The Bazaar of War Profile picture
Sep 13 45 tweets 15 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
The most decisive battle of the past 500 years was fought OTD in 1759, on a windswept Canadian plain by fewer than ten thousand men. It decided the fate of the Americas and shaped world events for centuries to come.

Thread on the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Image
What became known as the Seven Years' War was formally declared by France and Britain in 1756, although fighting had broken out in the North American colonies two years earlier. British colonials began by pushing over the Appalachians to seize French forts, but were repulsed. Image
It was not until 1758 that the British saw any success, when they seized Louisbourg, a major fortress guarding the entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and captured the upper Ohio valley. The ground was set for a pincer attack on the St. Lawrence, the heart of French Canada. Image
That attack came the following year. The Royal Navy landed an expedition just north of Quebec City, while a force of regulars and colonial militias stormed Ft. Niagara, cutting off the route from the St. Lawrence to the rest of New France. Image
Of the two, Quebec was more important. It controlled naval access to the entire territory, standing at a narrow point of the St. Lawrence surrounded by shoals, above where the river gradually starts to widen into the Gulf.

The conquest of Canada required Quebec. Image
On 28 June, the British expedition under Major General James Wolfe landed the majority of its forces on the Île d'Orléans, then set up a battery opposite the city itself.

The French meanwhile entrenched in lines north of the city to prevent a British landing on the left bank. Image
The siege lasted all summer. After a failed attempt to seize the left bank, Wolfe decided to take a gamble. On the night of 12 September he staged a naval diversion on the left bank, then sailed upriver with the bulk of his troops, over 4400, to land south of the city. Image
On the morning of the 13th, the French were stunned to see the British installed on the Plain of Abraham. Montcalm, the French commander, immediately deployed what troops he had on hand, roughly equal in number to the British, many of these were poorly-trained militia.
Fearing that the British would dig in and become inextricable, Montcalm decided to attack before reinforcements could arrive from the lines to the north, even though this would have given him a great numerical advantage. Image
The battle was simple. The French marched up to close range while the British held their fire; both sides exchanged two massive volleys, in which the less-well-trained French buckled and withdrew to the city. Image
As the British pursued, they were nearly taken in the rear by reinforcements coming from the south, but a quick action held them off. Reinforcements from the north were also beaten back, leaving Quebec cut off from the bulk of the French army. Image
Both Wolfe and Montcalm were shot during the pursuit: Wolfe died on the battlefield, Montcalm the following day. The French military governor fled west with the majority of the army, while Quebec surrendered after a short siege.
Image
Image
Even with this heavy loss, the French were not defeated. They beat the British in the field the following spring and besieged Quebec, although this ended in failure when the city received reinforcements by ship. Image
Later that year, British forces at Quebec linked up with the expedition advancing from Lake Ontario. This gave them overwhelming superiority in numbers which, combined with free naval access to the St. Lawrence, allowed them to reduce Montreal, sealing the conquest of Canada. Image
1759-60 saw major British victories in every other theater: the Battle of Minden saved Hanover, a possession of George II. The twin naval victories of Lagos and Quiberon Bay destroyed a large part of the French fleet, preventing them from reinforcing Canada.

Image
Image
Image
They captured Guadeloupe in 1759, then in January 1760, British and native troops defeated a French-Indian army at Wandiwash in India, leading to the fall of Pondicherry and hence French India.

Why then, amidst all this, were the Plains of Abraham so important? Image
Until 1759, New France claimed most of North American territory. Although not as accessible as by sea as the Thirteen Colonies, it spanned the waterways that cut through the continent, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Image
More specifically it gave them control of the Mississippi. It is this, with its vast tracts of fertile soil accessible by an extensive river network, that is the bedrock of modern American power. The alternatives were French control or a continent divided.
worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopol…
Image
But how much was that a result of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham itself?

In light of French defeats elsewhere, especially at sea, it seems as if Quebec’s fate was sealed irrespective of any single battlefield decision.
And even if it held out through the war, the long-term trends were against it. The Royal Navy still controlled the waves, and the Thirteen Colonies had a much larger population, roughly twenty times all of New France. Image
Yet none of these three factors—the immediate outcome of the war, long-term military prospects, or long-term demographic trends—were foreordained. Things could have played out very differently.
Battlefield defeats elsewhere only narrowed French commitments. India was lost by 1761 and there were no great prospects in Germany—they could put all their efforts into retaining their North American possessions.
If Canada had held out, this would have only spurred the French to save their colony—as it was, they managed to send a small expedition to Newfoundland in spring 1762. Image
The British, for their part, had good reason to settle. The war was getting enormously expensive, especially as it was forced to subsidize Prussia, which was losing to a formidable Austrian-Russian alliance. They might well have been satisfied with much more limited gains. Image
This is demonstrated by the fact that, even after their continued victories in the 1760s, they were willing to return rich Guadeloupe and Pondicherry to France and allow it to retain Louisiana west of the Mississippi (which had secretly been ceded to Spain). Image
Nor were the long-term trends necessarily fatal. In hindsight, we see Britain as a natural naval power and France as a natural land power. Yet that advantage was only relative: France consistently had the largest army and the second­-largest navy. Image
It’s arguably that these competing priorities that prevented France from winning decisively in either domain. When France focused heavily on the navy, as during the American Revolution, it was victorious (this was Paul Kennedy’s thesis in ‘Rise and Fall of the Great Powers’). Image
Already by the time of the Seven Years’ War, France had pivoted more toward the naval theater. Her inability to profit from her battlefield victories in the War of the Austrian Succession convinced her not to contest the perennial battleground of Flanders. Image
This allowed for a realignment of alliances on the continent. France formed an alliance with Austria, which controlled Flanders, and without any threat from the south, that other great sea power—the Dutch—stayed neutral.
Combined with an alliance with Bourbon Spain, France was freed from fighting on fronts that traditionally demanded most of her resources. Her only European commitments were in Germany, where she supported Austria and attacked Hannover—a possession of the British king. Image
The French fleet meanwhile underwent a modernization. By 1775 it was close in size to the Royal Navy and many of its ships more advance; it also had fewer commitments around the world, allowing it to concentrate in greater strength if carefully employed. Image
At the same time that France was making peace with traditional enemies, Britain was stirring resentment. Her startling ascendancy abroad threatened other colonial powers’ interests, both in the Far East and Caribbean.
This ultimately led to Britain facing the combined navies of France, Spain, and Holland in the global conflict that raged from 1778 to 1783 alongside the American Revolution. Image
The greatest challenge for the French was demographic. At the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War, the total population of New France, from the Mississippi Delta to the St. Lawrence, was about 70,000—around one twentieth the Thirteen Colonies.
But long-term demographic trends are hard to predict. Quebec had long taken extraordinary efforts to encourage birth rates and immigration, growing from a very small base population. Image
This trend was likely to accelerate as Canadian settlers pushed south of the Great Lakes and into the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, a vast expanse of fertile soil that stretched all the way to New Orleans. Image
And it would have only increased if the Crown poured efforts into militarizing the frontier. Chains of forts required extensive networks of support, which drew commerce and hence settlement. Image
The military balance was moreover tilted by the Native population, which had traditionally largely sided with France. Army sizes on the frontier were small, so this ended up being a disproportionate advantage. Image
Taken altogether, a different outcome at the Plains of Abraham would have left open the fate of North America. If the continent was not ultimately divided, it is possible that a protracted struggle could have lasted even into the 20th century.
This, more than anything else, could have altered the course of history. Although great powers expand and contract, they always retain the potential to shape world events so long as they remain intact.
France itself was always poised to disrupt the European balance of power, whether under a king like Louis XIV, a republican like Robespierre, or an emperor like Napoleon.

Same with Russia and China in their Imperial, Communist, or modern incarnations.
Image
Image
Many of these blocs were established by the outbreak of the 7YW, or were about to be. China had reached its modern borders, Russia was ascendant, most of the Americas south of the Rio Grande were Spanish, while the EIC was beginning its expansion in India.

Image
Image
Image
Only the fate of North America was truly up in the air. European history would look very different if France’s subsequent military efforts were channeled here. Or if the American Revolution never happened. Or if there was never a single North American superpower.
None of this is to say that New France would have won out, or even endured. But it is to say that it was a possibility, one which was only foreclosed on the Plains of Abraham.

Few other battles in world history can claim to be anywhere near that decisive. Image
@SashoTodorov1 ...a revolutionary regime declares war on all Europe in 1792. Hence why demographics is the most important factor...but as noted, a lot of things can change over the span of decades.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Bazaar of War

The Bazaar of War Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bazaarofwar

Apr 27
A few stories from the past week have shown just how much drones are transforming warfare. It’s not their increased lethality or even their improved targeting for ground-based systems, but one of the biggest command-and-control revolutions of the past century. Thread. Image
The first is an article on Ukraine’s use of drones for indirect fire control. This alone is nothing new—it’s been apparent since last March that guided artillery, far more than ATGMs, has been the most effective weapon of the war.
19fortyfive.com/2023/04/artill…
The article compares Ukrainian indirect fire roles for all types of weapons to sniper rifles. But it only focuses on efficiency, and doesn’t really get into tactical effectiveness. For example, how has Ukraine used that increased efficiency to break up assaults? ImageImage
Read 12 tweets
Apr 27
Military strategy is supposed to be guided by war aims determined by political figures—this has largely been true for Western nations in the past 200 years. But far more often, the demands of strategy determine the war aims themselves. Thread.
bazaarofwar.substack.com/p/theories-of-…
Consider the case of the Japanese in World War II. In 1942, their aims were to complete the conquest of China and Southeast Asia. But in response to this, the US imposed an oil embargo which crippled their ability to keep fighting. Image
This left the oilfields of the Dutch East Indies as their only potential source, but an invasion would bring the US into the war against them. Continuing the war in Asia therefore meant war with America—which convinced planners to launch a preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor. Image
Read 8 tweets
Mar 28
What is operational art? Most people today would say something about connecting tactics to strategy.

WRONG!

This is an innovation introduced in 1982, which clouded an otherwise clear concept and led to 4 decades of pointless doctrinal bickering. Thread.
bazaarofwar.substack.com/p/the-levels-o…
The 1982 version of FM 100-5 Operations introduced the operational level of war, which it defined as using "available military resources to attain strategic goals within a theater of war."

Most criticisms focus on the use of the word 'level'. But that's not the real problem.
The term 'level of war' was first used by Edward Luttwak in an influential 1980 paper. Although this was never used by the Soviets, it's not a bad coinage—it reflects their understanding of a 3-part division of war, and the precedents go even farther back.
bazaarofwar.substack.com/p/the-levels-o…
Read 9 tweets
Mar 12
The concept of strategy has undergone three distinct evolutions from its original meaning of 'generalship'. Each was associated with a different level of war.

The first occurred in Late Antiquity, when strategy became associated with the overall battle.
bazaarofwar.substack.com/p/the-levels-o…
It also carried some sense of the campaign, but this did not really extend so far as an entire campaign plan - it was more the maneuvers outside of battle that gave an army the jump on the enemy.
The second evolution occurred in the 18th century. Classicists looked to Byzantine authors for inspiration, but adapted the term 'strategy' for their own purposes. This is when the strict division emerged of tactics=battle, strategy=campaign.
bazaarofwar.substack.com/p/the-levels-o…
Read 6 tweets
Feb 28
Tactics, strategy, logistics, lines of operation/communication all entered common usage during in the second half of the 18th century. Together with the mid-17th c., this period basically invented modern strategic language.
This ferment originated in France in reaction to her defeat in the Seven Years' War.

The Count of Guibert, who elaborated the concept of grand tactics, laid the intellectual groundwork for fast, decisive warfare - he was a major influence on the armies of the French Revolution.
The Welshman Henry Lloyd introduced "lines of operations" in his 1781 Reflections on the Principles of the Art of War", an addendum to his famous history of the Seven Years' War.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 28
I just published "The Levels of Warfare, Part 2: The Birth of Tactics and Strategy"
bazaarofwar.substack.com/p/the-levels-o…
It's striking how *late* the concepts of tactics & strategy were applied to warfare. It was not until the outbreak of the Seven Years' War in the 1750s that tactics caught on.
Strategy took even longer to develop: the term was first used in the 1770s, and only by the 1790s was it firmly established as meaning the realm of warfare outside of battle. Why was this?
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(