@@wolfgangem1565 in Québec theres the Patriot failled revolution (1837-38) to talk about, but we still talked about the war of 1812 EDIT: Also Canada history during WWI&II is a blast, currently majoring in Military history and having a lot of fun researching those periods record
@@pphyjynx8217 Did we watch the same video? It was a draw but in the end the brits did do what we wanted them to do which was to respect our nation and not screw around behind our backs.
You could say both sides won or both sides lost depending on how you look at it also let's look at this war of 200+ years of peace between our nations 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇨🇦
@@RickinBaltimore I dunno, my very stable genius of a President mentioned that Fort McHenry was actually part of the Revolutionary war. Who woulda thought! Shame we got rid of the Airports from that war too.
@@captainunderpants2816 because Antonio Lopez de santa Anna became a dictator over Mexico centerlising the government and demolishing the Constitution of 1824 after this Texas and other parts of Mexico rebeled
Thank you for this! I can’t retain history like this unless there’s a video and this was so easy to understand 😭 you cut my essay to doing it in 3 hours to doing it in just 1 😭 may god bless you
@@australium7374 Not really. Impressment would have ended with the Napoleonic wars anyway, which it did in 1814 while the War of 1812 continued. American sailors who were impressed were also being released once it was proven they were American. That does not excuse Britain for boarding and detaining American citizens or kidnapping British civilians who had already resettled in the USA to escape the war, but the urgency of the issue of impressment was very overstated as a means to justify the war. America including the end of impressment in the peace treaty was completely meaningless since it was no longer even happening and was only there so they could politically feel like they won something. Now Britain supporting Tecumseh was of course an issue though one could argue that a Native buffer state would have been a much better solution than what would ultimately happen to the Native Americans. Regardless this was a legitimate grievance but could have been handled without going to war with Britain. What's important to note is that the Northern states, the ones that were being raided by Tecumseh and were having their sailors taken into British custody, were actually opposed to the war and voted against it. The Southern War Hawks that supported the war were far more interested in annexing Canada as they weren't even the ones hurting economically due to the other cited issues for war. This was also predicated under the false pretense that Canadians wanted to join the USA which they did not. So while yes, Britain was definitely being provocative those issues were inflamed by people looking for an excuse to march on Canada and war was not actually supported by the people who had the most to gain and/or lose in New England. The war was neither vital or necessary for either side and was unpopular with the citizenry of both countries which is why it ended on a treaty of status quo so both sides could get back to trading normally.
@Sweaty Fox i think he means the music invasion of bands like the beatles and the animals where american charts were topped by british artists, it was known as the British Invasion lol
Yeah, to us Americans it's mostly about us reminding the British that we're independent, and they cant just kidnap our sailors, and control who we do and dont trade with... (and we wanted Canada) BUT THATS BESIDES THE POINT! Lol
@Kes Mangkuk actually, it was a battle plan in case for whatever reason we went to war with the British, it was called war plan red, and we had one for almost every nation. War Plan Red=Great Britain War Plan Orange=Japan War Plan Green=Mexico War Plan Black=Germany Also, I've read that the British heard about War Plan Red on the 20s and figured they would probably just let it happen, just somthing I read somwhere.
@Kes Mangkuk well,I'm not talking crap about the Brits and/or the Commonwealths, it's just something I read, but, (again), not to talk crap or anything, but I think that war would've just been a "War of 1812 two: 20th century boogaloo" niether side would have won, probably just a stalemate same as in 1812.
@Kes Mangkuk Actually Canada had a plan for war with the U.S. as well. Their plan was to cross the border into the U.S, burn down some towns, and then retreat back into Canada. And when the U.S. retaliated, Canada would claim "unprovoked attack" and call on the entire commonwealth to descend on the U.S... But later the plan was burned by the Canadian Military Command because it was just... dumb. :P
to the british the war is seen as apart of the napoleonic wars and to protect the empire and navy. But yea your very right here in canada the war is seen as a war of defending our land
@@banegas0411 You can't say Britain "bailed them out" when the whole point of the war was to stop Britain from pressing American sailors. The war was against Britain, not specifically Canada.
StrangeForces I believe that it is because Canada wasn’t a united thing at this point, so no you weren’t part of Canada yet, and most of the fighting happened in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec).
@Matt James the objective of the british never was to take over US, but to defend canada, stop americans from supplying the french and stop them from expanding to much, also while dealing much more casualities to the americans and winning territory, the only reason UK didnt demand almost nothing was due to them stopping other empires from doing the same to france, and if they did take something, it would mean that britain would lose leverage in europe. To resume you this, UK won the war
Matt James hey, well English isn’t my first language, as you said, but I clearly can see your ignorance, you have said that the British didn’t win decisively, and that is incredibly wrong, the capture of Detroit, the Battle of Queenston Heights, the Battle of Blandensburg, the Battle of Stoney Creek and Beaver Dams and many more, do you understand how many Americans died in battle, compared to the Canadians, British, and Indians combined? The US lost 15000 soldiers, compared to the combined 8000 British Canadian and Indian combatants losses. That is a 2 to 1 ratio, and the British did manage to cut an incredible amount of ships that transported resources to France. Talking about sea, the royal navy did not manage to win enough due to the great majority of ships and experimented generals dealing with the French and danish navy. Also, the fights in the Great Lakes were won by the British, do your research if you desire. The fact that the americans kept expanding westward is due to the British making the other empires to not split up France after the napoleonic wars due to the balance of power needing to be restored and maintained , and if they did split up the US, they would have lost their allies due to such an hipocrite policie. I can’t believe how much has the us education and goverment glossed Over the atrocities they have done or the times they have been defeated
That was very interesting. There were a number of engagements I knew nothing about. Basically, each side made multiple attempts to invade the other, and got repulsed each time. Actually, although the Battle of Bladensburg marks the only time that *Washington, D.C.* has been captured, the British did take Philadelphia, which was then the American capital, during the War for Independence.
While that is a very fine point, and as a British patriot I appreciate the consideration of the capture of Philadelphia by General Howe, I must add that the reason it probably isn't held up in the same regard, is because the strategic value of Philadelphia at the time it was taken was low compared to what General Howe sacrificed to achieve it (not in terms of losses to him, but in terms of betraying a colleague and his men) General Burgoyne and his army of British soldiers was coming down from the North, and was intending to rendezvous with General Howe and his army. Between them, they could have dominated the Hudson River Valley region. In terms of grand strategy, this could have severed the rebels in Boston for example, from their friends to the South. It would have been a genius masterstroke. Howe-ver (pardon the pun), General Howe didn't like General Burgoyne whatsoever and wanted to win more glory than him. He diverted his entire army into capturing Philadelphia which he did very well in doing so; but at the expense of screwing General Burgoyne over who admirably stuck to the plan. Burgoyne was badly outnumbered in the backwoods of the wilderness thanks to this strategic blunder by Howe, done more out of ego and spite than real strategic wisdom. He'd left Burgoyne to be consequently surrounded by up to 4 times his own numbers all told across the two battles of Saratoga. To Burgoyne's credit he won the first, though it was a pretty hollow victory with no real value considering he was being backed into a corner and surrounded with his supply lines cut off. As more and more rebels arrived every day, the situation for Burgoyne was hopeless, his food supplies were running out and his army had to surrender eventually. This was a severe (not catastrophic, but severe) strategic loss for the British Army in North America as it left Lower Canada vulnerable with the massive loss of manpower to capture, as well as the grand strategy for the British jeopardised. There is no getting around the fact that the already overstretched, relatively modest size of the British forces in North America, could not afford those kinds of losses. It is always astonishing to me when looking at that period of time, how thinly spread out the British are around the world fighting multiple wars, with what was a well-trained, elite but pretty overburdened army that was not large enough to afford serious campaign disasters or setbacks. Saratoga could have just ended up as a short term setback; but the French used it as a basis to declare war on the British officially (they'd unofficially i.e. illegally been aiding them for two years prior already, as were the Spanish, but yeah, people often forget that side of history) By, ''officially'', I mean, ''more money than ever, naval assets deployed in direct action and boots on the ground in the Americas''. Oh and Spain did the same thing too following suite. Saratoga in and of itself could have been handled as a setback, but its real strategic consequence of greatest importance, was convincing the French and to a lesser extent the Spanish, that this war wasn't just a flash in the pan. For sure, it was one of the most important achievements by the Americans in the war; but really, we have to remember who gave it them on a silver platter - not poor Burgoyne and his troops, but General Howe who betrayed them out of pettiness. P.S - The loyalty to the British cause some British generals had is pretty sketchy at times. For sure most were adamantly loyal to King and country; but a few stand out as either being completely inept or downright annoyingly close to being traitors.
1812: the British are the most aggressive country in the world 1912: the British are the most aggressive country in the world 2012: America is the most aggressive country in the history of the world
Wow love this video, I learned more from this video then I did in my grade 7 history class. People always say Canadian history is dry and boring because of the lack of action but that seems to not be true.
America: Wow France surrenders so easily, we always have to help them! Also America: *surrenders after one shot by the British, France saved their ass in the war of independence*
Ummm by this time the United States had been a country for less than 50 years where as France and Britain were centuries old. They had a much higher capacity for war than we did. And yes of course the aid from France was needed for the US to win but we still held our own until they came, that has to mean something.
The War of 1812? One prison, in southwest England, has a monument to the US POWs who died there from 1809 to 1815. Buffalo,NY was not just burned down.The people not murdered were never heard from again.The Battle of Baltimore was more than the fort.The harbor entrance was blocked with sunken ships. US Militia Infantry engaged the enemy and kept the fort from being attacked by land. One Unknown Soldier, KIA, took out several high ranking limey officers and non-commissioned.Their commanding general was one. Men standing below him, in a tree, reloaded rifles and passed them up to him.
@@donaquilaschannel2890 ah yes you're right, the treaty was signed by late 1814. And americans were happy when news of victory in New Orleans reached them first before the Treaty of Ghent...
I am the liquor "Free" isn't exactly a word appropriate for that,as they simply tax you copiously for about everything else and hold much of it for another's "free" healthcare.
Luis Davila here in the UK we get income tax deducted from your pay and National Insurance too. The latter isnt a great deal of money, it depends how much you earn as to what you pay. That money is used towards your state pension (when you retire) healthcare and unemployment benefit (welfare) ok some people who dont work do get totally free healthcare, but if you ever find yourself out of work fo whatever reason then so do you. Its a great system that has worked well for the last 71 years. Its shame to put a selfish spin on it that we pay for someone elses free shit but look at it like the whole country chips in so we all have free healthcare etc. Including kids that obviously dont pay in
This is actually a good history lesson, animation can work on real life locations and the invisible, everything, border, territory, you name it, and the name of the their inner territories, but none the less, everything was straight forward
I’ve seen every single one of your videos and I love all of them! Please keep making more. I think you should do a few videos on Ancient Rome, Greece, and Persia.
@@mrbrainbob5320 the US cant paying for 335m people and the 1m+ new people from immigration while no one can be bothered to take care of them selfs is like economic sucicide
Andrew Jones Yeah, keep telling yourself that, it’s clear you don’t know history. By the end of the war, the US got it’s main goals achieved and none of its territory was taken. I don’t know how it’s possible for that to be considered a loss.
Britain: *takes DC* Excellent, the US will now quickly surrender *US doesn't* Oh wait yeah this is exactly what happened to Napoleon two seconds ago...
Salt_Factory like when did the usa save our arses???? Our arses were safe in WWI &WWII. Sure we needed assistance liberating the rest of Europe but we, as a nation were safe. Hitler tried to invade during the Battle of Britain in 1940. Thats 2 years before you lot decided to show up. Please learn history before making outlandish claims
The majority of lend lease went to the uk in WW2. The lend lease came in around the start of the battle of Britain. Famously Roosevelt desperately trying to get fighters over to Canada. Our 20/20 hindsight says that Germany was screwed from day 1 but things did get tense over the skies of Britain. And without D-Day the soviets would be halfway up your ass. Our role is over hyped a lot for sure, our education system just jerks us off to our own nationalistic hubris unless you especially seek out higher levels but most don't. please learn history before making outlandish claims.
The quality of the video is great in explaining the War of 1812, also I lived near Sacketts Harbor and would visit the battlefield a few times. There is a lot more of history with the battle, as if the British had won the battle then they would’ve most likely had gained control over the Great Lakes region, and could’ve led to a total British victory.
7:16 They tried to take fort meigs again, but failed They tried to take fort stephenson, but failed Napoleon tried to invade russia, but failed British tried to defeat the Americans in the revolutinary war, but failed The french tried to held out the peaseant from chopping off their heads, but failed
If you think about it, the War of 1812 was like the Sack of Rome. The United States of America made an oath to never have their homelands invaded ever again and too become a powerful nation, such as the Roman Republic did after the sacking.
Nukclear if you're referring to the taking over the Islands parts that's invasion if you mean the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki yes that is a attack
Thank you for explaining the causes and the fact Canada was still British controlled. Because you wouldn't believe how many Canadians I meet that tell me the War of 1812 started as a part of US Imperialism with an un-warranted invasion and that Britain had nothing to do with it. It's so frustrating having to explain the history to show that the US did have reasonable cause for invading Canada, and territory was more like a bonus feature.
Ryan Again, Britain had oppressed American sailors to search for British ships, American merchant ships were seized by British Ships, despite American neutrality, and Native American raids were funded by the British. Yeah... you’re stupid.
Can you do the Battle of Plassey, where despite being heavily outnumbered, General Robert Clive of the East India Company defeated the Nawab of Bengal who was supported by the French, giving power to the British East India Company, essentially leading to the British Colonisation of India.
