French Indian War

[The Lurker Below]

Firstly the scale. A lot of times there were no more than 500 men fighting. Can you actually cal that a battle? Can a victory be decisive when the total casaulties are no more than a few dozen? Where there actually only so many colonists?

Secondly the duration. So you got a confrontation between 50 on one side and 50 on the other side and that confrontation lasts 2 hours.

Lastly, the forts. Some forts I read about where nothing more than a palisade around a central building.

most of europes conflicts during the early medieval years were on a smaller scale. their defensive structures frequently even more primitive. further, the consequences of those conflicts weren't nearly as far reaching. the current skirmishes in the middle east seldom result in more than a few casualties. had i actually been in any of the above actions i'm certain i'd say it was a battle.

having said that the french and indian war is overlooked as just a sideshow of the seven year's war, and it's lack of scale is probably the biggest reason why.

[Peasant Phill]

OK, now I can somewhat understand the small scale but I still find calling a raid on an undefended settlement or a indecisive encounter between scouting parties a battle still a bit laughable.

Can someone clarify the tactics used in such skirmishes? The only thing I can base myself on ATM is 'the last of the Mohicans' and that didn't really have hour long skirmishes.

[Kagemusha]

OK, now I can somewhat understand the small scale but I still find calling a raid on an undefended settlement or a indecisive encounter between scouting parties a battle still a bit laughable.

Can someone clarify the tactics used in such skirmishes? The only thing I can base myself on ATM is 'the last of the Mohicans' and that didn't really have hour long skirmishes.

It could be because movies tend to intensify engagements. In covered terrain most of the time "battles" were just shootouts from behind a cover.