The Seven Years War in North America or "The French and Indian War" has been relegated to the status of "amusing but not very important" in most military histories. In Britain, it is viewed as a mere forerunner of the Napoleonic Wars. In the United States, its importance is only seen in the fact that it set up the conditions which led to the War of Independence. Only in Canada does the war hold central importance.
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 of Québec. These differences in significance for the countries involved explains why the conflict is referred to by differing names. In Britain, where the war was a struggle for global empire, it is not seen as a war at all but rather as a theatre of the larger conflict, the Seven Years War. In the USA where the conflict was one of many pressures leading to the War of Independence it is called the French and Indian War. This name reflects the problems and stresses the Americans addressed during the conflict. In Canada, where the war defines the nation's identity in the world, the broader title of Seven Years War in North America is most often used.
For the table top general the conflict has much to offer. The personalities are fascinating. One will not find a wider array of personality types than the sulking Wolfe, the gallant Montcalm, the dithering Abercromby or the cautious Amherst. Being led by these commanders, are armies of astounding diversity. The cream of European soldiery fought side by side with farmers and savages. However, it is in the realm of campaigning that the Seven Years War in North America truly endears itself to miniatures wargamers.
North American conflicts in the musket era: Seven Years War; American Revolutionary War; War of 1812; are ideal sizes to reproduce on the tabletop. The whole battle can be reproduced without scaling down to such an extent as to lose all the colour and detail of the action. With such small armies, the C-in-C's personal influence can be felt on the table and not that of some anonymous underling. Many campaigns in miniatures are too fluid. Armies are reinforced too quickly. Forces switch theatres too easily. As a result, the "war" is won on the map and not on the table with miniatures. Since the main British advances were channelled down three distinct and separate routes, flexibility is extremely limited. One has to pick a line of advance and commit to it. The war also provides a wide variety of battles from blind and confused skirmishes, through sieges and amphibious landings, to full set-pieces. There are few engagements each campaign season, thus magnifying the importance of each tabletop battle.
Finally, this is a war of evolution. The six years of the conflict saw a gradual but irresistible shift from the guerilla warfare fought by amateurs which dominated the 1600's and early conflicts of the 1700's in North America, to the professional linear battles that would dominate warfare for the next 50 years.
This is an exciting and colourful period that many gamers have never experienced. I hope you will enjoy what follows.
Bruce McFarlane