Earliest possible World War?

Wolfpaw

Banned
Well the Napoleonic Wars fulfill the trans-continental aspect of a World War. Perhaps one of the Oriental Crises or colonial confrontations could trigger something more vast. The real trick is getting a non-Canadian American power involved.
 
The real trick is getting a non-Canadian American power involved.
There are several incidents that could have done this:
- European intervention in the ACW
- The French intervention in Mexico excalates
- Venezuela Crisis (probably too late)
- Spanish American War escalates.
 
As for the Napoleonic Wars, I'm not so sure about the "diversity of powers" thing. Most of the Great Powers involved were still European and "white".
The Napoleonic Wars included for a very short time the USA (which may or may not have been a great power) and for an equally short time the Ottoman Empire (which may or may not be an European power). I don't know if you considered China and Japan of 1800 to be great powers or not, but they certainly weren't involved.
As for military operations, they were also mostly concentrated in Europe, but the same thing can be said about WW1 too.

How can you not be sure of a diversity of powers? Not only did essentially all of Europe fight, but also the Turks, Persians, Marathas, Americans, Bolivians, Peruvians, Argentinians, Chileans, and Venezuelans - the former four of which were undeniably great powers to the same extent that say, Spain, or Austria, were in the same period.

As for military operations, yes there were mostly concentrated in Europe, but unlike, say, WWI, what happened in India or the Americas had a direct and important impact on the battles happening in Europe.
 
the Turks, Persians
The Turks only fought one or two years at the beginning. When and where did the Persians fight?

Bolivians, Peruvians, Argentinians, Chileans, and Venezuelans
.
Werențt those Spanish colonies? When they became independent they stayed neutral.

As for military operations, yes there were mostly concentrated in Europe, but unlike, say, WWI, what happened in India or the Americas had a direct and important impact on the battles happening in Europe.
That is another statement I find doubtfull.
 
The Turks only fought one or two years at the beginning. When and where did the Persians fight?

The Turks fought for the Coalition in 1803, then switched sides to the Empire from 1806-1809, then rejoined the Coalition until 1812.

The Persians fought for the Empire from 1804-1807, then joined the Coalition against the Turks from 1807-1812, then rejoined the Empire from 1812-1813. Mostly the Persians were busy fighting the Turks, but also against the Russians.

Werențt those Spanish colonies? When they became independent they stayed neutral.

Their independence movements were fought vigorously by both the Spanish, and the British, and supported indirectly by both the French and the Americans. Spain, and her allies, were so busy trying to hold onto her colonies that it affected the situation in Europe during the Peninsular War.

That is another statement I find doubtfull.

And yet you have nothing to counter it with aside from a highly vague utterance of disagreement.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
- European intervention in the ACW
That leads to a single-hemisphere war at the most, and almost entirely limited to North America.

The French intervention in Mexico excalates
That's more likely to cause a coup in Paris rather than a World War.
- Venezuela Crisis (probably too late)
I'd actually say this one is the most likely, though an Anglo-American war is no more a "world war" than a Franco-American fight.
- Spanish American War escalates.
Who in the hell is going to help Spain prop up its moldering empire?
 
The Turks fought for the Coalition in 1803, then switched sides to the Empire from 1806-1809, then rejoined the Coalition until 1812.

The Persians fought for the Empire from 1804-1807, then joined the Coalition against the Turks from 1807-1812, then rejoined the Empire from 1812-1813. Mostly the Persians were busy fighting the Turks, but also against the Russians.
The Turks were neutral in 1803. Between 1806-1812 they fought against Russia alone. They had no formal treaty with Napoleon and were not included in any peace treaty signed by him. And Russian's allies allso left them alone. The Turks made no effort to coordinate military operations with the French, and went as far as to sign peace in 1812 so they wouldn't have to assist Napoleon against Russia.
The same thing is valid for the Persians. I don't even know if they coordinated with the Turks.
And there was no Ottoman-Persian war at that time.



Their independence movements were fought vigorously by both the Spanish, and the British, and supported indirectly by both the French and the Americans. Spain, and her allies, were so busy trying to hold onto her colonies that it affected the situation in Europe during the Peninsular War.
This is the first time I hear about Spain "vigurously opposing" those independence movements, which mostly happened because the Euopeans were too busy fighting eachother to care about what happens in South America.

And yet you have nothing to counter it with aside from a highly vague utterance of disagreement.
Since you are the one who made a claim you should back it up with arguments.
 
That leads to a single-hemisphere war at the most, and almost entirely limited to North America.
Not if the Russians ally with the US as they indicated they would.

That's more likely to cause a coup in Paris rather than a World War.
That depends on wether the French can do Better that they did historically in Mexico, at least initially. It allso helps if they can keep the initial coallition that attacked Mexico (Austria, Spain) together for a bit longer.


I'd actually say this one is the most likely, though an Anglo-American war is no more a "world war" than a Franco-American fight.
I say this is the least likely, because both countries have similar culture and are democracies, and mutual relations are much better then they had been in earlier decades. Thus, public opinion is unlikely to support a war.
Anyway, since people are assigning such importance to colonies, I figured outh that any war invloving the British empire would count as a "global" war:) Besides, both powers might aquire some allies.

Who in the hell is going to help Spain prop up its moldering empire?
Any one of the two European power blocks. Whoewer Spain wants to join.
This of course begs the question of wether the US would attack Spain if Spain had strong allies.
 
First be aware I have no knowledge of the time period I am talking about, feel free to ignore this. During the Boer Wars, the Portuguese of Mozambique see a chance to scoop up a young African nation and expand their influence, in the process they come into conflict with England, German Angola also decides they could become more powerful if they could nudge England out of South Africa. In the process Spain is moved into an alliance with Portugal (possibly France), and the English are forced to align themselves with the americans, the African theatre starts the war but the crazy European theatre ends it. War on two continents, 3 continents involved, it could be what you are looking for.
 
During the Boer Wars, the Portuguese of Mozambique see a chance to scoop up a young African nation and expand their influence, in the process they come into conflict with England, German Angola also decides they could become more powerful if they could nudge England out of South Africa.
This idea's a non-starter_
Portugal of that period is going to take care not to come into conflict with England, whom they see as traditional allies. Angola was also Portuguese, not German: Were you actually thinking of 'South-West Africa' (ie. the modern Namibia) instead? And at the time of the Boer Wars the Royal Navy could easily have blocked any attempts that either or both of those nations might have made to send forces either to southern Africa or directly against Britain... and both of those other countries knew that that was the case.
 
The Turks were neutral in 1803. Between 1806-1812 they fought against Russia alone. They had no formal treaty with Napoleon and were not included in any peace treaty signed by him. And Russian's allies allso left them alone. The Turks made no effort to coordinate military operations with the French, and went as far as to sign peace in 1812 so they wouldn't have to assist Napoleon against Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Campaign_in_Egypt_and_Syria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Serbian_Uprising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1806–1812)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Turkish_War_(1807–1809)

Also, the Japanese and Germans made no effort to coordinate their military operations, but that doesn't stop us from referring to them as the 'Axis' in WWII.

The same thing is valid for the Persians. I don't even know if they coordinated with the Turks.

Persia fought against Russia, who was allied with France.

This is the first time I hear about Spain "vigurously opposing" those independence movements, which mostly happened because the Euopeans were too busy fighting eachother to care about what happens in South America.

Perhaps you should read more into Latin American history?


Since you are the one who made a claim you should back it up with arguments.

I have. The burden of proof has already been fulfilled, now is the time for you to meet the burden of rejoinder.

Here, let's put this another way. In 1815 Spain organized the largest military operation it had ever conceived of in the New World to reconquer New Granada. That meant that the Spanish weren't involved in the War of the Seventh Coalition, as they were still raising up an army to attack France by the time the Hundred Days campaign was over, which meant that the Spanish had no say in the 1815 Treaty of Paris.

There are no similar events in WWI. The African, Asian, and Pacific theaters had no real effect on the final outcome of the war. Nobody in Paris, Berlin, or London cared a twit whether or not the German East Asia Squadron was raiding some minor allied trade routes, or if the Japanese took Tsingtao, or if German East Africa was still putting up stiff resistance by the time of the European armistice. Those events had no greater effect on the actual war being fought in Europe, and yet its still called a 'world war.'
 
to me a world war has to take place on at least three continents.
No matter the size of armies as long as the war has many theaters and most of the great powers of the time are involved.

so in my definition i would consider the following world wars.

war of Spanish succession;
the 7 years war (counting the war of austrian succession);
French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars;
World War I
World War II
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Not if the Russians ally with the US as they indicated they would.
This is the same Russia that got curbstomped less than a decade before and was going through the pains of frustrated abolition. Support for the Union over an internal rebellion is not the same as saying "Let's go another round with the Brits and French"


Easterling;6091380That depends on wether the French can do Better that they did historically in Mexico said:
It was Spain, Britain and France; the Emperor was just a liberal Habsburg (big no no at court). Spain nor Britain was keen on going into that close to (another) US border full-throttle like that.


Easterling;6091380I say this is the least likely said:
Olney and Chamberlain were pretty powerful gents, and Cleveland's approval ratings are in the gutter.

Easterling;6091380Any one of the two European power blocks. Whoewer Spain wants to join. This of course begs the question of wether the US would attack Spain if Spain had strong allies.[/QUOTE said:
It was never a question of Spain wanting allies as much as allies wanting Spain.
 
Also, the Japanese and Germans made no effort to coordinate their military operations, but that doesn't stop us from referring to them as the 'Axis' in WWII.

Persia fought against Russia, who was allied with France.

Tehnically, Russia's relationship with France changed from peace to war several times during that period, and none of this changes affected the war against Persial
As for the Japanese and the Germans, they could not coordinate well due to the distance between them, but they did make some attempts. They had a formal alliance, they maintained some contact during the war through cargo submarines and lognrange flights, they attempted to exchange technology, and there were even some U-Boats stationed in Japanese controlled harbours.
In contrast, Persia coordinated with absolutely noone during its war with Russia.



Here, let's put this another way. In 1815 Spain organized the largest military operation it had ever conceived of in the New World to reconquer New Granada. That meant that the Spanish weren't involved in the War of the Seventh Coalition, as they were still raising up an army to attack France by the time the Hundred Days campaign was over, which meant that the Spanish had no say in the 1815 Treaty of Paris.
Ok, I thought you were referring to the earlier time period. But technically, the Spanish expedition had no impact on the outcome of the Hundred Days campaign, since the Allies won even without them.
And considering the state of the country during the last 7-8 years, I doubt that the Spanish were going to get too much respect from their allies anyway.


This is the same Russia that got curbstomped less than a decade before and was going through the pains of frustrated abolition. Support for the Union over an internal rebellion is not the same as saying "Let's go another round with the Brits and French"
Curbstomped? The Russians held their own against 3 other powers and eventually gave up because the war was going nowhere. There was no "curbstomp" involved.
And the Russians wanted a rematch against the Anglo-French. That's one of the reasons they were so willing to assist the US: because they thought a foreigh interventio in the US civil war would give them a chance for revanche.

It was never a question of Spain wanting allies as much as allies wanting Spain.
Given the general scramble for allies that was going on back then in Europe, it's kind of surprising that nobody wanted Spain on their team.
 
Top