>>8182 If something as incidental as a Russo-Turkish war is considered part of the Napoleonic Wars, I see no reason for the War of 1812 not to be included. It wouldn't have happened if not for the wars in Europe and the US maintained sympathy for France, Quasi-War notwithstanding.
It's retarded to say the US lost the war because their capital building was burned. Wars aren't a game where winning is done by capturing a capital. You might as well say Prussia lost the 7 years war because the Russians occupied Berlin.
It was a tie because neither country accomplished the victory it set out for. Britain's 3 prong attack failed to meet up in 2 parts and the lower part was a defeat at New Orleans by Jackson.
>>10352 Well of course it had something to do with it, but you could say the US wasn't in prime condition either what with its Navy being whittled down to nothing thanks to Jefferson or the wars being fought against the Indians in Florida. Wars aren't often fought at the convenience of both parties. The point is that it was a tie because neither side accomplished what it wanted to and both just wanted to end it since fighting served no more purpose.
>>11001 It really does seem like the battle of New Orleans gets overlooked a lot simply because of the treaty being signed before the battle began. In the process of repelling the Brits Jackson turned formerly anti-American pirates into allied privateers, as well as injecting a new sense of American unity to the people of New Orleans (all still newly acquired from the French).
>>7034 US: >got impressment to stop for the most part >showed itself as a worthy power at land and sea >continued to be a country (1812 is often referred to as the Second War of Independence) >was embarrassed by Canadian ventures and White House burning
Brits: >got their pride hurt by severe early naval losses >were too busy fighting Napoleon and the Dutch to really worry all that much about those damn colonials >continued to be a massive empire for the next century
Canadians: >got something to feel sort of proud about compared to big brother USA, even though they weren't a thing back then
>>8940 They didn't fight the colonial form, they fought the early-1800s form. The nation just started expanding west, and had built a sizeable military. They had Russian Empire-tier tactics, as in awful, so the failed their invasion of Canada. Canada pushed them out and was able to take parts of Michigan, a victory to many people. However, Britain got BTFO, so they made a white peace, meaning Canada had to give up Michigan. The Canadians would consider it a victory because they were able to successfully invade the US and successfully defend Canada. keep in mind that they had expanded very deep into the west at this point.
The Revolution happened way earlier and didn't involve Canada.
>>12045 The Russian Empire had absolutely awful tactics, seen especially well in the Russo-Japanese War and WWI, and remnants of it in WWII and preceding wars.
For example, they used outdated tactics with outdated ships in the RJW. They couldn't properly communicate with each other and used more traditional land battle maneuvers. In WWI, they just threw troops at the Germans until one side lost all of their troops, and after that they drained on already strained resource lines to fuel a hideously unpopular war. Something like this can be seen in WWII with Stalin's strategy. There are plenty more examples of these.
>>7034 The US didn't manage to achieve all of its aims, and neither did the British. However the US did manage to assert itself as a country that could fight the British on relatively equal terms. We also got control of the Ohio River Valley.
British didn't lose Canada, and that was really what mattered. So it came down to neither got exactly what they wanted, but the Americans at least got some of what they wanted.
Trudeauvian/Liberal propaganda. The British North American colonies got responsible government (the governor would appoint the executive council from the legislative assemblies and would be bound to follows it advice) in the 1850s. In 1867, the British North America Act created the Dominion of Canada, which for the most part was internally self-governing. In 1931, the Statute of Westminster gave the self-governing dominions of the British Empire (and Commonwealth) equal status to the United Kingdom.
By Canada's own request, however, the British North America Act remained UK legislation. The Dominion government and the provinces could not agree to an amending formula (e.g. 2/3 of both houses in Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures in the USA, a referendum being approved throughout the Commonwealth and the majority of states in Australia, etc.). This is what changed in 1982, with the passing of the Canada Acts in Canada and the UK.
There's a better case for 1867 being the "birthday" for Canada than 1982.
>>16975 I don't really think that's propaganda. Even if the Liberals try to make a big deal out of Trudeau "bringing home" the constitution, I doubt any of them would consider 1982 to be Canada's birthday, and if they did they'd get a lot of flak for it. Anyone who argues that Canada is only about 25 years old is either grossly uninformed or a dumbass most likely.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.