TFSmith121
Banned
Minor point - all three times the British actually TRIED
Minor point - all three times the British actually TRIED to mount an organized joint offensive into US territory (beyond border raids on the Niagara or Detroit rivers, for example) they were defeated.
The British had no real successes in combined arms operations in the US in 1812-15; as much of a propaganda victory as Bladensburg/Washington was, the reality is that Washington was an administrative capital, nothing more. It was not a commercial/industrial center like Baltimore or New Orleans.
The British could not "win" the Revolutionary War (decisively or in any other way) in 1775-83; how, exactly could they "win" in 1812-15, when the US is - inargubly - more cohesive, with much a larger population (7.2 million in 1810, compared with 2.8 million in 1780), and significantly wealthier than it was almost four decades earlier?
And, by the way, after two decades straight (practically) of economically exhausting warfare against the French, and, of course, from 3,000 miles away - and in, as UT says - the age of sail?
This is up there with ZEELOWE, folks.
Best,
Minor point - all three times the British actually TRIED to mount an organized joint offensive into US territory (beyond border raids on the Niagara or Detroit rivers, for example) they were defeated.
- At Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain, under Prevost and Downie (KIA), they didn't even engage the US army under Macomb because of their defeat on the Lake by MacDonough's squadron;
- At Baltimore/Hampstead Hill, under Cochrane and Ross (KIA), the RN was repulsed at Fort McHenry (Armistead) and Ross's army (sans Ross, who was KIA at North Point) attacked the US army (Smith) at Hampstead Hill and was repulsed;
- At New Orleans, under Cochrane and Pakenham (KIA), the British attacked and were, obviously, defeated by Jackson's army, and the RN, equally obviously, could not run the city's defenses on the river.
The British had no real successes in combined arms operations in the US in 1812-15; as much of a propaganda victory as Bladensburg/Washington was, the reality is that Washington was an administrative capital, nothing more. It was not a commercial/industrial center like Baltimore or New Orleans.
The British could not "win" the Revolutionary War (decisively or in any other way) in 1775-83; how, exactly could they "win" in 1812-15, when the US is - inargubly - more cohesive, with much a larger population (7.2 million in 1810, compared with 2.8 million in 1780), and significantly wealthier than it was almost four decades earlier?
And, by the way, after two decades straight (practically) of economically exhausting warfare against the French, and, of course, from 3,000 miles away - and in, as UT says - the age of sail?
This is up there with ZEELOWE, folks.
Best,