Talk:Seven Years' War
I am about to copy and paste a passage or two from Talk:World History Lecture Eight.
- "(5) ”Commercial competition between European nations in North America culminated in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)” is just a tad parochial. Actually the Seven Years War was a teeny bit bigger than that. In Europe, it was fought over possession of Silesia by Prussia and Austria. France, Russia, Sweden, Poland sided with Austria; Britain with Prussia. The conflict in Europe contained about 20 major battles in each of which at least 40,000 troops took part with total battle losses of well over 200,000 men. That does not include smaller engagements, sieges, the sacking of towns and villages and pillaging of the countryside, major sea battles ( Lagos, Quiberon Bay) and so on. (It is estimated over a million people died as a result of the conflict in Europe). Because Britain and France were already at each others’ throats unofficially in various parts of the world (including the aptly named French and Indian Wars) there were also major engagements between Britain and France in India, and the West Indies. Late in the war Spain and Portugal set to it in South America. It reached every inhabited continent except Australia (the discovery of which in the early 1600s doesn’t seem to matter, I notice.)
- I am not at all minimising the importance of the F and I War – it had an enormous impact – it gave Canada to Britain and in a way opened the door for the American Revolution a few years later. But the Seven Years War also gave Britain control of India, which is not exactly trifling; and the Battle of Quiberon Bay off Brittany in 1759 equals Trafalgar in importance.
- To say that the Seven Years’ War was about “commercial competition between European nations in North America” is a bit like saying World War II started with Pearl Harbor. (And I have met Americans who thought it did.) AlanE 00:39, 12 March 2009 (EDT)00:38, 12 March 2009 (EDT)"
Anyone object to my using that as a basis for major changes to the article? AlanE 02:40, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
- JJCC: I have found a number of factual "mistakes" in your as yet minor work on this war. The obvious one is, of course, the description of Hanover as a "colony", (though the Spanish loss of Bengal, whilst sticking out like, um, whatever you want to call them, has tickled me.) Other "facts" are a little more subtle so I am looking forward to what else you have for me before I revert the whole thing. AlanE 01:47, 28 November 2012 (EST)