This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Silesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why is the intro picture of the Plains of Abraham? The British and French contributed the least of all the major powers who participated, unless you include Sweden though Sweden had declined in power a fair amount by this point, France only fought 3 or 4 disastrous battles in Europe and I don't think Britain ever had much more than a couple of thousand soldiers in Europe for most of the war, Prussia lost 5X more soldiers than Britain even contributed to the whole war. The vast majority of the fighting was between Prussia and Austria, with Russia following close up. Most of the commanders and combatants on both sides were Germans: Austrians, Saxons, Brunswickers, Hanoverians, Prussians etc (keep in mind, many of the "British" forces were actually Germans) and all the largest and most important battles occurred in Europe, there were less than 10,000 combatants in total at the Plains of Abraham, the Prussians alone had 50,000 troops at Kunersdorf, of whom over 20,000 were casualties. Many historians consider the whole North American and Indian theaters to be a separate conflict between France and Britain. Point being, there's about a thousands paintings that would make a better representation than some Anglocentric glorification of a battle which is really only significant to Canadians, no offense to Canadians, this whole article is Anglo-Americancentric. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, there's other pictures giving a better introducing to the war with its main theater in Europe. However, I think a split image (See World War II and Great Northern War) would fit the best here, representing all theaters. Imonoz (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, that sounds like a better idea. This was one of the most important conflicts in history, a more comprehensive article would be good. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the idea of a photo "montage" - although the West painting is indisputably the most famous image of the war, it is only one facet. Disagree, however, with OP's assertion that the Brits and French played only a minor, supporting role. That's just wishful revisionism. Cdtew (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Okey, so we all agree with the idea, suggest some important pictures (already on Wikimedia Commons) representing the war and I/WE will work something out. Imonoz (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that, you don't agree to a split image? I'm not an expert in this war, therefore I need help with what images are the most important. Imonoz (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I think he was saying he didn't agree with a minor contention I made, which is fine. I think he's saying he wants the Prussians to be featured prominently in the montage. Cdtew (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
How am I being revisionist? Germans contributed orders of magnitude more than France or Britain. 50,000 Prussians at Kunersdorf, Britain never fielded anywhere near that many troops throughout the whole war, their little colonial victories would have been for naught if Prussia hadn't defeated the Russians and Austrians, France would have simply demanded their colonies back. You can make arguments about the implications of the colonial conflicts on the future of Britain and North America, but lets not forget this was also a critical war in world history from the German and general European point of view. The war marked the decline of Austria and the ascendancy of Prussia, with all the implications that had for German unification, the World Wars and the Cold War. I would recommend reading "The Seven Years War in Europe: 1756-1763" by Franz Szabo, his whole premise is that historians neglect the European theater and after reading about the Austrians, Prussians and Russians engaging each other with armies in the 10,000s, France's few continental battles and Britain's regiments capturing colonies and islands here and there seem somewhat less impressive. Having the Plains of Abraham as the pic for this war is like having the Australians on the Kokoda Track as the main picture for WW2. Also, what relevance does the popularity of the picture have? This is an encyclopedia, not a Top 40 pop chart, the picture should be the most relevant. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, hoss, take a minute there to breathe, why don't you? I conceded the point that the West picture shouldn't solely represent the war. Orders of Magnitude? I've read Szabo, and even he would concede that, while the European War is oft-forgotten, this was was essentially and quintessentially a world-wide colonial war, within the confines of which was provided a cockpit for the central European powers to vie with each other for supremacy. This is no place to get defensive or to take a Germanophile (or Anglophile) stance; it's sufficient merely to recognize that without Prussia's work in central Europe, Britain wouldn't have had a victory, just as it is true that without Britain and France crossing bayonets over the wilderness of the Ohio Valley, and Britain's choice of Prussia as an ally in the Diplomatic Revolution, Prussia wouldn't have had a war. Now, let's get to being productive, and you suggest some images to go in a montage. Oh, and this montage won't be worth the bytes it will consume without The Death of General Wolfe. This isn't a popularity contest, but it being the most widely-viewed image in the English-speaking world of the war, it deserves a spot. Cdtew (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't the actual occupation limited to Havana and Manila? Not to take merit away from taking a capital, but there is a world between that and garrisoning the whole country.--Menah the Great (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My bookshelf is in disarray at present, but my understanding is that the British captured Manila on October 5, 1762. Archbishop Rojo, who was the acting Spanish Governor General, signed a surrender document on October 6.
Zaide, Sonia M. (1994), The Philippines: A Unique Nation, All-Nations Publishing Co., pp. 174–178, ISBN971-642-0714 says that Din Simon de Anda y Salazar, a member of Spain's Royal Audencia, escaped the fall of Manila, established himself in Bacoor, Pampanga and continued a Spanish government from there with himself assuming the office of Governor General because Rojos was a prisoner of the British. Zaide quotes a letter Anda wrote to King Charles III of Spain on July 23, 1764 as saying, "Consequently, at one and the same time we have three governors — the Englishman (Drake — Z), recognized by the Archbishop; the latter, for thus he signed; and yself, because your Majesty gave me that post by your laws." (Zaide 1994:178, 432).
Fish, Shirley (2003), When Britain ruled the Philippines, 1762–1764, 1stBooks Library, pp. 152–159, ISBN978-1-4107-1069-7 says that the British ignored Anda's claims of legitimacy and that Anda organized a resistance movement in an attempt to prevent British control from spreading beyond Manila and Cavite using guerilla tactics. The British launched an offensive against Anda on 8 November 1762 which seems (according to Fish pp.158-159) to have meandered through Maubunga (Pasig?), Cainta, Taytay, and Batangas.
I don't have any info on the British in Cuba and have not done any research, but I note that the Battle of Havana (1762) article says that the Spanish lost "Havana and Western Cuba" to the British. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘A recent edit to this article brought it up on my watchlist, and the assertion that the British were "confined to Manila in a deteriorating military situation" caught my eye. My books covering this are not handy, but this seems inconsistent with the British occupation of Manila article. I see that the assertion re a deteriorating situation was added without support in this edit, and I'm removing it. I may revisit this once I am reunited with my books. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
BRD: Europe vs. North America order in Background
I recently moved a couple paragraphs in the Background section, putting the War of Austrian Succession paragraphs before the ones on North America. The next edit reverted this, with the comment "Anglo-French hostilities predated the Austro-Prussian". That's not what the text itself states. The paragraph on War of the Austrian Succession (WotAS) starts with "lasted from 1740 to 1748", while the first paragraph on North American backgrounds starts with "boundary between British and French possessions... was largely undefined in the 1750s". Anglo-French hostilities do indeed go back a thousand years, but we have no sourced text saying this led to the 7 Year's War, while the connection between Frederick's seizure of Silesia and this war is direct and well-sourced.
We might "fix" the text to point out that Britain and France have often been at odds throughout history, and put this before WotAS, if some source can be found stating it was a direct cause to this war. But even so, the boundary disputes in America would still be a separate cause, not a continuation of that cause. Thus the chronological order would still have the 1740s WotAS before the 1750s boundaries in NA.
Plus, there's WP:UNDUE. If WotAS hadn't happened, we probably wouldn't have the 7 Year's War; we'd have some smaller form of the French and Indian War only. If the boundary disputes hadn't happened, Europe would still have the 7 Year's War to resolve Frederick taking Silesia in WotAS. Per sources, WotAS is more significant cause than NA boundaries, so should appear first.