1812 The Ignored War

[Siocnarf]

So I guess we've been going off topic. I hope we don't get suspended!!!!

I read a novel a long time ago about chief Pontiac and the massacre of Michilimakinack. That's a very interesting story. Pontiac was allied with the french and continued fighting the british after the conquest of 1760 because he did not understand the concept of surrender. He was a great tactitian apparently and defeated George Washington twice during the Anglo-french war (Washington was on the British side at the time). He was received and honoured by the french king who called him his brother. So now he did not believe the french king would just abandon him so he kept trying to convince indians and french people to keep fighting. He was murdered in 1769, allegedly on the instigation of Ben Franklin who was starting to plan the independance and feared that another indian war would prevent that.

 

[Siocnarf]

Well Turbodick, it looks like the government listened to you:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/10/11/pol-war-anniversary.html

 

[Turbodick]

Well Turbodick, it looks like the government listened to you:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/10/11/pol-war-anniversary.html

Good to see something is happening, but I still think it is too bad it is not a big deal. I've already planned to go visit some of these historic places along the great lakes. Bet I won't have any problem finding a parking spot

 

[Merlot]

He was a great tactitian apparently and defeated George Washington twice during the Anglo-french war (Washington was on the British side at the time).

Hello Siocnarf,

What book did you get this from? There is no record Pontiac ever faced off against Washington in any capacity as opposing commanders. To my knowledge Washington was never beaten by a Native American force. If you are referring to Braddock's defeat there are two problems. Washington was not in command, but he rallied the British force after Braddock was shot, then retreated; and there is nothing reliable that shows Pontiac was there, "It is not known which Indian chiefs were present on the French side but it is suggested that the Miami chief Pontiac and the Delaware “King” Shingas may have been present". Washington was also never anywhere near Fort Michilimakinac or Detroit, and he had retired from his military commission in 1758. Since the Pontiac War itself began in 1763 the problems of a battle between them are obvious.

The other problem is Pontiac could not control any native forces but his own tribe since command was split cooperatively among natives who had no real military ranking system of commanders and subordinates in the European manner. The Native mode of command was more like inspiring and gathering a following and leaders agreed on a plan, which any of the cooperating leaders could and might suddenly change his decision about. Even leadership of one's own tribe was earned, not a right, and a loss of faith meant loss of leadership.

It would be interesting to see where you got this from. Be careful about how things are said and reported in books. Too many authors accept tradition or legend as truth without checking primary source accounts. If what you say has any possible likeness to the truth it's uncertain at best.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Siocnarf]

Hello Merlot

I read that in a novel many years ago (in french). The novel is set at the time of Pontiac's rebellion, but they mention his victories during the anglo-french war. I remember it said that Pontiac faced Washington "twice". Honestly I don’t remember if they imply that he “defeated” Washington or that he just participated. So maybe it was exagerated in my memory.

I tried to look it up and I think they were reffering to Braddock's as you say and also Fort Necessity before that. Washington was in command at Fort N. and there were Ottawas, but I did not find Pontiac mentionned in other references. It seems his life before 1763 is mostly conjecture and legends as you say.

Toodle-oo

Fornicas (Hey I found a new acronym for my moniker!)

 

[Merlot]

Hello Merlot

I read that in a novel many years ago (in french). The novel is set at the time of Pontiac's rebellion, but they mention his victories during the anglo-french war. I remember it said that Pontiac faced Washington "twice". Honestly I don’t remember if they imply that he “defeated” Washington or that he just participated. So maybe it was exagerated in my memory.

I tried to look it up and I think they were reffering to Braddock's as you say and also Fort Necessity before that. Washington was in command at Fort N. and there were Ottawas, but I did not find Pontiac mentionned in other references. It seems his life before 1763 is mostly conjecture and legends as you say.

Toodle-oo

Fornicas (Hey I found a new acronym for my moniker!)

Hello Siocnarf,

Being a "novel" (fiction) would explain the exaggerations. Washington screwed up mightily at Ft. Necessity. But being the first battle of a yet undeclared war in an unforeseen event, Pontiac would not have been alerted to expect anything and had no reason to be there if he wasn't already close enough to hear of an earlier small attack.

Novels are notorious for poor history like movies. I love Braveheart, but the story was full of abominable garbage surrounding some basic facts. Both novels and movies indulge heavily on legend, and history is discarded when it gets in the way of entertainment. Remember the princess having an affair with Wallace in Braveheart and getting pregnant? The real princess was 10 years old when he was executed...Bwaha! There were no kilts in 1300 either...and on and on. She (Isabella) did revolt and have him the king's heir (her husband) killed though.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. I am sure the book was a great read. But people should be careful to avoid thinking such stories are firm facts. Many basic facts can be used, but rewritten whenever convenient. Currently I've been reading histories on the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Even then the good authors go through some efforts to distinguish between solid facts and the quality of probabilities.

"Fornicas"...LOL...interesting.

Cheers,

Merlot

BTW...Happy 200th War of 1812 Anniversary. I think both countries (Canada, U.S.A.) would rather forget this one.

 

[hungry101]

The Raisin River Massacre

http://www.riverraisinbattlefield.org/the_battles.htm

 

[Siocnarf]

I love Braveheart, but the story was full of abominable garbage surrounding some basic facts. Both novels and movies indulge heavily on legend, and history is discarded when it gets in the way of entertainment. Remember the princess having an affair with Wallace in Braveheart and getting pregnant? The real princess was 10 years old when he was executed...Bwaha! There were no kilts in 1300 either...and on and on. She (Isabella) did revolt and have him the king's heir (her husband) killed though.

For a very good and accurate historical novel about Princess Isabelle I suggest “Les rois maudits” (the acursed Kings; its been translated in english) from Maurice Druon. Especially the 5th book: She-wolf of France.
She was treated essentially like a prisonner and the family of her husband’s lover were really ruling the country. She fled from England and became the Mistress of Lord Roger Mortimer who had escaped from prison.

They came back with an army and removed Edward II. Her 3 brother were kings of France in turn but all died without an heir and that’s when her son claimed the throne of France leading to the 100 years war between France and England.
A most dangerous and interesting lady. (Also she was a real blond, and not black like in braveheart).
Other amusing discrepency of the film: all the nobles of England spoke french at the time so there’s no point in Wallace showing off by speaking a few words.

But what I think really happened is that Super Mario came and rescued her.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The schooner Lois McClure is a full-scale replica of an 1862-class sailing canal boat, constructed in Burlington, Vermont. It left Burlington six weeks ago on it's War of 1812 Commemorative tour and will be entering Quebec at St.-Paul-de-l'Ile-aux-Noix on this Friday. It will arrive in Old Montreal on July 13, then head through the Lachine Canal en route to Ottawa and Kingston, before heading back to New York and Vermont on the Erie Canal. The tour ends in October.

http://www.lcmm.org/our_fleet/lois_mcclure_schedule.htm

 

[Turbodick]

It looks like there actually are things happening. I'm glad. It seemed like this significant milestone was going to get swept under the carpet, but there are some decent events.

 

[Gentle]

Other than that still... the war between the Brits and the Americans was a side show to Napoleonic wars; specially in Russia.

In french school they didn't care talking about it much and was viewed as a draw between the Brits and the Americans.

It's like the fall of Quebec. I keep hearing about feds whining on how much referendum nationalists in Quebec will need while before the Brits got lucky in Quebec, they kept coming, and coming and coming never accepting defeat so for us it's the same kinda sh!t all over ever since.

The only conclusions are that French lost a big part of North America to the Brits which in turn loss a big chunk at the U.S. independance.
And all of them French, Brits and Americans basically took it from the First nations.

So it's fun to read about it yet, nothing much has changed ever since !

Except... Americans are the master in North America now, The Brits have become Canadians and can't do much without the US, the Frenchs are Quebecois still living here and stiring sh!t with the anglos who still can't understand that we are different and will never be conquered :smile: and while the First people that used to be on this land got almost whiped out ... we still think (The French aka Quebecois, Brits aka Canadians and the Americans) that we deserved this land.

Betcha when this comes to an end... the last ones roaming this land will still be First nations and Innus ! :lol:
Ok I'm done stiring some today !

 

[EagerBeaver]

In french school they didn't care talking about it much and was viewed as a draw between the Brits and the Americans.

Gentle,

I believe that your French school must have skipped over the lesson on the Battle of Plattsburgh and the Battle of New Orleans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

The Battle of Plattsburgh is historically significant because it is the 1st time in naval history that a standing fleet (the Americans) defeated an attacking fleet (the British), not only defeating them but actually humiliatingly defeating them and killing their commander. The land engagement in Plattsburgh did not go too much better for the British, as they hastily retreated to Montreal where they could then pick on the French. It's amazing that you live an hour away and don't even know that the Town of Plattsburgh celebrates with a reenactment of the battle every September 11.

The Battle of New Orleans introduced the world to Major General Andrew Jackson, who would later become President of the USA in part due to his status as war hero from this battle.

The war is only seen as a draw because the burning of Washington and the White House is seen by some as a humiliation of the Americans, but the truth is that this setback was more than avenged at the Battles of Plattsburgh and New Orleans.

 

[Merlot]

"I believe that your French school must have skipped over the lesson on the Battle of Plattsburgh and the Battle of New Orleans:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans[/QUOTE]

Hello all,

Gentle is right. At best the war was a sad almost totally wasted draw that led to a final establishment of agreed national boundaries around the Great Lakes region. You are also right EB that Plattsburgh, Fort McHenry, and New Orleans helped redeem the Americans, but much of the time the U.S. military system performed very poorly. Washington D.C. was burned largely because of reliance on the lousy militia system and bad choices and/or rivalries within the military command system.

Even at Ft. McHenry and New Orleans, though the military under good and strong leadership performed very well, luck and stupidity had a lot to do with it. At McHenry the British ground forces were ravaged by one of the most timely fortuitous tornado's in military history. What happened at New Orleans was largely the same that happened at Cannae 216 BC/BCE, Verulamium/St. Albans 60 AD/CE, Crecy 1346, Cold Harbor 1864 (along with many other battles), and most famously at Thermopylae 480 BC/BCE. A much larger force allowed itself to be trapped or goaded into attacking in a field too narrow for their size that nullified the British large numbers superiority making them much easier targets for Jackson's artillery (mainly) and rifled muskets. Had Packenham made sure to stick to a combined attack on the American rear at the same time, as happened to George Washington at the Battle of Long Island 1776, it's probably a different outcome.

I'm glad to see there is some notice of this war going on because of the lives lost to it.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Gentle]

Gentle,... bla bla bla

If only you knew

Here.. if you like wikipedia !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_history

Just sayin' !