When Young George Washington Started a War

[Habbaku]

William & Mary's Paul Mapp, who is more interested in diplomatic negotiations and empire than in a narrative of the conflict. If that interests you, you can look up his The Elusive West and the Contest for Empire, 1713-1763

That's my fetish! Thanks for the recommendations. This one definitely gives me something to chew into.

[Oexmelin]

What's the Dziembowski book like?  Worth getting?

His Nouveau patriotisme français was remarkable because it opened up a whole new field of research, but he's not the most riveting of writers. It's also quite a niche publication, in the otherwise prestigious Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth-Century.

As for his sythesis of the Seven Years War, I was disappointed with it, but I now think it is rather unfair of me - perhaps because I was expecting/hoping for a new take. Dziembowski is doing a synthesis that readers of French and English will perhaps already have done for themeselves, but that monolingual readers might not. It's especially noteworthy for French speakers that 1) he has read the English language historiography, and 2) he does spend quite a bit of time on North America (usually, French books focus on Continental Europe).

So, I'd say go for it: you'll get the summary of the recent French production on the Seven Years War. 

[The Minsky Moment]

As a single volume synthesis would you recommend it above the English language works on the subject?

[jimmy olsen]

I really liked this book.

Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714-1783
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/jan/12/history1

[Valmy]

Three victories? Wait do the British claim their side won the War of the Austrian Succession?

[Habbaku]

Three victories? Wait do the British claim their side won the War of the Austrian Succession?

Which side do you think won?

[viper37]

Three victories? Wait do the British claim their side won the War of the Austrian Succession?

Which side do you think won?

technically, France, but they gave it all back.

[Sophie Scholl]

Oex, could you recommend an English-language author to read from that draws from French sources for the conflict?

I'm not Oex, but I highly recommend The French and Indian War and the Conquest of New France by William R. Nester.  I found it quite informative and a nice complement to Crucible of War which I also loved.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0806144351/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
"The French and Indian War was the world's first truly global conflict. When the French lost to the British in 1763, they lost their North American empire along with most of their colonies in the Caribbean, India, and West Africa. In The French and Indian War and the Conquest of New France, the only comprehensive account from the French perspective, William R. Nester explains how and why the French were defeated. He explores the fascinating personalities and epic events that shaped French diplomacy, strategy, and tactics and determined North America's destiny.

What began in 1754 with a French victory―the defeat at Fort Necessity of a young Lieutenant Colonel George Washington―quickly became a disaster for France. The cost in soldiers, ships, munitions, provisions, and treasure was staggering. France was deeply in debt when the war began, and that debt grew with each year. Further, the country's inept system of government made defeat all but inevitable. Nester describes missed diplomatic and military opportunities as well as military defeats late in the conflict.

Nester masterfully weaves his narrative of this complicated war with thorough accounts of the military, economic, technological, social, and cultural forces that affected its outcome. Readers learn not only how and why the French lost, but how the problems leading up to that loss in 1763 foreshadowed the French Revolution almost twenty-five years later.

One of the problems at Versailles was the king's mistress, the powerful Madame de Pompadour, who encouraged Louis XV to become his own prime minister. The bewildering labyrinth of French bureaucracy combined with court intrigue and financial challenges only made it even more difficult for the French to succeed. Ultimately, Nester shows, France lost the war because Versailles failed to provide enough troops and supplies to fend off the English enemy."

[grumbler]

hmm, I'm not aware of a Battle at fort St-George in this war?  Neither fort Hangar?  You sure you ain't mixing you wars?

They were incomplete.  The first was known also as Trent's Fort.

[Valmy]

Three victories? Wait do the British claim their side won the War of the Austrian Succession?

Which side do you think won?

Prussia was the only winner and Prussia was France's ally not Britain's.

[Oexmelin]

One of the problems at Versailles was the king's mistress, the powerful Madame de Pompadour, who encouraged Louis XV to become his own prime minister. The bewildering labyrinth of French bureaucracy combined with court intrigue and financial challenges only made it even more difficult for the French to succeed. Ultimately, Nester shows, France lost the war because Versailles failed to provide enough troops and supplies to fend off the English enemy."

Ugh. This is bad. It shows more about prejudice and easy historical trope (which date to the 18th century British préjudice about the French themselves) about the sinister absolutist all powerful government, and the French being so easily swayed by conniving women... the problem with these interpretations, is that you have to show why the British very similar court intrigues, bewildering bureaucracy, royal favorites and financial challenges lead them to win instead.

The « bewildering » French bureaucracy was 12 guys at the Colonial Bureau. This is not a caricature. They were 12, and to anyone who has spent time in the Colonial Archives, it was clear they were overworked. So were the guys at Rochefort and Brest. If anything, the French lost not because of any labyrinthine bureaucracy, but because of insufficient bureaucracy... as for Mme de Pompadour, the king could have done a lot worse for prime minister (see Lord Bute). She was a savvy and knowledgeable operator.

That the French lost because they didn't sent enough troops is evident. The question is why didn't they send enough troops? Certainly, the financial interpretation is a strong one. The British were able to borrow more heavily, and tax more reliably their subjects than the French. The British public had been fed a steady diet of francophobia, that allowed them to stomach more of that taxation, while public opinion in France was a lot more positive about the British. This had an impact upon war aims, the conduct of the war, and the resoluteness with which it was prosecuted. It did make court intrigue more salient in that regard:I find the old Namierite interpretation that British parliamentarians could be bought more transparently than French courtiers to be still relevant.

[The Brain]

I have always found it interesting that some historians, who should know better, try to blame Washington for starting a war after the French had already attacked the British at Fort St George and Ft Hangar.  It's like blaming Lt George Welch for getting the US involved in WW2 by shooting down Japanese planes at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941.

Did Welch fire on the planes before or after they fired first?

Maybe they were just a recon partrol, and the entire Pearl Harbor fiasco was just a mistake.

More importantly Congress hadn't declared war on Japan. This is important because reasons.

[The Brain]

Can we please stop pretending that airports were important in 18th century wars?

[Sophie Scholl]

One of the problems at Versailles was the king's mistress, the powerful Madame de Pompadour, who encouraged Louis XV to become his own prime minister. The bewildering labyrinth of French bureaucracy combined with court intrigue and financial challenges only made it even more difficult for the French to succeed. Ultimately, Nester shows, France lost the war because Versailles failed to provide enough troops and supplies to fend off the English enemy."

Ugh. This is bad. It shows more about prejudice and easy historical trope (which date to the 18th century British préjudice about the French themselves) about the sinister absolutist all powerful government, and the French being so easily swayed by conniving women... the problem with these interpretations, is that you have to show why the British very similar court intrigues, bewildering bureaucracy, royal favorites and financial challenges lead them to win instead.

The « bewildering » French bureaucracy was 12 guys at the Colonial Bureau. This is not a caricature. They were 12, and to anyone who has spent time in the Colonial Archives, it was clear they were overworked. So were the guys at Rochefort and Brest. If anything, the French lost not because of any labyrinthine bureaucracy, but because of insufficient bureaucracy... as for Mme de Pompadour, the king could have done a lot worse for prime minister (see Lord Bute). She was a savvy and knowledgeable operator.

That the French lost because they didn't sent enough troops is evident. The question is why didn't they send enough troops? Certainly, the financial interpretation is a strong one. The British were able to borrow more heavily, and tax more reliably their subjects than the French. The British public had been fed a steady diet of francophobia, that allowed them to stomach more of that taxation, while public opinion in France was a lot more positive about the British. This had an impact upon war aims, the conduct of the war, and the resoluteness with which it was prosecuted. It did make court intrigue more salient in that regard:I find the old Namierite interpretation that British parliamentarians could be bought more transparently than French courtiers to be still relevant.

That was simply the Amazon snippet.  I recall it being much more nuanced and in depth than what was portrayed there, but it has been probably 5 years since I read it.  If you ever get the chance, I'd love to see what you think of it.  They do make mention of the bureaucracy being insufficient and embroiled in intrigues, infighting, and corruption.   The dedication and single minded focus on hating the French was also a solid tool, as you mention.  The French had a whole host of enemies and allies who danced about them and couldn't afford to be so single-minded in their rage.

[Admiral Yi]

I am reminded of Keegan's line about the Italians in WWII being in the uncomfortable situation of fighting alongside people they hated against people they liked.