gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
It's something I've always wondered. Why isn't the Seven Years' War called World War I? It was certainly the first war on a global scale I can think of.
Why isn't the Seven Years' War called WWI?
- Thread starter gangleri2001
- Start date
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
That doesn't mean anything, since the label of world war can be retroactively applied, which was exactly what happened with what we now would call WWI and WWII.
Even if the Ottoman Empire did participate (and no one else), the Seven Years war wouldn't be more a World War than the Napoleonic Wars was which also spanned most of the world's continents and had Ottoman Turkish participation. One thing WWI and WWII had in common - in contrast to the Napoleonic Wars and the Seven Years War - was for example the participation of several countries in Far-East Asia.
SeekTruthFromFacts
King
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 670
I think that's exactly what Sir Winston Churchill did call the relevant chapter in his History of the English Speaking Peoples. Mind you, it's 20 years since I read it, so it might have been Spanish or Austrian Succession.
"Great War" was also used to refer to the Napoleonic Wars in the 19th and very early 20th centuries.
"Great War" was also used to refer to the Napoleonic Wars in the 19th and very early 20th centuries.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
It's called World War I because of World War II. It's very much the because of the thought that the second war as a sequel to the first that they share those names.
The First World War wasn't called a World War when it was fought? When was the term coined then?
From my understanding both "World War" and "Great War" were commonly used, both of which date to late 1914 at the earliest (I would bet that they were used speculatively before that).
"First World War" was used in 1920 by a British author, who was a correspondent during the war, as a book title. I don't know the context or if he had any view of what a "Second World War" would be.
There were references even during the war as it being the first world war primarily due to the different nature of the war from previous ones.
"First World War" was used in 1920 by a British author, who was a correspondent during the war, as a book title. I don't know the context or if he had any view of what a "Second World War" would be.
There were references even during the war as it being the first world war primarily due to the different nature of the war from previous ones.
If anything, the Thirty Years' War ought to have been the "first" world war, because it involved military actions on or near five continents, some of which were pretty relevant to the ultimate outcome (the struggle between the Dutch and the Iberian monarchies over Pernambuco, for instance).
There is no one thing that marks the First World War as separate from previous conflicts, no simple "this qualifies as a world war and this doesn't". It's a naming convention, yet another manifestation of collective insanity, not some sort of objective measure of what a war should be called.
There is no one thing that marks the First World War as separate from previous conflicts, no simple "this qualifies as a world war and this doesn't". It's a naming convention, yet another manifestation of collective insanity, not some sort of objective measure of what a war should be called.
sophie
Break My Heart
Also, why the hell would you want to change the name to WWI in the first place? What an utterly dull and uninspired name. I'd take Seven Years' War or French and Indian War over WWI any day.
/knows Seven Years' War is rather uninspired as a name too, but at least it has a better ring to it!
/knows Seven Years' War is rather uninspired as a name too, but at least it has a better ring to it!
The problem with naming the Seven Years' War is that there's no obvious single thread running through the conflict. You can't really lump it under a "Frederician Wars" moniker, because Fred was only peripherally involved in the beginning of the war (the Ohio River Valley confrontations between British, French, and French-allied forces antedating and somewhat shaping the subsequent "Diplomatic Revolution"). Also, Fred himself had very little whatsoever to do with the Indian and American segments of the war even after Prussia joined; he was influenced by them a great deal, but never really impacted the conduct of either himself.
"French and Indian War" is distasteful for a number of reasons, similar to the reason that a Frederician moniker would be.
Making it one of those "series" wars (Third Silesian War, Third Carnatic War, Eight Zillionth Anglo-French War) doesn't really work because none of those describes the whole conflict very well, either, except maybe the Anglo-French bit, because at least Brits and French were messing around in every theater to varying degrees, but Eight Zillionth Anglo-French War sounds pretty freaking stupid.
So we don't really have a whole lot of options, there.
"French and Indian War" is distasteful for a number of reasons, similar to the reason that a Frederician moniker would be.
Making it one of those "series" wars (Third Silesian War, Third Carnatic War, Eight Zillionth Anglo-French War) doesn't really work because none of those describes the whole conflict very well, either, except maybe the Anglo-French bit, because at least Brits and French were messing around in every theater to varying degrees, but Eight Zillionth Anglo-French War sounds pretty freaking stupid.
So we don't really have a whole lot of options, there.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
You gotta call it something, and the convention's good because everyone understands it. 
Dreadnought
Deity
Additionally, World War One was the first global conflict that saw mobilization on a truly massive scale.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The Seven Years War was fundamentally a war of Europeans. The involvement of the colonies and native/Indian allies was limited only to local theaters , while the main theater of the war - Europe - was disputed by Europeans.
The First World War, not so much. Colonies and colonial troops took part in the fighting on every theater (Ghurkas, French African troops, and of course British Commonwealth troops all fought in Europe), and one of the major Entente powers was an actual Asian nation (Japan. Which also had some small presence on the European theater, basing ships at Malta for a while).
The war was much more international, whereas the previous two were more European wars fought internationally.
The First World War, not so much. Colonies and colonial troops took part in the fighting on every theater (Ghurkas, French African troops, and of course British Commonwealth troops all fought in Europe), and one of the major Entente powers was an actual Asian nation (Japan. Which also had some small presence on the European theater, basing ships at Malta for a while).
The war was much more international, whereas the previous two were more European wars fought internationally.
Bowsling
Deity
World War II, however, was the only war where there were several important theatres. von Lettow-Vorbeck's actions were mostly irrelevant. Germany didn't give much of a damn about Tsingtao, which was really the only thing of any significance done by Japan in the war.
Heck, the Central Powers decisively won on the Eastern front, but they lost on the only front that really mattered - the Western one.
Also, World War One and World war Two are extremely ugly names. First World War and Second World War are preferable.
In 1915 in an Indianapolis newspaper. As opposed to the more accurate European War.
Heck, the Central Powers decisively won on the Eastern front, but they lost on the only front that really mattered - the Western one.
Also, World War One and World war Two are extremely ugly names. First World War and Second World War are preferable.
In 1915 in an Indianapolis newspaper. As opposed to the more accurate European War.
Hindsight is 20/20. From the perspective of the belligerents, it was never so clear.
Bowsling
Deity
That's because the Imperial regime was falling on itself in Russia. If they were fighting a Russia equivalent to the one they fought twenty years later, the war would've been much shorter.
Bowsling
Deity
Russia was essentially in the same boat as Austria-Hungary: an old state with an arrogant and disproportionately rich upper class while life for the average worker was terrible. And as was demonstrated by a handful of wars in the nineteenth century, the more equal societies in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. tended to be much better at fighting wars.
You are kidding.
Similar threads
