Why Do We Call it the French Indian Wars?

[Darkoath]

  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!     Perhaps the Major can be convinced to tell us his plans for 2010?

Darkoath

[Galloping Major]

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!     Perhaps the Major can be convinced to tell us his plans for 2010?

Darkoath

Thanks guys 

Next: more Rangers 
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........   

[Darkoath]

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

[Galloping Major]

Gawd blind me, Darkoath,  have you managed to hack into my brain? 
At this rate there'll be few surprises left 

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 

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 

Cheers,

Lance

[Hummster]

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...

[abdul666lw]

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

[Galloping Major]

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"  

Whatever we call it, I'm sure we can all agree, it's a fascinating historical period  

www.gallopingmajorwargames.com

[Legion1963]

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

[SBRPearce]

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.

[Galloping Major]

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.

 

[Patrice]

"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").

[Conquistador]

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

[Steve F]

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.

[abdul666lw]

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

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

[Patrice]

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.