines a world war as a war that was fought all over the world AND caused an immense loss of people. (I'd say so, I didn't looked up the exact definition as I would have to if I want this to be correct, but I hope you agree on my definition, won't you?)

And with this definition, the 7-years-war isn't really an WW. There are other wars that are thought to have been WW's. I heard the 'atlantis-invasion' been depicted as a WW. (What is the 'atlantis-invasion'? A theory about atlantis is that the atlantians were indogermanic tribes in North Europe that had to flee because of a natural disaster southwards and overrun Greece and the Mediterrannean and were finally stopped by the army of the Pharao of Egypt). I saw this written in a (News)paper and I just wanted to give an example that this term 'World War' is very flexible. So, in a way, you are (to some extent) right.

mfG mitsho

Click to expand...

Are these the people also called the "Sea people". I believe they were Phoenecians (sp?) or related to them. They invaded Greece, Asia minor and North Africa.

honestly, it is a long time ago, since I read this, so I don't know. But I know that Plato got his story from Solon which got his story from egyptian priests and therefore, it could date back to the time of the Sea people. And I searched the thing quickly and it says there NO. But it happened to the same time as the Seapeople and perhaps I just have found two different names for the same people. In the article, it says that these people were the "Urnenfelderleute", which translates into english as "Urn field people", but I doubt this is the wright term. It means that these people buried their dead by burning them and putting the ash into urns.

Sorry, for the Off-Topic, but I gotta respond.

mfG mitsho

I always thought of it as the 1st world war...It was fought in like 4 continents, (Asia, N.America, Europe, S.America, Maybe Africa I am not sure) The Napoleanic Wars being the 2nd, and WWI and WWII being 3 and 4.

England conquered Goree and Senegal from France, so yes, there was African fighting.

Yes, I'd say it was the first world war. Though perhaps earlier ones could be considered.

North King said:

Though perhaps earlier ones could be considered.

Click to expand...

most of the 18th century anglo-french wars were fought in europe/india/africa and the amercia's

pawpaw said:

most of the 18th century anglo-french wars were fought in europe/india/africa and the amercia's

Click to expand...

I was thinking along the lines of the Thirty Years War, even, that certainly had a mssive death toll... I'm not sure that it was fought all around the world, though. There was plenty of fighting in Europe, probably America, perhaps Africa, and just possibly Asia.

North King said:

I was thinking along the lines of the Thirty Years War, even, that certainly had a mssive death toll... I'm not sure that it was fought all around the world, though. There was plenty of fighting in Europe, probably America, perhaps Africa, and just possibly Asia.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify that a bit. I think that the Seven Year War probably qualifies as 'World Wars' due to the fact that there was widespread conflct over multiple continents. I did not mean to imply that the presence of a couple of sloops in the Pacific indicated full blown conflict in the region, I was just pointing out that there was action there.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't think the activity of scattered raiding fleets should qualify a war as a world war. That's primarily the reason why I think Hispano-Dutch conflicts, 30 years war, and the War of Spanish Succession are European wars rather than global ones. For the same reason, the ACW was an American war, despite the presence of Confederate raiders in places as distant as the Indian Ocean. Major combat such as the 7YW's fighting in India and Quebec, though, qualifies it as a true global conflict. A guerre de course carried out in distant trading lanes doesn't have anything on Montcalm and Wolfe at the Plain of Abraham.

Well how many nations were involved? Prussia, Hannover and Britain against France, Sweden, Saxony, Poland, Russia, Austria and several other minor states. Fightings took place in Europe, Asia, America and a bit in Africa. Most powers were involved. That´s why many historitians think it was indeed ww1. Perhaps the liberation wars being the 2nd world war.

Adler

I used to think of it as one, but also, it was only about 7 powers fighting, and using their colonies, where in WW1, over 200 nations declared war

General Brown said:

I used to think of it as one, but also, it was only about 7 powers fighting, and using their colonies, where in WW1, over 200 nations declared war

Click to expand...

well, how many nations WERE there in the 18th century? 40-50?

I don't believe there even was 200 nations in 1914.

It was less then 80 countries in the world...Probaly about 20 in the war, but if you mean nations as in peoples, then it was well over 200. Czechs, Germans, Poles, Japanese, English, Scottish, etc.

The 7 years war, and Napoleonic wars are diffrent, though.

They both had two or three MAJOR theatres of operation, like WWI, and WWII. I guess you could say that the war of 1812 (Anglo-American war) was a seperate conflict from Napoleon, it was still directly influenced and caused by the events in Europe.

I can't imagine that a war that fought all over the world can't be called a "World War". When it comes into the importance, it marked the inevitable decline of the French Monarchy; it was a turning point of the British Empire although it didn't become a true power until the fall of Napoleon

@Hades, like I said, a World War isn't only thought all over the world, but also needs all the ressources and has to have a effect on the whole world. With the last part of the sentence, I mean the death toll has to be quite high for a World War. That's the definition, not?

So, how many people died in the 7-years war?

mfG mitsho

actually the 7 years war was more wide spread than WW I. WW I was in europe, africa and a tiny bit in asia only. 7 years was in n & s america, asia, africa and europe

Adler17 said:

Well how many nations were involved? Prussia, Hannover and Britain against France, Sweden, Saxony, Poland, Russia, Austria and several other minor states. Fightings took place in Europe, Asia, America and a bit in Africa. Most powers were involved. That´s why many historitians think it was indeed ww1. Perhaps the liberation wars being the 2nd world war.

Adler

Click to expand...

You would also have to include the Iroquois who were allied to the British and several Indian nations on the French side: the Ottawas, Hurons, Wyandots, Algonquin, Ojibwe, Iowas, Miamis, Mississagas, Pattawattamies, Menomonies, Sacs, Foxes and others. They didn't have embassies abroad but they were all nations that had territory and military forces.

The Seven Years War triggered a struggle for the control of the Great Lakes and the areas around them. One which is not particularly well recorded due to the fact that the area was only dimly known by Europeans in those times.

The Europeans who were there were mostly backcountry rangers who traded guns, liquor and manufactured goods for animal pelts, especially beaver which was incredibly valuable back in Europe. This trade pattern had become the economic and political lifeblood for the Indians in the area: the more powerful you were the more pelts you could get which in turn would lead to being better armed. The Iroquois were following this plan better than anybody else. They were allied to the British, due mostly to British diplomacy and geographic proximity. They had been the strongest power for centuries and lorded it over their neighbors.

The other tribes traded with and were allied to France which had set up a string of distant strategic outposts deep into the interior (throughout the Great Lakes and to the upper Mississippi). At the outbreak of the Seven Years War France had a series of sucesses in North America. Her allies saw it as an opportunity to settle some old scores with the Iroquois and perhaps even end their supremacy for ever.

The war not only included the rather weakened neighbors that the Iroquois had been beating up on for centuries and the other power in the east - the Ottawas, but also tribes like the Miami and Ojibwe from the western lakes and prairies who had already held back the Dakota (Sioux) on their western frontier and were strong enough to be feared.

Although the war turned out to be a disaster for French the Iroquois could not turn that to their advantage. The conflict in the interior turned out to be a bloody draw and with the French out of the picture after the end of the war the British were happy enough to trade guns for pelts with all comers.