Seven Years War

To a large extent, Burnard’s approach towards the Seven Years’ War (1756-63) focuses on three points of contention. First, the war’s geopolitical consequences. Second, the role the war played in catalysing the American Revolution. Third, the war’s role in dissolving traditional orders across the European empires.

To a large extent, Burnard argues that the war’s greatest geopolitical consequence was that it allowed Britain to consolidate her position as the most powerful imperial nation, which fundamentally altered the balance of power in Europe. For example, in the Treaty of Paris (1763), Britain gained possessions in North America, the Caribbean and India. These events provide insight into the role geopolitical power plays in inter-imperial …show more content…
To support this claim, Burnard argues that the Seven Year’s War was a contributing factor to the American Revolution (1765-83). This notion is based on the premise that Britain had won the war too completely; as a result, to mitigate her debts, Britain enacted policies like the stamp act (1765), which catalysed the initial discontent that erupted into revolution. This argument provides insight into key themes surrounding the distinction between Empires and Nation-States. For instance, Howe argues that empires inherently seek to “expand outside their original borders.” By assimilating France’s North American colonial possessions, Britain was expanding outside her original borders. However, the American Revolution is an example of the emergence of a Nation-State in opposition to an Empire, as the revolutionaries demanded independence and self-determination; these concepts being determinants of a Nation-State. As a result, the greatest global repercussion of the Seven Years’ War was the emergence of the nation state as a challenge to the