Military history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 18 selected anniversary

Previous discussion

• /Archive 1: 2003–2005

The Military Information Box for the overall conflict includes the following: "*Volunteers were semi-professional troops"

What is the basis for this? It's obvious to see that the volunteer crews of the US Navy did their job admirably in a professional manner in the duration of the war. Adding the footnote about the volunteers seems unnecessary and unsubstantiated. Auror 00:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To view (and edit) all of the campaign boxes that appear at the bottom of the individual battle boxes, see: War of 1812/Campaigns.

Shouldn't this be moved out of the namespace? into a project page (into wikipedia:xxx) or something? JDR 17:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• what would people think of a campaign box for naval actions on the great lakes? (ie: Battle of Lake erie, Burlington Races, raids on York, Port Dover, the shipbuilding race on the lakes etc?)Mike McGregor (Can) 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Battle of Lake Erie, it was the turning point of the Detroit frontier, and so it definitely belongs in that campainbox; we'd lose the essential context if it was removed. (After winning the battle, Perry informed Harrison, then transported Harrison's army to Canada, and then accompanied Harrison's army to the Battle of the Thames. This was his theatre.) --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the War of 1812 Still needs some work, but it has many of the key events for the Origins and actual conflict of the War of 1812. Enjoy SirIsaacBrock 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a touch uncomfortable with the last section "...the Americans had drafted a plan in late 1814 for severing the Upper St Lawrence River during 1815 and it is interesting to speculate what may have occured had the war continued through 1815"

There is an obvious danger of making what if's without context. We could just as easily say that had the war gone on then 100+ Royal Navy ships of the line would have been freed by the ending of the Napoleonic wars (-v- ~17 US ships) or speculate that the Duke of Wellington would have been sent with the army of spain to take on the US. I'm not sure how profitable either line is so I urge we remove the 1815 speculation and leave it at the plan to block the StL.Alci12 19:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that section is quite small and fairly harmless, so I'm not worried about it. If memory serves me right, Wellington thought that the colonies were screwed anyway if the war went on because, despite the British mastery of the oceans, they had lost the Great Lakes and thus given the Americans a great advantage. Simply having a large number of veteran soldiers around didn't mean everything, as Prevost proved as Plattsburgh, and at any rate it's impossible to imagine the British footing the bill for sending Wellington's entire army over. Lord Bob 19:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you memory fails you then. Wellington didn't want to go to America (he was rather busy at the time and fed up of proposals to send forces everywhere but where they would be militarily useful - south america/ walcheren), but was quite clear he would if ordered go, the plan was the governments and the cost affordable - fraction of the loans Britain was offering to continental powers in 1814. Britain dominated the oceans not the great lakes because she was fighting a global war which necesitated blockading/fighting France on the oceans and left little to spare for the lakes - in terms of manpower or finance; both would free up on the end of the N war. What ifs are bad historial practice avoided by all good sources and often POV it does nothing to wikis good that they crop up so often in articles Alci12 14:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that "what ifs" should not normally have a place in a straight history. They could be useful in a place where someone did something unexpected and the "what if" could demonstrate what might have happened if they had done the expected. In this case the "what if" does not illuminate the subject, it just adds speculation. The war was over, plans may have been made but there is no evidence that a. they would have worked or b. had the effect anticipated. Dabbler 15:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGeneral Isaac Brock was killed in the war of 1812. You probably knew that already. O.o;

I'm confused how this war is considered a stalemate. The 'win conditions' for Canada/Britain was to defend Canada from invasion. The result was that they marched on Washintgon DC and burned the Whitehouse down. It looks like a total victory for Canada/Britain to me. Can anyone elaborate on this?

Personally, I agree with you. However, my understanding is that it is considered a stalemate because the war ended status quo ante bellum. Moreover, particularly towards the end of the war, the British did have a policy of trying to take American territory, and were unable to hold most of what they got (and, of course, the Treaty of Ghent took what they did keep away). So that's my understanding for the justification. At any rate, there have been previous discussions/edit wars over the matter and consensus seems to be that it was a draw. Lord Bob 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this debated over and over on usenet, and it possibly has for decades. This is by no means clear. There is a large contingent of people (including famous 1812 historian John Eisenhower) who believe that the US main goal of invading and annexing Canada was unsuccessful, and the aim of Britain to repulse them was.

If a border conflict occurred, and there was fighting and the situation returned to the previous status quo, then that would be a stalemate. However, where one country has launched an invasion, and has been repulsed, then they have lost..and it is clearly not a stalemate. I'm sorry guys, IMHO the results should say "US invasion repulsed" or some such thing, to call a stalemate is quite clearly a biased result to the US.Deathlibrarian 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. We're currently looking for the task force people to joint so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth protecting this article for a set period of time to see if maybe the vandals move on to somthing else? would it be possible to protect the page so that only people with a user profile can edit (as opposed to preventing all editing)? just a thought...Mike McGregor (Can) 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protect it Battlefield 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, block the IP. It's consistent.--SarekOfVulcan 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then two others show up. Figures. SP requested and received.--SarekOfVulcan 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the SP SirIsaacBrock 18:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Category has been tagged for Speedy Deletion comments welcome HERE. Battlefield 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created that category to gather articles more relivent to canadian military history for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force , please don't deleate it Mike McGregor (Can) 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Some Americans argued that the majority of the population in the British colonies would rise up and greet an American invading army as liberators..."

I'd like to see a reference for this quote. Sounds like idle USA-bashing. ("Stupid Americans who think they'll be greeted as liberators, then and now.") If no reference can be provided, the claim should be removed. 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC+2)

I have read that statement before, so I agree that it is true. I did NOT add it to the article and I cannot remember the citation, perhaps, you could do a search on Google Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I've seen this argued too. It's 6:30 in the morning where I am, I'm watching the Olympics, and you'd better believe I can't be bothered to look it up right now, but I will try and remember. Lord Bob 14:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statment by Jefferson ("the acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching") supports the above statement.Mike McGregor (Can) 21:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I don't know about the Americans expecting the population of Canada rise against the British, yet there is evidence in abundance of American overconfidence regarding the outcome of a conflict between British forces in the Canadas and American armed forces. ALMandel 15:12, April 5th 2006.

I don't know which way this bias seems to point, seems like a nice Americanized version of the war mostly highlighting American success's and trying to paint them as a victimized underdog when they were in fact the aggressors. Face it the War of 1812 was LOW on Britians priority list in 1812 with Napolean raging in Europe, who cared about the forest? Facts are good (some need citation) but it stills seems like an American point of view. JustinMcL March 28th 2006

I agree with Mike McGregor and ALMandel there is abundant evidence of the American belief (including Jefferson's statement quoted in the article) that taking Canada would be a piece of cake. Many editors have commented on the article's balance. A great deal of work has gone into keeping that balance. I'm removing the NPOV tag. Sunray 06:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on whether the following articles can/should have a campaign box:

• Raid on Elizabethtown
• Raid on Gananoque

SirIsaacBrock 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the consequences section has become quite large, I suggest we move this section to it's own article and leave a summary in it's place. Please let me know what you think. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Results of the War of 1812 without moving over much information from the main article to avoid edit wars. However, I suggest we combine the two sections into the new article to make the main article smaller and more manageable. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, go for it. Previous discussions have pointed out that this article is to long, so you should not get much grief. I suspect most would support you. Luigizanasi 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REWRITE:

If we were to do a full article rewrite, I was wondering if we should change the structure to the following:

1) Introduction

2) Origins

3) Theatre of operations

• 3.1) Detroit frontier
• 3.2) Chesapeake campaign
• 3.3) American south
• 3.4) Niagara campaigns
• 3.5) St. Lawrence/Lake Champlain frontier
• 3.6) Naval engagements

4) Results

This is for discussion purposes only, so please don't start WW1 100 years early -:) SirIsaacBrock 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the consequences has more content than the "main" article Results of the War of 1812. The section should be summarized in one or two paragraphs, and the rest of the content moved.—thames 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :-) Luigizanasi 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sunray 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an edit war but I am really puzzled by your claim that timber trade was amajor cause of the War of 1812. I have read fairly extensively histories of the War of 1812 (and I am based in Canada but of British origin). I have hardly ever seen more than a passing reference to the loss of American timber for British shipbuilding. What is usually said is that American supplies being unavailable was a reason for the subsequent increase of the importance of the Baltic trade. I have never read anywhere timber as the primary reason for American expansionism into what would become Canadian territory. Please provide the references for your claim that it was a major cause of the war. Thanks. Dabbler 11:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment:- according to Wikipedia's own article, Economic history of Britain the loss of the American colonies had no major impact on the British economy and in fact may encouraged wealth creating trade with the former colonies and other nations. Britain was able to defeat the French by its economic strength not despite its weakness. I think this whjole section is seriously misinformed as it currently stands. Dabbler 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]