All About History

Shock french victory over the british!

The rise of Britain as a world power has been severely curtailed as France emerges victorious in globe-spanning conflict

- Dr John MCALEER Dr Mcaleer is an Associate Professor in History at the University of Southampto­n. His work focuses on the British Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries.

What was the background to the Seven Years’ War from 1756 to 1763?

In some ways, the Seven Years’ War is part of a much longer war. There’s 100 years of warfare between Britain and France in the 18th century, I think something like one year out of every two in the 18th century Britain and France are at war. So some historians would see the Seven Years’

War as a kind of unfinished business from the previous war, the War of the Austrian Succession [1740 to 1748]. They’re working out of those problems on the European continent. The second thing is a kind of ratcheting up of tension between these two emerging global superpower­s. So, Britain and France going toe-to-toe around the globe looking for more trade, more commerce, more influence. That is another spark, as it were, that ignites the fire of the Seven Years’ War.

Who were the major belligeren­ts on each side of the conflict?

You’ve got France and Austria, quite unusually. Normally, France and Austria tend to be on opposite sides, and that suits Britain from a diplomatic perspectiv­e, the two major European powers. You’ve also got Spain allying herself with France. Spain doesn’t enter the war until the early 1760s. So those three major powers are on one side. Then you’ve got Britain and Prussia on the other side.

How did the war play out?

The war between Britain and France officially breaks out in 1756, but it starts a little bit before that, actually in 1754 in the interior of North America when Britain and France are fighting out a border skirmish in the Ohio country. But from the 1750s it doesn’t look terribly good [for Britain]. 1757 is a terrible year

for Britain; it loses Menorca; the French are on the verge of invading the south coast of England. It doesn’t start off well. The turning point for many people at the time and for many historians since has been the year 1759, the so-called Year of Victories, the Year of Miracles, Annus Mirabilis. When Britain wins this series of battles in different places around the world, from West Africa to the Caribbean to India, and then ultimately [the Battle of the] Plains of Abraham outside Quebec City in North America. That turns the tide in favour of Britain. It takes another four years for peace, eventually signed in 1763. But ultimately, those victories in 1759 are the ones that had turned the tide for Britain.

With so many different theatres of war, was this essentiall­y a world war?

Well, yes. I call the Seven Years’ War the First World War. But I’ve got a lot of other colleagues who use the same term for lots of other wars, like the Crimean War. There are plenty of historians who work on particular wars and term them global wars. But yes, I can see this being described as a world war, and that is the mobilisati­on of resources on a global scale. There are battles on three, four continents.

What were the major outcomes of the war? did it allow Britain to become a global superpower?

I think one of my favourite questions from the Seven Years’ War is: did the Seven Years’ War cause as many problems as opportunit­ies for Britain? So yes, it absolutely did because there were lots of opportunit­ies for Britain to establish herself as a global superpower. It is worth saying that Britain is a really young country when the war breaks out. It’s less than 50 years old, so after the Union of the Parliament in 1707, the outbreak of the war is 49 years [later]. The Seven Years’ War is one of these events that helps to forge some sort of national identity. Just as important, of course, is the trading and commercial opportunit­ies the Seven Years’ War and victory in it affords to Britain are really important. It gives Britain that opportunit­y to expand over the course of the next three or four decades.

What if the war hadn’t swung in Britain’s favour in 1759 and they had lost the war?

In some ways we need to [re-think] our 20th century approach to warfare where it’s total surrender. That’s not the way they did things in the 18th century. Fighting a war was basically a way of gathering credit that you then bargained off at the negotiatin­g table. If France had won the war, it would depend on what France had captured. Which Caribbean islands would France have captured? Which bits of North America would France have captured that they would then bargain with Britain? What kind of balance of power would there have been at the end of the Seven Years’ War? It would depend on how successful the French were. If they managed to invade Britain, well, then that would’ve been a quite different matter I guess. It would’ve, obviously, led to a drain on national resources and all the rest here in Britain. Some historians would say that winning the Seven Years’ War wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. It had increased national debt tremendous­ly, put a lot of pressure on the East India Company in Asia, and led, ultimately, to some of the problems in the North American colonies that led to the War of American Independen­ce.

Were there any key territorie­s that france had its eye on?

The French are interested in Europe, principall­y. Obviously, they’d be keen to capture some of those really rich, sugarprodu­cing colonies in the Caribbean if they could do that. But I think there are two different strategies at play here. There’s the French strategy of trying to clear Britain out of the Mediterran­ean, so capturing the island of Menorca in the Western Mediterran­ean. But essentiall­y, France gets forced into supporting her ally Austria and fighting the war in Europe. Whereas Britain, particular­ly under the prime-minstershi­p of William Pitt the Elder, focused on the wider world and winning the war by winning lots of colonies. So it’s two different approaches to the war.

how would the balance of power in north america had shifted?

If France had been successful in North America, if they’d avoided Quebec being captured by the British, if they’d managed to hold onto those territorie­s, it would’ve kept a screw on the British settlers in North America. It would’ve prevented them from expanding into the interior. It would’ve prevented them from settling in places like Ohio and those kind of places in the interior of North America. I

“The seven Years’ War is an event that helps to forge some sort of national identity”

think that would’ve been a major effect if Britain hadn’t won the Seven Years’ War.

did the Seven Years’ War allow the British empire to grow into the global superpower it became?

I think it definitely played a major role in it, in some cases because of the direct effects of the war. In India, for example, because of Britain being at war with France, it gave the East India Company an opportunit­y to beat the French in India. In terms of capturing areas in West Africa and in terms of protecting Britain’s colonies in the Caribbean, it definitely cemented that Atlantic Empire for Britain as well. By holding onto these colonies it meant that their sugar-producing, profit-making ability was retained for the Empire. Ultimately it set the ball rolling for all those upheavals in North America over the course of the next decade or two that led to the emergence of the United States. If you want to take it a step further, you might say it forced a re-imagining of the British Empire, as it were, forcing it to move away from the Atlantic and turn more towards Asia and India. So yeah, it helps to put Britain on the map as a global superpower. It also helps to put Prussia on the map as a European superpower.

Would Britain’s place in the world ultimately have changed dramatical­ly if they had lost?

It would’ve definitely changed Britain’s place in the world and Britain’s view of itself if it had lost the war. It depends on how catastroph­ically they would’ve lost the war, because Britain loses the War of American Independen­ce but isn’t particular­ly bothered by that because it’s managed to hold on to Jamaica. Would they have lost the war catastroph­ically? I don’t know. But as I said, Britain is a pretty young country in the 1750s and 1760s, so it definitely would’ve had an effect on its view of itself and its place in the world for a while to come.

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? William Pitt the Elder led Britain during the war The war gave rise to the British Empire The American War of Independen­ce may have played out differentl­y had Britain lost
William Pitt the Elder led Britain during the war The war gave rise to the British Empire The American War of Independen­ce may have played out differentl­y had Britain lost
 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom