3rd Reich WW2, 2nd Reich WW1, 1st Reich WW0

[buritobr]

The Third Reich (1933-1945) was a protagonist in the WW2.
The Second Reich (1871-1918) was a protagonist in the WW1

So we can ask: was the First Reich a protagonist in the WW0? We can answer YES. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. We can consider the 30 Years War (1618-1648) somethink like a WW0.

[Agonized-Statism]

The Third Reich (1933-1945) was a protagonist

Sus

So we can ask: was the First Reich a protagonist in the WW0? We can answer YES. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. We can consider the 30 Years War (1618-1648) somethink like a WW0.

I see what you're going for. Historians generally consider only conflicts with multiple theaters across the globe to be world wars, but a general European war is the largest the 17th century could arguably get. But if we're considering all general European wars as proto-world wars, a better contender for a First Reich world war would be the Napoleonic Wars (especially since, like World Wars I and II, that was the one that broke the Reich).

[TheReckoning]

30 Years War was a massive war in terms of the destruction it waged onto affected areas, but it was a not a “World War” in any useful sense of the word. The French and Indian Wars are a much better way of thinking of a “World War 0”, but as the poster above me says, if you like to think of World Wars as ending Reichs, the Napoleonic Wars are also a good pick.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

30 Years War was a massive war in terms of the destruction it waged onto affected areas, but it was a not a “World War” in any useful sense of the word. The French and Indian Wars are a much better way of thinking of a “World War 0”, but as the poster above me says, if you like to think of World Wars as ending Reichs, the Napoleonic Wars are also a good pick.

The French and Indian War was a localised theatre of a wider conflict, difficult to see it as a "world war".

[TheReckoning]

30 Years War was a massive war in terms of the destruction it waged onto affected areas, but it was a not a “World War” in any useful sense of the word. The French and Indian Wars are a much better way of thinking of a “World War 0”, but as the poster above me says, if you like to think of World Wars as ending Reichs, the Napoleonic Wars are also a good pick.

The French and Indian War was a localised theatre of a wider conflict, difficult to see it as a "world war".

Apologies for my American Bias, referring to the Seven Years’ War by the name of its American theater.

[buritobr]

Correct

The best WW0 for the 1st Reich is the Napoleonic Wars, not the 30 Years War, because it was the war which ended the 1st Reich, like the WW1 ended the 2nd Reich and the WW2 ended the 3rd Reich

[Middle-aged Europe]

The periodization in different German "Reichs" is maybe a bit outdated, ahistorical, and arbitrary though.

Given the longevity and the massive internal structural changes it underwent during its existence, the Holy Roman Empire could be considered a string of different "Reichs" in their own right.

From 1648 onwards it was basically a confederation similar to the German Confederation of 1815-1866, with the main difference being that while the Austrian Habsburg rulers still held the "Presidium" of the German Conferedation they didn't take the title of German emperor like they did during the HRE (although I understand this was in fact discussed in 1814/15).

So why is the German Confederation not considered the "Second Reich"? Because it wasn't a monarchy? If that's the case then it is a bit unclear under which criteria Nazi Germany was supposed to be a "Reich". Because it was a strong centralized state? Well, in that case the Holy Roman Empire was never really a "Reich".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To add the above, it's worth noting that the official name (rarely used, but that isn't the point) of the Weimar Republic was actually simply Deutsches Reich, and of course it covered the overwhelming majority of the territory of the Kaiserreich. Reich is a very old, very odd word and doesn't mean quite what people only familiar with it from its use by the Nazis tend to assume: it can be used to denote an Empire because it always implies a projection of power over a wide area, but it doesn't have to, it can simply mean (roughly... and that this is also an old word is telling) 'realm'.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

To add the above, it's worth noting that the official name (rarely used, but that isn't the point) of the Weimar Republic was actually simply Deutsches Reich, and of course it covered the overwhelming majority of the territory of the Kaiserreich. Reich is a very old, very odd word and doesn't mean quite what people only familiar with it from its use by the Nazis tend to assume: it can be used to denote an Empire because it always implies a projection of power over a wide area, but it doesn't have to, it can simply mean (roughly... and that this is also an old word is telling) 'realm'.

Similar thing happens in Swedish with the direct cognate "rike". When I was running envelopes through the mail machine at work, I had to select whether the appropriate postage would be "inrikes" or "utrikes", i.e. domestic vs. international. Sending invoices and reminders either in the realm or outside of the realm

And the Swedish name for Sweden ("Sverige") comes from a corruption of the original "Svea rike", of course