This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
AGeneral Isaac Brock was killed in the war of 1812. You probably knew that already. O.o;
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)
This Category has been tagged for Speedy Deletion comments welcome HERE. Battlefield 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"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 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
A) Believed it didn't matter who was calling the shots, life would be the same, or B)Preferred Americans over British. I thought about adding that in but then I figured that it might be a little insignificant. If anyone feels otherwise go crazy. In any case, I would not recommend removing this as it seems like someone would have said it eventually, Americans being Americans (Two Words: Manifest Destiny).
I too have seen this, its a valid statement. Im tired and can't remember the source of it, however i am positive of it validity. Also, if you read 1812, the novel about the young helper of Sir Isaac Brock. this belief was expressed in the fictitious novel, and I believe it was sourced as well. B.D
Opinions on whether the following articles can/should have a campaign box:
SirIsaacBrock 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
4) Results
This is for discussion purposes only, so please don't start WW1 100 years early -:) SirIsaacBrock 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
As there has been no response to this I will be rewriting the section in the near future to conform with my sources which are silent on the significance of the timber trade in the economic rise of Britain in the 18th century, preferring to ascribe it to a little thing called the Industrial Revoltion. Dabbler 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
why is this section so long? It refers to a main 'origins' article where this information is or should be located. Most of this section should be merged to that main article and deleted from here. If not, why have the separate 'origins' article at all? Thanks Hmains 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I find that this section is slightly misleading, my understanding is that the blockade was meant to keep France, in affect NAPOLEAN, from trading with america, not to keep the U.S.A. from european trade all together.
samsomite 7:56, 9 September 2006
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
AGeneral Isaac Brock was killed in the war of 1812. You probably knew that already. O.o;
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)
This Category has been tagged for Speedy Deletion comments welcome HERE. Battlefield 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"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 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
A) Believed it didn't matter who was calling the shots, life would be the same, or B)Preferred Americans over British. I thought about adding that in but then I figured that it might be a little insignificant. If anyone feels otherwise go crazy. In any case, I would not recommend removing this as it seems like someone would have said it eventually, Americans being Americans (Two Words: Manifest Destiny).
I too have seen this, its a valid statement. Im tired and can't remember the source of it, however i am positive of it validity. Also, if you read 1812, the novel about the young helper of Sir Isaac Brock. this belief was expressed in the fictitious novel, and I believe it was sourced as well. B.D
Opinions on whether the following articles can/should have a campaign box:
SirIsaacBrock 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
4) Results
This is for discussion purposes only, so please don't start WW1 100 years early -:) SirIsaacBrock 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
As there has been no response to this I will be rewriting the section in the near future to conform with my sources which are silent on the significance of the timber trade in the economic rise of Britain in the 18th century, preferring to ascribe it to a little thing called the Industrial Revoltion. Dabbler 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
why is this section so long? It refers to a main 'origins' article where this information is or should be located. Most of this section should be merged to that main article and deleted from here. If not, why have the separate 'origins' article at all? Thanks Hmains 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I find that this section is slightly misleading, my understanding is that the blockade was meant to keep France, in affect NAPOLEAN, from trading with america, not to keep the U.S.A. from european trade all together.
samsomite 7:56, 9 September 2006