Of course not,but they were in the Napoleonic wars(!!!)
your general statement is noted,I was not talking about the Levant,but about the Atlantic and the subject colonials,ditto about the Indian Ocean,India,the Pacific and any other location I probably forgot;
combatant is a very broad word used also to encompass natives in the service of the colonial power(status of BAns in the 7YW) and others round the globe,that is why the point you consider irrelevant,it is very relevant after all...
But I'm talking abnout 7YW.....
Yes, which is why 7YW can be considered world war because theatres were widely separated. Unlike, for example, Italian-Turkish war which in theory involved 3 continents but theatres were close togerther and linked to a great degree.
It's irrelevant whether non-european entities were capable of defeating european armies or not.
1) the Thread heading refers to both wars...
2) So you agree(!)...
3) I don't think that the third point makes sense...
But I was talking about 7YW
Yes, I think it could be called World war. But since this is not generally accepted I'll stick to conventional count
Well, you brought up the fact that in mid 18th century non-european countries could stand up to european ones, not me.....
I didn't! I wrote:'natives in the service of the colonial power' it is not the same.England used sepoys in India at the time of Napoleon,NA volunteer units in 7YW,now I hope it is clear enough...
A small note:I doubt if any countries outside Europe able to stand up to any European nations existed then...
No, I am not particularly looking for examples, although new sources are always a bonus. You made the statement and I was just interested as to why you thought that. I deduce from your comments about your book collection being in your country to mean that you are not english. Your bias towards french sources could well mean that you are a native of our southern neighbour. But....putting that aside, I am asking in general terms why you find French sources in the aforementioned areas to be so superior to their anglophone counterparts?
For example, it could be said that the 19th century was the British Century and the 20th century was the American Century (both being arguably the dominant powers of their respective centuries), so in this case are you stating that they have a tendancy to 'big up' their own position in world and military affairs, thus leading to inaccurate and poor representations of what actually happened?
You made the claim that you find french sources superior, I am simply interested, as to what it is about them, in your opionion, that makes them so superior/more accurate than their anglophone counteparts.
Regards
Lord I