What makes a 'World' War? This is a slight continuation from my previous post regarding the dominant British views of the war to the exclusion of other nations. The term 'First World War' or indeed 'World War One' trips off the tongue quite easily; it has a nice rhythm to it and seems fairly reasonable at first glance. But is it? Was this really a world war and, if it was, was it even the first? It's worth noting early on that this topic, like many others regarding the war that can be pretty controversial. Too often the Euro-centric view of the war acts almost as a dismissal of the efforts, activities, battles and deaths of those from outside the primary protagonists. Such an approach isn't acceptable. However that doesn't mean that the questions regarding the global nature of the war can't be approached. Let us initially begin with probably the easiest question. Was this the first global conflict? During the war and in its immediate aftermath I think its understandable why the likes of Charles a Court Repington coined the term 'First World War'. Something of tremendous significance had just taken place and it needed a term that could help people understand it further. However I continue to remain a little dubious over the 'First' element of it. A few years ago at a conference of the International Society for First World War Studies Alexander Watson made the point that the 'Wars of Revolution' from 1792-1815 could just as