What does Cred Forums know about the War of 1812?

What does Cred Forums know about the War of 1812?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia#Logistics
youtube.com/watch?v=WVC677-YmfM
youtube.com/watch?v=FaBhJ1eYq1A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Who gives a shit about north american 'wars'?

>Who gives a shit about north american 'wars'?
Basically this
Either you're speaking to some history nerd or the answer will be "what?"

/thread

We invaded canuckland to rectify the mistake of their existence, the cried to daddy and the brits came to save them and BTFO us, burning down the white house.
Canadians took credit.

It was a stalemate that Canadians think was a victory

Brits got embarrassed at New Orleans

The American army was shit tier but good leadership made up for it.

The most powerful Native alliance ever got rekt hard they'd never recover afterwards.

Count yourself lucky that a big ocean seperates us otherwise you'd be sipping tea with your crooked yellow teeth right now

It's true, americans are pretty much the babbies of the world, isolated in their very special continent where there are no enemies or competitors to worry about.

>country whose only "war" was killing a couple of drunk Ivans

A French pirate saved America

>W-we could have won if we really wanted to
Hmmm, where have I heard this before?

Tbf, the tactics used during the American Civil War were noted by Prussian military observers and would come to play a major influence in WWI.

Perfidious Albion kidnapped American sailors and forced them into the Royal Navy. They claimed that they only impressed British subjects, but an American could just as easily be confused for a Briton, so oh well. In 1808, a British frigate stopped the USS Chesapeake and demanded it turn over suspected deserters. When the Chesapeake's captain refused, they fired on it and killed some 20 crew members.

Then the 1808 and 1810 Congressional elections saw a lot of representatives of Thomas Jefferson's generation booted from office and replaced by edgy kids (including a 34 year old Henry Clay) who were calling for war with Britain. They had no adult memories of the Revolution, but grew up hearing stories from their elders and wanted their own taste of rosbeef removal.

This is true. The trench warfare at the siege of Petersburg was a precursor to WWI. Europeans of course didn't pay attention and thought American warfare was just drunken hicks in a brawl, so they, during the Franco-Prussian War, continued doing stupid stuff like massed cavalry charges against infantry with breech-loading rifles.

Yes I know

...

holy shit, will americans recover?

Why were Cossacks such savages?

It`s just revenge

Brits were starting shit in the US, impressment of US sailors, inciting Indian raids, interfering with US trade with France.

US went to war, burned upper Canada's capital, Brits burned US capital. British were planning to bully the US into a peace treaty expecting an easy win, failed a few invasions, were forced back to the bargaining table for a truce.

At this point Brit war with France was over so the reasons for them to continue most of the actions that the US went to war for were gone. All in all, nobody really won. Canada was not annexed, and the US re-asserted the fact that it won't be bullied.

this

A french saved the day again.

...

Militarily yes it was a stalemate, but in terms of achieving goals it was really a British victory.

The thing that blows my mind is the concept of building ships on the great lakes-- by the time they were finished though the war was already over

The war also encouraged a new nationalistic sentiment in both the US and Canada.

The Duke of Wellington finally said that it was impossible to defeat the US; they'd just get swallowed up in the endless North American wilderness.

Lol nice revisionist history there

>but in terms of achieving goals it was really a British victory
How so? They didn't get any war reparations nor did they manage to set up their native buffer state in Michigan like they wanted to. They performed well initially but they failed to make significant gains moving inland.

Both sides came out of the war initially worse for wear.

>it was really a British victory

Yeeeaa

Also traitorous Federalists in New England were even selling food stocks to Canada in preparation for the imminent invasion.

Despite that, New England contributed quite a few volunteers to the US military, in fact Massachusetts sent more out than Virginia.

I read a convincing post on reddit to that effect and it suited my bias 2bh. Nobody actually cares about """ the war """ of 1812 (spoiler: there was a real war in Europe)

I should add, there were a fair few Royal Navy deserters because the US Navy paid better and had more humane conditions (less flogging and all that), also it was an all-volunteer force and not manned by press gangs.

>I read a convincing post on reddit

>tfw russians will burn their country to the ground for the eternal anglo

>Nobody actually cares about """ the war """ of 1812 (spoiler: there was a real war in Europe)
It could be considered an extension of the European conflict, since as it were, every major European war from 1688 to 1945 ended up spilling over into North America.

>almost 40 posts and no Canadian flags
Should I be worried?

Yeah I think that's how it's viewed by historians outside of America. Iirc could be considered a British victory because we did effectively so you trading with France, which is what started it. As you said, the capturing American sailors thing was a meme, they pretty much were Royal Navy

Prepare to get btfo. Come on leaf bros

The war of 1812 was for taxes right?
All I know is we pwned the Brits xD

>I read a convincing post on reddit to that effect and it suited my bias 2bh.
Or you could actually read primary sources and find that the Duke of Wellington even admits that the war was a mess and that the army had made no gains into the American heartland.

Napoleon came here with half of the Europe and tried to fuck us up. Sometimes I wish he succeed

Canada could have been taken if the US Army had thrown its entire weight on Montreal which would have cut off and starved the rest of the country. Instead, they launched a three-pronged invasion that could not possibly work.

The US army was a shitty conglomerate of barely organized militias at the time. All the funding went to the Navy.

No needs to lose, just go btfo the roaches instead of being obsessed about poland

It's really not that big a deal, not am I that autistic. I don't doubt that btw. Reminder that the west Indies were far more important to Britain than north America

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia#Logistics

They basically discovered that Russia is like invading Mordor.

AUGUST 24, 1814 BEST DAY OF MY LIFE

>not am I that autistic
What did he mean by this?

The army was not in good fighting condition at all due to Thomas Jefferson's phobia that a large standing army was a threat to liberty. Ironically, the embargo against Europe proved far more costly than if they'd simply invested in more troops and ships. It was a comedy of errors in many ways--although the US had at least 1 million males of military age in 1812, at no point were we able to get more than 7000 troops into battle. The army did not have the manpower, the logistics, or the leadership for a large-scale offensive campaign in hostile territory.

No, you don't get the reasons why the Napoleon invasion could be good.
The Napoleonic code. The thing which could make Russia a prosperous capitalist country instead of rotting so-so shithole by the end of the century

the problem is, Americans viewed them as American sailors as well

I do, but why losing hundreds of thousands of men because your country go full retard ?

If the peasants wanted that damn code, they can revolt or something.

I don't see a defeated russia keeping its word anyway, some guy would just repel it later.

He kind of did because many Russians came into contact with revolutionary ideas and brought them back home.

>No, you don't get the reasons why the Napoleon invasion could be good.
Lost all army and chance to unite europe in XIX century?

History does not know the subjunctive mood.
What is done is done

No they cant do this. They was be very stupid.

>The thing which could make Russia a prosperous capitalist country instead of rotting so-so shithole by the end of the century

Russia was gradually getting better up until WWI. That catastrophe set you back 200 years.

>If the peasants wanted that damn code, they can revolt or something.
They have been revolting constantly here and there. The Pugachev rebellion made Romanovs shit themselves.The thing is that all our peasants could afford is basic reading skills and most simple books: Bible, fairy tales, stuff like that.
Here's a quote from famous Petr Alexeev speech, 1877.
> Paзвe y нac yчaт c мaлoлeтcтвa чeмy-нибyдь бeднякa? Paзвe y нac ecть пoлeзныe и дocтyпныe книги для paбoтникa? Гдe и чeмy oни мoгyт нayчитьcя? A зaглянитe в pyccкyю нapoднyю литepaтypy. Hичeгo нe мoжeт быть paзитeльнee тoгo пpимepa, чтo y нac издaютcя для нapoднoгo чтeния тaкиe книги, кaк «Бoвa кopoлeвич» «Epycлaн Лaзapeвич», «Baнькa Кaин», «Жeних в чepнилaх и нeвecтa вo щaх» и т. п. Oттoгo-тo в нaшeм paбoчeм нapoдe и cлoжилиcь тaкиe пoнятия o чтeний: oднo — зaбaвнoe, a дpyгoe — бoжecтвeннoe. Я дyмaю, кaждoмy извecтнo, чтo y нac в Poccии paбoчиe вce eщe нe избaвлeны oт пpecлeдoвaний зa чтeниe книг; a в ocoбeннocти, ecли y нeгo yвидят книгy, в кoтopoй гoвopитcя o eгo пoлoжeнии — тoгдa yж дepжиcь! Eмy пpямo гoвopят: «ты, бpaт, нe пoхoж нa paбoчeгo, ты читaeшь книги». И cтpaннee вceгo тo, чтo и иpoнии нeзaмeтнo в этих cлoвaх, чтo в Poccии пoхoдить нa paбoчeгo — тo жe, чтo пoхoдить нa живoтнoe

Cмepдякoв eбaнный!

Tchaikovsky
FPBP

Tchaikovsky
FBPB

In the end however, Britain was forced to finally come to terms with US sovereignty instead of treating it as a renegade colony. There was also growing nationalism and a desire among Americans to drop British cultural conventions and even linguistic ones--Webster's Dictionary was an early attempt to separate American English from British English.

The border with Canada was also demilitarized--the Canadians were not happy with that and felt that London had betrayed them by leaving them exposed to future invasion. A new crop of war heroes came out of the war, William Henry Harrison, Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor, and Andrew Jackson, all four of whom would run for president and three of whom would occupy the Oval Office.

French-British proxy war.

>Russia was gradually getting better up until WWI
Low base effect.
Here's the statistics from A.G. Rashin's "Russian population for 100 years: 1811-1913" (1954), N.A. Rubakin's "Russia in numbers" (1912) and S.A. Novoselsky's "Review of main data of demographic and public health statistics" (1916):
35% of the new born children couldn't make it through the first year of their life.
65% of dead people are the children below 15 y.o.
The concentration of medics in the country was 1,3 medic,1,7 paramedics and 1,7 midwifes for 10 000 people
By the year of 1917 75% of people are illiterate, many of the minor nationalities even don't have their own writing systems.
In 1904 the average payment of worker is from 10 to 25 roubles and the worker had to spend 60-65 hours in a week on his workplace. Meanwhile, in US a worker have worked 56 hours in a week for 71 rouble.

SO WE TOOK A BOAT TO WASHINGTON AND BURNED IT TO THE GROUND
youtube.com/watch?v=WVC677-YmfM
IT'S THE ONLY WAR THE YANKEES LOST (except for Vietnam), (and also the Alamo), (and the bay of ... ham)

The war ended in a tactical draw, also props for the Kremlin proxybot.

>it's another 'Americans flaunt their overexaggerated victories in war' thread

Just another day on Cred Forums.

>Kremlin proxybot
What?
Is it so hard to believe someone listens to that kind of music?
Can't have a bit of fun and shitposting?
Also, i'm insulted, i'm not a fan of Russia at all.

Show one post where it says we won.

Nowadays the War of 1812 is generally considered a stalemate (unless you're an obsessed Canadian) but for most of the 19th century it was considered a victory in American history books.

Global boker face

>Burgers try to invade Canada in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars
>Get BTFO by the leaves
>Washington and the White House burn
>claims victory

Doesn't American history books consider the war in vietnam a victory ?

What the fuck greatest ally?

The what?

Stalemate is American for loss.

Yes, they also said France won WWII.

A terrible mistake, we'll correct it in the future.

Francophonie suprêmes.

No need to be upset user, we're not butthurt about ww2.

Depends. Do French history books consider Dien Bien Phu a victory?

Also that entire war wouldn't have happened in the first place without your stupidity.

This is all one proxy samefag, possibly that underage Panamian.

Yeah.

Idk why we didn't let Tarleton bully you.

no

>american banter handling

Do i need to take a picture of the front of my passport, you faggot?
Can't shitpost after a hard day's work without someone this butthurt.

If he didn't want people suspecting that, he shouldn't resort to frogposting.

...

Canadians think it was like the Battle of Stalingrad or something.

Frogposting is one of the pillars upon which Cred Forums is resting.

>In regard to Sherman's actions in Georgia, Prussian general Helmuth von Moltke said that "an armed mob" had nothing of value to be learned from

Yeh but joke's on them because then Phil Sheridan said the Prussian cavalry in the F-P War were totally incompetent and "There's really nothing we can learn here."

>Justus Scheibert was a Prussian military observer who for seven months followed Robert E. Lee's actions at several battles, including the Battle of Chancellorsville and the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. Upon returning to Prussia in 1864, Scheibert wrote down his observations and placed them in several of Prussia's best libraries. From there what Scheibert learned helped Prussia and later unified Germany in five different wars.

Only to Australians.

You want to complain about bantz? Try being us. we can't even post without being subjected to more abuse and bad maymays than almost any other nationality.

"no"

The Warners taught me that "James Madisson never had a son and he fought the war of 1812". Thats about it.

As for 1812, based Nappy almost gave us our independence back. too bad he lost and we ended up having another century of Russian and German rape.

You were too busy gargling Turk cock back then. But the French Revolution did stimulate the Balkan wars of independence.

This is the best post I have ever read by an American regarding the War of 1812.
100% this

>tfw no more polish legions

> continued doing stupid stuff like massed cavalry charges against infantry with breech-loading rifles
this is why i can't stand listening to americans talk about history. Mate, France and Prussia have been at war almost continously since the beginning of their existance, if not with eachother, then with any number of other comparable great powers. There's absolutely no reason to believe they weren't extremely competant at war.
Considering the Franco-Prussian war was over in less than a year, that it would cost far less caualties for either side than the american civil war and that it would end in complete victory for Prussia and cement Prussias reputation for having the greatest land army in the world, you're accusation that they were still doing "stupid stuff like massed cavalry charges" is entirely baseless, you retard

>Russian rape
>Alexander gave a constitution and parliament, which was not in other parts of the Russian Empire.
>rape

>Massed cavalry charges into repeating rifle/machine gun fire
>Not fucking retarded.
This is why Eurotrash opinions aren't respected here.

After the US invasion of Canada fell apart, the British counterattacked but Oliver Hazard Perry repelled them on the Great Lakes. A British army then invaded New York, but were badly beaten at Plattsburgh. This was almost as decisive as the battles on the GL and at New Orleans, but isn't as famous for various reasons.

>Justus Scheibert
sorry, who?

They didn't have machine guns yet in 1870, but the French Chassepot Rifle was an extremely deadly weapon above anything the Prussian army had. In fact the Germans quickly cloned it and produced the M1871 Mauser Rifle.

>machine guns
>Franco-Prussian War
>being this stupid

Mitrailleuse doesn't count because "their small numbers greatly restricted their effectiveness"

Do I have to spoon-feed you?
>Captain Justus Scheibert (1831–1903) was a Prussian army officer, sent by Prussia to America to observe the American Civil War in order to learn the lessons to be learned and return to Prussia to teach these lessons to the Prussian troops. His writings became a source of Prussian, and later German, military strategy through five subsequent wars

>Considering the Franco-Prussian war was over in less than a year, that it would cost far less caualties for either side than the american civil war

Consider that the amount of territory being fought over was tiny compared to the amount of territory fought over in the Civil War and Bismarck had every motivation to end the war as fast as possible so that the rest of Europe wouldn't intervene.

apparently you're going to have to. I gave you a quote from an esteemed Prussian general, who would go on to unite Germany in several wars. You gave me a copy paste from a two sentence long wikipedia article. So, again, who?

Fucking frenchs nazis m8, Borodino m8. Never forget, remove frogs.
#General Frost rules!!!111
Liberation of France from Napoleon fuck yeah!

youtube.com/watch?v=FaBhJ1eYq1A
Should't invade in Canada fucking yanks.
Remove burger! Oh Canada!

Actually the Civil War saw the first machine gun, the Gatling Gun which was invented by a pacifist doctor Richard Gatling with the idea that he would create a weapon so terrible that wars would cease to be waged.

The GG was only actually used in one land battle, at Chickamauga, otherwise it was used exclusively as a deck-mounted weapon on ships.

Russia saved Europe from a French Europe which was a great thing.

>I gave you a quote from an esteemed Prussian general
Who was taking the piss. Are you that dense?
>There is some evidence this story is somewhat apocryphal since Sherman appearing before the Mixed Commission of American and British Claims (1871) has been quoted as saying "Moltke was never fool enough to say that. I have seen Moltke in person; I did not presume to ask him the question because I did not presume he was such an ass to say that. The Prussian army learned many a lesson and profited from them by our war and their officers were prompt to acknowledge it."

Best post of the year!!!!111

I mean, crap. The Civil War was fought from Pennsylvania to New Mexico, over 1600 miles while the entire area where hostilities occurred in France was less than 250 miles.

>since Sherman ... has been quoted as saying

"Nuh-uh, Moltke would never had said that about me"

And then you revoked it in 1830 and took thousands of Poles in chains to Siberian prison camp and imposed forced Russification on us.

Yeah, fuck you.

/thread

US wars haven't got shit on European and Asian wars.

but who won the war? JUST TELL ME DAMMIT

>General who never even went to America knows better than the officers who actually sat and observed the battles.
Hmmm

Stalemate unless you're a deluded Canadian.

I mean, the ACW was not close to as apocalyptic as the contemporary Taiping Rebellion in China which killed like 30 million people.

>three American armies invade upper Canada
>1 gets lost and wanders back home
>1 gets spooked at their own shadow and starts shooting at themselves
>1 gets into Canada and can't even walk a kilometre in without getting destroyed by a Canadian army

Can't Americans stop shooting themselves?

fair enough, I don't know much about the geography of the war
>Bismarck had every motivation to end the war as fast as possible so that the rest of Europe wouldn't intervene
I believe there were similar concerns for the union concerning France and Great Britain, and Lincoln still needed to be strong enough to intimidate France out of Mexico, yes?

But Liam, you are American

>1 gets into Canada and can't even walk a kilometre in without getting destroyed by a Canadian army

You didn't have an army, silly, just militia. Canada was garrisoned by British regulars until 1867.

Not really. The Confederates had held out hope that without their cotton, the British economy would collapse and angry mobs of unemployed people would riot in front of Parliament and demand action, after which the Royal Navy would go and break the Union blockade of Southern ports. The Emancipation Proclamation effectively ended any chance of European intervention once Lincoln made the war a moral crusade to abolish slavery.

Besides, in the end, Britain needed the North's grain more than it did the South's cotton.

>We invaded canuckland to rectify the mistake of their existence, the cried to daddy
Remember that Canada is a nation created by traitors who didn't want to fight for freedom in the Revolution and instead ran north to suck the king's dick.

This

We did nothing wrong

>we're not butthurt about ww2.

Oh yes we are. We didn't won this time i swear.

It was mostly the Jeffersonian Republicans who wanted to annex Canada. Federalists were against it since we already had more than enough undeveloped territory and also they were big Anglophiles. The war helped contribute to the demise of the Federalists.

Yeah they don't like to mention that most of the Resistance were communists and a large part of the French population were Naziboos.

I doubt Moltke had some sort of prejudice against Americans which would have clouded his judgement. It's not as if Moltke got into his postition and accomplished what he accomplished by sticking his head in the sand.
I've never understood how Americans can claim that their Civil War was somehow groundbreaking, and that "arrogant Europeans" ignored the lessons at their own peril and to their devastation in WW1. Trenches, railroads, machine guns, telegraphs would all be used in european wars between 1850-1910, and Europeans had experience fighting opponents on roughly equal terms.
You seem to be taking offense at the Moltke quote, and I honestly don't understand why. Up until 1850 (correct me if I'm missing something) Americans had only been at war with Indians and Mexicans, and the British, who were always otherwise distracted with the French. So if practice makes perfect, and you learn best when you get beaten, it's perfectly understandable why the pre WW2 US armies were fairly mediocre.

>can't even deny the first two

>army gets destroyed by a militia of lumberers and farmers

I remember little.

But did you also know that the European powers bet on Mexico winning in 1846. They thought the Mexican army was professional and disciplined and our troops were drunken farmers.

"[Winfield Scott] is lost."

-- Duke of Wellington (prior to the invasion of the Mexican heartland)

"It was a brilliant campaign unannalled in the history of warfare

-- Wellington after the fall of Mexico City

Compared to the bungling ineptitude of 1812, the US Army by 1846 had come a long way in terms of logistic, command, and planning by successfully marching huge distances over hostile territory and occupying the enemy capital without losing a battle. The war caused Europeans to upgrade their opinion of American martial prowess.

/thread

Figures a Finn wouldn't want to be reminded about this period which was around when he got ripped from Sweden and became a Russian province for 100 years.

>they pretty much were Royal Navy