The Loose Association of Wargamers

Peeler wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 8:19 pm You were quite argumentative prior to retirement really.

That's a good point well made.

Panzer21 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 9:24 pm

Spanner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 2:43 am "Siebenjähriger Krieg" in Germany and Austria, EB.

I think it's just poor research, which is not really unusual in any of the media organisations these days. It's the same here.

I think from the perspective of the Prussians it was the "third Silesian War"......
Neil

Damn and blast! I did a little research before posting, entirely out of character I know, but only looked up the first and second Silesian Wars. I could kick myself. I very nearly had a point there.

Nearly.

Panzer21 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 9:24 pm I think from the perspective of the Prussians it was the "third Silesian War"......
Neil

Probably true, mate. But over the years it seems that "Siebenjähriger Krieg" has become more common. With so many wars between Prussia and Austria they were probably looking for something unique to distinguish between them.

Spanner wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 12:37 am

Panzer21 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 9:24 pm I think from the perspective of the Prussians it was the "third Silesian War"......
Neil

Probably true, mate. But over the years it seems that "Siebenjähriger Krieg" has become more common. With so many wars between Prussia and Austria they were probably looking for something unique to distinguish between them.

Not disputing that, but I think the original post was "what did they call it at the time?"
It highlights, I think, our tendency to approach history retrospectively (which of course is entirely natural and logical) and see broad trends and macro events that perhaps blind us to the perspective of the participants themselves.....
Prussia started by aiming to hold onto the conquest of Silesia, then it became a war of survival.
Austria wanted to regain Silesia and punish Frederick.
The others had less clear aims apart from Britain who vacilitated between protecting Hannover and hurting the French. Despite the war starting in America, the British didn't take it seriously and put real resources in until 1759.
For the Prussians and Austrians it was in many ways a continuation in various rounds of the war for Silesia; for Britain and France, yet another round in the century's battle for supremacy fuelled by rivalry.
Neil

I wonder what they called The Hundred Year's War in the first decade or so of fighting?
Or if you were volunteering to fight in The Thirty Year's War in 1618, did you inquire about pension plans?
"You'll be home by Christmas, lad. Just don't ask WHICH Christmas."

BTW did you notice they play Black Sabbath's 'War Pigs' in the Napoleon trailer. I hadn't realised the song was so old.

donald

Good point, Neil. But as to what they called it at the time? "The War" would be my guess, just like all the others. Giving any war a specific name usually occurs after the war.

Panzer21 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:39 am Despite the war starting in America

I don't agree with that theory, mate, and think that the colonial wars were coincidental with the war in central and eastern Europe. You could as easily claim the Carnatic Wars sparked the SYW. I doubt that the Franco-British colonial squabbling, which had been a constant for decades, influenced either MT or Fred to go to war in more than a marginal way. Eventually MT and Fred were going to go to war again (and would again in 1778), regardless of what was happening in the French and British colonies.

As I recall, the F&I War was started by a certain Mr G Washington poking a certain bear. In French.

(The AWI was then started by us insisting that since they'd set off the F&IW, they ought to pay for it.)

Panzer21 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:39 am It highlights, I think, our tendency to approach history retrospectively (which of course is entirely natural and logical) and see broad trends and macro events that perhaps blind us to the perspective of the participants themselves.....

It may be "natural" but I would dispute that it is logical. History is the story of mankind evolving - the acid test is not "did they follow the same rules we have today" but "were they better than the generation that went before". This has become a fundamental flaw in modern historiography, and I believe is known as the "rear view mirror approach" - typified by "Ooooh, we don't do that today, so if they were doing it back then, they MUST be evil." The problem is that the act under discussion was, very often, completely legal back then and so no crime was committed at the time (eg slavery). You cannot retrospectively convict people of something that was perfectly legal - and moreover universally legal throughout the world - when they did it.

I have always rather liked the War of Jenkins Ear myself.