I never understood at the time why he thought this obscure battle at Quebec was important for the course on European warfare, it seemed to me that it was a personal thing for Wolfe. Is there are good book on this campaign?
Heh, I’d like a recommendation on that as well: I’ve read several books on the campaign, but none that really struck me as “this is the one”.
As for the victory - it was certainly momentous in effect in that it spelled the end for the French empire in Canada, with all that implies for world history (though one could certainly argue that the defeat of the French Navy elsewhere was more significant). The battle itself was unremarkable in terms of tactics, aside from Wolfe’s boldness in attempting a landing at such a difficult spot.
I thought he was outWolfed.
Exactly. Every one knows Wolf beats Monty. Monty beats Fox.
Nice link, I like her art, reminds me of Sfarr.
Not really. What mattered was the outcome of the war in Europe. Until then French possesions captured by the British (Canada, West Indies, India) were just bargaining chips. A French victory in the 7 years war would probably have resulted in Canada being returned to French control (except if some deal had been struck, like, say, control of all of North America to the UK in exchange for British possessions in India or whatnot).
As a matter of fact, Canada had been conquered by the British or British privateers before 1760, notably around 1630 by the Kirke brothers. It had been returned to France after the war, and almost nobody remembers this fact today.
A strong French territory near the 'Statesw would have provided a great many oppornuties. Britain might have lost much more, to either party. France could have moved troops more easily and would have had a bigger dog in then fight. And while France’s support amounted tio a huge amount in cash, it was often badly wasted through incompetence on the French end, on America’s early ambassador Ben Franklin (brilliant, but he couldn’t administer a cigar stand). Both of those may well have worked out much differently.
In any cse, I’m talking about “more actually getting to where it was needed.”
Oi! It also had members representing Scotland.
That’s largely because Charles I was an idiot, though, and returned it for a dowry. Also, Kirke was born in France, btw, which I think is a neat little factlet.
That’s assuming that France would side with the rebels. For one, France wouldn’t have the important motivation of revenge, having won the 7 years war, and besides, she might have been bothered by the bad example given by the rebels to the residents of Canada.
Worst case scenario, even though unlikely : France supports the UK.
It’s also assuming that the colonists wouldn’t be so afraid of the French that it would overcome any problems they were having with Britain.
Plus there would’ve been no discontent caused by a Proclamation Line, nor by concessions granted to Roman Catholics at the “expense” of British settlers.
And the necessity of keeping the colonists on side for any future war might’ve restrained British enthusiasm for possibly sensible but certainly high-handed fiscal reforms.
British failure to understand the fundamentally different nature of colonial society and culture would still have remained, of course…