French and Indian Wars
1744-1766

Campaigning, Tactics,
and Historical Importance

by Bill Protz

Campaigning and Tactics

Europeans new to the continent brought the age of linear warfare with them. Regular battalions were trained with strict discipline to stand three ranks deep in long lines (the British introduced the two deep line in 1759). Vulnerable flanks were protected by terrain or bodies of elite infantry. Drill, steadiness, firepower with flintlock muskets which were highly inaccurate beyond a 50 yard range and maneuver were the tenets of the era as opposing forces marched into battle. One may metaphorically liken such warfare to two enormous firing squads marching and firing upon each other until one broke. Such procedures would be needed in North America to ultimately win a war. However, the heavily forested terrain would force the regulars of both sides to adapt to conditions quite different from those found on the open European battlefield.

One such condition was the Indian. The Indian brave was a master of woodland warfare. Using the vast forest he was able to appear and disappear at will. He could strike with alarming speed to burn settlements, harass marching columns and strike terror in the minds of the Europeans. He was the premier light infantryman of his age. His specialty was the hit and run raid. When combined with hardy frontiersmen and some regulars, this combination could be a devastating raider force.

It was not possible to approach objectives without countering the threat posed by the Indian and able frontiersman. Therefore, each side formed special units of rangers, light infantry and friendly Indians to scout, screen and gather information. Such bodies used open order tactics, ruses and cover while casting aside close order drill and cumbersome uniforms.

Battles of the era can be divided into three general types:

1. Open Order Combat

This is the realm of raids, scouting, screening, wood cutting parties, supply columns and attacks on close order soldiers inadequately protected by their own open order personnel. Such actions were numerous no matter the strength of opposing sides' regular forces. Though such combats did not weigh heavily in the outcome of at least the first two wars we are discussing, they make for interesting wargaming for those who yearn to do something different. Vast forest cover makes this quite an enjoyable challenge.

2. Close Order Combat

Close order battles were infrequent in North America. However, though the close order battalions were at a disadvantage in the forest, they were the only instrument capable of winning a war. Examples of their battles were: The Battle of Lake George 1755, The Monongahela 1755 (Braddock's Defeat), The Gabrus Bay Landing 1758, The Heights of Carillon 1758, Monmorency 1759, The Plains of Abraham 1759, La Belle Famille 1759 and St. Foy 1760. The wargamer need not limit himself to these actions. He could presume that sufficient clearings are available to allow a close order battle any place if he so desires. Supposedly, all British regulars were taught to go to cover and even aim in 1759 which made them more capable in the forest than before.

3. Sieges

Yearly objectives for each side always included forts as targets. Such wargames need not be of the ponderous type which occurred in Europe. North American siege warfare was rather abbreviated and simpler when compared to sieges in Europe. This was so because forts were always of insufficient strength to withstand a lengthy bombardment and because they were most always and amazingly "commanded" by overlooking heights nearby which afforded great advantage to a besieger.

Some of the most exciting wargames are stormings of isolated posts. This is something that appeals to wargamers. The French and Indian Wars and especially Pontiac's Rebellion offer ample opportunities for this type of game.

Historical Importance of the French and Indian Wars

The importance of this era is of great significance to the development of the United States and Canada. For the United States, the threat of French raiders was removed when New France was conquered. Consequently, Americans became less dependent upon Great Britain for military assistance. Additionally, the three wars provided a good training ground for future rebellious Americans who would later fight for independence.

Finally, the close proximity of thousands of British soldiers and their officers were daily reminders to many Americans that the regular army was an abrasive symbol of an authority they had left thousands of miles behind when they journeyed to the New World to build a new life unfettered with the problems of the Old. These factors combined with increasing rebelliousness and consequent unpalatable British solutions would lead to the American Revolution and the eventual establishment of the United States.

For the Canadian perspective, Bruce McFarlane comments that, "North of the 49th parallel, the end of the French-English conflict holds a profound significance. it is the foundation of Canadian history. Most of what the Canadian experience is, and has been, finds its roots in Wolfe's victory on The Plains of Abraham outside Quebec in 1759. From Murray's Proclamation, through Confederation to the Separation Crisis in Quebec, Canadian history is, to a large part, based on the fact that Britain obtained a colony in which a significant portion of the population was French.

"Wolfe's successor, Murray, and later Carleton were given permission from London to assimilate the French and establish a totally English colony. However, both feared the loyalty of 'les Canadien' in case of a North American war and fought the directive. This led to a series of Acts. The 1774 Quebec Act, the 1791 Constitution Act, the 1839 Act of Union and even the 1867 British North American Act each in its turn entrenched the ideas of cultural, religious and linguistic freedom wedded to the British Parliamentary and judicial system.

"The Battle of The Plains of Abraham is as basic to Canadian history as are the battles of Saratoga and Gettysburg to American history. just as the nature of the United States would be fundamentally changed if one of those battles had turned out differently, so, too, would Canada not be recognizable if Montcalm had triumphed outside Quebec. These differences in the significance of the war for the two countries explains why the conflict is referred to by differing names. In the USA where the conflict wasoneof many building pressures leading to the War for independence, it is called the French and Indian War. This reflects the problems and stresses the Americans addressed in the war. In Canada, where the war defines my nation's identity in the world, we use the broader global title of Seven Years' War in North America.

"As for the actual conflict I think the Canadian perception is somewhat blurred and confused. For starters, Canadians, at least those of us of English ancestry, don't even know who to cheer for. Usually we have no trouble identifying the 'bad guys' when the conflict involves an invasion from the south. But in this case if the' southerners' had lost I would either be writing an article for 'le Courier' or living somewhere in New Jersey. In many instances English Canada tends to think history doesn't start until the conquest of New France.

Indeed, in Alberta, where I teach, the grade eight history curriculum starts with the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. I can remember in my youth having to memorize the song 'The Maple Leaf Forever' - an unofficial English anthem of the day, with a first verse of;

    In days of yore from Britain's shore
    Wolfe the dauntless hero came
    And planted firm Britannia's flag
    On Canada's fair domain

"I presume the dilemma is not so great for French Canadiens. However, as I learned from a French Canadian neighbor, there is no great admiration of France's actions, especially at the bargaining table, where New France was traded away in 1763 for other considerations. Where English accounts tend to portray Montcalm as a noble and brave professional betrayed by fate and Governor Vaudreuil, French histories paint the Canadian-born Vaudreuil much more favorably and are indifferent or even hostile to Montcalm. Much of the rest of Canadian history, in some French Canadian eyes, has been a fight to undo the loss of 1759 - a fight to retain a distinct culture on an English continent. These two differing views of the key event in Canadian history may reveal much of Canada's 'two solitudes'."

More French and Indian Wars: 1744-1766

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VIII No. 1
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1987 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com