World Wars

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


who claimed they were the only ones?

You did. Right here:

(well, only) opponent in Middle East (mamluks)

I don't mind you forgetting the content of my posts, but when you can't remember your own...

Irrelevant. Why would they wait for Mongols to enter Egypt? The point is that they, an african state, were involved in war against Mongols.

It isn't irrelevant; as I said, and as you've just confirmed again, the Mongol Conquests never reached Africa.

who says a world war has to involve both hemispheres?

As al-Idrissi pointed in the 'Book of Roger',

...the earth is round like a sphere.

in 1154.

Does your concept of 'the world' involve something not quite like a globe, despite the progress of science, cartography, astronomy and geography since 1154 ?

Majority of America and Australia was as "empty" for contemporary people of the Old World. Bah, at this point they did not exist for them.

Irrelevant- we're talking about powers operating on a global scale. Until the European states went to those examples of 'terra incognita', they weren't sure of what they would find there.

These are just a couple of islands on the verge of the continent.

Irrelevant- Japan took part in a global war which spanned the Pacific.

they do count, but they are islands and I don't know if we could say a war concerned America or Australia, if only distant islands of it were concerned, f.e

And now you're just simply contradicting yourself AGAIN.

You claim that Africa should be included in the Mongol Conquests, despite the Mongols never having touched African soil, or operated in its coastal waters, because the Mamelukes fought the Mongols in Asia, and that somehow, this magically makes the Mongol Conquests 'a world war'.

And yet when Japan occupies a foothold in the Western Hemisphere, and parts of Australasia and sends warships off the coast of Madagascar, North America and Australia, and when New Zealanders, Australians and Americans fight everywhere from China, to New Guinea, North Africa, Italy, the Aleutians, India and Germany, this doesn't count as Australasia and the Americas being involved in a world war.

Staggeringly illogical.

You missed my point, as usual. Romania fought on one continent, but it doesn't mean it didn't take part in a larger conflict, concerning other regions - f.e. asiatic parts of USSR.

No I didn't- WWI and WWII were not described as 'world wars' because every single combatant was able to project their power on a global scale.

They were world wars because the conflict as a whole spanned the globe- thus, Romania did not have to fight in Africa or the South Atlantic to have been involved in a world war.

Again, mongol wars did concern Africa through Mamluks.

Did the Mongols conquer any part of Africa ? Simple question, yes or no ?

these continents tend to be the most important ones. The rest weren't even discovered and played no role in mainstream history.

Irrelevant- the question isn't whether the Chimu or the Toltecs had a decisive role to play in the development of the history of Asia, Europe, or Africa- its whether or not the Mongol Conquests were a world war. So far, you're just confirming they weren't.

did they bring Aborigenes into fight against Germans / Japaneese?

I don't mind you consistently displaying ignorance, but a little effort on your part would have revealed that in Borneo, New Guinea and Australia, indigenous peoples were involved in combat.

This occurred after officers and troops of the Allied Intelligence Bureau, mostly Australians and some New Guineans, were landed to encourage villagers to support the Allies and take up arms against the Japanese. In some areas tribal conflicts broke out because some villages supported the Japanese and others the Allies. The activities of the Allied Intelligence Bureau were highly successful because this fighting drove the Japanese further from some areas.

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/lastbattles/jungle.html

In Borneo:

In addition, the Brooke Government mobilized the Sarawak Rangers. This force consisted of 1,515 troops who were primarily Iban and Dyak tribesmen trained in the art of jungle warfare led by the European Civil Servants of the Brooke Regime. British Lieutenant Colonel C.M. Lane who commanded the battalion was placed in charge of all forces in Sarawak, which included the native Volunteer Corps, Coastal Marine Service, the armed police and a body of native troops known as the Sarawak Rangers. Collectively, this force of 2,565 troops was known as "SARFOR" (Sarawak Force).

http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/sarawak.html

In Australia's Northern Territory:

... the Northern Territory Special Reconnaissance Unit (N.T.S.R.U.) in Arnhem Land during the Second World War. The N.T.S.R.U. was a group of Yolngu indigenous persons trained to spy on and engage in guerrilla warfare against potential Japanese invasion.

http://www.english.unimelb.edu.au/antithesis/new2005/forum-4/02_Riseman.html

See ? Not too hard to find...

So only a naval power can be a world power?

No- the Mongols borrowed their navies from Koryo, from Chinese shipyards, and tried to refit in Champa in Viet Nam on their way to Indonesia. However, unlike Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, 20th Century Japan, France, the United States and Imperial Germany, they were signally unable to project their power across the globe.

So as I said:

The Mongol Conquests never reached Africa.

and as you confirmed:

they almost did

Well, the Spanish Armada 'almost' did its job- but in the end it didn't. And Kaiser Wilhelm II's father almost didn't die after surgery- but he did.

so you agree that a war without involvement of Australia and Americas can be a world / global one?

Oh dear.

I think you're again sadly missing the point- a navy operates best on the sea, in ships. You actually made the point that uninhabited stretches of ocean can have importance if significant naval battles have been fought there- as in the Pacific, in WWII, or WWI, or the South Atlantic in WWI or North Atlantic in WWI and WWII.

where's the boarder between western and eastern Europe, according to you?

Um, is Paris in Eastern or Western Europe ? How about the Low Countries ? Spain ? Italy ?

Hungary, Croatia, Czechia, Poland, Outremer were part of western Europe by culture

If we take the culture argument at face value, then so are North, Central and South America and Australasia.

I had thought the geographic spread of the Mongol Conquests was the point, not whether Croatia professed Roman Catholicism or Bohemia had Romanesque churches.

If the Mongols had conquered Western Europe, we could have said goodbye to the High Middle Ages, the School of Paris, Europe's first stock market in Antwerp, Thomas Aquinas's philosophy, Roger Bacon's work, and so on.


Better luck next time with trying to make a consistently logical argument that keeps out extraneous irrelevancies.

[Heresson]

You did. Right here:
I don't mind you forgetting the content of my posts, but when you can't remember your own...

I was not precise. Mamluks were the only real (there were some puny states in Oman and Yemen, too) opponent of Mongols after the fall of Baghdad etc. Earlier, of course, there were other states that opposed them, but they were all crushed. Mamluks were not and were the only counting opponent of Mongols in the ME for a couple of next decades.

It isn't irrelevant; as I said, and as you've just confirmed again, the Mongol Conquests never reached Africa.

But the war against them did, because an african state was involved in it.

As al-Idrissi pointed in the 'Book of Roger',

in 1154.

Does your concept of 'the world' involve something not quite like a globe, despite the progress of science, cartography, astronomy and geography since 1154 ?

huh? Completely irrelevant. There's no logical link between a claim that Earth is a globe and that a war has to involve both hemispheres. Especially since western/eastern hemisphere division is artificial

Irrelevant- we're talking about powers operating on a global scale. Until the European states went to those examples of 'terra incognita', they weren't sure of what they would find there.

I don't know if this discussion makes sense. Simply there are different understandings of a concept of world war, and of a concept of involvement of a territory in a war. For me, world war is a war that involves majority of major powers in the world and is fought on intercontinental scale, and a continent is involved in a war if a country located in it or/and posessing large / important part of it is a side of the war.
According to this definition, mongol wars did concern Africa and were a world war. Your definition is different, and I understand why you don't want to call mongol wars a global war, I do not agree with the fundaments of your stance.

You claim that Africa should be included in the Mongol Conquests, despite the Mongols never having touched African soil, or operated in its coastal waters, because the Mamelukes fought the Mongols in Asia, and that somehow, this magically makes the Mongol Conquests 'a world war'.

And yet when Japan occupies a foothold in the Western Hemisphere, and parts of Australasia and sends warships off the coast of Madagascar, North America and Australia, and when New Zealanders, Australians and Americans fight everywhere from China, to New Guinea, North Africa, Italy, the Aleutians, India and Germany, this doesn't count as Australasia and the Americas being involved in a world war.

Staggeringly illogical.

No, it's only that you can not grasp mine concept. I do not claim that America f.e. was not involved in war against Japan. Au contraire. I claim it was, despite that there was no fight in America itself, but on the very edges of it. I claim there's an analogy here between America in ww2 case, and Africa in mongol wars.

No I didn't- WWI and WWII were not described as 'world wars' because every single combatant was able to project their power on a global scale.
They were world wars because the conflict as a whole spanned the globe- thus, Romania did not have to fight in Africa or the South Atlantic to have been involved in a world war.

You still do not understand. A war is something more than conquests and battles, it concerns territory of all the sides fighting in it. If Poland declared war against America, undoubtly Americans would have invaded Poland quickly and there would be absolutely no fight on american soil, yet, American continent would be involved in this war together with Europe, because USA were fighting in it.

Did the Mongols conquer any part of Africa ? Simple question, yes or no ?

no.
Did the Mongols fight against a state located primarily in Africa ? Simple question, yes or no?

a side - note; a captive from one of the Homs battle, I believe, Kitboga, became sultan of the Mamluk sultanate. So, mongol rule sort of reached Africa

Irrelevant- the question isn't whether the Chimu or the Toltecs had a decisive role to play in the development of the history of Asia, Europe, or Africa- its whether or not the Mongol Conquests were a world war. So far, you're just confirming they weren't.

It's not my fault you can't see that it is relevant.

I don't mind you consistently displaying ignorance, but a little effort on your part would have revealed that in Borneo, New Guinea and Australia, indigenous peoples were involved in combat.

You've enriched my knowledge here, thank you.

No- the Mongols borrowed their navies from Koryo, from Chinese shipyards, and tried to refit in Champa in Viet Nam on their way to Indonesia. However, unlike Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, 20th Century Japan, France, the United States and Imperial Germany, they were signally unable to project their power across the globe.

I think projecting one's power from Silesia to Korea and from Egypt to India is quite enough, especially in these times.

Well, the Spanish Armada 'almost' did its job- but in the end it didn't. And Kaiser Wilhelm II's father almost didn't die after surgery- but he did.

I think there's a big difference between "almost did" and "didn't". Spanish Armada didn't do its job, but you can not say England was not in danger

Oh dear.

I think you're again sadly missing the point- a navy operates best on the sea, in ships. You actually made the point that uninhabited stretches of ocean can have importance if significant naval battles have been fought there- as in the Pacific, in WWII, or WWI, or the South Atlantic in WWI or North Atlantic in WWI and WWII.

no, please answer

Um, is Paris in Eastern or Western Europe ? How about the Low Countries ? Spain ? Italy ?

Yes they are. But where's the boarder? Is Berlin still western Europe or eastern? Or Wroclaw / Breslau? Or Prague? Is there a line-boarder between western or eastern Europe, or are they separated by a "central" one?
From your point of view Poland and Hungary may be Eastern Europe, but from our point of view, we are not.

If we take the culture argument at face value, then so are North, Central and South America and Australasia.

true, yet we have to balance geographical and cultural boarders. Cyprus was allowed into EU, though it's not European by geography. Yet it is close enough - I doubt EU would have allowed New Zealand in.

If the Mongols had conquered Western Europe, we could have said goodbye to the High Middle Ages, the School of Paris, Europe's first stock market in Antwerp, Thomas Aquinas's philosophy, Roger Bacon's work, and so on.

and the point is?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


I was not precise.

You were wrong.

There's no logical link between a claim that Earth is a globe and that a war has to involve both hemispheres. Especially since western/eastern hemisphere division is artificial

Really ? What shape would you say 'the world' was then ?

The world was limited to part of Europe and part of Asia and then changed after the Mongol Conquests ?

It appears to me that people in the 'mainstream of civilization' (whatever that's meant to mean) knew even in the time before the Mongols reached eastern Europe, that the world was a sphere.

I don't know if this discussion makes sense.

You're the one who can't follow your own logic, not me...

...and a continent is involved in a war if a country located in it or/and posessing large / important part of it is a side of the war.

Clearly you do not believe this. Otherwise you're flat out contradicting yourself right here:

wow. great were the battles fought there indeed Aleutes? Don't make me laugh. Next You're going to prove that american continent was fought on during this war because there were some navy battles on ocean over its continental plate...

So according to your thinking, North America was not involved, despite part of the territory being occupied by the Japanese, despite a terrible battle being fought to reoccupy the Japanese held American territory and despite Canadian and United States territory being bombarded by the Japanese...

if there were a couple of very important battles in one particular part of the ocean - yes, why not

But empty uninhabitable stretches of water do count...

And again:

do not claim that America f.e. was not involved in war against Japan. Au contraire. I claim it was, despite that there was no fight in America itself, but on the very edges of it.

Do you even bother to read the content of your own posts ?

You still do not understand. A war is something more than conquests and battles, it concerns territory of all the sides fighting in it.

I'm not the one having difficulty understanding their own posts, nor what the concept of war or a world spanning war entails.

I think projecting one's power from Silesia to Korea and from Egypt to India is quite enough, especially in these times.

All well and good, and nothing new to me- but the Mongol Conquests were not world wide, did not involve 'the world', did not even involve all of 'the known world', however one might wish to interpret that.

As you confirmed when I ask you if the Mongols conquered any part of Africa.

Yes they are. But where's the boarder?

It's irrelevant to me where you think the border is, and irrelevant to the question in hand.

Here, however, is Peter Brent, author of 'The Mongol Empire':

In western Europe, which never felt the direct arrogance of Mongol power, the consequences of that empire's rise and fall were, paradoxically, perhaps more momentous than anywhere else.

Unchallenged [...] the Catholic-based art, science and philosophy of western Europe could ripen at its own unforced pace.

In Friedrich Heer's 'The Mediaeval World' he recounts the many calls for settlers from the west 'to go out East' in search of lands and prosperity, from Rhineland Germans to Walloons and Flemings.

...and the point is?

Evidently that Paris, Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges, Cologne, Montpellier are all west of any Mongol intrusions into Europe.

a side - note; a captive from one of the Homs battle, I believe, Kitboga, became sultan of the Mamluk sultanate

A remarkable feat, even for a Mongol. He was dead at Ain Jalut.

[lord of the mark]

the whole question of whats a "world war" is somewhat arbitrary, IMO.

WW1 wasnt even called a world war at the time. It was called "The Great War", which was natural for it so far exceeded in size and scope any war in the previous hundred years. AFAIK it continued to be called that untill well into WW2.

Im not sure when WW2 first began to be called that surely not before Pearl Harbor. At some point when the war WAS called "the World War" someone decided that the Great War was also a WW, and so the conflict that began in Sept 1939 was "WW2"

Of course in the USSR it was always called "The Great Patriotic War" From the Soviet POV it was essentially a European war, and the anglo-american war against Japan was essentially a seperate conflict, which the USSR did not join until it was close to over.

Finland fought against the USSR, but considered itself to be fighting an extension of the Winter War, and not to be part of the general conflict. Chinas war with Japan had started two years BEFORE the "official" beginning of WW2. So we can see that even in the paradigmatic case of a WW, the bounds of that WW are in fact somewhat fuzzy.

No one applied the term world war backwards to the Napoleonic wars, or similar conflicts, despite many of them being quite as global as WW1. Maybe this was simply "privileging" of the 20th century. Maybe it was an ideological wish to id WW1 and 2 as related conflicts. Maybe it was simply that those wars were already settled in the historical imagination under other names.


Lets examine the name "Thirty Years War" In fact it was a series of conflicts, with different countries entering and departing at various points. IIUC in pro-Hapsburg Catholic participants it continued after 1648 to be seen as several distinct conflicts - there it was seen as "about" the rights of the HRE, and the various distinct violations of and aggressions against those rights. It was called the TYW only in Protestant countries, which tended to see it as a struggle for the survival of Protestantism in Central europe and elsewhere - so we see that the naming of a war, and the identification of its boundaries can be influenced by ideology.

So the current controversies about naming contemporary conflicts are not without precedent. During the "Cold War" few called it WW3 - WW3 was what we were trying to AVOID (or should have been willing to risk to roll back communism, depending on your POV). This implicitly acknowledged the different nature of a struggle that involved espionage, diplomacy, propaganda, covert ops, and proxy war more than the occasional direct great power involvment in armed conflict. And a struggle in which non-state actors often played a key role.

Herman Kahn, IIUC, once referred to nuclear confrontations in which one side blinked as "world wars", but IIUC that had more to do with his theories about nuclear weapons than to any more usual sense of what a war involves, and it did not catch on.

It should also be noted that some folks denied any real connection among the various actions called "the cold war" and in particular denied that most US actions were really connected to struggle against the USSR. To them even the term "cold war" was a distortion. Its obviously not possible to judge this apart from ideological beliefs about various events, and we are still too close to the events to really judge.

Recently Norman Podhoretz (followed by a few others who share his ideological inclinations) has termed the so-called Global War on Terrorism (itself a controversial moniker, for several reasons) as World War 4. (this seems to be the approach Deity dude is taking) The narrative NP makes is that the West has repeatedly had to face down ideological challenges, fascism, than communism, than Islamic radicalism. Obviously those who dont see the last two struggles as being comparable to the threat posed by fascism will reject this. It has the virtue of analogizing the Wests support for some islamic radicals during the cold war with its support for the USSR during WW2. It of course seems very conceptually weak, as it identifies the GWOT as a World War, despite the lack of large scale interstate conflict - although it seems to attempt to answer this by including "world war three" it seems to attempt to say, now that weve had two global conflicts that DONT involve massive interstate conflicts, its time to use the term world war more broadly.

One disadvantage to the terminology that will leap out at folks here, is the difficulty dealing with WW1, which really wasnt an ideological conflict, and to the extent it became one, was still one of a profoundly different nature from WW2 and the subsequent conflicts.


I would suggest that the use of the terms "WW4" for the "war on terrorism" generates much more heat than light, and is NOT a useful terminology, at least not at this point. And of course its too early when we're in the midst of a conflict to really see how history will understand the conflict (if there is even going to be a single "understanding" of the conflict)

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


No one applied the term world war backwards to the Napoleonic wars, or similar conflicts, despite many of them being quite as global as WW1.

The term - at least the German "Weltkrieg" - was coined with the Napoleonic wars in mind (1814 by Jahn, an early German nationalist guy). But I agree of course that a lot of these "world war" designations are debatable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


The term - at least the German "Weltkrieg" - was coined with the Napoleonic wars in mind (1814 by Jahn, an early German nationalist guy). But I agree of course that a lot of these "world war" designations are debatable.

Interesting - Im not certain, but I dont think the term was used before 1941 in English.

I assume no one in Germany called the 1914-1918 conflict "Weltkrieg Zwei" or whatever the proper idiom would be.

[lord of the mark]

well dang, I wuz wrong.

wiki (yes, wiki):

The term "World War" was coined speculatively in the early 20th century, some years before the First World War broke out, probably as a literal translation of the German word 'Weltkrieg'[1] The Oxford English Dictionary cites the first known usage as being in April 1909, in the pages of the Westminster Gazette.

It was recognised that the complex system of opposing alliances—German Empire-Austria-Hungary vs French Third Republic-Russian Empire-United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland-Serbia-Italy—was likely to lead to a global conflict in the event of war breaking out. The fact that the powers involved had large overseas empires virtually guaranteed that a conflict would be global, as the colonies' resources would be a crucial strategic factor. The same strategic considerations also ensured that the combatants would strike at each others' colonies, thus spreading the fighting far more widely than in the pre-colonial era.

While the First World War came to be described as a "world war" within days of its outbreak, it does not appear to have been called the First World War until the start of the Second World War. Prior to 1939 it was called either the World War or the Great War. Only after the start of hostilities in 1939 did the World War (of 1914-1918 or 1917-1918) become known as the First World War. This is easily observed today when visiting the numerous First World War monuments and memorials to be found throughout Europe and North America. Such memorials, most of which were constructed in the 1920s plainly refer to the World War or Great War. Occasionally, a contemporary marker will indicate 1919 as the year the war ended (ie: The World War, 1914-1919) which refers to the date of the Treaty of Versailles as the official end of the war rather than the Armistice in 1918 which in effect ended the actual hostilities.

The term "Second World War" was also coined in the 1920s. In 1928, US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg advocated his treaty "for the renunciation of war" (known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact) as being a "practical guarantee against a second world war". The term came into widespread use as soon as the war began in 1939.

Other languages have also adopted the "World War" terminology; for instance, in French, the two World Wars are the Guerres Mondiales; in German, the Erste und Zweite Weltkrieg; in Russian the ìèðîâûå âîéíû; and so on.

[BeBMan]

Indeed, noone did that, "The Great War" (in its German translation) was common here as well. But I think today the term is still much more used in other European countries.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You were wrong.

No I was not. Were there any other powers in the Middle East opposing Mongols in, lets say, 1260s that weren't immediatelly crushed?

Really ? What shape would you say 'the world' was then ?

huh? which part of this quote to you disagree with?

The world was limited to part of Europe and part of Asia and then changed after the Mongol Conquests ?

World is our conception of it, and this conception changed over time.

It appears to me that people in the 'mainstream of civilization' (whatever that's meant to mean) knew even in the time before the Mongols reached eastern Europe, that the world was a sphere.

clearly not all, but that's not the point. I don't see why a world war has to involve both hemispheres, especially since western/eastern hemisphere boarder can be moved anywhere.

Clearly you do not believe this. Otherwise you're flat out contradicting yourself right here:
So according to your thinking, North America was not involved, despite part of the territory being occupied by the Japanese, despite a terrible battle being fought to reoccupy the Japanese held American territory and despite Canadian and United States territory being bombarded by the Japanese...

molly, you seemingly haven't noticed a very obvious fact that I distinguish between being fought on and being involved in a conflict. America was not fought on during ww1 and ww2, except perhaps for the very edges of it. But it was involved. And that is my point when it comes to Africa - it wasn't fought on during mongol wars, but it was involved in a conflict. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it for you to understand.

But empty uninhabitable stretches of water do count...

yes. there are stretches of water that bear big strategical importance and were fought on many times, therefore, they are important to world history

All well and good, and nothing new to me- but the Mongol Conquests were not world wide, did not involve 'the world', did not even involve all of 'the known world', however one might wish to interpret that.

no war involved all the known world :P

As you confirmed when I ask you if the Mongols conquered any part of Africa.

please, answer to my question: was an african state involved actively in a war against Mongols? weren't people living in Africa sent to fight against them?

It's irrelevant to me where you think the border is, and irrelevant to the question in hand.

everything contradicting what you say is irrelevant to you. But it's you who introduced this subject. According to me, western Europe was involved in this conflict. Through Outremer, through Poland, knight orders, Czechs, Hungarians etc

Here, however, is Peter Brent, author of 'The Mongol Empire':

And? His views do not bound me. Also, he doesn't necessarily mean ENTIRE western Europe.

In Friedrich Heer's 'The Mediaeval World' he recounts the many calls for settlers from the west 'to go out East' in search of lands and prosperity, from Rhineland Germans to Walloons and Flemings.

you prove nothing by that, don't you see? East doesn't necessarily mean "Eastern Europe"; perhaps eastern part of western Europe. But if people from Ireland were called to settle in Britain or Denmark, they could as well be called to go "east"

Evidently that Paris, Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges, Cologne, Montpellier are all west of any Mongol intrusions into Europe.

But Krakow, Wroclaw, Buda etc were not, and they belong to western Europe.

A remarkable feat, even for a Mongol. He was dead at Ain Jalut.

As if there was one Mongol of this name in the world!
Molly, there are a lot of things I don't know in this world, I am sure there are subjects in which I can not compete with you, but when you're trying to lecture me on polish/ukrainian or muslim levantine history, you're making a fool of yourself.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The British Empire fought naval battles off the Falkland Islands and Chile (the Battle of Coronel) with Imperial Germany.

I'm aware of those.
Sea battles don't count when it comes to the question of territory involved.

The Empire of Japan occupied previously German-held territory in China, and across the Pacific.

One city and a few islands - territory involved: a few hundred km2.

British Empire forces fought the Triple Alliance in Sinai, Mesopotamia, at Gaza, Damascus and Megiddo, in South, East and West Africa, in Papua New Guinea, and in some of Germany's Pacific island colonies, such as Nauru.

Well, duh, of course WWI was fought on the territory of the Ottoman Empire and German colonies. I should make a rough sketch of the involved territories for comparison.

The loss of phosphate and nitrate supplies from Nauru and Chile damaged Germany's agriculture and ability to feed its people.

Sure. Did I say it didn't?

The scope of war ranged from the Indian Ocean, to the whole of the Pacific, the Mediterranean, North and South Atlantic and involved more territory and combatants than the Mongol Conquests.

The scope was obviously wider, there were more combattants (it was in the 20th century, mind you) but the war was fought on a more limited territory.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the whole question of whats a "world war" is somewhat arbitrary, IMO.

WW1 wasnt even called a world war at the time. It was called "The Great War", which was natural for it so far exceeded in size and scope any war in the previous hundred years. AFAIK it continued to be called that untill well into WW2.

It's not whether or not a conflict was referred to by its belligerents as a world war that is the point, but rather, what constitutes a 'world war' and how that would be defined.

I take the option that the conflict must involve powers in combat across the whole globe, so by default, the powers involved would have to have ocean spanning vessels or craft.

No I was not. (wrong)

Heresson

Yeah, you were, and I just used your own words to show you.

It's not like I made your quotes up, or paraphrased
them.

World is our conception of it, and this conception changed over time.

Who is this 'our' ? And whose conceptions are you referring to ?

It's fairly obvious to me that the Mongols' conception of the world was limited by their experience as steppe and tundra dwelling nomads, who relied on horses and ponies.

They didn't build permanent structures and shared the nomads intolerance for cities and city dwellers until they conquered territories and intermarried and produced hybrid cultures, such as the Yuan Dynasty and the Il-Khanate.

I don't see why a world war has to involve both hemispheres, especially since western/eastern hemisphere boarder can be moved anywhere.

Um, because the earth is a globe ? And not just parts of two continents...

no war involved all the known world

Noone has stated it did.

...everything contradicting what you say is irrelevant to you.

You aren't contradicting what I say, you're simply introducing the irrelevancy of 'western culture' into an argument about geography.

I'm referring to the parts of Europe that the Mongol Conquests reached. You're making some point about Polish culture (presumably being more like Western, Roman Catholic culture)- I'm talking about where Poland and Hungary are in Europe, in relation to say, France, Spain or the Netherlands.

Not whether they share a common architectural or confessional heritage...

According to me, western Europe was involved in this conflict.

Of course it was dear. Even though the Mongols never even reached the Rhine...

Also, he doesn't necessarily mean ENTIRE western Europe.

Ah, of course, I see, he doesn't specify the Faeroes, or Iceland or the Norman Pale... good grief.

you prove nothing by that, don't you see?

I show that there is a distinction between lands in western europe and territory in eastern europe. That this distinction is referred to by published scholars and historians. That for some strange reason, other people than me appreciate that geography does not mean 'culture', and that to travel from the Low Countries to Poland and Hungary and Rumania involved heading in an easterly direction.

To Eastern Europe, in fact.

As if there was one Mongol of this name in the world!

Well, imagine that !

I thought that when you mentioned Kit Bogha or Ked Buka you were referring to the (in)famous Mongol commander of that name who led the Mongol forces against the Mamelukes at Ain Jalut. And who died there.

How silly of me to think that you were referring to some other well-known Kit Bogha, or Ked Buka, or Qitboga ....

Molly, there are a lot of things I don't know in this world,.

Agreed.

I am sure there are subjects in which I can not compete with you.

Yup.

...but when you're trying to lecture me on polish/ukrainian or muslim levantine history, you're making a fool of yourself.

Ain't doing nuttin' of the sort.

One city and a few islands - territory involved: a few hundred km2.

Err, including Imperial Germany's second largest naval base, at Tsingtao.

Gibraltar isn't particularly large, nor Malta, nor Socotra- but they are and were important, especially to states reliant on projecting power around the world by sea and anxious to protect the 'sinews of trade'.

[Heresson]

Yeah, you were, and I just used your own words to show you.
It's not like I made your quotes up, or paraphrased
them.

I was only not precise. Mamluks were the only counting and lasting opponent of Mongols in the Middle East. And after Koese Dag and the fall of Baghdad de facto the only one.

Who is this 'our' ? And whose conceptions are you referring to ?

I was speaking in general, but in this case, America was not part of the same "world" as ours (of the Old World) until it was "discovered".

Um, because the earth is a globe ? And not just parts of two continents...

you fail to prove your claim that world wars have to be fought on both hemispheres. That world is a globe means nothing at all.

Noone has stated it did.

So what did you mean by

the Mongol Conquests were not world wide, did not involve 'the world', did not even involve all of 'the known world', however one might wish to interpret that

?

this quote suggest that if Mongol wars involved all the world or at least all the known world, you'd be inclined to considering them a world war, and as you clearly consider ww1 and ww2 world wars, it most likely means you think they involved all the world, or all the known world.

You aren't contradicting what I say, you're simply introducing the irrelevancy of 'western culture' into an argument about geography.

I'd have expected you to know well that the boarder between Asia and Europe, or between different parts of Europe, are mostly artificial geographically...

I'm referring to the parts of Europe that the Mongol Conquests reached. You're making some point about Polish culture (presumably being more like Western, Roman Catholic culture)- I'm talking about where Poland and Hungary are in Europe, in relation to say, France, Spain or the Netherlands.
Not whether they share a common architectural or confessional heritage...

Poland and Hungary are east to Germany, but what point is that supposed to be? France is east to Spain, Britain is east to Ireland, and it does not mean they are in the eastern Europe... Poland and Hungary are west to Ukraine and Russia, on the other hand...
Where, according to you, a geographical boarder between western and eastern Europe can be found?

Of course it was dear. Even though the Mongols never even reached the Rhine...

Even if you do not treat Poland and Hungary as western Europe, again I claim that involvement of a territory in a war does not mean that this territory was fought on...

I show that there is a distinction between lands in western europe and territory in eastern europe. That this distinction is referred to by published scholars and historians. That for some strange reason, other people than me appreciate that geography does not mean 'culture', and that to travel from the Low Countries to Poland and Hungary and Rumania involved heading in an easterly direction.
To Eastern Europe, in fact.

again, you evade direct responce to my point.

Well, imagine that !
I thought that when you mentioned Kit Bogha or Ked Buka you were referring to the (in)famous Mongol commander of that name who led the Mongol forces against the Mamelukes at Ain Jalut. And who died there.
How silly of me to think that you were referring to some other well-known Kit Bogha, or Ked Buka, or Qitboga ....

no; NOT thinking that I was referring to some other reknown Kitboga, and not even checking the list of mamluk sultans (which is quite easy task) which would prove to you I am right, was "silly". Especially that I have mentioned that he was taken captive during Hims/Homs/Hums battle, which took place AFTER 'Ayn Galut...
It's nice of You that You knew about the existance of Kitboga, but it turned out someone knows more about this matter than you do, so have dignity and accept it.

Ain't doing nuttin' of the sort.

yes you do

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



It's not whether or not a conflict was referred to by its belligerents as a world war that is the point, but rather, what constitutes a 'world war' and how that would be defined.

I take the option that the conflict must involve powers in combat across the whole globe, so by default, the powers involved would have to have ocean spanning vessels or craft.

I keep forgetting that youre not interested in the actual usage of a word as the basis for its definition. I dont think one sits around "taking options" on words. Thats just a silly game. Language is itself historical, and usage defines language. To understand a word, is to understand its usage and its history. Then we can understand the arbitrariness in our usage, and maybe understand the world better.

As for your dispute with Herreson, I really dont see what the point is.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Heresson
I don't know if this discussion makes sense. Simply there are different understandings of a concept of world war, and of a concept of involvement of a territory in a war. For me, world war is a war that involves majority of major powers in the world and is fought on intercontinental scale, and a continent is involved in a war if a country located in it or/and posessing large / important part of it is a side of the war.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


That world is a globe means nothing at all.

Well so much for geography, navigation, the climate, terrestrial life and astronomy.

Which part of pre-history are you living in ?

Language is itself historical, and usage defines language. To understand a word, is to understand its usage and its history.

l.o.t.m.



Gee, I to think I studied English literature and linguistics. Do you want to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, perhaps ?

this quote suggest that if Mongol wars involved all the world or at least all the known world, you'd be inclined to considering them a world war, and as you clearly consider ww1 and ww2 world wars, it most likely means you think they involved all the world, or all the known world.

No, it doesn't.

I'd have expected you to know well that the boarder between Asia and Europe, or between different parts of Europe, are mostly artificial geographically...

Geographical concepts, such as latitude, longitude and points of the compass are really rather useful things. Try navigating without them some time. But carry a satellite phone or G.P.S., so we'll know where to send the search party.

Poland and Hungary are east to Germany, but what point is that supposed to be?

The point being that the Mongols never reached Western Europe. Obvious I'd have thought, given the continuous existence of the German city states and principalities, the Low Countries and the Kingdom of France before and after the Mongol Conquests had devastated parts of Eastern Europe.

again, you evade direct responce to my point.

I do nothing of the sort. I had a look through several books I have at home- Antony Bridge's 'The Crusades', 'The Making of the Middle Ages' by R. W. Southern, Colin McEvedy's 'The Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History', J. L. Saunders' 'A History of Mediaeval Islam', Daniel Boorstin's 'The Discoverers', Tim Newark's 'Mediaeval Warlords', 'The Atlas of Mediaeval Man' edited by Colin Platt and 'Timelines of War' by David Brownstone and Irene Franck.

Bizarrely, they all seemed to agree with me- that the Mongols had attacked Eastern Europe but hadn't reached Western Europe:

Of course there were important regions of the 13th Century world that never saw nor even heard of the Mongols. In some areas to which they did penetrate, the reality of Mongol power was to prove in the event short-lived. Nevertheless for China, Burma, Central Asia, Russia, Iran and the Middle East, and briefly, but traumatically for Eastern Europe as well, the Mongol armies took on the aspect of a terrible but inescapable scourge.

Only the death of the Great Khan..spared Western Europe the Mongol onslaught.

'The Atlas of Mediaeval Man' Colin Platt.

I'd quote the others too, but one should suffice.

It's nice of You that You knew about the existance of Kitboga, but it turned out someone knows more about this matter than you do, so have dignity and accept it.

Sarcasm isn't your forte- difficult, as English ain't your native tongue. I do indeed know of the other Kit Boga but I like winding you up even more.

There's a lengthy passage on him in P. M. Holt's 'The Age of the Crusades'....