Talk:Seven Years' War/Archive 1

References, Links
this page includes a large amount of history, yet has only 1 reference and 3 links. I think this page needs more references and citations--pmoney 09:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Stormbay, why did you remove my references tag? the article obviously lacks sources - how do we know any of this information is accurate? where did it come from? sources are needed. I'm tagging it again. PMoney 06:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One narrowly focussed source is mentioned in the entire article. This page amply deserves the unreferenced tag.Hughespj 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Seven Years" is the name of the war. THat's how it was written at the time, no?

Anyway, the page says that france had "4 islands left" but it had the Louisiana purchase as well, didn't it? SpookyMulder 18:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No; France sold it to Spain, which was under less pressure to make peace. Napoleon "persuaded" Spain to give it back in 1802, when he had plans in the New World. Septentrionalis 04:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be incorrect to claim that France had only four islands left. They still had French Guiana, in addition to several islands: Martinique, Guadeloupe, St Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint-Pierre, Miquelon, etc. Bastin8 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They also still had a presence in India, admittedly a very reduced one.Lord C (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cost
To fight the 7 years war, Britain had borrowed from banks and investors over 150 million pounds. The equivalent of 10' of trillions of dollars in today's money. Interest on the debt absorbed half the government's annual revenue. - Give me Liberty, An American history, by eric foner pg. 169.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.228.180 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Participants
The infobox makes a gross simplification of the war. It leaves out some major combatants (e.g. Spain), vassals (e.g. Ireland), national monopolists (e.g. BEIC), and German states (e.g. Hesse-Kassel). Although, of course, it would be difficult to name all combatants, having smaller flags (or none at all) may go some way to persuading the reader that the list isn't as authoritative as it seems to be. Alternatively, as with WW1 and WW2, it could list the main countries, and link to an article detailing all combatant nations. Bastin8 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to do this, so you can move or even delete this if it's wrongly placed, but I noticed one small matter that may not even be a problem: Half of the artical's dates are written DD MM, then all of the sudden they change to MM DD, I'm not sure if it matters, just thought I'd mention it.

Why is the Subah of Bengal not included in the participants infobox, it was a central theater in the war in India (of coarse it could be argued that Bengal is merely an autonomous art of the Mughal Empire, but in that case the Mughal Empire should be listed a participant)--99.148.25.245 (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Seven Years' War -> Seven Years War. I recommend deleting the apostrophe; it is unnecessary and unidiomatic in English. The result of this vote should be applied to subpages and categories for consistency, without separate discussion. Septentrionalis 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support Septentrionalis 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - without the apostrophe it should be "Seven-Year War"
 * Oppose - see Talk:Hundred Years' War.
 * Support' -- The war does not belong to seven years it is a war seven years long. We do not write "Anglo-French's war" --Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ungrammatical and not hard to type. -- Arwel (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - war does not belong to Seven Years, nor is Seven Years war. -- Миборовский U 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is a stupid discussion. It is a war of Seven Years.  Therefore it is possessive, therefore an apostrophe.  QED.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

featured article status?
it would take a lot of work, but I would like to see this article reach featured article status. I would like to see this happen because I believe the majority of americans are unaware of the entire scope of this war. I know my personal american public education experience only covered the events involving the colonies. this war had far reaching consequences, and like the churchill quote suggests, is essentially the first world war. it can be argued that this war influenced and set many things in motion that have impacted the history of and formation of the modern western world. many americans are oblivious to this war outside of the american side of it. perhaps this goal is a bit ambitious considering the amount of information inluded in this article, but I would like to see it happen. PMoney 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, it was the first world war, and has been forgotten ever since...in Europe only "French revolution, French revolution" (or in the USA probably "War of Independence, War of Independence") is preached nowadays, how poor. But I'd like to know English history lessons, beside the important Seven Years' War they probably also teach how to kill their own emperors (Charles I) and destroy their own society (through "commonwealth") until the Dutch saved Britannia. ;) --178.197.228.81 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey there folks.
Hey everyone, I am User: J Dogg and I think this is a fantastic page. However, it could use some expanding. I would like to help. I wrote a 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 page research paper on the North American part of the War, French and Indian War for my Canadian History course (I am Canadian). I recieved a 97 % on the paper and have credible sources (Several books including a book less than one year old.) I expanded several sections about the North American part of the war. My sources are: 1. Empires at War:  The struggle for North America by William H Fowler Jr. Published in Vancouver by Douglas & McIntyre Ltd. 2005. 2. With Wolfe to Quebec  by Oliver Warner, published in Toronto by William Collins Sons * Company Ltd. 1972 3. History of Europe Since 1500 (revised edition) by Hayes and Coles. Published in New York by MacMillian Company. 1956

Also, the proper name of the War is the Seven Years' War, this name was the name that is used in all of the articles and books that I have encountered.

I also plan on expanding more of the North American aspects of the war in the near future. If anyone has any questions or comments/feedback, then please contact me at User talk: J Dogg J Dogg 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)J Dogg

Indians?

 * the nine-year North American conflict or the Indian campaigns which lasted 15 years (including Pontiac's Rebellion), which are known as the French and Indian War.

Does "Indian campaigns" and "French and Indian War" refer to the conflict in India, or to the involvement of American Indians? This should be clarified.
 * Native Americans, see French and Indian War under "nomenclature". --Awiseman 21:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This reference site is a joke. There is not one mention of the Indians in the "French-INDIAN" war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.245 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pomeranian War
The introduction states that this was also known as the Pomeranian War, but there is no more about this in the article. I'm assuming it was also called this because the Prussians and Russians largely fought in Pomerania, but if someone can clarify this point, I would appreciate it. --Raulpascal 16:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon, I meant Sweden and Prussia, not Russia and Prussia. --Raulpascal 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

War Trivia
If anyone cares, in this period, an army of 100 thousand would be accompanied by 40 thousand horses, which would need to graze 324ha pasture/day (meaning campaigning between October & May was next to impossible), & bread wagons would deliver up to 64km. See Dyer, War. Trekphiler 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Complete re-write
There is so much wrong with this article – this is one of the major wars of history.

Structurally and substantially, the article needs a complete overhaul eg; The section called ‘Start of the war’ consist of just two sentences.

Why is there a list of battles at the end of the article? Isn’t that what campaign boxes are for?

There’s no in-line citation and the references are very poor.

Would it be possible for someone ie: me, to completely re-write the article? Would anyone have any objections? Raymond Palmer 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By all means, tear it apart. In its current form the article is appalling (Do people seriously believe that the Battle of the Monongahela was relevant to the European war in the slightest, and that George Washington's reputation is a more compelling subject of historical analysis than, say, the 1,000 men fallen in Braddock's ignominious defeat?). Albrecht 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please please rewrite. As it stands, the article is a bit of a muddle. Just scanning it, it seems to put so much weight on the North American campaigns, as if the European theatre grew out of it. Let's have a well-constructed article with lots of good narrative and analysis! --Iacobus 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I got lost reading : "Prussia had the protection only of Great Britain, which was given because the ruling dynasty saw its ancestral Hanoverian possession as being threatened by France."

Courtesy of Gavla 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the battles in North America began before war was declared you could say that the European conflict did grow out of it. Not only that but also considering that France was defeated here before anywhere else this gave England the ability to shift troops to new theatres win there then shift even more troops to another front so you could say British victory in North America caused a domino affect. Just a few of my thoughts. User:ShadowLands

Yes, I think it should be rewritten as the significance of the war on the European front doesn't really come across. And, I need for it to come across really well and memorably, and preferrably in the first few paragraphs because I am using wikipedia to study for my Western Civilization II exam, and for everything else but this, so far (esp. for wc I), it has been great. I'd offer to help, but as you can read, I don't know anything about it. Thank you to anyone who will rewrite it well.

Dots on the map?
What are the green dots on the map of Poland? It's in Polish. --AW 22:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anyone still cares, but in that info box on the map the title at the top basically says "operations/workings of the Russian army in Polish territory during Seven Years' War 1756-1762", then the green arrows are to represent "movement of the Russian army", and the green dots are "winter bases of the Russian army" (in that last one, it could be "bases" or "camps" or something similar) Sebastian32 04:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I updated the caption --AW 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Move American content to French and Indian War page?
I think that part of the problem with this page is that it trys to span both sides of the Atlantic, while maintaining a separate page for the French and Indian War. Maintaining the large amount of American content on this page only slows down and distracts from the european part of the war. The two pages should certainly make reference to each other, but too much focus on american content may be part of what is distracting from conveying the european war. -Gomm 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As the naming section says
 * "The Seven Years' War, despite separation from England. The North American theatre is called the French and Indian War in the United States but not in Britain, Canada, or France, where it is treated as part of the larger conflict."


 * It was a (the?) major theatre for the British, as it has been moved out of this article then the introduction in the article [French and Indian War]] needs to be changed to reflect this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Russia?
is that the appropriate flag for the Russian Empire during this time?

- No it is not. Until 1853, the Tsar's Emblem was used: [] SKaiser (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone should really change that, the Tsars emblem looks so much better anyway.Willski72 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sugar?
In the Peace section, it doesn't seem very smart that France having to choose between New France (HUGE portion of land) and Guadeloupe (an island of just 1600km2) would choose the latter just because it could provide her with sugar. Of course all this based on today's standards. Could someone who knows, expand in the text on this decision by France? Perhaps explain why sugar supply was so important and why exactly France couldn't get its supply from somewhere else. Thanx!


 * Well I imagine that French rule in New France a.k.a. North America was severly eroded by a larger and more successful British Regular and Militia force. So its not so much of a choice here, they "chose" to keep the sugr island cos its more tenable. Large amounts of land are not of any strategic value unless they contain a large population (for raising troops or workers) or resources. Look at Siberia, that did not help Russia very much in world war 1 for example, so it does make sense sometimes to give up large land for less.Tourskin 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sugar was a really important resource back then as well, it was really valuable. --AW 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No India?
Has anyone noticed that the only reference that this page (Oct 18) has of the Indian theater of the Seven Years War was a link to French India and no mention of Clive? It's like someone a hundred years from now decides to drop the War in the Pacific from a seemingly extensive article on WWII simply because it is considered too trivial to mention. Edital 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Messed up info box
The contents is in teh war box and there is lots of un-recognized code there. Someone please fix it, I have no idea what the intended layout was.Tourskin 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe?
Why is there an apostrophe after the word "years". This would denote posession, which doesn't seem logical. The absence of an apostrophe would mean that there were more than 1 year involved. Wouldn't this be more logical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit links messed up
The edit links for Names, Causes, and War Begins are all appearing right above War Begins for me. I'm running Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Ubuntu, and I've never seen this problem before. JoshNarins (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

smollett history of the seven years' war.
Hi. i have the smollett history of this war and it is comtemporary (or very nearly so) to the actual events. it is clear that he has had access to official documents, war diaries, gazettes etc and it is written as a quasi chronicle, almost on a day to day basis. my edition is 1822, but the text was written circa 1765. i would be willing to upload this material (it would take a while to prepare, there is a lot of it) if the original compilers/editors of this page would be interested and feel that it would be useful. would somebody let me know please. bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Condell (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea, but it should probably be uploaded to Wikisource rather than directly here. Kirill 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pomeranian War
Pomeranian War redirects here and the only mention of it is in the headline, telling me briefly that the Seven Years' War encompasses the Pomeranian War. I'm assuming the Pomeranian War was either a war fought over little dogs, or had something to do with Germany (Saxony). Maybe Pomeranian War should be described or mentioned(if it is already described) or a seperate article could be created for it, as the French & Indian War article. Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I was just wondering why the article references Japan having an army of Ninja turtles..... someone has a sense of humourGigi

Which Prussian flag is right?
The infobox in the article uses both Image:Flag of Prussia (1701).gif and Image:Flag of Prussia (1750).gif. Judging by the years during which the war took place, I am tempted to say that the 1750 version is the correct one, but want confirmation. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

War in the colonies
The section of this article title "War in the Colonies" is largely redundant. I'm going to delete the unnecessary parts.--Bosco 12 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry... I misread it--Bosco 12 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seven Years War or Seven Years' War
Which is correct? Mooretwin (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that Seven Years War might be - I've seen different booths using different spellings. I'm not sure which is the most common or the most correct, I'm afraid my grammar isn't up to scratch. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Length of the war
We state multiple times in the article that "the war lasted nine years," yet date it as lasting from "1756-1763". Clearly we need to reconcile these two positions. Either we argue that the North American fighting from 1754-56 was part of this (and thus date the war as lasting from 1754-63), or we decide that those two years weren't part of it and state that it was, indeed a seven-year war. Funnyhat (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you can balance the two together. The fighting did last nine years, and it was really one war, but obviously this article only cover from 56-63. It's the problem of having two seperate articles when really there should be one. The French and Indian War is simply the American name for what all the other participants (French, Britain, Canadian.etc) call this war. If they were merged then the dates of this could be changed to 54-63, but I doubt there is much chance of that happening.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While it can certainly appear confusing I don't think the bascic problem is something we can easily solve. I'm not sure having an article with the dates 1754-1763 below a title '7 years war' would necessarily achieve any more clarity for a reader unfamiliar with the topic, although it is accurate if anything it might create more confusion? As to merging the two articles I'd certainly agree best practice would be to merge them. However, length might become a slight concern? Kurtk60 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and, of course, this is complicated by the existence of the Nine Years' War article, which discusses an earlier war (1688–1697). I have no personal expertise on this, having come to this article out of interest in related information in the British occupation of the Philippines article which is hardly mentioned here; Googling around, however, I found a chronology at which seems to support dating the war between the declaration of war between France and Britain on 17 May 1756 and the Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Hubertusburg in 1763. That book has six pages on "Background to war" which discusses events leading up to the formal declaration of war. At, I see: "The French invasion of Minorca in April 1756 was the event that sparked a formal declaration of war ...". Perhaps this article should make that point clearer. IMHO, this article unnecessarily confuses things by saying that the war lasted nine years. FWICS, the war itself lasted seven years, preceded by a number of confrontations and conflicts, mostly in North America but coming to a head with the aforementioned French invasion of Minorca. (see ) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

On Background
I know its really a bit touchy but on the Background bit it talks about the perfect alliance between Prussia with the biggest army in Continental Europe and Britain with the biggest navy in Europe. Wasnt Britain's navy the biggest in the world? This suggests that their was a country with an even bigger navy outside Europe and i cant think of one. I know it seems a bit touchy but people may not realise because in modern times having the biggest navy in Europe wouldnt be the same as having the biggest navy in the world.Willski72 (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A good point, and since the emphasis is on effectiveness not raw numbers in the article it seems reasonable. Since no one seems to have objected changed accordingly Kurtk60 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Willski72 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Map showing the participants of the Seven Years' War
This map is not referenced. Large part of India is shown in Green(illustrating France, Spain or their allies). This is absolutely wrong. During this period almost the whole of India was under the Maratha Empire. Somebody kindly go through this at the earliest otherwise i'll have to delete this map. Kesangh (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to click on the map and read its full legend you would see that it says "Light green: French largest expansion in India, c. 1751.". Anyways, I will remove that exact part of the map since it may not be fully related to this war as it is was merely a temporary possession (and probably somewhat unrelated). -GabaG (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seven vs Nine
To explain the discrepancy in years, I suggest that the original European historians didn't attach much importance to the earlier fighting in America, and therefore dated the war 1756-1763. Americans and Canadians likewise were preoccupied with the war taking place on their territory and ignored the European histories. By the time communications improved between Europe and America, and the two conflicts were recognized as one large war, it was too late to change the name "Seven Years War" in the history books, just as inertia kept the "French and Indian War" name in the US histories. CharlesTheBold (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Charlesthebold's comment right? It might be helpful to discuss the etymology of 'Seven Years War' (ie. not 9) in the etymology section, rather than just the alternative names used. Drobba (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Republic
I made some some small changes as far as the Dutch republic is concerned. Firstly, I changed the reference to the 'Netherlands' in the second paragraph to the 'Dutch Republic' as being the correct name for the state at the time. Secondly, in the same sentence I inserted 'citation needed' as for the reference to an attack on Dutch forces in 'India'. Although such an attack maybe took place (I have no clue) it is not clear who attacked, and where exactly this attack took place. There is also no mention of this attack in the chapter about India in this article, which I think there should be if such significant attack indeed took place. Thirdly, I changed the part in the third paragraph of the 'War in Europe' chapter where it refers to the Dutch Republic being the 'historic allies' of the British. There were at least four wars between the Dutch Republic and the British in the 17th and 18th centuries (see Anglo–Dutch_Wars) so this seems not historically accurate to me. --Vunzmstr (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to your points
 * 1) you are correct about the name so I support the change.


 * 2)The battle took place at the Battle of Chinsurah in 1759, but I'm not sure it should be in the lead. If it is probably needs to be clarified to something like "a force from the neutral Dutch Republic clashed with the British in India". It had no real impact on the wider war, as the Dutch repudiated their commander's actions and the two states remained on good terms.


 * 3) While you are right they had fought three wars between 1652 and 1674, these twenty odd years were a blip in the long-term relations. The English had assisted the Dutch in gaining independence from Spain, while the Dutch had helped repulse the Spanish Armada. Shortly before the First Anglo-Dutch War, Cromwell had proposed a union between the states. From 1688 to 1756 the British and Dutch were allies, in fact they were each others closest allies, and fought four major wars together during the period.


 * I'd support re-adding "historic allies" just becuase it gives Dutch neutrality some context (the British expected the Dutch to be their allies, and even counted on them joining in). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As regards 2): that's very interesting. I am (as you seem to be) not convinced if the importance of the event merits a mention in the lead. It is in any way not consistent, in my opinion, to mention it in the lead whilst not mentioning it in the sub-chapter about the events in India (the article about the Carnatic Wars seems also not to refer to it). So probably the Battle of Chinsurah should be mentioned in the article somewhere, however I don't consider myself knowledgable enough on the subject to start editing this article on this level.

As regards 3): You are probably right that there was a history of alliances between the two parties, and thinking about it I cannot think of any conflict between the two parties either before or after the 4 so-called Anglo-Dutch wars. As an uninformed reader however, I think I would be quite surprised to find out that "historic allies" had in fact been fighting 3 wars against each other within 100 years before, and would be fighting another one soon after. This would be the main reason for me not to call the two states 'historic allies'. When I read that term I would sooner think about combinations like Russia-Serbia, UK-Australia, Turkey-Azerbaijan, Israel-USA etc. I would be more in favour of referring to them as 'usual allies' or something like that. Let me know what you think. --Vunzmstr (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try and incoporate 2) into the India section. With 3) I'd still assert that even with the 4 Anglo-Dutch Wars that had taken place that "Historic Allies" would be justified, although "recent", "usual" or "previous" would all work as well. I think it needs something just to give it some context about the surprise of many participants (France, Prussia, Britain) about Dutch neutrality. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire Civil War?
The British allies include German states like Prussia, but the Holy Roman Empire was allied with France. Was there internal onflict in Germany? Maildiver (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One could argue if it was a "Civil War", but it was more than the usual bickery. The Reichstag declared that Prussia had violated Imperial law by invading Saxony, which brought about a legal process called Reichsexekution: i.e. a binding order of the Emperor to the Imperial circles to revert Prussia's action, obliging the circles to raise an army especially for this purpose (Reichsarmee). With some delay, this army was eventually raised and under French command participated in the Battle of Rossbach, where they were defeated by Frederick II. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The cause of this confusion is that people incorrectly use the term "Holy Roman Empire" as being synonymous with the Habsburg Monarchy. I've since corrected this. -- LightSpectra (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ireland as a separate participant
Given that the Kingdom of Ireland was a dominion of Great Britain, is it necessary to add Ireland as a separate participant? Also: a minor point here which I'll just include under the same heading, Louis XV and Elizabeth are listed as commanders (presumably because they were absolute monarchs of their nations), yet Maria Theresia is not listed as the commander for Austria. Should this be addressed, or is that intentional? -- LightSpectra (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is Poland?
There is no reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (I added a couple sentences) despite the fact that the events were of great relevance to the Poles and several battles were fought in the western part of the country. The province of Silesia was ethnically Polish with German and Czech minorities, lied directly between Poland and Saxony whose king was elected king of the Commonwealth. A commentary by a knowledgeable historian would help: the country could field armies of tens of thousands yet remained neutral when its main ally - Saxony was being destroyed, while Prussia grew on the backbone of the old Polish provinces to attain the status of a major power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.97 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ships, Navy, fleets, HMS
There are essentially no lists of naval battles, ships which took part, admirals, navies, or any description of the shipment of supplies, privateering, or the outlays for wood or naval guns, used for combatants or merchants, and associated with this complex war. The only exception is the Battle of Quiberon Bay, with many French ships escaping after the defeat. Not a single HMS or French vessel is mentioned.

Commanders and Leaders
I am a bit puzzled about the criteria for inclusion in this section of the infobox. Is the section just meant to include military leaders or is it a list of Heads of State. Louis XV and Augustus of Poland are there, but George II and George III of Great Britain are not: I would have thought that all four would be treated in the same way- as important Heads of State who didn't get involved on the battlefield (I know that George II did take the field at Dettingen, but that was in the War of Austrian Succession). I'm emphatically NOT an expert on this period, but I was wondering if there is a case for either adding the Georges or removing Louis & Augustus. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

French Flag Graphic
It would appear as if the graphic for the Flag of France has been replaced with an all white background. Let us be charitable and suggest that perhaps someone has confused the French naval ensign with the State Flag. Unfortunately, changing such a simple thing is beyond this contributor's meager abilities. Sofa King (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... this edit changed from using 🇫🇷 to produce 🇫🇷 to using  undefined to produce  undefined. See also Kingdom of France and Template:country data Kingdom of France.
 * I chased my tail for a while on this figuring out how it works before seeing that it's apparently working as intended. The image being displayed is Pavillon royal de France.svg, which is File:Pavillon royal de France.svg, sized to 22x20 pixels. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm again... I see from the Kingdom of France article that it covered 843–1791, and from the Early modern France article that it covered 1492–1791, using the flag File:Royal Standard of the King of France.svg (Royal Standard of the King of France.svg) and overlapping the period which included the Seven Years' War. That other flag could be displayed instead by either adding that flag to Template:Country data Kingdom of France as a variant and specifying that variant in the template parameterization here or by creating Template:Country data Early modern France and referencing that here when displaying the Combatant flag for France. Also, I see that is used several times in the Commanders and Leaders section of the infobox. I don't know whether or not any changes are needed here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm reading Kevin Phillips' The Cousins' Wars, and on p. 82 it says


 * The practical question was which plum to demand [...]

and goes on to analyse why Britain chose to demand Canada (and not, for example, the West Indies) but this part of the Wiki article -
 * France was given the choice of retrieving either New France or its Caribbean island colonies of Guadeloupe and Martinique, and chose the latter to retain these lucrative sources of sugar, writing off New France as an unproductive, costly territory.

- seems to imply that France had a choice as to which territory to relenquish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.7 (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seven vs. Nine? Could someone please explain?
Seven vs. eight makes sense. Eight vs. nine makes sense. Seven vs. nine, not so much. Ifnkovhg (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See the Nomenclature section of the article. Is the explanation there inadequate? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Source in French
There's a French language journal article that might be useful. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Devos, Jean-Claude and Pierre Waksman. "Compagnies d'ordonnance de la guerre de Sept Ans a leur dissolution." Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine. Societe d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine. T. 20e, No. 1, Études d'histoire militaire (XVIIe-XXe siècles) (Jan. - Mar., 1973), pp. 37-57 http://www.jstor.org/stable/20528096

Starting year (1754/56) in the lead
From the editing history it is obvious that some editors keep entering 1754 as the starting year in the opening sentence, others insist on 1756. I think that both are right and I accordingly changed the starting year to 1754/56. The war in North America actually started in 1754, yet it was not declared between Britain and France until 1756, so both years seem to reasonably fit as the starting year for the so-called French and Indian war. In the European theaters, where the primary battlefield(s) were, the war started in 1756. In literature, we find "French and Indian War (1756-1763)" as well as "French and Indian War (1754-1763)", and "Seven Years' War (1754-1763)" as well as "Seven Years' War (1756-1763)" (random examples). I thus ask for the compromise "1754/56" to stay in the lead as the starting year(s), and that neither those favoring 1754 nor those favoring 1756 remove the respective other date. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- this seems to me to be a useful change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) overlapped with World War II (1939–1945). It doesn't mean that World War II began in 1937. The same applies to the Seven Years' War. The date should be (1756–63). It became known as the "Seven Years' War" because it began in Europe in 1756, regardless if there were a couple of European powers already fighting elsewhere.


 * What to do with the American theatre? Well, in an appropriate section devoted to the American theatre it should be explained that X country and Y country were already fighting each other even before the war began in Europe. That's all. --Lecen (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not be taking an editorial position on what designation ought to be used to refer to the war. Wikipedia should recognize the reality that several designations are used to refer to the war and that some (most) sources use the designation "Seven Years War" to refer to a conflict which (a) began in 1754, (b) lasted for nine years, and (c) included armed conflict in North America. This article does that, I think. What we're discussing here is whether saying "1754/56" in the lead sentence rather than "1754" or "1756" improves clarity regarding this.


 * Do I have that wrong? Are we instead discussing here a proposal that this article take an editorial position that (a) the subject conflict lasted only seven years, (b) it began in 1756, (c) it did not include French and Indian War in North America and (d) the (many) sources referring to that wider nine-year conflict as "The Seven Year War" are mistaken? (I noote that taking such an editorial position for this article would probably result in some number of Contradict-other-multiple situations vs. other articles. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you read what I said? Did I, at any moment, say or claim or insinuate that French and Indian War had no relation to the Seven Years' War? I was very clear in my post: "The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) overlapped with World War II (1939–1945). It doesn't mean that World War II began in 1937." The Seven Years' War began in 1756, not in 1754. If we write this article starting from the American theatre it won't make sense at all. Again: regardless if two or more European powers were already fighting each other outside Europe before 1756, the military conflict known as "Seven Years' War" began in Europe and in 1756. --Lecen (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is one reason this is an undesirable choice of name. There is reasonable consensus in the current literature that this is all the same war. But there is also the case it began at Arcot... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lecen, I read what you wrote; I simply disagree insofar as the usage of the term "Seven Years' War is concerned.
 * Can we come to a general consensus for or against the assertion, "the military conflict known as Seven Years' War began in Europe and in 1756"? If the consensus is for, I'll probably begin placing contradict other and Contradict-other-multiple tags. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words: if we don't take your position you'll add the tags. Hard to find a consensus with this kind of "proposal". --Lecen (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my belief that WP editors should work to resolve contradictions between WP articles. For example, if this article describes the conflict as having begun in Europe in 1756
 * the lead sentence of the French and Indian War article probably should not read, "The French and Indian War (1754–1763) is the American name for the North American theater of the Seven Years' War.";
 * the portion of the lead in the Treaty of Paris (1763) article reading "The signing of the treaty formally ended the Seven Years' War, otherwise known as the French and Indian War in the North American theatre" should be rewritten, and the information in that article regarding articles IV and VII of the treaty might need rewording;
 * the lead sentence of France in the Seven Years' War should say 1756 instead of 1754, the War in the Americas section there might need retitling, rewording, or expungement;
 * the Paul Revere article should reword the portion which reads, "In February 1756, during the French and Indian War (the North American theater of the Seven Years' War), he enlisted in the provincial army.";
 * the War of Jenkins' Ear article should reword "Ironically, it had to be re-captured by British Forces under Amherst and Wolfe in 1758, during the Seven Years (French and Indian) War.";
 * the Expulsion of the Acadians article would need to reword "... during the French and Indian War (the North American theatre of the Seven Years War).";
 * etc. (there are probably other things which would need looking at as well)
 * the tags are a mechanism for raising editorial interest to look at such things; bold edits of article content does the same thing. If, on the other hand, this article recognizes that there are several schools of thought on the naming and the extent of of the conflict which it covers, then those and similar examples in other WP articles can be thought of as not contradicting this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Lecen, all Wtmitchell is saying is that if there was a case that the French and Indian war and the 7yrs war were clearly considered different wars, or that the starting year clearly was considered 1756 (and 1754 was fringe), then this article should reflect that and other, dependent/related articles would need to be made consistent with that. That is not meant as a threat, but rather a schedule for the housekeeping that needed to follow if that case could be substantiated by a clear consensus in expert literature. To my knowledge, this is not going to happen, but I am open to surprises. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the gist of it re the tags, and you said it better than I did. I think that regular editors of this article need to come to a clear consensus on this so that (1) when it resurfaces again (and it will), the discussion can start with "the consensus is on that is XXX, and before that change can be made in the article you need to establish here that the consensus has changed to YYY" and (2) it is more easily determinable whether a change like 1754 in the lead sentence becoming 1754/56 is a tweak within the established consensus or a proposal for a major change which requires a new consensus. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was a military conflict in North America that later became part of the Seven Years' War" or "...(1754–1763) was initially a stand-alone military conflict that later became the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War". The tag should be used when someone sees a contradiction but lacks sufficient knowledge to correct the problem by himself/herself. --Lecen (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I take that as agreement with a consensus that the French and Indian War was, or at least is considered by some reliable sources, to have been a part of the conflict which is the topic of this article. Does anyone disagree? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fine solution to this problem. I also think that this argument has been complicated by the large number of IP users editing this at-will.  Perhaps we could seek PC2 protection to prevent random edits from disrupting this compromise?  As to the substance of the argument, I know I'm late to the show, but I think it's fair to consider the F&I War as a tributary conflict that fed into the 7YW, and I don't think that makes it any less a part of the 7YW than the Austro-Prussian front to say that prior to 1756, it was a highly-localized and at times completely inactive conflict that merged with the later global conflict.   Cdtew  (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Iroquois flag should not be used
Please, editors, stop placing the Iroquois flag in the infobox. Per the Iroquois and its reliable sources, the flag was created in the 1980's. WP:MOSFLAG is very clear that "Some subnational entities have not had flags until recently (e.g. the Welsh flag has only been official since 1959). While this flag can still represent Wales generally, it should not be used to represent the country when the context is specifically about a time period predating the flag." Additionally, MOSFLAG states that editors should "use a historical flag and associated country name when they have at least a semi-officially applicable rationale to use them." I think there's a very clear prohibition on ahistorical flags. I open this up to any comments, but I will revert any changes incorporating the Iroquois flag without a consensus otherwise to do so.  Cdtew  (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On that matter, the infobox is rotten with flags that are ahistorical in nature and shouldn't be used without a reliable source backing their use during the war; most German states didn't have flags representing their territories until the Napoleonic Wars, and Russia didn't use the tricolor ensign officially until the late 19th century. Please stick to contemporary flags only.   Cdtew  (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Austrian red-white-red and black-yellow flags should not be used
Again, another flag issue. The Austrian red-white-red flag has been used for Austria since the 14th century, but "Austria" was not the only province of the Habsburg Empire that was involved in this war. When the "Austrians" were involved in a battle, it was actually Austrians, Bohemians, Tyroleans, Carinthians, Carniolans, Hungarians, Croats, etc. who fought in their units. To my knowledge, each would have used the flag of their domain to represent their "national" allegiance. Additionally, the Habsburg black-yellow flag has not been billed as anything other than a civil flag until the 19th century. It may be worth it to use the Holy Roman Emperor's standard, which surely the Austrian army would have employed as their universal identifier, but that brings about complications (in that the other states of the Holy Roman Empire weren't exactly contributing troops to the conflict. Since WP:INFOBOXFLAG indicates a preference for not having flags, my vote would be to eliminate all the flags from the Infobox for uniformity.  Where Generals and sovereigns are listed, we could make headers that say Russia or Prussia.   Cdtew  (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Intro picture
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. 123.243.215.92 (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. 123.243.215.92 (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)


 * I don't agree that the West picture is "indisputably the most famous image of the war", perhaps in the English speaking world(?). But the war inspired thousands of battle paintings, a lot of which can be seen at Commons:Category:Seven Years' War (especially Commons:Category:Battles of the Seven Years' War and Commons:Category:Paintings of battles of the Seven Years' War). There is lots of pictures to choose from there that can provide a good perspective on this war, at least one featuring the Prussians and preferably Frederick himself would be warranted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:06, 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. 123.243.215.92 (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)

Discussion on major conflict infobox
A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 07:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Occupied Cuba and the Philippines?
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)

-I am totally agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk • contribs) 18:38, October 24, 2014‎


 * I am not.


 * 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.
 * says that according to the document the Spanish surrendered "Manila, Cavite, and the nearby provinces."
 * says that the British occupied Manila and Cavite from October 1762 until April 1764.
 * 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 &mdash; the Englishman (Drake &mdash; 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).
 * 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.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * After no counter-discussion for over a month, I've re-re-ordered the Background section per above. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2015
Jrcool10 (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

❌ No request specified. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanover is listed as under Great Britain
For some reason Hanover is listed as under Great Britain in the list of belligerents. AFAIK, it was never under them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garegin16 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

World War Zero, not
The reference, in the opening paragraph, to "some historians" dubbing the Seven Years War "World War Zero" gives as a reference an article at The Economist where no mention whatsoever is made of any World War Zero. A google for World War Zero links to an article at The New Scientist about an Archaeologist's use of the term in reference to the Trojan War (1200 BCE-ish). Sentence, and reference, deleted.

Fb2ts (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Move
About 13 years ago, a discussion was had on whether to move this from Seven Years' War--> to Seven Years War. The discussion was not greatly attended, but there were somewhere from six to ten editors commenting, and the it a pretty even split, resulting in No Consensus on the move. Would anyone be up to re-opening this? I personally have never seen the apostrophe anywhere, except on Wikipedia, but I wonder if this is an Americentric viewpoint. Anyone? Unschool 15:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Apostrophe as used here is standard and appropriate in British English see for example the | Encyclopedia Britannica Article . Ive read the | Archived Discussion and see no reason to reopen the issue. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That being said, if you're writing a paper or a book about a war that spanned seven years and you don't think that war belonged to those years, you should feel free to make that clear with your spelling. If your publisher/professor gets huffy, you can point them to spelling conventions at Routledge (UK) and/or Norton (US). And that's just for the Seven Years War (that war that took seven years (I have never heard of a year taking a war, now that I think of it, but I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that a year couldn't possess a war -- if you really wanted to be a poet about it.)). If you happen to be writing a paper or a book on the Hundred Years War, you can tell your prof/publisher that you've opted to use the Yale University Press (US) / Penguin Books (UK) convention. Likewise, if you're writing something about the Thirty Years War, you can say you're using Harvard University's (Belknap Press (US)) rules. Plenty of respectable folk'll be in that corner with you. No worries. Fb2ts (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I culled the top ten publications -- from a New England Public Library Catalog -- to see what MOST sourses argue in this mini war of possession. That's still 18 to 12 in favor of wars taking years, rather than vice versa.
 * 1) . The Hundred Years War - 8 say wars take years, 2 say years take wars.
 * 2) . The Thirty Years War - 6 say wars take years, 4 say years take wars.
 * 3) . The Seven Years War - 4 say wars take years, 6 say years take wars.

MOST sources argue that years take wars, NOT vice versa.

Not sure why the wiki police decided to go with the loosing team.

I'd be interested to get a survey of the top ten titles from a Merry Old England Library Catalog. From where I sit, it does not appear to be an exclusively Anglo-American goofiness.

Fb2ts (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

infobox belligerants
I tried to use the infobox to get a summary of who was on each side. That much is clear, but within each side, ther eis a mixture of three different flag templates, forced line breaks and bulleted lists. Could someone who knows what these groupings and relationships are supposed to look like please try to sort out the mixture of flagcountry, flagicon image, flagdeco,, ? I think they are trying to be two nested lists, but I can't work out who should be grouped how. It doesn't make sense to me to make Kingdom of Prussia subordinate to Iroquois and the Holy Roman Empire part of the Abenaki Confederacy, which is how it looks now. MOS:LIST and Help:List might help with formatting if you understand what to represent. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 10:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The list of belligerents confuses legal entities, with areas of conflict; it is Britain, not Ireland, British America or anything else. Spain, not New Spain, let alone Peru; France, not New France etc. Which solves most of these problems. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary
re: "Summary":

Since this editorial comment has not resulted in the desired(?) reference citations in the summary section, having been there since 2016, and that generally such comments should belong on the article Talk pages, thus moving from article space to talk space, where editorial comments should be preferred.

Where is the Ottoman Empire and Persia
I'd like to know why these two empires didn't join in the fight because at least Ottoman Empire could have grown to its greatest height and been a moment in their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.204.144.50 (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Too many ledes
This article begins with a lede section of about 500 words, summarizing the course of the war, and then a "Summary" section of about 1,000 words, summarizing the course of the war in somewhat longer detail, before beginning a truly detailed 12,000-word main article. Essentially, we get three descriptions of the war at different lengths. This seems both overly repetitive and against the guidelines in WP:MOSLEAD. My plan in the next week or so is to combine the first two into a single lede section that is a bit longer than 500 words but not much. If anyone has any ideas or objections to this let me know. --Jfruh (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong number of casualties for some battles
For several of the "Major land battles during the Seven Years War (North America)", Franco-Spanish coalition numbers and Franco-Spanish coalition casualties are the same number. That can't be right. Mporter (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Deliberate misinformation
It seems that there is deliberate misinformation on this article used to try to snub the glorious Habsburgs of Austria. On the sidebar in terms of strength, For France and Britain total strength - that is to say every single person who ever fought in the army or navy at any given point in the war - is included, while for Austria (and Prussia), only the peak strength at any given point is shown. This severely distorts the war and gives the idea that Austria contributed 4x as less to the war as France. This is obviously complete bullshit, and is just one more part of the global conspiracy to try to wipe away the memory of Austrian victories and power. Preußenistgross (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello! Rather than some grand "conspiracy" of "deliberate misinformation", I'd say the likelier explanation is that editors have happened to have access to sources that included the peak numbers for Austria and Prussia and not to ones that included their total mobilizations. If you happen to know of a published, reliable source that gives figures for the Austrian and Prussian mobilizations, then please add it to the article! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional Information
I plan to make edits to the Seven Years War article. I will add a section talking about neutral nations during the Seven Years War, including the Ottoman Empire, Persia, The Dutch Republic, and Denmark-Norway, referencing and citing where appropriate. I will also make other edits to further refine the article, such as adding new dates, correcting links, adding new links etc. I will also elaborate on other smaller sections such as the conflicts in West Africa and South America. [User:A-Historic-Gamer|A-Historic-Gamer]] (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Text under the title
If you search for "Seven years war", you will see the description of the title as "Global conflict between France and the United Kingdom". It should also include Prussia since Prussia played a, if not the mainrole in the victory of the Anglo-Prussian coalition. Otherwise, this article downplays Prussias influence in the victory of its coalition in that war. 2001:1C00:418:B600:90A2:9DFB:F3D7:C25 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Unverified inclusion of Maratha Empire
has made several edits that I believe to be unfounded original research: However, the Mughal Empire states that The British East India Company took control of the former Mughal province of Bengal-Bihar in 1793. This is decades after the Seven Years' War.
 * with an edit summary of Added Maratha Empire In Seven Years War With French East India Company
 * with an edit summary of Added Maratha Leaders
 * with edit summaries of Added Maratha Empire with French East India Company, Added Maratha Leaders And Commanders, and Bengal subah annexed by Great britain.

I have reverted these as unsourced & in my warnings at User talk:Lost History Reveals have asked this editor to engage here & to provide verification from reliable sources. Peaceray (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Please fix the edit warring
Would someone please fix the edit warring to this article by ? I have already used up my WP:3RR. Warnings to this user

Mis-edits include: Peaceray (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing wikilinks without explanation, most recently with
 * No edit summaries
 * Changing from sentence case to title case in violation of MOS:CAPS, most recently with
 * Edit warring without responding to warnings
 * I didn't notice you had posted here. I saw the edit war earlier, and I saw that you already advised them about disruptive editing and using an edit summary, so I reiterated your warnings and also left the standard edit warring warning on their talk page. If they continue after this and still don't respond, please report at WP:ANEW. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ivanvector, that was my plan. I was waiting for the possibility of that editor violating the WP:4RR. I think the editor in question got the message after the last reversion & warning. Peaceray (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am restoring and the Austria–Prussia rivalry. is welcome to get consensus on removing it here. Peaceray (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They probably won't since they're blocked. I've restored it, no reason was given for removing it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Aceh Sultanate
Hello, can someone explain to me how is the Aceh Sultanate involved in the Seven Years' War? All I know is that Britain and France fought in Sumatra, the island where Aceh Sultanate is located. Fhadul (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That was added by the edit-warring user mentioned in the section above. They have never explained any of their edits, so I wouldn't count on an explanation coming for this one. I'll remove it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fhadul well done 43.242.178.102 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Singapore
"French East India Company" wanted to secure Singapore, probably Mughal Empire for assistance!

16:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)16:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\16:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.68 (talk)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\16:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)16:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)16:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\


 * @43.242.178.68 Singapore was annexed by Malacca 43.242.178.198 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Malacca
Malacca hacked into Aceh Sultanate, Ottoman Turks were establishing colonial outposts in the archipelago of Indonesia, this fueling a war in that region.

16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.68 (talk)\\\\\\\16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.68 (talk)\\\\\\\43.242.178.68 (talk)\\\\\\\\\\\\\16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\43.242.178.68 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)\\

Africa
seven years war, certainly spread to Africa.

22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.198 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.198 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)\\\\\

Southeast Asia
this article should have a separate section for Southeast Asia.

04:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)04:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\04:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.102 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\04:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.102 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\

Mughal Empire
Mughal Empire and all its polity were on the same side in this conflict, they were supported by the French whom believed in self-determination.

11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.102 (talk)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.102 (talk)\\\\\\\\11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\

Great Britain
the seven years war is about British military supremacy against all opponents, and the initiation of a phenomenon called Colonialism.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)09:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)09:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)09:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\~ 43.242.178.236 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌ You have provided no citations for your first claim, & your second claim is clearly inaccurate considering the there were Ancient Egyptian colonies & other colonies well before the 15th century. Peaceray (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman aggression
Crete was a victim of Ottoman Turks during the seven years war, the Aceh rebels were defeated by the Ottoman protectorate and Singapore was victim of massive arsonist!

15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.142 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Georgian kingdoms?
Why are they here? There are no sources cited. Same with Mallacca, which did not exist as an Independent country during that time period. Also, Dutch East Indía company Stuff needs to be source cited, and fixed, like Singapore. I also changed “rebels inside Dutch Ceylon” to “Sinhala rebels” but the original thing no sources where cited. Also, why can’t í add the Iroquois flag? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Bold Edits
There appears to be a lack of understanding as to what constitutes a Belligerent, while colonial disputes continued regardless of whether France and Britain were officially at war.

The article needs serious surgery. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox out of control
The infobox here has gone completely mad, and needs to be drastically shortened, perhaps with several hidden "other" sections. In NO way does thwe current version comply with WP:INFOBOX. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. For the commander section, for example, only commanders who are mentioned in the article should be included. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not out off control, this was just a very large scale conflict with lots of belligerents and is very imformative. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is way out of control - read WP:INFOBOX as to what should be there. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For reasons that are not entirely clear, Blackmamba has raised this as an ANI. That being the case, it provides an opportunity to have a wider discussion on this topic; I have include you as you've expressed a concern - I suggest we start on the ANI page :) Robinvp11 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have apoligized for this. It is on the ANI. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Page problems
Á lot of these edits í disagree with. For example, no, we can’t mention every commander listed in the article, but instead some should be mentioned in Battles they where involved with. Í agree with some part of the belligerents changes, but we can’t just remove a belligerent we are únsure of. Instead, we need to act responsinle and find somewhere online mentioning it. But a lot of the belligerents removed where belligerents. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * An infobox is meant to summarize the most important content in an article. Even if you disagree with them specifically, your characterization of edits that are clearly rooted in best practices, both in general and specific to military history as "vandalism" is unwarranted.
 * If one would like to know the relevant information about a conflict, they should read the article or its sources. The infobox as is stretches the form well beyond what it was designed to do, such that it considerably less helpful as a quick summary for readers.  Remsense  诉  05:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the legal and Wikipedia definition of Belligerent, then come back and discuss, rather than the other way round.
 * There are various comments from other editors on this TP on the additions to this Infobox - having a go at me when you're the person who's introduced major changes to a stable article without discussion seems odd.
 * I have invited other editors to comment on the ANI - let's see where we end up. I will happily abode by the editorial consensus. Robinvp11 (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (I've closed the ANI thread, because this is just a content dispute that should happen on this page.) Remsense  诉  08:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of these belligerents were added without a source, so i propose that we should first find the source and then add them. Not the other way around DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)