Question: What countries did King Louis XV want keep in his sphere of influence to thwart the interests of Russia?

Answer: Poland, Sweden, and Turkey as French client states in opposition to Russian

French policy was, moreover, complicated by the existence of the le Secret du roi—a system of private diplomacy conducted by King Louis XV. Unbeknownst to his foreign minister, Louis had established a network of agents throughout Europe with the goal of pursuing personal political objectives that were often at odds with France’s publicly stated policies. <hl> Louis’s goals for le Secret du roi included an attempt to win the Polish crown for his kinsman Louis François de Bourbon, prince de Conti, and the maintenance of Poland, Sweden, and Turkey as French client states in opposition to Russian and Austrian interests. <hl>

French policy was, moreover, complicated by the existence of the le Secret du roi—a system of private diplomacy conducted by King Louis XV. Unbeknownst to his foreign minister, Louis had established a network of agents throughout Europe with the goal of pursuing personal political objectives that were often at odds with France’s publicly stated policies. Louis’s goals for le Secret du roi included an attempt to win the Polish crown for his kinsman Louis François de Bourbon, prince de Conti, and the maintenance of <hl> Poland, Sweden, and Turkey as French client states in opposition to Russian <hl> and Austrian interests.


Question: What two geographies did Frederick want for Prussia?

Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.

Answer: Saxony and Polish west Prussia

<hl> Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. <hl> If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.

Frederick saw <hl> Saxony and Polish west Prussia <hl> as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.


Question: What country would refuse support if Frederick wen to war for Saxony and west Prussia?

Answer: could not expect French support

<hl> Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. <hl> If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.

Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but <hl> could not expect French support <hl> if he started an aggressive war for them. If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.


Question: What was his concern about trying take Hanover from the British?

Answer: he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack

Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. <hl> If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack . <hl> The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.

Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, <hl> he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack <hl>. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.

If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, <hl> he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack <hl> .


Question: What kept Augustus III from consolidating Saxony and Poland?

Answer: the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia

Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. <hl> The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia . <hl> Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.

Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but <hl> the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia <hl>. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.

The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but <hl> the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia <hl> .


Question: Who was Poland's ancient ally?

Answer: Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania,

Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. <hl> Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. <hl> A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.

Frederick saw Saxony and Polish west Prussia as potential fields for expansion but could not expect French support if he started an aggressive war for them. If he joined the French against the British in the hope of annexing Hanover, he might fall victim to an Austro-Russian attack. The hereditary elector of Saxony, Augustus III, was also elective King of Poland as Augustus III, but the two territories were physically separated by Brandenburg and Silesia. Neither state could pose as a great power. Saxony was merely a buffer between Prussia and Austrian Bohemia, whereas <hl> Poland, despite its union with the ancient lands of Lithuania, <hl> was prey to pro-French and pro-Russian factions. A Prussian scheme for compensating Frederick Augustus with Bohemia in exchange for Saxony obviously presupposed further spoliation of Austria.


Question: What country was pleased that Britain used its Hanover vote to elect Joseph as Te Holy Roman Emperor?

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.

Answer: Austria

<hl> In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. <hl> Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.

In the attempt to satisfy <hl> Austria <hl> at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.


Question: What country and person were displeased that Britain used it Hanover vote to elect Joseph as the Holy Roman Emporer?

Answer: Frederick and Prussia

<hl> In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia . <hl> Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of <hl> Frederick and Prussia <hl>. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of <hl> Frederick and Prussia <hl> .


Question: What was the French view about the dismemberment of Prussia?

Answer: saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. <hl> Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe. <hl>

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and <hl> saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe. <hl>


Question: What was a major objective of Britain in joining the Austro-Russian alliance?

Answer: to protect Hanover's interests against France.

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. <hl> Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. <hl> Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was <hl> to protect Hanover's interests against France. <hl> While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria. Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.


Question: What was Kaunitz's objective with the French?

Answer: Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. <hl> While at the same time, Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria . <hl> Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.

In the attempt to satisfy Austria at the time, Britain gave their electoral vote in Hanover for the candidacy of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph, as the Holy Roman Emperor, much to the dismay of Frederick and Prussia. Not only that, Britain would soon join the Austro-Russian alliance, but complications arose. Britain's basic framework for the alliance itself was to protect Hanover's interests against France. While at the same time, <hl> Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria <hl>. Not only that, France had no intention to ally with Russia, who meddled with their affairs in Austria's succession war, years earlier, and saw the complete dismemberment of Prussia as unacceptable to the stability of Central Europe.

While at the same time, <hl> Kaunitz kept approaching the French in the hope of establishing such alliance with Austria <hl> .


Question: What was Kaunitz of Austria willing to trade for French help in capturing Silesia?

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.

Answer: willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. <hl> He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. <hl> Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even <hl> willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid <hl> in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.


Question: What did Russia use Britain's money for?

Answer: to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. <hl> On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. <hl> Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order <hl> to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover <hl> immediately. Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.


Question: What countries teamed together at the Convention of Westminster?

Answer: Britain and Prussia

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. <hl> On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe. <hl>

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein <hl> Britain and Prussia <hl> promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.


Question: When was the Convention of Westminster signed?

Answer: January 16, 1756

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. <hl> On January 16, 1756 , the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe. <hl>

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On <hl> January 16, 1756 <hl>, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.

On <hl> January 16, 1756 <hl> , the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.


Question: Why was Beshuzev happy to put the troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border?

Answer: Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia,

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. <hl> Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, was more than happy to obey the request of the British. <hl> Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.

Years later, Kaunitz kept trying to establish France's alliance with Austria. He tried as hard as he could for Austria to not get entangled in Hanover's political affairs, and was even willing to trade Austrian Netherlands for France's aid in recapturing Silesia. Frustrated by this decision and by the Dutch Republic's insistence on neutrality, Britain soon turned to Russia. On September 30, 1755, Britain pledged financial aid to Russia in order to station 50,000 troops on the Livonian-Lithunian border, so they could defend Britain's interests in Hanover immediately. <hl> Besthuzev, assuming the preparation was directed against Prussia, <hl> was more than happy to obey the request of the British. Unbeknownst to the other powers, King George II also made overtures to the Prussian king; Frederick, who began fearing the Austro-Russian intentions, and was excited to welcome a rapprochement with Britain. On January 16, 1756, the Convention of Westminster was signed wherein Britain and Prussia promised to aid one another in order to achieve lasting peace and stability in Europe.


Question: What was the response of Empress Elizabeth of Russia to the English-Prussian agreement?

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.

Answer: Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. <hl> Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. <hl> Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. <hl> Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged <hl> at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.


Question: Why was France mad at the British-Prussian agreement?

Answer: France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria,

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. <hl> Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. <hl> The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that <hl> France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, <hl> particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.


Question: France was now in a desperate position, what did they do?

Answer: France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. <hl> The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. <hl> Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated <hl> France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance <hl> or face ruin. Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.


Question: Who were the parties to the treaty of Versailles?

Answer: Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. <hl> Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. <hl> Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. <hl> Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France <hl> was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.


Question: How many troops did Austria and France pledge to defend each other?

Answer: 24.000 troops

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. <hl> Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged 24.000 troops to defend each other in the case of an attack. <hl> This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.

The carefully coded word in the agreement proved no less catalytic for the other European powers. The results were absolute chaos. Empress Elizabeth of Russia was outraged at the duplicity of Britain's position. Not only that France was so enraged, and terrified, by the sudden betrayal of its only ally. Austria, particularly Kaunitz, used this situation to their utmost advantage. The now-isolated France was forced to accede to the Austro-Russian alliance or face ruin. Thereafter, on May 1, 1756, the First Treaty of Versailles was signed, in which both nations pledged <hl> 24.000 troops <hl> to defend each other in the case of an attack. This diplomatic revolution proved to be an important cause of the war; although both treaties were self-defensive in nature, the actions of both coalitions made the war virtually inevitable.


Question: Where did the French build Fort Duquesne?

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

Answer: the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River

<hl> The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at " the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). <hl> Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "<hl> the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River <hl> (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at " <hl> the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River <hl> (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).


Question: What city is now located where Fort Duquesne was built?

Answer: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

<hl> The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ). <hl> Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day <hl> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania <hl>). Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day <hl> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania <hl> ).


Question: Were the British successful in stopping the building of Fort Duquesne?

Answer: British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). <hl> Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful , and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. <hl> British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Peaceful <hl> British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful <hl>, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

Peaceful <hl> British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful <hl> , and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne.


Question: Who led the British militia to drive the French out of Fort Duquesne?

Answer: Led by George Washington

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. <hl> Led by George Washington , they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. <hl> The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. <hl> Led by George Washington <hl>, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.

<hl> Led by George Washington <hl> , they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville.


Question: Where did the French for General George Washington's surrender?

Answer: Fort Necessity

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. <hl> The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at Fort Necessity on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender. <hl>

The most important French fort planned was intended to occupy a position at "the Forks" where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers meet to form the Ohio River (present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Peaceful British attempts to halt this fort construction were unsuccessful, and the French proceeded to build the fort they named Fort Duquesne. British colonial militia from Virginia were then sent to drive them out. Led by George Washington, they ambushed a small French force at Jumonville Glen on 28 May 1754 killing ten, including commander Jumonville. The French retaliated by attacking Washington's army at <hl> Fort Necessity <hl> on 3 July 1754 and forced Washington to surrender.


Question: Which country dispatched regular troops to North America?

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.

Answer: Britain and France

<hl> News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. <hl> The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.

News of this arrived in Europe, where <hl> Britain and France <hl> unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.


Question: What was the result of the British attack on Ft Duquesne?

Answer: the expedition ended in disastrous defeat

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. <hl> In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat . <hl> In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but <hl> the expedition ended in disastrous defeat <hl>. In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.

In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but <hl> the expedition ended in disastrous defeat <hl> .


Question: Who led the British assault on Ft. Duquesne?

Answer: British Major General Edward Braddock

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. <hl> In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. <hl> In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July <hl> British Major General Edward Braddock <hl> led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.


Question: What was the result of the naval encounter between Britain and France?

Answer: Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. <hl> In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships . <hl> In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. In further action, <hl> Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships <hl>. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George.

In further action, <hl> Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships <hl> .


Question: Who won the Battle of Lake George?

Answer: inconclusive

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. <hl> In September 1755, French and British troops met in the inconclusive Battle of Lake George. <hl>

News of this arrived in Europe, where Britain and France unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a solution. The two nations eventually dispatched regular troops to North America to enforce their claims. The first British action was the assault on Acadia on 16 June 1755 in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour, which was immediately followed by their expulsion of the Acadians. In July British Major General Edward Braddock led about 2,000 army troops and provincial militia on an expedition to retake Fort Duquesne, but the expedition ended in disastrous defeat. In further action, Admiral Edward Boscawen fired on the French ship Alcide on 8 June 1755, capturing it and two troop ships. In September 1755, French and British troops met in the <hl> inconclusive <hl> Battle of Lake George.


Question: How much effort did France put into wars to defend its colonies?

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.

Answer: It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. <hl> It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. <hl> This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. <hl> It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help <hl> (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.


Question: Identify a major factor in this feckless strategy by France of not defending its colonies with enthusiasm?

Answer: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. <hl> This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. <hl> Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: <hl> geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult <hl> for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.


Question: Why did the French rulers need a large domestic army?

Answer: several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. <hl> Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. <hl> Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, <hl> several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative <hl> for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.


Question: How much success did France have in adding European territory with this approach?

Answer: France had few counterbalancing European successes.

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. <hl> This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes. <hl>

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end <hl> France had few counterbalancing European successes. <hl>


Question: In treaty negotiations, what trades did France hope to make.

Answer: in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions.

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. <hl> The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes. <hl>

For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, <hl> in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. <hl> This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.


Question: How did the British avoid having large contingents of troops in continental Europe?

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

Answer: allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies,

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. <hl> They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 <hl> By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by <hl> allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, <hl> particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.


Question: Identify an advantage that Britain had during the Seven Year's War.

Answer: Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. <hl> They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage . <hl> In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, <hl> Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage <hl>. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, <hl> Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage <hl> .


Question: Who led the armies supporting British interests in central Europe?

Answer: Frederick the Great of Prussia

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. <hl> In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia , then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. <hl> In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, <hl> Frederick the Great of Prussia <hl>, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, <hl> Frederick the Great of Prussia <hl> , then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France.


Question: What country was driven into an alliance with France by the British pairing with Prussia?

Answer: leaving Austria to side with France

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 <hl> This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France . <hl> In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, <hl> leaving Austria to side with France <hl>. In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, <hl> leaving Austria to side with France <hl> .


Question: How did the British behave in defending their colonies compared to the French approach?

Answer: In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. <hl> In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies , taking full advantage of its naval power. <hl> :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

The British—by inclination as well as for practical reasons—had tended to avoid large-scale commitments of troops on the Continent. They sought to offset the disadvantage of this in Europe by allying themselves with one or more Continental powers whose interests were antithetical to those of their enemies, particularly France.:15–16 By subsidising the armies of continental allies, Britain could turn London's enormous financial power to military advantage. In the Seven Years' War, the British chose as their principal partner the greatest general of the day, Frederick the Great of Prussia, then the rising power in central Europe, and paid Frederick substantial subsidies for his campaigns.:106 This was accomplished in the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, in which Britain ended its long-standing alliance with Austria in favor of Prussia, leaving Austria to side with France. <hl> In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies <hl>, taking full advantage of its naval power. :64–66 The British pursued a dual strategy – naval blockade and bombardment of enemy ports, and rapid movement of troops by sea. They harassed enemy shipping and attacked enemy colonies, frequently using colonists from nearby British colonies in the effort.

<hl> In marked contrast to France, Britain strove to prosecute the war actively in the colonies <hl> , taking full advantage of its naval power.


Question: What was the grand strategy of prime minister William Pitt?

William Pitt, who entered the cabinet in 1756, had a grand vision for the war that made it entirely different from previous wars with France. As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire, especially its possessions in North America and India. Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy, which could control the seas and bring as many invasion troops as were needed. He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies, working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France. In order to tie the French army down he subsidized his European allies. Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and even after that the British continued his strategy. It proved completely successful. Pitt had a clear appreciation of the enormous value of imperial possessions, and realized how vulnerable was the French Empire.

Answer: a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire

William Pitt, who entered the cabinet in 1756, had a grand vision for the war that made it entirely different from previous wars with France. <hl> As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire , especially its possessions in North America and India. <hl> Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy, which could control the seas and bring as many invasion troops as were needed. He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies, working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France. In order to tie the French army down he subsidized his European allies. Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and even after that the British continued his strategy. It proved completely successful. Pitt had a clear appreciation of the enormous value of imperial possessions, and realized how vulnerable was the French Empire.

William Pitt, who entered the cabinet in 1756, had a grand vision for the war that made it entirely different from previous wars with France. As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to <hl> a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire <hl>, especially its possessions in North America and India. Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy, which could control the seas and bring as many invasion troops as were needed. He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies, working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France. In order to tie the French army down he subsidized his European allies. Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and even after that the British continued his strategy. It proved completely successful. Pitt had a clear appreciation of the enormous value of imperial possessions, and realized how vulnerable was the French Empire.

As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to <hl> a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire <hl> , especially its possessions in North America and India.


Question: What was Pitt's primary military advantage?

Answer: Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy

William Pitt, who entered the cabinet in 1756, had a grand vision for the war that made it entirely different from previous wars with France. As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire, especially its possessions in North America and India. <hl> Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy , which could control the seas and bring as many invasion troops as were needed. <hl> He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies, working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France. In order to tie the French army down he subsidized his European allies. Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and even after that the British continued his strategy. It proved completely successful. Pitt had a clear appreciation of the enormous value of imperial possessions, and realized how vulnerable was the French Empire.

William Pitt, who entered the cabinet in 1756, had a grand vision for the war that made it entirely different from previous wars with France. As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire, especially its possessions in North America and India. <hl> Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy <hl>, which could control the seas and bring as many invasion troops as were needed. He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies, working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France. In order to tie the French army down he subsidized his European allies. Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and even after that the British continued his strategy. It proved completely successful. Pitt had a clear appreciation of the enormous value of imperial possessions, and realized how vulnerable was the French Empire.

<hl> Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy <hl> , which could control the seas and bring as many invasion troops as were needed.


Question: What locations did Pitt want from France?

Answer: North America and India

William Pitt, who entered the cabinet in 1756, had a grand vision for the war that made it entirely different from previous wars with France. <hl> As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire, especially its possessions in North America and India . <hl> Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy, which could control the seas and bring as many invasion troops as were needed. He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies, working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France. In order to tie the French army down he subsidized his European allies. Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and even after that the British continued his strategy. It proved completely successful. Pitt had a clear appreciation of the enormous value of imperial possessions, and realized how vulnerable was the French Empire.

William Pitt, who entered the cabinet in 1756, had a grand vision for the war that made it entirely different from previous wars with France. As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire, especially its possessions in <hl> North America and India <hl>. Britain's main weapon was the Royal Navy, which could control the seas and bring as many invasion troops as were needed. He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies, working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France. In order to tie the French army down he subsidized his European allies. Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and even after that the British continued his strategy. It proved completely successful. Pitt had a clear appreciation of the enormous value of imperial possessions, and realized how vulnerable was the French Empire.

As prime minister Pitt committed Britain to a grand strategy of seizing the entire French Empire, especially its possessions in <hl> North America and India <hl> .