World Wars

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Nope. While Im not in 100% agreement with post you made the Herreson responded to, Herreson dropping a snide remark about Israeli land "theft" was clearly a troll, and you bit on it.

Like a Pole has any room to talk about land theft...

[Heresson]

huh?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I realize not every Muslim is Osama bin Laden and not every Westerner is George Bush and most on both sides probably want peace. But by the same token not every Axis citizen was Hitler and every Allied Citizen wasn't Churchill, but when the **** hit the fan everyone basically kept their sides and fought it out. Now I would argue that, in 1935 your average German or Italian was probably a lot closer to your average Englishman or Frenchman than say, in 2007 your average Muslim in Afghanistan or Chechnya, Kazakistan, Indonesia or Iran is to your average citizen in the west.

A bunch of small local wars linked by religion do not a global war make.

Islamists control only one significant government, Iran's, and the Iranians have long standing goals of trying to be the dominant power in the Gulf region going back 3000 years. Their current government notwithstanding. If the Shah had retained power Iran would probably already have nuclear weapons.

Global wars assume contests between different powers, in which there can be different outcomes. To think that the AQ types could ever "win" to me is beyond ludicrous. Win with what? Heck, these are guys that can only function in areas under chaos, chaos formed by previous warfare and the collapse of governance (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia), or in areas riven by nationalist conflict that gets mixed in with religion (Phillipinnes, Indonesia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo). They have failed utterly to come even close to overthrowing ANY of the muslim regimes in power. They have been beaten in Algeria, Syria, and Egypt, usually quite brutally and with much bloodshed. Again, the only Islamist group that won was in Iran, and that was the result of the shiite clerics having been the group most ready to capitalize on the popular revolution in Iran, ahead of the Liberals or Communists.

This is no more a "global war" than the drug war, or the previous bout of international terrorism by anarchists in the 1880's to 1900's, which killed dozens of world leaders.

[GePap]

Originally posted by molly bloom



They did through proxies.

We might as well think realistically of countries such as Cuba, South Africa, Ran and Iraq, Somalia, Ethiopia and Egypt and Israel as being the military muscle behind the political will of the superpowers, however recalcitrant they may at times have proved.

With the exception of Cuba, a lot of those conflicts made use of the superpowers. After all, when the Arab-Israeli conflict began, both sides in the cold war for the most part backed Israel. Eventually the two sides came to be used and use the local players, who had their own ambitions and goals seperate from the conflict between the US and USSR.

I think Iraq and Iran are a very poor example, as the Iranian revolutionary regime was both anti-American and anti-communist, and Iraq got help from both the Soviets and covertly from the West, openly from the pro-US arab regimes who were Saddam's biggest bankers. And heck, Somalia and Ethiopia's famous complete switcheroo in backing should be nice evidence that again locals were using the willingness of the US and USSR to spread weapons and cash around to buy influence for their own petty local goals.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson

You're funny, molly. Instead of defending your remark, You actually reiterated my claim that while Mongols never reached Egypt, they were damn close to it and fought an african might, therefore Africa was involved in "mongol conquest" world war and your remark was a completely pointless (or ignorant) one.

I did defend my comment, but you're clearly too 'ignorant' to grasp its import.

A force which gets no further than Palestine has not reached Africa, and is still in Asia. What a pity geography is not your strong point.

One wonders how you travelled to Syria ? Via Namibia, perhaps....

Don't make me laugh.

The humour traffic is one way. The Japanese occupied North American territory, bombarded Canadian and American coastal territory, and American bases across the extent of the Pacific. Rather more than the Mongol navy managed to do...

Isn't that obvious?

Evidently not to you, otherwise why bring up Antarctica...

Oh, OK. Still it's only about small islands. Bigger ones up to New Guinea belong to Asia, perhaps they are counted into english term Australasia, but a concept used around the world is different, sorry.

The Japanese in WWII and the Germans in WWI occupied part of Papua New Guinea- one of the world's larger islands.

Perhaps 'large' has a different connotation in other parts of the world.

there isn't just one side of a war, molly. I know it may come as a shock to your fragile little mind.

Fewer misplaced insults and better geography, reasoning and more facts on your side would not go amiss.

If You insist a world war should be fought on every continent, You should be consequent

I believe I was clear in my intent- European powers managed to project their power around the world- in coastal and oceanic waters. The Mongols did not.

The Mongols never reached Africa, nor the Americas, nor even Western Europe or southern India. Ergo, the Mongol conquests were not a 'world war'.

Back to school, old chum.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap



I think Iraq and Iran are a very poor example, as the Iranian revolutionary regime was both anti-American and anti-communist, and Iraq got help from both the Soviets and covertly from the West, openly from the pro-US arab regimes who were Saddam's biggest bankers.

The Sha's Iran was backed by America- when Iraq was perceived as a Soviet ally.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I did defend my comment, but you're clearly too 'ignorant' to grasp its import.

A force which gets no further than Palestine has not reached Africa, and is still in Asia. What a pity geography is not your strong point.

molly... don't you get that it's not the point?
I never claimed that they did, but that they were close to it, and their opponent was in Africa, so the "Mongol world war" did concern Africa.
Damn, how many times do I have to tell that for you to understand?

The humour traffic is one way. The Japanese occupied North American territory, bombarded Canadian and American coastal territory, and American bases across the extent of the Pacific. Rather more than the Mongol navy managed to do...

it is of no importance. Mongols did attack, damage etc mamluk posessions as well. They were not in Africa, but they belonged to a state whose central point was in Africa.

Evidently not to you, otherwise why bring up Antarctica...

I guess you do not know what is proving some way of thinking wrong by expanding it ad absurdum and by pointing holes in that thinking
I guess not, so I'll explain it to you as to a little child.
Molly, my dear, you claimed that mongol wars or early islamic conquests were not truely world wars, because they weren't fought in Americas or Australia. My point was that it doesn't matter, because they weren't important, and proven my point by that ww1 and ww2 are considered world wars, while they didn't concern Antarctica. Why, my little molly? Because Antarctica, while being a continent, is of none importance to civilisation.

The Japanese in WWII and the Germans in WWI occupied part of Papua New Guinea- one of the world's larger islands.

Perhaps 'large' has a different connotation in other parts of the world.

ah, yes, I admit I forgot about New Guinea. Still, this is an island, not mainland.

Fewer misplaced insults and better geography, reasoning and more facts on your side would not go amiss.

what's insulting in "fragile little mind"? Cartman described his mind like that. He would not, was it offensive

Yet, you fail to answer reasonably to my points:
- mongol conquests wars did concern Africa (mamluks)
- a world war doesn't have to be fought on every continent, but only the ones that matter (antarctica)
Instead, you are proving things I never diened.

I believe I was clear in my intent- European powers managed to project their power around the world- in coastal and oceanic waters. The Mongols did not.

and that would be a reasonable point, have you stated it this way

The Mongols never reached Africa, nor the Americas, nor even Western Europe or southern India. Ergo, the Mongol conquests were not a 'world war'.

where's the boarder between western and eastern Europe, according to you? Hungary, Croatia, Czechia, Poland, Outremer were part of western Europe by culture, and Poland was sent reinforcements from western Europe as well. Mongols played a big role in western european politics of that time - as a possible ally against muslims.
Africa - they haven't reached Africa, because they were stopped by an african might on the very boarder of it. I'm not sure if Palestine isn't on african plate already.

Back to school, old chum.

good luck there

[Wernazuma III]

I'd like to jump in defense of calling the Mongolian conquests a world war. Of course, only if we admit to not taking the Americas into account. But this is justifyable since in the Middle ages we have to talk about two different, completely seperated worlds.
The discussion inhowfar the Mongolian invasions had an impact on Africa doesn't lead anywhere, even if Heresson is right in stating that Egypt was an important player in the conflicts.
The question what constitutes a World War is not only influenced by where battles were fought.
It's not so important to the definition of WWI as a World War that Germans blew up some ship in New Jersey, but that the USA sent supplies and hundreds of thousands of soldiers off to war.
And more importantly, thinking only in terms of physical continents seems pretty pointless anyway.
One could argue, for instance, that a war not really involving China or India can never be a real world war, notwithstanding the undeniable factsd that a ship was sunk before Tasmania, two Massai were killed in Kenia, an ammunition deposit in Rio de Janeiro blew up etc.
So far, no war really has reached all the world. Even in WWII, participation of South America was meager, at best. Most just formally declared war on Germany between fall 1944 to May 1945...
Subsaharan Africa, and there is enough jusification to consider it a completely different part of the world than Northern Africa, was basically untouched too.

Back to the Mongols: Their wars covered a larger part of the then known world than did WWI, and most significant powers (including the Mamluks) were involved in the conflict, and the wars were fought in regions as distant and different as Japan, India, Palestine or Poland.
I think that's good enough to qualify as a World War.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

So far, no war really has reached all the world. Even in WWII, participation of South America was meager, at best. Most just formally declared war on Germany between fall 1944 to May 1945...
Subsaharan Africa, and there is enough jusification to consider it a completely different part of the world than Northern Africa, was basically untouched too.

Brazil, 443 KIA, many at Anzio, IIUC.

Sub saharan africa - where shall we start? The British campaign to retake Ethiopia from the Italians? The landings in Madagascar? The failed Senegal expedition? The maneuvering by the Free French in the French Eq Africa? The valour of the South African troops in the North Africa campaign? The various colonial troops? The role of Smuts as advisor to Churchill and the CID?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Brazil, 443 KIA, many at Anzio, IIUC.

Brazil was the notable exception in South America, entering in 1942, although even that contribution, compared to what WWII was, is not exactly huge.

Sub saharan africa - where shall we start? The British campaign to retake Ethiopia from the Italians? The landings in Madagascar? The failed Senegal expedition? The maneuvering by the Free French in the French Eq Africa? The valour of the South African troops in the North Africa campaign? The various colonial troops? The role of Smuts as advisor to Churchill and the CID?

OK, I admit, ignored Ethiopia/Eritrea on purpose, and I honestly have to say that I don't know anything about the other 3 operations you mention. A quick research didn't give me any useful information, so you have to enlighten me. I doubt these were big manoevers.

Anyway, I wasn't particularily arguing that WWII was no real WW, but that even this incredibly huge war was rather marginal for some considerable chunks of this world.

[Zkribbler]

The role of Smuts as advisor to Churchill and the CID?

What kind of advice is a guy named Smuts going to give??

Churchill: "I say, Smuts. We're thinking of invading France at the Pas de Calais. What do you think?"

Smuts: "I think we should look at pictures of naked ladies."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Brazil was the notable exception in South America, entering in 1942, although even that contribution, compared to what WWII was, is not exactly huge.



OK, I admit, ignored Ethiopia/Eritrea on purpose, and I honestly have to say that I don't know anything about the other 3 operations you mention. A quick research didn't give me any useful information, so you have to enlighten me. I doubt these were big manoevers.

Anyway, I wasn't particularily arguing that WWII was no real WW, but that even this incredibly huge war was rather marginal for some considerable chunks of this world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.etherington/articles/level1/dakar_expedition.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_2nd_Division

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


molly... don't you get that it's not the point?

See, if you replaced your posts' tortured self-contradictory attempts at logic and failure to grasp geography or what projection of power on a world or global scale actually means, then you might just get the point.

The Mongols remained essentially a land-based power, who never extended their reach outside part of Europe and part of Asia- when they attempted to make naval expeditions (to Indonesia, and under Kublai Khan, to Japan) they failed.


Let's look at the 'thinking' behind your posts, and a few of the errors.

Mongols were damn close to Africa themselves (in Palestine /Israel), and their biggest (well, only) opponent in Middle East (mamluks) was located primarly in Africa (Egypt)... It's like to say that ww2 didn't concern North America or Australia, because it wasn't fought on their territory

Now the Mamelukes weren't the only opponent the Mongols faced in the Middle East. There was the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, the Ismaili Assassins, and the Caliph's forces centred on Baghdad, who were defeated when they set out to meet Baichu's Mongols by the Tigris.

The Mamelukes may well have taken over from the Ayyubids in Egypt, but did they meet the Mongols in Africa, on home territory ? No, they went out to meet the Mongols north of Jerusalem.

Now if north of Jerusalem is 'African' in any way, then the Israeli air force and army have slipped up- in the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars, they could have defeated the Egyptians without leaving their own bases !

Australia never really mattered in world history, at least before british colonisation, which is - on larger scale - a very recent matter. It's similar (with all due respect to civs existing there) with Americas before colonisation - it wasn't part of mainstreams of civilisation.

All of which is irrelevant to the point in question, which is were the Mongol Conquests a world war, that is a war which was on a truly global scale, involving both hemispheres.

By the way, 'mainstream' of civilization is a rather Eurocentric and limited view- in my opinion.

No war concerned Antarctic, too

Really. There's a shock. Couldn't be because it was uninhabited and uninhabitable without modern technology, could it ?

You actually reiterated my claim that while Mongols never reached Egypt, they were damn close to it and fought an african might, therefore Africa was involved in "mongol conquest" world war and your remark was a completely pointless (or ignorant) one.

I did nothing of the sort- I gave the name of the famous battle, north of Jerusalem, still firmly in Asia, where Mongol power was checked. Mongol power was never projected onto African soil, or in coastal or territorial waters around Africa- so there was no 'Mongol conquest' of any African territory.

Let alone the rest of the globe that the Mongol Conquest didn't reach, where those 'insignificant' civilizations like the Chimu and Toltecs created empires and city states, or Western Europe, the Mediterranean, the North and South Atlantic, the Pacific beyond Japan, southern India, the whole continent of Africa...

wow. great were the battles fought there indeed Aleutes? Don't make me laugh.

If you read more and mocked less, you'd realise the significance of the takeover of the Aleutians by the Japanese- it fatally weakened their forces at Battle of Midway, but it did also cause the Americans and Canadians to divert forces to the far north, it was Japan's only garrisoned foothold in the Western Hemisphere, and retaking Attu was in terms of American troop attrition, second only to Iwo Jima in the Pacific War.

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

I think I already proved my point, but if I use your Mamelukes in Palestine= Africa 'logic', then because a North American power was at war with Japan and fought sea battles with them and was bombarded by Japanese submarines, and had its territory invaded by them, then North America was indeed involved. As was Mexico...


According to your thinking, a global war includes uninhabited stretches of ocean if 'significant' naval battles took place there.

But uninhabited Antarctica doesn't count (although you mentioned it first- why bother ?) and apparently neither do INHABITED islands like the Aleutians, Papua New Guinea, Wake Island, Guam, Saipan where significant battles were fought, in Australasia and across the Pacific.

there isn't just one side of a war, molly. I know it may come as a shock to your fragile little mind.
Romanian forces were only involved in european theatre of war I believe, yet they fought in a world war, for example. Such is the case of Mongols, which You missed - they may have fought in Asia and Europe, but one of their main enemies was located in Africa as well.

I don't mind you rehashing concepts which you may have difficulty coping with, but Romania was involved in two world wars, so called because they took place on a GLOBAL scale. Is that really so hard to understand....

If You insist a world war should be fought on every continent, You should be consequent...

I don't. I insist that for a conflict to be on a 'world' or 'global' scale, it should take place in more than one hemisphere, and not be confined to two continents and the coastal waters thereof.

You're the inconsistent one ...

but inhabited by people on such level of developement that their involvement in a (world) war was impossible, had they had any contact with outside world anyway.

It's irrelevant whether indigenous groups also had the power to act on a global scale- Great Powers could and did employ indigenous peoples in global conflicts. You keep bringing up irrelevancies, and then also get your facts just plain wrong.

it is of no importance. Mongols did attack, damage etc mamluk posessions as well. They were not in Africa, but they belonged to a state whose central point was in Africa.

So you agree the Mongols never reached Africa. Thanks again.

I guess you do not know what is proving some way of thinking wrong by expanding it ad absurdum and by pointing holes in that thinking

Err... I don't speak or think Borat, sorry.

Molly, my dear, you claimed that mongol wars or early islamic conquests were not truely world wars, because they weren't fought in Americas or Australia.

No, I didn't. I realise by now logic is firmly outside your grasp, as is consistency, but I would have thougt it relatively easy simply to quote what I said, rather than reproduce your garbled version:

The Mongols didn't reach Africa or the Americas or Australasia.

Unless you think that the Mongols could ride their little ponies across the Bering Strait, or down through the Indonesian archipelago and into the Northern Territory, I would have thought it obvious that what this means is that the Mongols could not project their power on a global scale.

Why, my little molly? Because Antarctica, while being a continent, is of none importance to civilisation.

Irrelevant. If we're going on 'importance to civilisation' (and whoever said that was a prerequisite for the definition of a global or world war ?) then the Mongols missed out on an awful lot of important civilisations, didn't they ?

ah, yes, I admit I forgot about New Guinea. Still, this is an island, not mainland.

What the hell does 'mainland' have to do with anything ?

Apparently Asia north of Jerusalem is close enough to qualify as being 'Africa' by your tormented logic, yet Australian and American territory being bombarded by Japanese ships and planes doesn't count, nor does the occupation of American islands.

what's insulting in "fragile little mind

Weell I don't have a fragile little mind, and frankly someone whose reasoning is so skewed and facts so in error, has no call on expressing an opinion on the state of my mind.

a) mongol conquests wars did concern Africa (mamluks)

b)a world war doesn't have to be fought on every continent, but only the ones that matter (antarctica)

a) The Mongol Conquests never reached Africa.

b) A figment of your overwrought imagination.

Also a point I've never raised. Please quote the part where I've insisted that for a conflict to be global it must be fought on EVERY continent.

Better luck with the geography studies.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Back to the Mongols: Their wars covered a larger part of the then known world than did WWI, and most significant powers (including the Mamluks) were involved in the conflict, and the wars were fought in regions as distant and different as Japan, India, Palestine or Poland.
I think that's good enough to qualify as a World War.

No they didn't.

The British Empire fought naval battles off the Falkland Islands and Chile (the Battle of Coronel) with Imperial Germany. The Empire of Japan occupied previously German-held territory in China, and across the Pacific.

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

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.

Even in WWII, participation of South America was meager, at best. Most just formally declared war on Germany between fall 1944 to May 1945...

The first country freed from the Axis powers was Ethiopia.

With the approval of exiled Emperor Haile Selassie, the group began operations in February 1941. The assigned mission of Gideon Force was to start a local revolt in Gojjam Province to divert Italian strength while 87,000 British troops attacked from Sudan and Kenya. The Italian occupation force in all of East Africa numbered some 340,0007. At least 20,000 of these soldiers were facing Wingate on the way to Addis Ababa. Wingate was temporarily promoted to Lieutenant Colonel.

Even the Japanese attacked British naval forces off Diego Suarez, and pro-Nazi Afrikaaners had to be imprisoned in South Africa.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/bio/Charles_Orde_Wingate.htm

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Now the Mamelukes weren't the only opponent the Mongols faced in the Middle East. There was the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, the Ismaili Assassins, and the Caliph's forces centred on Baghdad, who were defeated when they set out to meet Baichu's Mongols by the Tigris.

who claimed they were the only ones? they were the main ones, though - Alamut and Musyaf were captured; Ar-Rum vassalised; caliphate reduced to nothing. Mamluks managed to defeat Mongols a couple of times, re-take some of their conquest and even make expedition further, f.e. to Ar-Rum. And fought Mongols for decades.

The Mamelukes may well have taken over from the Ayyubids in Egypt, but did they meet the Mongols in Africa, on home territory ? No, they went out to meet the Mongols north of Jerusalem.

Irrelevant. Why would they wait for Mongols to enter Egypt? The point is that they, an african state, were involved in war against Mongols. Have they not defeated Mongols, they'd come to Egypt as well.

Apparently Asia north of Jerusalem is close enough to qualify as being 'Africa' by your tormented logic,

Now if north of Jerusalem is 'African' in any way

I did nothing of the sort- I gave the name of the famous battle, north of Jerusalem, still firmly in Asia, where Mongol power was checked. Mongol power was never projected onto African soil, or in coastal or territorial waters around Africa- so there was no 'Mongol conquest' of any African territory.

Let alone the rest of the globe that the Mongol Conquest didn't reach, where those 'insignificant' civilizations like the Chimu and Toltecs created empires and city states, or Western Europe, the Mediterranean, the North and South Atlantic, the Pacific beyond Japan, southern India, the whole continent of Africa...

I think I already proved my point, but if I use your Mamelukes in Palestine= Africa 'logic',

So you agree the Mongols never reached Africa. Thanks again.

You are amazing, molly. Your ability of misinterpreting someone to suit your pathethic attempts of defending your position are something no-one can match with you in.
I never claimed they did...
I could, though, because, as I've mentioned, Palestine is on african continental plate.

All of which is irrelevant to the point in question, which is were the Mongol Conquests a world war, that is a war which was on a truly global scale, involving both hemispheres.

who says a world war has to involve both hemispheres?

By the way, 'mainstream' of civilization is a rather Eurocentric and limited view- in my opinion.

it is not. I find North African, Middle Eastern, Central Asian, Indian, Chineese histories part of the mainstream history as well.

Really. There's a shock. Couldn't be because it was uninhabited and uninhabitable without modern technology, could it ?

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.

If you read more and mocked less, you'd realise the significance of the takeover of the Aleutians by the Japanese- it fatally weakened their forces at Battle of Midway, but it did also cause the Americans and Canadians to divert forces to the far north, it was Japan's only garrisoned foothold in the Western Hemisphere, and retaking Attu was in terms of American troop attrition, second only to Iwo Jima in the Pacific War.

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

But uninhabited Antarctica doesn't count (although you mentioned it first- why bother ?)

I've explained why I've mentioned it. It's not my fault you're not able to grasp that

and apparently neither do INHABITED islands like the Aleutians, Papua New Guinea, Wake Island, Guam, Saipan where significant battles were fought, in Australasia and across 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. Yet, in case of ww1 and ww2, while war was not fought on their main territory, they were involved in this war, and this - not the fights on some islands - proves to me that these continents were involved.

I don't mind you rehashing concepts which you may have difficulty coping with, but Romania was involved in two world wars, so called because they took place on a GLOBAL scale. Is that really so hard to understand....

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. You could say that Mongol wars were series of regional conflicts, but isn't papacy (western european might) trying to form an alliance with Mongols (eastern Asian map) against Mongols (african might) an example of global politics?

hemisphere, and not be confined to two continents and the coastal waters thereof.

Again, mongol wars did concern Africa through Mamluks.
these continents tend to be the most important ones. The rest weren't even discovered and played no role in mainstream history.

It's irrelevant whether indigenous groups also had the power to act on a global scale- Great Powers could and did employ indigenous peoples in global conflicts.

did they bring Aborigenes into fight against Germans / Japaneese?

You keep bringing up irrelevancies

no, you simply aren't able to see that they are relevant

, and then also get your facts just plain wrong.

which ones?

Unless you think that the Mongols could ride their little ponies across the Bering Strait, or down through the Indonesian archipelago and into the Northern Territory, I would have thought it obvious that what this means is that the Mongols could not project their power on a global scale.

So only a naval power can be a world power?

Irrelevant. If we're going on 'importance to civilisation' (and whoever said that was a prerequisite for the definition of a global or world war ?)

me, and wikipedia as well:

"A world war is a war affecting the majority of the world's major nations. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive."

then the Mongols missed out on an awful lot of important civilisations, didn't they ?

I think they reached enough civs - Chineese, western christian, eastern christian, indian, nestorian christian, muslim etc

What the hell does 'mainland' have to do with anything ?

Continents seem quite more... continental when it comes to their mainland than islands 100s kms away from them, don't they

a) The Mongol Conquests never reached Africa.

But they almost did - they were stoped on the doorstep of it by an african power. The mongol wars involved an african power, and that is what counts imo, not if Mongol armies reached Africa or not.

b) A figment of your overwrought imagination.

No, obviousity.

Also a point I've never raised. Please quote the part where I've insisted that for a conflict to be global it must be fought on EVERY continent.

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