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: How many troops did Austria and France pledge to defend each other?, context: 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.


Question: Where did the French build Fort Duquesne?

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: Where did the French build Fort Duquesne?, context: 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.


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: What city is now located where Fort Duquesne was built?, context: 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.


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: Were the British successful in stopping the building of Fort Duquesne?, context: 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.


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: Who led the British militia to drive the French out of Fort Duquesne?, context: 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.


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: Where did the French for General George Washington's surrender?, context: 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.


Question: Which country dispatched regular troops to North America?

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: Which country dispatched regular troops to North America?, context: 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.


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: What was the result of the British attack on Ft Duquesne?, context: 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.


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: Who led the British assault on Ft. Duquesne?, context: 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.


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: What was the result of the naval encounter between Britain and France?, context: 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.


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: Who won the Battle of Lake George?, context: 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.


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

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: How much effort did France put into wars to defend its colonies?, context: 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.


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


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: Why did the French rulers need a large domestic army?, context: 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.


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: How much success did France have in adding European territory with this approach?, context: 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.


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


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

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: How did the British avoid having large contingents of troops in continental Europe?, context: 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.


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


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: Who led the armies supporting British interests in central Europe?, context: 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.


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


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: How did the British behave in defending their colonies compared to the French approach?, context: 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.


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

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 the grand strategy of prime minister William Pitt?, context: 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.


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 was Pitt's primary military advantage?, context: 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.


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> .

question: What locations did Pitt want from France?, context: 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.


Question: How did Pitt plan to augment the British regular troops?

Answer: He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies

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. <hl> He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies , working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France. <hl> 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. 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 <hl>, 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> He also planned to use colonial forces from the Thirteen American colonies <hl> , working under the command of British regulars, to invade new France.

question: How did Pitt plan to augment the British regular troops?, context: 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.


Question: How did Pitt's strategy affect Britain's future plans?

Answer: even after that the British continued his strategy

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. <hl> Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and even after that the British continued his strategy . <hl> 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. 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 <hl> even after that the British continued his strategy <hl>. It proved completely successful. Pitt had a clear appreciation of the enormous value of imperial possessions, and realized how vulnerable was the French Empire.

Pitt Head of the government from 1756 to 1761, and <hl> even after that the British continued his strategy <hl> .

question: How did Pitt's strategy affect Britain's future plans?, context: 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.


Question: What was the reason that the British Prime Minister thought that ware in Europe could be prevented?

Answer: the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic <hl> that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe . <hl> However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that <hl> the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe <hl>. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.

that <hl> the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe <hl> .

question: What was the reason that the British Prime Minister thought that ware in Europe could be prevented?, context: The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.


Question: What country initiated conflict?

Answer: the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. <hl> However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. <hl> A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and <hl> the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca <hl> in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.

question: What country initiated conflict?, context: The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.


Question: What was the result for Admiral Byng?

Answer: Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. <hl> A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed ). <hl> War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which <hl> Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed <hl>). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.

A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which <hl> Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed <hl> ).

question: What was the result for Admiral Byng?, context: The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.


Question: When was war declared between Britain and France?

Answer: War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). <hl> War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country. <hl>

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). <hl> War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May <hl> nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.

question: When was war declared between Britain and France?, context: The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.


Question: How did the timing of the declaration of war compare to the conflicts in North America between Britain and France?

Answer: nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). <hl> War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country. <hl>

The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May <hl> nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country. <hl>

question: How did the timing of the declaration of war compare to the conflicts in North America between Britain and France?, context: The British Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, was optimistic that the new series of alliances could prevent war from breaking out in Europe. However, a large French force was assembled at Toulon, and the French opened the campaign against the British by an attack on Minorca in the Mediterranean. A British attempt at relief was foiled at the Battle of Minorca, and the island was captured on 28 June (for which Admiral Byng was court-martialed and executed). War between Britain and France had been formally declared on 18 May nearly two years after fighting had broken out in the Ohio Country.


Question: How did Frederick II of Prussia respond to news of British and French clashes in North America?

Answer: he led Prussian troops across the border of Saxony

Frederick II of Prussia had received reports of the clashes in North America and had formed an alliance with Great Britain. <hl> On 29 August 1756, he led Prussian troops across the border of Saxony , one of the small German states in league with Austria. <hl> He intended this as a bold pre-emption of an anticipated Austro-French invasion of Silesia. He had three goals in his new war on Austria. First, he would seize Saxony and eliminate it as a threat to Prussia, then using the Saxon army and treasury to aid the Prussian war effort. His second goal was to advance into Bohemia where he might set up winter quarters at Austria's expense. Thirdly, he wanted to invade Moravia from Silesia, seize the fortress at Olmütz, and advance on Vienna to force an end to the war.

Frederick II of Prussia had received reports of the clashes in North America and had formed an alliance with Great Britain. On 29 August 1756, <hl> he led Prussian troops across the border of Saxony <hl>, one of the small German states in league with Austria. He intended this as a bold pre-emption of an anticipated Austro-French invasion of Silesia. He had three goals in his new war on Austria. First, he would seize Saxony and eliminate it as a threat to Prussia, then using the Saxon army and treasury to aid the Prussian war effort. His second goal was to advance into Bohemia where he might set up winter quarters at Austria's expense. Thirdly, he wanted to invade Moravia from Silesia, seize the fortress at Olmütz, and advance on Vienna to force an end to the war.

On 29 August 1756, <hl> he led Prussian troops across the border of Saxony <hl> , one of the small German states in league with Austria.

question: How did Frederick II of Prussia respond to news of British and French clashes in North America?, context: Frederick II of Prussia had received reports of the clashes in North America and had formed an alliance with Great Britain. On 29 August 1756, he led Prussian troops across the border of Saxony, one of the small German states in league with Austria. He intended this as a bold pre-emption of an anticipated Austro-French invasion of Silesia. He had three goals in his new war on Austria. First, he would seize Saxony and eliminate it as a threat to Prussia, then using the Saxon army and treasury to aid the Prussian war effort. His second goal was to advance into Bohemia where he might set up winter quarters at Austria's expense. Thirdly, he wanted to invade Moravia from Silesia, seize the fortress at Olmütz, and advance on Vienna to force an end to the war.


Question: What country was Saxony aligned with?

Answer: Saxony, one of the small German states in league with Austria

Frederick II of Prussia had received reports of the clashes in North America and had formed an alliance with Great Britain. <hl> On 29 August 1756, he led Prussian troops across the border of Saxony, one of the small German states in league with Austria . <hl> He intended this as a bold pre-emption of an anticipated Austro-French invasion of Silesia. He had three goals in his new war on Austria. First, he would seize Saxony and eliminate it as a threat to Prussia, then using the Saxon army and treasury to aid the Prussian war effort. His second goal was to advance into Bohemia where he might set up winter quarters at Austria's expense. Thirdly, he wanted to invade Moravia from Silesia, seize the fortress at Olmütz, and advance on Vienna to force an end to the war.

Frederick II of Prussia had received reports of the clashes in North America and had formed an alliance with Great Britain. On 29 August 1756, he led Prussian troops across the border of <hl> Saxony, one of the small German states in league with Austria <hl>. He intended this as a bold pre-emption of an anticipated Austro-French invasion of Silesia. He had three goals in his new war on Austria. First, he would seize Saxony and eliminate it as a threat to Prussia, then using the Saxon army and treasury to aid the Prussian war effort. His second goal was to advance into Bohemia where he might set up winter quarters at Austria's expense. Thirdly, he wanted to invade Moravia from Silesia, seize the fortress at Olmütz, and advance on Vienna to force an end to the war.

On 29 August 1756, he led Prussian troops across the border of <hl> Saxony, one of the small German states in league with Austria <hl> .

question: What country was Saxony aligned with?, context: Frederick II of Prussia had received reports of the clashes in North America and had formed an alliance with Great Britain. On 29 August 1756, he led Prussian troops across the border of Saxony, one of the small German states in league with Austria. He intended this as a bold pre-emption of an anticipated Austro-French invasion of Silesia. He had three goals in his new war on Austria. First, he would seize Saxony and eliminate it as a threat to Prussia, then using the Saxon army and treasury to aid the Prussian war effort. His second goal was to advance into Bohemia where he might set up winter quarters at Austria's expense. Thirdly, he wanted to invade Moravia from Silesia, seize the fortress at Olmütz, and advance on Vienna to force an end to the war.