A New EB Tavern

[Hooahguy]

u got a point....

[Romano-Dacis]

C'mon, we imperialist Romanians have to stand our ground: it ain't a world war until we're involved!!

I wouldn't classify a world war by how or where it's fought, but more so by the results from it. As such, I wouldn't qualify the Crimean War (which resolved pretty much nothing) or the Seven Year's War (once again, no result, the maps of Europe were redrawn ante bellum) as World Wars. In my book a World War needs to involve two or more superpowers, span at least two continents, and have a decisive outcome where the balance of power is evidently shifted. None of this "but after the 7 years war Britain gained this and France gained that" crap. Unless one of the major warring parties is completely annihilated from the diplomatic field (as happened in WW1 and WW2) it is not significant enough in the global balance of power to be a world war.

I would classify Alexander's campaign against the Persians, or all three Punic wars combined as world wars however, had Rome and Macedonia been superpowers (relative to their time). In these wars, the loser was decisively annihilated, the winner took control of vast swathes of land and resources, and was left largely unchallenged in their domain. These conflicts also spanned two continents (Europe and Asia, and Europe and Africa respectively). However, the fact that these weren't two superpowers going head-to-head means these wars also fail on their classification. At the time Macedonia was no more powerful than a Thracian confederacy and Rome was no more powerful than the Gauls.

[Dhampir]

C'mon, we imperialist Romanians have to stand our ground: it ain't a world war until we're involved!!

I wouldn't classify a world war by how or where it's fought, but more so by the results from it. As such, I wouldn't qualify the Crimean War (which resolved pretty much nothing) or the Seven Year's War (once again, no result, the maps of Europe were redrawn ante bellum) as World Wars. In my book a World War needs to involve two or more superpowers, span at least two continents, and have a decisive outcome where the balance of power is evidently shifted. None of this "but after the 7 years war Britain gained this and France gained that" crap. Unless one of the major warring parties is completely annihilated from the diplomatic field (as happened in WW1 and WW2) it is not significant enough in the global balance of power to be a world war.

You have wars that took place within a 100 square mile area that would qualify as a world war by your definition.

[Ibrahim]

to say the seven years war changed nothing is incorrect; looking at a map of north america and India in 1755, and the same in 1763 would clearly demonstrate that. most changes were to areas outside of Europe, and all over the world. also the costs of the war led to the UK taxing the 13 colonies which led to the Am-rev. France's aid incurred debts ion itself, and theat helped spark the french revolution, Napoleon, and all that jazz. the experiance in turn pushed Germany and Italy towards unification, and the collapse of spanish control in the war due to occupation caused the control of its colonies in south America to go downhill. meanwhile the spirit of independance from the Am-rev in the US actually ignited the Slavery issue as early as 1787, which helped fuel sectionalism and the civil war, which caused some Irish to form a brigade, that scared the canadians and convince the British to form the Dominion of Canada, to help in self defence, ut also bowing down to pressure from canadians wanting independance before the civil war......

and it goes on and on..you should see what happened in Asia...
the point is that all history is interelated. nothing is really insignificant. even a war that appears to change nothing actually can change alot.

[Emperor Burakuku]

Butterfly Effect...

[Ayce]

You guys forgot the aim of the war, in both world wars, the aim (of the attacker) was to deal a heavy blow (or annihilation) that would result in an unconditional surrender.

You can also tell by the amount of money the financiers of the war made.

[Emperor Burakuku]

Don't you wanna make a thread? I mean I like this tavern the way it is! And I hate modern history! Joking guys. Except the last part. BTW anyone willing to discuss something related to ancient/medieval history?

[Dhampir]

You can also tell by the amount of money the financiers of the war made.

No one made money during the Seven Years War. Everyone in each country involved was poorer afterwards. And Britain was very badly hit because almost all war material was made by state run factories--their attempts to pay off their debts is what triggered the American Revolution, which wasn't a revolution at all.