>be called "World War 2">actually the 9th major world war>Crusades: 1>Mongol Conquests: 2>100 Years War: 3>30 Years War: 4>9 Years War: 5>7 Years War: 6>Napoleonic Wars: 7>Great War: 8>World War 2: 9 Did I miss anything?
>>18644888>CrusadesWorld WarMost of these examples are dumb, but this is stunningly stupid>But armies in Europe attacked part of the middle east (Asia)So were all three Punic Wars world wars?
>>18644973>multiple superpowers fighting wars across multiple continentsHow is it dumb? It literally fits the criteria of a world war.
>>18644888It's really only the 7YW and Napoleonic Wars that could count as 1st and 2nd
>>18645080Probably because there were no actual global powers yet?nta
>>18644888WEE WOO WEE WOO WEE WOO
>>18645367>Mongols not a global power>French and English not a global power>Catholic church not a global powerAnon....
>>18645376If you believe they were a global power, you probably believe today, that Russia is a superpower and not only a superpower, but a global one too.Most of these also didn't have total mobilization of their society, either.
>>18645405It depends on how you define superpower. If Russia isn't a superpower, than neither is USA. They both got bogged down by third worlders solely on account of drones and infinite supplies from their neighbors whom they can't touch because global politics. Or maybe they can with nukes but just don't want to. We could be here all day discussing it.
>>18645419That's right, because what's a "world war" is a very vague thing by itself. Russia used to be a regional superpower, at least that's what people thought before the war.USA was assumed to be much better, well, it turns out that assumption was wrong.I can't wait to see how China will fumble the bag with Taiwan,.
>>18645376You can't have a global power in a time when almost half of the globe was still unknown to said powers.
>>18645441Roman Empire?
>>18644888There were 2 100 years wars
>>18645448Had power over Europe, the Middle-East, and North Africa. Not a global power.
>>18645428It should come down solely to multiple countries fighting on multiple continents and it needs to be a "hot" war, not cold war proxy bullshit. So IDK how Mongols or Crusades don't fit. Maybe not 100, 30 or 9 years war but 9 years war was fought on multiple continents...
>>18645452>had power over most of the globe>not a global powerhuh? I don't think there was a superpower in history as dominant as the Roman Empire. Please god, don't respond with Brits, it was mostly a trade empire.
>>18645405Well you know Russia does have the power to end all, if not human life, then at least all worthwhile civilization on earth and they could make that decision unilaterally
>>18645460Yeah Britain was more dominant and the US is far more dominant than the Romans ever were.
>>18645460>most of the globeThe American continent alone is far bigger than everything that the Roman Empire had control over. So is Asia. The Romans were dominant in their sphere of influence, but their sphere was far from having a global real, so it wasn't a global empire by definition. "Global" isn't synonymous with big and powerful.
>>18645465Kek, smoothbrain, British Empire barely lasted for 400 years and USA wasn't even around that long. Meanwhile USA is bogged down in Iran same as the Romans were. At the height of Rome's power, they accounted for something like 30% of the world's population and probably over 50% of the world's wealth. No one came close to that ever.
>>18645470>The American continent alone is far bigger than everything that the Roman Empire had control over. So is Asia.So what? It's like invalidating USA/British Empires because they don't have control over Mars or Venus. There's nothing there except empty land and mudhuts. If you were a civilization during that time, Rome controlled literally half of it which is insane to think about.
>>18645487>So what? It's like invalidating USA/British Empires because they don't have control over Mars or Venus.Other planets aren't part of the globe (Earth), so this comparison makes no sense.>There's nothing there except empty land and mudhuts. Not even true.>If you were a civilization during that time, Rome controlled literally half of it which is insane to think about.Not true either. At most a third if you want to be generous.
>>18645496>Other planets aren't part of the globe (Earth),Called World Wars not Global Wars. Either way you are just moving goalposts. >Not even true.Excuse me, god forbid I forgot the sacrificial Aztec temples. >At most a third if you want to be generous.For nearly 2000 years too. Look how dominant it is on this timeline.
>>18645512>Called World Wars not Global Wars.World and globe are synonymous in this context.>Either way you are just moving goalposts. I'm not moving anything, I'm too busy explaining to you how language works.>For nearly 2000 years too. Look how dominant it is on this timeline.That's 300 years on your arbitrary timeline, not 2000.
>>18645470>Inuit, a maritime culture, in the middle of the interior forestretard. I'm sure that's just the beginning of the errors here
>>18645480400 years is about as long as the Roman Empire lasted and we still have lasting effects today from the British Empire. And you are forgetting that the Roman Empire was insanely decentralised compared to Britain. The entire world population at the height of Roman Empire would fit more or less in British India. Also don't be so quick to dish out insults while discussing things because they aren't black and white and this dick waving gets in the way of the actual transmission of ideas. Especially when you go on to type something like this afterwards>Meanwhile USA is bogged down in Iran same as the Romans were.
>>18645572Rome lasted way more than 400 years. Britain may have controlled India but a downside to that is that it's fucking India. Jeets today can barely do anything without getting killed by a train, imagine how bad it was 2-300 years ago.
>>18645512(Un)holy pop his
