Historical Misconceptions - Where is "popular" history completely wrong?

[Järv]

Well I would not be surprised if there were internal aggression among various tribes, but it stretches credibility for a complete reversal to be true. Unless my sociology profs, all four that I had, were wrong.

As a psychology prof I can assure your the my dear colleagues from the sociology department are always wrong.

Edit: Double post, sorry.

[thecryptile]

The War of 1812 is sometimes called The Second American Revolution, and was fundamental in the formation of our nation. Ever since its end, both Americans and Canadians have claimed victory. The British understandably are less interested in the subject, with many regarding it as a sideshow to the Napoleonic Wars.

One of the primary reasons for the war was a dispute over whether one could renounce being a British subject and become an American citizen. Ultimately, the UK came around to the US POV.

For whatever reason, the Royal Navy stopped pressing American sailors. Britain's native allies were crushed. A victory for the US.

British attacks on Baltimore, New York and New Orleans were repulsed. The American attacks on Canada were repulsed. Draw.

Did the US burn down London? No, although we burnt the capital of Canada. A point for the British perhaps, but not the Canadians.

What war aims did either side ultimately achieve? The treaty restored status quo ante bellum. The definition of a draw.

[TrueMetis]

What war aims did either side ultimately achieve? The treaty restored status quo ante bellum. The definition of a draw.

Not when one country is aiming to conquer the other. The British side was aiming for the status quo. In what crazy fucking world is "preventing the aggressors from conquering us" a draw? Do you think the British were trying to reclaim the original 13 colonies or something?

[delete this account pls]

The magic potion Asterix had might not have actually been magic, and almost certainly didn't make him "invincible".

[thecryptile]

Yeah the War of 1812 started off as a war of expansion, but when that failed, it was a struggle to survive. That the US endured could be seen as a victory, but they had hopes of conquering the whole continent and failed in that respect.

Not when one country is aiming to conquer the other. The British side was aiming for the status quo. In what crazy fucking world is "preventing the aggressors from conquering us" a draw?

The insanely awesome world of the USA. You [both] understandably see the War of 1812 primarily as an invasion of your homeland. In the US we don't think of it that way. We think of it as a reaction to the British attempting to strangle our infant democracy.

Conquering Canada wasn't the primary casus belli or American war aim of the War of 1812. That was a side project that was embarked upon mainly because we thought it would be easy, and that the Canadians (many of whom at that time were American immigrants) would welcome liberation from the evil British Empire. As it turned out, that wasn't the case.

No, the primary cause of the War of 1812 was friction between the British Empire and Americans over the Napoleonic wars. The British were impressing our sailors, blockading our trade with France, and stirring up Native powers like the Shawnee to harass American settlements.

All of these perfidious acts of aggression against our Noble Republic were quelled by the treaty. We kept the same borders, while the British pressing and blockade ended. Most Americans call it a win. In fact, if you ask the Average Joe, he'll most likely tell you that America has won every war it has ever fought save for Vietnam.

Do you think the British were trying to reclaim the original 13 colonies or something?

If a re-conquest had been feasible, I'm sure the British would have embarked upon it.

Thanks for weighing in with a Canadian perspective, TrueMetis [and Demonblade].

[MinDonner]

In fact, if you ask the Average Joe, he'll most likely tell you that America has won every war it has ever fought save for Vietnam.

We did, once upon a time, have a boarder here who insisted that the US won Vietnam because the Vietnamese failed to conquer/invade/occupy the US.

Most Brits don't even really think of 1812 (US version) as a separate war; it was just a sideshow battle as part of the Napoleonic wars, which were against the dastardly French and thus far more important.

[The Killer Snark]

Dogtanian was not really a dog, at least not originally, though he was in the cartoon. He was actually based upon a character in a novel by Alexander Dumas called The Three Musketeers, in case anyone wants to Google it, but the actual character Dogtanian was based on didn't actually exist.

[sologdin]

the US we don't think of it that way

well, i do, considering that the US also tried and failed to conquer jolly canadia land in the first go.

[A wilding]

Dogtanian was not really a dog, at least not originally, though he was in the cartoon. He was actually based upon a character in a novel by Alexander Dumas called The Three Musketeers, in case anyone wants to Google it, but the actual character Dogtanian was based on didn't actually exist.

d'Artagnan did actually exist ...

[Ormond]

d'Artagnan did actually exist ...

Actually there were also real men that Athos, Porthos, and Aramis were based on, though I think in there is no evidence that any of them actually knew d'Artagnan while he was alive.

Amazingly, the column I wrote on the names of the Musketeers back in October 2011 still seems to be accessible online:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111018/LIVING/710189997

[wolverine]

IIRC my college professor basically said we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812. He was a pretty smart guy, but I have never checked up on what he told us. That is not to say that we actually won or lost though.

[Stag Country]

IIRC my college professor basically said we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812. He was a pretty smart guy, but I have never checked up on what he told us. That is not to say that we actually won or lost though.

I reality all 3 nations, the US, Canada, and Britain were winners in 1812.

The US didn't stop the impressment of sailors or seize Canada (which was not actually a war aim at the onset), but they did secure a major victory over a number of Indian nations that had been backed by the empire, which, in turn, freed the US for westward expansion and settlement. The war also helped to solidify the nation and set it on a couse of permanenet interdependence. The war also helped develop an appreciation for a strong Navy, which may not have become as critically important to us without the conflict.

In Canada, it served to create a sense of nationalism and a sense of self-reliance (it was horribly misplaced in it's origins, but helped the country grow nonetheless).

Britain, of course, successfully defended their colony and in showing a willingness and ability to defend it's colonial possessions, even while at war with a major european power, helped itself in future negotiations with the US, which, for the most part, were largely peaceful over the next several centuries.

Ultimately, because nothing actually changed hands, and no perceived grievances lingered after the war, the 3 countries entered into relatively peaceful relations ever since, which I tihnk everyone can agree was a win.

[thecryptile]

well, i do, considering that the US also tried and failed to conquer jolly canadia land in the first go.

LOLZ- you know you aren't exactly an Average Joe, solo. Your opinions and beliefs do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the majority of Americans.

The invasion of Canada wasn't a primary war aim, it was more like a side-project that was started because we thought it would be a cake-walk; and we thought of it more as "liberation" than "conquest".

Americans thought that the Canadians would welcome them with open arms given how many Canadians were American emigres. They forgot that the reason most of them left the US in the first place was that they were die-hard Tories.

Ultimately, because nothing actually changed hands, and no perceived grievances lingered after the war, the 3 countries entered into relatively peaceful relations ever since, which I tihnk everyone can agree was a win.

That's a good point, and a unique perspective. I haven't heard that argument before.

In my view, there were no winners and the losers were the Native peoples.

[Antonius Pius]

The magic potion Asterix had might not have actually been magic, and almost certainly didn't make him "invincible".

But it did give him a warm, fuzzy feeling? Otherwise, what's the point?

[The Iceman of the North]

The magic potion Asterix had might not have actually been magic, and almost certainly didn't make him "invincible".

Bah, there's plenty of documentation out there that proves you wrong. Where do you come up with these crack theories?

[The Killer Snark]

It was most likely an early Druidic version of absinthe, IMO, which actually does give you an invincible feeling until you try to stand and realise you're going numb in the legs.

[maarsen]

That is basically the only thing most Brits know about the War of 1812. By which I mean "most Brits who know about the War of 1812 at all", which is in itself a fairly small minority. It's pretty much completely overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars in our historical recollection.

Brits don't know much about the War of 1812 because only about a thousand British troops actually participated. Most of the fighting was done by the colonial militias from Upper and Lower Canada, and native allies from the territories that the Americans wanted to expand into. There was no such colony or country named Canada yet. Washington was burned in response to the burning of York or Muddy York as it was called then, and it was not yet the capital of Upper Canada. I think that was still in Kingston. Canadian militias, with just a few British troops, actually did all the damage and repulsed every attempt to invade the Canadas. Right now our government is pushing the 200th anniversary of the war to draw attention away from their mishandling of the economy. The real reason the war did not end so well for the Americans was that their generals tended to be political appointees with no military skill or knowledge. Look up the Battle of Crysler's Farm sometime.

Canadians figure we won because we are still here and threw off every attempt to invade.

[maarsen]

Richard only spent little time in England because he ruled from his French holdings. I mean the guy didn't even speak English.

Les Anglais did not speak English yet either. I am pretty sure they spoke Anglo-Saxon still. Richard would have been raised to speak French

[maarsen]

There is no certainty on this, but I can say every single resource I have ever read in undergrad and grad school has attested to Richard's complete inability to speak English. He only spent roughly 6 months in England throughout his entire reign and his childhood in England was ridiculously insular (some attribute his poor temperament to this). His notoriously uncaring attitude about his English holdings (so much so that he supposedly exclaimed he would sell the whole of England, if he could find a buyer) only reinforces this. It is worth mentioning that some historians utilize the prosecution of William Longchamp in 1191 as proof that Richard may have spoken English, however poorly. This is because one of the primary charges leveled against him was his inability to speak English; however, they are also forthright that Richard's exemption from this may simply have been a royal prerogative. The source for this is the 2004 republication of The Place of War in English History, 1066-1214.

I can't speak for when you were in school, but not I, nor anyone else in my department, teaches that the US won the War of 1812. Frankly I don't know anyone that does. In truth, most of us actually understate the achievements of the US. We do argue that the War of 1812 was essential in the solidification of a sense of American identity, if you want to describe that as "winning".

One of my favorite topics to discuss with my peers is who is really deserving of the completely worthless title "First Modern Democratic Republic". Some argue Corsica's government under Napoleon's childhood hero, Pasquale Paoli, some that it is the Dutch Republic, others insist on arguing that it was the 1st French Republic. I actually had a professor who argued that it was Poland following the Nihil novi Act of 1505, which is interesting to say the least.

Iceland has had a functioning democracy since it was settled by the Norse. Well over a thousand years ago.

[Stag Country]

Brits don't know much about the War of 1812 because only about a thousand British troops actually participated. Most of the fighting was done by the colonial militias from Upper and Lower Canada, and native allies from the territories that the Americans wanted to expand into. There was no such colony or country named Canada yet. Washington was burned in response to the burning of York or Muddy York as it was called then, and it was not yet the capital of Upper Canada. I think that was still in Kingston. Canadian militias, with just a few British troops, actually did all the damage and repulsed every attempt to invade the Canadas. Right now our government is pushing the 200th anniversary of the war to draw attention away from their mishandling of the economy. The real reason the war did not end so well for the Americans was that their generals tended to be political appointees with no military skill or knowledge. Look up the Battle of Crysler's Farm sometime.

Canadians figure we won because we are still here and threw off every attempt to invade.

Not sure where you are getting the numbers. That's really not what happened in the war with regard to the number of British troops or their participation. At the onset of the war there 6,000 British regular troops stationed in North America so that's 6 times the number you were already giving and that's just on the day war was declared. Most of the fighting in the war was NOT done by Canadian militias. That's a popular misconception in Canada that simply is not true.

The first US invasion alone was repulsed by a force that was largely British regulars (2,500 out of 3,000). The attempted invasions in New York, Ohio, Mississippi, New Orleans, and the successful attack on Washington were all carried out by British regulars and their indian allies.....not by Canadian militia. There were roughly 48,000 Red Coats that had participated in the war and/or were in theatre by the time the war ended.