Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Pikes, Muskets and Flouncy Shirts => Topic started by: Blackwolf on December 21, 2009, 10:31:48 AM
-
I must acknowledge Plynkes for this topic,why do we call it the FIW? I believe it should be called The Colony Wars or CW. It can be argued that it was the start of the Seven years war and why Britain sided with Prussia against France and Austria (although Britain and Austria never fought). This alliance was really a pragmatic alliance by the British to shore up Europe while fighting the French in the New World.....and they won! To call it the FIW is really a romantic delusion for a very brutal war.
-
Although it really was just a colonial extention of the much bigger Seven Years War. To the English speaking colonials what was going on here was more important than what was happening in Europe. The important factor here was it was us vs. the French & their Indian(native) allies. The English won, they write the history books, we fought the French & Indians here, that what was important. So it is called the French & Indian War.
-
I don't call it that. :) It's the American name for it, it would seem. I always thought of it as just another part of the Seven Years War. I hadn't even heard it called the FIW until I got the internet and discovered our cousins across the sea talking about it on forums and such.
I don't object to the name, don't think that. I was just pulling Blood's leg as an Englishman adopting Americanisms. It's a fine name for the conflict, if you happen to be American. :)
-
Part of it was also fought in India between British (East India Co +regular troops +indian allies) against French (plus their Indian allies), also British won in that theater of war.
Indeed to my knowledge the term French and Indian War was termed because British fought against French and their (native American) Indian Allies.
I am not sure if this an English term, only, and if the French call it differently.
-
I think most Americans who care know it was merely a sideshow of the Seven Years War, but "The Seven Years War in the North American Theater" doesn't roll off the tongue. Since our own George Washington started the whole thing in the first place we took the liberty of renaming it after the guys we beat with a little help from the Brits. *
* That "little help" consisting of almost all of the troops, supplies, and leaders, all of which we were reluctant to pay a even a penny for thus sparking off the sequel.
-
It's a fine name for the conflict, if you happen to be American. :)
You are so right Plynkes! :D
But it's also apt if your interest is from the colonial American perspective! ;) :D
Not necessarily so applicable if your primary interest is the British, French or native American perspective and I have wondered how First Nation culture / history names the conflict. Ditto the French.
-
The thing that struck me when I first heard the term was that it seemed almost deliberately designed to be just vague enough to confuse someone like me.
French? Indian? War?
Ah, you must mean this...
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Plynkes/clive.jpg)
lol
-
I don't mind the term "French & Indian War" at all when used to refer to "The Seven Years War in North America" or whatever, especially as they did get the whole thing off to an early start in North America lol
I suppose there was always confusion as to what to name the series of conflicts between the French and British colonies in North America, which flared up alongside the greater European conflicts, but never entirely vanished between the "big shows". I've always kind of guessed that having had Queen Anne's War, then King George's War, they could have called it "King George's War Part Deux", but it seemed to make sense to call it the French & Indian War in the colonies after the event.
What, it seems to me, does cause confusion is the irritating habit of dropping words from phrases: French & Indian War - "let's economise to French Indian War". Anyone having never heard of this conflict refered to as the French & Indian War is bound to be even more confused when they hear "French Indian War", or as I've seen it printed "French-Indian War"! ::) A bit like Franco-Prussian, Russo-Turkish etc but not intended to carry a similar meaning.
Anyway, I suppose we could change the name a dozen times in the English speaking world, but wargamers will still recognise FIW lol and it'll still be a great period. 8)
Cheers,
Lance
www.gallopingmajorwargames.com
-
Nationalists here still call it La Conquête... lol
-
Nationalists here still call it La Conquête... lol
Which is perfectly understandable I suppose from their point of view...
I must admit, I prefer wars with non-partizan labels which don't 'bake in' one or other side's perspective on the conflict... And the F&IW rather fails that test.
Shades here of the debate about the Irish Civil War or Anglo-Irish War, latterly reinvented under the in-vogue appelation: 'the Irish War of Independence'. But best not to open that particular can of worms again... :D
-
If it's the French Indian wars then it's somebody versus the Parisian Apache dancers. But who? lol
-
When I first got into historicals via the Internet, I had never heard the terms the American War of Independence or the American Civil War, acronymed to AWI and ACW respectively. To me they were the Revolutionary War and the Civil War as that's what I was taught. Oh the wonderful things we learn when me meet and learn new things from the international community. I think it's rather cool.
Joey
-
If it's the French Indian wars then it's somebody versus the Parisian Apache dancers. But who? lol
lol lol lol
Joey - too right mate :D
-
I think I first heard the term from Don Featherstone.....
-
The term is rather vague.If one came to the wars in India first without knowledge of the wars in N. America the French Indian War would end up making one confused o_o.Did any Indian Regiments make it to the New World? It could be the French,Indian,Native American War....now I'm just being silly.
-
I always have to remind myself that the french indian war isn't about French Vs Native americans.. ::)
-
I think most every battle / war has 2 names, one from each side of IT that was in contention. The ACW is a good example as any.
-
I always have to remind myself that the french indian war isn't about French Vs Native americans.. ::)
I kind of think that's why the French & Indian War made more sense, until the effort of using the word 'and' became too much for some lol
-
I always have to remind myself that the french indian war isn't about French Vs Native americans.. ::)
I always thought it was! Not my theatre so I've never looked into it, I have learned something new.
-
Actually French & Indian War is a handy term as strictly speaking it's commencement predates the outbreak of the Seven Years War. Of course there were other wars involving both French and Indians. The war(s) fought against the French and their Indian allies in Brazil in the late 16th C being an equally savage, albeit less well known examples.
-
The thing that struck me when I first heard the term was that it seemed almost deliberately designed to be just vague enough to confuse someone like me.
French? Indian? War?
thats the French and Indian Elephants' Wars another thing altogether
Ah, you must mean this...
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Plynkes/clive.jpg)
lol
-
I think most every battle / war has 2 names, one from each side of IT that was in contention. The ACW is a good example as any.
This is true. I am reliably informed that the correct name for the American Civil War is The War of Northern Aggression. ;)
Joking aside though, yes, its a good example and makes for confusing reading at times. Probably one of the reasons I never really considered it as a period to collect.
-
I think I first heard the term from Don Featherstone.....
Was leafing through my 1968 copy of Wargames today and there it is, in the 'Close Wars' appendix: "the French and Indian Wars of the late eighteenth century in America". Used in this context, it does make sense.
-
if I may quote the WIKI explanation for the name:
"The conflict is known by several names. In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. Because there had already been a King George's War in the 1740s, British colonists named the second war in King George's reign after their opponents, and thus it became known as the French and Indian War.[6] This traditional name remains standard in the United States, although it obscures the fact that American Indians fought on both sides of the conflict.[7] American historians generally use the traditional name or the European title (the Seven Years' War). Other, less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.[6]
In Europe, the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War usually has no special name, and so the entire worldwide conflict is known as the Seven Years' War. The "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756 to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. These dates do not correspond with the actual fighting on mainland North America, where the fighting between the two colonial powers was largely concluded in six years, from the Jumonville Glen skirmish in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760.[6]
In Canada, both French- and English-speaking Canadians refer to both the European and North American conflicts as the Seven Years' War (Guerre de Sept Ans).[8][9] French Canadians may use the term "War of the Conquest" (Guerre de la Conquête), since it is the war in which New France was conquered by the British and became part of the British Empire, but that usage is never employed by most English Canadians. This war is also one of America's "Forgotten Wars"."
-
So now we know!
Seems logical. I shall continue referring to it as the French and Indian War without any guilty feelings ;)
-
I have always used the French and Indian War when refering to the conflict in North America and The Seven Years War when refering to the entire conflict.
Darkoath
-
I have always used the French and Indian War when refering to the conflict in North America and The Seven Years War when refering to the entire conflict.
Darkoath
Me too 8)
-
it's just a tag...
-
Yes but in this post modernist world a tag has to have some reference to the great narrative,,why this tag?
-
Me too 8)
I do, as well. One of my favorite periods to game. And that guy's miniatures for this era are pretty sweet.
-
I do, as well. One of my favorite periods to game. And that guy's miniatures for this era are pretty sweet.
I agree too! Galloping Major has a wonderful range! I enjoy his sculpting style and am really looking forward to his new releases for 2010! :D :-* Perhaps the Major can be convinced to tell us his plans for 2010? ;)
Darkoath
-
I agree too! Galloping Major has a wonderful range! I enjoy his sculpting style and am really looking forward to his new releases for 2010! :D :-* Perhaps the Major can be convinced to tell us his plans for 2010? ;)
Darkoath
Thanks guys 8)
Next: more Rangers :D
I've got quite a lot planned for this year, including armed settlers and the first packs of regulars for both sides - just for starters........ ;)
-
Sounds nice Major! :-* Looking forward to the new releases. I also like how you balance your releases so there are equal numbers available for both sides, both French and British! Would love to see some clearly French settlers... don't think any have been ever released in 28 mm. Will you eventually do French Marines too?
Would also like to see some Trader miniatures and other civilian workers. Indians holding furs etc. Traders with trade blankets, goods spread out on a blanket like trade beads and hatchets knives etc. Indian villagers including children.
Darkoath
-
Gawd blind me, Darkoath, lol have you managed to hack into my brain? :o
At this rate there'll be few surprises left :D
All the stuff you mentioned is among the ideas I have planned, including French civilians (although the first civvies I do will be Anglo-American/Dutch types), traders etc 8)
Also re Compagnies Franches, I forgot to mention the first of these will be out probably before the first French regulars. Nice that it's appreciated I'm trying to keep a balance between the contending powers as we go along 8)
Cheers,
Lance
-
I think most Americans who care know it was merely a sideshow of the Seven Years War, but "The Seven Years War in the North American Theater" doesn't roll off the tongue. Since our own George Washington started the whole thing in the first place we took the liberty of renaming it after the guys we beat with a little help from the Brits. *
Because of things like King Phillip's War I do wonder if we should call it Mr Washington's War...
-
Why to refer only to the SYW? The WAS also was fought there.
England and France switched sides between the two conflicts, managing to remain at each other throat, faithful
to a tradition dating from Richard the Lionheart at the very least :D
-
Why to refer only to the SYW? The WAS also was fought there.
Yup, we had a good old go at each other each time hostilities broke out in Europe between Britain & France (and whenever either side could think of a plausible excuse), thus the Wars of Spanish and Austrian Succession became known as "Queen Anne's War" and "King George's War" and so forth. The last one starting out early but becoming part of the multi-continental conflict of the Seven Years War, is the one that has become known as the French & Indian War, but you're right, an ongoing series of conflicts between conflicting empires, which could all be referred to as "The French & Indian Wars", but that could be the cause of still further confusion.
As has been said before, most wars carry more than one name, different factions (unsurprisingly) seeing them from a different point of view, the French & Indian War is recognised by most as referring to the conflict in North America dating roughly 1754-1760, so it's easy shorthand for all the other possible titles - unless we DO go for "King George's War part Deux" lol
Whatever we call it, I'm sure we can all agree, it's a fascinating historical period :D
www.gallopingmajorwargames.com
-
I must acknowledge Plynkes for this topic,why do we call it the FIW? I believe it should be called The Colony Wars or CW. It can be argued that it was the start of the Seven years war and why Britain sided with Prussia against France and Austria (although Britain and Austria never fought). This alliance was really a pragmatic alliance by the British to shore up Europe while fighting the French in the New World.....and they won! To call it the FIW is really a romantic delusion for a very brutal war.
a romantic idea about any war....is a delusion
-
I find the monkier also serves as a Geiger counter for ignorance: I ask most of my contemporaries "Who won the French and Indian War?", and when you tell them that the answer is "The British", they act like it's a trick question. o_o
-
I find the monkier also serves as a Geiger counter for ignorance: I ask most of my contemporaries "Who won the French and Indian War?", and when you tell them that the answer is "The British", they act like it's a trick question. o_o
lol 8)
-
"Why Do We Call it the French Indian Wars?"
The French don't call it the British & Indian Wars.
Actually, we don't call it any name, because our kings just didn't want to think about it, they thought it was no worth fighting for "quelques arpents de neige" (= "a few acres of snow").
-
I must acknowledge Plynkes for this topic,why do we call it the FIW? I believe it should be called The Colony Wars or CW. It can be argued that it was the start of the Seven years war and why Britain sided with Prussia against France and Austria (although Britain and Austria never fought). This alliance was really a pragmatic alliance by the British to shore up Europe while fighting the French in the New World.....and they won! To call it the FIW is really a romantic delusion for a very brutal war.
I don't call it the "French Indian War." I call it the "French and Indian War" because that is what my history teachers and the textbooks called it in the 1950's and 1960's. It is who "we" fought in a declared portion of an ongoing war from the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors until the American War of Independence (aka American Revolution) - some say until the 1900's - between Europeans/Americans and/or their Indian allies versus other Europeans/Americans and their allies. Of course the fighting pre-existed the arrival of Columbus...
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Actually, we don't call it any name, because our kings just didn't want to think about it, they thought it was no worth fighting for "quelques arpents de neige" (= "a few acres of snow").
I can just hear DeGaulle now; "Vive ces arpents de neige! Vive ces arpents de neige libres!" Was there some similar reason why being kicked out of India didn't matter, either?
It's a shame how national pride breeds ignorance. Growing up, I don't think I ever heard anything about English or British defeats. An exception was the American War of Independence, but that was OK because the rebels were British until after they won (France's role never got mentioned). Thanks to Shakespeare, there are probably quite a few people who think that England won the Hundred Years War, too.
-
In France it's simply called 'the War in America' or more precisely 'the War in Canada / Nouvelle France' as a chapter of the ongoing Anglo-French war WAS + SYW. In their own time these last 2 where simply called 'the War in Germany': no need to make clear that it was against the Anglais lol
That Washington was very close to be hanged for 'war crime' when prisoner of the French is, I guess, more often mentioned here than in any English-speaking country :D
-
It's a shame how national pride breeds ignorance. Growing up, I don't think I ever heard anything about English or British defeats.
Hmmm. I don't think it works that way for French memories of French defeats. 19th century drawings of Vercingetorix laying his weapons at Cesar's feet after Alesia have long been in the first pages of French school history books. Crécy, Poitiers, Azincourt, and Joan of Arc's BBQ in Rouen, are better known in France than Formigny and Castillon. etc.
The reason of these commemorations of defeats is probably that French historians of the late 19th century wanted to explain to the country that the 1870-71 FPW defeat should not be discouraging, so they advertised previous French defeats in history. And later, the events of 1939-45 could remind the same idea, so it is believed that France rises again from its defeats.
Of course it's all ideological. The "acres of snow" could not fit in the national myth, in the 19th century no French political party wanted to remind it because the Canadian part had been lost by a king, Louisiana had been sold by emperor Napoleon, and the Republicans were proud of the French help to the US in the AWI.
-
In France it's simply called 'the War in America' or more precisely 'the War in Canada / Nouvelle France' as a chapter of the ongoing Anglo-French war WAS + SYW. In their own time these last 2 where simply called 'the War in Germany': no need to make clear that it was against the Anglais lol
That Washington was very close to be hanged for 'war crime' when prisoner of the French is, I guess, more often mentioned here than in any English-speaking country :D
Usually "war crimes" (a rather 'modern' term) other than large scale atrocities/'genocide' are what "modern day" nation based governments use as blunt political objects to punish other governments that have been defeated and sometimes occupied. The latter allows a more effective example to be made of the defeated government.
War is inherently immoral, accords like the Geneva Conventions (usually) are an attempt to moderate the horror.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I have always used the French and Indian War when refering to the conflict in North America and The Seven Years War when refering to the entire conflict.
Darkoath
Same here and I like the title French and Indian War as it invokes images in my head of wilderness and Indians that I find appealing.
Christopher
-
No matter what you call it, it was a pivotal event in human history. Had not Wolfe succeeded on the Plains of Abraham then the whole world might be listening to Celine Dion now.
-
Between all the doings in Europe, the subcontinent, the North American colonies, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa: the whole foofarangus properly ought to be called the First World War. Unfortunately no-one remembered it in 1939, when a new handle was required for the Great War.
Allen
-
No matter what you call it, it was a pivotal event in human history. Had not Wolfe succeeded on the Plains of Abraham then the whole world might be listening to Celine Dion now.
Please don't joke about that... I grew up in Canada and am still getting over Dion trauma... fortunately I escaped the country before "Beiber fever"... I hear its an epidemic. (This has been corrected, my stupid phone corrected Beiber to Bribery and I failed to notice it)
-
Between all the doings in Europe, the subcontinent, the North American colonies, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa: the whole foofarangus properly ought to be called the First World War. Unfortunately no-one remembered it in 1939, when a new handle was required for the Great War.
Allen
Yes, were it not for the Portuguese and Dutch having duked it out from Brazil to the Moluccas, via Africa, India and most other parts of the known world more than a hundred years beforehand. That would be my candidate for the First World War.
-
Sorry for the spotty memory but when did "formally declared war" become the SOP for European controlled Empires? Perhaps that determines which war gets the "honors" of First World War?
Gracias,
Glenn
-
There was no declared war between the Portuguese and the Dutch.
-
Which is perfectly understandable I suppose from their point of view...
I must admit, I prefer wars with non-partizan labels which don't 'bake in' one or other side's perspective on the conflict... And the F&IW rather fails that test.
Shades here of the debate about the Irish Civil War or Anglo-Irish War, latterly reinvented under the in-vogue appelation: 'the Irish War of Independence'. But best not to open that particular can of worms again... :D
The 'Anglo-Irish War' or 'Irish War of Independence' refers to the January 1919-June 1921 conflict, and did so ever before a single person ever thought of wargaming the thing. You'll also hear people in Ireland refer to the same time period as 'The Tan War', although that was something that older people used to say, and it's not much used these days. There's nothing new about the name. It's been called the War of Independence in Ireland pretty much since the shooting started. If people who aren't Irish want to call it the Anglo-Irish War, well, that's fine I suppose. Doesn't really change the reality of the reason for the fighting, or the outcome.
The Irish Civil War (June 1922 to May 1923) is something else again, and the clue there is in both the dates and name.
-
I think Tan War is a fine name as it reminds me for my fondness of stout and lager in equal measure. More wars should be named after colours, especially the more exotic ones that feature on decorators paint charts. I think the Rose Blush War, would be a fine name for a conflict. It would also make painting miniatures a darn site easier. I vote for all future conflicts to come with Vallejo paint codes.
-
lol
Taken you three years to spot that Patrick. Thank goodness for random threadomancy eh? ;)
The Anglo-Irish War has been known as that in most history books for the greater part of a hundred years. Reinventing that label almost a century later to put a deliberately partizan spin on the name by which the conflict is known is revisionism pandering to today's sensibilities, not the historical context at the time. Out and out independence was not a cause supported or end sought by the overwhelming majority of Irish people or even many of the protagonists when the shooting started.
But we've had this debate before, years ago, and I'm sure we aren't going to change positions on it now. And this board isn't the place for it. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it here, although in fairness, it was three years ago ::)
-
Usually "war crimes" (a rather 'modern' term) other than large scale atrocities/'genocide' are what "modern day" nation based governments use as blunt political objects to punish other governments that have been defeated and sometimes occupied. The latter allows a more effective example to be made of the defeated government.
I entirely agree about the political misuse of the concept in modern times.
Yet during the 18th C. there already were international agreements on Droit de la Guerre, specially regarding the 'fair' treatment of POW; I even read England and France, being almost constantly at war for centuries, had special treaties on the matter. Besides, there were conducts deemed 'noble' and 'ignoble'. To let a prisoner be slaughtered (an officer of noble birth and the brother of an enemy commander, to boot) was decidely 'ignoble'.
Then the North-American theatre was not typical of the Guerre en dentelle: along the Mal Engueulée river, two French cadets gentihommes escorting two young ladies (kind of 'Last of the Mohicans' on the other side) could not prevent their Indian allies to subject the girls to 'a fate worse than death', then reportedly to kill and eat them ???
Between all the doings in Europe, the subcontinent, the North American colonies, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa: the whole foofarangus properly ought to be called the First World War.
The SYW is often mentioned as the 'real' First World War, but then why not the WAS? It was basically the same, specially oversea, and with the Dutch involved. But I remark the SYW is far more popular in wargaming and English-speaking military history circles than the WAS: could it be because the WAS British record was less brilliant? :D
I must admit, I prefer wars with non-partizan labels which don't 'bake in' one or other side's perspective on the conflict.
It's generally the case in France, perhaps because -as already mentioned- we are not allergic to our own defeats (maybe we had more than our share?). Our military 'feasts' often commemorate 'glorious last stands': Sidi-Brahim, Camerone, Dien Bien Phu (commemorated officiously only -political correctness?- by the Légion and the Paras).
The winners write history and impose their terminology: the case of the 'ACW' is typical, it was NOT a 'civil war' for the South (having freely joined the Union they felt free to leave it): the French designation Guerre de Sécession is perfectly 'neutral'.
Btw all names including 'American' are irritatingly ambiguous, because 'America' is not restricted to the USA. The 'founding fathers' were so jealous of the identity and independence of their respective States that they carefully avoided to give a proper name to the Union. Not a nomenclatural / semantic problem at first, but later there were a number of other 'AWI' (another name imposed by the winner: it began as the 1st ACW, actually) specially in Latin America (s.l.) during the 1st half of the 19th C., but also later in Patagonia, in Canada (the French Indians uprising under Riel)... And how many 'ACW' were (are still?) fought in Latin America?
If indeed 'God blesses America' -as so many US politicians ask Him to do- then He blesses also Cuba and Venezuela lol
-
I vote for all future conflicts to come with Vallejo paint codes.
Yes but, please, not any of the fantasy paint ranges.
Do you really want to hear about a "Scrofulous Zombie Grey War" or a "Rotted Goblin Flesh War"?