The British ruled directly over their colonies, while the French did not.
how did braddock's defeat of 1755 show the difference in british vs. french and indian fighting methods? Thx!
Because of their red jackets and of their European tactical methods of fighting, unfit to the American terrain.
The British ruled directly over their colonies, while the French did not.
There were several differences, but the clearest is that French colonial rule was direct from the Paris while British colonial rule preferred to leave amenable local leaders in charge.
No, they are British.
French and British in 1776.
BP (British Petroleum) is ... British. It isn't French.
well,the british used brute force while the French wanted cooperation.
The question cannot be answered since the underlying premise (that the French "imperialized" Pakistan) is false. Pakistan was part of the colony of British India and while there were small French colonies in other parts of India, such as Puducherry, Pakistan was under exclusively British control. The French never had a hand in controlling the territory, so their methods for doing something they did not do cannot be analyzed.
ok i don't know why everyone calls the french and Indian war the french revolution cause there was a french revolution but the french revolution is differ from American revolution and french and Indian war was fought in new franceand the colonist moved there wanted freedom caused a war and french helped them defeat british
The British fought the French.