Talk:Second Hundred Years' War

message: This comparison doesn't make any sense. If one looks at the Second Punic War, the mother of the Punic Wars, it is the Carthaginians who have terrestrial supremacy on land with Hannibal winning many battles whilst the Roman fleet in the Mediterranean ensures that Hannibal is isolated in Italy. 
Therefore, it is Britain that is Rome and Carthage that is France. This comparison is strengthened by the fact that the British won (Romans won) and the British won the colonies in India and America from France (just as Rome took Sicily and Spain).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourskin (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carthage and Rome 

message: Am I alone to think the very idea of a "second hundred years war" doesn't make much sense ? Much of that period is dominated by the rivalry between the French Kingdom and the Hapsburgs or French expansionism within Europe triggering various european alliances. To suggest the "primary belligerants" were France and GB or that it was "a war between and over the future of each state's colonial empires" seems very far stretched to me and pretty British-centric. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this really make sense ? 

message: The article currently says "Charles II and James II had even actively supported Louis XIV in his War against the Dutch Republic", they also actively supported Spain against France Battle of the Dunes (1658). It seems to me that in their case Churchill's statement to the house sums up their positions "If Hitler were to invade Hell, I would find occasion to make a favourable reference to the devil." The English fought the Dutch when they were a trading rival. As general rule the English and later the UK has always opposed the most powerful continental European state. -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth of England and all that

message: English isn't my first language, therefore I might not understand this expression correctly, but I think that all periodization in history is artificial. It is based on an interpretation of historic events and can lead to different results, which also means that more than one periodizations can exist without one being "more correct" than the other. 91.50.57.203 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "artificial periodization"? 

message: The various wars between the two states during the 18th century usually involved other European countries in large alliances; except for the "War of the Quadruple Alliance" when they were bound by the Anglo-French Alliance, France and Britain always opposed one another.
The semicolon strikes me as a bit misleading. — MaxEnt 09:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of a garden path?  

message: I think this article fails wp:common name.  There have been 3 academic papers in the last 100 years that labeled the 126 years from 1689 - 1815 as a single unit?  That implies that this article should have a different name, such as "English-French Relations between 1689 and 1815".  Rockphed (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your source for that? Are there any academic papers that say those exact words? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you'll find there a few more than three academic papers - for one there a couple of books dedicated to said subject as well its first mention in J. R. Seeley's The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures (1883):
* The Second Hundred Years War, 1689-1815 by Arthur Howland Buffinton (1949)
* De Guillaume le Conquérant au Marché commun: Dix siècles d'histoire franco-britannique 1979 chapter on The second Hundred Years' War (1689-1815) by D. Johnson, F. Crouzet and F. Bedarida (eds.), 1980
In terms of journals 
* The Second'Hundred Years War', 1689-1815 by HM Scott - Historical journal, 35 (1992)
Many books references the term (I've counted several). Some even debated - a good account of this is from The Channel by Renaud Morieux on pages 1- 2. Others have said the use of the term 'is conventional' (p.74)- The Birth of a Great Power System, 1740-1815 By Hamish Scott.
Pus a number of blogs websites discussing the subject including this one The Second Hundred Years War: A Series of Anglo-French Wars, & this The Second Hundred Years War .
Hope that helps.  Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Name 

message: Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article really needs a historiography section 

message: I propose merging Long Eighteenth Century into Second Hundred Years' War, the reason being that the two articles cover the same historical context and period of time.GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal