It is a long, but interesting read, despite most of this being known already.
Link (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-young-george-washington-started-war-180973076/?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
QuoteOn the night of May 27, 1754, Lt. Col. George Washington led a party of Virginia soldiers out of an encampment in the Ohio Valley. The conditions were horrid—a night "as black as pitch," as the young commander recorded in his journal. An unceasing rain made the dark woods even more impervious to the soldiers and warriors. Washington was only 22 years old, his mouth still full of teeth. The uniform he wore was likely a woolen officer's coat showing his allegiance to the British empire—he was a loyal subject of King George II. He and his Virginia Regiment of a little over 100 effective soldiers were the tip of His Majesty's spear in North America. Their assignment: to finish building a fort that would anchor Britain's control over the Ohio Valley.
But as Washington and his men marched westward over the Appalachian Mountains, they received stunning news: The French had already captured their intended destination, known as Trent's Fort. Hundreds of French troops had aimed over a dozen cannons at the British soldiers stationed there and forced their surrender.
By May 24, Washington had encamped at the Great Meadows, one of the few open clearings amid the dark Appalachian woods. There he received word from a man named Tanaghrisson, an Ohio Iroquois, that an army of French soldiers was coming to attack his men. French tracks were spotted only five miles from the camp, and Washington sent out 75 of his best soldiers to search for the French party. Then his Indian allies found the spot where the French were camping, hidden in a glen near the crest of a mountain ridge.
On May 27, the men who remained with Washington—a small party of 40 British soldiers and perhaps seven or eight Ohio Iroquois allies—marched five miles and climbed 700 feet up the steep eastern face of Chestnut Ridge. Seven soldiers got lost as they stumbled in the rain over the ridgeline's many rocks, spurs and draws. By the time the remaining 33 men crested the ridge, they were exhausted and soaked.
As the sun began to rise, the soldiers struggled to operate their muskets amid the lingering dampness. It was around 7 a.m. on May 28 when the Virginians, advancing in single file, came to the rocky precipice overlooking the French camp. Washington was at the head of the column and the first to spot the French who, he later reported, scrambled for their muskets.
The battle lasted only 15 minutes. At least ten French soldiers fell, most of them killed by Washington's Indian allies. One of those dead Frenchmen was the party's commander, Ensign Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville. The mountain glen was a macabre scene of unburied and scalped French corpses, with a Frenchman's decapitated head stuck upon a pole.
Historians have long identified this skirmish in the woods as the spark that ignited the French and Indian War. But there's an untold dimension to this story, as I discovered several years ago, digging through colonial papers in the British National Archives. This evidence, previously unreported, suggests that the man who would become America's first president might have been more complicated a leader—and more culpable for starting a seven-year-long global war—than history has led us to believe.
I definitely recommend reading Crucible of War if you're interested in reading further:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BTvKVQN3L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
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.
I can find no references to a "Ft. Hangar."
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2019, 09:39:14 AM
I definitely recommend reading Crucible of War if you're interested in reading further:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BTvKVQN3L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
It is unfortunate that Fred Anderson reads no French, nor really did a good job on French historiography of the conflict. David Preston (the author of this short piece) does better with his Braddock's defeat- of course, the scale is quite different.
Oex, could you recommend an English-language author to read from that draws from French sources for the conflict?
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2019, 09:39:14 AM
I definitely recommend reading Crucible of War if you're interested in reading further:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BTvKVQN3L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
I've read it. That's why I say it isn't nothing really new, but it offers a more centered perspective on Washington in this case.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2019, 09:48:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2019, 12:51:57 PM
Oex, could you recommend an English-language author to read from that draws from French sources for the conflict?
I wish I could. As I said, Dave Preston, on the battle of the Monongahela, is perhaps the most recent, and he does a relatively good job - but it really is only on that battle. Otherwise, the French perspective is scattered, and usually dependent upon national historiography. Otherwise, there are a few specific studies that are coming out here and there (like Christian Crouch's Nobility Lost), but these are not accounts of the whole war. There are a few more recent synthesis in French, but the focus is much less North America - and they are not translated, although there are talks to translate Edmond Dziembowski's Seven Years War. Jonathan Dull is a historian of the French Navy, and he has consulted the archives, but he lives up to his name.
This is a fundamental problem for the study of the Seven Years War: for American and British historians, it's an important prelude to something else - to Empire, for the case of the British, which suggests a global perspective for the conflict; to Independence, for the Americans, which suggests a North American-centric approach. Because it is important, it has produced a lot of scholarship, which means that for academic and non-academic historians, there often seems to be no need to turn to anything more. Anderson uses things that exist in translation. Which means he misses quite a bit of the scattered historiography, like Dziembowski on French patriotism, or Louise Dechêne on Canadian militarism. And because his focus is British, he even missed what was, at the time, some of the more recent reevaluation of Louis XV's policies that were available in English.
I do admire Anderson for the sheer amount of stuff he consulted, and for the crazy attempt at producing a synthesis of the conflict. I just wish he had sought to compensate for his limitations with the source material in some way.
So write it your own damn self Ucks.
It's not a half bad idea.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2019, 02:21:09 PM
So write it your own damn self Ucks.
Yeah, what the hell!
Thanks for the perspective, though, Oex.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2019, 09:48:06 AM
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.
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?
QuoteIn the summer of 1753, the French started acting more brazenly. They sent 2,600 soldiers into the region, building a fort on the shore of Lake Erie and another at the headwaters of nearby Le-Boeuf Creek. Both the British officials in Virginia and their Indian allies in Ohio were alarmed.
That's when Washington walked onto the stage of history. At the end of 1753, Virginia governor Robert Dinwiddie asked him to lead a diplomatic expedition to warn the French to leave their forts. Washington had been in the militia less than a year, but he'd worked as a surveyor starting at the age of 16, and the governor knew this experience would help him navigate the frontier as he led the 500-mile trek from Williamsburg, Virginia, to Fort LeBoeuf.
The group reached Fort Le-Boeuf on December 11, 1753, accompanied by Tanaghrisson and other Ohio Indians. The French commandant received the party with great civility, even sent them home with supplies, but he rebuffed Governor Dinwiddie's demands. Still, Washington's journey had allowed him to gather valuable intelligence: He'd learned that the French were assembling a flotilla of small boats to carry them to the Forks of the Ohio, where the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers met to form the Ohio River, and where the British planned to build a small but strategic fort.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2019, 02:27:15 PM
Thanks for the perspective, though, Oex.
Depending on your interest in the topic, you can also pick up Hofstra,
Cultures in Conflict, a collection of essays which includes American, British, and Canadian scholars. For a Spanish story, Schneider's
The Occupation of Havana - Schneider's Spanish is native. A remarkable scholar with considerable command of French, and Spanish (and English) is 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
What's the Dziembowski book like? Worth getting?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 24, 2019, 02:38:45 PM
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. :cheers:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2019, 02:53:10 PM
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.
As a single volume synthesis would you recommend it above the English language works on the subject?
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
Three victories? Wait do the British claim their side won the War of the Austrian Succession?
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2019, 11:09:58 PM
Three victories? Wait do the British claim their side won the War of the Austrian Succession?
:hmm: Which side do you think won?
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2019, 11:52:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2019, 11:09:58 PM
Three victories? Wait do the British claim their side won the War of the Austrian Succession?
:hmm: Which side do you think won?
technically, France, but they gave it all back.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2019, 12:51:57 PM
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."
Quote from: viper37 on September 24, 2019, 02:28:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 24, 2019, 11:52:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2019, 11:09:58 PM
Three victories? Wait do the British claim their side won the War of the Austrian Succession?
:hmm: Which side do you think won?
Prussia was the only winner and Prussia was France's ally not Britain's.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on September 25, 2019, 01:52:29 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2019, 01:56:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2019, 09:48:06 AM
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.
Can we please stop pretending that airports were important in 18th century wars?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 25, 2019, 07:13:09 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on September 25, 2019, 01:52:29 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2019, 02:26:37 PM
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.
Definitely some of that in the 7 Years War for the French. The changing of Prussia to Austria as an ally for France has been mentioned as an issue in the continental fighting.
The French had been backing the Imperial Protestants against the Habsburgs for over 100 years. And they had been in a battle for continental supremacy with the Habsburgs all the way back to the 1470s. You don't just reverse all of that overnight, but I think this goes back to what Oex said before. The British were pretty good at making sure their people hated the French and Catholics in general, but the French monarchy did not really make much of an effort to get its people onboard with its foreign adventures.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on September 25, 2019, 02:22:48 PMThat 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.
I have begun reading it. Yi's suggestion has got me thinking - and I am finishing a scholarly article about recent Seven Years War historiography... perhaps a first step for a book? I'll see where that takes me.
However, and unfortunately, first impressions of the book are not great... :(
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2019, 04:54:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 24, 2019, 02:28:42 PM
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.
Wasn't it Fort Prince George, not Fort St. George?
Quote from: dps on October 03, 2019, 10:49:18 PM
Wasn't it Fort Prince George, not Fort St. George?
[/quote]
That could well be. It's been a while since I read up on this war. Maybe time to start again.
Quote from: grumbler on October 03, 2019, 11:42:35 PM
That could well be. It's been a while since I read up on fought in this war. Maybe time to start again.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 02, 2019, 12:09:06 PM
I have begun reading it. Yi's suggestion has got me thinking - and I am finishing a scholarly article about recent Seven Years War historiography... perhaps a first step for a book? I'll see where that takes me.
However, and unfortunately, first impressions of the book are not great... :(
:( I was hoping it was at least passable. Damn. I know the popular book on my small area of knowledge (Central/Western/Northern New York in the Rev War) is pretty damn meh compared to my personal favorite. Not being able to speak the language, it is damn hard to track down anything from the French perspective for the F&I. I'd love to see you put out a book on the topic. :cheers:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 05, 2019, 08:40:12 PM
Not being able to speak the language,
I'm pretty sure there are online courses for that ;)
Anything worthwhile is printed in English! :bowler: