What I'd noted was that the 7YW has been called the first true world war (to my knowledge in Manfred Weissenbacher, in Sources of Power, (2009) https://www.worldcat.org/title/sources-of-power-how-energy-f...), and represents the first time a single conflict and set of belligerents spanned the globe. The argument isn't based on intensity of conflict or consequent significance but areal scope.
Previously, multi-continent conflicts either represented contiguous spillover of generally localised battles (e.g., a few millennia of scrapes between southern & south-eastern Europe and Asia Minor), or what were largely maritime conflicts more properly considered as focused on a body of water, most often the Mediterranean (literally, the middle of the world), positioned between Europa, Asia, and Africa. Notable during Roman times but extending well before and since.
The 7YW represented the first time global force projection, even if weak by subsequent or current standards, was even possible.
Its role in setting up Britain and the English-speaking world for global dominance may well be greater than you're allowing for as well.
Very well, in terms of literal global spread of conflict, the 7YW was undeniably closer to being "the first true world war" but I argue that this is secondary to impact and destructiveness if we're measuring these pre-World War candidates for World War. If global involvement is a candidate, why not also include the American Revolutionary War. It too involved multiple belligerent states and conflict scattered across most of the globe.
The 30YW was on the other hand both fantastically destructive even by modern standards and of huge impact to the whole world even up to the present day. True, it was by no means a literally global conflict and couldn't be claimed as one, but the political systems that it led to were also a crucial factor in both the 7YW happening, and the rise of French power which partly made the latter global: The 30 Years' War was one of the factors that led to the ascendant France which later partly forced the English-Prussian alliance in the 7YW.
France could have perhaps only with difficulty have become such a global colonial and dominant European power had the earlier conflict not slowed the formation of centralized authority in the German-speaking states for decades.
The ramifications of Westphalia still reverberate today, the ramifications of the 7YW less so.
What I'd noted was that the 7YW has been called the first true world war (to my knowledge in Manfred Weissenbacher, in Sources of Power, (2009) https://www.worldcat.org/title/sources-of-power-how-energy-f...), and represents the first time a single conflict and set of belligerents spanned the globe. The argument isn't based on intensity of conflict or consequent significance but areal scope.
Previously, multi-continent conflicts either represented contiguous spillover of generally localised battles (e.g., a few millennia of scrapes between southern & south-eastern Europe and Asia Minor), or what were largely maritime conflicts more properly considered as focused on a body of water, most often the Mediterranean (literally, the middle of the world), positioned between Europa, Asia, and Africa. Notable during Roman times but extending well before and since.
The 7YW represented the first time global force projection, even if weak by subsequent or current standards, was even possible.
Its role in setting up Britain and the English-speaking world for global dominance may well be greater than you're allowing for as well.