The Seven Year's War was considered to be the first world war, as it was fought in North America, Europe, India, and on the seas. How and by whom the war was won is important, because it was a turning point in history. To set the stage, the British had superior naval support and had more troops in North America. Britain's aims were to destroy the navy and merchant marine of France, take its colonies, and eliminate economic competition. ( http://americanhistory.miningco.com/education /americanhistory/library/weekly/aa042897.htm) The French had less troops, but had the leadership of Marquis de Montcalm, and strong native allies. Focusing on the war in the North American frontier, it can be seen that the French and British tactics were similar, but based on different factors. The Native Americans fought a guerilla war against both sides, mainly the British. These armies met at forts within the continent to decide the fate of North America. The British forces in North America won the French and Indian War due to tactical and numerical superiority.
The similarity of weapons and tactics between the French and English ensured a predictable battle, unlike those against the natives. (Black, pg. 105) The British relied on numbers and superior troops to win battles. At the siege of Louisbourg, ten thousand troops attacked with 39 warships and 10 transport ships supporting. At the siege of Quebec, the British had about nine thousand troops on the field. ( http://www.digitalhistory.org) The British would use their numerical superiority to fight a battle in the traditional European fashion:
They began to give fire by the column, the first line firing, then kneeling to reload so the second line could fire. Then the second line kneeling to allow the third to fire. In this way, they could keep up a continuous fire. ( http://www.digitalhistory.org)
This method, and bayonet charges, kept an enemy at bay, and with superior numbers, was greatly effective against similar formations. However, natives hiding in the woods could destroy British columns easily. The red coat of the English soldier made identification and targeting very easy for hostile natives hiding in the woods. The British, however, would eventually adapt:
But soon these guerrilla tactics backfired. The redcoats no longer panicked at thought of Indians, the rangers had taught them better. They now turned their jackets inside out and dubbed the linings with clay. They had darkened their gun barrels, and took to the woods in small groups. Before long the Indians were complaining that the redcoats no longer stood still and allowed themselves to be killed. ( http://www.digitalhistory.org)
They effectively adopted native guerilla tactics and used them against the natives. This development saved many soldiers from a massacre related to that of the debatable Fort William Henry incident. The British had the right idea to incorporate native tactics, and this advantage allowed them to defeat the local natives and reduce resistance to British imperialism.
The resistance of British domination in North America came from the French, and supplemented by French native allies. Under General Marquis de Montcalm, the French started off with an offensive campaign against the English. The native allies of France were a great help in the war on the side of the French. The tribes would be used as scouts and skirmishers, and could attack British columns marching through the woods. The French army would advance, three rows deep, with Canadians and Indians on their flanks. They held their fire until they were within one hundred yards of the British lines. ( http://www.digitalhistory.org) The Native Americans balanced out the conflict and filled in the holes where French numbers were inadequate. The natives themselves had unique fighting styles that hampered British advancement. It began with the terrifying yells (psychological warfare) of the Indians, and steady fire of musketry at extreme range. Then, drawing closer, the Indians launched a series of brief, stabbing attacks, always falling back when counterattacked, always striking again from another quarter. ( http://www.digitalhistory.org ) In General Braddock's case, Native American tactics spelled out his doom. Him and his men were ambushed on July 9th, 1755, on a road while traveling to Fort Duquesne:
Despite Washington's warnings, Braddock's troops marched in typical European fashion--long rows of men, drums beating and banners flying. For the French and Indians hiding in the woods and behind rocks it was target practice. Whenever the English tried to break ranks and fight the same way as the enemy, the English officers beat their men back into their columns. The English (including Braddock) were slaughtered. Only Washington's wood-wise tactics staved off annihilation and was able to retreat. (http://americanhistory.about.com/homework/americanhistory/library/weekly/aa042897.htm?once=true&)
By the end of the day, over 900 British men were killed, including Braddock. (http://www.digitalhistory.org) The overall situation at the beginning of the war favoured the French and natives. They could move quickly along trade routes protected by French forts and guided by skilled natives. In 1757, it seemed that the French still had the advantage, climaxing with the fall of Fort William Henry in August. However, in the next year, the Battle of Minden and the naval blockade of the French naval base of Brest in Europe changed the course of the North American war, as the British could afford to send more troops and equipment to North America than the French. This numerical superiority eventually won the war.
Troops in numbers were a decisive element in the French and Indian War, but one factor determined control of an area and posed a threat to the opposing faction. Forts, fortresses, and citadels would do these things. The forts in North America were an intertwined wed of dependencies. ( http://www.digitalhistory.org) Forts close to large waterways would be heavily supplied, and the supplies would be transferred from there to other, farther inland forts. When forts fell, like at Fort Frontinac in what is now Kingston, the web would lose support and crumble. Many forts suffered from the loss of the supplies that were captured by the British in 1758 and 1759, and all forts to the west were cut off from the web. (http://www.digitalhistory.org) Since forts were such a nuisance, with the ability to incur into enemy territory, it was necessary to destroy them if they interfered with military operations. To destroy a fort, an infantry charge would be ineffective, so sieges were required. This tactic dates back to the early history of civilization. With the weapons of the time, sieges involved heavy cannons and mortars. The attacker dug trenches surrounding, and then nearing the enemy fort. Trenches were built so close that artillery placed in them were in such an effective range that is was not possible, let alone very deadly, to resist capitulation. If the garrison resisted, the walls would be mined. (http://www.digitalhistory.org) At Fort William Henry in 1757, the attacking French dug trenches so close that the British Lt. Colonel Monro was forced to surrender within days. Forts could also operate as a base of operations for a striking force. Captain Robert Rogers led Rogers' Rangers, a unit that operated from Fort William Henry. His scouting allowed the British to monitor the enemy's movements towards the fort, (http://www.digitalhistory.org) although General Webb at Fort Edward failed to send reinforcements before or during the siege of Fort William Henry. Using these forts as launch points allowed the British to hold North American positions from French and Native assaults until more troops could be sent to win conflicts by numerical superiority.
The French and Indian War was a victory for Britain, and the victory was a result of tactical and numerical superiority over France. The British ability to adapt allowed the British to win battles against devious natives and French soldiers. The lack of French numbers heralded the loss of their Canadian possessions. The fort systems of each nation prolonged a hold out against the opposition, until the French system crumbled in 1759. The effects of the Seven Year's War in total meant the security of an English North America, British domination in India, and Britain's affirmation of colonial power. It also set the stage for British domination of the world, domination that could only be challenged by Napoleon.
Works Cited
Black, Jeremy. Warfare in the Eighteenth Century. Great Britain: Cassel Publishing. 1999.
http://americanhistory.miningco.com/education/americanhistory/library/weekly/aa042897.htm (June 7, 2000)
http://www.digitalhistory.org (May 8, 2000)
http://www.rrangers.org/history.html (June 7, 2000)
Biblyography
Black, Jeremy. Warfare in the Eighteenth Century. Great Britain: Cassel Publishing. 1999.
Eccles, W. J. "The Seven Year's War" Canadian & World Encyclopedia, 1998
http://americanhistory.miningco.com/education/americanhistory/library/weekly/aa042897.htm (June 7, 2000)
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/scott.html (May 8, 2000)
http://www.digitalhistory.org (May 8, 2000)
http://www.magweb.com/sample/s7yw/s7y91fr.htm (May 8, 2000)
http://www.rrangers.org/history.html (June 7, 2000)