PDA

View Full Version : We fought TWO wars against the US?



Brother Smith
05-09-2005, 19:31
Turns out we burnt the White House to the ground in the 19th century. That made my day ^^.

Can anyone prove this for me? I'm just going by word of mouth here...

Thanks,
Adam

ArtificerArmour
05-09-2005, 19:32
...

i'm pretty sure that didn't happen.

VanDoo
05-09-2005, 19:33
Follow link:

http://www.multied.com/1812/Washington.html

Iron-Father S.N
05-09-2005, 19:38
*Is happy*

Brandir
05-09-2005, 19:39
Yes we did. And that is apparently why the US President's home received its name. The Americans painted it white to mask the burnt areas.

TitusAndronicus
05-09-2005, 19:43
The War of 1812 was a conflict fought in North America between the United States and Great Britain from 1812 to 1815. In British texts, the War of 1812 is sometimes known as the British-American War, to distinguish it from concurrent British involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia is also sometimes referred to as the "War of 1812."

Although the United States was officially at war with Great Britain, more than half of the British forces were made up of Canadian militia. Additionally, many American Indians (now generally called Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada) fought on both sides of the war for reasons of their own.

The war formally began on June 18, 1812 with the U.S. declaration of war. The United States launched invasions of the Canadian provinces in 1812 and 1813, but the borders were successfully defended by British and American Indian forces. The United States gained the upper hand in the American Indian part of war with victories at the Battle of the Thames in October 1813 and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in March 1814, but by this time Napoleon had been defeated in Europe, and the British were finally able to divert more resources to North America. British invasions of American territory resulted in the burning of Washington, D.C. and the capture of part of the District of Maine, but the British counteroffensive was turned back at Lake Champlain, Baltimore, and New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent (ratified in 1815) restored the status quo ante bellum between the combatants.

Although the War of 1812 ended as a stalemate and is often only dimly remembered, it had many effects on the futures of those involved. The war created a greater sense of nationalism in both Canada and the United States. The successful defense of the Canadian provinces against American invasion ultimately ensured the survival of Canada as a distinct nation, and the end of the war marked the decline of a longstanding desire of many Americans to see the British Empire expelled from North America. Peace between the United States and British North America also meant that American Indians could no longer use conflicts between the two powers to defend native lands against the expansion of white settlement.

wikipedia, I love you!

Freak Ona Leash
05-09-2005, 19:47
...

i'm pretty sure that didn't happen.
Of course it did. War of 1812. James Madison got his ass handed to him on a silver platter. Along with his crumpets and tea of course...

Lafeel Abriel
05-09-2005, 19:54
It probably was just a case of the US backing the wrong side in the Napoleonic wars. They weren't the only ones to back Napoleon, and not the only ones to get hammered for it..

Inquisitor Engel
05-09-2005, 19:58
It probably was just a case of the US backing the wrong side in the Napoleonic wars.

To be fair to the US, they did owe the French some aide, even if it what they did support was simply material.

The British would have undoubtedly reclaimed the US as a colony again had the fallout from the Napoleonic wars not forced them to withdraw from the US. The British were tired of fighting, and public opinion of the war was relatively low.

blitz589
05-09-2005, 20:00
Of course it did. War of 1812. James Madison got his ass handed to him on a silver platter. Along with his crumpets and tea of course...
Still Proud of a victory almost 200 years ago.

Crube
05-09-2005, 20:00
You know when you find out something new that makes your day...


This is it...

Lafeel Abriel
05-09-2005, 20:02
To be fair to the US, they did owe the French some aide, even if it what they did support was simply material.

The British would have undoubtedly reclaimed the US as a colony again had the fallout from the Napoleonic wars not forced them to withdraw from the US. The British were tired of fighting, and public opinion of the war was relatively low.
True. Wasn't saying it was without good cause, unlike, for instance, the Danes, who had little to gain, frankly from backing Napoleon, and a lot to loose, which is what they did, when the Brits sacked Copenhagen for the second time.

Who knows about whether or not the British would have reclaimed the US, after all, we can't really say, now can we?

Brother Smith
05-09-2005, 20:09
Would have been the best thing that ever happened to us though!

Crux
05-09-2005, 20:10
"And the White house burned burned burned, and we're the ones that did it. And it burned, burned burned, and burned and burned and burned. And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies waah waah waaah, in the war of 1812".

Lyrics taken from the song "The War of 1812" by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie. Of course, it's not historically correct (they claimed it was Canada who burned it), but amusing none the less.

TitusAndronicus
05-09-2005, 20:11
The Star Spangled Banner was written at Fort McHenry, just outside Baltimore (locust Point) during the war of 1812

Sir_Lunchalot
05-09-2005, 20:20
err, it was Canada that was invaded, just not named as such yet. and isn't that song by the Arrogant Worms?

Inquisitor Engel
05-09-2005, 20:24
they claimed it was Canada who burned it), but amusing none the less.

At the time, Canada was still a British Colony, so they could be correct, but IIRC it was a British Regiment that did the burning, not a Canadian one.

Kensai X
05-09-2005, 20:29
No offense or anything, but what the hell are they teaching you in Britain. You've never heard of the War of 1812...?

In fact how do the teachers teach wars such as the Revolutionary War, the Afghan War, Boer War, Crimean War...? Do they kinda of skip it sense you guys got your asses handed to you...?

I'm not saying that America is perfect, but the school system has taught me about the screw ups in Cuba, Somailia, and Vietnam. Why don't the schools in Britain?

BTW the Brits have had 3 wars with the US, you had a small one with us in Oregon, but that involved a pig is generally regarded "misunderstanding between countries...."

Crube
05-09-2005, 20:37
Hey, most of English history is restricted to the stuff we won.....

The rest we have to find out for ourselves....

Crux
05-09-2005, 20:40
@Sir_Lunchalot: The only version of the song I've heard is by Three Dead Trolls. Maybe it's a cover, I have no idea.

@Inquisitor Engel: Well, my knowledge about North American history is... limited.

tzeentchgiant
05-09-2005, 20:51
Kensai X, we learn a lot about British History just like you learn a lot about Canadian and american history, wins and losses.

We do not skip over anything in Scotland (we lost more battles thanwe won, so we don't have much of a choice though), but if you drop the subject after a year and a half of dodgy teaching what d'you expect us to know?

And in Scotland, we learnt about a whole bunch of wars Scotland faught and lost in, and let's not forget we have a lot more to cover, America is what? 300 years old, where as in history lessons here we learn about stuff going on when you were just a twinkle in you star spangled daddy's eye, 800+ years of history to worry about.

Honestly, you learn about less history than us, and only history that is relevant directly to you, but dans la Scotland, we learn about facts and figures that influenced us minutely in the grand scheme of things, whereas the history lessons in the US focus on events that affected America, maybe not in America, but ones that affected things in America.

Once again, honestly :rolleyes:

And I did know about the war of 1812, the story of the white house, and other such historical events in US history, but lets not test that, I don't want to show off how bad my general history knowledge really is.

TG

Inquisitor Engel
05-09-2005, 21:02
No offense or anything, but what the hell are they teaching you in Britain. You've never heard of the War of 1812...?

Depends to what level you take history, as British history classes are done much more in depth than US ones (Having taken both) and in Chronological order. Even in the US, the War of 1812 is glossed over pretty quickly in regular classes.

In the US, any type of history is lumped in with Geography as a "Humanity."

In Elementary school in the US students learn everything from world geography, to national geography, to state history, to state geography, as well as the oh-so-nice time the Pilgrims had with the Indians (before stealing their land and murdering their livelyhood of course!) whilst completely ignoring the earlier Jamestown colony because it was in the South...

In middle school there's little to no World History, and US history only is taught to the Civil War, which is then picked up three years later in High school. After that, there's MORE geography.

World History is taught in the context of the world, and with the exception of the World Wars, avoids all mention of the US. Also in High School are taught US Government, US Economics and World Geography.

In the UK, once a student reaches secondary school, British History is rather effectively tied in the world events at the time. It's taught in strict chronoligical order, in depth, and once WWI is reached at 16, students take a GCSE, and can then stop taking history if they wish.

It's true that it's more British centred, but the US is equally as guilty of ignoring the history of other parts of the world, and even though there's a World Hisotry course, because it avoids almost all mention of the US, students come up with a poor understanding of what was going on in the US at the same time as events in the rest of the world.

Kensai X
05-09-2005, 21:18
Well, most history learned about in America does involve mostly America, but I've still managed to learn about most other conflicts in the world. As far as Americans having to learn less histroy because we have a shorter histroy, that's not always true. For instance all of those wars I mentioned earlier were during the Imperialist Era of Britain during the 1800's.

I was just curious on how much their mentioned in the casual history class being that they rather large events. Although, I'm really interested in learning about how they teach the Revolutionary War like it's causes, battles, and it's conclusion.

Freak Ona Leash
05-09-2005, 21:33
Heh, most of my history classes (or Social Studies. Whatever the hell we are supposed ot call them.) arent indepth at all. Its all "see this colony here. It had slavery. Thye famred alot. Moving on" or "This battle. Happened at Saratoga. British got their asses slaughtered. Next battle." And strangley enough, everytrhing somehow ties into the US...

Delicious Soy
05-09-2005, 23:12
What a peculiar method of education. Considering we only have 200 years to cover in Australia, we cover it mostly in Primary and the Junior years of high school (Mainly the convict settlement, gold rush, then skipping 60 years forward to Gallipoli). Most of our time is actually spent studying world modern and ancient history. In fact people have whined in the past because of the lack of Australian History (mosty of the history in the HSC has a token insertion of Ausralian involvement, easy for Vietnam, a little more difficult for say Israel/Palestine).

Anywho on topic, I laughed mightily the fisrt time I read about D.C being razed to the ground, chalk one up for the mother country!

glimli
06-09-2005, 00:43
it was the war of 1812, amreica invaded canda so england struck back. mostly kicked the americans arese except for on the great lakes where they out sailed the english.

5upr3m3 h4xx0rz
06-09-2005, 01:41
You guys dont even know what youre talking about...

America won that one! You may have burned the white house, but at fort mchenry and baltimore you guys lost (critical battle) big time. After that...the treaty was signed, and the war was over.

And you are also shamefully wrong about only learning american history...in middle school we only spent one year on the US, in high school i spent freshman year in american government, last year in world history (we learned next to nothing of america at all), this year we are learning only about the american history, and then next year focuses solely on europe. So not all lessons revolve around america, most do, but what do you expect? You dont expect the schools in brasil to teach an in depth study into the history of kazhakstan.

devolutionary
06-09-2005, 01:55
I see Ankh-Morpork and Klatch are fighting over who won again. Highly amusing stuff. :p

ReDavide
06-09-2005, 03:48
It probably was just a case of the US backing the wrong side in the Napoleonic wars. They weren't the only ones to back Napoleon, and not the only ones to get hammered for it..

Considering that cozying up to Napoleon got us Louisiana, I wouldn't say we got a total hammering.

Kensai X
06-09-2005, 03:59
The Americans invading Canada didn't cause Britain's attack, it was us declaring war on you guys because you still hadn't taken out all of your troops from America yet, still maintained forts in and around the colonies, and you were impressing young American sailors.

We were completely justified in our act of war, and we did happen to win that one...

Although to give you "some" credit if Britain was smart enough to send a larger force they probably would have won, and would have caused the American colonies to once more be under Britains "oppresive" rule...

Inquisitor Engel
06-09-2005, 04:09
credit if Britain was smart enough to send a larger force they probably would have won

Perhaps because our troops had been busy defeating the largest threat to freedom and unity of all people's across the world before Hitler?

Taking care of a petulant Corsican who forever tarnished French history and practically destroyed the French military for the next 150 years... yeah...

But all this is in the past, and the US and the UK have remained staunch allies since WWI at the end of the day.

Delicious Soy
06-09-2005, 06:12
You guys dont even know what youre talking about...

America won that one! You may have burned the white house, but at fort mchenry and baltimore you guys lost (critical battle) big time. After that...the treaty was signed, and the war was over.I think you're missing the point, which is the hilarity of the English raising DC to the ground. It doesn't matter who won or lost, it was whose capital was razed ie the USA. Razing the capital was a little 'old skool' of them :p

salty
06-09-2005, 06:30
@Supreme Haxxorz: Actually, you're wrong. No-one won the war. It was ended by a peace treaty which returned both nations to the status-quo. Unbeknownst the Britain, by that point, several states including New England were preparing to cede from the Unite States and pursue a separate peace with Britain.

Didn't notice this anywhere so I thought I would post it: When the Brits arrived at the Presidential Mansion (White House), their general ate President Madison's celebratory dinner before torching the place, and half the other public buildings in Washington. That was in retaliation for the burning of York(Toronto) I believe.

Also, the British captured the plans for the super-frigates during the war, and this was an important element in our decision to push for peace; we could return to status-quo knowning that at least something had come from the war.

No, the War of 1812 isn't taught in many schools. We get taught the most important facts of British history; Normans invaded, we had lots of Kings, one on them had 6 wives, one of them was crap and got his head cut off, then we had an Empire and eventually a new King, then we had America; they rebelled, then we jump forward to Napoleon, little bit on him, forward again to WWI and WWII.

Thats about it. I wanted to do more on the Cold War but we did pretty much nothing on that.

Salty :)

salty
06-09-2005, 06:32
I think you're missing the point, which is the hilarity of the English raising DC to the ground. It doesn't matter who one or lost, it was whose capital was razed ie the USA. Razing the capital was a little 'old skool' of them :p

Hey, it was retaliatory. But yes, you can see the funny side of it. Personally, I find the fact that they ate the President's celebratory dinner first. Dunno what he was celebrating...

The Stars and Stripes: I think the part of your national anthem which specifically refers to the 1812 War in Baltimore is "And the rocket's red glare, Bombs bursting in the air", with reference to the British bombardment of the fortress there.

Salty :)

Strictly Commercial
06-09-2005, 06:36
I think it needs to be pointed out there is no universal set of school standards in the US. Some public schools teach excellent curricula, while others are shamefully inadequate. It all depends on the state in which you live, and the amount of money the voters and state congress is willing to divert to underfunded and poorer areas in order to boost the education levels so there is a bit more universal opportunity. I know where I went to school (Minnesota) it was possible to graduate ready to take vector calculus in college (not that I was ready afterward but the option was there). I also knew a guy in the Marines that said he was top of his class and was just learning algebra when he graduated (in Chicago). So one really can't say "in the U.S. they teach (or don't teach) this or that etc."

Now, the War of 1812.


After that...the treaty was signed, and the war was over.

Not quite. After the treaty was signed, and the war was officially over, the Battle of New Orleans took place. And there is where the legend of the American guerilla fighter was born. Not, as is popular, from the revolutionary war, where musket formation was practiced by both sides. It seems appropriate to mention another famous skirmish, the Battle of Bladensburg, which preceded the D.C invasion. It was fought by 176 U.S. Marines against the invasion force, and also saw this tactic used. The high command of the Brits must not have listened to the OIC of the invading force because they might have been better prepared to face it at New Orleans, since the Marines at Bladensburg demonstrated our knowledge of it by holding them off for long periods of time and causing a good number of casualties before being overrun. In fact, when D.C. was burned, the commander (I long since forgot his name) refused to allow the Commandant's building to be burned in order to honor the bravery of the enemy. It's the only building from the original D.C. that stands unmarred from that era.

It was a pretty bad rout for the Brits at New Orleans, who couldn't get resupplied and were unprepared to face guerilla tactics. Communications at that time were pretty substandard, so not only did British command not get any insight from the Washington invaders, they weren't notified the war was over either. All in all a bad mess.

Sai-Lauren
06-09-2005, 08:47
Yep, Salty's right. America decided to burn down Toronto, so by way of retaliation, the British and Canadians went and burnt down Washington.

Freak Ona Leash
06-09-2005, 10:24
We Americans burnt down Toronto? Yay! :D Made my day that did.

Kargos Bloodspit
06-09-2005, 12:17
No offense or anything, but what the hell are they teaching you in Britain. You've never heard of the War of 1812...?

Hell, i didn't even get taught about the British Empire... partly because... my school sucked... they had history and geography and modern studies grouped into one department, so in 1st and 2nd year we switched around the 3... not once did we do british empire. Then we were only allowed to choose 1 of the 3 for 3 and 4th year... and seeing as I was better at geography I did that instead...

ah well, at least I can now relish in its Apocalyptic events of late.

The headteacher got fired. (and is under inevstigation for Fraud... :evilgrin: [nasty he was... always had a hand in his pocket... ]).
The deputy head teacher is going to a new school (so she had to get called back to take over the head teacher position temporarily... and supposedly she was having an affair with the old head teacher... even though that head teacher is ancient, probably 1000+ years old and a vampire, with a daughter in her 30s that teaches maths in the school, although she has a chemistry degree.... and has the reputation of being one of the meanest teachers in school (... shes nice if you do the work though :)).
Oh and it recently got infested by a Plague of rats! (thankyou skaven! :p)

uhhh.... woops, went a bit off topic there.... ho-hum.

sigur
06-09-2005, 12:30
slightly off-topic, but it struck me how often I read "we/our/..." and "them" in this thread. Strange thing, this national identification...

Brother Smith
06-09-2005, 17:04
I think people find this so funny because my entire life Britain has been Americas poor relation and we finally got one over on them (albiet hundreds of years ago).

Water under the bridge now though...

Captain Brown
06-09-2005, 17:06
Well the War of 1812 was quite a long time ago...one we would not consider repeating for numerous reasons. America has nuclear weapons, a very large and well equipped army, a population 10 times our size and well we just do not have enough resources to take them all prisoner. ;) A war between us would be like the United Kingdom and France fighting again, or Germany and Austria taking each other on. There were wars in the past because they were neighbours (or just across a channel), now we are much better at picking enemies across oceans and on other continents.

Back to joking just ask Denis Leary about us:

"Canada. I don't trust them! They're too nice and they're too quiet and they live right above America, okay? I think if you live in Buffalo, right at the Canadian border, and you listen very closely at night, you can hear those Canadians up there sharpening their ice skates and getting ready to come down and take our cheese!"
Denis Leary - No cure for cancer :)

Wisdom
06-09-2005, 18:03
There was also the war of Jenkins Ear but I don't think any shots were fired. Jenkins lost an ear though. Don't know whose side he was on but if he was American it serves him right and if was a Brit then damn those pesky yanks

tzeentchgiant
06-09-2005, 18:09
There was also the war of Jenkins Ear but I don't think any shots were fired. Jenkins lost an ear though. Don't know whose side he was on but if he was American it serves him right and if was a Brit then damn those pesky yanks

Living up to your screen name are you?

:p ;) :) :D (shows developement of emotions)

TG

salty
06-09-2005, 18:09
The War of Jenkins Ear was fought between Britain and Spain. It started after Parliament raised the issue of a Spanish Guarda Costa in the Carribbean cutting off Cpt Jenkins' ear, funnily enough. The war was declared 7 years after the event took place.

Salty :)

Wisdom
06-09-2005, 18:20
You're right, you're very right. I knew there was a little war but had forgot its name. The one I was thinking of is even sillier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_war

"It is so called because the only casualty was a pig"


And Goddamn it, it was our PIG!!!!!

salty
06-09-2005, 18:22
Yup, I'm generally pretty good when it comes to history. Althouh I've never heard of that pig incident before; seems kinda petty to me.

Salty :)

Wisdom
06-09-2005, 18:27
I've got to say that after reading the article that the pig war is my favourite ever war

"During the years of joint military occupation, the small British and American units on San Juan Island had a very amicable mutual social life, visiting one another's camps to celebrate their respective national holidays and holding various athletic competitions. Park rangers tell visitors the biggest threat to peace on the island during these years was "the large amounts of alcohol available."

Wish all wars were like this

Cade
06-09-2005, 18:44
It's becoming a reccuring theme.....

America invades a country then gets its **** severely beaten and has to withdraw.....

Vietnam, Canada, Iraq, Cuba (bay of pigs)....

The only two exceptions I can see are Grenada *lol* and Afghanistan (although the Taliban and drug Barons are actually still running the place).

Son of Morkai
06-09-2005, 18:47
Don't forget Mexico! The U.S. invaded Mexico and won!

Compyraptor
06-09-2005, 19:10
Didn't Blair apologise for the "acts of arson committed by the british troops in Washington D.C." ?? I seriously don't know where I heard that, I just remember it from somewhere.

As for history in british schools, it sucks. Here's a quick list of what we learned.

Primary School
- Year 1 (5-6 years old) - haven't a clue
- Year 2 (6-7 years old) - see above
- Year 3 (7-8 years old) - Romans, Celts and Cavemen. This lessons consisted of learning roman numbers, what a roman soldier looked like, what a roman villa looked like, what a celtic hut looked like, what a celtic soldier looked like and the general day to day activities of a Homo Sapien (of course we were taught that they were called cavemen).
- Year 4 (8-9 years old) - The Tudors and Stuarts. Finally, some real history. We learned quite a lot about that era, and I pwned the class with my knowledge of the times.
- Year 5 (9-10 years old) - Coal miners and World War 2. YAWN. Coal miners weren't interesting at all, and all we learned about in WW2 was that kids were sent to the country.
- Year 6 (10-11 years old) - No history at all.

High School
- Year 7 (11-12 years old) - A general overview of Medieval England and Wales. Started off with an in depth study of the Battle of Hastings. We then did the different style of English castles, briefly touched on how to conduct a siege, briefly touched on the Crusades, and loads on the Black Death, the Magna Carta and Tywysog Llywelyn Mawr.
- Year 8 (12-13 years old) - The Tudors. Basically the same as in year 4, but in much more depth and no Stuarts.
- Year 9 (13-14 years old) - World War 1 and the Industrial Revolution. We learned about the Somme and Jutland, what caused the War and trenches. The IR was terrible. All we did was factories and canals.

- GCSE (14-16 years old)
1920's USA in depth and then a brief overview of the USA from the Depression till 1990. And of course everyone's favourite topic, the Nazis.

- A-Levels (16-18 years old)
Tudor England and Nazi Germany.

So as you can see we don't (or at least I didn't) learn about the Napoleonics or the Empire or anything interesting like that. Instead I had to rely on Sharpe and do research myself on 18th-19th Century history.

tzeentchgiant
06-09-2005, 19:16
Didn't Blair apologise for the "acts of arson committed by the british troops in Washington D.C." ?? I seriously don't know where I heard that, I just remember it from somewhere.

I don't think so, why would he apologise for something they deserved (that's just me being a patriot though) that happend near enough 200 years ago :rolleyes: .

And my education may have been different to yours, as:

1. I am north of the border
2. I knew a bit of stuff anyway, and school and outside knowledge tends to over lap.
3. During this overlapping I may well have inadvertantly extended what we learnt at school
4. We had a crazy ass teacher, who would go off on tangents for entire lessons, about entirely different things, not concerning at all the particular peice of history knowledge we were struggling to grasp.

Anyhoo, bye

TG

Freak Ona Leash
06-09-2005, 19:26
It's becoming a reccuring theme.....

America invades a country then gets its **** severely beaten and has to withdraw.....

Vietnam, Canada, Iraq, Cuba (bay of pigs)....

The only two exceptions I can see are Grenada *lol* and Afghanistan (although the Taliban and drug Barons are actually still running the place).
And we forget WWI an II. Korea. Gulf War. I think some guys went to Panama once too. And of course the Revolutionary war. Bu,t we won all those wars with help. And our help wasnt really needed in the World wars but it did shave a few months off of them. Got a little hostility towards us Amis eh Cade?

EDIT: and why the hell would the Brits apologise about burning down the Presidents mansion? It was a war, and shock awe, burning down your enemies capital in war-time is a good idea.

Compyraptor
06-09-2005, 19:42
I really don't know where I got that from, with Blair apologising. I'm sure I read it from somewhere. Either that or I'm going crazy (most likely option :eyebrows: ).

Easy E
06-09-2005, 20:15
1812 had some interesting Frigate versus Frigate naval battles. Of course, we learn about those in the states, cause we mostly won those. However, we only had like (This number is purely speculation and from a crappy memory) 12 frigates. They were as Salty said "Super-Frigates" (also know as Humphrey's Frigates) though. It's pretty interesting. The rest of our naval strategy was total crap.

The Battle of New Orleans made Thomas Jefferson famous.

As far as other battles and timeframes, read America's Wars of Peace. It talks alot about our Colonialism and enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine in South America. We loved sending in the Marines!

5upr3m3 h4xx0rz
06-09-2005, 20:32
The Stars and Stripes: I think the part of your national anthem which specifically refers to the 1812 War in Baltimore is "And the rocket's red glare, Bombs bursting in the air", with reference to the British bombardment of the fortress there.

Salty :)


Thats a tad wrong...the whole entire anthem was written with reference to the bombardment of fort mchenry. The battle of baltimore was seperate (the british tried to attack by sea and land to try to overwhelm the americans by force and numbers, but failed) than the battle at fort mchenry, even though now fort mchenry is in baltimore.

I could be wrong, as seeing as i live in baltimore (30 minutes drive from the city) it would be kind of embarassing...

Chuffy
06-09-2005, 20:45
In GCSE history all we learnt about was WW1 and WW2 and the Cold War. All well and good, but considering everybody knows about it already and you can just turn on UKTV History and watch a show about Nazi's it was very, very boring.

Earlier history was the boring stuff, like a fat bloke with six wives (technically 4, but they don't tell you that) and inaccurate stuff like what a Roman soldier looked like (a primitive drawing of some Romans fighting Carthaginians wearing Lorica Segementaga, 200-300 years before it was first used).

Still, it wasn't all bad. Once we had a few lessons about the ECW and we had to draw up a battle plan for an army. Naturally my groups was the best because I played warhammer. ;)

Kensai X
06-09-2005, 21:34
And we forget WWI an II. Korea. Gulf War. I think some guys went to Panama once too. And of course the Revolutionary war. Bu,t we won all those wars with help. And our help wasnt really needed in the World wars but it did shave a few months off of them. Got a little hostility towards us Amis eh Cade?


Actually we shaved more than a few monthes off in WWI we pretty much held the line stubbornly against the Germans in the Ardene (Argone I forget which one) Forest and protected the French as they retreated... (This is where the American Militairy first start to lose respect for the French...) and saved the British and French from tens of thousands more casulties, because at the time French and British Generals were notroius for "Going over the top and hoping the enemy runs out of bullets before we run out of men" stratedgy....

Also in WWII well, effectivly we cut down about 5 mores years of war, (I'm sure after Britain was demolished, and the French repressed, that possibly the Russians would have beaten the Germans had we not helped....)

Freak Ona Leash
06-09-2005, 22:17
Apparently your version of WWII is different from mine in regards to British generals. They didnt use human wave attacks. That tactic lost its usefullness when Machine guns were invented. And the brits recognized this. Everyone recognized it. Ecept for the Japanese and their idiotic "Bonsai" charges.

EDIT:Amd it was the Ardenne forest. ;)

marv335
06-09-2005, 22:40
3 wars. the head of state of greneda is HM the Queen.
it would have at least been polite to declare war before invading, after all you were quite miffed when the japanese did the same thing.........

TitusAndronicus
06-09-2005, 22:56
And we forget WWI an II. Korea. Gulf War. I think some guys went to Panama once too. And of course the Revolutionary war. Bu,t we won all those wars with help. And our help wasnt really needed in the World wars but it did shave a few months off of them. Got a little hostility towards us Amis eh Cade?

EDIT: and why the hell would the Brits apologise about burning down the Presidents mansion? It was a war, and shock awe, burning down your enemies capital in war-time is a good idea.

We helped in Panama? I don't remember anybody but US there. Nobody else was stupid enough to go to that one. We called it Just 'Cause. As in just because...

The pestilent 1
06-09-2005, 23:01
No offense or anything, but what the hell are they teaching you in Britain. You've never heard of the War of 1812...?


at GCSE i was taught about why the irish hate us.
the stuff on the native americans and how we mercilessly wiped them out.
some stuff on your independance.

basicly our failiures as an empire.
oh, and medicine through the ages.

would have been nice to learn about things like our civil war, or somthing that is even remotly interesting to the average joe (mind, i find nothing that occured in the last 2000 years interesting, so they didnt really stand a chance)

good for A levels eh :)

chuffy: i leanred about the two world wars in SAT's :confused:
still, it was from the perspective of the aggressors, the things surrounding cause of the wars, abit of sympaphising for hitlers cause (well, sympaphising is an overstatement, but atleast some understanding of why he did it)
so that was quite fun.
but then we had the debbacle of my home Tuition and it all went up the crapper anyway.

Minister
06-09-2005, 23:20
Pre-standard grade history consisted of Dinosaurs, Iron Age settlements, Romans, Bruce and Walace and a bit on WW1, from what I recal. Oh yes, and a bit on the Act of Union.

Ah, compulsary history going up to 2nd year and then dropped for Politics. :D

Kargos Bloodspit
07-09-2005, 00:49
Pre-standard grade history consisted of Dinosaurs, Iron Age settlements, Romans, Bruce and Walace and a bit on WW1, from what I recal. Oh yes, and a bit on the Act of Union.

Ah, compulsary history going up to 2nd year and then dropped for Politics. :D

oh, good for you, i only got to do the following:

The assassintion of JFK.
World War 2
The Vikings

and i think thats it....
I was in the section that did more Geography than History...

Son of Morkai
07-09-2005, 01:46
Wow.

I'm starting to think American schools don't suck quite as badly as I thought. At least with history.

Inquisitor Engel
07-09-2005, 02:58
I'm starting to think American schools don't suck quite as badly as I thought. At least with history.

It depends what state you go into. Georgia, for example has a pretty good public education system. Texas... has one of the worst...

Even then it goes down to what school district you go to, depends on where in that district you go to school, and even down to what teacher you have. Unless you're taking an AP Course (Designed to have students pass a College credit test ) then there's really no hard and fast ciriculum that teachers have to stick to...

Son of Morkai
07-09-2005, 03:04
Texas... has one of the worst...So, since I'm Texan, does that give me the right to mock everyone who didn't know about the War fo 1812? :D

Kensai X
07-09-2005, 04:10
...Uh huh... I learned about all that stuff when I lived in Texas too... Then when I passed elementary school and moved to Florida they still covered it all just fine...

The American Southeast isn't all just rednecks... We have some hillbillies thrown in too...

de Selby
07-09-2005, 11:41
From what I remember British history teaching was pretty light on the narrative element of history; you know, events happening one after another over time.

The focus in my classes was always on learning about 'the way of life' or 'attitudes' of various historical social groups and nations under various circumstances. Plus WW1, WW2 and the Cold War at the end.

Rik Valdis
07-09-2005, 12:36
Without wanting to be offensive, the fact that American history is a lot shorter than british does means that it is easier to study it in detail. The war of 1812 has next to no significance in British history, especially when you consider that we were in the middle of one of the most important wars (well ok, set of three wars with short breaks) in history. I would expect that American schools would learn a lot more about 1812 (why is is called the war of 1812 when it lasted past that year? WW2 isnt the war of 1939) as they have been involved in far fewer wars in history.

Rykion
07-09-2005, 14:21
The War of 1812 was not fought in support of Napoleon. The US didn't like the British forts on the Western US border. The US believed the British were aiding and inciting Indian attacks on the US frontiers. The British were definitely capturing US merchant sailors and impressing them into the British Navy. They were also capturing and taking US merchant ships. The US first tried an embargo to force the British to stop taking their ships and sailors. It didn't work and that led to war.

Son of Morkai
07-09-2005, 15:01
Without wanting to be offensive, the fact that American history is a lot shorter than british does means that it is easier to study it in detail.That would be a valid point - if most history classes in the U.S. just taught U.S. history and nothing else. I've only had a handful like that, and they were labeled. U.S History, with other courses being offered that covered the history of other countries.

From what I remember, the majority of my history classes tended to cover everything of importance, be it in Egypt, Japan, or Togo - focusing on particular events based on the teacher's personal preferences.

grey_painter
07-09-2005, 16:09
they have been involved in far fewer wars in history.

Judging by the amount of wars since the world wars the American's have started/being a major part of they are trying hard to catch up.

de Selby
07-09-2005, 19:12
Country-bashing is still an offence here on Warseer isn't it? Everyone stay civil.

Anyway, I think the point is NOT whether the US was fighting 'for' Napoleon or just at the same time. The point is that this conflict had a much more significant effect on US and Canadian history than that of Great Britain, so you are more likely to study it over there than we are over here. We're more likely to be studying the near-concurrent Napoleonic wars which actually threatened us with invasion.

Even if the thoroughness of schools' education was a lot higher, they would presumably still have to prioritise, selecting those strands of world history with the most relevance to students.

x-esiv-4c
07-09-2005, 19:25
Question about the national anthem ( the US one ). Now somewhere in it, it uses the term "Rockets" Now seeing as this was written way back when rocketry was yet to be perfecting I'm assuming that the term rocket meant something else, but what?

tzeentchgiant
07-09-2005, 19:32
I think it refers to a type of lettuce.

Although I'm not an expert :p

TG

x-esiv-4c
07-09-2005, 19:35
and the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,...

and the lettuce' red glare, the bombs bursting in air...

hmmm... :)

Son of Morkai
07-09-2005, 19:36
No, they were actual rockets. After all, rockets came into military use long before the gun.

Rykion
07-09-2005, 22:28
Anyway, I think the point is NOT whether the US was fighting 'for' Napoleon or just at the same time. The point is that this conflict had a much more significant effect on US and Canadian history than that of Great Britain, so you are more likely to study it over there than we are over here. We're more likely to be studying the near-concurrent Napoleonic wars which actually threatened us with invasion.

Even if the thoroughness of schools' education was a lot higher, they would presumably still have to prioritise, selecting those strands of world history with the most relevance to students.

Someone else brought up the US fighting for Napoleon. I just pointed out that the US had real and perceived grievances with Britain at the time.

Considering that this thread started by saying that Britain burning the President's home 200 years ago made someone's day really set the tone, but the Americans on this board have really shown restraint.

Edit: About the rockets, William Congreve, a British ordinance officer, created rocket artillery in the early 1800s. Rockets remained popular until about the 1850s, but cannons had been improved and replaced them. Rockets had appeared in warfare, especially Asian warfare, even earlier.

jhorred
07-09-2005, 23:23
The Battle of New Orleans made Thomas Jefferson famous.


:wtf:

Thomas Jefferson was not a military man. By the time of the War of 1812, he had already served 2 terms as president. He is famous for writing the Declaration of Independence and the making Louisiana Purchase.

5upr3m3 h4xx0rz
07-09-2005, 23:41
Okay lets tally up the scores:

England: 1 (burned down white house)

America: 2 (revolutionary war, war of 1812)

On top of that we have helped britain in most wars (world war 2 coming to mind...where england most likely wouldve been taken over had the americans not intervened), and you guys are all angry at the US. Thats not very nice.

Just like many other countries in the world...they look to america for money for financial help, but once we give them money, they turn around and curse us, until payday comes again.



In response to the post that started this thread...even though you may think england is a great country, you are really just americas lapdog! Deny that, will ya? :eek:
:D :p :D


*zips up the zipper in his flame-retardant suit*

Rykion
07-09-2005, 23:56
:wtf:

Thomas Jefferson was not a military man. By the time of the War of 1812, he had already served 2 terms as president. He is famous for writing the Declaration of Independence and the making Louisiana Purchase.

I suspect Easy E meant Andrew Jackson.

Rykion
08-09-2005, 00:02
(world war 2 coming to mind...where england most likely wouldve been taken over had the americans not intervened)

The German invasion of the Soviet Union pretty much ended any chance of an invasion of the UK. That predates US entry into the war. The US helped shorten the war, and gave the Allied nations much needed resources. At worst, the UK might have signed a treaty with Germany without US intervention in WWII.

5upr3m3 h4xx0rz
08-09-2005, 00:08
I believe that, had germany put all their resources to the task, and they went during the spring, they wouldve taken care of the russians in maybe a month. Remember, the US was fighting the brunt of the germans, while the rest of the germans were in russia freezing to death.

I also sometimes wonder....what if hitler listened to Rommel and positioned a large number of troops at normandy, and the US couldnt get a foothold? And if a competant general was placed in defence of italy, with rommel leading the attack against russia, what would have happened then? It may have led to most of us white folk speaking german...

Rykion
08-09-2005, 00:22
I believe that, had germany put all their resources to the task, and they went during the spring, they wouldve taken care of the russians in maybe a month. Remember, the US was fighting the brunt of the germans, while the rest of the germans were in russia freezing to death.

I also sometimes wonder....what if hitler listened to Rommel and positioned a large number of troops at normandy, and the US couldnt get a foothold? And if a competant general was placed in defence of italy, with rommel leading the attack against russia, what would have happened then? It may have led to most of us white folk speaking german...

The only year Germany had a realistic chance of winning, or at least creating the conditions needed to eventually win, against Russia was in 1941. The US didn't enter the war until December 1941 and US troops weren't really involved in major fighting until 1943. The war had effectively been decided at Stalingrad, well before the Normandy invasion. The US never fought the "brunt" of the German forces, those Germans had already been killed on the Eastern front.

Rommel was an excellent hands on battlefield commander. There is no evidence he would have excelled at a grand strategic level. If large forces had been stationed at Normandy, the target would have been changed. Rommel wanted a strategic reserve under his command that would be able to move quickly and push out the Allies wherever they landed. Hitler wouldn't give him that.

boogle
08-09-2005, 00:34
well not to get too Jingoistic, but the US have not won a war single handedly since they beat themselves in the American civil war:
WW1: Joint Effort
WW2: Joint Effort
Korean: Draw
Vietnam: Loss
Gulf War 1: Joint Effort
Gulf War 2: we'll have to see, i beleive this is our generations Vietnam

Son of Morkai
08-09-2005, 00:35
Question - How many wars has the U.K. won single handedly since the American Civil War? What about France, Germany, Italy, or any other country that's worth counting?

Rykion
08-09-2005, 00:37
well not to get too Jingoistic, but the US have not won a war single handedly since they beat themselves in the American civil war:
WW1: Joint Effort
WW2: Joint Effort
Korean: Draw
Vietnam: Loss
Gulf War 1: Joint Effort
Gulf War 2: we'll have to see, i beleive this is our generations Vietnam


Korean was a joint effort as well. You missed the Spanish American War, which the US won. You also neglected the invasions of Panama and Afghanistan. I would also be surprised if the US lost 47,000 more people in Iraq to make it comparable to Vietnam.

Freak Ona Leash
08-09-2005, 00:39
And the Mexican war...

EDIT:
Question - How many wars has the U.K. won single handedly since the American Civil War? What about France, Germany, Italy, or any other country that's worth counting
Not sure France has ever won a war. But Im pretty sure Britain won the Falklands war thingumumbobbie. Germany...I dunno. Japan won the Japan-Russo war.

Rykion
08-09-2005, 00:41
And the Mexican war...

The Mexican American War predated the Civil War, so it didn't necessarily fit in the list. ;)

Freak Ona Leash
08-09-2005, 00:41
The Mexican American War predated the Civil War, so it didn't necessarily fit in the list. ;)
Damn it...

5upr3m3 h4xx0rz
08-09-2005, 00:44
Rykion- I didnt realise we had a professor of warfare in here (not intended as a sarcastic insult...but more as a compliment...). Im not too great with the world wars, ive studied ancient warfare much more, causei find it much cooler.

Rykion
08-09-2005, 00:49
Well actually I only have a Bachelor's Degree in history. I never could gather the time or money to pursue my Doctorate. ;) Though I did have a University class that was only about the Eastern Front of World War II.

Edit: You can learn a lot about the Eastern Front with Glantz's "When Titans Clash" and get a German soldier's POV in Biderman's "In Deadly Combat." Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn" is an excellent resource on the US in North Africa.

Easy E
08-09-2005, 00:53
I suspect Easy E meant Andrew Jackson.

Thanks for the save. I knew one famous president became famous at that battle. Dang. I knew I was rusty at US History, but now I'm just totally embarassed and feel like I should ban myself for a day in penance. I won't...this time.

Thanks for the books on the Eastern Front, that is an area that has always intrigued me, but we learn little about (in the West). Do you have any recommendations for books on the Eastern Front for WW1 as well. This area actually interests me more, especially the military forces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Rykion
08-09-2005, 01:02
Do you have any recommendations for books on the Eastern Front for WW1 as well. This area actually interests me more, especially the military forces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Unfortunately the Eastern Front of World War I isn't one of my specialties, even though my Great Grandfather was an Hungarian cavalryman. Amazon is always a good place to check out books, but you should always read at least 2 books on an historical subject to adjust for the author's bias. Sorry I couldn't help more, but World War II has been on my recent reading list.

Kensai X
08-09-2005, 02:15
well not to get too Jingoistic, but the US have not won a war single handedly since they beat themselves in the American civil war:
WW1: Joint Effort
WW2: Joint Effort
Korean: Draw
Vietnam: Loss
Gulf War 1: Joint Effort
Gulf War 2: we'll have to see, i beleive this is our generations Vietnam

Ok I'll give you that obviously WWI and WWII were joint efforts, but without US, the Brits would have taken MANY more casulties, Same goes for France....

We pretty much saved the Western Front from collapsing and lead the charge into Germany and held at the Battle of the Bulge... Once Although, Russia probably would have won the war single handily if didn't help, 3 years later....

Korean, I don't know much about...

Vietnam was Joint my ass, Americans and South Vietmanese did almost all the fighting in that war, and the few Peacekeepers barely did anything... (Although, Aussies did make a good showing in some parts of the war.)

Gulf War... Once Again this is mostly American

Gulf War 2.... Really this is an American fight... There are a few Aussies, a few Brits, and a few Japanese... Haven't heard of any others making a strong showing...

5upr3m3 h4xx0rz
08-09-2005, 02:21
The japanese x-473 beta battlesuits have made a good showing in the southwestern part of the nation, but the x-239's, even though they were supposed to be the latest in techology, were all blown up when a single child accidentally hit the self-destruct button of one while he was playing soccer in the street.

GAWD
08-09-2005, 03:30
Wow. This thread was a hoot. Hey, y'know what's really funny ... the Battle of Britain. Now that's hilarious. Thousands upon thousands of Londoners living in sewers and counting dead bodies ... yep war is funny. Thinking about it makes my day. :rolleyes:

I think the generally accepted US score in major conflicts (Panama, Granada, etc... don't count) with or without foreign assistance is as following: 10-1-1

Iraq War (pending, US defeated tyrant's regime but still hoping to secure a solvent Iraqi democratic state)
Afghanistan (US victory)
Gulf War (US victory)
Vietnam (US loss ... various reasons)
Korea (US victory/tie ... the war was a UN defensive conflict vs. NK and the US succeeded in securing SK. BTW: this war is still techinically active ... only an elaborate ceasefire keeps conflict at bay)
WW II (US victory)
WW I (US victory)
Spanish-American War (US victory)
various important wars vs. Native Americans in the 19th century (US victory)
Civil War (US victory; The Conferdacy is conquered and annexed)
Mexican-American War (US victory)
War of 1812 (US victory, enlarging it's territory and solidifying it's soveignty)
Revolutionary War (US victory; the heavy underdog carries the day...poo-poo on Imperialism)

Hey, that makes my day. We're number one! We're number one!
:rolleyes:

RGB
08-09-2005, 03:50
And the Mexican war...

EDIT:
Not sure France has ever won a war. But Im pretty sure Britain won the Falklands war thingumumbobbie. Germany...I dunno. Japan won the Japan-Russo war.

France has won more wars than America fought...but since the American Civil War period...let's see.

Just prior to the Civil War they defeated the Austrians (Re-unificaion of Italy) in 1859; Russia (Crimean War, 1854-56); Vietnam (1858); and China (Second Opium War, 1860, and the Boxer Rebellion intervention)

During and after the ACW....

They defeated Mexico in 1862 and put in a new government.

In 1884-85 they defeated China and added more land to colonial posessions there; by then they had, with gunboats and diplomacy, already controlled all of what was to become French Indochina.

They didn't lose WWI, naturally. Whether they won it is questionable. They participated in the Korean War and helped defend the South.

They did lose the Frenco-Prussian War, WWII initially, the Indochina Independence and the Algerian Independence since. They failed, along with the English, Japanese, Czechs, Poles, Americans and the rest, to defeat the Communists during the Russian Civil War interventions.

I'm sure they won lots of small conflicts here and there though in Africa and elsewhere besides what I mentioned.

This record of victories and losses is very comparable to any western country, including America and Britain.

The Americans I think tend to disparage the French due to one or more or perhaps none (which would mean I'm wrong) of the following reasons.

1) Americans suffer from some culture inferiority syndrome and the French are the object of this particular envy (hey, this gets said about us Canadians all the time in relation to America. It may or may not be true for Americans in relations to France as well)

2) The French are a meaningful enough country with enough resources to make American uneasy about its supremacy in the control of the world. France's significant economy, diplomatic links, a very capable if small military with distant depolyoment abilities, its nuclear status and refusal to support America like Britain does means that Europe still has a way of interfering with American domination of third-world areas. In short, the French annoy the Americans since they're seen as (a small perhaps, but still) a rival.

3) Militarism and military victories sustain American expansion of power and economic domination, and therefore are societally important. It is important for percieved rivals etc. to be disparaged as weak, cowardly, non-militaristic.

RGB
08-09-2005, 03:56
I think the generally accepted US score in major conflicts (Panama, Granada, etc... don't count) with or without foreign assistance is as following: 10-1-1


You forgot the Philippine Rebellion/Independence War which you also won.

Go Imperialism.

The War of 1812 is not seen as a victory here or anywhere outside the US and is thus not at all "Generally accepted". In fact, the stated goal was to "Liberate North America from the British Oppression" and that was a spectacular failure. British Oppression packed bags and left itself 150 years later.

What territorial gains are you talking about? Michigan? I thought that was American territory the British occupied early on during the war and lost subsequently.

boogle
08-09-2005, 09:02
Ok I'll give you that obviously WWI and WWII were joint efforts, but without US, the Brits would have taken MANY more casulties, Same goes for France....

We pretty much saved the Western Front from collapsing and lead the charge into Germany and held at the Battle of the Bulge... Once Although, Russia probably would have won the war single handily if didn't help, 3 years later....

Korean, I don't know much about...

Vietnam was Joint my ass, Americans and South Vietmanese did almost all the fighting in that war, and the few Peacekeepers barely did anything... (Although, Aussies did make a good showing in some parts of the war.)

Gulf War... Once Again this is mostly American

Gulf War 2.... Really this is an American fight... There are a few Aussies, a few Brits, and a few Japanese... Haven't heard of any others making a strong showing...

Just proves you didn't even read my post, i said that Vietnam was a loss, not a joint effort

RE the Gulf Wars, how can you say they are just American fights?, have you heard of Bravo Two Zero? or the SAS?, plus the Brits did just as many sorties in Gulf War 1 as the Americans, Gulf War 2 was is maiinly American and rightly so, as i believe George Bush JR HAD to do it as he NEEDED to finish off what his father started

marv335
08-09-2005, 10:16
the uk had a very significant part in GWII. the first aircraft over baghdad was from the Raf. i should know, i was there.

Scactha
08-09-2005, 13:25
France has won more wars than America fought...but since the American Civil War period...let's see.
Eeh, the Hundred Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_years_war) is pretty significant won war by the french.

Good assessment about the view on US and allies too. I agree.

boogle
08-09-2005, 13:28
The Hundred Years war was fought long before the ACW

GAWD
08-09-2005, 16:24
Time for a history lesson:

While the War of 1812 was a generally incompetant war for the Americans, the US made important and significant strides in this war that have been regarded as a US victory by many historians past and present. After early gains, the US generally got battered on the land and embargoed by sea (like the Revolutionary War); a major contributor to these downward turns was low public opinion for the war fueled by the Federalist party, which undermined government attempts to call up troops (the Federalist faction never survived the fact that they were on the wrong side of history), in addition to Britain turning full attention to the conflict. However, two important gains were achieved. First, the US did gain territory in Florida on the Gulf Coast and territory from Britain's Native American allies (Tecumseh in the North and the Creeks in the South) who were abandoned by their Imperial masters. Canada ... well ... they'd rather be ruled. Second, the US was able to produce war materials on its own for the first time, sustaining its own fight and significantly growing its domestic economy (this laid the ground work for the US's 19th century isolationism and national growth, re: Toqueville).

Further, the Battle of New Orleans (fought after the Treaty of Ghent and thus regarded as a foolish footnote, by some ... fools) was very significant. The British Cabinet had developed plans for the invasion and seizure of the Gulf Coast; Britian (and Spain) hadn't recognized the Louisiana Purchase and had their own plans for the territory. The treaty wasn't to take effect until ratification, which ocurred after the battle, so the British were hoping to solidify their control of the Gulf Coast in the meantime, reinforcing Pakenham and ordering him to continue fighting. If Pakenham were able to hold New Orleans, the British (and their Indian allies, the Creeks) would have been able to severely cripple the territorial gains bought by the Louisiana Purchase by right of conquest and by Article 9 of the Treaty of Ghent. Andrew Jackson wouldn't have that. He inflicted the worse loss of the war on the British army (13 US dead to 2000 British dead, including their commander Pakenham).

References: Millet and Maslowski, For the Common Defense 1994; Perret, A Country Made by War 1989

Brother Smith
08-09-2005, 18:11
Full attention? Maybe you need the history lesson. We were fighting the biggest European power since the Romans!

I'm guessing your American? (no offence meant by this ;))

Cade
08-09-2005, 18:51
Question - How many wars has the U.K. won single handedly since the American Civil War? What about France, Germany, Italy, or any other country that's worth counting?

UK: We won most of these. (http://www.regiments.org/wars/wars.htm)

Rykion
08-09-2005, 19:02
GAWD a bit of a nitpick, but it is a stretch to say the US got Britain's full attention. Also the British dead at New Orleans were around 700, it becomes 2,000+ when you include the injured and captured. The US losses were 8 killed and 13 injured, but the hodgepodge that made up US forces make any official number suspect.

My understanding was that in 1812 Britain had sent a message indicating it would stop Impressment of US sailors, but the message crossed the Atlantic at the same time as the US's declaration of war. Britain decided to go ahead and continue seizing US ships and sailors, and the Treaty of Ghent did not stop this. Despite the US victories on the frontier, it failed to achieve this long standing goal of the war.

Son of Morkai
08-09-2005, 20:43
UK: We won most of these. (http://www.regiments.org/wars/wars.htm)A few more than I remembered (most of those were lumped together in my history classes)...

You're the first one to be able to list that many. However, quite a bit of them involved allied forces (some don't list any forces, so I have no idea how many the U.K. has won by itself, without any aid).

My point is, bashing the U.S. for not winning wars without the aid of others doesn't make much sense as modern wars involve large numbers of countries working together. At this moment, I can't think of any major wars since the American Revolution that didn't involve more than two countries... (still sticking with that starting point, as some one else made the argument based on that starting point).

Apollyon
08-09-2005, 21:40
Hell yeah it did they had to paint it white to cover the damage ...hance the "White House" during the War of 1812 Madison was President. His wife Dolly saved the portrait of Washington.

Give some credit to the Brits at the time they were the toughest ****'s on the planet.



...

i'm pretty sure that didn't happen.

jhorred
08-09-2005, 22:25
The Americans I think tend to disparage the French due to one or more or perhaps none (which would mean I'm wrong) of the following reasons.

1) Americans suffer from some culture inferiority syndrome and the French are the object of this particular envy (hey, this gets said about us Canadians all the time in relation to America. It may or may not be true for Americans in relations to France as well)

2) The French are a meaningful enough country with enough resources to make American uneasy about its supremacy in the control of the world. France's significant economy, diplomatic links, a very capable if small military with distant depolyoment abilities, its nuclear status and refusal to support America like Britain does means that Europe still has a way of interfering with American domination of third-world areas. In short, the French annoy the Americans since they're seen as (a small perhaps, but still) a rival.

3) Militarism and military victories sustain American expansion of power and economic domination, and therefore are societally important. It is important for percieved rivals etc. to be disparaged as weak, cowardly, non-militaristic.

Personally I think the reason for this is because France did not put up much of a fight against the Germans in WWII. They capitulated when they took far less abuse than the Russians did at German hands.

Also from my knowledge of the Vietnam War, France was there first and did not do very well so we moved in to support them. They eventually left as we sent in more troops.

jhorred
08-09-2005, 22:29
Well actually I only have a Bachelor's Degree in history. I never could gather the time or money to pursue my Doctorate. ;) Though I did have a University class that was only about the Eastern Front of World War II.

Edit: You can learn a lot about the Eastern Front with Glantz's "When Titans Clash" and get a German soldier's POV in Biderman's "In Deadly Combat." Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn" is an excellent resource on the US in North Africa.

I'm working on a Bachelors in History too. For now I'm concentrating on Colonial/Revolutionary America.

The Fex
08-09-2005, 23:51
Also from my knowledge of the Vietnam War, France was there first and did not do very well so we moved in to support them. They eventually left as we sent in more troops.

Actually France had already left the decade earlier. They had gained control of Vietnam during the 19th century, but lost it during World War 2 to the Japanese empire. After Japan was defeated Vietnam hoped to gain independance and France once again hoped to gain influence there. They were however finally defeated by the nationalistic Viet Minh in 1954 after almost 10 years of fighting. The peace accords that followed in Geneva divided the country into two sections and the French left the country.

Fighting began with the U.S. 3 years later in 1957. The U.S. then got directly involved with the resulting war that everybody knows about.

::EDIT:: This thread is getting severely off topic (no thanks to me). Let's either go back to the original topic or start a new thread where everybody can wave their proverbial phallic members and brag about how good their countries war efforts have been in the last 300 years.

Kensai X
08-09-2005, 23:58
Only thing I really think negative about in France is...

In the Past Century their militairy has been joke...

Their politicians can't agree on anything...

And they think they have a "refined" demeanor....

Otherwise the French are ok in my book and I'm about as American as you can get...

GAWD
09-09-2005, 01:07
Brother Smith: Napolean abdicated in April 1814, allowing the British to divert a substantial amount of reserves to the American conflict. The conflict would last another year, and Britain with Indian allies went on the offensive for much of that time. So yes the US eventually had Britain's full attention.

BTW: Comparing Napolean and Hitler is problematic to say the least. Sure both were maniac world conquerers, but should Britain get a free pass in the "maniac world conquerer" department because their's was a woman? Contrary to popular belief, Queen Victoria wasn't a cup of tea either; indeed she actually had the most powerful European power since the Romans. Regardless, Hitler is completely in his own category. Hmm, did you edit the Hitler reference from the post, b/c I just realized that the email notification I got was different than your post. Oh well ... I'm not gonna waste 5 minutes of typing. ;)

Rykion: I checked another source that places US loses at 70 and British loses at 1500 dead w/500 wounded or captured. I sure the truth lies somewhere in there, but suffice it to say that New Orleans was the worst loss the English sustained. Actually, it's a kinda interesting "what if" to think about for a sec.; we might be second guessing Blair's response to Hurricane Katrina in an alternate universe. :cool: On the impressment of US sailors, there was a diplomatic mix-up, but even if the British message had arrived, odds are they would have kept impressing our sailors. US sailors were ideal b/c they could speak English, knew the Atlantic VERY well, and still somewhat considered Englishmen anyway. However, after Napolean abdicated the need to impress US sailors decreased, so according to the aforementioned sources, impressment became less systemic and focused on localized skirmishes against pirates and the like. But, you're right about the Treaty of Ghent it made little to mention of any of the real causes for the war (i.e.: impressment, forts, etc...), lending credence to the theory that the British cabinet intended to keep the war on simmer ... at least until Andy Jackson (and his artillery) gave them the beat down. :evilgrin:

Easy E
09-09-2005, 04:10
I actually have a B.A in History. I acheived it about 6 years ago. Here's a word of advice to you History kids. Do not leave University until you have your Ph.D. There is no point.

It's funny. They say you only use 10% of your brain. At university I think i used 15% and now in the real world I probably use 5%.

Anyway, the fledgling American Navy received some of it's first action in the War of 1812. The Humphries Frigate being the most celebrated ship type of the period. It managed to hold more guns and move faster than the British equivalent.

How many of thos casualties at New Orleans were Indian allies?