Would someone be kind enough to reccomend to me a decent book and accounting of this war?
thanks,
Odin
Printable View
Would someone be kind enough to reccomend to me a decent book and accounting of this war?
thanks,
Odin
Me too?
Fowler's Empires at War seems to be a decent book focusing on mainly what happened in the Americas, with links to Europe. Marston's The Seven Years' War seems more geared to military campaigns, both in Europe and the Americas. I haven't read either personally, but reviews on Amazon suggest they're good. If anyone wants I can look books up in the uni library to see if they're worthwhile.
I am looking for a more start to finish narrative I guess, the american theatre is intresting but I can find ample books on that here. I was looking for a european discussion on the war, causes, effects, outcomes.
Thanks again !
Personly I like working from biographys when I study a period so I would recomend, Fredrick the Great: King of Prussia by David Fraser. A solid (very large), biograhy that covers most of the action on the continent. It however lacks a little on the american side.
The seven years war cab basically be seen as a continuation of the Austrian War of succession. Aix-la-chapel (the treaty which ended it) did not end Austrian anger at the loss of Silesia to Prussia. Austria was keen for revenge.
The sides were drawn up in the diplomatic revolution of '56, I think.
Britain had forced Austria to sign a costly peace in order to end the war, this is probably due to Britain wanting a stronger Prussia to counter-balance France's power. Britain did not believe the Austrians strong enough to contend French power. Prussia however under its great Ruler Frederick II did.
Britain also saw that Prussia could protect it's Achilles heal, Hanover (Britain always feared having to send troops to Europe), this was given in return for a withdrawal of British support for Austria.
So Maria Theresa realized that Britain was no longer a needed or desirable ally. The French no longer saw Austria as a threat and at the First treaty of Versailles. Prussia realized that the tables were against her and preempted her enemies by invading Saxony. Thus the Seven years war began. This also brought a large Russian contingent (80,000) to the aid of Austria.
A year later Austria and France signed an aggressive pact against Prussia.
What I see on Amazon is a thoroughly Anglosaxon perspective of the war. It's either all about the war in what would become the United States and Canada, or it's all about how Britain won its empire in this war. Yet the bulk of the fighting and the bulk of the deaths happened in the violent orbit surrounding Prussia and its king, Frederick the Great, in his conflict against his rival and, arguably, equal, Maria Theresa of the Habsburg Monarchy.
Isn't there any book which investigates what this war was all about? After all: the so-called "theaters" of war, like, most famously, the one in America, were, in all honesty, simply sideshows to the main conflict between Austria, Russia, and Prussia. Like in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Britain kept itself out of the main bloodletting and limited itself to financial support, letting others do the dying. It's something that Anglosaxon authors often overlook :no:
I've been encountering the same problem, and I've yet to find a decent (or even any) account of the war in its more relevant eastern theatres. For now, I think people interested in the Seven Years' War outside the Americas and English participation are limited to historical biographies of eastern absolutist rulers such as Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa, along with all the issues inherent in historical biographies such as the great individual representation of complex matters and glossing over anything that isn't political and diplomatic history.
Disappointing. Perhaps more is to be found in German literature, or works on eastern absolutist monarchies in general? I'm sure someone could make a mint out of publishing a comprehensive and in-depth (read: not limited to political history, feeble rereadings of primary literature) English work on the war.
So is the general concensus that a bio on Frederick the Great might be the best overall glimpse at the european theatre?
I dont care for osprey books, Ive read some just dont like the flavor.
Probably not best overall, because it'll probably focus almost exclusively on political and diplomatic history, whilst ignoring everything else such as economic and social history. That's the problem with most (older) biographies, in that they tend to stick to letters and literary primary sources and don't so much offer much new than a different take on the same old. But biographies are probably the only modern literature available, as long as one doesn't stick to just one or two. Once I'm back at uni properly I could ask around.
And no, I'm not a fan of Osprey either. The quality is extremely variable and to be honest they don't really focus on my interests anyway.
These two books may give you a Prussian perspective, but may not be in depth enough for you.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Modern-Wa...590728&sr=1-10
http://www.amazon.com/History-Prussi...8590641&sr=8-5
I've read the second one (the History of Prussia) and enjoyed it. I don't know about the first, but it sounds interesting.
Any reccomendation is welcome, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by phred
I am perplexed that there isnt a decent accounting of the european theatre in english. Mini searches on the web havent given me much either.
Perhaps its time to move to another subject?
Yeah, I found that apparently most of the best books are in German.
Which sukcs, but I'm pretty sure that there will be a fair few older books in English which cover it.
There is one book, which covers the whole 18th Century Warfare, including War of Spanish Succesion, the other Succesion Wars (Poland, Bavaria, Austria) it covers Asia, Africa, Middle East and North America.
Its made by Jeremy Black and is called Warfare in the 18th Century
thanks for all the suggestions, I think I am all set fella's.
:medievalcheers:
Wow, what a smug attidude to take, quit with the Anglo-Saxon b*llocks, we're British you nonse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
So the British simply limited themselves to financial support eh?
Minden?
Emsdorf?
Warburg?
Kloster Kamp?
Vellinghausen?
Wilhelmstahl?
Louisberg?
Quebec?
etc....
Aswell as numerous naval battles.
As for the Napoleonic Wars... Egypt, India, Flanders, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France... what more do you want? Thousands of British lives lost for the sake of Empire and stopping the French Empire (s) conquering Europe permanently.
Why is that just because Britain came out on top during both wars people try and belittle her? Its tiresome and childish.
"Anglosaxon" refers to the nations spawned by colonial enterprises originating on the British Isles, nearly all of them exclusively English in their origin, and all of them English in the end. Another term for this is the "Anglosphere". This includes America and Canada. Since the Anglosphere is where the huge majority of work on this subject in the language of English comes from, it is understandable, but frustrating, that almost all of it concentrates on fronts and battles which played, or in which the English played, either a minor, peripheral role, or a role as one (usually lesser) part of an alliance (mostly the former, adding to the frustration).
The British dominated the sea, America, and India. On the Continent, they were mostly important as financiers. The Habsburgs (thusly Austrians), Prussians, French and Russians are the ones that bore the brunt of the fighting there, friend. Britain's army was small for a reason. The same goes for the Napoleonic Wars, in even greater amount. Waterloo was nothing but a foregone conclusion, something that was never in doubt, even if Bonaparte had won that engagement. The Spanish theater siphoned off French strength from their main engagements, but no more than that. I might also point out that major British (not to forget Portuguese and Spanish!) gains there were only made after the folly of 1812, and then again the British were but a part of an alliance, while the Continental powers logically and obviously shed the most blood in the theaters, campaigns, and battles that mattered the most.
It is an understandable development in English-language literature on the subject that the conflicts in the Anglosphere during the Seven Years' War, or the British contribution to the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, is put in the limelight alot. A sad effect of that is that both of these things are overblown and given too much importance. Maria Theresa, Elizabeth of Russia, and Frederick the Great were far more important figures in the world's first global conflict than were the Whigs and the British king, and the same goes for Bonaparte and his Continental foes half a century later.
P.S. The fact that Britain became an important nation in the world following the Seven Years' War and the Napoleonic Wars (more importantly the former) has little to do with the conflict itself. Larger American colonies were important, but only in that they provided a larger consumer base and a larger resource pool for British industry. Britain's might in the 19th century was based on its economic advantage, which in turn was based on its economic system of householding and its industrial prowess.
All right, first have a quick look at how major the war was in eastern Europe in the Seven Years' War; check Prussia, Russia, Austria and pretty much anything in between. See how largescale and influential it was in that part of Europe? Now try finding any decent books on the subject in English. Difficult, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TenkiSoratoti_
You talk about belittling the British achievements. I've seen no-one do anything of the sort; it's the end result that counts, right? What I do see is you belittling what went on outside of Anglo-Saxon spheres of influence, portraying things from hindsight as Britain winning an empire and being the catalyst of world events. That attitude is the precise problem when it comes to finding good literature on (historically extremely important) events where Britain didn't play such a large role, such as in the Seven Years' War in eastern Europe.
Ive always heard it called the french and indian war...
That's what it's generally called over here in the U.S. and Canada, but in reality we were a pretty minor theatre of operations in the overall war. The main action took place in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
That depends on which Nation you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
For Britain and France, the overseas possessions were what it was all about. For the German states, Austria and Russia it was all about Eastern Europe, especially Silesia.
I disagree. Britain was as interested in protecting its Continental possessions (Hannover) as France was in translating its Continental position of preeminence into one of imperial stature. Especially for France, the Continental war was a very major consideration to enter the conflict on Austria's side.
But what battles did the British involve themselves in on the European Continet? It was them and Prussia, Prussia was the land power, and Britain the Sea power as agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Pretty much European, but in America, no. When you say support, it supported its ally only financially but also in sea battles.Quote:
Saxon b*llocks, we're British you nonse.
So the British simply limited themselves to financial support eh?
We're talking Napoileonic now? Isn't this thread about the Seven Years' War,or aren't there enough British Heroic Victories in the Seven Year War?Quote:
As for the Napoleonic Wars...
Only at sea by Nelson.Quote:
Egypt,
Napoleon had ambitions there, but the only British Wars in India of that times was the early 1700's wars between the British and the Mahrattas.Quote:
India
,For like two minutes.Quote:
Flanders
Is this Britain or France we're talking about?Quote:
Italy
You got the bloody bit right, and in that, I offer my congrats. The British victories in Spain and Potugal were truly great, Salamanca, Badajoz...Quote:
, Portugal, Spain, France...
Yes, I agree.Quote:
what more do you want? Thousands of British lives lost for the sake of Empire and stopping the French Empire (s) conquering Europe permanently.
Wel you see, it is not the probelm of Britain coming out top and stuff,but Britain these days is OVER glorified. Yes, it helped a great deal, but most of the time, there were powers greatern then her. Why don't we hear more of Prussia's victories in Central Europe? Of the battles between the Prussians and Russians in the Seven Years War? As for Napoleonic Times, what of the brave Spanish and Portuguese Fighters who fought with the British?Quote:
Why is that just because Britain came out on top during both wars people try and belittle her? Its tiresome and childish.
Or the Russians, who broke the brunt of Napoleon's force over their knee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
Ajax
Britain's major goal was more money, Hanover aint gonna give any of that. However New France and almost exclusive control of Indian trade is. Hanover was an Achilles heel, which is why they got Prussia to do most of the work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
France was never in much danger of outright and utter defeat by Prussia, Russia and Austria were powerful enough.
France new that the real prizes were in the overseas trade.
Lets face it, without British money Prussia would have been a dead duck. Fredrick was damned lucky that an Allied army arrived in Hanover when it did. Prussia was going to lose if the two front dance of Fredrick had continued.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
BergenQuote:
But what battles did the British involve themselves in on the European Continet? It was them and Prussia, Prussia was the land power, and Britain the Sea power as agreed.
Minden
Emsdorf
Warburg
KlosterKampen
Villinghausen
Wilhelmstahl
For Britain, this is probably true. Its empire, at least up until the neo-colonial times, was solidly founded on the "paleo"-colonial concept of imperialism; namely trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
As for France -- let me sincerely doubt that. For centuries, France had been the Continent's premier military power. Then, Louis XIV came along, and turned what was, up until then, a struggle for domination into a one for empire. France's interests were strongly rooted on the Continent, which is one of the reasons why it couldn't keep up with the British, who spent a whole lot more of their effort overseas, in the first place.
It is no surprise, therefore, that Frederick the Great's meteoric rise during the War of the Austrian Succession caused a Diplomatic Revolution, in which ancient enemies Austria and France, the Habsburgs and the various branches of the Capets, joined forces to bring to a head what they viewed as a major threat to the balance of power in Europe.
No, France entered the war to try and ensure that Prussia wouldn't overpower the Habsburgs. And, while I don't know the specifics, I'd wager that the British joined to protect their Hannoverian possessions and perhaps get Prussia to protect it for them. Which, in turn, would make of the French and Indian War a delicious side dish -- but no more than that.
For the record, the Miracle of House Brandenburg was Russia exiting the war (far) more than any British army landing in Europe. Suddenly, one of his fronts was gone and he could concentrate his forces to retake Silesia (which, I suppose, was also made possible by the British).Quote:
Lets face it, without British money Prussia would have been a dead duck. Fredrick was damned lucky that an Allied army arrived in Hanover when it did. Prussia was going to lose if the two front dance of Fredrick had continued.
The overseas war were a bit more than the "French and Indian" War. India was also up for grabs. If France could control the far east trade it's power would be cemented for a while after.
Struggle for Empire? What are you speaking of, Europe? If so domination was still his goal, his latter wars were to make France's position invulnerable, but not to conquer all of western Europe.
France had not been for "centuries" the premier military power, for perhaps a century or less. The Seven Years war really showed what dire straights the French Army was in.
Time and time again, I see not a British Battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trax
Should I restate what I said before, I meant a MAJOR battle with a LARGE number of British Troops, and most importantly, commander by a BRITISH Commander. Those examples given were rather small battles (Though every life lost is sad)
Yes, that, but I also believe it entered said war to also protect its overseas interests. France wasn't entirely limited to Europe, as mentioned Americas and the South East Asia Area and Africa.Quote:
No, France entered the war to try and ensure that Prussia wouldn't overpower the Habsburgs
I thought it was the opposite, that the French had some power for a while then. Especially early 18th Century, with their line up to the Spanish Throne and overseas possesions.Quote:
France had not been for "centuries" the premier military power, for perhaps a century or less. The Seven Years war really showed what dire straights the French Army was in
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
Given that the British Army was comparitavely small, had troops stationed all over the world, particularily in America, those are major battles. Especially Minden which accounted for around 12,000 casualties and was noted for the fact that British infantry in line attacked massed cavalry and succeeded in routing them. This sent shock waves through the French/Saxon Army and played a major part in their defeat.
Yes British authors (I hardly think an American would be biased towards Britain) harp on about the British Army but they don't play down the other participants which is exactly what you're doing. Britain was a major player in the 7 Years War both militarily and economically.
http://www.britishbattles.com
This website talks exclusively about what the British Army did, it uses a wide range of sources and doesn't play down the other participants.
Major, perhaps, but not the most major. Rather, the smallest of the major players in the major theaters, I'd say.
I never claimed that these were non-entities for the French. But they were sideshows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Louis XIV's expressed goal was to expand France to her "natural frontiers": the Rhine, the Alps, and the Pyrenees. Trying to do that alone brought him into conflict with all of Europe on multiple occasions. This was no longer a mere feudal struggle between kings: it had become the fight of all of Europe against the prospect of France overthrowing the balance and becoming Europe's master, and not just its most potent state.Quote:
Struggle for Empire? What are you speaking of, Europe? If so domination was still his goal, his latter wars were to make France's position invulnerable, but not to conquer all of western Europe.
Actually -- no. France had been the most powerful single kingdom militarily (remember that people like Charles V held multiple titles and thus ruled multiple kingdoms with entirely different sysems of government) on the Continent ever since its victory in the Hundred Years' War and its involvement in the wars in Italy at the end of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries. Time and time again, it took all France's neighbors to contain her, and that became increasingly difficult as time advanced.Quote:
France had not been for "centuries" the premier military power, for perhaps a century or less. The Seven Years war really showed what dire straights the French Army was in.
When Napoleon took France to conquer huge tracts of Europe, he was realizing the dream of generations of Capet and Bourbon kings and the nightmare of generations of all the other royals throughout Europe. That's why his destruction of the Republic at his hands didn't stop the wars, and why he kept on having to fight coalition after coalition -- he was the biggest threat to the Continental status quo ever. And keeping it all same old, same old had been the premier foreign policy guideline since the advent of the Renaissance.