Challenge: Seven Years War and Napoleonic Wars known as WWI and WWII

Wars aren't Hollywood sequels. The Seven Years War and the Wars of the Coalitions on Napoleon might be very vaguely, loosely related enough to deserve re-branding as World Wars I and II, but the actual 20th century World Wars have nothing to do with those earlier conflicts.
 
Of course not,but they were in the Napoleonic wars(!!!)

But I'm talking abnout 7YW.....

your general statement is noted,I was not talking about the Levant,but about the Atlantic and the subject colonials,ditto about the Indian Ocean,India,the Pacific and any other location I probably forgot;

Yes, which is why 7YW can be considered world war because theatres were widely separated. Unlike, for example, Italian-Turkish war which in theory involved 3 continents but theatres were close togerther and linked to a great degree.

combatant is a very broad word used also to encompass natives in the service of the colonial power(status of BAns in the 7YW) and others round the globe,that is why the point you consider irrelevant,it is very relevant after all...

It's irrelevant whether non-european entities were capable of defeating european armies or not.
 
But I'm talking abnout 7YW.....



Yes, which is why 7YW can be considered world war because theatres were widely separated. Unlike, for example, Italian-Turkish war which in theory involved 3 continents but theatres were close togerther and linked to a great degree.



It's irrelevant whether non-european entities were capable of defeating european armies or not.

1) the Thread heading refers to both wars...
2) So you agree(!)...
3) I don't think that the third point makes sense...
 
1) the Thread heading refers to both wars...

But I was talking about 7YW

2) So you agree(!)...

Yes, I think it could be called World war. But since this is not generally accepted I'll stick to conventional count

3) I don't think that the third point makes sense...

Well, you brought up the fact that in mid 18th century non-european countries could stand up to european ones, not me.....
 
But I was talking about 7YW



Yes, I think it could be called World war. But since this is not generally accepted I'll stick to conventional count



Well, you brought up the fact that in mid 18th century non-european countries could stand up to european ones, not me.....

I didn't! I wrote:'natives in the service of the colonial power' it is not the same.England used sepoys in India at the time of Napoleon,NA volunteer units in 7YW,now I hope it is clear enough...
 
I think the best way would simply be to butterfly WWI and WWII as we know them, and have those names for the 7YW and the NPW be used by historians retrospectively, like Byzantium.
 
I didn't! I wrote:'natives in the service of the colonial power' it is not the same.England used sepoys in India at the time of Napoleon,NA volunteer units in 7YW,now I hope it is clear enough...

You said, and I quote

A small note:I doubt if any countries outside Europe able to stand up to any European nations existed then...

Which, while true, is irrelevant to this thread. ;)
 
Would that being accepted terminology have any impact on the world?

We'd have fought WWIV and been expecting WWV during the Cold War, would it be more likely if globe spanning wars are considered common instead of exceptions?
 
No, I am not particularly looking for examples, although new sources are always a bonus. You made the statement and I was just interested as to why you thought that. I deduce from your comments about your book collection being in your country to mean that you are not english. Your bias towards french sources could well mean that you are a native of our southern neighbour. But....putting that aside, I am asking in general terms why you find French sources in the aforementioned areas to be so superior to their anglophone counterparts?

For example, it could be said that the 19th century was the British Century and the 20th century was the American Century (both being arguably the dominant powers of their respective centuries), so in this case are you stating that they have a tendancy to 'big up' their own position in world and military affairs, thus leading to inaccurate and poor representations of what actually happened?

You made the claim that you find french sources superior, I am simply interested, as to what it is about them, in your opionion, that makes them so superior/more accurate than their anglophone counteparts.

Regards

Lord I

I haven't had my Easter yet so naturally I am neither a Catholic nor a protestant and I can assure you that I am not French(by the way I hope you had an enjoyable Easter holliday).

I am completely nutrual to the issue,so to speak, I can only judge from contents and I am focusing mainly on Swiss sources which are impartial,very accurate,show genuine admiration when is due and fair criticism when it is called for;no wool in front of the eyes and no mental blinkers.
The above is a general observation,which of course has many celebrated exceptions,is in no way a general rule,but very indicative of a trend.

regards
 
Top