The Loose Association of Wargamers

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 4:58 pm 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.

Well said, your Baronship. It's distilled arrogance if you believe that people of the past were too stupid or evil to reach the "enlightened" mores of today. You can add idiocy to the arrogance for those who believe the people of today are responsible for what previous generations have done.

Ilkley Old School wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 5:49 pm I have always rather liked the War of Jenkins Ear myself.

With or without sauce, Ilkley?

Spanner wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 12:55 pm 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.

I think you have taken too much from that sentence.
I'm not presenting an argument that the various colonial wars had any connection to central Europe. If I was, I'd be arguing for it being the 9 years war (1754 to 1763) ☺
My point was that the participants viewed it from their perspective which differed widely; Frederick couldn't care less about Canada but wanted Britain / Hannover tying up the French.
It's also an interesting point on when technically Britain and France were at war in North America; while territorial disputes between militia may not count, I'd argue that Braddock's expedition and seizing French warships with troops on board crossed a line. Thus all those retrospective histories of the SYW that include North America should perhaps be renamed...
Neil

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 4:58 pm

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 think you are attributing more than was intended by my remarks; undoubtedly I expressed myself poorly.
My response was addressing the question of what they called it at the time; that is what we now call "the Seven Years War".
From a C20th perspective we see it as natural and logical to incorporate the Prussian / Austrian rivalry in Europe with Britain's colonial asperations as all being part of the same conflict as we are conditioned by two major global conflicts in the C20th century. I'm not arguing the C21st perspective that incorporates morality in a skewed and biased fashion to fit a modern narrative.
Most of that morality is very poor history; slavery is rightly condemned from a moral perspective, but without any insight into contemporary values, being replaced by C21st standards of behaviour. It is denounced as the prerogative of white western colonialism, while ignoring the essential involvement of African and Arab slavers without whom it would not have worked.

One poster said they probably called it " the war" which I think is probably true; I think Lloyd(?) writing after the event called it the "Late War in Germany" ( thus ignoring America and India).

Neil

Good points, mate. I think Fred got a very unpleasant surprise when the "impossible" happened and France Allied with Austria- and left him with the British as an ally. He knew the British would be distracted from (in his view) the main event by the colonial wars and that would restrict the number of troops they could field in Europe. Whether he considered that the same was true of the French? I don't know.

Personally I think they should probably be considered as separate, but loosely connected, wars. A bit like the War of 1812, perhaps?

Panzer21 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:55 am I think you are attributing more than was intended by my remarks; undoubtedly I expressed myself poorly.

Fair point - touches all round!

Panzer21 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:55 am Most of that morality is very poor history; slavery is rightly condemned from a moral perspective, but without any insight into contemporary values, being replaced by C21st standards of behaviour. It is denounced as the prerogative of white western colonialism, while ignoring the essential involvement of African and Arab slavers without whom it would not have worked.

Anyone who takes the point of view of slavery being a white western "disease" has a very poor grasp on reality slavery was and is universal. It was extremely important in African society long before the white man turned up and the Arabic slave trade was so successful on the east coast of the continent that it was copied by the Spanish, initially, on the west coast. Then there's certain groups of society bemoaning historical slavery whilst being happy to buy and use the products produced by modern slavery, that they could actually do something about.

Paul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 1:04 pm
Anyone who takes the point of view of slavery being a white western "disease" has a very poor grasp on reality

More probably an agendum of their own, Paul, that involves ignoring or actually denying the broader history of slavery.

True, but Arabs got rich on oil, White Western slavers got rich on tobaccos, cotton and sugar.

The British Empire drive and Industrial revolution was paid for by the profits of slavery.

Not facing that truth is tantamount to saying, well Nazi Germany was not the only place with Concentration Camps....

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:20 pm True, but Arabs got rich on oil, White Western slavers got rich on tobaccos, cotton and sugar.

The British Empire drive and Industrial revolution was paid for by the profits of slavery.

Not facing that truth is tantamount to saying, well Nazi Germany was not the only place with Concentration Camps....

Except of course whether slavers or industrial barons, this was at the expense of the exploited, be they African slaves or Lancashire child labourers.
You can argue degrees of servitude and suffering, but the reality is the wealth generated remains in a small percentage of the population and those exploited live short miserable lives.
I'm not sure what point you're making with the last sentence, unless it's in connection with the British Empire inventing them, but it strikes me we are rapidly approaching Godwin's Law.
For myself, this discussion has got way too dark; I came here to talk toy soldiers.......☺
Neil

It was a response to those who say, But other people dealt in slavery, so why should the white western beneficiaries be the ones to feel bad.

The final comment, well the USA has run one since 2001, and Israel is currently creating one with political western support...

And last of all, thank you for the hilarity of Panzer claiming Godwins law!