what was the point of the war of 1812?

File: OweNoAllegiance-West-big.jpg (83KB, 518x575px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 518x575px

>>2631764

>Napoleonic War happens
>America doesnt give a shit about some European autistic REEEEE fest, just wants to trade with France and Britain
>Britain gets butthurt, and tells America that they cant trade with France
>Americas get pissed that their former overlords, that they very recently overthrew, are bullying them around and pissing on their sovereignty
>Britain also has a history of funding and supporting indian raids on American frontier settlements, pure petty bullshit
>Theres also a faction of those in America who want to Freedom Canada and dont like the idea of the eternal Anglo having a stronghold right above them
>Britain is also stealing American sailors and forcing them into the British Navy
>because of all these reasons, America goes to war against Britain

It was seen as a Second American Revolution, that the British were just violating America, not taking her seriously, and pissing on her.

>>2631788
Pretty much this. Atleast we got to see Jackson kick some Brit ass

>>2631815
Newsflash: america lost the war of 1812

File: USA.jpg (643KB, 2036x1076px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 2036x1076px

>>2631840

actually, it was a draw officially. But really, America got everything they wanted. Britain agreed to stop all their bullshit I mentioned here
>>2631788

But Americas invasion of Canada failed, but so did Britains invasion of America. Capturing New Orleans was crucial to their plan to take the Mississippi river, and they also failed to take Maryland.

America also got control of all disputed territories because they were more than willing to continue the fight while Britain wasnt. In fact, a good number of British generals thought the entire war was stupid in the first place.

The war ended 5 months before the Battle of Waterloo btw.

>>2631875
>Britain agreed to stop all their bullshit I mentioned here
Yes, before the war started.

>>2631875
Jesus what a pathetic screencap.
Got any larger than a skirmish between a couple of sloops and a brig?

>>2631951
They only agreed to stop impressment, but the agreement hadn't reached the U.S. when war was declared.

>>2631973
>not using your eyes
Look harder.

>>2631788
>It was seen as a Second American Revolution
not saying america didn't have legit reasons to go to war, but calling it a 'second american revolution' is a pretty hilarious stretch

File: Screenshot_1.png (135KB, 253x512px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 253x512px

>>2631982
The largest naval battle on there is between a few schooners and a couple of frigates.
Pic related is a real naval battle, and what would have come your way if we hadn't been wrapped up in a pan-European conflict.

>>2631993
It's an attempt to claim they won the war because they managed to still exist when it finished.

>>2631999
>It's an attempt to claim they won the war

because America did win the war.

>>2631996

I didnt realize how much that pic triggers bongs

>>2631993
It was seen that way as a time. A reassertion of independence from Britain.

>>2631996
There's a frigate on frigate battle, as well as a naval siege. You should put on your glasses so you can actually see.

>and what would have come your way if we hadn't been wrapped up in a pan-European conflict.
Considering that the Royal Navy had standing orders to not engage with U.S. ships unless there was a 3-1 advantage, not sure it would have mattered. A U.S. frigate was equivalent to a British ship of the line but faster.

>>2631999
This is wrong.

>>2631999
strikes me as a bit of a fantasty considering the brits were never interested in doing so

>>2631973
>Got any larger than a skirmish between a couple of sloops and a brig?

That what this war was made of
Any random Napoleon Wars battle had greater casualties that the entire "war" of 1812

>>2632009
American history is entirely fantasy

>>2632002
>triggers
>no counter-argument
Child.
>>2632007
>equivalent to a British ship of the line
Since British ships defeated the Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad, which was a 4 deck gunship, the most heavily armed in the world, I doubt it. Proof?

>*nglos are THIS mad that America managed to go to war at the right time and right place
>*nglos are THIS mad that America will ALWAYS love the French more than them

>>2631788
So... The War of American Butthurt?

>>2632043
>Following their earlier losses, the British Admiralty instituted a new policy that the three American heavy frigates should not be engaged except by a ship of the line or smaller vessels in squadron strength. An example of this was the capture of President by a squadron of four British frigates in January 1815. But, a month later, Constitution engaged and captured two smaller British warships, HMS Cyane and HMS Levant, sailing in company.[120]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Single-ship_actions

>>2632063
>smaller
None of those were Ships of the line though.
Which is what I've been saying. US Navy's battles with singular British minor ships is excellent, but a British fleet would have sorted you out, had we been able to divert enough resources.

>>2632085
Once again, our frigates were equivalent to your ships of the line hence the policy so it really wouldn't have mattered that much.

>>2631764
Crushing the Spaniards and Frogs.

>>2632091
It would. The policy was introduced to keep losses down, and because your frigates and sloops were better than our equivalent ships.
We had no 1st rate ships in the Americas
You had fewer ships globally.
Frankly its delusional if you say that a large portion of the Royal Navies best ships wouldn't have made a difference.

>>2631875
It wasn't a draw. If the American navy sailed up the Thames and burnt down the houses of Parliament it would be quite obvious who had won that war.

respect for sovereignty of nations

>>2631999
Trips of truth, the British sailed up the Potomac and burnt down thr white house.

>>2633115
>>2633104
>France lost WWI because Germany shelled Paris!
Not the first time Britain smashed the United State's capital, not the the first time they lost the war after doing it either.

>>2633104
Exactly. It'd be like saying the Russians had beat Napoleon.

>>2633118
Shelling Paris isn't the same as marching into it with an army and occupying it. Do you think the Americans would've had any chance at avoiding total calamity if the British weren't occupied with fighting Napoleon?

>>2633127
Different circumstances and you know it. The Royal army wasn't completely defeated like Napoleon's imperial army was.

>america trading with britian and france
>britian REEs the fuck out,tells america to stop trading, and fucks up the trade ships
>britian agrees to stop messing up american trade
>news doesn't reach america fast enough so war happenes
>america stood no chance but it helped napoleon and america got some more land
>we also got to see based AJ kickass and got to watch spain be eternally BTFO
>years later the war is seen a cluster fuck and people argue over who won
>no one realizes that the true victor was nappy

>>2633134
>Do you think the Americans would've had any chance at avoiding total calamity if the British weren't occupied with fighting Napoleon?
Yep. Considering they landed fresh reinforcements at New Orleans and got completely BTFO and the troops that attacked D.C. were also promptly removed, I'd say that Britain didn't have a snowballs chance in winning. The burning of Washington is a meme anyways. It was very mild compared to what Americans did in Canada. York (modern Toronto) was almost completely razed. British regulars didn't even burn any buildings in Washington down.

File: hith-uss-constitution-ironsides-E.jpg (211KB, 686x385px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 686x385px

>>2632043
>FORGETTING ABOUT OLD IRONSIDES
>Constitution and the Guerriere
>Constitution and the Java
>Constitution and the Junon
>Constitution against the Cyane and the Levant

>>2633156
So you really believe that if the Royal Navy and British army were completely focused on America the Americans would've won?

>>2633134
Considering that the latter segment of the war was fought with troops that were transferred over from Europe after Napoleon's defeat..... I'd say that it would go more or less as it did historically.

>>2633167
The British had issues fighting in numbers abroad as it was, let alone entirely across the Atlantic.

>>2633156

You think they can devote their whole army and navy away from europe? it wouldn't end well for them

Also, without the situation of war in Europe, the circumstances that led to the war would not exist, so it's pointless to ask what would have happened if they weren't busy with napoleon,

The answer is they wouldn't have been at war with the united states, that is unless they just decided to fall back on perfidious ways and nick american ships and sailors anyway because at the end of the day the anglo is a villain.

>>2633158

b-b-brittania r-rules the w-waves...

File: 1489110647360.jpg (413KB, 1180x1736px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1180x1736px

>>2633198
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-3ws7b4sZg
>American Naval Superiority Intensifies

File: 1474087388984.jpg (29KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 399x385px

>>2633203
>mfw Britain's largest aircraft carrier was built just so they could say they built a supercarrier
>mfw it was built at the minimum tonnage to be considered as such because they couldn't afford anything larger

>>2633215

I think it's mothballed isn't it?

or is that their other carrier I'm thinking of

>>2633220
Queen Elizabeth class. They both slotted to be commissioned next year. They can only afford to field 2. The Invincible was decommissioned a few years ago, which is probably what you're thinking of. The U.S. has Gator Freighters larger than the fucking invincible.