[Far-Right Sage]

I was having this debate with my grandson the other day, and I'd like some input.

The Seven Years' War was fought by all the major powers of the time - Britain, Prussia, Portugal, France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Spain, and Sardinia.

It was fought on three continents: Europe, Africa, and North America.

Even Churchill referred to it as a world war.

So how is this war denied its rightful status?

[Monkey Angst]

Ineffective PR firm.

Seriously, though, you're pretty much right... I was stunned at the scope of the Seven Years War when I learned that it was the same war as what we in North America call the French and Indian War. I didn't know it was a crossover.

[Doomhammer]

The Two World Wars were fought on Asia and Australia as well. Clearly, the geographic area is much wider and involved more nations. The sheer scale of the two Wars vis-a-vis the number of soldiers involved and cvilians used to mobilize goods for the war were significantly greater. I would personally label the Seven Years War as Great Power War but not a World War. Interesting topic btw, how old is your grandson?

[M-Mann]

America wasn't a formal nation involved and didn't take the credit for the side who won, it doesn't count as a World War.

[Clausewitz]

I think we use "world war" to mean "massive carnage involving all the great powers on an industrial scale," rather than just a war happening in many places around the globe. The contests of 1659-1789, of which the Seven Years' War is climactic, are global in scope but lack the intensity of even the Napoleonic Wars, let alone the World Wars.

We also picked these two wars out because 99 years had passed since Waterloo and there was a particular shock in seeing just how bloody war had become. People readily made the connection between these two massively bloody wars, but not to the wars of the nineteenth century which were mere skirmishes by comparison.

(That is, except for Taiping, which nobody knows about anyway.)

[Sniperwolfe]

The Two World Wars were fought on Asia and Australia as well. Clearly, the geographic area is much wider and involved more nations. The sheer scale of the two Wars vis-a-vis the number of soldiers involved and cvilians used to mobilize goods for the war were significantly greater. I would personally label the Seven Years War as Great Power War but not a World War. Interesting topic btw, how old is your grandson?

Yes, the numbers were definitely much, much greater. What about the percentages though, since populations at that time were not close (theoretically in my mind, I'm not sure how much the difference actually was) to that of the two World Wars.

If the percentages were close, or even higher then in the World Wars, I could definitely see the Seven Years' War being considered a world war.

[Gletkin]

America wasn't a formal nation involved and didn't take the credit for the side who won, it doesn't count as a World War.

It's the same for the "Persian Gulf War" moniker. I distinctly remember the Iran/Iraq War being referred to as "The Persian Gulf War". Even by the American media. But then Operation Desert Storm happened and THAT became "The Persian Gulf War" as opposed to "The Second Persian Gulf War".

[Doomhammer]

Yes, the numbers were definitely much, much greater. What about the percentages though, since populations at that time were not close (theoretically in my mind, I'm not sure how much the difference actually was) to that of the two World Wars.

I actually thought about that but it is difficult to find the relavant statistics. If, as you say, the percentage is as high for the Seven Years War, then it should be the first world war.

[Far-Right Sage]

All that could disqualify it from WW status is that the casualties weren't nearly as high, but I've never heard casualty figures(within reason) of being a disqualification item. I thought all that was needed for a World War is for it to be fought on at least three continents, and to involve all or most of the major powers.

[I]

All that could disqualify it from WW status is that the casualties weren't nearly as high, but I've never heard casualty figures(within reason) of being a disqualification item. I thought all that was needed for a World War is for it to be fought on at least three continents, and to involve all or most of the major powers.

Wallerstein (The Politics of the World Economy) defines a world war as "a land-based war that involves (not necessarily continuously) almost all the major military powers of the epoch in warfare that is very destructive of land and population". Other than WW1 and WW2, he only includes the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and the Napoleonic Wars (1797-1815)

[The Immortal Goon]

I had a history teacher who believed the American Revolution was a world war - for pretty much the same reason you're citing for the Seven Years War. Actually, if you took the two of them together as the same conflict you'd have an okay argument about that - but at the end of the day they were largely territorial skirmishes as much as anything, and no country really had the capacity to make it a truly world war by - say - invading and taking Spanish territory in Asia or something.

I would loosely say that the capacity to engage and sustain an effective front anywhere on the planet, with several involved combatants able to do the same, is a "world" war.

-TIG

[Red Star]

All that could disqualify it from WW status is that the casualties weren't nearly as high,

Well, even if we talk about casualties being a factor, the Seven Years War definately saw some quite staggering casualties - Prussia lost half a million men, including 180,000 soldiers; the Habsburg Empire lost 300,000 men. I do not think we have accurate calculations on the relative population sizes of the time. yet it seems that at least in Prussia's case the casualties may have been of the same magnitude as a World War.

Otherwise, the extra-European dimensions of the war seem to be mainly naval - fleet actions off Lagos, for example. I suppose an argument can also be made that a World War needs to involve powers from all continents rather than nations fighting on other continents. So, it can be argued that a World War cannot arise until there are major extra-European powers.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The Seven Years' War also involved land battles in Asia - the struggle for control of India between France and Britain (see eg Funks and Wagnalls (heh - I've always wanted to say that)).

The web page estimating deaths in various wars puts the total deaths in the order of a million - much higher than I thought (due to my British-centric history teaching, I thought the war was mainly a colonial war between Britain and France, with the European continental fighting just a small scale war along the lines of several others preceding it). But that is way below the estimated 15 million for WW1, or 55 million for WW2 the same source gives.

Historical world population estimates, using the UN figure:

1750: about 790 million
1910: about 1,750 million
1940: about 2,300 million

So the 2 recognised world wars did have far greater death tolls, proportionately. In terms of loss of population, it looks as if the Thirty Years' War approaches the world wars, but it might be argued that, over 30 years, this could represent a generation with a lower birth rate due to an unstable lifestyle, as well as those killed, starved etc.

[Red Star]

Ah, cheers for the figures. Although I bet six different history books will give six different estimates.

[Ombrageux]

Reason: "World War" classifications are pretty arbitrary. WW1 was basically a European war, which was only worldly in the sense of contributions by Europe's African and Asian colonies (didn't involve Latin America, China, or America till the very end).

WW2 was similarly barely a proper "World War", until Japan's expansionism in Asia and Germany's expansionism in Europe were merged with the outbreak of the Pacific War and US participation.

[Spin]

Maybe the Seven Years war isn't called a "world war" because the term hadn't been coined until long after its name was established as being the Seven Years War?

first attested 1909 as a speculation, probably a translation of Ger. Weltkrieg. Applied to the first one soon after it began in 1914. World War I coined 1939, replacing Great War as the most common name for it; First World War first attested 1947. World War II so-called since 1939; Second World War is from 1942.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=world+war

Would that be a simpler answer?

[Meistro1]

What about the Napoleonic War? I'm no expert but it certainly involved N.A. (England fought a two front war against U.S.A. and Napeoleon), Europe, Asia (Russia) and I think there was some involvement in Africa but that might have happened before / after I'm not too sure.

[maranarc]

If a world war is defined as a war featuring the major global powers then I suppose the Seven Years War WAS a world war.

[imagicnation]

What about the Napoleonic War?

Because it wasn't a war between two sides, it was Napoleon and all those he conquered or gained against everyone else.

I'd imagine the Seven Years War and Thirty Years War are probably called that because no-one could be bothered saying 'Seven (Thirty) Years War Between He Who Says Support My Version of the Bible and the German Who Questioned It Which Led to the Gradual Rift (Excluding the Previous English Churches Break-Away) of He Who Goes to Church and Pays Money, and He Who Doesn't (S(T)YWBHWSSMVBGWQIWLGR(EPECBA)HWGCPMHWD).
The same as we call it the Hundred Years War and not 'Bickering Between the Childish Brats Who Wanted More Cake/Crown' (BBCBWWMC/)

But more than anything, perhaps the reason it was viewed as a truely 'World War' was because it suddenly only took several minutes to find out what was happening a quarter of the way around the Earth. No-one had previously been able to pick up the newspaper a read of an invasion that had happend just as the newspaper went to print. Nor had people gained such knowledge of the big world that was around them or the way in which a situation 3000 miles away would affect their local market or the way a coup in South America would affect the pride of America and hence their lives.

[dugfromthearth]

in WWII the Germans invaded and seized Crimea.

And yet WWII is not call the Crimean War II

You see World War I and World War II are names used in the west for those wars. Those aren't the names the Russians or Chinese use.

if you want to call the Seven Years War a world war, go right ahead.