haha, sorry yea a more decisive victory (I wouldn't call a status quo ante bellum, but it's somethin). would they have asked for land if they did better and America worse.
I was recently reading about the battles in Michigan and Ohio during the war, and it said "The British also had the long-standing goal of creating a large "neutral" Indian state that would cover much of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. They made the demand as late as 1814 at the peace conference, but lost battles that would have validated their claims" do you think they would've actually gone through with it if they had won more decisively?
This gets away from the original question, but I always wondered if the Brits had really won an overwhelming victory, whether they would have made America a British colony again. There must have been some in England who were still smarting that the 'damned rebels' had dared to defy the mother country, and would, even in 1814, still like to punish the defiant child.
No, no, no. I'm bloody fed up of this!
Some of us may have been bitter (although thirty years isn't such a short time), but few of us were stupid. We all knew perfectly well why we had lost America and why we wouldn't be able to retake it, and why trying would be a tremendous and futile waste of time and resources.
That we still intended to subjugate America in 1812 is a myth spread by American politicians from 1815 onwards to give a heroic sheen to a war of naked American agression in which it received a sharp bloody nose and won only defensive battles of significance. It's a big fat lie.
Yes, they (probably) would have, especially if Tecumseh were still alive.
It was won by the British OTL.
What do you mean exactly?
Yep. The British defeated the American invasion force, invaded the United States and burned down the White House. I'd say that counts as a British victory.
Yep. The British defeated the American invasion force, invaded the United States and burned down the White House. I'd say that counts as a British victory.
American Invasion force? America is invading itself? Also, I dont see the burning of the capital as a victory. Just a lose of a symbol and a way to create the White House as it should be.
That we still intended to subjugate America in 1812 is a myth spread by American politicians from 1815 onwards
I count it as one too (somehow had forgotten the white house I am discraced!), but they didnt gain anything from their victories.
That's true, but when you can say that you successfully invaded your enemy's territory and burned down their capital city, I think you've earned the right to say you've won your war.
absolutly you do! I've been tryin to figure out why they didn't rub America's noses in it more. after all that and they choose status quo? i've been lookin for a POD for a timeline with a Amerindian nation, and a more decisive victory, and Tecumseh surviving could give me what i've been lookin forThat's true, but when you can say that you successfully invaded your enemy's territory and burned down their capital city, I think you've earned the right to say you've won your war.