Lingvostranovedenie_18_vek (1)

The Seven Years’ War was, therefore, essentially a continuation of the War of the Austrian Succession, but it was different from its predecessor in two significant ways. The first important difference was that the Seven Years’ War was truly a global war, requiring a total commitment of resources on the part of all combatants. In the long term this meant that, because countries were putting all they had into simply continuing to fight, any gains became secondary. In the extreme, it meant that a country such as Prussia was fighting for her very survival. The second major difference was a definitive shift that occurred in alliances that had existed for most of the first half of the eighteenth century. Austria and Britain, long term allies, broke their treaties and Austria sided with France, formerly her enemy. Prussia, in turn, broke her ties with France and sided with Britain, although this alliance too was broken, eventually leaving Britain with no allies on the continent.

Britain started its war activity supporting Prussia with the primary intention of contending with France, one of the major allies of Austria. The three fronts of primary interest to Britain were North America, the Asian subcontinent, and the European based navel fleet of France. Britain fought naval battles with France, mostly under admiral Edward Hawke, and prevailed in all of them. These victories severely limited France’s ability to defend its colonial holdings overseas.

In the European theatre, the first few years went well for Prussia.

Although Frederick the Great (Prussian military leader) was threatened on three fronts he cleverly moved his army and supplies around in such a way as to meet all dangers. By 1759 however, he was very hard pressed on all sides and met some serious defeats. In spite of all, he held his kingdom together and managed to stave off destruction until by a stroke of pure luck, his enemy the Great of Russia died, and he was able to make peace with her successor. With his Eastern front secure, he was able to stave off a few final assault in the west. By the end of the war, he had managed to hold on to his claim to Silesia, the main territory of dispute with Austria.

Even before the Seven Years War broke out in Europe, there was a territorial dispute between France and England, that was the occasion of the initial battles in North America, referred to as the French Indian Wars and the American hero George Washington, figured prominently in them. The French built a fort in Pennsylvania territory claimed by the British, and Washington was sent as a messenger to try to negotiate a peaceful solution, but several minor battles ensued. Britain then sent general Braddock to lead an expedition

11

to capture a French fort in the contested region, which ended in disaster. Another event that occurred early in the war, was the forced migration of over 6000 Arcadians, who refused to take an oath of loyalty to Britain, out of Nova Scotia, but over all, the early war went badly for the British, not just in Britain, where several important forts were lost, but also in Europe.

By mid 1757 however, William Pitt assumed the position of Secretary of State (in spite of several disagreements with the King), and from that point on, the tide turned. He appointed young, energetic and ambitious generals, in place of senior, but ineffective ones. These new generals included James Wolfe, who masterminded the British Conquest of Quebec, and Amherst, who lead the American effort to a series of critical victories resulting in the complete withdrawal of the French government from all of its territories in America. By 1760, only three years after Pitt took control of war affairs, the whole North America was in British hands.

The final phase of Anglo-French conflict began in 1756. This was an extension of the Anglo-French war in Europe. Count-de-Lally, the French Governor at this time captured fort St David at cuddalore in order to annexe Chennai. He called Bussy from Hyderabad to attack Chennai.

Robet Clive sent General Sir Eyre Coote to fight against the French. The French forces were defeated in the battle of Wandiwash in 1760. The British replaced the French in Hyderabad and the Nizam of Hyderabad gave the Northern sarkars to the British. The defeat of the French completely shattered the dreams of the French East India Company of establishing an empire in India. The French lost all their possessions in India and were confined to trading activities alone.

There were several reasons for the success of the British:

–Though the English East India company was financially supported by the British Government, the government did not interfere in the internal affairs of the Company which was not the case with the French.

–The English had the strongest navy amongst the European nations.

–Arms and weapons of the British were superior.

–English had many able generals like Robert Clive but the French had none other than Dupleix.

–The British had some of the best trade centres and ports in India as compared to the French.

–Policy of Dupleix was also responsible for the defeat of the French. His complete involvement in the political intrigues of Carnatic and Hyderabad blinded him towards financial problems of the French company.

12

§ 5. The War of Independence (1776–1783).

Britain fought the Americans in their War of Independence (1776– 1783). In one sense, it was always a war between cousins, and the long and tangled history of the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and America, as well as the notion of the unbreakable connections between both, bear witness to a link that at one time was very close indeed.

In part the deterioration of relations between Britain and her American colonies – which eventually led to the War of Independence – stemmed from a logical British attempt to make the colonies contribute more to the cost of their own defence. It was also partly the result of the desire of some successful merchants in the colonies to break free of controls imposed by the pro-British elite, and from British political miscalculations that saw foreign policy oscillate between harshness and surrender. Another factor was the work of radical politicians and propagandists – such as Sam Adams and Paul Revere – who envisaged a break with Britain when many of their countrymen still hoped that it might be avoided.

The descent into armed conflict between patriot (anti-British) and loyalist (pro-British) sympathisers was gradual. Events like the Boston ‘Massacre’ of 1770, when British troops fired on a mob that had attacked a British sentry outside Boston’s State House, and the Boston ‘tea-party’ of 1773, when British-taxed tea was thrown into the harbour, marked the downward steps. Less obvious was the take-over of the colonial militias – which had initially been formed to provide local defence against the French and the Native Americans – by officers in sympathy the American patriots/ rebels, rather than by those in sympathy with pro-British loyalists/Tories.

As all these elements of conflict came into play, the British commander in chief in North America was Lieutenant General Thomas Gage. He had long experience of the American continent, and had a beautiful and intelligent American wife, but he was under pressure from London to lance what seemed to be a painful boil.

Gage knew that war was coming. Magistrates loyal to the British Crown were displaced in many parts of New England. In February 1775, a Provincial Congress met in Cambridge and took over the government of Massachusetts, other than Boston itself. The colonial militia was arming and drilling. Gage called for substantial re-enforcements from Britain.

The British army of the time was not an efficient institution. Since the French and Indian War, Parliament had reduced the number of regiments.

13

Recruiting was always a problem, particularly for the regiments in America. There was no formal military education for officers and efficiency varied widely between regiments. In peace time there was little training and in a garrison like Boston, where the surrounding countryside was hostile, the opportunities for field days, even if the officers had been inclined to conduct them, were limited.

In August 1776 Howe began his inexorable advance against the Americans, fighting the battles of Long Island, Harlem Heights, White Plains and capturing Fort Washington and Fort Lee. General Washington fell back from position to position until by the end of the year he lay to the West of the Delaware River. The Americans were at a low ebb, the confidence of the troops severely shaken.

There was however an underlying dynamic to the war. Each British victory could only, at best, put off the inevitable. A single American triumph and sometimes even a failure reversed the impact of a string of British successes.

Such a triumph was Trenton on 25th December 1776 when General Washington launched a surprise attack across the Delaware and captured a substantial Hessian force under Colonel Rahl. At the news of Rahl’s defeat and death General Lord Cornwallis turned back from his return to England to cope with the reverse. The American war effort was galvanised.

The British army in North America suffered from a number of incapacitating weaknesses: it’s small size, the lack of a workable recruitment system once the New England hinterland was closed to it, the professional incapacity of many of its officers, the lack of proper training, the lack of an organised supply system and the inadequate number of cavalry and artillery.

At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War the British Regular Army comprised 2 Troops of Horse Guards, 5 Regiments of Horse, 3 Regiments of Dragoon Guards, 14 Regiments of Dragoons, 3 Regiments of Light Dragoons, 3 Regiments of Foot Guards and 70 Regiments of Foot. The Royal Artillery was a separate institution formed into field companies in time of war.

This system did not work in North America. Large areas of the country were sparsely populated and it was unrealistic to rely on local supply. General Braddock on arriving at Fort Cumberland in Western Maryland in April 1755 was incensed to find there was no market. He assumed his men were intercepting the country folk and preventing them from coming into the camp. He found it hard to grasp that there were no country folk in the

14

hundreds of miles of forest inhabited only by Indians and a few enterprising colonists. Every new British commander had to learn the same lesson. Burgoyne’s failure to do so, in spite of his experience in North American, led in part to his defeat and surrender at Saratoga in October 1777.

On the outbreak of the Revolutionary War most of the British troops in the American colonies were billeted in Boston. There was no cavalry, few guns and no field supply system.

For the British establishment and people the American Revolutionary War was a humiliating disgrace to be forgotten as quickly as possible. The soldiers who fought hard for 6 years to maintain the British Crown returned home to find themselves ignored. Victories such as Long Island and Brandywine do not appear as battle honours on any regimental colours.

Saratoga did not improve Washington’s position instantly, however, and his army spent a miserable winter at Valley Forge. But in the spring of 1777 Howe’s replacement, General Sir Henry Clinton, withdrew from Philadelphia (American Continentals fought creditably when they took on his rearguard at Monmouth), retaining New York as his base in the central theatre, and switching his main effort elsewhere.

In the spring of 1781 the picture changed at a stroke. Admiral de Grasse, commanding the French fleet in the West Indies, made a bold attempt to secure control of the sea off the Chesapeake Bay.

Immediately Washington heard what was afoot, he moved south with the bulk of his army and Rochambeau’s Frenchmen. The British could not prevent de Grasse from entering the Chesapeake Bay, and when they brought him to battle in early September the result was a tactical draw but a strategic victory for the French.

They still controlled the bay, and Cornwallis was still trapped in Yorktown. Another French squadron brought in heavy guns from Rhode Island, and the French and Americans mounted a formal siege against the outnumbered and ill-provisioned Cornwallis. Although Clinton and the admirals mounted a relief expedition, it arrived too late: Cornwallis had surrendered. When the British prime minister, Lord North, so firmly associated with Britain’s war effort, heard the news, he staggered as if shot and cried out: ‘Oh God! It is all over’.

Although the war was not formally ended until the Treaty of Paris in 1783, it was clear after Yorktown that the British, with their world-wide preoccupations, no longer had any realistic chance of winning. There had, however, been some moments that might have led to victory.

15

Howe, probably hoping to reach a compromise settlement with Washington, showed little killer instinct in his New York campaign. But in this sort of war the British were in any case eventually likely to lose, unless they could strike the patriots such a telling blow as to win the war at a stroke, and it is hard to see how this could have been achieved.

Conversely, the patriots had always been likely to win, provided they struggled on and avoided outright defeat. It is unlikely that George Washington would much like being compared with General Vo Nguyen Giap, who commanded the North Vietnamese army in the Vietnam war. But both shared the same recognition that a militarily-superior opponent with worldwide preoccupations can be beaten by an opponent who avoids outright defeat and remains in the field. It is an old truth, and 21st-century strategists, whatever their political differences, should be well aware of it.

Summary. In 1776, the colonies were at war against Britain. About half the colonists were Patriots. A smaller group of colonists were Loyalists. Many colonists were neutral. Many enslaved African Americans were Loyalists because Britain promised them freedom. However, about 5,000 African Americans fought for independence from Britain. Most American Indians were neutral or Loyalists because they believed that the British would stop settlers from moving onto Indian lands. Many women were Patriots.

The British army had good training and weapons. Soldiers in the

Continental Army had few supplies and little money. The Continental Army had some strengths. General George Washington led the Continental Army. He was a strong leader. American soldiers knew the land better than the British soldiers did. American soldiers believed strongly in their cause. For most British soldiers, fighting was just a job.

In the spring of 1776, the Continental Army drove the British from Boston. Later, American troops lost battles in New York City. The defeats forced them to retreat. In December 1776, Washington and his army crossed the Delaware River. They surprised the British and defeated them in Trenton, New Jersey.

Then the Continental Army won a major battle near Saratoga, New York. This persuaded France to help the Americans by sending supplies and soldiers.

By 1779, neither side was winning. The British invaded the South, hoping Loyalists would help them fight. The British had some success and won some battles. However, southern Patriot commanders found new ways to

16

fight and started to win battles. Francis Marion led surprise attacks. Nathanael Greene wore out the British by tricking them into chasing his army. Finally, in 1781,Washington’s army surrounded the British at Yorktown,Virginia. The French navy blocked the harbor so the British could not retreat. Cornwallis surrendered. In 1783, the United States and Britain signed the Treaty of Paris to end the war. The United States had won its independence.

§ 6. George III (1760–1820).

George III was born in 1738 in London. He was the eldest son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha.

He inherited the throne after the death of his father in 1751, succeeding his grandfather, George II, in 1760. He was the first representative of this royal family to be born in England. He was capable to use English as his first language.

George III had two problems: the first one was connected with his head, he was mad, the second one characterizes the king being incapable ruler because he lost the American colonies.

George was not directly responsible for the loss of the colonies. George opposed their bid for independence to the end, but he did not hold the policies which led to war in 1775 and which had the support of Parliament.

These policies were largely due to the financial burdens of garrisoning and administering the vast expansion of territory brought under the British Crown in America, the costs of a series of wars with France and Spain in North America, and the loans given to the East India Company.

The Hanoverian throne was threatened by the declaration of American independence on 4 July 1776, the end of the war with the surrender by British forces in 1782.

However, George’s strong defence of what he saw as the national interest and the prospect of long war with France made him, if anything, more popular than before.

George’s accession in 1760 marked a significant change in royal finances.

The monarch had received an annual grant of £700,000 from Parliament as a contribution to the Civil List, i.e. civil government costs (such as judges’ and ambassadors’ salaries) and the expenses of the Royal Household.

The first 25 years of George’s reign were politically controversial for reasons other than the conflict with America. The King was accused by some

17

critics, particularly Whigs (a leading political grouping), of attempting to reassert royal authority in an unconstitutional manner.

George took a conventional view of the constitution and the powers left to the Crown after the conflicts between Crown and Parliament in the 17th c.

Although he was careful not to exceed his powers, George’s limited ability and lack of subtlety in dealing with the shifting alliances within the Tory and Whig political groupings in Parliament meant that he found it difficult to bring together ministries which could enjoy the support of the House of Commons.

George III was the most attractive of the Hanoverian monarchs. He was a good family man (he had 15 children) and devoted to his wife, for whom he bought the Queen’s House (later enlarged to become Buckingham Palace).

One of the most cultured of monarchs, George started a new royal collection of books (65,000 of his books were later given to the British Museum, as the nucleus of a national library) and opened his library to scholars.

In 1768, George founded and paid the initial costs of the Royal Academy of Arts (now famous for its exhibitions).

He was the first king to study science as part of his education (he had his own astronomical observatory), and examples of his collection of scientific instruments can now be seen in the Science Museum.

He died on 29 January 1820, after a ruling of almost 60 years.

§ 7. Sea Power and Trade.

At the beginning of the 18th century, Britain possessed colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, numerous sugar islands in the Caribbean and a foothold in Bengal. Georgia became a British colony in 1732. Britain acquired the Ceded Islands in 1763.

Despite the disastrous loss of the 13 North American colonies in the American War of Independence in 1783, Britain subsequently acquired settlements in New South Wales, Sierra Leone, Trinidad, Demerara, Mauritius and the Cape Colony. She also extended her hold over Bengal and Madras.

British oceanic enterprise provided the shipping, commerce, settlers and entrepreneurs that held these far-flung territories together. In the Indian Ocean, the English India Company dominated trade with India, south east Asia and China.

18

In the Atlantic Ocean, most trade was carried out by private merchant vessels.

The triangular slave trade was an important feature of British transatlantic commerce, taking over three million black slaves as workers for the plantations in America and the West Indies until the trade was abolished in 1807.

Trade was backed by naval power and by efficient handling of private and public credit, including substantial public borrowing via the Bank of England.

In accordance with the mercantilist philosophy of the time, the colonies were regarded as a source of necessary raw materials for England and were granted monopolies for their products, such as tobacco and sugar, in the British market. In return, they were expected to conduct all their trade by means of English ships and to serve as markets for British manufactured goods.

The long 18th century, from the Glorious Revolution until Waterloo, was the period in which Britain rose to a dominant position among European trading empires, and became the first western nation to industrialise.

The extent of economic change between 1688 and 1815 can be discerned through a glimpse at the state of economic and social conditions at home, and the growth of trade and empire at the beginning and end of that period.

Rapid population growth in 18th-century North America provided a large market for British exports. In the quarter century before the American Revolution, British foreign trade changed its commodity composition to provide a wider range of textiles, notably linen and cotton fabrics.

This was in addition to a range of metalware and hardware, fabricated to meet the demands of a burgeoning colonial population with less advanced industrial processes than were current in the home country, and with some restrictions on their own manufacturing.

§ 8. Population growth.

By the end of the Napoleonic wars, this scenario had been transformed. Population growth increased rapidly after c. 1770, and by 1815 the British population totalled 12 million.

Agricultural productivity, proto-industrialisation, the growth of manufacturing and new mineral technologies, along with the arrival of factories,

19

had helped the economy to industrialise. Dual occupations had largely been superseded by specialised, regular working conditions.

Trade and colonisation had also proceeded apace. In 1700 most foreign commerce, by volume and value, was still conducted with Europe, but during the 18th century British overseas trade became ‘Americanised’. By 1797–1798, North America and the West Indies received 57 per cent of British exports, and supplied 32 per cent of imports.

By 1775 Britain possessed far more land and people in the Americas than either the Dutch or the French – who were the two main northern European rivals for international power and prestige. The East India Company’s trade also still flourished at this time, and greater settlement by the British in Bengal occurred after c. 1765.

The loss of the thirteen mainland American colonies in the War of Independence was a major blow to British imperial strength, but Britain recovered swiftly from this disaster, and acquired additional territories during the long war years with France from 1793 to 1815. The new colonies included Trinidad, Tobago, St. Lucia, Guyana, the Cape Colony, Mauritius and Ceylon. Various Indian states were also subjugated.

Between 1760 and 1800 the population increased by more than onethird, to between 16,000 and 17,000. Such a figure is consistent with the returns of the 1801 census.

At the end of the 17th century it was estimated the population of

England and Wales was about 5 1/2 million. The population of Scotland was about 1 million. The population of London was about 600,000.

In the mid 18th century the population of Britain was about 6 1/2 million. In the late 18th century it grew rapidly and by 1801 it was over 9 million. The population of London was almost 1 million.

During the 18th century towns in Britain grew larger. Nevertheless most towns still had populations of less than 10,000. However in the late 18th century new industrial towns in the Midland and the North of England mushroomed. Meanwhile the population of London grew to nearly 1 million by the end of the century. Other towns were much smaller. The population of Liverpool was about 77,000 in 1800. Birmingham had about 73,000 people and Manchester had about 70,000. Bristol had a population of about 68,000. Sheffield was smaller with 31,000 people and Leeds had about 30,000 people. Leicester had a population of about 17,000 in 1800. In the south Portsmouth had a population of about 32,000 in 1800 while Exeter had about 20,000 people.

20