I've always been curious of this debate. I'd personally go with yes, the wars we traditionally refer to as the "War of the Austrian Succession" (1740-1748) and the "Seven Years War" (1754-1763) are technically one single 23 year long war.

My thinking is: Mainly because the war goals of both conflicts basically remained the same. The two principal conflicts in both were Austro-Prussian conflict over Germany (specifically Silesia) and the Anglo-French conflict overseas. When the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle was signed in 1748, everyone knew it would be merely a truce, it solved no issues, and was only signed out of pure exhaustion. The threat of war constantly loomed, causing the dramatic shake-up of the alliances during 1755-1756.

Some point to the 8-year peace between, but what is the point of peace where we can divide wars into two separate occasions. During the "Hundred Years War" England and France had truces lasting nearly 20 years at some points, but we consider that the same conflict. So what difference was an 8-year truce make?

Lastly, the reversal of alliances. 1.) Alliance reversals happen all the time in warfare. And 2.) The switch-up occured because of the previous war and its goals. Austria and France realizing that they were not each others main threats allied to combat the alliance signed between their two greatest enemies.

That's my evidence, I'm curious as to what yall think. I love having conversations like this, but unfortunately no one I know around here knows enough (or cares) about this topic. Thanks!!

Read:  Why didn't Morocco become a major power in the Atlantic or colonise the Americas?

Source: reddit post


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here