French Indian War

[Ibrahim]

may late night (and rambly), addition (which itself is late)

while its true that much of the fighting was "petite guerre", the more important encounters were the european style ones (formal sieges and set piece battles), fought by europeans, with some Indian help if possible. for example: Louisebourg, Plains of Abraham, St.Foy, Ft. Oswego, Ft. William Henry, Ft. carillon (Ft. Ticonderoga). the list goes on.

and many of them involved at least 3-4000 men. the battle of Carillon involved ~15,000 british, and 3,000 French soldiers (French won this). St. Foy involved 4-5 thousand men, while the plains of abraham involved ~8-9000 men. the only large scale "petite guerre" engagement was at the battles of Monongahela, and that one ambush towards the end of the war, and neither involved more than 3,000 men

also: its a myth (of sorts), that the british did not learn from that war; they didn't learn as perfectly as one would expect after nine years of fighting (1754-1763), but the influence of that war did linger. for starters, light infantry companies were formed, for specifically the purpose of fighting in skirmishes, in that war, and were by 1770-71 officially part of the makeup of each regiment. also, many items of gear one seas in the revolution were, oddly enough, first used in the fighting in America: the backpack comes to mind, and the bayonet drill used in the revolution was first used on the plains of Abraham in 1759 (later adopted by a militia drill manual, later incorporated into the manual of arms of 1764). there was also a tendancy in that war to remove lace from uniforms, and to cut coats down to jackets, or even scrap it altogether in favor of a waistcoat, ot waistcoat with sleeves stitched on it.. overall though, its still a pretty minor influence: the British IIRC prussified their uniform in 1768-the last thing you want when fighting in the woods (seriously? extra tight uniforms?).

now why didn't they learn as well as one would expect? well, it boils down to what I mentioned before: the more important engagements didn't necessarily depend on guerilla tactics, but on the European style of warfare. and the British did have a concerted strategy for capturing Canada (consistently a pincer movement); the first was in 1755, with one column to Ft.Duquesne, the other towards Ft. beausejour and lake George. then another in 1758, with one towards Carillon (Ticonderoga) and one towards Louisebourg. then another in 1759, with one to Quebec and another from Albany to IIRC Montreal (which didn't even get far). and finally in 1760, with the attack on Montreal. had all of thses been planned perfectly, and were well led and supplied, the war could very well have ended sooner. and for anyone who is aware of the results of these engagements, one might notice that usually one half of the pincer would fail (Ft.Duquesne, Carillon, Montreal).

so in the end, the "petit guerre", which is the french title at the time for what was happening in regards to guerrilla warfare, was comparatively minor in the war when looked a from a strategic sense. they did help delay, or aggravate the difficulty of, British attempts at winning the war, but in the end, failed to give the french the decisive edge.

this last part was due to a combination of poor leadership (truely evident at the battle of carillon), and/or proper french/Indian preparation (Duquesne), and an element to bad luck (Montreal 1759).
sources:
www.kronoskaf.com (that's where I make uniform plate for)
Paul Revere's ride, david hackett-Fisher (there is a part that discusses Gen. Thomas Gage's involvement in the war-he was at monongahela, Carillon, and led the 1759 expidition that failed. he also raised a light infatry regiment (the 80th))
Duffy, Military experience in the age of reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_jumonville_glen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Necessity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Necessity (warning: severe fail in this article; not on the part of the writers of it, but in the description of the "fort", which is actually pretty accurate)


and to everyone: washington didn't help start the war. no-he himself did so-almost single-handed. what's even funnier is that he:
1-surrendered Ft.Necessity on the 4th of July, 1754. no, seriously, 4th of July.
2-had built that fort in a clearing, the wood itself was green, and easily punctured by the muskets of the day.
3-the french made him sign a paper, essentially admitting o murdering the diplomat himself (whose name was Joumonville, and he was acually killed by a guy name half-king, who was nominally under Washington). Washington, not knowing french (and not asking for an honest interpreter), didn't know until it was too late.

and to whoever it was: necessity and Joumonville glenn were in the same year.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I still don't get what the fuzz is about. As Voltaire said: Canada? Just a few acres of snow...


What's the point of a thread that discusses trivialities such as losing an inconsequential continent only triple the size of Europe. Ah well, I suppose it makes the English feel all warm and fuzzy inside. They are a funny people like that. Needless to say, there's not the least bit of resentment or regret at the failure to understand what the America's could look like if properly settled. What the world would be like if North America were a French speaking continent, with perhaps, just as a daily reminder, maybe six million English speakers tucked away in some cold and distant corner, just to rub it in.

[Ibrahim]

I still don't get what the fuzz is about. As Voltaire said: Canada? Just a few acres of snow...


What's the point of a thread that discusses trivialities such as losing an inconsequential continent only triple the size of Europe. Ah well, I suppose it makes the English feel all warm and fuzzy inside. They are a funny people like that. Needless to say, there's not the least bit of resentment or regret at the failure to understand what the America's could look like if properly settled. What the world would be like if North America were a French speaking continent, with perhaps, just as a daily reminder, maybe six million English speakers tucked away in some cold and distant corner, just to rub it in.

problem is, you are thinking like a 21st century person (not that that's wrong; I do too )*, but to understand why this war mattered (then as now) to many, you have to think like an 18th century person:

France, while its loss of Canada was not, on the surface, that bad (and financially, yes, it wasn't), was still humiliated over it; colonies, no matter the triviality, were still items of prestige. understandibally, the French were ****** at the British. Didn't help that the British had also siezed 90-99% of all French possessions in India as well, and had in fact destroyed their navy, ruined their merchantile fleet, and caused a severe credit crunch in 1759. thus, they all too naturally wanted revenge for all that-Canada included. understand that Europe was still, to an extent, dominated by relics of the code of chivalry. Honor was everything to the ruling class.

also, this war was hardly unimportant: the war practically made the US. after all. think about it: the UK had just humiliated France, Spain, and Holland (in a Bengal expedition in 1758), and had taken a crud load of land, especially in North America, by 1763. naturally, the humiliated party wanted to get back at the UK. the UK govt, being wise to this, had decided that a large army (70 infantry regiments, 20-30 cavalry reg., and almost 900 ships), would be needed to police all the new land.

problem was: where do they get the money? they're mired in debt from the SYW, the people in Ireland and Britain were already overtaxed, and there were surprisingly few military installations in Norh America. the solution? tax the colonies, and use their houses as impromptu Barracks: they were hardly taxed compraed to the mother country, and they were certainly wealthier, then as now. and, the Govt thought, the colonists would be grateful that there are soldiers who can cover their rears. why complain?

I leave it to you to figure out where that led instead. also, bear in mind that with the removal of the French threat to the 13 colonies, and the pacification of the native tribes in wake of Pontiac's rebellion (plus the royal proclamation line of 1763), removed a good deal of need on British forces. the proclamation line, and the Quebec Act of 1774, also didn't help with the result.


*that, and Voltaire was, based on what I have read, not exactly an authority on warfare or politics.

[al Roumi]

also, this war was hardly unimportant: the war practically made the US. after all. think about it: the UK had just humiliated France, Spain, and Holland (in a Bengal expedition in 1758), and had taken a crud load of land, especially in North America, by 1763. naturally, the humiliated party wanted to get back at the UK. the UK govt, being wise to this, had decided that a large army (70 infantry regiments, 20-30 cavalry reg., and almost 900 ships), would be needed to police all the new land.

problem was: where do they get the money? they're mired in debt from the SYW, the people in Ireland and Britain were already overtaxed, and there were surprisingly few military installations in Norh America. the solution? tax the colonies, and use their houses as impromptu Barracks: they were hardly taxed compraed to the mother country, and they were certainly wealthier, then as now. and, the Govt thought, the colonists would be grateful that there are soldiers who can cover their rears. why complain?

I leave it to you to figure out where that led instead.

What's equally fascinating, as a corollary to the above, is how France's involvement in the US war of independance caused the Ancien regime's bankrupcy and ultimate collapse into the revolution. Is there better evidence that an eye for an eye leaves both parties blind? (although it does seem Britain managed rather well as it was, and perhaps better in some ways, without the 13 colonies)

[Ibrahim]

What's equally fascinating, as a corollary to the above, is how France's involvement in the US war of independance caused the Ancien regime's bankrupcy and ultimate collapse into the revolution. Is there better evidence that an eye for an eye leaves both parties blind? (although it does seem Britain managed rather well as it was, and perhaps better in some ways, without the 13 colonies)

well, the American revolution only sped up the arrival of the French one (by, as you say, putting furthur strain on the French economy). if anything, the Seven years war was the main reason: the economic trouble began as a result of the spending in that war. having had the pleasure of researching the disaster area known as the French "treasury", here is what happened:

when the war started, France's largest part of the budget was on, unsrupringly, the military (both army and navy). and the "treasury" were operating at a 20% deficit per year, for up to a decade prior to the war (i.e, the end of the war of Austrian succession). the SYW caused that figure to quadruple, leading to a massive accumulation of debt; in fact, by 1763, France had incurred a national debt of 2,000,000,000 livres (remember, maony in 1763 cost more than money today), and had defaulted on that debt as early as 1759, in the aftermath of the defeat at Quiberon Bay (which left the sea as a playground to British ships). this was due to the aformentioned credit crunch, which had in fact been caused by investors pulling out of stocks, for fear that their investments would be ruined by risking their merchant fleet's destruction a british hands.

mind you, the credit crunch's effects reverberated for the next 40 years or more, causing the french military to (prior ro the US revolution) cut down on military spending: several units of the maison du roi were disbanded, and there was an attempt to transfer ownership of regiments from the Colonels to the Govt- Since regiments cost more when sold by the Colonal and not the regiment.

the revolution in the US only exacerbated the problem, by furthur added to the debt, and forcing the french to increase the sie of the army. this meant hat credit sank to an alltime low, and from there, the rest is history.

[Vladimir]

I still don't get what the fuzz is about. As Voltaire said: Canada? Just a few acres of snow...


What's the point of a thread that discusses trivialities such as losing an inconsequential continent only triple the size of Europe. Ah well, I suppose it makes the English feel all warm and fuzzy inside. They are a funny people like that. Needless to say, there's not the least bit of resentment or regret at the failure to understand what the America's could look like if properly settled. What the world would be like if North America were a French speaking continent, with perhaps, just as a daily reminder, maybe six million English speakers tucked away in some cold and distant corner, just to rub it in.

I want to know where he was educated; or maybe it's just natural tallent.

[Megas Methuselah]

...wake of Pontiac's rebellion...

Wasn't a rebellion.

[Ibrahim]

Wasn't a rebellion.

I know it wasn't-but I grew up with that name, so it kinda stuck. if you have a better idea for a name, I'd be grateful.

I think part of the problem is that most of the histories of that event were written by the English (i.e the winners); as a result, even the names of certain events have an english spin to them ("French and Indian" war itself is an example; even though technically the English started it). and I grew up in a combination of Arab (which didn't care), and English cultures-that sure didn't help either.

EDIT: say, do you know about the military customs of the tribes of that region? what dress the warriors had for battle, etc? I'm making a mod for the SYW era, and would be grateful for that. that, and I work at www.kronoskaf.com , and figured someone with knowledge of tribal customs could come in handy.

[Meneldil]

What's equally fascinating, as a corollary to the above, is how France's involvement in the US war of independance caused the Ancien regime's bankrupcy and ultimate collapse into the revolution. Is there better evidence that an eye for an eye leaves both parties blind? (although it does seem Britain managed rather well as it was, and perhaps better in some ways, without the 13 colonies)

You got it all wrong, the French Revolution was caused by Loki, oups, meantLaki.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All of the World Wars have resulted in the deaths of empires either directly or as a result of the "fallout."

The Seven Years War, The War for American Independence, and the Napoleonic conflicts have never properly been recognized as what they were -- global conflicts every bit as widespread and influential as WW1 or WW2.