Pixar's latest production

[emperorpenguin]

I'm really not up on the US war of independance, I was always of the understanding that the British fleet got smacked in the face by scurvy, severly redusing the troop numbers, any truth in that at all?

Not that I'm aware of, the RN was famous for providing sailors with limes to stave off scurvy, hence the American term "Limeys"

Certainly the fledgling American fleet performed much better than they had any right to! The RN was dominant though until the other 3 (France, Spain, Holland) swung the balance

 

[H]

Fair enough, no idea where i read it though, I was aware of where the term Limeys came from, Patrick O'Brien saw to that for me!

 

[emperorpenguin]

Fair enough, no idea where i read it though, I was aware of where the term Limeys came from, Patrick O'Brien saw to that for me!

Patrick O'Brien? :?

 

[H]

Author, sadly dead now, wrote the Aubrey/Maturin Novels which the Russel crowe film master and commander, the far side of the world was based on (2 books about 16 apart in the series, stupid Holywood. Also just realised I spelt his name wrong, my bad

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I wouldn't say the government didn't care! The colonies were worth a lot in financial terms to Britain. The problem was a) the distance and subsequent logistical problems b) incompetent leadership c) the entry on the rebels side of France, Spain and Holland

In fact Britain could have won the war had Washington not escaped over the Delaware or had Saratoga not been botched. Even without the French Britain simply hadn't the ability (and increasingly the political will to last the fight)

There was a distinct element of apathy, though, given the "more important" wars over India and the "more valuable" colonies there and in the east. America was a sideshow to the wars with France, an extension of those wars, but not seen as important when viewed alongside the European issues. Or at least, not as important as other issues.

 

[emperorpenguin]

There was a distinct element of apathy, though, given the "more important" wars over India and the "more valuable" colonies there and in the east. America was a sideshow to the wars with France, an extension of those wars, but not seen as important when viewed alongside the European issues. Or at least, not as important as other issues.

We weren't at war with France at the time (until they declared war after we lost at Saratoga) & there were no european issues at the time. 1763-1789 was a time of relative peace in europe.
The war happened largely because of stupid politicians treating the American colonies badly, trying to milk them for all they were worth. That and the americans wanting to expna west of the appalachians against Crown wishes

 

[Lord David the Denied]

...and wanting political power and additional wealth for themselves. Don't forget that. Thing is, the so-called "war of indenpendance" lasted a lot longer than most people realise, and the War of 1812 (itself two years long) is often lumped in with it.

Still, it's your period, not mine. You probably have the right of it.

 

[emperorpenguin]

...and wanting political power and additional wealth for themselves. Don't forget that. Thing is, the so-called "war of indenpendance" lasted a lot longer than most people realise, and the War of 1812 (itself two years long) is often lumped in with it..

1776-83 I believe. Yes the war of 1812 which actually was from June 1812-early 1815! Strange how some wars get their names!

And yes it was a kind of extension of the War of Independence, not that the US would have been reabsorbed by losing it but rather it helped forge its national identity

 

[Lord David the Denied]

If we'd played our cards right we could have had the lot back. A decent strike at Washington would have caught the president and much of the government in the city, but as it was we let them escape. With the president captured we could have forced a surrender and reclaimed the colonies. Especially if we hadn't fluffed the Battle of New Orleans...

 

[emperorpenguin]

If we'd played our cards right we could have had the lot back. A decent strike at Washington would have caught the president and much of the government in the city, but as it was we let them escape. With the president captured we could have forced a surrender and reclaimed the colonies. Especially if we hadn't fluffed the Battle of New Orleans...

We did take Washington, the President wasn't there, he fled!
We then marched on Baltimore and were defeated. There was no way realistically we could control the US, it'd have been a draining guerilla war, as it was it sucked in many Peninsular veterans who Wellington really could have used at Waterloo. In fact taking the hypothetical scenario of us trying to retake the US (and maybe pumping more troops in there) we may have lost Waterloo. Wellington also turned down command in America, had he not done so would his replacement have held Napoleon off at Waterloo?

Intriguing........

 

[Na-Po]

Well with such a scenario we might still got an Emperor ;-)

 

[Lord David the Denied]

We did take Washington, the President wasn't there, he fled!
We then marched on Baltimore and were defeated. There was no way realistically we could control the US, it'd have been a draining guerilla war, as it was it sucked in many Peninsular veterans who Wellington really could have used at Waterloo. In fact taking the hypothetical scenario of us trying to retake the US (and maybe pumping more troops in there) we may have lost Waterloo. Wellington also turned down command in America, had he not done so would his replacement have held Napoleon off at Waterloo?

Intriguing........

When I said a decent strike at Washington, I mean one planned properly and moving fast enough to trap the president inside the city. As it was we were delayed scrapping with US Navy sailors, giving the government time to escape.

 

[H]

yup, you certainly may have. Always kinda liked napoleon, little guy with some big ideas,

 

[emperorpenguin]

Well with such a scenario we might still got an Emperor ;-)

I dunno, look how his nephew fared..... :wink:

 

[emperorpenguin]

When I said a decent strike at Washington, I mean one planned properly and moving fast enough to trap the president inside the city. As it was we were delayed scrapping with US Navy sailors, giving the government time to escape.

This was 1812 not today! Rapid-moving warfare, special forces and surgical strikes didn't exist!
It simply wasn't possible in that day and age to surround a city that fast

 

[Lord David the Denied]

They didn't need to surround it, and fast-moving warfare was well known by then. A faster strike would have been in the city before the president could get clear. It was fairly close as it was.

 

[emperorpenguin]

They didn't need to surround it, and fast-moving warfare was well known by then. A faster strike would have been in the city before the president could get clear. It was fairly close as it was.

Men marched on foot, communications were poor, there was no fast warfare. Light cavalry used for scouting was as fast as it got.
The debacle at New Orleans happened because comms were so slow that the armies didn't know peace had been declared a month before!

Resistance at Washington was non-existant, they weren't held up fighting US forces and Washington was burned precisely because there weren't enough troops to hold it. We were still at war with France, reconquest of America simply was not feasible.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

No, you're wrong. US militia forces were in the city and US Navy crewmen came ashore to fight as well. This is well documented, a quick Google search for "War of 1812" will find plenty of sites with accounts of the battle.

Rapid movement of troops was possible, just because they're on foot doesn't mean they dawdle. If you're a Napoleonic buff you'll have heard of light infantry regiments moving at a fair lick, as well as cavlary and dragoons shifting quite nicely. Not every force has to be burdened with siege guns and ox-drawn wagons.

 

[emperorpenguin]

No, you're wrong. US militia forces were in the city and US Navy crewmen came ashore to fight as well. This is well documented, a quick Google search for "War of 1812" will find plenty of sites with accounts of the battle.

The battle of Bladensburg. That was a very quick and easy British victory, the US forces put up almost no fight! President Madison was there too, so if the object had been to capture him they'd have done it there, not by catching him at Washington (where he wasn't!)

Rapid movement of troops was possible, just because they're on foot doesn't mean they dawdle. If you're a Napoleonic buff you'll have heard of light infantry regiments moving at a fair lick, as well as cavlary and dragoons shifting quite nicely. Not every force has to be burdened with siege guns and ox-drawn wagons.

Light infantry still cannot move faster than horse borne couriers! And it was not possible to take a city with light cavalry alone. The burning of Washington was in retaliation for the American burning of York (Toronto) in Canada. There was never any plan or possibility of retaking the colonies, whether the President was captured or not.

 

[Reaverman]

I wonder if Burger can do a pic of an EA ship, with a sponsorship logos on it?