French Indian War

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I apologize if this is off-topic or such, but wasn't George Washington a colonel for the British during the French and Indian War? Wasn't he almost killed (bullet passing thru his jacket) during an ambush when General Braddock fell? I seem to recall that and in facinated me as a youth.

Washington had attacked the French the year before and had been forced to capitulate at Fort Necessity. This was indeed one of the incidents that helped bring about the war. NOT his finest hour.

As a colonel of Virginia's forces, he volunteered to serve as an aide to Braddock during that campaign.

Washington's personal bravery was never questioned by any of his contemporaries (whatever they may have said about the ego, the expense accounting, and the tactical miscues). He was often in the line of fire and came close to being shot on many occasions.

After the British regulars broke, Washington himself led a rear-guard of colonials who staged a fighting withdrawal and covered Braddock's troops.

I've always wondered at the odd mix of tactical qualities Washington had. In a set-piece battle or standard attack he was no better than average, not particularly prone to mistakes but also not proof against being out manuevered or out-generaled. Yet at the same time he was a virtuoso in extracting an army from a debacle. He could retreat effectively under fire with a routing or half-broken force and pull it off time and again -- even though many of the professionals out there assert that this is the most difficult thing to do in all of warfare.

[Peasant Phill]

I've always wondered at the odd mix of tactical qualities Washington had. In a set-piece battle or standard attack he was no better than average, not particularly prone to mistakes but also not proof against being out manuevered or out-generaled. Yet at the same time he was a virtuoso in extracting an army from a debacle. He could retreat effectively under fire with a routing or half-broken force and pull it off time and again -- even though many of the professionals out there assert that this is the most difficult thing to do in all of warfare.

On the other hand, I got the impression that being at least average or not particularly prone to mistakes went quite far in the French and Indian war. In larger encounters usually both sides made their part of mistakes or had their disadvantages.

[A Nerd]

Would it be foolish to say that some of the fighting expertise/tactic for the Americans that was used later in the Revolution came from skirmish and the like during the French and Indian War? Or am I just generalizing?

[Incongruous]

Would it be foolish to say that some of the fighting expertise/tactic for the Americans that was used later in the Revolution came from skirmish and the like during the French and Indian War? Or am I just generalizing?

In terms of large field battles, no, the Rebel's were increadibly poor field generals for the most part, men like Clinton were given absurdly high commands for their increadibly poor military skills, whereas men like Stark received almost nothing and Benedict Arnold ended up forsaking what he concieved of a Congress enthralled to Washington. Himself a poor field commander but a surprisingly good organiser.

Both sides made good use of irregulars and "rangers", the battle of King's mountain is perhaps the best example of this type of warfare, worth a read up on (as long as you discount the usual Franklin drivel about it), and it also the most increadibly spooky battle site I have ever been to.

[TinCow]

One aspect of this war that is often neglected is the American Indian conflict. Many Indian groups were willing to aid one side or the other specifically because they were interested in expanding their own influence over rival groups. The Indians were fighting for themselves, and were allies with the various Europeans only as a means to their own gains. This inter-Indian warfare was spurred on by arms and munitions given by the French and British, and helped to exacerbate the heavily 'guerrilla' nature of the conflict. Remove the Indian allies from the war, and it would have been a much smaller and more conventional conflict.

[Peasant Phill]

Perhaps. I did notice that the Indians were very pragmatic in their alliances. Sitting on the fence as long as possible, supporting the winner of the moment, ...

I also found another thing striking. Correct me if I'm wrong but the American theater of the Seven Years war was rather uninspiring in the sense of strategies or tactics in comparison to the European theater while the terrain and the smaller scale could have made it a great testing ground.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's all a matter of luck, really. If the English didn't have the good fortune of having more men, better weapons, smarter leaders, more money and better strategy than the French we would've easily driven them out.

[TinCow]

I also found another thing striking. Correct me if I'm wrong but the American theater of the Seven Years war was rather uninspiring in the sense of strategies or tactics in comparison to the European theater while the terrain and the smaller scale could have made it a great testing ground.

I'm hesitant to criticize the British and French for failing to understand the strategy and tactics of the Americas at that time. The wars being fought in Europe at that point simply required very large armies engaged in decisive battles at critical points. Guerrilla warfare is mainly a long-term defensive strategy that requires the support of the native population, it's not something that was well suited to the pre-Napoleonic era, when wars of occupation were almost unheard of. European wars prior to the 18th century generally involved a large, direct assault by a massed army to capture the major cities of the enemy and force a peace by the defeated government. At that point, the attacker would remove their military forces and the terms of the defeat were enforced by threat of another invasion, not soldiers on the spot.

The number of true wars of occupation that occurred prior to the 19th century were relatively few in number and involved nations conquering small areas over lengthy periods of time to gradually form the current state of European nations. Examples include English attacks on Wales, Scotland, and Ireland; Castile's wars with Aragon, Portugal, and the Almohads; the warring Italian city-states; etc. That said, there IS one interesting 'aberration' in guerrilla warfare that is uniquely European: the Hundred Years War. The campaigns of the Free Companies/Routiers in the 1350s and 1360s were essentially offensive guerrilla warfare and I've yet to encounter anything similar to them in military history. A very odd situation, that, where small groups of men scattered here and there could paralyze an entire nation.