Talk:French and Indian War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Paranthetical Citations?

Ew, that's disgusting! How about some footnotes in here?--Xiaphias 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibberish in "Beginning of War" section

The "Beginning of War" section contains a number of bogus dates (e.g. 2009), names (e.g. Governor Clinton) and other general gibberish (e.g. "Warrahiggey" translated from the Iroquois to "he who does big business"). They stretch from the "Celoron's Expedition" subsection to "Dinwiddie's Ultimatum." I am not knowledgeable enough to identify valid points that may be hidden among the nonsense, but it seems for the most part that all of the text after "Causes" and before "Overview" could be deleted.-tragicly

Naming

Why is this called the French and Indian War? -Tubby

In US history, this was the war in which the French and Indians teamed up against the Americans and their, at the time, British allies. Of course, the US had Indian allies too, but it wasn't mentioned. :-) I think in Europe it was called The Seven Years' War? Or am I wrong there? -- Zoe
The article indeed links to Seven Years War as the larger conflict of which it was a part. I'm not sure if it should have an apostrophe added...? --Brion
I'm not sure either. :) -- Zoe
I've looked in several books for this and similarly named wars with other numbers, and most (but not all) use the apostrophe. Although Fowler seems to favour the apostrophe his example is not with regard to the Wars but to the term "five years' imprisonment". In his 2nd (1965) edition he says "Years and weeks may be treated as possessives and given an apostrophe or as adjectival nouns without one. The former is perhaps better, so as to conform to what is inevitable in the singular - a year's imprisonment." The 3rd (1996) edition doesn't mention the adjectival noun option. My conclusion: there should be an apostrophe, and that should also apply to other wars named in this format.
The term French and Indian War is a peculiarly American usage. Everybody else uses Seven Years' War including Canadians. The Americans weren't a part of the war since the country didn't exist yet. Eclecticology

Booger Buns

In Canada we do tend to say Seven Years' War, but then that leads to the problem of a war that is actually nine years long, since it started in North America in 1754. It's not improper to call it the French and Indian War...the problem is that there is no good way to describe it from a Canadian perspective. (Of course, we say War of 1812 when that's not really accurate either...) Adam Bishop 01:01, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Americans were a part of the war. It is true that the United States did not exist, but the British North American colonists had started looking at themselces and their interests as something not identical with Britain. From the Albany Congress and other letters, etc. many of the were begining to refer to and think of themselves as 'Americans'. The idea and viewpoint greatly preceeded the reality. I think the term F&I War is valid to describe the struggle, since some actions in America preceeded the European war Lou I
The fact that the country wasn't independent is not the issue as far as the name goes. It's called the "French and Indian War" because, to the American colonists, those were the enemy forces. Similarly, the war against Mexico in the 1840s has traditionally been called the Mexican-American War (although some now call it the Mexican-American War). Anyhow, Americans *do* speak of the "Seven Years' War"--but only to describe the entire, worldwide conflict. The "F&I War" strictly refers to the North American theatre.
I believe that the period of the French and Indian War is also the period in which British North Americans began to be called "Americans," which makes the French and Indian War a significant milestone in the formation of a distinct identity and perhaps a necessary precursor to independence from Great Britain.
-- Bob99
Another angle on the name, in America, is that there while the larger British-French conflict was playing out, many Indian wars were occuring with minimial connection to the British-French struggle, except in the sense that the Indians were seen as essential to the larger British-French struggle. For example, the Anglo-Cherokee War occured during the French and Indian War, and while a few French agents and pro-French Indians from other tribes may have come to the Cherokees and "fanned the flames" a bit, the French were not involved. Of course the British colonists in the region seemed to regularly assume that Indian discontent was the doing of the French, so there would be rumors of French armies in the Cherokee lands, etc. Finally, the causes of the Anglo-Cherokee War are linked to the larger British-French conflict. Some of the initial disagreements between the Cherokee and the British that escalated into war occured while Cherokee warriors were helping British forces on campaigns against the French, Shawnee, etc, in Ohio Country.
So while I see the problems with naming the war, I can also see why for the colonies in America, especially for people focused on the Appalachian frontier, the war was with the French and with the Indians, sometimes together, sometimes not; the French and/or Indian War. :-) The off and on war/peace between Britain and France (and Spain) in Europe did not equate to war and peace with various Indians in America. European war often intensified existing Indian wars, but in many cases it doesn't make sense to suggest that, for example, the start of the Seven Years' War in Europe caused, for example, the British colonies to attack the Shawnee, for example. Sometimes official European war simply provided colonial forces with an excuse to escalate the existing Indian conflicts. Of course, British and French interest in the Indians of America overlapped and the struggle to gain the upper hand in terms of Indian allies dates back to the earliest colonial times, so the threads are hard to tease apart. But the Anglo-Cherokee War seems a good example of a part of the French and Indian War that had little to do with the French.
Having said all that, I find the term "French and Indian War" frustrating, especially since it is often used to describe the three British-French colonial wars previous to the final big one. I tend to think of it as a large and somewhat vague term that includes many smaller wars, "side-effect" conflicts, and indirectly related wars of the same period and region. Pfly 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


It may be the case that more Acadians were expelled by the British after the the conclusion of this war, but I believe that the process had already begun in the 1740s. Alan Peakall 17:06 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

Not sure what happened in the 1740s, but the great expulsion took place specifically in 1755, when the British governor of Nova Scotia (which had been captured from France in 1714) ordered all residents to take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown.

I don't have a problem with using the term French and Indian War, as long as it's used in those sections where it's appropriate ie actions on the North American continent. The war might have started earlier here, but it formally concluded with the Treaty of Paris. People who are not familiar with the history might have the impression the war took place apart from the European conflict, when there is a strong case that events in Europe (including the previous War of the Austrian Succession) compounded the local irritants between British North America and New France.

It should be noted that not all of British North America thought of themselves as 'Americans' , since neither the colonies of Quebec nor Nova Scotia would join the War of Independence later. The French-Canadien term, translated as War of the Conquest, seems apt since it was the war where the British consolidated control of North America and New France vanished as a rival entity. It's a matter of perspective.

SCrews 05:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Umm, I'm a history teacher here in Canada. I'm curious to know why so many Canadians aren't familiar with the term "The British Conquest" or longer term "The British Conquest of New France". Calling it either of these does not necessarily identify it with Quebec alone because New France was not only Quebec but was also what Canada evolved from. I've never heard it called the French and Indian War. Furthermore I find the term "Indian" dated and confusing. "Indian" involvement was not as impressive as years prior to this conflict. The Battle of Fort William Henry saw Native American confidence in the French dissipate. So the "Indians" were really only a factor in the war up to 1757 (war was 1754-1763).

Trapper 05:15, 16 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I think "The Conquest" refers specifically to the events of 1759 (and de jure 1763). I've never (or very rarely) heard the Seven Years' War itself referred to as "The British Conquest," either colloquially or academically; neither in Quebec nor in Ontario. Albrecht 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What is all of this arguing about?! I learned it in school as the French and Indian Wars (yes, PLURAL)! Can't anyone look at a good source and fix this? 75.179.5.126 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Ohio boy

Well if I understand right the 'French and Indian Wars' were the ongoing conflict between England and France for domination of America and include every thing from King William's War thru the French and Indian war. I think there are a few reasons for it being called the French and Indian war. First: that the Americans typically named these conflicts after the current reigning monarch King William's War (1689–1697), Queen Anne's War (1702–1713) and King George's War (1740–1748) but the French and Indian War was also under a King George so instead of creating confusion and having two wars named after King George they just called it the French and Indian war. Second: another reason it's remembered as the French and Indian war, in my opinion, is that it was the culminating conflict of the French and Indian wars and thus the most important. --Hon. Abe 02:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the use of the term French and Indian Wars in Canadian articles...

As the article states, this is an American term. So why in heck's name should it be plastered all over articles about Canada? Here in Canada the war is known by its standard name, No offense, but Americans are known for their insularity. Using parochial, local names for things doesn't help. They can insist on knowing this war by a non-standard, parochial name. But, lets restrict them and keep their parochialism within articles about the USA?

I suggest just fixing it wherever you find the term. I've done that at least once already, putting something like "(called the French and Indian War in the United States)" afterwards just to help American readers. I agree -- the name "French and Indian War" is pretty-much meaningless outside of the U.S., since no one uses or recognizes it -- Dpm64 00:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The problem with calling it the "Seven Years' War" in Canada is that it didn't last seven years in North America. In Europe, the war didn't officially begin until 1756, hence the name. Moreover, "Seven Years' War" refers to the entire global conflict (Europe/North America/India) while "French and Indian War" refers only to the North American phase. It's not the greatest name, but for this article's purposes, at least, it's probably the best.
That the war lasted 9 years doesn't matter. The Hundred Years' war lasted over 100 years, the war of 1812 was faught into 1814. Though I agree to using "French and Indian War" in this article to remove confusion about the European war. And just so you know I am Canadian, so don't just say I am an American wanting everything to be the same as in the US. say1988 13:35, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I am an American, but while living in Australia it was common for my history teacher to use French and Indian War and Seven Years' War to differentiate between the two theatres. I don't know if this was confined to this single teacher or not, but it's not solely a 'parochial, local' name. C.Ainscough 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but an Australian teacher using the American usage is a reflection of the pervasiveness of American parochialism....Skookum1 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why we need the name French and Indian War in these articles. It may be a misguided and parochial, but we Americans tend to be that way ;) It may be only the American name, but America has 300 million or so English speakers who aren't going to realize the Seven Years War and French and Indian War are the same thing unless wikipedia tells them. I think Dpm64's solution is a good idea. Canadian name first American second. If wikipedia is here to inform the English speaking world, it is a greater evil to leave almost the whole American nation in the dark than to subject Canadian readers to seeing both names. Leo1410 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
'French and Indian War' is a North American term- it is used by Canadian historians such as George MacKinnon Wrong and W.J. Eccles, and therefore it renders this conversation moot. Sorry to spoil all of your fun! Monsieurdl (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands

Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1

I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Any input would be very much appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Weapons and technology?

Where can I get information on the specific types of firearms and weapons and technology that were used in this conflict? What kind of weapons or cannons would French soldiers at Fort Louisbourg or Fort Beausejour typically have?--Sonjaaa 13:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Osprey Publishing Ment-at-arms: Louis XV's Armies 1-5, King George's Armies 1-3, Montcalm's army, Wofl's Armies; Campaigns Seven Years war, French and Indien war, Quebec 1759, Louisbourg 1758, etc. I have a few of these myself and the information is vaste.--Dryzen 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Canadians commonly call this the English and Indian War."

Really? I don't have any history degrees but in my reading on this war I've never once seen it called this. Dwp13 21:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said. My history professor at Lindenwood said that Canadians call the war by that name. I figured that my professor knew what he was talking about and put it in because I though it was an interesting fact. If some find that this is incorrect then by all means remove it. (Steve 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

I'm not in a position to challenge a history professor so I will let some with more knowledge do any necessary editing. However, checking such on line sources as the Canadian Encyclopedia and Library and Archives Canada indicate that "English and Indian War" is not used and "Seven Years War" is the common reference. Dwp13 23:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering where professor is from and if you can ask him where in Canada that term is used. Because around where I am it is referred to as the Seven Years' War. All references I have seen say that including government ones. So I am changing it to that unless you can provide me with information to the contrary.say1988

I am Canadian, and I have never heard this called the "English and Indian War" before. In English it's called simply the Seven Years' War, and if I remember correctly, in French it's called either called Guerre de Sept Ans (Seven Years' War) or Guerre de la Conquête (War of the Conquest).
(This makes sense when you think about it, since the two traditions we draw from are either British, in which this was only one theatre of a much larger war; or French, in which case "war of the conquest" is perfectly understandable.)
Though I'm not a historian, I'm pretty sure of what the popular usage is on this issue. As well, a Google search for "English and Indian War" turns up only 4 unique hits: one of these is a copy of this page, and two of the others are pages about fictional alternate timelines. --Saforrest 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My Changes

The French and Indian War (or English and Indian War if you are Canadian) started in 1954 with the events around Washington's engagement preceeding Fort Necessity. The Seven-Year War did not start 1756, but the Seven Years War is not the same war as the French and Indian War in the beginning. When the European war started in 1756 then the wars became two parts of a larger World conflict. (Steve 17:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

See above comment about the "English and Indian War". --Saforrest 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of "Guerre de la conquête" and "La conquête britannique"

My impression, once more, is that these terms refer only to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and its aftermath. Quebecers might, on occasion, refer to the war as a whole in this manner, much as Frenchmen might say notre défaite face aux Prussiens in reference to the Franco-Prussian War, but I doubt this is the norm. Historical discussions would almost certainly employ Guerre de sept ans. Albrecht 16:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "Guerre de la conquete" and "War of the conquest" are used in government exams. The Quebec government uses this term to refer to the period leading up to and including the fall of New France. This provincial exam is a prerequisite for high school graduation. The "Seven Years War" is how the government explains the European conflict. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is used to describe the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Great emphasis is placed on the War of the Conquest and there is no mention of the "French and Indian Wars" (on the exam). Both French and English speaking Quebecers are given the same exam (obviously translated). Both groups consistently use the Conquest term; certainly not on occasion. I am a high school history teacher in Quebec. Trapper 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I certainly did not know that. Well, if it's as you say, then there's no problem. Albrecht 20:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Trapper's got it right. For the French colonist descendants it would of been somewhat strange to call it the French-Indien War, since this term seems completely ignore that the British where involved. While the Conquest indicate what happend, that is the conquest of Colonial North America.--Dryzen 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggested that Quebecers (and I count myself among their number) used the term Guerre de sept ans, not "French and Indian War." From my experience I still think this is the case, but obviously Trapper's in a better position to judge this. In any case, I find it highly unlikely that Francophones outside of Quebec speak of any "Conquest." The whole affair reeks of nationalist overtones. Albrecht 22:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for the rest of Canadian Francophones, but the Franco-Ontarian and Acadian groups do call it "La guerre de la Conquête" and for the later its coupled with "Le grand Dérangement".--Dryzen 13:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mercantilism?

The claim that mercantilism was responsible for British success is debatable to say the least. Adam Smith refuted it with specific reference to 18th century conflicts such as the 7 years war.JQ 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it appaling that this reason be given, or at the very least solely stated, for the fall of the French regime in the colonies. Though I do conceed that its text mirrors other thoughts on the subject of the Fall (France's preference to fight on the European Continent) After rereading (for good mesure) our own wiki article on the subject I have found that the basis is explained within this section is contradicting itself:
The people of mainland France had some difficulty accepting mercantilism, an economic theory that emphasised export trade. From this openeing sentence we can gather that favoring Exports is primordial to mercantilism and that france witheld on this end. Yet it is indicated in the article that: Under Colbert, the French government became deeply involved in the economy in order to increase exports. Protectionist policies were enacted that limited imports and favored exports.Thefore we gather than France did practice and understand the mechanism of mercantilism, making this prime reason rather weak.--Dryzen 17:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Any one objects to my remouval of mercantilism as the reason of the French defeat?--Dryzen 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of the wiki mercantilist theory (as described in 'Canada Under Louis XIV' by W.J. Eccles and 'Colbert' by Inès Murat). What I was attempting to explain is that while the government of France pursued mercantilism vigorously, the people of France rejected it. It was not the government's rejection that crippled New France but the mainland French entrepreneurs. It would seem that certain economic initiatives by France went belly up because the people did not support it. Trapper 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The very downfall of New-France could be foreshadowed long before the War of Conquest. From the start things did not bode well for the French colony, most of all its lack of a clear managment. Where as the Brittish colonies where rappidly formed by religious congrgations seeking religious freedom or families wishing to leave over-crowded england or try there hand at escaping there social position.
The French on the other hand left colonisation at first to trading companies whom saw no need to colonise the land. Latter Cardinal Richelieu attempted to produce a colony to rival that of the burgeouning English territories. Yet this faced several key challanges steming from religious and culture. Of the first, only Catholics could colonise the new-world, this neglected to use the strongest source of colonists, the religiously persecuted already sought escape. Of the second, popular culture painted New-France as the land that god had given to Kain giving it little appeal for colonisation. Lastly the aristocracy saw little to gain from such a venture, perfering to keep their tenants in France. This in the end gave way to the vastly diffrent population weights, leaving the English colonies with an unbeatable advantage of industrial and military output.
Even from the military side of things England had the edge over her French ennemies when it came to battle for the colonies, the navy. France's stance on this can be surmized with a small passage from our own article on Colbert: the king thought only of military exploits on land. With a neglected navy, battling a nation that depended on its maratime prowess for survival the outcome was again adumbrated. An outcome that had been known to military councillors of King Louis XV whom advocated a war on contenantal Europe rather than on the high sea and in the colonies, a plan that Pitt took advantage by concentrating on the navies and the colonie's, where France was at its weakest.
I see economic problems at the heart of New-France's state at the onset of war, yet I do not see it as the definitive weakness that doomed it. Nor does the written section clearly indicate how mercantilism led to it's downfall. French grand strategy called for a European campaign where it could expect victories with its massive armies. At sea, it demonstrated no advantage and many weakness wich stemed more from military policy and tradition than from economic hardship.The Jean-Baptiste Colbert's struggling economic policy is false as his policy, as our own article states: brough the economy back from the brink of bankruptcy. Historians note that, despite Colbert's efforts, France actually became increasingly impoverished because of the King's excessive spending on luxury and wars. Colbert worked to create a favourable balance of trade and increase France's colonial holdings. This indicates that Colbert had a vision of a strong navy and colonial power, quite diffrent from what the section allued to.
As to France' incapacity to keep up with the costs of war, this is hardly a solely French problem but was felt by all powers participating. France on the other hand was the only one not to excessively raize taxes trough out the war. and finally, as to France abandoning New-France, this is quite true and from the begining French strategy never called for a full defence. And no colony was seen as a signifigant benifit to the homeland, even less so with what the prior administration produced of hte colonies.
Over all, I fail to see what mercantilism had to be considered the Achilles' heel. I doubt many other citizens accepted and support mercantilism's policies in their nations.--Dryzen 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)



Moving Reasons for the French defeat here, for some clean-up and possible deletion due to incorrect statements, opinions are welcomed. --Dryzen 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for French defeat

The people of mainland France had some difficulty accepting mercantilism, an economic theory that emphasised export trade. The thriving mercantilism of the Dutch and the British enabled them to fight wars on land and sea, recouping the costs of such wars with income from productive colonies in the Americas and Asia. With every war that France engaged in, often in attempts to overthrow Dutch commercial superiority, she struggled to find the finances to push on. By 1672, France had the most powerful army on land, and was a growing naval threat. But due to financial problems, France actually had to withdraw its navy after successful victories against the Dutch. France was never able to effectively shake her people's resistance to mercantilism. By the 1680's, France's growing military might, her success against the Dutch, the revocation of Protestant toleration, and the incursions on British American traders made her the target of King William of England. With Louis XIV's lavish spending after his victories in the Franco-Dutch War (1670s), and Jean-Baptiste Colbert's struggling economic policy, France would be no match for the British Royal Navy. The 1688 war of the Grand Alliance would show that not only Britain felt threatened by France. The Holy Roman Empire allied with, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the United Provinces, and Britain to fight off France's incursion on German territory. It also served as an excuse to cripple French Canadian territorial expansion in Canada. King William's War, as it was known in North America, would be the start of subsequent conflicts in North America known as the French and Indian Wars (Intercolonial Wars). British-American militia would make successive attempts at conquering New France. With every American war, the British Americans gained more and more ground. Its apex would be the War of the Conquest in 1759. Once again, France's economy could not keep up with the costs of war and she once again would provide little naval aid to the colonies. Today, some people in Quebec blame France for abandoning them in 1759, but the reality is that if France had sent a powerful navy to defend New France, she would have done so at the expense of mainland France. New France had, up until then, failed to show any significant benefit to France and was not worth keeping at the risk of losing European territory.

A nine year chapter?

Sorry if this has already been settled. I knew little about the subject (until reading the article), thus my very basic question: how can this be a 9 year chapter of a 7 years war? To me a chapter would be shorter than the whole thing. Thanks in advance for the answer. Anagnorisis 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The shortest answer woudl be that from the initial engagement to the final confrontation 9 years tiem had spanned. This though includes the skirmishes along the frontier regiosn in 1754, burgeoning into the official War in Europe in 1756, followed by the colapse of the French regime in north america in 1760 and finaly the diplomatic resolution of the Indeien rebellions in 1763. All of this is of course explained in detail within the article.--Dryzen 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

Wow, this is a great article. Very long, lots of charts and infoboxes, and at least one actual map. Maps, images, and infoboxes are crucial, to my mind, towards pushing an article over the edge of becoming a Good/A-Class/Featured Article. Very long, detailed, obviously a lot of work has been put into this. Some sections need wikification, and some sections could also benefit from expansion. But overall, I'm giving this a B, the highest rating I feel comfortable giving without a vote or consensus from other editors. With a little work, and the assessement of a few other WPMilHist people who are not me, I think this can easily become an A-Class or even Featured article. LordAmeth 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure if this should be claimed by the US task force, the British task force, or both. As I am a member of neither, I have left both off. If anyone in either of those task forces wants to claim the article into their domain, please do. LordAmeth 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am of mind that it should be claimed by the participant militaries, therefore: British, canadian, French and United-States. I also agree on the B markign as this article needs to cleaning up but is in over all good shape. Although, I disagree the proposed reson behind the French defeat as determined by Mercantilism. --Dryzen 17:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

organization

Should the overview be moved to the beginning of the article, after nomenclature?

1761

what happend to 1761 between 1760 and 1762

Spelling seems mangled.

hopiakuta 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing parts in article

Um, look at Beginning of the war and Langlys expedition, theres no article, and im curious to know what exactly happend in 1761, thanks, Im watching you O_o 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Added to section Langley's expedition

I addded information to the langlys expedition, sorry wasnt sure where to cite where i got the info so I'll put it here, EagleEyes 12:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC) http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/French_and_Indian_War#Langlade.27s_expedition

red/broken links

Fort bull and signal hill seem to be links to unwritten articlesIm watching you O_o 12:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

All this vandilism?

Is this the usual or is there some sort of research that has to be done by younglings and they just want to blast their frustrations at the subject?--Dryzen 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be fashionable nowadays among high school students (and, I imagine, people who should know a lot better) to treat with mockery any subject involving war and the French. Albrecht 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Faild attempt to revert

I tried to revert this article that someone vandalized and really messed it up, could someone fix it? EagleEyes 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to your last modification, all the other edits where vandalism and responced reverts.--Dryzen 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is mangled

It is like just a bunch broken html script and junk, someone please fix it. EagleEyes 17:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look, everything should be back in order. --Dryzen 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Dryzen, I apprecieate it, EagleEyes 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure to battle vadalism, just wish there wasn't so much of it...--Dryzen 14:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's a shame... EagleEyes 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference for Ontario claim

The article claims: In Ontario, it is now increasingly also referred to as "The War of the Conquest," or just "The Conquest."

Can anyone provide a source for this? I understand why "guerre de la conquête" is used by francophones in and out of Quebec, and I understand why the term exists in Quebec English, as a consequence of being translated from French. But I've never heard the term used in English in Ontario. --Saforrest 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


From the view of someone in Pennsylvania

Here it is called the French and Indian War which is odd but someone mentioned the reason being the Brittish, colonist and their Native American allies against the French and their allies(other Native Americans). We kind of think of the Seven Years' War as something that didn't involve us. Unless you major in it in college the other conflicts are not discussed with the same detail. In our education system the history of Pennsylvania gets discussed in detail around the 6th grade level. I realize it was interconnected but I think this is a bad case of POV by reason of birthplace and nationality. The conflict is seriously looked at in our area because we could of been French if things went different. The importance to the area is stressed because of the strategic value of the confluence of the three rivers. The Ohio, Allegheny, and Mononghehela meet here in Pittsburgh. There are a lot of side tributaries in the area and eventually the Ohio River flows to the south to meet up with the Mississippi River. Then the Mississippi goes to the Gulf of Mexico. Essentially whoever controlled the area controlled the new world. I'm new to wiki but I would be glad to help with this project. Being a local I could probably get some pictures. The geography and resources of the are(rivers,oil,coal,furtrade) made it a very valuable area to acquire. I'll link here other references. Be patient with my wiki abilities please. Just think I can add something to make this a super feartured article. Besides it will be linked to Project Pittsburgh. Deedee19482 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statistics request

Needs information on casualties and economic impact. -- Beland 05:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mishmash of an Article

This article resemble the main article on the Seven Years War, a mess. It must have changed a lot since the person above writing about this being an A-class article. There is some good stuff in here, but the article needs better structure, more narrative on the course of the war, only one list of battles (in the properly formatted box), and less on George Washington - he became very important later. Or perhaps it just needs more on others (hate to see factual stuff deleted).

And can the people on this discussion page please get over the name of the war! They would better spend their energies improving the article. Iacobus 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Now all we need is somebody to do something about it. -Gomm 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, if only I knew more, but wouldn't it be great if someone who actually knew a lot about the subject, could cite references, and was a good writer, got to work? Or two or three of them? I can write and cite, but can't pretend to have much in-depth knowledge. They must be out there, somewhere... --Iacobus 06:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

there should be a mention of the american militia in the troop/casualtie window.

Braddock's Expedition

"Braddock's expedition" did not take place during the war. Braddock's forces were defeated on July 9,1755. Great Britain didn't declared war on France until may 18,1756, France on June 9,1756. In fact the battle of Lake George took place on September 8,1755, also before war was declared. These two sections should be placed in a section prior to the war. This section could contain other events/battles significant to the war but not a cause or part of it. '

But you seem to forget they did take place in the "French-Indien War" which started in 1754.--Dryzen 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Outcome

Please expand the outcome section with the answer to this question: What impact did the war have on the Native American participants? Seems like a big thing to leave out. MrZaiustalk 12:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have an excellent point there- I have no doubts that there is probably some social history that is absent from this article. I'll keep it in mind for when I have actual time to finally get to it! Monsieurdl 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Root Causes

The root causes listed are biased and severely lacking in substance, not to mention unreferenced. I never realized how weak the article was- but that will change soon. With others help, it can be done. I have an extensive library of French and Indian War sources that will make this article shine- Parkman, Morison, French and British accounts, George Wrong, et cetera. The story that is forgotten in American texts shall be told! Let's do this thing! Monsieurdl 00:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of you; I'm on this as well...--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Beaver Fur

When the French didn't have no where to go they went and lived with the indain's also the fur stared running out because no more beaver.French and indain war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.9.87 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oneida Carry

MIKE IS COOLCould there be a link to the Oneida Carry article (that article has few linking articles)? An attack by the French in 1756 seems relevant to a discussion of the French and Indian War especially the start. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_and_Indian_War/Archive_1&oldid=392072210"