How little-known European conflicts sucked in Britain’s American colonies

Note: This post covers a number of conflicts in various parts of the world. But all of them are arguably part of a larger pattern of European wars during this period. Thus, many of my other mentions of these conflicts are directed to this post, which tries to discuss these various conflicts (and sub-conflicts) in this broader colonial context.

Dutch colony of New Netherland (America), and the First and Second Anglo-Dutch Wars

It was only seven years after the 1607 founding of the Jamestown Settlement … that Holland created its own colony in North America. It was called “New Netherland,” and it was founded in 1614. Only six years later was the Pilgrim colony created at Plymouth Rock in 1620. French Canada had begun to fight the Beaver Wars back in 1609. These Beaver Wars would then be fought for the next 90 years or so. In 1635, the Acadian Civil War also began in French Canada. But, elsewhere in North America, the Netherlands would soon be fighting a war against the native peoples, known as “Kieft’s War.” It was fought from 1643 to 1645, in what are today the American states of New York and New Jersey. But Holland would soon be at war with a much greater threat: the mighty “English” Empire (not to be confused with its eventual successor, the “British” Empire). Thus, in 1652, the First Anglo-Dutch War began, over disputes about trade. This particular war was fought almost entirely at sea, in various bodies of water – from the English Channel to the Persian Gulf. In 1654, the war ended with the Treaty of Westminster, where the Dutch made some minor concessions to the English. The aforementioned Acadian Civil War also ended in 1654, although the aforementioned Beaver Wars continued. But, in 1665, the Second Anglo-Dutch War began. Like its predecessor, this war was fought mainly at sea. However, there was also some land fighting in West Africa, the East Indies, the Guianas, and the Caribbean. In North America, the war also involved the city of New Amsterdam surrendering to the English. Thus, in 1664, New Amsterdam was then renamed “New York City,” the name by which it is still known today. In 1667, the Second Anglo-Dutch War ended with the Treaty of Breda. Thus, the Dutch colony of New Netherland temporarily ended in 1667. However, England also ceded English Guiana, Fort Amsterdam in Ghana, and Run to the Netherlands. The stage was thus set for a rematch.

The Battle of Scheveningen – part of the First Anglo-Dutch War, 1653

The Four Days’ Battle – part of the Second Anglo-Dutch War, 1666

An overview of the New Zealand Wars

“The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the seperate and independent chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen [Victoria] of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the said Confederation or individual chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.”

– Article 1 of the “Treaty of Waitangi” (1840), today considered the basis of the unwritten constitution of New Zealand

Early contact with Europeans, the Musket Wars, and the Treaty of Waitangi (1840)

European ships reached New Zealand as early as 1642. But the two main islands of what is now New Zealand were already inhabited by the Māori, as you may know. The British explorer James Cook arrived in 1769 – and, over the course of three voyages, Captain Cook eventually mapped and circumnavigated New Zealand. Of course, Māori wars predate European contact – but they took on a somewhat different character when European weapons like the musket arrived. This led to the native “Musket Wars,” which went from 1818 to sometime in the 1830s. (It’s hard to know exactly when these wars ended.) On 6 February 1840, William Hobson and his British associates signed the “Treaty of Waitangi” with some of the natives. Its anniversary is today celebrated as the national holiday of New Zealand. It is simply called “Waitangi Day” there. The local Māori tribes were convinced to sign. They had to cede many of their rights to the government of Queen Victoria, much to their chagrin. In return, Queen Victoria recognized their rights as “British subjects” (see the further quotes from the treaty below). Thus, one might say that the “Treaty of Waitangi” forms the basis of the unwritten New Zealand constitution – just as the Magna Carta forms the basis of the unwritten British constitution. But there were soon early engagements between the Māori and the British, such as the Wairau Affray in 1843.

The earlier Musket Wars, a Māori conflict influenced by the European musket

Hōne Heke cuts down the flagstaff on Flagstaff Hill at Kororāreka

The War of the Austrian Succession was fought on four different continents

Note: The “War of the Austrian Succession” included several different conflicts within it. Thus, many of my blog’s mentions of these related conflicts are instead directed to this post, which helps to put many of these conflicts (and sub-conflicts) into context.

Anecdote about the “War of Jenkins’ Ear,” and how that conflict got its strange name

In 1731, a British ship called the “Rebecca” was stopped by a Spanish ship. As Wikipedia puts it, “Under the 1729 Treaty of Seville, the Spanish were allowed to check British vessels trading with the Americas for contraband.” (see source) Thus, the Spaniards searched the ship thoroughly, and found that it was indeed carrying smuggled sugar. The captain of the “Rebecca” was a man named Robert Jenkins. Captain Jenkins later alleged that, during this incident, the Spaniards had removed part of his ear. The British government was then looking for a pretext for a war against Spain. Thus, they brought Captain Jenkins into Parliament, as evidence that his ear had been cut off by Spanish officials. But Captain Jenkins was wearing a cap, which concealed how many ears he had. Moreover, Captain Jenkins was never forced to remove this cap. Thus, there was a suspicion that, underneath his cap, there were two perfectly normal ears – each of which was firmly attached to his head in the normal way. But the war seemed too desirable to the British to bother with such “trivialities” as verification of the story. Thus, the “War of Jenkins’ Ear” soon began in 1739. This may be among the strangest names ever given to any conflict in history. The majority of the conflict took place in New Granada and the Caribbean Sea. However, it would also involve some fighting in Havana, Cuba – and in Central America, at a city called Cartagena (not to be confused with the city back in Spain). North America would also see some related fighting in Spanish Florida and British Georgia, which was part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear.” This would later become a part (arguably) of the “War of the Austrian Succession.”

Capture of Portobelo (Central America, 1739) – part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”

Battle of Havana (Cuba, 1748) – another part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”

Piracy played a role, early in the “Second” Hundred Years’ War

“When I was a boy, there was but one permanent ambition among my comrades in our village [Hannibal, Missouri] on the west bank of the Mississippi River. That was, to be a steamboatman. We had transient ambitions of other sorts, but they were only transient. When a circus came and went, it left us all burning to become clowns … now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates.”

– Mark Twain, in “Life in the Mississippi” (1883), Chapter 4

Those pirate movies that you watched as a kid … probably took place during this period

In 2003, Disney released the first installment in their “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise. The film must have seemed a little risky, because there had not been a popular pirate movie for some years by that point. But, to everyone’s surprise, the film franchise did quite well at the box office, and in the later home movie sales as well. Other pirate movies (such as “Treasure Island”) have likewise captured the public imagination. As “Peter Pan” reminds us, pirates are a popular subject, especially with children. In “Life on the Mississippi,” Mark Twain once said that “we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates” (as cited above). Obviously, the reality of piracy is a little less romantic, since pirates tended to be as violent and bloodthirsty as they’re usually portrayed to be. But, in some ways, the reality may be just as interesting as its depiction in these great movies. Today, I’d like to examine the role of piracy, during the aptly-named “Golden Age of Piracy.” This was the period when piracy became a significant factor in both the North Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. I should clarify that the term “Golden Age” is not meant to “approve” of the brazen theft that this piracy inherently involves. But, from the pirates’ point of view, it was indeed a “Golden Age,” where the world’s maritime trade was relatively vulnerable to their attacks. I will focus primarily on how it affected some of the major international wars of the period, particularly on the high seas. Indeed, it seems hard to discuss either the piracy or the wars in total isolation from each other. Specifically, I will start by talking about the three main Anglo-Dutch Wars, which were mostly at sea. Then I will focus on the naval parts of three other great European conflicts. These are (in order): the Nine Years’ War, the War of the Spanish Succession, and the War of the Austrian Succession. These three conflicts, along with four others that soon followed them, would eventually be grouped together into the broader term of “Second” Hundred Years’ War. Piracy and privateering played a major role, in the early parts of this much-larger conflict.

Spanish Men-of-War Engaging Barbary Corsairs, 1615

Great naval conflicts: From the Seven Years’ War to the Napoleonic Wars

Many pirate movies take place in this general time period, and so do many history movies

I grew up on pirate movies like “Treasure Island,” a classic story that takes place in the early eighteenth century. Most modern pirate movies seem to take place in this much-romanticized era of sailing ships and pirates. In this century, we have seen Disney’s fantasy-oriented “Pirates of the Caribbean,” which combines this eighteenth-century historical backdrop with elements of curses and magic. But there have also been more “serious” works of historical fiction, about the naval conflicts of the late eighteenth (and early nineteenth) centuries. For example, there has been the “Horatio Hornblower” franchise (with a TV series starring Ioan Gruffudd), and the Russell Crowe movie “Master and Commander.” (Pity that only one movie was made in that particular franchise, because it was a promising one.) These movies may have some fictional characters in them, along with references to real people like Lord Horatio Nelson. But they may still be “serious” historical movies anyway, in my opinion, since they dramatize the fighting at sea during the Napoleonic Wars.

The wars covered here were all part of a broader struggle between Britain and France

I’m much interested in the naval fighting of the Napoleonic Wars, in part because of the influence of these movies on me personally. But, today, I would like to look at naval fighting in the eighteenth century more generally. The Napoleonic Wars are traditionally dated to the early nineteenth century, and I promise the reader that I will also be giving some serious coverage of that conflict in this post. But, in order to understand the Napoleonic Wars themselves, one has to look at some prior conflicts in the eighteenth century. Most importantly, one has to look at the much broader struggle between Britain and France, and how they duked it out in one maritime conflict after another. Our story begins in 1754, with a frontier conflict in the distant European colonies of North America. Americans today remember it as the “French and Indian War,” but it would soon lead to the broader “Seven Years’ War,” and to many another great naval conflict for the Europeans.

Why World War II continues to fascinate so many

World War II has been depicted in countless books, documentaries, and Hollywood movies. Some of these movies are basically action films of one sort or another. That is, they dramatize the contributions of those who fought for the various Allied nations. These films can take place on submarines and other warships, in bombers or fighter planes, or in various (often exotic) ground locations all over the world. Other films tell the stories of those who lived under Nazi or Japanese rule, with difficult decisions dropped on these unluckily-placed people. For example, some of them chose to escape, some of them chose to spy for the Allies, and others of them chose to collaborate with the Axis occupations of their own countries (sadly enough). Other films depict parts of the Holocaust, dramatizing the countless victims of the genocide. Other films (such as “Tora! Tora! Tora!”) ask big questions, like how we got involved in the war. I have even heard of a film about the efforts to prevent the Nazis from getting the atomic bomb. (More about that here.) Other films depict World War II code-crackers or spies, prisoners of war in Axis-controlled prison camps, or even the postwar Nuremberg trials. There are biographies of major leaders – such as FDR, Churchill, Patton, or Eisenhower. And there are countless stories about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Why is this? What is it about World War II that continues to fascinate people, all of these decades after it tore the world apart – and then altered the very map of the world itself?

Firefighters tackling a blaze amongst ruined buildings after an air raid – London, 1941

U-boats in the Great War: The other “Battle of the Atlantic”

German U-boats were once the terror of the high seas, and this was true during both world wars. In the First World War, this campaign had much to do with the eventual American entry into the war. But we tend to associate these campaigns with the Second World War, which will probably continue to enjoy more glory than the first one ever did. And, in truth, the Battle of the Atlantic really was quite important. We thus tend to associate the phrase “Battle of the Atlantic” with World War Two, and describe its World War One equivalent simply as the “Atlantic U-boat campaign.” (When using the generic phrase “U-boat campaign,” though, this can also include the lesser-known “Mediterranean U-boat campaign.”) But in a broader sense, the First World War version was also a “Battle of the Atlantic,” and was vitally important in its own right. It was the lifeline of Allied Europe during the Great War, and (as mentioned earlier) played a big role in getting America to enter the war. This post will describe the U-boat front of the Great War, with a particular focus on the changing role of the Americans in this campaign. But I assure readers from other countries that I will tie in our own situation to that of our many allies, since it affected every other nation that participated in these campaigns – as readers may soon see, if they indeed decide to read this post.

German U-boats at Kiel (before the war started), 1914

Top secret: The role of spying and code-cracking in the World Wars

In the 1970s, a British television network made a series called “The World at War,” possibly the most comprehensive television history ever made about World War II. But it contains not one word about Bletchley Park, the primary British codebreaking operation of World War II. The reason is very simple: In the 1970s, information about Bletchley Park was still top-secret, since releasing this information would have risked compromising current espionage efforts. Thus, the existence of Bletchley Park was still a closely guarded secret in the early 1970s. But, after enough time had gone by, it was no longer necessary to keep these things confidential. Thus, in the decades since “The World at War,” much of the information about the era’s espionage (including code-breaking) has been officially declassified. Thus, historians today have somewhat more information to work with, in talking about the state secrets of that time. For example, we now know things that were once top-secret, and we now know how some of that information changed hands – while other parts remained protected. This post will try to use some of the now-declassified information, along with more traditional information, to tell the stories of spies and code-crackers in both world wars – especially World War II. But, in order to achieve a true understanding of the Second World War, it may help to consider the prior events of the First World War. The “Great War,” as it is sometimes called, had some spy stories that are fascinating in their own right – rivaling any others in their human interest. These juicy stories may help to shed some light on the later espionage of the Second World War – the conflict that most continues to fascinate people today.

Rear of the rebuilt British “Bombe” computer, used at Bletchley Park in World War II England

Air power in the World Wars: From “expensive toy” to a serious weapon

“There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see.”

– Royal Air Force general Sir Arthur Harris (a.k.a. “Bomber” Harris), in a speech given in 1942 (during World War Two)

In 1903, the Wright brothers showed the world that “man really can fly” (to paraphrase Dieter F. Uchtdorf). As Wikipedia puts it, Orville and Wilbur Wright made “the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903, four miles (6 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, at what is now known as Kill Devil Hills.” (see source) Planes have since been used for scientific and commercial reasons, but they have also been an important part of warfare for more than a century now. They have altered the way that warfare has been fought, on both the land and the sea. The history of military aviation is one of conflict between carrier and battleship theories, between heavy bombing and close air support theories, and other changes in military strategy and tactics. I freely confess that I’m no expert on any kind of aviation, but my paternal grandfather was well-versed in the subject, and taught me some of what he knew about it. This post will thus focus on aviation in the two massive World Wars, particularly as used by the United States. This was my grandfather’s biggest area of historical expertise.

German biplane shot down by the Americans in the Argonne, 1918 (during World War One)

Colonial Canada: From the Seven Years’ War to the War of 1812

“An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America …”

– Long title of the “Quebec Act, 1774” (French: Acte de Québec de 1774), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered by the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How do Canadians remember the conflicts between the English, the French, and the Americans? As it turns out, the Canadians remember these conflicts somewhat differently than we do. They were a crucible for Canada, as they were for the United States – and its various colonial predecessors. Canada stayed a colony for a lot longer than we did, so there are at least three major conflicts during its colonial history. These conflicts are (in order) the Seven Years’ War, the American War of Independence, and the “War of 1812” (as it is usually called). Some of these conflicts are more often remembered in Canada than in the United States. One of these wars still creates controversy in Canada today, more than two centuries later. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about Colonial Canada, and how it was shaped by the trials of its early wars.

Engraving from the Battle of the Plains of Abraham – Quebec, 1759

A review of the “BBC History of World War II”

Note: This is a collection of several BBC documentaries about World War II. That is to say, it is not a unified history like “The World at War” is. Nonetheless, many of its documentaries are quite good, so I thought that I would review some of them here. I have reviewed the others elsewhere, in posts more focused on their respective topics.

I’ve actually reviewed five of the BBC’s installments elsewhere …

The “BBC History of World War II” contains ten different documentaries about various aspects of this conflict. I have reviewed a number of these documentaries in other blog posts. For example, I have reviewed “The Nazis: A Warning from History” here, “The Road to War” here, “War of the Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin” here, “Horror in the East: Japan and the Atrocities of World War II” here, and “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’” here. To review these again in this post would risk being redundant. Thus, I will not attempt to duplicate much of that coverage in this blog post.

British Lancaster bomber over Hamburg, 1943

… so I will instead focus this post on reviewing the other five BBC installments of this series

But there are five other installments that I’ve waited until now to comment on. I will thus try to cover these five documentaries in this post. To me, these five films would seem to have a common theme – namely, that they’re all focused on the combat part of the war against Nazi Germany, as engaged in by the Western Allies – and, particularly, the British. These installments are as follows: “Dunkirk,” “Battle of the Atlantic,” “Battlefields,” “D-Day 6.6.1944” (also marketed as “D-Day: Reflections of Courage”), and “D-Day to Berlin.” As you might imagine, there’s plenty of material to talk about with these subjects, and with the way that the BBC covers them.

A review of the BBC’s “The Crusades”

The Crusades are one of the most infamous episodes in all of medieval history. More than 700 years later, they are still extremely controversial. This may be why the BBC decided to examine them in 2012. At that time, the British and Americans (plus many others) were still fighting in Afghanistan, and would soon be returning their troops to Iraq. Even after the Allies’ departure from Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism remains a hot topic, and it will likely continue to be so. Islam holds many grudges against the West, many of which go back to this turbulent period. Thus, I will review the BBC’s coverage here, and see how it compares to the earlier coverage of the History Channel in 2005.

A review of PBS’s “Lawrence of Arabia: The Battle for the Arab World”

The Arab Revolt against the rule of the Ottoman Turks …

When people hear the phrase “World War One,” they usually think of Europe. But it was also fought in the Middle East, by people like “Lawrence of Arabia.” During the war, the Arabs revolted against the rule of the Ottoman Turks. They had been ruled by the Ottoman Empire for centuries, and they didn’t like it. Thus, the British were able to convince them to revolt near the beginning of World War One. They sent a man named T. E. Lawrence to promise both British support and Arab independence. He is now known as “Lawrence of Arabia,” and he would later be famous for his role in the Arab Revolt. But he would also feel some guilt over how the revolt later turned out.

T. E. Lawrence, the man now known as “Lawrence of Arabia”

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: South Asia and Indonesia

“We the people of Indonesia hereby declare the independence of Indonesia. Matters which concern the transfer of power and other things will be executed by careful means and in the shortest possible time … In the name of the people of Indonesia …”

– Indonesian Declaration of Independence (from the Dutch Empire), Djakarta, 17 August 1945

Few parts of the Cold War are more forgotten than this …

Asia was one of the biggest battlegrounds of the Cold War. Two of the biggest of the aptly-named “hot wars” within the Cold War were both fought in East Asia, which were the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Many Cold War conflicts were likewise fought in the Middle East (which is part of Asia), and the Soviets fought their war in Afghanistan in central Asia. In addition, communist China was located in East Asia, and much of the Soviet Union was located in North Asia. But the Cold War events of South Asia are often forgotten, and were not covered in CNN's 18-hour television history of the Cold War (one of the few major omissions on CNN's part there). Thus, an examination of some of these events would seem to be in order here. Some would consider Indonesia to be a part of Southeast Asia, while others would instead consider it to be a part of the region known as Oceania. But since the Cold War events of Indonesia are often forgotten as well, I would like to cover some of them, and this actually seems a convenient place to do so. Like South Asia, Indonesia is a part of the Indian Ocean region, and was a major battleground in the Cold War. Thus, I will combine some of these things together into one post, and show how the Cold War affected the general Indian Ocean region (a forgotten battleground of the Cold War).

Bendera Pusaka, the first Indonesian flag, is raised on 17 August 1945

A review of “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross” (History Channel)

To say that the relationship between Islam and the West is sometimes troubled would be something of an understatement. Since the rise of Islam in the seventh century, Christians and Muslims have often made war on each other. As it turns out, their sometime antagonism has roots going back deep into the Middle Ages; and some conflict between them still persists today. The most controversial episode in this long history may still be the medieval Crusades, where the Roman Catholic Church sent its soldiers into the Holy Land, ostensibly to help the Byzantine Empire to protect itself from the “Muslim invaders.” Their assistance had ironically been requested by the Byzantine emperor Alexios, whose empire had another form of Christianity – namely, the Eastern Orthodox Church. But despite their common ground, the relationship between the Orthodox Byzantines and the Catholic Crusaders was somewhat troubled at best, and not just because of their differing versions of Christianity. The Catholic Crusaders were, of course, arriving there more for their own benefit than for that of the Byzantines. Nonetheless, the Byzantines could not afford to offend their Catholic Crusader allies; and so they were unfortunately caught in this crossfire during much of the First Crusade (and afterwards, for that matter).

What does this documentary cover, and what does it not cover?

But after they conclude their discussion of the First Crusade in this documentary, there is virtually no further mention of the Byzantine Empire. After this, the story focuses mainly on the Crusaders and the Muslims – which are both good subjects, but nonetheless somewhat incomplete here. To be sure, this documentary is divided into two parts, and the first part is dedicated to the First Crusade. The second part covers both the Second Crusade and the Third Crusade, but does not really go into any of the others. After the Third Crusade, they mention that there were some campaigns on and off for the next century. However, they do not mention how many there were, by the time these campaigns ended in 1291. In all, there were nine crusades; and this documentary does not cover the last six of them. There is thus a lot of missing territory that I would have liked to see covered here. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that the first three crusades were the most important ones, and thus (perhaps) the most worthy of being told for a television audience. Given that I know of few other documentaries covering any part of the Crusades (besides their bonus episode about the Knights Templar), it would thus seem that this documentary doesn't have a lot of competition from any others in this regard. Thus, I won't complain too much about this. Whatever its flaws, this documentary would seem to be a good starting point; and the information therein is also quite good. Thus, my overall assessment of it has tended to be positive; and I also found it to be quite entertaining as well.

Battle of Hattin, 1187 - the turning point of the Crusades

Cold War crises: Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and “Able Archer 83”

“Is this a game, or is it real?”

– Quote from “WarGames” (1983), a fictional movie about a close call with nuclear war, which came out a few months before the first of these real-life crises

The Soviet Union shoots down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 …

In 1983, a Boeing 747 aircraft took off from JFK International Airport in New York City on the 30th of August. Its planned destination was Seoul in South Korea, but it was scheduled to make a stop in Anchorage, Alaska, and routinely did so on the following day (the 31st of August). But the aircraft actually never made it to its planned destination, because it was shot down the next day on the 1st of September. It was flying over prohibited Soviet airspace. The Soviets thus mistook it for an American spy plane, and sent up a Sukhoi SU-15 interceptor aircraft to shoot it down. The interceptor did the job with air-to-air missiles, and the aircraft quickly crashed into the Sea of Japan, near Moneron Island west of Sakhalin. All 269 passengers and crew were killed, including a United States Congressman from Georgia named Larry McDonald. Two weeks later, on the 15th of September, the Soviets actually found the wreckage under the sea; and in October, they even found the flight recorders. But they kept all of this secret for the next ten years, not releasing any of this until 1993. (I borrow some of the wording for this blog post from various parts of Wikipedia, which I must acknowledge here as a source.)

HL7442, the same plane that was shot down as “Korean Air Lines Flight 007”

A review of “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America”

“... That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever … ”

– American Colonies Act 1766 (better known as the “Declaratory Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

A British view of the American Revolution, which is somewhat different from our own ...

This documentary has much to admire, and much to disagree with. Its opening credits advertise it as “A British View,” and this title is certainly accurate. I picked it up hoping to hear the other side of this war, and I was not disappointed. However, it also has some weaknesses which I will note here. To be fair, it is actually fairly balanced regarding the military campaigns, but it is also somewhat less than balanced regarding some of the politics of this war. The British filmmaker Richard Holmes is a genuine military historian, and has a deep knowledge of military strategy and tactics. He has a gift for bringing the human drama of these campaigns to life. He has the ability to make you sympathize with both sides to some degree. But when it comes to the political issues of this war (and there are quite a few of them), he shows that he is not very well-versed in the politics of the Revolution. He compares people like Samuel Adams to Marx and Lenin, and it is clear that this comparison is meant to be unflattering (and not a comparison that is meant to be complimentary, as it might be if spoken by someone else).

A review of “The War That Made America”

"Since the English have in their power an officer and two cadets, and, in general all the prisoners whom they took when [they] assassinated Sieur de Jumonville they now promise to send them with an escort to Fort Duquesne, situated on Belle River, and to secure the safe performance of this treaty article, as was as of the treaty ... "

- English translation of the "Articles of Capitulation" after the Battle of Fort Necessity, Article 7 - the French text of which was mistakenly signed by George Washington (who did not speak French) on 3 July 1754, in the belief that the translation given to him had been accurate (which it probably wasn't)

This documentary is about the French and Indian War, not the American Revolutionary War ...

When most people hear the phrase "the war that made America," the event they would think of is the "American War of Independence." (Or as we call it in America, the "American Revolution," or the "American Revolutionary War.") Most people would be surprised to learn, then, that this is about the "French and Indian War" - or the "Seven Years' War," as it's known elsewhere (including in Canada). This war took place over a decade before the creation of the United States, and ended some years before the first shots of the Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord. It's also important for the future history of Canada, because it turned Canada from a French colony into a British colony, and thus secured the dominance of English speakers in the region. The year 1759 is thus a controversial year in Canadian history, and it is resented bitterly by French Canadians - not to mention the First Nations Canadians. Nonetheless, it is American history that is the focus here, even if the documentary is narrated by the First Nations Canadian Graham Greene (which it is).

Battle of the Plains of Abraham - Quebec, 1759

The bitter strife of the Revolution actually had its roots in this war

At this time, the British Crown ruled the Eastern Seaboard of this continent, and its colonies were loyal outposts of the British Empire. These colonies all had their own militias that took part in this struggle, but they were not terribly impressive compared to the professional Redcoat soldiers, who arrived from Britain in considerable numbers after the war began. These Redcoat soldiers were the real backbone of the British presence there, and they had reason to view the colonial militias with some contempt. They were tactless enough to express this contempt more than once, and there were signs of friction between the two even during this period. The colonial governments resisted London's attempts to pay for the war by taxing the colonies, and they actually insisted on retaining local control over the colonial militias with regards to staffing and - even more importantly - military strategy. The bitter strife of the Revolution thus had its roots in this war; and the two groups' fighting alongside each other was a temporary situation that would not last.

The Albany Congress - New York, 1754 (one of the precursors to the later Continental Congresses)

A review of “The War of 1812” (PBS program)

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

- Excerpt from a lesser-known verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner," written by Francis Scott Key in 1814

This war would be unthinkable today ...

It's hard to imagine today that there could have been a war between America, Britain, and Canada - and in those rare times when we do imagine such a war, the war that Americans usually think of is the American War of Independence (or the "American Revolution," as we in America usually call it). Most Americans have some vague recollection from their middle school history class that there was a war in 1812, but they couldn't give you much information at all about where it was fought, or whom it was fought against. Even the "when" of the war is somewhat unknown, since the term "War of 1812" is actually something of a misnomer. "The War That Began in 1812" would be a more accurate term, since the war actually lasted until the year 1815. This is not communicated by the phrase "War of 1812," which makes it sound like it lasted only a single year (when in fact, it lasted for nearly three).

The death of British General Sir Isaac Brock at the Battle of Queenston Heights - Canada, 1812