To get off the boring subject of overly-nationalistic (in a compensatory manner) Americans vs. British power, let us think about the French. The French soldier was a middle class man, who wished to honour his family and send a decent wage home. The British soldier was off the streets, scum, lower class, thieves, rapists and murderers. But by God could the British Army make the finest fighting men in the world. To a thousand years of sticking through poncy Frenchmen with a good stick!
"The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent" - Thomas Jefferson. Us lot were 3000 miles away fighting the greatest power of the age and you still couldn't manage it.
@Talbot6832 That is true. However, after Napoleon fell, although you sent dozens of ships and tens of thousands of Wellington's troops to America, you could not subdue the United States. A little more than 30 years after the end of the war of 1812, the US sent a force of about 12,000 to Mexico. That army subdued Mexico in spite of being outnumbered by about 3 to1. No less a personage than the Duke of Wellington predicted that invasion would fail.
Lol... another video that falters down into the inconsequential, pointless and very minor spat with the Americans in 1812. Hardly a war you can judge the resolve of the Redcoat by unless you count the brilliant victory at Cryslers Farm.
I love the bit with the young man being spattered with blood as he tries to load. He hasn't even fired a shot yet. What is he doing marching into battle on the front line without loading his damned musket?! Bally yanks aren't going to win like that, by jove.
@MarkramUK Actually from reading historical context it was a tie. The British achieved their goals but so did the Americans. The Americans wanted to establish that they could fight and that they were a country capable of competing in the world. The British achieved their goals by keeping the Americans out of Canada and beating the Americans back.
@Willsuitt1 The United States had proven they could fight by rising up as a new country AND by defeating (albeit with help) the British Empire, one of, arguably THE most powerful force in the world. The U.S. got far too cocky when they tried to defeat the Empire a second time when it had time to prepare and was able to get support from Canadian citizens.
@MarkramUK the french helped the americans so without them Uk would have kept america untill atleast there was another uprising or either they gave it back (as they did with the other countries becuase where kind :D)
@MarkramUK How was the UK preparing for war with the US when at the time just about all their resources were committed to Napoleon. Britain did not want war with the US. In a last ditch attempt to avoid war, Great Britain revoked the Orders in Council which the US found to be so objectionable.
@Willsuitt1 It was a draw because neither side achieved their objectives. The US failed in its attempts to invade Canada from 1812-1814. Great Britain then attempted incursions, first the Chesapeake, then Plattsburg, finally New Orleans, all of which were turned back. Great Britain did attempt to force severe concessions on the US but eventually made pece on the basis of Status Quo Ante Bellum.
@MarkramUK British goals, once Napoleon was defeated, were to impose severe territorial concessions on the US, maybe separate New England from the US, and take Louisiana from the US. They achieved none of those goals. They accepted a peace which gave them nothing of what they wanted. It is true that the US achieved none of their war aims.
@MarkramUK Int the Mexican War, after the US invaded Mexico in 1847 and captured Mexico City, Mexico capitulated. The Us did not capitulate after Washington was burned. The US turned back the British attempt on Baltimore, defeated the Naval squadron on Lake Champlain, and soundly defeated theBritish attempt on New Orleans.
We pulled out of US because there was nothing to lose ! there where bigger fish to fry (at the time) dont kid yourself yanks read the true history books !!!!
and immergrents that couldn't speak much English. Only an american judge would do that,
you got rid of them because they were a thereat to the American way of life, and if you were honest to yourselves, the american way of life is just our way of life turned on it's head, and when you say you don't like immergrents and there un-american if you think about it, you all are immergrents because in the 1700's you all came in a ship because you were sent to populate the american continent, by us.
what you Americans consider to be american, is being white, Christian, and at least born in the states, may i remind you to the sacardo and venddeti trail in the 20's, were you sent two Italian imergrents to their deaths because of what there believed in. They were accused of murder despite they were in a completely different place at the time and all the evidence supporting them (which may I say was over 100 people) and the court found them guilty just because they were anarchists.
We didn't exactly follow protocol either. In the Zulu Dawn film, the issue of the divided army comes up, and gets put down by a general saying that the rules only apply to European enemies, not African natives. Since all the Africans would do is run into gunfire with sharpened sticks. Had the whole Army been there, there wouldn't have been such huge gaps between the regiments for the Zulu to run through.
@swanyAJ The French participated in only three campaigns in the Revolutipnary war, Newport, Savannah and Yorktown. We lost at Newport. Savannah was a disaster because the French Commander, Count D'Estaing, ordered a frontal assault without proper preparation against a fortified position. Yorktown happened because Nathaniel Green wore down Cornwallis' army in the Carolinas and Cornwallis gave up the Carolinas and retreated into Virginia.
I dont like judging but to the americans, you need to understand and study history, you watch to much hollywood and not reality, IM a study freak and study british history and american history, the british army has been the best army in the world for almost a 1000 years, i was in the british army, the british army has been known, and TODAY her navy is supreme in techknowledgy than any other nation and in dicapline to, too every 1 british soildier dies we the british have killed 3 of the enemy.
It will be so easy to find an illiterate American. Just see how many people watch Fox News, that should give you a rough estimate of how pandemic the problem is for you.
@MahsaKaerra So all Brits kill Hindus? :) I am not the Fox News, CNN or MSNBC American who buys whatever the tellie shows. You seem to have a vague knowledge of history. Care to have a friendly debate? We can specifically talk about the "WAR OF 1812" LOL or go into more detail. No need to insult anyone. Are you capable of such a task? Or are you going to mimic your brothers here in the USA? We call them "Rednecks". They act like bigoted, arrogant and most of all inbred asses.
@BC1Dan the only thing that is garbage is your knowledge. There isn't an English military it's British. But idiots like you wouldn't know the difference.
So sacking your Capital city burning down the white house along with the federal reserve then withdrawing without even a murmur from you is considered an American victory? only in America LOL
@grez30 Well beating you out of New Orleans and kicking you out of the Great Lakes and stoping your advance to Baltimore and stoping you from taking our country back. Yea Victory
As I recall, that New Orleans "battle" happened only after the signing of the peace treaty.
Do you Americans make a habit of fighting against people who aren't technically enemies?
It's like in the post-WW2 years, in NATO exercises, the British army personnel preferred to fight with Germans standing next to them, than fighting with Americans behind them.
@MahsaKaerra What documentation do you have stating the treaty of Ghent was made aware to Jackson and/or Pakenham in time to even know it was being signed Dec 24 1814, considering the amount of time it took to move troops at that time and the fact it was basically on the fringes of the frontier. What is it you would like to tell me about this period...?
@larsjake To clarify The Treaty of Ghent, to go into effect, it had to be ratified by both sides. If I recall, it took HMS Favorite at least three weeks to bring the Treaty to the US for ratification. Then, because of difficulties in communicating at the time, there was a time limit set for the word to get out. Any hostile action occurring during that time period because the commanders were unaware would be considered acts of war not in violation of the Treaty.
@MahsaKaerra British and American Commanders were awarw of the peace negotiations at Ghent when Great Britain made their incursions into US territory in late 1814-15. Great Britain made those incursions to pressure the US into accepting terms the British wanted to impose.
@MahsaKaerra The British landed an army on American soil and tried to take a major American City. That is why the Battle of New Orleans happened after the Peace Treaty.
@MahsaKaerra You did not recall that the "people who [weren't] technically enemies was a British Army invading American soil with the objective of capturing a strategic piece of American territory. The British took the offensive. The Americans remained on the defensive. The British Army could have avoided battle against "people who [weren't] technically enemies" by withdrawing from New Orleans. They did not.
@MahsaKaerra not to mention the first casualties in any recent conflict were friendly fire on the allies from american troops. no wonder they don't like to stand in front of Americans.
You were pissy about British impressment of American naval personnel, an issue that was technically resolved prior to your declaration of War.
By buying Louisiana you partly funded Napoleon's war efforts, and you made war when we were dealing with more important problems in Europe.
Your goal of the annexation of Canada (starting from Independence all the way to "War plan Red" in 1930) were also put down by the "status quo ante bellum" Treaty of Ghent.
@MahsaKaerra Impressment was not discontinued prior to the declaration of war. Great Britain revoked the orders in council. Impressment became a non issue after the fall of Napoleon and the Royal Navy decreased in size. Nevertheless, during the 100 Days, the Admiralty instructed British Naval Captains not to molest American shipping.
@MahsaKaerra Britain's impressment of American sailors was British armed forces trespassing on American Territory and conscripting her citizens into the British Navy. Britain, via impressment, was committing acts of war on the US long before the declaration of war.
@grez30 I think it kind of goes with opinion. Personally, I think 1812 was as much an American victory as Vietnam. But, leave it to the US to claim that "victory" means coincidentally achieving something you didn't intend. Specifically, they were able to have free access west to "peacefully occupy" the Natives' land.
@grez30 Capturing Washington did knock te US out of the War. A few weeks later, the British retreated after getting their noses bloodied at Baltimore. They retreated after getting their noses bloodied at Lake Champlain. They tried once more at New Orleans and were soundly and one sidedly defeated.
@OW41N You believe a force of infantry should attack directly into an enemy's strength? What was the difference between that tactic and Wellington's tactic of placing his men on the reverse slope of hills in order to shield them from enemy fire?
@exarmydoc the difference is that there was no wall in the way, welligton's men still had to iengage in a field battle or open battle as its known, where as at new orleans, ladders were needed therefore channeling the attacker, also the british had insufficient sige guns, wellington was a field commander who didnt want his troops to get hit constantly by large amounts of artillery, you need to be more specific with the term fire!
@OW41N In other words General Jackson used his strengths to neutralize British strengths, something Wellington would have approved of. The British Army could have avoided the disastrous(for them) battle by withdrawing. They did not. I believe that no General in his right mind would advocate an attack against a strongly defended position. No General in his right mind, facing a numerically superior enemy, would not entrench and thereby increase his chances of successfully defending.
@exarmydoc Excerpt at Cryslers Farm 800 British troops attacked and routed 8,000 US troops. New Orleans was an ill thought out opportunistic raid that was both inconsequential and irrelevant to a British public that had seen the defeat of Bonaparte yet inn popular American historiography, it is the prime reason Americans see it as a victory. A great shame there are basically no British historians who study this conflict with any great depth. I'd wager many untold truths would come out.
@Talbot6832 It was more like Battle of Rorke's Drift, 8000 Americans attacking 800 British rather than the other way around. I agree it was a magnificent victory for the British and Canadians.
@Talbot6832 Prior to New Orleans,the British landed tens of thousands of troops at Lajke Borgne, then transported them be relays in small boats across Lake Borgne. When those troops disembarked they had to struggle through difficult terrain to get to the eastern bank of the Mississippi and then get organized for the assault on New Orleans. They expended a lot of effort trying to break Jackson's line before the actual battle. It was more than a raid.
@exarmydoc Further, if it were just a raid, after failing to breajk Jackson's line, the British would have retired down the Missisippi. If the British had more important committments elsewhere, they would not have risked so considerable force o a direct assault on Jackson's position.
@exarmydoc Characteristic of the battles with the Rebel Americans and later US Army was that they more often than not kept themselves behind barricades or a fort. When they did engage the British in open battle they were soundly defeated (a.k.a Queenston Heights, Cryslers Farm, etc). Even then it was against a half arsed garrison force.
@Talbot6832 They engaged the British in the open field at Lundy's Lane and Chippewa and were not soundly defeated. Would you have criticized General Chuikov for fighting in the defenses of Stalingrad rather than meeting the German 6th Army in the open field.
@OW41N What you call hiding behind a wall is a way of maximizing the damage to the enemy and minimizing the damage to your own force. Check out the Second Battle of Bull Run. Stonewall Jackson got behind a numerically superior Union Army, cut its supply line and then withdrew to a strong defensive position. The Union marched to and fro trying to organize an attack on Jackson. They exposed themselves to a flanking attack by the rest of the Confederate Army under Longstreet. Major disaster.
@exarmydoc lol at rorke's drtift there were 140 welsh and english vs over 4000 zuluz's the odds are way steeper and they were in a foreign country in which the main force had been destroyed, therefore cutting them off, however what i am referring to is that the british army had accomplished much greater feats of that time where we were outnumbered roughly the same and still fought an open battle and won, assaye, 9000 brits vs over 40000 indians with 100+ cannons, thats an example,
@grez30 Compare that to the American capture of Mexico City in the Mexican War. After Mexico City fell, Mexico capitulated. After Washington DC fell, the US kept fighting. Washington may have been a tactical victory for the British but it had no Strategic results. It did outrage the US and stiffen their resolve to resist the British.
Looking into the history books war of 1812 Americans got beaten hugely the war of independence was a French victory because the American rebels weren't strong enough but they were of European descent there is no true American but the natives.
@Gracchi A lot of uninformed Canadians burnt down the White House. The Canadians never got near Washington DC in the War of 1812. On the other hand, American troops did burn York, the Capital of upper Canada. For those who think the Burning of Washington, which did not knock the US out of the war, was such a resounding victory, did the burning of York knock Canada out of the war?
@Talbot6832 With the Treaty of Paris, the British evacuated New York and recognized the US as an independent country. They gave up on winning the war after the surrender at Yorktown. It means nothing that the British won a few inconsequential battle after Yorktown and before the treaty of Paris.
"If you find yourself riding alone in an open field with the sun on your face, then don't trouble yourself; For you are in elysium and you're already dead!"
I’m not sure if it’s true but there was never a formal surrender the general surrendered but the prince regent didn’t formally surrender but I’m not sure if that is fact or not?
TERRORS OF FRENCH PUSSIES AND BASTARDS...thanks to this guys we learn english as a second language and culture in all world wide scholls, and we dont need to learn about french culture and their gay language...i have to thanks to this brave warriors and of course LORD HORATIO NELSON AND THE BRAVE DUQUE OF WELLINGTON
This was back in the day when Britain was truly great, when we bowed down to no one where as everyone bowed down to us, now we are freedom loving pussys who allow country's to insult us, But we will rule once again some day, lets just hope we don't give up our empire so easily next time.
Wow that was a surreal moment when the action suddenly shifted from the Revolutionary War to Africa. There wasn't really any indication in the video, and then suddenly Zulus from nowhere.
@MaisterM68 well unlike many of my brethren, I secretly respect France and its military history. Many people only remember the French surrender of 1940, but I remember Napoleon and the Hundred Years War. They were a force not to be reckoned with then.
@NathanH97 I'm French, and I secretly respect England and its military history too ! This thin red line.... "Fix Bayonets and die like british soldiers do !". Regards.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MaisterM68 1. I am a proud Briton who in the future i am planning to die for my country and 2. we sent that navy so our supplies could get out and so you wouldn't be able to sail any armies round the colonies. do you really think our entire land military force consisted of mercenaires? and please, if I caused any offence i'm sorry, but I can not let my nation be insulted. I've had too many arguments like this on youtube and I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MaisterM68 they won it, but BRITAIN (not just England, Scotland and Wales are in Britain as well) was not humiliated. We won most of the battles and took fewer casualties. But calling me a douche bag was unneeded.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MaisterM68 I know stuff like that happened. It's the way you said it. 'owned.' 'crushed' 'humiliated'. if you hadn't used those words i probably wouldn't have commented in retaliation. and for the record. you started this argument. I just said that the things you said were all wrong. You then proceeded to call me a douche bag and claim history gives you reason when basic history does. more researched history does not however and is in favour of britain.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MaisterM68 we defeated the native americans in the french-indian war and after that the majority of them supported britain. and you don know britain won the zulu war right?
@MaisterM68 I don't want to get into another argument because I am sick and tired of telling yanks that the majority of the loyalists were german mercanaries and the rebels were supported by the french, spanish and dutch who along with britain were the 4 major powers in that day. plus we were focused on fighing in europe. If we wanted too we could have crushed the rebels in a week. we just wanted to get our supplies out and go home. we knew that the native americans would fight you to the end.
dont know where you get the idea britain owns america. guerilla warfare is a natural reaction when you are fighting a superior enemy which wins in open warfare, which is what happened in america and vietnam. winning a war on your home turf requires persistance really. you need to kill a lot of the enemy to try and make the war end, you have the home advantage. america COULD have sent more troops to vietnam, likewise Britain COULD have sent more troops to america, but it wouldn't benefit them
sorry but i really do like u yanks, but u gotta think u one a little war with us, we ruled the world end of day your englands son that rebelled but whn u fight a war u always come to daddy
LOL @ 1:20 the Continentals didn't even have bayonettes fixed! Good thing the French got involved and relieved GREAT! Britain of her most trouble-some possession.
This has been flagged as spam show
To get off the boring subject of overly-nationalistic (in a compensatory manner) Americans vs. British power, let us think about the French. The French soldier was a middle class man, who wished to honour his family and send a decent wage home. The British soldier was off the streets, scum, lower class, thieves, rapists and murderers. But by God could the British Army make the finest fighting men in the world. To a thousand years of sticking through poncy Frenchmen with a good stick!
REDandWHITE1993 5 days ago
Comment removed
REDandWHITE1993 5 days ago
The Colonials got a proper kicking here
yahooyahoo777 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RULE BRITANNIA!!!!!
Skilly31 2 weeks ago
"The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent" - Thomas Jefferson. Us lot were 3000 miles away fighting the greatest power of the age and you still couldn't manage it.
Talbot6832 2 weeks ago
@Talbot6832 That is true. However, after Napoleon fell, although you sent dozens of ships and tens of thousands of Wellington's troops to America, you could not subdue the United States. A little more than 30 years after the end of the war of 1812, the US sent a force of about 12,000 to Mexico. That army subdued Mexico in spite of being outnumbered by about 3 to1. No less a personage than the Duke of Wellington predicted that invasion would fail.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
Lol... another video that falters down into the inconsequential, pointless and very minor spat with the Americans in 1812. Hardly a war you can judge the resolve of the Redcoat by unless you count the brilliant victory at Cryslers Farm.
Talbot6832 2 weeks ago
I love the bit with the young man being spattered with blood as he tries to load. He hasn't even fired a shot yet. What is he doing marching into battle on the front line without loading his damned musket?! Bally yanks aren't going to win like that, by jove.
snack881 3 weeks ago
Their called British Grenadiers. Have some respect.
Kevinsufacation 4 weeks ago 2
Makes me want to play Empire: Total War.
Dannyr99299 1 month ago 2
RULE BRITANNIA!!
WorldFrontlineMedia 1 month ago 4
British infantry were arguably the best in the world
slapnthface 1 month ago
if i remember right the New Orleans battle was an defensive victory of the USA army against an British Offensive assault in the Napoleonic Style
gorozon 1 month ago
@MarkramUK Actually from reading historical context it was a tie. The British achieved their goals but so did the Americans. The Americans wanted to establish that they could fight and that they were a country capable of competing in the world. The British achieved their goals by keeping the Americans out of Canada and beating the Americans back.
Willsuitt1 1 month ago
@Willsuitt1 The United States had proven they could fight by rising up as a new country AND by defeating (albeit with help) the British Empire, one of, arguably THE most powerful force in the world. The U.S. got far too cocky when they tried to defeat the Empire a second time when it had time to prepare and was able to get support from Canadian citizens.
MarkramUK 1 month ago
@MarkramUK the french helped the americans so without them Uk would have kept america untill atleast there was another uprising or either they gave it back (as they did with the other countries becuase where kind :D)
XvM4RKSM4NvX 1 month ago
@XvM4RKSM4NvX at least the countries we gave back are friends :)
gangstersteve1993 1 month ago
@MarkramUK How was the UK preparing for war with the US when at the time just about all their resources were committed to Napoleon. Britain did not want war with the US. In a last ditch attempt to avoid war, Great Britain revoked the Orders in Council which the US found to be so objectionable.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
@Willsuitt1 It was a draw because neither side achieved their objectives. The US failed in its attempts to invade Canada from 1812-1814. Great Britain then attempted incursions, first the Chesapeake, then Plattsburg, finally New Orleans, all of which were turned back. Great Britain did attempt to force severe concessions on the US but eventually made pece on the basis of Status Quo Ante Bellum.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
Isnt that the uk flag not british
SuperSam565 2 months ago
@SuperSam565 UK/British either is correct when you refer to Great Britain as a whole.
TheWellington1014 2 months ago
@SuperSam565 ...............................?
LordWellington15 1 month ago
@SuperSam565 how thick are you
JoeBarnes95 1 month ago
the americans could only win with the help of france
ELSKYO 2 months ago
@ELSKYO your totaly right ;p but it isn't that hard after all they where amateurs vs proffessional soldiers
fej426 1 month ago
@fej426 that they could not win without help
fej426 1 month ago
@ELSKYO and Dutch and Spain
Fartsurmonde 1 month ago
hoorah to our redcoat forefathers,r.i.p brave warriors
broadband01 2 months ago
personally i think the 1812 war was a tie
gorozon 2 months ago
@gorozon It was a British victory. The British achieved their goals. The U.S. didn't, AND they had their capital burned to ashes aswell.
MarkramUK 2 months ago
@MarkramUK British goals, once Napoleon was defeated, were to impose severe territorial concessions on the US, maybe separate New England from the US, and take Louisiana from the US. They achieved none of those goals. They accepted a peace which gave them nothing of what they wanted. It is true that the US achieved none of their war aims.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
@MarkramUK Int the Mexican War, after the US invaded Mexico in 1847 and captured Mexico City, Mexico capitulated. The Us did not capitulate after Washington was burned. The US turned back the British attempt on Baltimore, defeated the Naval squadron on Lake Champlain, and soundly defeated theBritish attempt on New Orleans.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
COLONIAL SCUM
TalonMercenary 2 months ago 3
The only man left in the capital when the British were sighted was a woMAN. :P
TalonMercenary 2 months ago
We pulled out of US because there was nothing to lose ! there where bigger fish to fry (at the time) dont kid yourself yanks read the true history books !!!!
coalyard1 2 months ago
@coalyard1 I have read the true history books, and the British pulled out because they did not get the quick, decisive victory they were looking for.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
and immergrents that couldn't speak much English. Only an american judge would do that,
you got rid of them because they were a thereat to the American way of life, and if you were honest to yourselves, the american way of life is just our way of life turned on it's head, and when you say you don't like immergrents and there un-american if you think about it, you all are immergrents because in the 1700's you all came in a ship because you were sent to populate the american continent, by us.
Mavrickman100 2 months ago
what you Americans consider to be american, is being white, Christian, and at least born in the states, may i remind you to the sacardo and venddeti trail in the 20's, were you sent two Italian imergrents to their deaths because of what there believed in. They were accused of murder despite they were in a completely different place at the time and all the evidence supporting them (which may I say was over 100 people) and the court found them guilty just because they were anarchists.
Mavrickman100 2 months ago
@Mavrickman100 It was Sacco, not sacardo and Vanzetti, not venddeti. I agree that trying, onvicting Sacco and Vanzetti was a great disgrace.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
the reason we laust at zulu dawn is because they attacked us at tea time.
just not cricket !!!!.
savages who do not observe war protocol should be ignored.
kingbleah 3 months ago
@kingbleah
We didn't exactly follow protocol either. In the Zulu Dawn film, the issue of the divided army comes up, and gets put down by a general saying that the rules only apply to European enemies, not African natives. Since all the Africans would do is run into gunfire with sharpened sticks. Had the whole Army been there, there wouldn't have been such huge gaps between the regiments for the Zulu to run through.
MahsaKaerra 3 months ago
@kingbleah
Regarding "savages who do not observe war protocol". They did almost exactly the same as we did in WW1.
In the Zulu wars, they charged at our defensive positions with sharpened sticks. And we naturally shot back at them.
In WW1 our officers ordered the troops to fix bayonets and charge the enemy trenches... Effectively marching to the enemy with sharpened sticks.
The Zulu followed the same set of rules Britain did. I guess the Zulu should get credit, as they used the tactic first.
MahsaKaerra 3 months ago
@MaisterM68 the french won it for america and the british were fighting like 10 other wars at the same time
swanyAJ 3 months ago
@swanyAJ The French participated in only three campaigns in the Revolutipnary war, Newport, Savannah and Yorktown. We lost at Newport. Savannah was a disaster because the French Commander, Count D'Estaing, ordered a frontal assault without proper preparation against a fortified position. Yorktown happened because Nathaniel Green wore down Cornwallis' army in the Carolinas and Cornwallis gave up the Carolinas and retreated into Virginia.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
I say, jolly good show, old chap. Quite right--jolly good indeed!
crocodylus73 3 months ago
Comment removed
cosmictimes 3 months ago
@cosmictimes No kidding
crocodylus73 3 months ago
Comment removed
cosmictimes 3 months ago
@cosmictimes No, but March of the Redcoats was a nifty vid.
crocodylus73 3 months ago
@crocodylus73 Shame upon you for your fellow kith and kin
cosmictimes 3 months ago
Comment removed
cosmictimes 3 months ago
@cosmictimes I have no idea why you picked me to rant on, but quit messaging me already. Try to relax; everything will be fine.
crocodylus73 3 months ago
@crocodylus73 Yip you're right about that. Sorry about that remove remove remove
cosmictimes 3 months ago
Excellent video!! Superb!
TalonMercenary 3 months ago
Look how scared the colonials are as the Redcoats march unopposed towards them
TalonMercenary 3 months ago 3
Probably one of most important turning points in all of History.
50LightSabersInAPack 3 months ago
If they could only drive the Muslims out of Europe?
theschizoid1 4 months ago
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN AND LONG LIVE THE COMMONWEALTH!!!
mistergutsy19 4 months ago 2
that is in a ww2 even its the best and highest satistic in the world, RULE BRITANNIA
bellyboy60 4 months ago
I dont like judging but to the americans, you need to understand and study history, you watch to much hollywood and not reality, IM a study freak and study british history and american history, the british army has been the best army in the world for almost a 1000 years, i was in the british army, the british army has been known, and TODAY her navy is supreme in techknowledgy than any other nation and in dicapline to, too every 1 british soildier dies we the british have killed 3 of the enemy.
bellyboy60 4 months ago
@bellyboy60 I'm sorry. YOU are British? I'd like to believe so but the way you misspell the English language makes me think otherwise.
3dwardcullen69 3 months ago
@3dwardcullen69
It will be so easy to find an illiterate American. Just see how many people watch Fox News, that should give you a rough estimate of how pandemic the problem is for you.
MahsaKaerra 3 months ago 3
@3dwardcullen69
Sorry, Canadian...
My mistake
D :
MahsaKaerra 3 months ago
@MahsaKaerra So all Brits kill Hindus? :) I am not the Fox News, CNN or MSNBC American who buys whatever the tellie shows. You seem to have a vague knowledge of history. Care to have a friendly debate? We can specifically talk about the "WAR OF 1812" LOL or go into more detail. No need to insult anyone. Are you capable of such a task? Or are you going to mimic your brothers here in the USA? We call them "Rednecks". They act like bigoted, arrogant and most of all inbred asses.
larsjake 2 months ago
@larsjake
Britain did engage in military engagements with Hindu armies.
What do you want to know about 1812?
MahsaKaerra 2 months ago
@MahsaKaerra I know that LOL, I was just generalizing Brits as you did Americans, sir.
larsjake 2 months ago
C'mon, you could have gone with clips from Zulu instead of Zulu Dawn! :p Still a badass video though!
angrygingersteve 4 months ago
I think we did very well considering we started off as such a small nation :)
WoWHaZ51 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WoWHaZ51 you won all the gamerpoints and achievements
661Sunshine 4 months ago
English military today is garbage
*flamesuiton*
BC1Dan 4 months ago
@BC1Dan May i ask what you are on about?
WoWHaZ51 4 months ago
@WoWHaZ51
Western Mars
BC1Dan 4 months ago
@BC1Dan the only thing that is garbage is your knowledge. There isn't an English military it's British. But idiots like you wouldn't know the difference.
allyup25 4 months ago
@allyup25
Lol u mad bro?
Bow down to the US of Americuh
BC1Dan 4 months ago
So sacking your Capital city burning down the white house along with the federal reserve then withdrawing without even a murmur from you is considered an American victory? only in America LOL
grez30 4 months ago 49
@grez30 Well beating you out of New Orleans and kicking you out of the Great Lakes and stoping your advance to Baltimore and stoping you from taking our country back. Yea Victory
CM99501 3 months ago
@CM99501
As I recall, that New Orleans "battle" happened only after the signing of the peace treaty.
Do you Americans make a habit of fighting against people who aren't technically enemies?
It's like in the post-WW2 years, in NATO exercises, the British army personnel preferred to fight with Germans standing next to them, than fighting with Americans behind them.
MahsaKaerra 3 months ago 25
@MahsaKaerra Yes because in the early 19th century there were cell phones, so they knew immediately when the treaty was signed.
larsjake 2 months ago
@larsjake
Commanders would have been made aware of when treaties were being signed some time prior to their signing.
MahsaKaerra 2 months ago
@MahsaKaerra What documentation do you have stating the treaty of Ghent was made aware to Jackson and/or Pakenham in time to even know it was being signed Dec 24 1814, considering the amount of time it took to move troops at that time and the fact it was basically on the fringes of the frontier. What is it you would like to tell me about this period...?
larsjake 2 months ago
@larsjake To clarify The Treaty of Ghent, to go into effect, it had to be ratified by both sides. If I recall, it took HMS Favorite at least three weeks to bring the Treaty to the US for ratification. Then, because of difficulties in communicating at the time, there was a time limit set for the word to get out. Any hostile action occurring during that time period because the commanders were unaware would be considered acts of war not in violation of the Treaty.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
@exarmydoc That was the point I was trying to defend.
larsjake 1 month ago
@MahsaKaerra British and American Commanders were awarw of the peace negotiations at Ghent when Great Britain made their incursions into US territory in late 1814-15. Great Britain made those incursions to pressure the US into accepting terms the British wanted to impose.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
@MahsaKaerra And what of Pakenham?
larsjake 2 months ago
@larsjake
I don't recall him being propelled to the presidency on a tide of rampant patriotism for his involvement in a post-treaty engagement.
MahsaKaerra 2 months ago
@MahsaKaerra Do you even know who he was? Why would the presidency even be an issue for him considering he was the British commander at Chalmette
larsjake 2 months ago
@MahsaKaerra The British landed an army on American soil and tried to take a major American City. That is why the Battle of New Orleans happened after the Peace Treaty.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
@MahsaKaerra not to mention they hid behind a wall :P
OW41N 1 month ago
@MahsaKaerra You did not recall that the "people who [weren't] technically enemies was a British Army invading American soil with the objective of capturing a strategic piece of American territory. The British took the offensive. The Americans remained on the defensive. The British Army could have avoided battle against "people who [weren't] technically enemies" by withdrawing from New Orleans. They did not.
exarmydoc 1 week ago
@MahsaKaerra not to mention the first casualties in any recent conflict were friendly fire on the allies from american troops. no wonder they don't like to stand in front of Americans.
harrow86 3 days ago
By the way, you declared the war, not us.
You were pissy about British impressment of American naval personnel, an issue that was technically resolved prior to your declaration of War.
By buying Louisiana you partly funded Napoleon's war efforts, and you made war when we were dealing with more important problems in Europe.
Your goal of the annexation of Canada (starting from Independence all the way to "War plan Red" in 1930) were also put down by the "status quo ante bellum" Treaty of Ghent.
MahsaKaerra 3 months ago 11
@MahsaKaerra Impressment was not discontinued prior to the declaration of war. Great Britain revoked the orders in council. Impressment became a non issue after the fall of Napoleon and the Royal Navy decreased in size. Nevertheless, during the 100 Days, the Admiralty instructed British Naval Captains not to molest American shipping.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
@MahsaKaerra I STUDY IN GHENT , LEVE BELGIË :D
TheMathasbazai 1 month ago
@MahsaKaerra Britain's impressment of American sailors was British armed forces trespassing on American Territory and conscripting her citizens into the British Navy. Britain, via impressment, was committing acts of war on the US long before the declaration of war.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
@grez30 Now...yes.... for some. Although I think the nitwit was talking about the hurricane and lack of followup to the victory.
larsjake 2 months ago
@grez30 I think it kind of goes with opinion. Personally, I think 1812 was as much an American victory as Vietnam. But, leave it to the US to claim that "victory" means coincidentally achieving something you didn't intend. Specifically, they were able to have free access west to "peacefully occupy" the Natives' land.
KingLeonidas3267 2 months ago
@grez30 Capturing Washington did knock te US out of the War. A few weeks later, the British retreated after getting their noses bloodied at Baltimore. They retreated after getting their noses bloodied at Lake Champlain. They tried once more at New Orleans and were soundly and one sidedly defeated.
exarmydoc 1 month ago
@exarmydoc thanks to the french, ahem i mean american tactic of hiding behind a wall :)
OW41N 1 month ago
@OW41N You believe a force of infantry should attack directly into an enemy's strength? What was the difference between that tactic and Wellington's tactic of placing his men on the reverse slope of hills in order to shield them from enemy fire?
exarmydoc 1 month ago
@exarmydoc the difference is that there was no wall in the way, welligton's men still had to iengage in a field battle or open battle as its known, where as at new orleans, ladders were needed therefore channeling the attacker, also the british had insufficient sige guns, wellington was a field commander who didnt want his troops to get hit constantly by large amounts of artillery, you need to be more specific with the term fire!
OW41N 1 month ago
@OW41N In other words General Jackson used his strengths to neutralize British strengths, something Wellington would have approved of. The British Army could have avoided the disastrous(for them) battle by withdrawing. They did not. I believe that no General in his right mind would advocate an attack against a strongly defended position. No General in his right mind, facing a numerically superior enemy, would not entrench and thereby increase his chances of successfully defending.
exarmydoc 1 week ago
@exarmydoc Excerpt at Cryslers Farm 800 British troops attacked and routed 8,000 US troops. New Orleans was an ill thought out opportunistic raid that was both inconsequential and irrelevant to a British public that had seen the defeat of Bonaparte yet inn popular American historiography, it is the prime reason Americans see it as a victory. A great shame there are basically no British historians who study this conflict with any great depth. I'd wager many untold truths would come out.
Talbot6832 3 days ago
@Talbot6832 It was more like Battle of Rorke's Drift, 8000 Americans attacking 800 British rather than the other way around. I agree it was a magnificent victory for the British and Canadians.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
@Talbot6832 Prior to New Orleans,the British landed tens of thousands of troops at Lajke Borgne, then transported them be relays in small boats across Lake Borgne. When those troops disembarked they had to struggle through difficult terrain to get to the eastern bank of the Mississippi and then get organized for the assault on New Orleans. They expended a lot of effort trying to break Jackson's line before the actual battle. It was more than a raid.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
@exarmydoc Further, if it were just a raid, after failing to breajk Jackson's line, the British would have retired down the Missisippi. If the British had more important committments elsewhere, they would not have risked so considerable force o a direct assault on Jackson's position.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
@Talbot6832 The British did not attack the Americans in the open field.
exarmydoc 2 days ago
@exarmydoc Characteristic of the battles with the Rebel Americans and later US Army was that they more often than not kept themselves behind barricades or a fort. When they did engage the British in open battle they were soundly defeated (a.k.a Queenston Heights, Cryslers Farm, etc). Even then it was against a half arsed garrison force.
Talbot6832 2 weeks ago
@Talbot6832 They engaged the British in the open field at Lundy's Lane and Chippewa and were not soundly defeated. Would you have criticized General Chuikov for fighting in the defenses of Stalingrad rather than meeting the German 6th Army in the open field.
exarmydoc 1 week ago
@OW41N What you call hiding behind a wall is a way of maximizing the damage to the enemy and minimizing the damage to your own force. Check out the Second Battle of Bull Run. Stonewall Jackson got behind a numerically superior Union Army, cut its supply line and then withdrew to a strong defensive position. The Union marched to and fro trying to organize an attack on Jackson. They exposed themselves to a flanking attack by the rest of the Confederate Army under Longstreet. Major disaster.
exarmydoc 1 week ago
@OW41N What did the British do at Battle of Rorke's Drift?
exarmydoc 3 days ago
@exarmydoc lol at rorke's drtift there were 140 welsh and english vs over 4000 zuluz's the odds are way steeper and they were in a foreign country in which the main force had been destroyed, therefore cutting them off, however what i am referring to is that the british army had accomplished much greater feats of that time where we were outnumbered roughly the same and still fought an open battle and won, assaye, 9000 brits vs over 40000 indians with 100+ cannons, thats an example,
OW41N 2 days ago
@grez30 Compare that to the American capture of Mexico City in the Mexican War. After Mexico City fell, Mexico capitulated. After Washington DC fell, the US kept fighting. Washington may have been a tactical victory for the British but it had no Strategic results. It did outrage the US and stiffen their resolve to resist the British.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
the brits were scarey for the amounts of rounds fired a min,and of course a bayonette charge with some "guts behind it"
kingbleah 4 months ago
@Criticallacitirc What do you mean by back then? Ireland was part of the british empire since 1800.
LordGuttenburg 4 months ago
@Criticallacitirc Would you all consider coming back and doing it again?
cscptdave 4 months ago
Looking into the history books war of 1812 Americans got beaten hugely the war of independence was a French victory because the American rebels weren't strong enough but they were of European descent there is no true American but the natives.
Alphamask978 5 months ago
who burnt the white house down?
Gracchi 5 months ago
@Gracchi the english in the war of 1812
TheSlash698 5 months ago
@TheSlash698 NOT THE ENGLISH YOU FRIGGEN MORON IN WAS THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LordGuttenburg 4 months ago
@Gracchi British/Canadian soldiers
TalonMercenary 5 months ago
@Gracchi The british burned down the white house the other guy who replied the english is an idiot dont listen to him
LordGuttenburg 4 months ago
@Gracchi It was the british who burned it down:)
MegaFight4life 4 months ago
@Gracchi A lot of uninformed Canadians burnt down the White House. The Canadians never got near Washington DC in the War of 1812. On the other hand, American troops did burn York, the Capital of upper Canada. For those who think the Burning of Washington, which did not knock the US out of the war, was such a resounding victory, did the burning of York knock Canada out of the war?
exarmydoc 3 days ago
@exarmydoc I should have said A lot of uninformed Canadians think that Canadians burnt down the White House.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
@exarmydoca USA being the aggressor for a change.
Gracchi 3 days ago
@Gracchi Via British impressment of American Sailors off American ships, the British were the aggressors.
exarmydoc 2 days ago
@Gracchi It wasn't the Canadians.
exarmydoc 2 days ago
@arsenaljsutliffuk What are you talking about? The U.S. became a country in 1776. The war was won in 1781. So this was a U.S. victory.
Kingofprinces85 6 months ago
@Kingofprinces85 No, the war ended in 1783 with the British still in control of New York and having won the last few battles of the war.
Talbot6832 5 months ago
@Talbot6832 With the Treaty of Paris, the British evacuated New York and recognized the US as an independent country. They gave up on winning the war after the surrender at Yorktown. It means nothing that the British won a few inconsequential battle after Yorktown and before the treaty of Paris.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
brill add of the soundrack well done,,
scorpionen22 6 months ago
epic charge at 0:44
laskfj 6 months ago
Put Zulu in instead!
jeffryjirraf 6 months ago
FS, as I was saying that is the battle of isandlwana, where we got a bit Gubbed unfortunately
jeffryjirraf 6 months ago
@jeffryjirraf we still put up a heck of a fight!
NathanH97 6 months ago 3
This shouldn't have the bit at 2:45, thats the battle of ishad
jeffryjirraf 6 months ago
Their descendents will dominate the globe once again, rule Brittania!
RobertBeowulf 6 months ago
@RobertBeowulf
UK today is too weak,and continental european powers are allied with each others not enemies.
StellandBlood 6 months ago
Comment removed
ericvandenhaas 6 months ago
"If you find yourself riding alone in an open field with the sun on your face, then don't trouble yourself; For you are in elysium and you're already dead!"
RazorCell7 7 months ago
I’m not sure if it’s true but there was never a formal surrender the general surrendered but the prince regent didn’t formally surrender but I’m not sure if that is fact or not?
radicalgoodspeed16 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TERRORS OF FRENCH PUSSIES AND BASTARDS...thanks to this guys we learn english as a second language and culture in all world wide scholls, and we dont need to learn about french culture and their gay language...i have to thanks to this brave warriors and of course LORD HORATIO NELSON AND THE BRAVE DUQUE OF WELLINGTON
dariojoga10pujol 7 months ago
Comment removed
dariojoga10pujol 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This was back in the day when Britain was truly great, when we bowed down to no one where as everyone bowed down to us, now we are freedom loving pussys who allow country's to insult us, But we will rule once again some day, lets just hope we don't give up our empire so easily next time.
GamingLogics 7 months ago
Best.
NathanH97 7 months ago
Video
NathanH97 7 months ago
Ever.
NathanH97 7 months ago
what movie is it at about 2:10?
Mahaim13 7 months ago
@Mahaim13 Sharpe's Eagle
NathanH97 7 months ago
What movie is this?
SonofBrummieDarkness 7 months ago
Wow that was a surreal moment when the action suddenly shifted from the Revolutionary War to Africa. There wasn't really any indication in the video, and then suddenly Zulus from nowhere.
Bloodgod40 7 months ago
any 1 who wants to join the army uk or us this is how its done
ZONDIE99 7 months ago
@MaisterM68 well unlike many of my brethren, I secretly respect France and its military history. Many people only remember the French surrender of 1940, but I remember Napoleon and the Hundred Years War. They were a force not to be reckoned with then.
NathanH97 7 months ago
@NathanH97 I'm French, and I secretly respect England and its military history too ! This thin red line.... "Fix Bayonets and die like british soldiers do !". Regards.
Eternal566 7 months ago
@Eternal566 "Got forgive! And those are beaten!"(Fieldmarhal Alexandr Suvorov)
kent684 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MaisterM68 1. I am a proud Briton who in the future i am planning to die for my country and 2. we sent that navy so our supplies could get out and so you wouldn't be able to sail any armies round the colonies. do you really think our entire land military force consisted of mercenaires? and please, if I caused any offence i'm sorry, but I can not let my nation be insulted. I've had too many arguments like this on youtube and I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again.
NathanH97 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MaisterM68 they won it, but BRITAIN (not just England, Scotland and Wales are in Britain as well) was not humiliated. We won most of the battles and took fewer casualties. But calling me a douche bag was unneeded.
NathanH97 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MaisterM68 I know stuff like that happened. It's the way you said it. 'owned.' 'crushed' 'humiliated'. if you hadn't used those words i probably wouldn't have commented in retaliation. and for the record. you started this argument. I just said that the things you said were all wrong. You then proceeded to call me a douche bag and claim history gives you reason when basic history does. more researched history does not however and is in favour of britain.
NathanH97 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MaisterM68 we defeated the native americans in the french-indian war and after that the majority of them supported britain. and you don know britain won the zulu war right?
NathanH97 7 months ago
@MaisterM68 I don't want to get into another argument because I am sick and tired of telling yanks that the majority of the loyalists were german mercanaries and the rebels were supported by the french, spanish and dutch who along with britain were the 4 major powers in that day. plus we were focused on fighing in europe. If we wanted too we could have crushed the rebels in a week. we just wanted to get our supplies out and go home. we knew that the native americans would fight you to the end.
NathanH97 7 months ago
@NathanH97 Those other major powers did not get involved in the American Revolution until after John Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga in 1777.
exarmydoc 3 days ago
@MaisterM68 Every single one of those points are wrong. Just sayin'. Not getting into another argument.
NathanH97 7 months ago
Comment removed
NathanH97 7 months ago
One scene is from a movie where the Brits lost to the Zulu!
MotAdvNSW 7 months ago
dont know where you get the idea britain owns america. guerilla warfare is a natural reaction when you are fighting a superior enemy which wins in open warfare, which is what happened in america and vietnam. winning a war on your home turf requires persistance really. you need to kill a lot of the enemy to try and make the war end, you have the home advantage. america COULD have sent more troops to vietnam, likewise Britain COULD have sent more troops to america, but it wouldn't benefit them
fattyboy555 8 months ago
sorry but i really do like u yanks, but u gotta think u one a little war with us, we ruled the world end of day your englands son that rebelled but whn u fight a war u always come to daddy
yorkie783 8 months ago
LOL @ 1:20 the Continentals didn't even have bayonettes fixed! Good thing the French got involved and relieved GREAT! Britain of her most trouble-some possession.
milnerjon 8 months ago
Mighty redcoats? Pfffff, they got fucked on by militia and Zulus.
killerclown789 8 months ago