The consquences of the fall of New France has dominated the politics of Canada for most of my life as a vocal minority of French-Canadian seperatists attempted to reverse the shame of the conquest. It is part of the founding myths of both French and English Canada that still resonates. So, yes, I'll be picking up the book.
Report this comment
Already picked up my copy, and I'm enjoying it. Many historians consider the Seven Years War to be the first truly global conflict, and it all started over the struggle to control the Ohio Country. The fight for the Ohio Country was not concluded by the peace treaty in 1763, nor was it resolved by peace in 1783. The recent Campaign, Wabash 1791, makes a great companion volume to Tomahawk and Musket.
Report this comment
The French and Indian War was the first true world war. It also secured the North American continent for Britain and made Britain a world power (Plassey, anyone?), as well as providing the foundation for the British Empire.
Its result led France to support the nascent United States and helped create the French Revolution and the interaction of British and Americans helped lay the foundation for the American Revolution.
It was the war in which American fighting methods came of age and introduced such concepts as light infantry, rangers (special ops), and rifle units. Like the Mexican War, it is overshadowed, but exceedingly significant. And provides a great many great blood and thunder stories.
I can't speak for others, but I love the French and Indian War and will always snap up new titles.
PS I know you did a Warrior (85) on Rangers in the Northern Colonies. Any chances of one (or two) on those in the Middle and Southern Colonies (I believe one of Robert Rogers' brothers was a ranger in GA during the french and Indian War)?
Report this comment
I am going to disagree about the Seven Years War being the first global war. I think that distinction goes to the War of Austrian Succession (1740–48). That saw fighting in Europe, the Americas, India, and the Pacific. It was the war that saw Anson's voyage, the first siege of Louisbourg, among other things. In India, it touched off the Carnatic Wars.
Not to take anything away from the Seven Year's War. After all, it gave George Washington his military education.
Report this comment
Hi Mark,
You make a good point about the War of Austrian Succession. I suppose historians overlook that war because it didn't end quite as decisively as the Seven Years War. Of course, the Seven Years War started as a result of the action in the New World, rather than Old World conflicts spreading to the colonies. Then again, you might say the British went to war with Spain in the 1740s because of Captain Jenkins and his pesky ear. You know something? History is fairly complicated, and old narratives and "beginnings" and "endings" don't stand up under scrutiny.
Report this comment
the first world war WAS the first world war. it has been correctly pointed out by some smarter historians that wars before world war one were in fact just european conflicts were war was simply exported to other parts of the world. the first world war was truely the first world war because independent countries from other parts of the world (f.ex. USA, Japan) choose by themselves without coercion to participate in a conflict that just started out as a european conflict.
and the first global war must be the Thirty Years War.
Report this comment
Have to disagree with Württemberger and his "smarter" historians. The distinction is one of splitting hairs. A global war is measured by the places where combat took place, not how many nations are involved.
In the case of WWI, Japan's role was minimal and that of the US was exceedingly brief.
If we're going by the measure of nations, then WWII is the first, since it included nations from Latin America.
Report this comment
hence the distinction i made bewteen WORLD war and GLOBAL war. read my post again more carefully.
Report this comment
Sorry, still splitting hairs in my book.
However, if we want to push it, India was an independent entity in 1756 and the Nawab of Bengal was a participant in the battle of Plassey, so my contention stands.
Report this comment
splitting hairs? if so, why you still argue for the seven years' war when the first global war was the thirty years' war anyways?
Report this comment