Yeah, and he got a pension when he got back to Snowistan because he lost the best part of himself in the war.
9/11 Anniversary
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Nah. Eagle Snack would be living in a province, not a state. He's just lucky that we Canadians are so good natured that we let it be after the Americans shouted out the command to "Run Away! Run Away!"
Sucks when things... well... just aren't going your way... eh?
As I said... always a pleasure.
Always a pleasure indeed. And that's really the important thing--that we've learned to live as good neighbours, and the Americans learned a valuable lesson not to f*ck with us. Ever since then, things have been just peachy.
Unfortunately, given teh4 sorry state of the American turnpikes we had to leave out battle tanks behind and go by sea...
Actually, the invasion of new Orleans had only 350 dragoons out of a force of 14,450 men. The original plan was to land at Mobile and march overland
Visiting the Battle of New Orleans Battlefield BattleofNewOrleans.org
At Waterloo, Wellington had 11,000 cavalry out of 68,000 troops. Spot the difference...
Horses in the Napoleonic Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia explains why the British settled for terms in 1814 at Ghent.
Also Horses in warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How Canada could have overwhelmed the American forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(bear)
Also Horses in warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How Canada could have overwhelmed the American forces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojtek_(bear)
Yeah, okay then, whatever.
Plus, the Irish deserved a lot of their bad reputation. It's a reputation they rightly earned.
Napoleon was a mad dictator. France was a dictatorship. Britain was the freest country in the world, a constitutional monarchy.
Britain - and no other country in Europe - wanted rule from Napoleonic France and was glad to see the back of it and its attempts to impose republicanism on its neighbours.
It was right that such uprisings were stamped out brutally.
Napoleon would have done the same to any country which resisted rule by France.
And there's nothing so incredibly ironic and hypocritical in the fact that you attack British rule in Ireland in one breath, and then in another breath you praise Napoleonic France for ruling HALF of Europe.
Rubbish. In 1822 Viscount Castlereagh, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, began to suffer from a form of paranoia or a nervous breakdown, possibly as a result of an attack of gout. He was also severely overworked with both his responsibilities in leading the government in the House and the never-ending diplomacy required to manage conflicts among the other major powers. At the time, he said "My mind, is, as it were, gone." Londonderry returned to his country seat at Loring Hall in Water Lane, North Cray, Kent on the advice of his doctor. On 9 August 1822 he had an audience with King George IV in which he appeared distracted and mentally disturbed. Among other surprising remarks he revealed to the King that he thought he was being blackmailed for homosexuality.
On 12 August, although his wife had succeeded in removing razors from his possession and even though his doctor was in attendance, Castlereagh managed to find a pen knife with which he committed suicide by cutting his own throat.
There is nothing to suggest that Castlereagh's suicide was "the released knowledge after 1814, of how brutal his repression was." That's just PC, wishy-washing, wishful thinking on your part.
There was nothing wrong with the subs when the British were using them. They were no problem whatsoever and there was nothing wrong with the design.
They became faulty whilst they deteriorated during their several years of storage.
Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, argues that "there is not something inherently wrong with the class of submarines."
It's the fault of the Canadians, not the British, that they didn't give the submarines the full round of checks to ensure their safety before putting them to sea. Why you didn't do that is not anyone else's fault.
However hard the Canadians still try to blame the British it's your fault for not checking them properly first.
As Former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said, Canada as the buyer had to beware.
Because that's how it's supposed to be drunk.
Remember Exxon Valdez in 1989 before attacking anyone else over oil spillages.
In what? In the 1850s Britain was producing two thirds of the world's coal, half its iron, five sevenths of its small supply of steel, about half of such cotton cloth as was produced on a commercial scale, forty per cent (in value) of its hardware and 90% of its ships. It would still hold this lead in many areas even at the start of the 20th Century.
Erm, in fact, it's the other way round.
American lost the war of 1812 (very much so, with not one aim of it not only being met, but not even being discussed at the signing of the Treaty of Ghent), Britain won.
It would be nice if you'd actually read up on it and checked your facts before posting. And stop listening to American historians, who have rather a romantic and distorted view of American history.
Last edited:
Alf, in your sweeping condemnation of my salient points you overlooked the failure of the Canadian Militia to develop an effective black bear mounted Cavalry...
Quoting Generals Dearborn and Hampton again, are we?
Actually, part of the American Strategy was pretty brilliant- the early naval campaign was textbook in how to tie up a vastly superior force.
What the American forces overlooked before Harrison and Jackson's rise was light horse artillery and the value of the mounted infantryman. They vastly dominated in horse numbers.
Cavalry horses are difficult to ship any distance by sea in sailing ships, and needed an extensive 'rehabilitation' after arrival. There was a proposal to develop Prince Edward Island as a 'vast remount centre after 1783. Instead, George the Third was persuaded to support a disastrous attempt to export feudalism.
Pressing had already stopped... why would it be mentioned? You can't press sailors if the US Navy is sinking your ships!
"Expansionist interests in the American Northwest were better served, since all British-held territory in this area was surrendered to the United States. This severance of British–American Indian ties led in 1814 and 1815 to a number of treaties of allegiance and land transfer between the Indians and the United States and thus opened the way to American settlement of the Northwest. "
BOOM... you lost.
Quoting Generals Dearborn and Hampton again, are we?
I did not know they said that.
Particularly in the case of New Orleans. The Brits landed themselves in a nasty little spot and played right into Jackson's hands. There would not have been much room to maneuver cavalry in front of the US defenses. The pile of dead and wounded Brit infantry posed an obstacle to advancing troops in and of itself.
Today that phrase is most likely whispered if you happen to by stock in a company that makes war equipment and the big contravt goes to another division of the same war machine and the only ones making any real money are those guys. Nice to be part of the team eh?
Yeah, okay then, whatever.
Plus, the Irish deserved a lot of their bad reputation. It's a reputation they rightly earned.
Napoleon was a mad dictator. France was a dictatorship. Britain was the freest country in the world, a constitutional monarchy.
Britain - and no other country in Europe - wanted rule from Napoleonic France and was glad to see the back of it and its attempts to impose republicanism on its neighbours.
It was right that such uprisings were stamped out brutally.
Napoleon would have done the same to any country which resisted rule by France.
And there's nothing so incredibly ironic and hypocritical in the fact that you attack British rule in Ireland in one breath, and then in another breath you praise Napoleonic France for ruling HALF of Europe.
Rubbish. In 1822 Viscount Castlereagh, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, began to suffer from a form of paranoia or a nervous breakdown, possibly as a result of an attack of gout. He was also severely overworked with both his responsibilities in leading the government in the House and the never-ending diplomacy required to manage conflicts among the other major powers. At the time, he said "My mind, is, as it were, gone." Londonderry returned to his country seat at Loring Hall in Water Lane, North Cray, Kent on the advice of his doctor. On 9 August 1822 he had an audience with King George IV in which he appeared distracted and mentally disturbed. Among other surprising remarks he revealed to the King that he thought he was being blackmailed for homosexuality.
On 12 August, although his wife had succeeded in removing razors from his possession and even though his doctor was in attendance, Castlereagh managed to find a pen knife with which he committed suicide by cutting his own throat.
There is nothing to suggest that Castlereagh's suicide was "the released knowledge after 1814, of how brutal his repression was." That's just PC, wishy-washing, wishful thinking on your part.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh come now BL
Castleleagh was the Second man to Lord Sidmouth after 1814, when harsh repression was not called for.
the Ordinary people of BRitian, who bled white in the fight against Napoleon, were subjected to a police state.
Six Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
luck o the Irish, Eh, BL?
Last edited:
The British invasions were at best "raids', as they lacked the horse mobility that the new warfare demanded- Calvary for scouts, for light fast field artillery. Napoleon « M.M. Bennetts
New Orleans was an attempt to invade where the swamplands made the odds more even , and hopefully, local horses could be procured. Andrew Jackson moved his mounted riflemen fast, risking starvation on occasion. I suspect that they intended to hold New Orleans as a 'bargaining chip".
Alf, do you just pull figures out of your head, or are the Garden Gnomes of Baal whispering to you again?
Baal - the pagan idol in your garden. By Pat Franklin
No, it hadn't. The British didn't stop impressment until after another victory of theirs - that in the Napoleonic Wars.
The War of 1812 did NOT stop British impressment. That was one of the things the Yanks failed to achieve.
And, as I've already mentioned, it's an American myth, perpetrated to this day, that the British went round impressing Yanks into the RN. The vast majority of those they impressed were British deserters trying to pass themselves off as Americans.
You've obviously not been studying your history much (as has the person who has green-arrowed you).
Feeble. Just feeble. And pathetic.
I find it quite amusing that you are blatantly trying to change history just to make you feel good.
Here is what the result of the War of 1812 was:
- Status quo ante bellum with no boundary changes (which is what the British wanted);
- Defeat of Tecumseh's Indian Confederation
- Ended support for military annexation by US of Canada.
The Americans lost the War of 1812, it's a well-known fact, so quit trying to get all superior about someone which you failed miserably at. Typical American arrogance.
You also have to remember that, unlike in North American, the War of 1812 is hardly mentioned. It is seen as a relatively minor affair, sidelined by the much larger conflict Britain was involved in against the nefarious activities of Napoleonic France.
Last edited:
So, your argument is "We're great because we're no worse than our brutal enemy?"
Good argument.