Thank you so much for watching, guys! You can help our channel by watching thousands of documentaries on CuriosityStream Register with this link: curiositystream.thld.co/knowledgianov And use my code: "knowledgia" to get 25% off your yearly subscription.
It’s crazy. I live in Niagara Falls and a lot of these battles took place right near me. I live 30 seconds away from Lundy’s Lane. My public school growing up was called “battlefield”. It was the site of the battle of Lundy’s Lane. You could actually find musket balls in the field sometimes. And right next to our field was a cemetery where Laura Secord is buried. Cool stuff.
I mean, would you rather fight your old colony that's across a literal ocean. Or a literal Dictator that steamrolled most of Central Europe. Still the war itself provides very interesting thought experience; like alternate histories and such.
@@mildew1 yep, end of impressment, end of orders in council and the end of British support for the natives doesn’t sound like a loss to to me keep being butt hurt. Facts are facts.
@@TheIceman567 hmm...America tried to conquer Canada and failed. Britain achieved its objectives by keeping the territory. USA got some butt kicked. Britain kept control of the seas. Keep on dreaming of American success that wasn't. Butt hurt? I am proud that Canada won. USA should be ashamed of itself for committing an aggression and losing.
@@mildew1 incorrect, the USA goal was to never annex Canada that in fact was a war myth. Btw the USA won the majority of battles even winning the last two battles fought in Canada at Cooks mills and Malcolms Mills 🤷♂️Nor was the USA’s goal to “take control” on the seas lol. You’re pretty butt hurt because 2nd there was no Canada. 😂 committing aggression? So impressment, supporting natives isn’t aggressive?
Fun fact. Had Napoleon not sold Louisiana to the United States in 1803, Britain would've ended up with it after the Napoleonic Wars and modern day Canada would've stretched to the gulf of Mexico.
@@leroysanchino Not if they want USA more any how. Any the case i am on the British side on these. Rather than yielding those land for the USA i rather have those land yied to Tecumseh Confederate like the British intended a buffer states between British Canada and USA.
@@leroysanchino People argue that British Canada or USA win or lose. Only the truly loser was Tecumseh Confederate. Even after the worst due to the hand of Jackson act those people and what remains of them have more suffer trial to came.
@Artour Babiev This guy skipped how the Americans sacked the Canadian capital, FYI. And how deep the Americans cut into Canadian territory overall. Get over yourself lol
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 the British at the time decided to maintain the status quo in order to not incite tension in the US. The reason being is that Britain rather watched on as mainland Europe fought each other allowing the UK to grow further in the colonies. It would be of no use to the British to take American land as in peace time trade with the US was necessary
@@Hunter-ww9rd Because they had no choice. They were taking our sailors. We forced them to stop/ They hindered our trade we forced them to respect it. Im mean how could this pass you over? You make it seem like we were the instigators. Just how fucking dumb are you?
@Adam It was a truly unique war. Each side has the potential to claim victory. But in my opinion, Canada won. We fought off the americans and defended our land. And like you said the war essentially established Canadiam nationalism. In school its taught that if the americans didn't attack, that we would of willingly joined america in a few years, or decades. But instead it helped rally Canada as a nation and provide a sense of national pride. Different countries teach different things. It interesting to see history from someone else's view
Some of the most significant battles were excluded, notably the famous Battle of New Orleans. This took place after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent and launched Andrew Jackson towards national fame eventually leading to his presidency. The battle was the end of the Gulf Campaign, American forces were outnumbered by around 8,000 to 5,800. Yet the result was a staggering 2,000 British casualties vs 71 Americans. Also, an enduring motto of the US Navy “Don’t Give Up The Ship” came from the last orders of Captain Lawrence aboard the Chesapeake. His words were memorialized on Commodore Perry’s flag as a rallying cry hoist above his flagship Lawrence and later Niagara during the battle of Lake Erie.
Its likely because, death count apart, it wasn't a significant battle in terms of notable increase/decrease in chance of victory. In the grand theatre it meant very little. Still, its an incredible story. Its similar in some ways to the Battle of Rorke's Drift.
Yes, 5,800 hiding in a swamp, ready for an ambush against an unsuspecting enemy. No big surprise in the high casualties with that in mind because anyone can shoot down an enemy who can’t shoot back. And even then you only won a peripheral battle which didn’t even matter seeing as a peace treaty had just been signed but the news hadn’t gotten to where it was supposed to be. Okay, a great psychological boost to catch the enemy napping but it changed nothing, or at least not for the British. But on the other hand your new army got beaten up badly by an army made up largely of Canadian farmers and other partisans. Pretty embarrassing for you really. The British kept control of Canada. All you gained out of the war was the chance to take it out on the Indians again, namely Tecumseh’s lot and the other Creeks. Heck, you almost nearly lost some of your people in New England who were that pissed off that they were thinking of breaking away. You pissed off all those businesses in New York who had been doing good trade with the British ever since the revolutionary war ended and you were very lucky not to have faced another army coming over from Europe. You know what stopped that? Wellington, fresh from victory at Waterloo was asked if he would lead an invasion. But common sense prevailed. He reckoned the expenditure wouldn’t be worth what it would achieve because wars cost lots of money ... and just like us, you had to tighten your belts because you were short of money. Or as we would say here, we were both as skint as @rseholes.
For the record: 1. At the time of this war, Toronto didn't exist. The community that did exist was named York. You didn't mention that the Americans captured York, the capital of Upper Canada, and burned it to the ground. That was one reason the British burned Washington after they captured it. Payback. 2. For that matter, Ottawa didn't exist. However, in the aftermath of this war, it was decided to construct the Rideau Canal so as to expedite troop movements should a similar conflict arise again. The building of the canal (1826-1832) created a community at the northern end of the canal system known as Bytown, named after Lieutenant-Colonel John By, the person in charge of building the canal. It was only renamed Ottawa in 1855. For someone dealing in History, a little more accuracy is in order.
The fire at York has a disputed cause: no one knows who actually started it, but the Americans did try to put it out. It certainly wasn't done under orders.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 the Americans also burned the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, not just government buildings but all private businesses and homes leaving the vast majority of the town homeless in December in Canada, as they retreated, which isn’t disputed, and is another reason the White House was burned.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 With the Death of Pike from the magazine explosion the USA lost control of its troops. Which one specifically started the looting & pillaging is like trying to identify which bean made you fart...
There were talks about New England seceding (namely the Hartford Convention, if I recall correctly), but it never seriously amounted to much. New England was never supportive about the war, though.
"Okay so when are we going inform them??" "We'll send it out on the group of messenger ships." "Sir, SIR!!! New news from America! Theeeyyyy...... want a war over the trade restrictions...?????" "Well Jiminy Cricket that was some bloody timing!!!!"
There was a small mention that New England refused to invade Montreal, but you should also mention that New England was close to breaking off from America because of this war, and that when the revolutionary war started it was initially envisioned that New England would be its own country, not all of the 13 colonies. They even flew New England and Massachusetts flags in the battle of Lexington and concord.
@Chayse Larsson Not Toronto. But yes, first you guys commited war crimes and in retaliation your capital was burned down. Thats what the USA does, commit war crimes and than brags about it as a good thing. How many presidents are war criminals ? Sry how many aren't? Lol
Americans struggle with that concept. In fact England ceased to be an independent sovereign nation in the reign of Edward 1 when it effectively merged with Wales.
@@johnholt890 Americans struggle with it because we're not used to considering such small parts of the globe. Seriously, there's 8 billion people on the planet; you expect us to care about your intra-island affections?
@@asdfbeauAmericans struggle because they are extremely insular. Most Americans probably couldn’t locate America on a world map let alone England. No one cares if you care or not, it’s lamentable that most American don’t understand their history. In 1812, the USA was in a war with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It’s the country the USA can thank for its existence and the country that the USA inherited its legal and common law system from, its language,, many state and Cory names, its system of measurement, its democracy, its bill of rights and its freedoms etc. The country that shaped the modern world for better and worst. Has nothing to do with the population of the world. It’s just about having the facts correct. It’s embarrassing that you’re proud of your ignorance and I hope it’s not a reflection other Americans.
And here I thought his shining moment was that time he nearly bludgeoned a failed assassin to death with his cane and had to be pulled off by his guards. The guy was a monster to the natives but, man, did he ever go hard on basically everything he ever did. XD
I think it's because despite the fact that it's a famous battle, it had no real impact on the war because a peace treaty had already been signed before the battle even happened.
@@treystewart731 yeah, but no one in America knew that because it takes months for news of the treaty to travel from the snow covered fields of Belgium to the rain soaked swamps of Louisiana.
@Smited One Their were natives who fought against the british and then switched sides to fight for the british. Some of my Mackenzie side rebelled against the British colonial government in the 1830's as well.
The Bank Of England's 1st 20 year central bank charter in the USA ended in 1811. The US was able to keep Britain from taking the Louisianan territory, but issued a 2nd, 20 year bank charter in 1816. After it's end in 1836 no other charter would be issued until December 23, 1913, when most of congress had left for holiday, the bankers created a perpetual charter whose shareholders are private.
True, New Englanders saw themselves as a different ethnic group from the rest of Americans, and to a certain extent still do today. When the revolution started in Massachusetts they were originally fighting for New England independence, not independence for all of the 13 colonies.
James O'Malley New Englander is still it’s own defined ethnic group with their own culture today imo. They have more culture than any other part of the country
@Adversary American A longer one yes but a culture is still a culture. America has a culture, they are different from the rest who are nonAmericans and that enough is American which are all an off branch of the New England culture which came from the 13 colonies.
@@jackconnolly5308 They are also the only part of the country that still has a lot of economic ties to the UK,the only other being New York (My state),the buffer state for some reason.
Defeating Napoleon overshadowed it. We remember Waterloo and Trafalgar, Nelson and Wellington. It was far more important, as otherwise Britain would have been invaded. Napoleon was a very dangerous military genius and had to be stopped.
Yeah, big powers can't really recall all of the minor conflicts it was embroiled in. Just like the US can't really recall the part it played in the Falklands War. For the US, that was very insignificant as well.
This was excellent. Kinda sad you didn’t mention the Battle of New Orleans that happened just after the signing of the peace treaty. I’m from the area and there’s a lot of “pride” in that and it’s pretty much how we ended up with Andrew Jackson being such a major player in the early US. Much love!
I like this short documentary! Respectfully, I think Old Hickory and the Battle of New Orleans being omitted is a miss. Though fought after the war was officially over, it is still one of them main things people think of in the War of 1812.
The war was still on as the treaties weren't ratified by both sides, and had the brits won the battle, they would have had every reason to abrogate the treaty and either give the land back to the Spanish or the Indians, halting westward expansion. The battle was a pivotal event in its own right.
@@safeysmith6720 I am a Canadian, I know the history of Canada, I know that General Brock was born in the motherland, I know that his leadership was essential in defeating the american invaders. With his planning and preparations in the years before the war of 1812 , with his early victories in the war and the victory on the day of his death he could be identified as the single most important individual in Upper Canada. SO, yes he is a Canadian hero, without him Canada might not exist.
@@rb239rtryou know Canada wasn't a thing yet, right? 1867 formation of Canada and domestic government. 1931 foreign policy control. Finally got a patriated constitution in the 1980s. Since the Canadian constitution was still a British law until the 1980s, one could argue Canada was not an independent nation until then. Its okay, no need for the little man syndrome. Grew up on the border, nothing but positive experiences with Canadians. Nothing wrong with being part of the British Empire either during that time. Gave us both all the ideals we formed our nations with.
@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle WTF. I think you have the little man syndrome. All this from me saying that Brock stands as a Canadian hero, which he is. Statues, streets, avenues, university all named after him in respect of what he meant for Canada. Geesh. BTW, the creation of Canada has certainly led to a different path for Canada's society vis a vis American society. Good points in both societies, but when the chips are down, one is certainly better.
@@TheIceman567 Oh so Jefferson was just joking when he said that taking Canada would be "a mere matter of marching"? Too dumb to google? Don't worry, most Americans are.
@@JB-yb4wn Jefferson wasn’t president in fact he was out of office and retired in Virginia. Your google link littery stated by two Canadian historians “The United States, meanwhile, could claim to have won the war because they didn’t lose any territory in the Treaty of Ghent, says Wesley Turner, a retired associate professor of history at Brock University. “But more importantly, the British ceased supporting First Nations people in their fight against American settlement in the Midwest.” Although this goal was “barely mentioned by U.S. President James Madison in his War Message,” Turner says, it was central to U.S. ambitions and the reason why U.S. interior states supported the war. Up to 1812, the British had been arming natives defending their lands against U.S. encroachment. Afterwards, the British dropped this support and deserted their allies. With the Treaty of Ghent in place, the United States could move into native lands without fear of British opposition - and they seized the opportunity.” And… “The Americans also looked on the conflict as a victorious second war of Independence against Britain, says Macleod. “Seeing themselves as bullied and oppressed by the British Empire, they resorted to war and compelled Britain and the world to acknowledge American sovereignty and American power.” Might wanna open that link, too dumb to open that google no worries most Canadians are 🤷♂️ouch!
@@JB-yb4wn America is the reason Google exists. Anyone who wants to start a business leaves the stagnating shitholes of Europe and Canada then starts it in the US.
There was nothing inevitable about American independence. If the Brits had managed to end one of the other wars it was fighting worldwide it may have had enough to defeat the Frenchie loving traitors.
@@julianshepherd2038 I see what you mean! Perhaps, by the grace of God, we came out on top! 🇺🇸 Yeah, we were traitors to Britain, but the taxes were unfair...
@@julianshepherd2038 There was, but the question was when. Look at Canada and all the others, US would have been much sooner. If Britain won they would be tied up in the Americas and the British Empire might have been far weaker. High cost for little gain. That's the lesson, they were constantly fighting wars and overplayed their hand taxing the colonies for the 7 years war. They were smart to cut their losses with the Revolutionary War. US was better off rebelling in the long and short term, not getting roped in with the British Empire's interests which benefitted the latter far more than the former at that point.
No word about the bankers behind this? How about this quote "Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war". Seems kind of relevant.
@@anothergermanmapper7754 actually it wasn’t that’s a myth. In fact here is historian Donald Hickey on the subject ua-cam.com/video/GrCzcI0_JaY/v-deo.html
An article in The Smithsonian Magazine about 20 years ago stated several things; Britain had ended slavery in 1807 but US slavers were still trading, sometimes under false, often UK flags. The Royal Navy looked down upon such behavior, hence some of the impressment. Also the article went on to tell how, at that time, many of the "Canadian" colonists were former United Empire Loyalists, former American colonists who did not support the Revolution and had escaped to Canada and who had left friends, often family and properties in the US. As this video explains, many Americans likewise had no stomach for war with their former friends and relatives. Had not "War Hawks" instigated this war, scholars believe that eventual union of the two colonies would have been inevitable, given the common interests of both 'countries' at the time. The War of 1812 put a permanent end to that dream! Also, as taught in Canadian schools, the attack on Washington was felt to be in retaliation for a raid on York (incorrectly labeled as Toronto in the video).
You have done your homework... I'm going to look up that Smithsonian Magazine article... I've seen those points made before far less clearly elsewhere while researching, events. Thanks for the reference.
I think British left Washington shortly after burning it down. It had all the appearance of payback for the American burning of York, current day Toronto. That war likely doesn't occur without the war in Europe. The war likely was the major factor in British seizing Americans at sea. Years later, in early years of Civil War, an American ship seized several Confederate soldiers on a British ship. Lincoln smartly intervened quickly, having the men returned to the British. Lincoln's comment was "One war at a time boys." All this, because some American naval officer was risking war with Great Britain in order to seize a few rebel soldiers who may have been fleeing the war anyway. It seems people never learn.
I like it! One quibble: why no mention of the Battle of New Orleans? I thought for sure you were going to jump in with it after mentioning the month-long lag between the armistice and the end of fighting.
It might be because it had no effect on the outcome of the war. It was just a minor footnote in the grand scheme of things, which is sad to say considering how many people lost their lives in that battle.
@Sean Greenfield it’s not entirely the same, New Orleans ended up happening after the treaty of Ghent. Waterloo happened before Napoleon’s second abdication, Waterloo caused the abdication.
@Adversary American to be fair, not many Americans actually supported the revolutionary war with the crown since they were Brits themselves, and thus some never felt obliged to the US at that time especially after the 1812 war started
Imagine if Britain wasn’t fighting Napoleon in Europe….I’m American but I’m damn sure we’d be like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand today if Britain sent their full force against us
I'm am British and proud but America is close to my heart. I don't know why. It just is. Fun fact for reading this comment, I had an ancestor disappear at the Roanoke settlement in the 1580s. I also have my family that immigrated in the 50/60s. America, the UK loves you.
Despite our countries getting off to a rocky start, most Americans love the UK and we feel the same way about you that you feel about us. 🇬🇧☮️💙💪🇺🇲 Allies forever
So how do you explain the loss at New Orleans? The Brits got their asses handed to them and sued for peace. Just because they don’t want to remember it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
@@alienlife7754 it seems the US were repeatedly having they're asses handed to them early on tho ay!. And if the treaty had not been signed then the US were inevitably going to loose they're independence. Britain had just defeated one of the largest professional military's in the world at that time so get over yourself.
@The Eagle Beyond The Stars what's false i said nothing about winning or loosing my comment was to the OP his remarks were the UK got they're asses handed to them. Thats false.
The War of 1812 is an interesting conflict in that it's barely mentioned in British history books and most Americans have never heard of it but it's very well known in Canadian culture because it help unite a proto-nation.
it is actually well known in usa, well certain battles of of it, the burning of the capital is known but everyone forgets about the burning of york, and the battle of New Orleans which was an american victory great enough it has a few songs about it. but to be fair to non-history people the war accomplished very little for both sides, it got british to fuck off messing with american shipping, but realistically by the time it occurred they were about to stop due to napoleon being out of picture. So its no wonder its forgotten.
It didn't leave any real impact on the war (it was fought after the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed), and I assume was left out for that reason.
@@feelsweirdman_1823 Defensive battles from fortified positions have been fought against armies 10 times the defender's size and won, it's only natural.
@@nagrom1003 Agreed. His avarice turned France into a European "afterthought," in terms of power, after he was defeated. Russia began taking much greater interest in "European Affairs" after Napoleon invaded them. Napoleon's war was almost certainly a cause of the War of 1812. And, oh yeah, he sold America about ONE THIRD of its' present day territory, all so he could fund his war in Europe. Also... Arguments could be made that he planted the seeds that would one day lead to World War One... and everything that came afterward. So yeah... Napoleon, historically, is a pretty big deal.
Yes he made the world a cohesive place - first by winning and then losing otherwise, UK was busy in its empire expansion rather than in fighting in spain, Europe. Russia, USA were not interested in Europe. Germany got unified due to these Napoleonic wars. Often memory of the wars drive the future generations - so the two world wars and previously Napoleon ´s war are driving today’s EU.
Yep, modern military tactics, revolutionary ideas, unification of Italy and Germany. The dissolvement of the HRE, and the indirect creation of all Latin American countries. All came from Napoleon. The world would be a much different place if Napoleon was never born
@@bradyelich2745 Back in my high school history classes in the 80s (in Quebec), my teacher spent a fair bit of time on Tecumseh along with the consequences of the War of 1812 both for Canada and for the indigenous people on both sides of the border. He made sure we knew Tecumseh was an important figure in our history. I think he was of the view that Brock got too much credit (not that he didn't deserve some, just that he got utterly lionized because he died in battle) and Tecumseh got overlooked far too much.
You have to talk about Jackson's victory over the British at New Orleans. It helped get Jackson elected the 7th President. He then had a huge impact on history.
@@4realjacob637 he became the first non-nobility to hold office after succeeding John Quincy Adam's. That being said he was a bloody murderer probably buring in Hell at this point.
@@sutty8526 he was fighting whole coliations by the time the brits and prussians beat him he had inexperienced conscripts mostly.......and even then the brits nearly blew it even wellington said it was close.....the real badass was france at this time at war internal and externally off and on for over 20 years basically aganist numerous nations.
I'm from Buffalo and we're taught about how the British burned down the settlement during this conflict. There is also a sunken British frigate in the Niagara river off of the Black Rock neighborhood.
That battle happened after the signing of the treaty so had no impact. Even if the British had won, they would still have pulled out. It's a nice side note for America, but nothing more.
@@UserName-om6ft The Treaty of Ghent was signed by the Americans in December, 1814. It wasn't ratified by Congress until February, 1815 because it took that long for the news to travel. For all intents and purposes the war was over when the Battle of New Orleans was fought. It was meaningless and had no impact on whether or not Congress ratified the treaty. Split hairs if you must. I guess Yankee pride demands it.
@@JohnCampbell-rn8rz if the treaty was signed why did the British try to invade New Orleans anyway and STILL lose? treaty signed or not the British still invaded New Orleans with the intention of nullifying the Louisiana purchase, the British didnt recognize the Louisiana purchase and the territory still belonged to Spain as far as the British were concerned, the British had their own ambitions with their invasion attempt at New Orleans but failed miserably, same with the failed British invasions at Plattsburgh and Baltimore, i understand you were born in the UK and all that so you want to try and hype the UK up as much as possible to comfort your national ego and bias and you try to ignore facts and brush British failures under the rug when they dont suit your narratives and brush American successes under the rug but it wont work, you cant change historical reality just because you dont like it
It is a really important battle and I thought he was gonna bring it up, but it did technically happen after peace was made. the people fighting didn't know about it though.
The battle of New Orleans was fought very close to the end of the war. People today act like it could have easily been avoided but when you look at the date the peace deal was signed (Feb 18th 1815) and the date the battle was fought on (Jan 8th 1815) it is hard to still make that argument. Especially when you remember the war was fought more then 200 years ago and that it was the British who started up the battle of New Orleans by invading it. It is a good thing the war did end when it did though. Because had the peace deal been delayed until the battle I'm sure that would have ended the peace talks unless the British were willing to settle for a deal further in favor of the Americans.
Yeah, and thanks to that we are not British subject - God Shave the Queen! "We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
@@juansantana8448 wtf are you talking about, there’s nothing I can find which states that Britain wanted to take back the Americans during this war lol.
Why do you think so? Americans started a war, sent a quarter million soldiers over the border to capture land, and they utterly failed, and came out with a patriotic song about surviving the war they started. Britain stopped them.
Why not talking about the ''Bataille de la Châteauguay'' where 300 French-Canadian and 20 natives routed an army of 3000 U.S soldiers? It stop the U.S advance on Montreal and was a key event in the war?
I mean, by the end, the Americans did technically get what they set out for. The British stopped funding Native resistance and stopped its trade restrictions (again). They were far weaker than the British, but put up enough of a fight that the British saw fit to meet their demands in the peace accords. By achieving what they set out to do when the war started, the Americans did win. But the British also did much of what they set out to do, stopping the American push into Canada and keeping the war mostly on American soil. In that regard, the British won. It’s one of the rare examples where both sides ended up getting most of what they wanted. The British won the fighting, the Americans won the treaty.
The US did not get all of what they set out for, they attempted to take Canadian land and never got anything, the British played nice and gave the US what they got and a peace treaty when they could of crushed the US and taken the colonies back.
A major argument for Britain having been victorious is their major victories, however if you study the history of the War of 1812, then you will see that these major battles touted by the British side as significant turning points such as the Battles of Cryslers' Farm, Queenstown Heights, and the Siege of Detroit were early in the War and had little significance, since Detroit would later be recaptured in an even bigger battle by the Americans and the US would go onto win most of the battles in Canada after that (Without claiming territory), in fact the whole invasion of Upper Canada became nothing more than a series of raids and punitive attacks rather than conquest after the first US expedition failed to inspire the Canadians to ally with the US. Americans would have to be willing to settle Upper Canada for the Americans to attempt conquest and it was already settled by Loyalists and northern Indians whom no one wanted to live around, also New Englanders wouldn't have settled on behalf of the US; in fact the final major battles of the War of 1812 were all won by the Americans - Battle of Fort Erie, Battle of York, Battle of The Thames, Battle of Baltimore, Battle of Plattsburgh, Battle of New Orleans, ...etc the list goes on. These were the last major battles of the War with only one British victory at Bladensburg that later saw that same invasion force defeated worse at Baltimore, and so the British enjoyed very little success on the battlefield later on in the war suffering constant big defeats such as all those aforementioned battles to the Americans. The early victories that the British and Canadians take so much pride in would have been a figment of the past and the more recent American victories would have demoralized them into accepting the Treaty and not continuing invasions of America to bolster their fur trade and Indian Buffer States. If you read articles from British newspapers at the time, you'll find they spoke of the War as a letdown and a bad situation because at the time, they would have felt all those major battles the Americans were winning late in the War of 1812.
He failed to mention that US troops and their Indian allies burned Queenston, the capitol of Upper Canada. The Brittish burned Washington in retaliation.
@@WuzzyYT That is completely ridiculous numbers. You must be using that for emphasis. The Battle of New Orleans was actually fought after the Peace was declared.
@@WuzzyYT Just looked it up. Total British casualties were just over 2000 of those 285 were dead, 1285 wounded and 484 captured. US lost 13 dead and about 40 wounded. A thorough trouncing but not to the level you indicated.
the battle of Queenston Heights was largely ignored even though it was Issac Brocks finest victory. This video has some minor inaccuracies however I'm not going to gripe about such a controversial and pointless war
Careful in mentioning the 1812 war, at least in Canada. A side show for the British, Napoleon's war was the focal point for the UK. The looses were the native indian tribes.
@@TheIceman567l am, and on a trip by rail across Canada, l mentioned to my wife a brief comment on the war of 1812, that was overheard by the couple in the seat ahead, who vigorously put me right, then a chap in the seat behind embellished matter further. Only our English accents saved us ..
Based on the timeline given here, the outbreak of the war is inexplicable. President Madison was seeking reelection in 1812. He hoped a war with Britian would boost his chances. Why would he think this? Because the War Hawks had done very well in the 1810 midterms. Congress had abolished the War Department earlier that year. In other words, the politicians didn't see the War Hawks coming until they arrived.
Another scuffle causing tensions at the time, although to a lesser degree, was the rivalry between US and Britain on the frontier to capture the fur trade, particularly in Oregon territory. US fur trappers established a trading post on the mouth of the Columbia just before British trappers arrived and elbowed the US trappers out. After 1812, the countries agreed to shared exploitation of the territory, which removed the international factor and placed the rivalry on the local companies themselves. Eventually, US expansion and emigration would convert Oregon into a US territory.
A lesser degree!!! You think! Britain's tiny island was at war with Napoleons French & allies among others . Our army was spread around the world building the biggest empire ever known. ...lol, fur trade wars , definitely of lesser significance.. I guess that's why British schools don't mention it. ..hmm let's talk Napoleon or fur wars lol ..
@Johannes whos the whole world according to you? no one outside of the US, UK, and Canada know about the war of 1812 it was minor in comparison to the revolutionary war which Britain lost and the US won, and by the way nope the UK didnt win the war of 1812 either, even the great British Duke of Wellington Arthur Wellesley and later the official prime minister of the United Kingdom himself concluded that the war of 1812 was a draw (meaning not a British victory) and the peace negotiations should not make territorial demands and i quote: "I think you (Britain) has no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America. [...] You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power. [...] Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, does not entitle you to demand any." the fact that the Duke of Wellington himself concluded that the British did NOT win the war of 1812 then thats good enough for me, the UK did not win the war of 1812 its as simple as that
The Battle of New Orleans was fought AFTER the Treaty of Ghent, but was still a main factor as to why the US believed they won the war. It was a smashing victory for the United States, even though it didn't affect the peace treaty. However, it increased feelings of nationalism, patriotism, and optimism in the US and ushered in the Era of Good Feelings.
@@larrymatrale1368 IT was not not nearly as critical as it is made out to be by America. It was against a diversonary force designed to draw out American soldiers. And it did.
@@Whoami691 It was critical. The Treaty of Ghent stated that whatever you controlled at the end of the war , you got to keep. That would have given the British control of New Orleans and by default most of the Mississippi River commerce. That definitely would have had an impact on American growth.
The American Army performed so badly, that it was decided something must be done about that. So, West Point was founded to develop trained military commanders. It worked pretty well.
@@leescott1775 It was established in 1802 for the education of military engineers. AFTER War of 1812, it was expanded to actually team military sciences -- leadership, logistics, strategy, artillery, etc. That was done because of the poor showing of US Army commanders. The incompetence (cowardice?) in the "invasion" of Canada was particularly embarrassing. Also, the failure to defend our capitol was another reason.
@@craigkdillon thanks craig for the info, seen another video about revolutionary war and was something about Benedict Arnold and West point i seen to rememder, any more info pal
@@leescott1775 Yes, West Point was a fort in the Revolutionary War. Benedict Arnold planned to turn the fort over to the British, but was found out. He had to flee.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica "Battle of Plattsburgh, also called the Battle of Lake Champlain, (6-11 September 1814), battle during the War of 1812 that resulted in an important American victory on Lake Champlain that saved New York from possible British invasion via the Hudson River valley." I realize this video is a very brief summary but I was surprised this battle wasn't mentioned.
@@TheIceman567 it was a part of the napoleonic wars, and a minor part at that. Remember that the USA was a relatively small and insignificant country outside of north America at the time, France and Britain were in a power struggle to be top dog, Portugal and Spain were probably still more important countries in global influence than the USA at the time, which was probably about level with Prussia at the time.
Conspicuous by it's absence is the mention of the Battle of New Orleans. Although the Treaty of Ghent had been signed, the news didn't reach the United States for about a month and both sides continued to fight vigorously. General Andrew Jackson commanded forces that drove the British into a pocket in and around New Orleans, and in a pitched battle stretching over about a week, the British were forced to surrender. There were a couple of key reasons why, 1) The Americans had mostly rifles, that could outrange the British smoothbore musket, and was far more accurate. 2) A critical mistake the British made was to stack up what was available for fortification, they had a large quantity of burlap sugar bags from the local sugar cane crop, and when they got wet, sticky and gooey. When we shot bullets and cannon balls into these bags, the sticky goo/syrup got into the lock work of their cannons and muskets, and they could not fight effectively. A surrender was negotiated. News of the victory reached Washington at the same time as news of the peace treaty, and in the popular imagination and the newspapers of the time, Americans credited the Battle of New Orleans with British peace, and Andre Jackson did nothing to disabuse them of this error, and rode the game into the Presidency. A footnote from the American side.
Interesting tidbit you might like to know is that the British diplomats were delaying the treaty to give the British forces a chance to take New Orleans and handicap American expansion
@@snazzydares8787 actually they didn’t. Where did the USA surrender I’d love to read this. Fiction can be fun 😂😂 in fact 12 minutes literally states what the USA got. Britain failed in its goal of a natives Indian buffer state, Maine( which the British occupied east port Maine until 1818) and Minnesota to control the upper Mississippi. Doesn’t sound like the British won any thing while the USA got West Florida after forcing the British out, the Northwest territory it had been fight over since 1785 end of impressing and British support for the natives. Study before commenting you won’t embarrass yourself next time.
Mate we burned down your White House and the peace treaty at the end of the war the British wanted most of the Louisiana perches the only reason we didn’t was because it would upset the balance of power in Europe.
You skipped the Lake Ontario Theatre (Burning of York, Oswego, Sackett's Harbour), which had effects on the Lake Erie campaign and the Burning of Washington. Canadians often also cite this war as influential in the development of Canadian identity separate from the strictly British one, though your mileage may vary
Quite discouraging that you didn't mention the Battle of Chateauguay at all. It was quite an important battle and very few people know about it today. In fact, many streets in Quebec today are named De Salaberry after the French Canadian commander. Moreover, from what I understand most of the force was French Canadian and Native, making their victory all the more prominent in the annals of Quebec history. There are other mistakes/oversights but others have already mentioned them. All the same, thank you for making the video, keep it up! I appreciated that you put the appropriate amount of time into describing the important role the Natives played in this war, one of the last conflicts where Natives would sway the balance of power in a meaningful way.
The lack of any discussion of the battle of New Orleans is a major flaw in this presentation. It showed that despite British victories, defeating the Americans would not be a matter of just showing up. Britain was the world power and had numerous other commitments (esp. India) that were more important than North America. As it was after the war Britain suffered a terrible depression that led to widespread labor unrest. The ministers had lots to think about than the plight of the native Americans or the expansion of the USA into the "Great American Desert."
Had the British won the battle of New Orleans they would have seized Louisiana territory which would have been devastating to the United States and it's very unlikely Andrew Jackson would've became president
@PJDesseyn1 the USA didn’t gain any ground? The war wasn’t over Canada. In fact the inky country that demanded any land was the British an Indian buffer state, Maine (which the British held on to east port Maine until 1818) and Minnesota to control the upper Mississippi. The reason for the USA decorating war was because of the British actions of impressment orders in council and supporting the stoves all actives. Also the USA gained West Florida and Carleton island in the war. As for the burning of Washington it had no affect on the war and lead to the British defeat at Baltimore which forced to retreat from Chesapeake and including Plattsburgh forced Britain to drop off to demands on land and offer status quo antebellum. Busy with real war? Napoleon was defeated in April 1814 Britain sent the forces of Wellington’s over and all they could do was burn washing and be defeated else where. You do also know the USA won more battle on land and sea during the war right? Please learn about the war before you comment you’ve just make yourself look like an idiot.
@PJDesseyn1 actually I do I’ve been studying this war for over 10 years and I’m from the Niagara area the bloodiest area of the war. Oh my god you’re an idiot Napoleon was first defeated in April 1814 and sent to the island of Elba. Yeah America attacked because the British were attacking American shipping impressing sailors and supporting native attacks on the frontier did you even watch the video? Yes, and the invasion of Canada went well, Tecumseh confederacy was defeated and the USA held land. Even taking Carleton island. Once more please learn about the war before you comment. You made yourself look very dumb.
Not sure I agree with the comment at 8:15 saying the British were well prepared. They were in Europe because of Napoleon but in Canada Brock had next to nothing to fight a much larger US army which is why they went on the offensive and acquired the aid of the Natives. At least that's what I've always read and heard from various sources.
Technically the US regular army was only twice as large as Brocks British regulars and the British regulars in 1812 where noticeably better (as you would expect from a country that had been at constant war for 20 years vs a country that had been at peace) but the US had massive militia forces available which is where the real disparity in forces comes from at the start of the war, something like 300,000 people in British colonies and a few Million in the USA, might be as high as 7 Million I don't off hand remember.
@@phoenixrose1192 most British people don't know that Winston Churchill killed hundreds of thousands in India because he refused to send food. British are told that their weaponry and tactics were better than everyone else's in WW2. That their "spitfire" was the best fighter in the war. That their "resolve" stopped Hitler. Also told that American revolution was not a big deal in Britain because Britain has many colonies. (Tad complex to show how false that narrative is but I can show) Also as to Vietnam the facts are: The US forces never once lost a major strategic battle in Vietnam. US killed the enemy around 10:1 After bombing the North all parties made a peace agreement. Due to their agreement all US forces left Vietnam. Saigon fell after the NVA tested the US in the US didn't respond. Since there was no military goal that could have been obtained by the US and no goal was achieved in the end it's more off a wash but because of events afterwards I agree it was a political, and diplomatic defeat.
@@4realjacob637 You make lots of assumptions about an entire nation of people, and no we are aware of the Bengal famine. We are not told we were the best during WWII, but it is true that Britain did play a significant role in the defeat of Hitler as well. Well it is true, the 13 colonies were not as significant as the Caribbean was for the British at the time, for example. So that’s hardly a lie told through bias. It was one of the reasons why the war became so unpopular with the people and politicians alike. As for Vietnam...yes that’s equates to losing the war like I said. Yet, your compatriots can’t seem to accept the loss for what it was.
@@phoenixrose1192 the American colonies were closing in on 1/3 of all British Citizen's population. Real reason for British to tick off colonials so much was because they feared American representation in the government would eventually reach a majority. But I'd agree that not all British people are told lies cause there's a spectrum like anything. But if you know how American history is taught to Americans today it's hypercritical at higher levels of education. Not that I want other countries to be hyper critical like today in American history because it discredits the work that created the best living conditions ever.
The war of saving face, Where a country that was about to get everything they wanted from another country that couldn't be bothered anymore, and declared war anyway. While that country with much bigger issues (Like bankrupting itself trying to fight France) fought anyway just to not seem weak
Right, that is what the brits would like to believe and make believe, but they "forgot, there were many other nations in the US territory, and the brits and their descendants are just one the many. "We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
@@juansantana8448 The original 13 Colonies were overwhelmingly British, with some German and Dutch. The dominant language was and still is English, Culture, Law system and political structures were based on British. So what on earth are you talking about😆
@@juansantana8448 I've seen this comment. But we didn't run. You had 3 Major superpowers. Your flag is from Washington's family coat of arms back in England. and the tune of your national anthem is an old drunken Britain song Your laws are from the Magna carter 🤷🏻. what is is your won exactly. You needed Britain to build your industrial revolution and you needed Britain as an allie. Dont be be complete knob! Whats worse is that it was British subjects against British subjects. There Was little European influence in the US at that time. Oh and what happened to taking Canada. Canada still doesn't want to be part of the US.
Isn't it true that Madison wanted to declare war on both France and England ? Especially to quell ideas that he was being used by Napoleon or that he showed favour towards France. I believe there is a letter he sent to Jefferson where he states his desire to declare war on both. I believe he was talked out of it as declaring war on France was pointless, what could they do, but England could be attacked through attacking Canada
To be fair the native Americans deserved their independents It was their land and, also another point. I think the UK won because they had the most victory and managed to set fire to the capital of the US
It's a myth that the Democratic-Republican party was the forerunner only of the modern Democrats. It was the forerunner of the Republicans, too. The Republicans of 1854 explicitly named their party in honor of Jefferson's party, claiming to be Jefferson's true heirs. The Democrats really trace their origin to Jackson, the Republicans to the Whigs. Both the Whigs and Democrats were all Jeffersonian Republicans.
This war is largely forgotten. I had no idea it had even existed until I opened my first history book. And also the Battle of New Orleans wasn't mentioned at all in this video.
Were you not taught about this in American History class in high school or had Obama already abolished American History with common core when you were in high school?
Thank you so much for watching, guys! You can help our channel by watching thousands of documentaries on CuriosityStream
Register with this link: curiositystream.thld.co/knowledgianov
And use my code: "knowledgia" to get 25% off your yearly subscription.
It was just called The War of 1812 not the british-american war of 1812
@DIEGO PEREZ GENIS The british barely did anything. It was canadians.
@DIEGO PEREZ GENIS Lol another person who had low reading comprehension
@@MastemaJack largely true. Britain's priority then was fighting Napoleon.
It was mostly just officers who were from Britain. Most of the actual fighting was done by people who were born there in Canada.
UK: *burns Washington DC*
US: "Alright, we'll call it a draw"
I mean, we got a badass anthem so it was a draw
@DidacusAugustus, We didn’t lose, we just failed to win
@@fryreviews693 alright McClellan. You’re out!
'tis but a flesh wound
@@fryreviews693 Same shit you lost
It’s crazy. I live in Niagara Falls and a lot of these battles took place right near me. I live 30 seconds away from Lundy’s Lane. My public school growing up was called “battlefield”. It was the site of the battle of Lundy’s Lane. You could actually find musket balls in the field sometimes. And right next to our field was a cemetery where Laura Secord is buried. Cool stuff.
I’m from the American side.
"We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
i live here too
@@juansantana8448 k juan
@@juansantana8448 in 1814 we took a little trip
Kind of a plot twist that the British were actually holding back the whole time because Napoleon was keeping them busy back in Europe.
I mean, would you rather fight your old colony that's across a literal ocean. Or a literal Dictator that steamrolled most of Central Europe. Still the war itself provides very interesting thought experience; like alternate histories and such.
@@TheIceman567 hahaha...USA got the terms? They lost this war...hahaha...keep on lying to yourself.
@@mildew1 yep, end of impressment, end of orders in council and the end of British support for the natives doesn’t sound like a loss to to me keep being butt hurt. Facts are facts.
@@TheIceman567 hmm...America tried to conquer Canada and failed. Britain achieved its objectives by keeping the territory. USA got some butt kicked. Britain kept control of the seas. Keep on dreaming of American success that wasn't. Butt hurt? I am proud that Canada won. USA should be ashamed of itself for committing an aggression and losing.
@@mildew1 incorrect, the USA goal was to never annex Canada that in fact was a war myth. Btw the USA won the majority of battles even winning the last two battles fought in Canada at Cooks mills and Malcolms Mills 🤷♂️Nor was the USA’s goal to “take control” on the seas lol. You’re pretty butt hurt because 2nd there was no Canada. 😂 committing aggression? So impressment, supporting natives isn’t aggressive?
Fun fact. Had Napoleon not sold Louisiana to the United States in 1803, Britain would've ended up with it after the Napoleonic Wars and modern day Canada would've stretched to the gulf of Mexico.
The good timeline
@@ChrisJohannsen why would anyone want more Britain in the world?
@@leroysanchino Not if they want USA more any how. Any the case i am on the British side on these. Rather than yielding those land for the USA i rather have those land yied to Tecumseh Confederate like the British intended a buffer states between British Canada and USA.
@@leroysanchino People argue that British Canada or USA win or lose. Only the truly loser was Tecumseh Confederate. Even after the worst due to the hand of Jackson act those people and what remains of them have more suffer trial to came.
Here's another fun fact , the only building in Washington D.C. not burned to the ground in the War of 1812 was the Masonic Temple it was not touched !
Most of us in the UK have never heard of this war. We've had so many foreign wars that this war is just a footnote, if that.
Most Americans know little to nothing of this war.
@Artour Babiev begged for what treaty? Not in this war. Please show me where this happened 😂
@Artour Babiev really? Because Wikipedia agrees with this video...
@@TheIceman567 that’s very true
@Artour Babiev This guy skipped how the Americans sacked the Canadian capital, FYI. And how deep the Americans cut into Canadian territory overall. Get over yourself lol
British :- its just a minor theatre of the Napoleonic wars
Americans :- nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo it a war in its own right !!!!!
Then why not come and take it when the Napoleonic war was over?
Because you couldn't.
Because once Napoleon was beaten the British were going to send a large AF army. Then the Americans noped right out of it.
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 the British at the time decided to maintain the status quo in order to not incite tension in the US. The reason being is that Britain rather watched on as mainland Europe fought each other allowing the UK to grow further in the colonies. It would be of no use to the British to take American land as in peace time trade with the US was necessary
@@Hunter-ww9rd Because they had no choice.
They were taking our sailors.
We forced them to stop/
They hindered our trade we forced them to respect it.
Im mean how could this pass you over?
You make it seem like we were the instigators.
Just how fucking dumb are you?
@@valeriejames4675 Yet we fought on till Feb. 1815 the war being over since Dec. 1814 and we defeated the British at New Orleans.
Yeah we ran......
Some say that the war still rages on in this very comment section...
Haha. There seems to be some disagreement
Well at least we know who won!
@Adam It was a truly unique war. Each side has the potential to claim victory. But in my opinion, Canada won. We fought off the americans and defended our land. And like you said the war essentially established Canadiam nationalism.
In school its taught that if the americans didn't attack, that we would of willingly joined america in a few years, or decades. But instead it helped rally Canada as a nation and provide a sense of national pride.
Different countries teach different things. It interesting to see history from someone else's view
haha yup
😂😂😂😂
Some of the most significant battles were excluded, notably the famous Battle of New Orleans. This took place after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent and launched Andrew Jackson towards national fame eventually leading to his presidency. The battle was the end of the Gulf Campaign, American forces were outnumbered by around 8,000 to 5,800. Yet the result was a staggering 2,000 British casualties vs 71 Americans.
Also, an enduring motto of the US Navy “Don’t Give Up The Ship” came from the last orders of Captain Lawrence aboard the Chesapeake. His words were memorialized on Commodore Perry’s flag as a rallying cry hoist above his flagship Lawrence and later Niagara during the battle of Lake Erie.
Its likely because, death count apart, it wasn't a significant battle in terms of notable increase/decrease in chance of victory. In the grand theatre it meant very little.
Still, its an incredible story. Its similar in some ways to the Battle of Rorke's Drift.
Yes, 5,800 hiding in a swamp, ready for an ambush against an unsuspecting enemy. No big surprise in the high casualties with that in mind because anyone can shoot down an enemy who can’t shoot back. And even then you only won a peripheral battle which didn’t even matter seeing as a peace treaty had just been signed but the news hadn’t gotten to where it was supposed to be. Okay, a great psychological boost to catch the enemy napping but it changed nothing, or at least not for the British.
But on the other hand your new army got beaten up badly by an army made up largely of Canadian farmers and other partisans. Pretty embarrassing for you really.
The British kept control of Canada. All you gained out of the war was the chance to take it out on the Indians again, namely Tecumseh’s lot and the other Creeks. Heck, you almost nearly lost some of your people in New England who were that pissed off that they were thinking of breaking away. You pissed off all those businesses in New York who had been doing good trade with the British ever since the revolutionary war ended and you were very lucky not to have faced another army coming over from Europe.
You know what stopped that? Wellington, fresh from victory at Waterloo was asked if he would lead an invasion. But common sense prevailed. He reckoned the expenditure wouldn’t be worth what it would achieve because wars cost lots of money ... and just like us, you had to tighten your belts because you were short of money. Or as we would say here, we were both as skint as @rseholes.
Americans always quote Battle of New Orleans , conveniently forgetting the last major battle of the war, Battle of Fort Bowyer.
In 1814 we took a little trip
@@ryanc970Who's the only superpower, not the Br*****.
For the record:
1. At the time of this war, Toronto didn't exist. The community that did exist was named York. You didn't mention that the Americans captured York, the capital of Upper Canada, and burned it to the ground. That was one reason the British burned Washington after they captured it. Payback.
2. For that matter, Ottawa didn't exist. However, in the aftermath of this war, it was decided to construct the Rideau Canal so as to expedite troop movements should a similar conflict arise again. The building of the canal (1826-1832) created a community at the northern end of the canal system known as Bytown, named after Lieutenant-Colonel John By, the person in charge of building the canal. It was only renamed Ottawa in 1855.
For someone dealing in History, a little more accuracy is in order.
The fire at York has a disputed cause: no one knows who actually started it, but the Americans did try to put it out. It certainly wasn't done under orders.
He is an American, they know shit about history
@@bubbasbigblast8563 the Americans also burned the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, not just government buildings but all private businesses and homes leaving the vast majority of the town homeless in December in Canada, as they retreated, which isn’t disputed, and is another reason the White House was burned.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 With the Death of Pike from the magazine explosion the USA lost control of its troops. Which one specifically started the looting & pillaging is like trying to identify which bean made you fart...
More accuracy? In 13 minutes. 🤣🤣🤣
Didn’t New England almost break away from America too?
No they wanted more power in government.
@@TheIceman567 The South... on the other hand...
@@shindari what during the civil war? That was over keeping their slaves.
There were talks about New England seceding (namely the Hartford Convention, if I recall correctly), but it never seriously amounted to much. New England was never supportive about the war, though.
@@Eggnog18 in fact there was no mention of secession in the Hartford convention.
Americans: We won!
British: We won!
EU players: a white peace it is ...
Mhm
@DIEGO PEREZ GENIS what territory did they gain? The USA was the only one that gained territory West Florida and Carleton island.
@DIEGO PEREZ GENIS not true, the british only held Washington DC for 25 hours and it lead to Baltimore where the British withdrew from the Chesapeake.
@DIEGO PEREZ GENIS I agree it was.
@DIEGO PEREZ GENIS You're talking out of your a**.
US: Declares War
Britain: Repeals trade restrictions before receiving declaration.
US: Well this is awkward…
"Okay so when are we going inform them??"
"We'll send it out on the group of messenger ships."
"Sir, SIR!!! New news from America! Theeeyyyy...... want a war over the trade restrictions...?????"
"Well Jiminy Cricket that was some bloody timing!!!!"
There was a small mention that New England refused to invade Montreal, but you should also mention that New England was close to breaking off from America because of this war, and that when the revolutionary war started it was initially envisioned that New England would be its own country, not all of the 13 colonies. They even flew New England and Massachusetts flags in the battle of Lexington and concord.
This is exactly why I think Boston should be the capital of the US not DC
@@natedoug5305 ew boston
Adversary American Baltimore is in Maryland, not New England
@@natedoug5305 Didnt we seize and hold Boston? And raid DC. I think you need a safer capitol more in land.
@Chayse Larsson Not Toronto. But yes, first you guys commited war crimes and in retaliation your capital was burned down.
Thats what the USA does, commit war crimes and than brags about it as a good thing.
How many presidents are war criminals ? Sry how many aren't? Lol
1:40 START
Thank you
Thanks
Obrigado!
Gracias
Thanks
Canadians: we won!!
Americans: we won!
natives: we lost.....
British: what war?
Uh no. For most Americans it's also "what war?"
And now the uk is a tiny island the size of Florida that’s ruled by a 90 yr old woman
I thought Lonnie Donnegan won
@@leroysanchino the old lady rules over a lot more than the British Isles.
@@leroysanchino Florida will soon be a lot smaller due to failure to act over co2 emissions
It was not England as the act of union between Scotland and England was already in place, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Americans struggle with that concept. In fact England ceased to be an independent sovereign nation in the reign of Edward 1 when it effectively merged with Wales.
@@johnholt890 Americans struggle with it because we're not used to considering such small parts of the globe.
Seriously, there's 8 billion people on the planet; you expect us to care about your intra-island affections?
@asdfbeau hush yank pup, the grown-ups are talking
@@asdfbeauAmericans struggle because they are extremely insular. Most Americans probably couldn’t locate America on a world map let alone England.
No one cares if you care or not, it’s lamentable that most American don’t understand their history.
In 1812, the USA was in a war with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It’s the country the USA can thank for its existence and the country that the USA inherited its legal and common law system from, its language,, many state and Cory names, its system of measurement, its democracy, its bill of rights and its freedoms etc. The country that shaped the modern world for better and worst. Has nothing to do with the population of the world. It’s just about having the facts correct.
It’s embarrassing that you’re proud of your ignorance and I hope it’s not a reflection other Americans.
Spot on. I hate when they use the term England instead of Great Britain at that period of time
Um you missed The Battle of New Orleans in 1815. It was Andrew Jackson's shining moment
Andrew Jackson said the Treaty of Ghent would of been abrogated, and the war continued, if he had lost.
And here I thought his shining moment was that time he nearly bludgeoned a failed assassin to death with his cane and had to be pulled off by his guards. The guy was a monster to the natives but, man, did he ever go hard on basically everything he ever did. XD
I think it's because despite the fact that it's a famous battle, it had no real impact on the war because a peace treaty had already been signed before the battle even happened.
@@treystewart731 yeah, but no one in America knew that because it takes months for news of the treaty to travel from the snow covered fields of Belgium to the rain soaked swamps of Louisiana.
Oh, hey your right. Andrew Jackson kicked ass.
I feel for the native Americans, abandoned by everyone.
Native american woman are hot
@@StruanRobertson29 how?
@@ophiolatreia93 the usual way. Ps gongrats on your name,very noble
At the end..they all settle for the skin colour.
@@farhanmohammad4807 ?
America: Canada needs some freedom
Canadians: Thanks for your concern, but we will politely decline!
Lol
More like “sorry but if it’s okay with you, we politely decline”
@Smited One Their were natives who fought against the british and then switched sides to fight for the british. Some of my Mackenzie side rebelled against the British colonial government in the 1830's as well.
@Smited One Well, 2/3 conflicts that your ancestors helped in were won by the British.
Ryan Gerrard Canadians: ...and why don't you go back to your plantations- perhaps you can also entertain some European autocrats/dictators there.
The Bank Of England's 1st 20 year central bank charter in the USA ended in 1811. The US was able to keep Britain from taking the Louisianan territory, but issued a 2nd, 20 year bank charter in 1816. After it's end in 1836 no other charter would be issued until December 23, 1913, when most of congress had left for holiday, the bankers created a perpetual charter whose shareholders are private.
all wars are banker wars
This is the crux of it.
No mention of the New England Conference in 1812? New England almost broke away from the US.
True, New Englanders saw themselves as a different ethnic group from the rest of Americans, and to a certain extent still do today. When the revolution started in Massachusetts they were originally fighting for New England independence, not independence for all of the 13 colonies.
James O'Malley New Englander is still it’s own defined ethnic group with their own culture today imo. They have more culture than any other part of the country
Ross' burnt the White House Down, same Night or Day a Flag 1st Stilled by Ross was still there... All you need to know... Ross! Ross! Ross!
@Adversary American A longer one yes but a culture is still a culture. America has a culture, they are different from the rest who are nonAmericans and that enough is American which are all an off branch of the New England culture which came from the 13 colonies.
@@jackconnolly5308 They are also the only part of the country that still has a lot of economic ties to the UK,the only other being New York (My state),the buffer state for some reason.
Most Brits forget it happened because it was so insignificant lmao
Defeating Napoleon overshadowed it. We remember Waterloo and Trafalgar, Nelson and Wellington. It was far more important, as otherwise Britain would have been invaded.
Napoleon was a very dangerous military genius and had to be stopped.
Yeah, big powers can't really recall all of the minor conflicts it was embroiled in. Just like the US can't really recall the part it played in the Falklands War. For the US, that was very insignificant as well.
For the US, most of British empires last year's collapsing weren't noticed.
@@compatriot852 Irrelevant but okay😐
@@compatriot852 I'm British and didn't notice, yet you did? You've proper nibbled there mate
This was excellent. Kinda sad you didn’t mention the Battle of New Orleans that happened just after the signing of the peace treaty. I’m from the area and there’s a lot of “pride” in that and it’s pretty much how we ended up with Andrew Jackson being such a major player in the early US. Much love!
Good song
"We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
They also neglected to mention the Battle of Fallen Timbers, which opened the Old Northwest to settlement.
I wondered why it wasn’t mentioned
Also how he escaped with only 71 of his men dead…
You completely overlooked the victorious Battle of Plattsburgh September 11, 1814.
And the British victories of Chrysler's Farm and Chateauguay.
this is the most confusing war because there isn’t an oversimplified video
I like this short documentary! Respectfully, I think Old Hickory and the Battle of New Orleans being omitted is a miss. Though fought after the war was officially over, it is still one of them main things people think of in the War of 1812.
The war was still on as the treaties weren't ratified by both sides, and had the brits won the battle, they would have had every reason to abrogate the treaty and either give the land back to the Spanish or the Indians, halting westward expansion. The battle was a pivotal event in its own right.
It's one of the main things Americans think of, but it was a meaningless battle except for the poor schmucks who died.
It was also one of the only major victories america had during the war
General Brock- a Canadian hero very well remembered
I must say, his last stand at Queenston heights is incredible.
He was not Canadian though, you understand that right?
@@safeysmith6720 I am a Canadian, I know the history of Canada, I know that General Brock was born in the motherland, I know that his leadership was essential in defeating the american invaders. With his planning and preparations in the years before the war of 1812 , with his early victories in the war and the victory on the day of his death he could be identified as the single most important individual in Upper Canada. SO, yes he is a Canadian hero, without him Canada might not exist.
@@rb239rtryou know Canada wasn't a thing yet, right?
1867 formation of Canada and domestic government. 1931 foreign policy control. Finally got a patriated constitution in the 1980s. Since the Canadian constitution was still a British law until the 1980s, one could argue Canada was not an independent nation until then.
Its okay, no need for the little man syndrome. Grew up on the border, nothing but positive experiences with Canadians. Nothing wrong with being part of the British Empire either during that time. Gave us both all the ideals we formed our nations with.
@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle WTF. I think you have the little man syndrome.
All this from me saying that Brock stands as a Canadian hero, which he is. Statues, streets, avenues, university all named after him in respect of what he meant for Canada.
Geesh.
BTW, the creation of Canada has certainly led to a different path for Canada's society vis a vis American society. Good points in both societies, but when the chips are down, one is certainly better.
*grows up in Western NY in the early 21st century, and then learns more of the truth about the war of 1812 from a UA-cam video than ever from school.*
I would call it a win by Britain because it was the US trying to invade Canada which they did not succeed in doing.
But 12:04 states the USA got what it wanted. Nor was the US goal to take Canada
@@TheIceman567
Oh so Jefferson was just joking when he said that taking Canada would be "a mere matter of marching"? Too dumb to google? Don't worry, most Americans are.
@@JB-yb4wn Jefferson wasn’t president in fact he was out of office and retired in Virginia. Your google link littery stated by two Canadian historians “The United States, meanwhile, could claim to have won the war because they didn’t lose any territory in the Treaty of Ghent, says Wesley Turner, a retired associate professor of history at Brock University. “But more importantly, the British ceased supporting First Nations people in their fight against American settlement in the Midwest.”
Although this goal was “barely mentioned by U.S. President James Madison in his War Message,” Turner says, it was central to U.S. ambitions and the reason why U.S. interior states supported the war. Up to 1812, the British had been arming natives defending their lands against U.S. encroachment. Afterwards, the British dropped this support and deserted their allies. With the Treaty of Ghent in place, the United States could move into native lands without fear of British opposition - and they seized the opportunity.”
And…
“The Americans also looked on the conflict as a victorious second war of Independence against Britain, says Macleod. “Seeing themselves as bullied and oppressed by the British Empire, they resorted to war and compelled Britain and the world to acknowledge American sovereignty and American power.”
Might wanna open that link, too dumb to open that google no worries most Canadians are 🤷♂️ouch!
@@JB-yb4wn America is the reason Google exists. Anyone who wants to start a business leaves the stagnating shitholes of Europe and Canada then starts it in the US.
@@JB-yb4wn Jesus bro what’s with all the hate
I really like this video! Not many people know About this war, although it is really interesting!
Indeed!
There was nothing inevitable about American independence.
If the Brits had managed to end one of the other wars it was fighting worldwide it may have had enough to defeat the Frenchie loving traitors.
@@julianshepherd2038 I see what you mean! Perhaps, by the grace of God, we came out on top! 🇺🇸 Yeah, we were traitors to Britain, but the taxes were unfair...
@@julianshepherd2038 There was, but the question was when. Look at Canada and all the others, US would have been much sooner. If Britain won they would be tied up in the Americas and the British Empire might have been far weaker. High cost for little gain.
That's the lesson, they were constantly fighting wars and overplayed their hand taxing the colonies for the 7 years war. They were smart to cut their losses with the Revolutionary War. US was better off rebelling in the long and short term, not getting roped in with the British Empire's interests which benefitted the latter far more than the former at that point.
Ask anyone who lives in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield 😂
No word about the bankers behind this? How about this quote "Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war". Seems kind of relevant.
USA's Mission: take Canada
UK's Mission: Keep Canada
*USA DOESNT TAKE CANADA*
*UK KEEPS CANADA*
USA: well i guess we won
Not what happened the US goal wasn’t to annex Canada at all 😂😂
@@TheIceman567 That literally was one of the Main Goals of the War.
@@anothergermanmapper7754 actually it wasn’t that’s a myth. In fact here is historian Donald Hickey on the subject ua-cam.com/video/GrCzcI0_JaY/v-deo.html
Yeah they cant admit defeat at all lol
@@greenbasterd9112 yeah Canadians can’t
An article in The Smithsonian Magazine about 20 years ago stated several things; Britain had ended slavery in 1807 but US slavers were still trading, sometimes under false, often UK flags. The Royal Navy looked down upon such behavior, hence some of the impressment. Also the article went on to tell how, at that time, many of the "Canadian" colonists were former United Empire Loyalists, former American colonists who did not support the Revolution and had escaped to Canada and who had left friends, often family and properties in the US. As this video explains, many Americans likewise had no stomach for war with their former friends and relatives. Had not "War Hawks" instigated this war, scholars believe that eventual union of the two colonies would have been inevitable, given the common interests of both 'countries' at the time. The War of 1812 put a permanent end to that dream! Also, as taught in Canadian schools, the attack on Washington was felt to be in retaliation for a raid on York (incorrectly labeled as Toronto in the video).
You have done your homework... I'm going to look up that Smithsonian Magazine article... I've seen those points made before far less clearly elsewhere while researching, events.
Thanks for the reference.
Your post deserves more thumbs ups. Thank you.
"Britain had ended slavery in 1807" - - - - Yeah, tell that to Nigeria or the Indian sub-continent.
@@notmyrealname608 colonialism still goes on today. UK not being the only perpetrator!
I think British left Washington shortly after burning it down. It had all the appearance of payback for the American burning of York, current day Toronto. That war likely doesn't occur without the war in Europe. The war likely was the major factor in British seizing Americans at sea. Years later, in early years of Civil War, an American ship seized several Confederate soldiers on a British ship. Lincoln smartly intervened quickly, having the men returned to the British. Lincoln's comment was "One war at a time boys." All this, because some American naval officer was risking war with Great Britain in order to seize a few rebel soldiers who may have been fleeing the war anyway. It seems people never learn.
I like it! One quibble: why no mention of the Battle of New Orleans? I thought for sure you were going to jump in with it after mentioning the month-long lag between the armistice and the end of fighting.
It might be because it had no effect on the outcome of the war. It was just a minor footnote in the grand scheme of things, which is sad to say considering how many people lost their lives in that battle.
@Sean Greenfield it’s not entirely the same, New Orleans ended up happening after the treaty of Ghent. Waterloo happened before Napoleon’s second abdication, Waterloo caused the abdication.
😂
@@archivesoffantasy5560 The battle of New Orleans guaranteed American expansion.
@@spehhhsssmarineer8961 American expansion was going to happen either way. Natives couldn’t stop that onslaught.
The war of 1812 according to my Canadian history teachers:
"lol, we burned down the white house guis!!"
The Canadians never touched the White House
@Adversary American that's adding insult to injury u mean America wanted America to lose talk about loyal
@Adversary American dear lord
@Adversary American to be fair, not many Americans actually supported the revolutionary war with the crown since they were Brits themselves, and thus some never felt obliged to the US at that time especially after the 1812 war started
@Adversary American Hah,that means we claim the burning of the white house,lol.
Great documentary. I continue to be amazed by how much Napoleon accomplished in his lifetime.
He got Joaquin Phoenix to play him in a movie, that is very impressive!😊😊
Imagine if Britain wasn’t fighting Napoleon in Europe….I’m American but I’m damn sure we’d be like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand today if Britain sent their full force against us
yea but they got India instead
Nothing would change apart the queen would be the head of state
It would probably be facing guerilla activities like India and Afghanistan.
Have you heard of the revolutionary war...
@@biggibbs4678 that was before this though and we had help from the Spanish and French
I'm am British and proud but America is close to my heart. I don't know why. It just is.
Fun fact for reading this comment, I had an ancestor disappear at the Roanoke settlement in the 1580s. I also have my family that immigrated in the 50/60s.
America, the UK loves you.
The same from an American living in Britain. This war was a a stalemate.
Despite our countries getting off to a rocky start, most Americans love the UK and we feel the same way about you that you feel about us. 🇬🇧☮️💙💪🇺🇲 Allies forever
Thank :]
The special relationship
virgin "But the British won!!!!!!!" "NOOOOOO" vs the chad "It was a stalemate."
I'd call this one a tie, but the British easily could have won if they actually cared.
This logic pretty much applies to every "big power vs small power" war.
If they did, Napoleon would have the opportunity to strike against the homeland of Britain.
So how do you explain the loss at New Orleans? The Brits got their asses handed to them and sued for peace. Just because they don’t want to remember it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
@@alienlife7754 it seems the US were repeatedly having they're asses handed to them early on tho ay!. And if the treaty had not been signed then the US were inevitably going to loose they're independence. Britain had just defeated one of the largest professional military's in the world at that time so get over yourself.
@The Eagle Beyond The Stars what's false i said nothing about winning or loosing my comment was to the OP his remarks were the UK got they're asses handed to them. Thats false.
The War of 1812 is an interesting conflict in that it's barely mentioned in British history books and most Americans have never heard of it but it's very well known in Canadian culture because it help unite a proto-nation.
it is actually well known in usa, well certain battles of of it, the burning of the capital is known but everyone forgets about the burning of york, and the battle of New Orleans which was an american victory great enough it has a few songs about it.
but to be fair to non-history people the war accomplished very little for both sides, it got british to fuck off messing with american shipping, but realistically by the time it occurred they were about to stop due to napoleon being out of picture. So its no wonder its forgotten.
Yeah they fucked off after burning the white house 🤣
@@liammclaughlin982 the US burnt down the Canadian capital York (Toronto) in 1813 so it cancels out, and sent your limey boys packing at New Orleans
@@liammclaughlin982 Dont say that it hurts my feelings
@@damackabet.4611 Americans choose to gloss over the fact that the battle of New Orleans was a "no play", it occurred after the peace was signed.
What?? No Battle of New Orleans????
It didn't leave any real impact on the war (it was fought after the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed), and I assume was left out for that reason.
@@treystewart731 yes but it was bad ass
It must not have fit the narrative.
@Dod o slightly is reaching
@@feelsweirdman_1823 Defensive battles from fortified positions have been fought against armies 10 times the defender's size and won, it's only natural.
Will anyone ever say that napoleon is one of those people that changed the course of history itself?
I believe Napoleon is pretty universally recognized as a person who changed the course of history
@@nagrom1003 Agreed. His avarice turned France into a European "afterthought," in terms of power, after he was defeated. Russia began taking much greater interest in "European Affairs" after Napoleon invaded them. Napoleon's war was almost certainly a cause of the War of 1812. And, oh yeah, he sold America about ONE THIRD of its' present day territory, all so he could fund his war in Europe.
Also...
Arguments could be made that he planted the seeds that would one day lead to World War One... and everything that came afterward. So yeah... Napoleon, historically, is a pretty big deal.
Yes he made the world a cohesive place - first by winning and then losing otherwise, UK was busy in its empire expansion rather than in fighting in spain, Europe. Russia, USA were not interested in Europe. Germany got unified due to these Napoleonic wars. Often memory of the wars drive the future generations - so the two world wars and previously Napoleon ´s war are driving today’s EU.
Everyone literally says that, all the time. The world we live in today is a direct result of Napoleon's destabilizing the European Powers
Yep, modern military tactics, revolutionary ideas, unification of Italy and Germany. The dissolvement of the HRE, and the indirect creation of all Latin American countries. All came from Napoleon. The world would be a much different place if Napoleon was never born
No mention of Tecumseh.
A man oddly revered by Americans
@@fergusmallon1337 Without Tecumseh, whom held a couple battlefields, there would be no Canada. Fact.
@Wild Celtic-Saxon And a leader, with vision.
@@bradyelich2745 And he got owned
@@bradyelich2745 Back in my high school history classes in the 80s (in Quebec), my teacher spent a fair bit of time on Tecumseh along with the consequences of the War of 1812 both for Canada and for the indigenous people on both sides of the border. He made sure we knew Tecumseh was an important figure in our history. I think he was of the view that Brock got too much credit (not that he didn't deserve some, just that he got utterly lionized because he died in battle) and Tecumseh got overlooked far too much.
The Americans were like “yeah we better begin peace talks now Napoleon is done for otherwise we’re next”😂😂😂
But yet it was the british that offered talks.
tell me you dont know anything about history without telling me you dont know anything about history
You have to talk about Jackson's victory over the British at New Orleans. It helped get Jackson elected the 7th President. He then had a huge impact on history.
Not a good one tho. Dude was a real murderer
@@4realjacob637 i think that was the point
Jackson is the only President to pay off the Federal Debt.
@@4realjacob637 he became the first non-nobility to hold office after succeeding John Quincy Adam's. That being said he was a bloody murderer probably buring in Hell at this point.
No idea what you're talking about.
It's crazy that during this time, Napoleon was also going around waging war on 90 percent of europe
That’s why this war was a stalemate. 😉
Most of the wars napoleon actually didn't start
90 percent of Europe invaded France after the revolution, Napoleon returned the favor.
And got his raw handed to him by the British and Prussians. 😂 Britain was pretty badass. There is no denying it
@@sutty8526 he was fighting whole coliations by the time the brits and prussians beat him he had inexperienced conscripts mostly.......and even then the brits nearly blew it even wellington said it was close.....the real badass was france at this time at war internal and externally off and on for over 20 years basically aganist numerous nations.
Thank you soo much, this was our topic in class and i was researching endlessly in Wikipedia, you just saved my life.
"We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
I'm from Buffalo and we're taught about how the British burned down the settlement during this conflict. There is also a sunken British frigate in the Niagara river off of the Black Rock neighborhood.
Yo Im from buffalo too
After America invaded Canada and burned down Toronto in a war of aggression.
USA : ''lets burn down the Canadian government building, as no one cares''
Canada : ''you think you can get away with that dude''
"We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
It’s not like Canada did anything in response
@@dmeads5663 canada beat back the united states lol
Canada wasn't a country, the fighting was done by British troops@@Quole1234
@@Mark-nx5pk much of the fighting was done by natives and Canadian militia
This was pretty good I think, it could of been a little better like mentioning the battle of New Orleans, but overall it was a good video. 👍
It was fought after the war had finished
Luke Harington yeah exactly but it was a huge win for the Americans but you are right, I do think it could of at least been mentioned.
Please more videos like these!! I LOVE THEM
Excellent history lesson. I'm surprised, though, that the battle of New Orleans wasn't mentioned. Always thought that was key.
That battle happened after the signing of the treaty so had no impact. Even if the British had won, they would still have pulled out. It's a nice side note for America, but nothing more.
@@branstark123 the treaty wasnt ratified yet at the time
@@UserName-om6ft The Treaty of Ghent was signed by the Americans in December, 1814. It wasn't ratified by Congress until February, 1815 because it took that long for the news to travel. For all intents and purposes the war was over when the Battle of New Orleans was fought. It was meaningless and had no impact on whether or not Congress ratified the treaty. Split hairs if you must. I guess Yankee pride demands it.
@@JohnCampbell-rn8rz if the treaty was signed why did the British try to invade New Orleans anyway and STILL lose? treaty signed or not the British still invaded New Orleans with the intention of nullifying the Louisiana purchase, the British didnt recognize the Louisiana purchase and the territory still belonged to Spain as far as the British were concerned, the British had their own ambitions with their invasion attempt at New Orleans but failed miserably, same with the failed British invasions at Plattsburgh and Baltimore, i understand you were born in the UK and all that so you want to try and hype the UK up as much as possible to comfort your national ego and bias and you try to ignore facts and brush British failures under the rug when they dont suit your narratives and brush American successes under the rug but it wont work, you cant change historical reality just because you dont like it
@@UserName-om6ft cope yankee
How can you not mention the Battle of New Orleans?
The battle was Andrew Jackson's shining moment
It is a really important battle and I thought he was gonna bring it up, but it did technically happen after peace was made. the people fighting didn't know about it though.
It technically happened after the end of the war? Although I agree that a mentioning would of been due a mention
Burning the White House and the Battle of New Orleans are the only events 95% of the people know about this war.
The battle of New Orleans was fought very close to the end of the war. People today act like it could have easily been avoided but when you look at the date the peace deal was signed (Feb 18th 1815) and the date the battle was fought on (Jan 8th 1815) it is hard to still make that argument. Especially when you remember the war was fought more then 200 years ago and that it was the British who started up the battle of New Orleans by invading it. It is a good thing the war did end when it did though. Because had the peace deal been delayed until the battle I'm sure that would have ended the peace talks unless the British were willing to settle for a deal further in favor of the Americans.
Basically, War of 1812 was one big cluster f for both sides.
Yeah, and thanks to that we are not British subject - God Shave the Queen! "We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
@@juansantana8448 wtf are you talking about, there’s nothing I can find which states that Britain wanted to take back the Americans during this war lol.
Why do you think so? Americans started a war, sent a quarter million soldiers over the border to capture land, and they utterly failed, and came out with a patriotic song about surviving the war they started. Britain stopped them.
Why not talking about the ''Bataille de la Châteauguay'' where 300 French-Canadian and 20 natives routed an army of 3000 U.S soldiers? It stop the U.S advance on Montreal and was a key event in the war?
@Warlightor sour grapes
Most battles were like that. E.g Chrysler farm saw 800 British, route an American army of 9,000
As a Brit I am proud to say our history and blood are inter twined , that we are brothers in arms to face today's world .
Very true much love to the UK 🇬🇧🤝😂 my fiancé and kids are British btw.
🤢
🇺🇲❤️🇬🇧
The world doesn't look at it like brothers. More like a master and his pet dog.
@@Kam-King213yea but this dog bites 😂
I mean, by the end, the Americans did technically get what they set out for. The British stopped funding Native resistance and stopped its trade restrictions (again). They were far weaker than the British, but put up enough of a fight that the British saw fit to meet their demands in the peace accords. By achieving what they set out to do when the war started, the Americans did win. But the British also did much of what they set out to do, stopping the American push into Canada and keeping the war mostly on American soil. In that regard, the British won.
It’s one of the rare examples where both sides ended up getting most of what they wanted. The British won the fighting, the Americans won the treaty.
Are you British ?
That's about how I've seen the war for a while now. We won diplomatically they won militarily. A draw if there was ever one.
@@piperjj4486 plus Canada won from their perspective also. Really brings a new meaning to "everyone's a winner"🏆
The US did not get all of what they set out for, they attempted to take Canadian land and never got anything, the British played nice and gave the US what they got and a peace treaty when they could of crushed the US and taken the colonies back.
A major argument for Britain having been victorious is their major victories, however if you study the history of the War of 1812, then you will see that these major battles touted by the British side as significant turning points such as the Battles of Cryslers' Farm, Queenstown Heights, and the Siege of Detroit were early in the War and had little significance, since Detroit would later be recaptured in an even bigger battle by the Americans and the US would go onto win most of the battles in Canada after that (Without claiming territory), in fact the whole invasion of Upper Canada became nothing more than a series of raids and punitive attacks rather than conquest after the first US expedition failed to inspire the Canadians to ally with the US. Americans would have to be willing to settle Upper Canada for the Americans to attempt conquest and it was already settled by Loyalists and northern Indians whom no one wanted to live around, also New Englanders wouldn't have settled on behalf of the US; in fact the final major battles of the War of 1812 were all won by the Americans - Battle of Fort Erie, Battle of York, Battle of The Thames, Battle of Baltimore, Battle of Plattsburgh, Battle of New Orleans, ...etc the list goes on. These were the last major battles of the War with only one British victory at Bladensburg that later saw that same invasion force defeated worse at Baltimore, and so the British enjoyed very little success on the battlefield later on in the war suffering constant big defeats such as all those aforementioned battles to the Americans. The early victories that the British and Canadians take so much pride in would have been a figment of the past and the more recent American victories would have demoralized them into accepting the Treaty and not continuing invasions of America to bolster their fur trade and Indian Buffer States. If you read articles from British newspapers at the time, you'll find they spoke of the War as a letdown and a bad situation because at the time, they would have felt all those major battles the Americans were winning late in the War of 1812.
He failed to mention that US troops and their Indian allies burned Queenston, the capitol of Upper Canada. The Brittish burned Washington in retaliation.
Let is be known that the fire were not done by any such orders, and the Americans did try to put it out.
Washington was burned in retaliation for the Americans taking over Fort York for a week or so.
@@misaelfraga8196 I've never heard that before, I'd believe it but I'd like to see some evidence for it before putting my faith into that statement.
Britain went beast mode when they burned the whitehouse to the ground lol
York (Toronto) was captured and the parliament and other gov buildings were burned. The White House was razed in retaliation.
Look at the Battle of New Orleans we destroyed most of your navy and killed 30-50 thousands British while only losing 5 Americans lol
LOL
@@WuzzyYT That is completely ridiculous numbers. You must be using that for emphasis. The Battle of New Orleans was actually fought after the Peace was declared.
@@WuzzyYT Just looked it up. Total British casualties were just over 2000 of those 285 were dead, 1285 wounded and 484 captured. US lost 13 dead and about 40 wounded. A thorough trouncing but not to the level you indicated.
So essentially, the empire strikes back
except they couldnt strike back 😂
At what?
The empire did strike back after France won in 1776
I'm kind of surprised Winfield Scott's capture at Queenston Heights wasn't mentioned.
the battle of Queenston Heights was largely ignored even though it was Issac Brocks finest victory.
This video has some minor inaccuracies however I'm not going to gripe about such a controversial and pointless war
Careful in mentioning the 1812 war, at least in Canada. A side show for the British, Napoleon's war was the focal point for the UK.
The looses were the native indian tribes.
Are you British?
Why be careful mentioning the war in Canada? Canadians love this war.
@@chocomanger6873 lol
@@TheIceman567l am, and on a trip by rail across Canada, l mentioned to my wife a brief comment on the war of 1812, that was overheard by the couple in the seat ahead, who vigorously put me right, then a chap in the seat behind embellished matter further. Only our English accents saved us ..
@@Aubury Yeah and you copied and pasted that from where? I heard that before.
Based on the timeline given here, the outbreak of the war is inexplicable. President Madison was seeking reelection in 1812. He hoped a war with Britian would boost his chances. Why would he think this? Because the War Hawks had done very well in the 1810 midterms. Congress had abolished the War Department earlier that year. In other words, the politicians didn't see the War Hawks coming until they arrived.
Then what was the Secretary of War, William Eustis doing then? Sticking his thumb up his ass?
Another scuffle causing tensions at the time, although to a lesser degree, was the rivalry between US and Britain on the frontier to capture the fur trade, particularly in Oregon territory. US fur trappers established a trading post on the mouth of the Columbia just before British trappers arrived and elbowed the US trappers out. After 1812, the countries agreed to shared exploitation of the territory, which removed the international factor and placed the rivalry on the local companies themselves. Eventually, US expansion and emigration would convert Oregon into a US territory.
Hmmmm, I would not call that a victory, considering the political disaster that Cali, OR and WA are currently!
A lesser degree!!! You think!
Britain's tiny island was at war with Napoleons French & allies among others .
Our army was spread around the world building the biggest empire ever known.
...lol, fur trade wars , definitely of lesser significance..
I guess that's why British schools don't mention it.
..hmm let's talk Napoleon or fur wars lol ..
The British were busy taking over the world.
British soldier knocking on the door of the white house: "Hello Dolly?"
@Johannes whos the whole world according to you? no one outside of the US, UK, and Canada know about the war of 1812 it was minor in comparison to the revolutionary war which Britain lost and the US won, and by the way nope the UK didnt win the war of 1812 either, even the great British Duke of Wellington Arthur Wellesley and later the official prime minister of the United Kingdom himself concluded that the war of 1812 was a draw (meaning not a British victory) and the peace negotiations should not make territorial demands
and i quote: "I think you (Britain) has no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America. [...] You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power. [...] Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, does not entitle you to demand any." the fact that the Duke of Wellington himself concluded that the British did NOT win the war of 1812 then thats good enough for me, the UK did not win the war of 1812 its as simple as that
The Battle of New Orleans was fought AFTER the Treaty of Ghent, but was still a main factor as to why the US believed they won the war. It was a smashing victory for the United States, even though it didn't affect the peace treaty. However, it increased feelings of nationalism, patriotism, and optimism in the US and ushered in the Era of Good Feelings.
And there was that stupid song
It also kept the British from controlling commerce on the Mississippi and thereby slowing down US expansion westward. It was a critical battle.
- Wins a battle after the treaty has confirmed a stalemate
- that battle shows we won
?
@@larrymatrale1368 IT was not not nearly as critical as it is made out to be by America. It was against a diversonary force designed to draw out American soldiers. And it did.
@@Whoami691 It was critical. The Treaty of Ghent stated that whatever you controlled at the end of the war , you got to keep. That would have given the British control of New Orleans and by default most of the Mississippi River commerce. That definitely would have had an impact on American growth.
Thank you that was well stated and well explained, an excellent 13 minutes.
so basically a phone call could've stopped all of this 😂
“This war could have been an email”
The American Army performed so badly, that it was decided something must be done about that.
So, West Point was founded to develop trained military commanders.
It worked pretty well.
@@AzaiReacts "nowhere close to a superpower" lmao
west point been there ages before this little skirmish
@@leescott1775 It was established in 1802 for the education of military engineers.
AFTER War of 1812, it was expanded to actually team military sciences -- leadership, logistics, strategy, artillery, etc.
That was done because of the poor showing of US Army commanders. The incompetence (cowardice?) in the "invasion" of Canada was particularly embarrassing. Also, the failure to defend our capitol was another reason.
@@craigkdillon thanks craig for the info, seen another video about revolutionary war and was something about Benedict Arnold and West point i seen to rememder, any more info pal
@@leescott1775 Yes, West Point was a fort in the Revolutionary War. Benedict Arnold planned to turn the fort over to the British, but was found out. He had to flee.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica "Battle of Plattsburgh, also called the Battle of Lake Champlain, (6-11 September 1814), battle during the War of 1812 that resulted in an important American victory on Lake Champlain that saved New York from possible British invasion via the Hudson River valley." I realize this video is a very brief summary but I was surprised this battle wasn't mentioned.
The British had no intention of invading the U.S., except to discourage them from their futile effort to conquer British North America.
In Portuguese history books this war is like 2 lines within pages and pages of the Napoleonic wars. What a nice coalition victory!
This war wasn’t apart of the European war.
@@TheIceman567 it was a part of the napoleonic wars, and a minor part at that.
Remember that the USA was a relatively small and insignificant country outside of north America at the time, France and Britain were in a power struggle to be top dog, Portugal and Spain were probably still more important countries in global influence than the USA at the time, which was probably about level with Prussia at the time.
@@theant9821 I don’t doubt that. The fact is the USA just wanted to be left alone.
@Dank Waifu not apart of that war it’s was its own war.
@Dank Waifu but didn’t involve Napoleon
Conspicuous by it's absence is the mention of the Battle of New Orleans. Although the Treaty of Ghent had been signed, the news didn't reach the United States for about a month and both sides continued to fight vigorously. General Andrew Jackson commanded forces that drove the British into a pocket in and around New Orleans, and in a pitched battle stretching over about a week, the British were forced to surrender.
There were a couple of key reasons why, 1) The Americans had mostly rifles, that could outrange the British smoothbore musket, and was far more accurate. 2) A critical mistake the British made was to stack up what was available for fortification, they had a large quantity of burlap sugar bags from the local sugar cane crop, and when they got wet, sticky and gooey. When we shot bullets and cannon balls into these bags, the sticky goo/syrup got into the lock work of their cannons and muskets, and they could not fight effectively. A surrender was negotiated.
News of the victory reached Washington at the same time as news of the peace treaty, and in the popular imagination and the newspapers of the time, Americans credited the Battle of New Orleans with British peace, and Andre Jackson did nothing to disabuse them of this error, and rode the game into the Presidency. A footnote from the American side.
I didn't think much of this doc
Interesting tidbit you might like to know is that the British diplomats were delaying the treaty to give the British forces a chance to take New Orleans and handicap American expansion
I just thought I would mention that the Americans were forced in to surrender because the brits and Canadians won the war
@@snazzydares8787 actually they didn’t. Where did the USA surrender I’d love to read this. Fiction can be fun 😂😂 in fact 12 minutes literally states what the USA got. Britain failed in its goal of a natives Indian buffer state, Maine( which the British occupied east port Maine until 1818) and Minnesota to control the upper Mississippi. Doesn’t sound like the British won any thing while the USA got West Florida after forcing the British out, the Northwest territory it had been fight over since 1785 end of impressing and British support for the natives. Study before commenting you won’t embarrass yourself next time.
Mate we burned down your White House and the peace treaty at the end of the war the British wanted most of the Louisiana perches the only reason we didn’t was because it would upset the balance of power in Europe.
Love US and UK from 🇵🇭🇵🇭
Presumably that's Czechia? If so I have been obsessed with the Czechoslovak legion in WW1 recently :)
@@Delogros it’s the Philippines 🙄
@@TheIceman567 i think it's sarcasm
@@NONO-oy1cu it’s not trust me
@@TheIceman567 i meant that he is being sarcastic
You skipped the Lake Ontario Theatre (Burning of York, Oswego, Sackett's Harbour), which had effects on the Lake Erie campaign and the Burning of Washington. Canadians often also cite this war as influential in the development of Canadian identity separate from the strictly British one, though your mileage may vary
"We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
I love Knowledgia! They inspired my sci-fi/futurist channel!!
no they didnt you scab.
You said that Binkov's Battlegrounds did, you scumbag
A very good intro to the war. for context.....but no mention of Plattsburgh, Bladensburg and New Orleans surprised me
I like how the Natives are depicted with few to no guns, when that definitely wasn't the case.
Quite discouraging that you didn't mention the Battle of Chateauguay at all. It was quite an important battle and very few people know about it today. In fact, many streets in Quebec today are named De Salaberry after the French Canadian commander. Moreover, from what I understand most of the force was French Canadian and Native, making their victory all the more prominent in the annals of Quebec history.
There are other mistakes/oversights but others have already mentioned them.
All the same, thank you for making the video, keep it up!
I appreciated that you put the appropriate amount of time into describing the important role the Natives played in this war, one of the last conflicts where Natives would sway the balance of power in a meaningful way.
Yeah, I agree! And just to add on there is the town of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield that is also named after Charles-de-Salaberry
He literally did right hers 10:56
No mention of Tecumseh or the swamp battle of New Orleans?
The lack of any discussion of the battle of New Orleans is a major flaw in this presentation. It showed that despite British victories, defeating the Americans would not be a matter of just showing up. Britain was the world power and had numerous other commitments (esp. India) that were more important than North America. As it was after the war Britain suffered a terrible depression that led to widespread labor unrest. The ministers had lots to think about than the plight of the native Americans or the expansion of the USA into the "Great American Desert."
Had the British won the battle of New Orleans they would have seized Louisiana territory which would have been devastating to the United States and it's very unlikely Andrew Jackson would've became president
Britain kicked ass for hundreds of years and we a small island
Well this war ended in a stalemate.
@PJDesseyn1 yeah it did here we go time to put you in your place...
@PJDesseyn1 the USA didn’t gain any ground? The war wasn’t over Canada. In fact the inky country that demanded any land was the British an Indian buffer state, Maine (which the British held on to east port Maine until 1818) and Minnesota to control the upper Mississippi. The reason for the USA decorating war was because of the British actions of impressment orders in council and supporting the stoves all actives. Also the USA gained West Florida and Carleton island in the war. As for the burning of Washington it had no affect on the war and lead to the British defeat at Baltimore which forced to retreat from Chesapeake and including Plattsburgh forced Britain to drop off to demands on land and offer status quo antebellum. Busy with real war? Napoleon was defeated in April 1814 Britain sent the forces of Wellington’s over and all they could do was burn washing and be defeated else where. You do also know the USA won more battle on land and sea during the war right? Please learn about the war before you comment you’ve just make yourself look like an idiot.
@PJDesseyn1 oh and Britain’s own native allies turning sides and joking with the USA in the 2nd treaty of Greenville in 1814.
@PJDesseyn1 actually I do I’ve been studying this war for over 10 years and I’m from the Niagara area the bloodiest area of the war. Oh my god you’re an idiot Napoleon was first defeated in April 1814 and sent to the island of Elba. Yeah America attacked because the British were attacking American shipping impressing sailors and supporting native attacks on the frontier did you even watch the video? Yes, and the invasion of Canada went well, Tecumseh confederacy was defeated and the USA held land. Even taking Carleton island. Once more please learn about the war before you comment. You made yourself look very dumb.
If it wasn't for napoleon the UK would've easy kicked US ass
Napoleon was defeated during the war. The last 11 months seem Wellington’s troops fight and lose every major battle.
Those conflicts were costly, I must admit.
Not sure I agree with the comment at 8:15 saying the British were well prepared. They were in Europe because of Napoleon but in Canada Brock had next to nothing to fight a much larger US army which is why they went on the offensive and acquired the aid of the Natives. At least that's what I've always read and heard from various sources.
Technically the US regular army was only twice as large as Brocks British regulars and the British regulars in 1812 where noticeably better (as you would expect from a country that had been at constant war for 20 years vs a country that had been at peace) but the US had massive militia forces available which is where the real disparity in forces comes from at the start of the war, something like 300,000 people in British colonies and a few Million in the USA, might be as high as 7 Million I don't off hand remember.
Love the chapter titles, I never knew the challenger disaster occurred in 1812
I really feel pity for the native Americans !!
🏵️🏵️🏵️🙏
🇳🇵Love from Nepal !!!
It’s always the native populations that get the short end of the stick.
@@dragoonTT 👏🌹🙏
US: starts war
UK: U are on a suicide mission
USS Constitution: It's okay, your cannonballs just bounce right off me, anyways.
@@GreatWhiteNanuk yup
I felt the video was slightly bias towards the Americans, but it was very informative and well written
I know quite a bit of British history and historians.
If anyone has bias in their history it's definitely Britain
@@4realjacob637 The British don’t lie about their history, the Americans think they won the Vietnam War for heaven’s sake!
@@phoenixrose1192 most British people don't know that Winston Churchill killed hundreds of thousands in India because he refused to send food.
British are told that their weaponry and tactics were better than everyone else's in WW2. That their "spitfire" was the best fighter in the war.
That their "resolve" stopped Hitler.
Also told that American revolution was not a big deal in Britain because Britain has many colonies. (Tad complex to show how false that narrative is but I can show)
Also as to Vietnam the facts are:
The US forces never once lost a major strategic battle in Vietnam.
US killed the enemy around 10:1
After bombing the North all parties made a peace agreement.
Due to their agreement all US forces left Vietnam.
Saigon fell after the NVA tested the US in the US didn't respond.
Since there was no military goal that could have been obtained by the US and no goal was achieved in the end it's more off a wash but because of events afterwards I agree it was a political, and diplomatic defeat.
@@4realjacob637 You make lots of assumptions about an entire nation of people, and no we are aware of the Bengal famine. We are not told we were the best during WWII, but it is true that Britain did play a significant role in the defeat of Hitler as well.
Well it is true, the 13 colonies were not as significant as the Caribbean was for the British at the time, for example. So that’s hardly a lie told through bias. It was one of the reasons why the war became so unpopular with the people and politicians alike.
As for Vietnam...yes that’s equates to losing the war like I said. Yet, your compatriots can’t seem to accept the loss for what it was.
@@phoenixrose1192 the American colonies were closing in on 1/3 of all British Citizen's population. Real reason for British to tick off colonials so much was because they feared American representation in the government would eventually reach a majority.
But I'd agree that not all British people are told lies cause there's a spectrum like anything. But if you know how American history is taught to Americans today it's hypercritical at higher levels of education.
Not that I want other countries to be hyper critical like today in American history because it discredits the work that created the best living conditions ever.
The war of saving face, Where a country that was about to get everything they wanted from another country that couldn't be bothered anymore, and declared war anyway. While that country with much bigger issues (Like bankrupting itself trying to fight France) fought anyway just to not seem weak
A British officer of the time said it was an unnatural war between kindred peoples and he was glad it was over.
Yes, that was John Le Couteur
Right, that is what the brits would like to believe and make believe, but they "forgot, there were many other nations in the US territory, and the brits and their descendants are just one the many. "We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
@@juansantana8448 I mean the spaniards were Just one of the many aswell, their Business was slaughtering natives as it was the US's
@@juansantana8448 The original 13 Colonies were overwhelmingly British, with some German and Dutch. The dominant language was and still is English, Culture, Law system and political structures were based on British. So what on earth are you talking about😆
Britain is like everywhere in the world by then, Africa Asia America. Their influence were huge and long lasting everywhere!!
"We fired one shot and the brits begun a running on down the Mississippi. to the Gold of Mexico..."
@@juansantana8448 I've seen this comment. But we didn't run. You had 3 Major superpowers.
Your flag is from Washington's family coat of arms back in England. and the tune of your national anthem is an old drunken Britain song
Your laws are from the Magna carter 🤷🏻. what is is your won exactly. You needed Britain to build your industrial revolution and you needed Britain as an allie. Dont be be complete knob! Whats worse is that it was British subjects against British subjects. There Was little European influence in the US at that time. Oh and what happened to taking Canada. Canada still doesn't want to be part of the US.
Seems like it was a reluctant war on both sides followed by an eager peace on both sides. What a strange and unnecessary war it was.
Waste of time.We should've rethought it.
@Darryl Movold Canadain people did not want and still doesn't want to be part of America.
nice video man thanks for the info!!💯
Isn't it true that Madison wanted to declare war on both France and England ? Especially to quell ideas that he was being used by Napoleon or that he showed favour towards France. I believe there is a letter he sent to Jefferson where he states his desire to declare war on both.
I believe he was talked out of it as declaring war on France was pointless, what could they do, but England could be attacked through attacking Canada
I'm subbing just cus of that map design lol
The Americans were genetically English anyway so it's a win on both sides for the English
In the 1800s , the US was receiving millions of German and Irish immigrants who couldn't care less about the UK
That time 85% of Americans had British heritage
I enjoyed learning about history from you 😊
To be fair the native Americans deserved their independents
It was their land and, also another point. I think the UK won because they had the most victory and managed to set fire to the capital of the US
The USA had most of the victories achieved actually
Also, the burning of Washington had no impact.
@User Name true
Doesnt matter how many battles a nation win. They still lost the war
@@TheIceman567 no they didn’t the uk dog walked over the us
There was no “Republican” Party in 1812. There was a “Democrat-Republican” Party which is really the forerunner of the modern Democrat Party
*jeffersonian republican (democratic-republican)
It's a myth that the Democratic-Republican party was the forerunner only of the modern Democrats. It was the forerunner of the Republicans, too. The Republicans of 1854 explicitly named their party in honor of Jefferson's party, claiming to be Jefferson's true heirs. The Democrats really trace their origin to Jackson, the Republicans to the Whigs. Both the Whigs and Democrats were all Jeffersonian Republicans.
This war is largely forgotten. I had no idea it had even existed until I opened my first history book. And also the Battle of New Orleans wasn't mentioned at all in this video.
Were you not taught about this in American History class in high school or had Obama already abolished American History with common core when you were in high school?
@@williamburns460---I learned about it when I went to my first history class. 20 years ago.
@@williamburns460 because the US won't tell us we lost a war ever. Vietnam war won't be known if it was not still remembered with many veterans.
Technically not a war as war was never declared Vietnam was a peace keeping mission we got screwed into by France
@@tommark3015---Nope. America did declare war. It was just for an odd reason.