Now i have been thinking (ya your in for it) a world war is most of the world fighting. If this is so i think the real world war was the Seven Years War know in the states as the french indian war. The war was a central europian affair blown out of proportion by alliances (sound familar). Austria, prusia, german states,Britan,france, and spain all drawn into this war it could hardly be consitered any thing less than a world war. France, Britan, and spain all had colonys in america, africa, india, and southeast asia. All though boarders didnt change in europe vary much the boarders in the colonys did drasticly most notably in north america were britan won all of frances land.

Oppinions? Questions? Comments?

My History teacher last year said the same thing, however when you look at communication at that point in time, as well as diplomacy, not nearly as many countries were involved. World War I had a seperate fron dealing with the fate of the Middle East, and the Russian Revolution felt into Asia, so in effect, it was alot more global then the French and Indian conflict.

im going to have to disagree (surprised?) If i remember correctly russia was in this war so that includes alot of nothern asia also indo china and all of the islands north of astrialia plus astrialia were all colonys of differnt countrys and all were included in the fight one what or the other

If i remember correctly russia was in this war so that includes alot of nothern asia also indo china and all of the islands north of astrialia plus astrialia were all colonys of differnt countrys and all were included in the fight one what or the other

Russia had claims in America, but in present day Alaska and Vancover, in no way was the government in on the conflict. Yes they were colonies but I doubt that means anything. Yes the 7 year war had global consequences, but more centered on European/American relations. It happned in a backwater area of the world with a few strong factions battling it out under limited circumstances (The amount of people involved was not that great compared to other conflicts) I don't dispute the fact of an analogy being made to the First World War, but most certainly I would not clarify it as a "World War" or "Global Conflict"

Actually the Russians were directly involved in the combat in Europe, allying themselves with the British at tmes, with the French at others, and claiming neutrality whenever the situation best suited. The French and Indian War was simply our American name for the part of the conflict that occurred on our continent, more of a seperate front than a war unto itself.

just becuase the boarders didnt change much in europe didnt mean that battles and fighting didnt take place there

Ive lost track of where we are

got you covered

i say seven years war ( french indian war ) was the first world war becuase countrys involved and size of conflict.

you dont think so

I don't really know that much about the Seven Years war, but I think that the reason why it's not counted as the First World War is the communication capabilities at that time.

It was very hard for the military leaders to keep track of all that was happening, so it was more like many small wars around the world, rather than one large one.

The Roman's conquests around the (known) world at that time could also be counted as a world war because of all the "countries" involved, but it isn't.

Thats very true, some historians could easilly say that the events from Pompey to Octavian and the crowning of Empire could have been somthing like a 50 year world war, but since communication was what it was, it's not.