If we're going to take "multiple continents" as acceptable to define a world war, then what about the time Assyria invaded Egypt?

Yep, that's three continents as well.

World wars have been going on since antiquity.

Except Arabia is not a continent...

By my definition of continents, it is.

What exactly is your definition? Just keep to the standard, worldwide recognized continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica, North and South America (or America as 1 continent). Continents are not defined as the plates- if it was, there would be alot of tiny continents and only ocean continents.

My definition of a continent is a tectonic plate. Just because you end up with several smaller continents, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them.

Oceania is not a continent, it is simply a geographic region. Australia is the actual continent.

The 7 continent view of the world is flawed. What continent is New Zealand in, and several other countries included in the geographic region Oceania?

The only problem with the tectonic plate continents though - sometimes they go so much against what we traditionally think of.

For example, Hokkaido is part of North America. So is Chukotka.

And my definition of a continent is one acre. I even own my own continent!

Having your own definition of a commonplace term is completely asinine.

But then you get frains like where to draw the line. Is Cyprus in Europe? Is Baki in Europe?

Tectonic plates and "one acre continents" aside, the Assyrian invasion of Egypt was transcontinental. What should a "World War" be defined as, anyway?

A war which includes multiple great powers on both sides (both sides equal- either side can win) and happens on most of the globe (whole world not just known world) and has x casualties which is thought at the time to be so devastating that there won't be another war. It possibly should be only after 1900.

- I am not just defining it by multiple continetns.

I am simply showing you that almost all the same main participants were in it, and that new - and far more devestating - technology was used in the war.

Edited 4/16/2015 19:37:55

If we are talking about great advancements of technology, The 30 Years War saw some incredible advancements of technology, especially from Sweden.

Just want to make it clear that Germany didn't "started" the Great War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pFCpKtwCkI

It's debatable, I say Austriahungary started it, some say Serbia started it.

The Great War occured because of a combination of events. The most usual suspects, being blamed for causing it are Germany, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and Russia.

Russia has nothing to do with it (other than defending Serbia), Germany had nothing to do with it (other than defending Austriahungary).

The conflict would have probably been another one of these run-of-the-mill Balkan Wars we see all of the time, if Russia and Germany hadn't joined in and escalated the war to a global conflict. Due to Germany and Russia joining in, more countries decided to join the war (France, Britain, Montenegro). Then even more (Ottomans, Italy, Bulgaria). Then even MORE (Portugal, Romania, USA) And the thing just spiralled out of control.

I can't say this for certain, but perhaps if Russia and Germany didn't come into the war, it wouldn't have escalated into the huge conflict it was.

Russia and Germany certainly escalated it, but the Great War happened because Austriahungary declared war on Serbia (and Serbia refused to meet Austriahungary's sharp antiterrorism demands).

The conflict started because of that, but it maybe wouldn't have been a world war, if it wasn't for Russia and Germany.