# Best infantry from 1720-1820.



## Soren (Nov 4, 2008)

Who was it ? The British Redcoats, Napoleons Guard, the Prussian blue coats, the Saxons, etc etc ??


----------



## renrich (Nov 4, 2008)

Interesting question. From all my research, LOL, with Bernard Cornwell. I would the say the finest Light Infantry of that period might be the Green Coated British riflemen with their Baker rifles.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2008)

I'd have to say that both the Scottish Black watch and the Prussians were formidable adversaries during that time period.


----------



## trackend (Nov 5, 2008)

Napoleons Guard were superb soldiers all were veterans and on many ocassions swung battles by standing firm when the regulars began to waver However my choice is Wellingtons(sharpshooters) The Rifles of 1819, they not only used tactics that formed the foundation of modern infantry they had the ability to be self sufficient and think on their feet without a coherant chain of command.
Indeed in Mark Urbans book Rifles he believes that man for man they were a match for the modern SAS


----------



## renrich (Nov 5, 2008)

Trackend, that is the guys I was talking about. In Cornwell's novels his main character is a fellow named Sharpe who is in those Rifles.


----------



## imalko (Mar 15, 2009)

My vote goes to the Napoleon's Imperial Guard.
Vive l'Empereur!


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Mar 16, 2009)

I'm gonna have to go with renrich and say the Green Jackets of the British Army. Any soldier who can shoot a general and his aide (one after another) between 200 and 600 meters away deserves a lot of credit. 
P.S. I think I'm talking about Thomas Plunket durign the Peninsular War, where he shot and killed General August Colbert.


----------



## Erich (Mar 16, 2009)

since we are talking of the Green jackets, allow me if you all will :

is there a book written on the unit and it's ops during the Napoleonics ?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 16, 2009)

...and to just make things worse...  How would the Swedes stand in comparison?

Edit: We fought in 10 wars during that period....! 

1700–1721 Great Northern War 
1741–1743 Hats' Russian War 
1757–1762 Seven Years' War 
1788–1790 Gustav III's Russian War 
1788-1789 Theater War (Never heard of this war)
1805–1810 First War against Napoleon 
1808–1809 Finnish War 
1810–1812 War against United Kingdom 
1813–1814 Second War against Napoleon 
1814 Campaign against Norway 

in the Battle of Narva, which was an early battle in the Great Northern War fought in November of 1700 (I know, it's before 1720). The Swedish army under Charles XII of Sweden (Karl XII in Swedish) crushed a Russian force four times its size, commanded by Peter the Great. Narva marked the peak of Swedish power on the continent, with Russia eventually finding decisive victories to end the conflict. The fight at Narva was a massive defeat for Russia....

My regiment had quite a few battle colours captured from the Russians from that period and others. After that, I'm afraid that we've gone rather soft...


----------



## Amsel (Mar 16, 2009)

The Blackwatch Royal Highland Regiment had achieved many honors during this time period.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Mar 17, 2009)

Erich said:


> since we are talking of the Green jackets, allow me if you all will :
> 
> is there a book written on the unit and it's ops during the Napoleonics ?



Hey Erich, I believe that there is a book out there called "Wellington's Rifles." It deals with the 95th Rifles (Greenjackets, I think) and their actions from 1809 to 1815. I heard that its pretty good, and was written fairly recently too. 
There's also another book called "Captain of the 95th Rifles." This book is about the life of an officer in the 95th through the Peninsular War and beyond. It's a little short and narrow, but I heard that it's still pretty good. 
Hope this helps.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 9, 2009)

I was tinking dat Napoleons Old Guard was terrific. Except at Waterloo.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 13, 2009)

Very hard to call. The British redcoats were a force to be reckoned with by the end of this period, but their performance was not consistent throughout the century in question. Napoleon's troops were good, but squandered by inept leadership and an ill-advised invasion of Russia... I'm sure that happened to someone else too?


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 13, 2009)

I have to go with the Prussians on this one.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 13, 2009)

I'm not sure about the Prussians - they were soundly defeated several times by Napoleon's troops, most notably at Jena in 1806. IMHO, the real Prussian ascendancy began with their comprehansive thrashing of the Austrians in 1866 - well outside the scope of the present discussion. And even that was helped by a major technological edge, as well as superior infantry (see thread above about needle guns 8) )


----------



## renrich (May 15, 2009)

I agree with BTabout the Prussians as I believe their quality did not really begin to show until well after 1820. Once you get into the late 1840s then you have to consider the infantry of Scott and Taylor and in the 1860s, the finest infantry in the history of warfare, the Army of Northern Virginia and specifically the Texas Brigade of Hood's Division of Longstreets Corps.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 16, 2009)

I must confess I know very little about the ACW (or whichever term you prefer for it). I have relatives in NC and have visited Richmond and Petersburg while staying with them (in fact, I walked a large part of the battlefield), and I have read a grand total of four books on the conflict. Short of that (and playing a couple of PC strategy games on the subject), I know nothing  

I do get the impression though that the Confederate infantry were a force to be reckoned with in the early days of the war, and they progressively lost this edge as casualties and the worsening conditions in the south took thier toll. The 'what-if' of the British Army joining the CSA forces fascinates me, a boost to the numer and quality of the infantry facing the USA could well have changed the course of the war.


----------



## renrich (May 16, 2009)

BT, I am being a little perhaps prejudiced when I make claims about "the finest infantry" as I honestly believe that that claim could be made about a lot of units in many armies and in many different time periods. However, the infantry of the Army of Northern Virginia was indeed superlative and not just in the early war. They were mostly poorly clothed, poorly fed, coping with terrible hygiene, outnumbered, facing opponents with superior weapons, especially artillery and yet they, time and time again, with valor and with devotion to duty either defeated or held off a redoubtable opponent in the Union Army. Of course, their leader, R E Lee, had something to do with it and the Union Army was poorly led at times. The Southern soldier, even in the Army of Tennessee, not led by Lee, showed the qualities that had begun to surface during the Mexican War under Taylor and Scott. What those soldiers endured and accomplished, when studied closely is astounding. One of the reasons, perhaps, that the Southern soldier maintained morale was that the policy of the CSA was to continually replace casualties in a unit with men from the original area where the unit was recruited from . In other words the Texas Brigade's three Texas regiments were replenished continually with fresh recruits from Texas. This was contrary to the policy in the Union Army where units were fought out until they could no longer function and then they were dissolved and the survivors sent to new units which were then put into the line. The Texas Brigade began to fight in early 1862 and was in almost every major battle fought in the east and one in the west(Chickamauga) and they still functioned as the rear guard of the Army leading up to the final surrender at Appommatox Court House.


----------



## Amsel (May 17, 2009)

It is called esprit de corps and many units had high morale such as the Blackwatch Royal Highland Regiment.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 17, 2009)

Espirit de corps, elan, or whatever it may be, is a powerful asset to infantry, but not the be-all-and-end-all. Not all British forces had high morale - some of the accounts I have read of the Battle of Culloden (for example), state that the British were in poor spirits, having being driven right down to the Midlands and defeated several times by the Scots in the previous season. Even where high espirit de corps exists, it is not a definte winning factor. Going outside the period at hand, the French army of 1914 had buckets of elan, but it didn't do them any good when the fighting started and the command staff and indeed Plan XIV itself turned out to be defective...


----------



## Amsel (May 18, 2009)

You win some and you lose some, that is war.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 18, 2009)

Amsel said:


> You win some and you lose some, that is war.



True, very true. Of course, I don't think that during the first few months of world war one that the French were helped by their bright red paints, bright blue coats, and marching in columns with colorful flags unfurled, right into German machine gun fire.


----------



## Amsel (May 18, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> True, very true. Of course, I don't think that during the first few months of world war one that the French were helped by their bright red paints, bright blue coats, and marching in columns with colorful flags unfurled, right into German machine gun fire.


----------



## Amsel (May 21, 2009)

The British were had the best units. The redcoats were masters of the bayonet. Here is a great video of the guys who beat the best.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGfVEqCEHVo_

For those interested in the accoutrments of reenacting.


----------



## flojo (Jul 19, 2009)

renrich said:


> I agree with BTabout the Prussians as I believe their quality did not really begin to show until well after 1820. Once you get into the late 1840s then you have to consider the infantry of Scott and Taylor and in the 1860s, the finest infantry in the history of warfare, the Army of Northern Virginia and specifically the Texas Brigade of Hood's Division of Longstreets Corps.



I wonder if you have ever heard something about Frederick the Great, the seven years war, the battles of Mollwitz, Hohenfriedberg, Leuthen etc. Prussian infantry was considered the best in the world between 1750 and 1800. Consequently the Continentals were drilled by Steuben in accordance with the Prussian field manual. It is true that the Prussians were beaten by Napoleon as was every big European nation which fought him between 1799 and 1815. But the Prussians also managed to beat Napoleon several times. The most painful event of this kind for Napoleon was for sure at Waterloo. A certain Wellington himself emphasised the decisive role the Prussians played in winning this battle by his famous quote that either night or the Prussians could save him. Who would dare to doubt an opinion coming from such a competent side. For people interested in the performance of Prussian and German troops of later times (1870/71) I recommend David Ascoli's great book "A Day of Battle"


----------



## Amsel (Jul 19, 2009)

Here is another great video trailer by Lionheart. It depicts the use of Hessians and British light infantry at the Battle of Coochs Bridge. The guys who produce these documentaries do such a good job!

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjrvRw8tfKo_


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 19, 2009)

Very nice!


----------



## renrich (Jul 25, 2009)

I believe what Wellington was referring to was that if Blucher got there with his Prussians on time the battle could be saved, not necessarily the quality of Blucher's troops. There were some German cavalry, I think, that fought with great distinction in Wellington's campaigns. Try to read up on the campaigns in Mexico by Scott and Taylor for almost unbelievable accomplishments by infantry, field artillery and in the execution of amphibious warfare. The American officer corps was probably the best trained in the world in the 1840s.


----------



## flojo (Jul 27, 2009)

renrich said:


> I believe what Wellington was referring to was that if Blucher got there with his Prussians on time the battle could be saved, not necessarily the quality of Blucher's troops. There were some German cavalry, I think, that fought with great distinction in Wellington's campaigns. Try to read up on the campaigns in Mexico by Scott and Taylor for almost unbelievable accomplishments by infantry, field artillery and in the execution of amphibious warfare. The American officer corps was probably the best trained in the world in the 1840s.



To tell the whole story Napoleon surprised the allies and attacked Blücher who was missing one corps (Zieten's as far as I rememeber) and pushed him away at Ligny. This happened because Wellignton did not manage to concentrate in time and himself were nearly whipped at Quatre Bras. You won't find many armies of these time or of any time which got a beating like the Prussians at Ligny slipped away from the enemy's pursuit and during two nights and one day of march had restored morale and concentrated to attack Napoleon's right flank at Waterloo and saved the day for the allied forces. Btw a third of Wellignton's army at Waterloo was German another third was Dutch and only the remaining troops were British. For nearly unbelievable accomplishements of infantry, cavalry and atillery I again recommend the book "A day of battle" - you will learn about the best and the second best army of the 19th century here.


----------



## renrich (Jul 27, 2009)

The best and second best of the 19th century, well, well. Better than the Army of Northern Virginia? Would be hard to prove. The European observers of the War Between the States were astonished at the ferocity of the fighting and willingness of the armies on both sides to keep fighting despite setbacks. Undoubtedly, some of those observers fought at Waterloo.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 27, 2009)

If I've understood flojo correctly, and he is referring to the Prussians of the Napoleonic era as the second best army of the 19th century, I would have to disagree. Like ren says, there is the Army of Northern Virginia to consider (among a number of american formations on both sides of the war), and the Prussians around 1864-1870 also bear very serious consideration. I would agree that Wellington was commenting more on the timing of the Prussian arrival at waterloo and thier stand at Ligny rather than the outright quality of their troops.


----------



## renrich (Jul 28, 2009)

As an example of the sanguinary nature of the War Between the States and the willingness of the troops to continue to go into combat despite horrific casualty rates, look at the 13 month period between June, 1862 and July 1863;
June, 1862, The Seven Days-36000 total casualties
August, 1862, Second Manassas- 24000 total
September, 1862, Sharpsburg- 26000 total (23000 plus in one day)
December,1862-Fredricksburg-15000 total
May, 1863, Chancellorsville- 30000 total
July,1863, Gettysburg- 51000 plus
The Army of Northern Virginia took about half those casualties while having much smaller numbers than the Union Army yet Longstreet's Corps was ready to be detached and sent to the West in September,1863, where they played a major role in the Confederate victory at Chickamauga.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2009)

What a great discussion....


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2009)

If you add up those casualties that were only in the major campaigns, that is more than 180000. The Army of Northern Virginia took about half of those casualties which would be about 90000. 90000 is more than Lee ever had in his army at one time with the most he ever had being around 70000. In other words his number of casualties in one year was more than 100% of his army. To boot, that casualty rate does not include his losses from sickness which were higher than his losses from battle. Also his casualty rate was higher among officers than enlisted men. Yet his army continued to fight and be very effective. Says a lot for the leadership and morale in his army.


----------



## flojo (Jul 29, 2009)

renrich said:


> As an example of the sanguinary nature of the War Between the States and the willingness of the troops to continue to go into combat despite horrific casualty rates, look at the 13 month period between June, 1862 and July 1863;
> June, 1862, The Seven Days-36000 total casualties
> August, 1862, Second Manassas- 24000 total
> September, 1862, Sharpsburg- 26000 total (23000 plus in one day)
> ...



Well - it is our luck that we did not have to discuss the period between 1820 and 1900 as it is off topic (and we would perhaps never come to a common opinion). But for the time under consideration I would judge the Prussian infantry the best in the world up to about 1770 to 1780. Their position was taken later (since about 1800 or a little bit earlier) by the French infantry which was at their height around 1805/1806. As Napoleon's guard could retain this high quality while the quality of the regular troops deteriorated I would vote for Napoleon's guard being the best until 1815.


----------



## imalko (Jul 29, 2009)

Well Renrich, it appears from your posts that you pay great respect for the fighting capability of Confederate Army and especially for forces under Lee's command in American Civil War. While this is probably justified it does (as Flojo noticed) go beyond time frame considered in this thread (1720-1820) and for given period I agree with previous post - Napoleon's Imperial Guard and especially grenadiers of the Old Guard were the best.


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2009)

Of course, youall are both correct. I apologise but we kind of drifted off into a little later times. The experience in the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 indicates to me that the British Infantry has to be rated highly as they were very effective in a set piece battle. Perhaps more effective than the the French or Hessians in America.


----------



## flojo (Jul 30, 2009)

renrich said:


> Of course, youall are both correct. I apologise but we kind of drifted off into a little later times. The experience in the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 indicates to me that the British Infantry has to be rated highly as they were very effective in a set piece battle. Perhaps more effective than the the French or Hessians in America.



Renrich, I have to admit that at least half the fault for leaving the time window under consideration here is on my side. 
I am no specialist in the war of American independence but weren't the Hessian troops highly rated? With respect to the British they got beaten twice (war of independence and 1812) and only won once (7 years war). So against the French it is a draw and against the Americans a clear loss. If you consider that the American troops in 1776 weren't trained to European standards and badly equipped that doesn't sound that impressive. In the battles in central Europe always a large number of troops from northern Germany fought together with British troops. With Ferdinand von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel the commander of the British or better to say allied forces was as well German. Also there were a number of french victories like Hastenbeck, Bergen, Kloster Kampen. So I wouldn't necessarily judge the French troops of this time worse than the British.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 30, 2009)

By 1815 the continental infantry of France, England, Prussia and most of the other nations of Europe were pretty much similar. I think that the French and especially the Prussians had a much better understanding of how to train their infantry for a more flexible tactical outcome. The furnishing of a Prussian _fusilier_ battalion with every line regiment solved some of the issues with screening units and field pieces and reinforcing skirmishers. The Prussians even went as far as training a third of all the men in the line battalions to fight as skirmishers. When the line infantry advanced it could send forward the third rank to fight as skirmishers. This gave some tactical flexibility to cover the line battalions with swarms of skirmishers putting out constant fire at targets of their choice. It wasn't for another century until the European armies used such open formations.


----------



## renrich (Aug 1, 2009)

The British lost the wars against Americans I think more because they had practically an impossible task and because sometimes their leadership in the field was bad. I hate to admit it but it was seldom that a Continental could stand up to the British Regulars. The Continentals whipped the Hessians at least once I recall, at Princeton. During the war with the French, the Redcoats distinguished themselves at Quebec against the French and they won most of the battles during the War of 1812. The loss at New Orleans was a case of underestimating the enemy but the troops themselves were not lacking.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 1, 2009)

flojo said:


> With respect to the British they got beaten twice (war of independence and 1812) and only won once (7 years war). .



from the viewpoint here you lost War of 1812 one of the goals was freeing us poor Canadians from the Brits and at that you failed, also recall that Britain was fighting the French at the same time


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 1, 2009)

Hmm, I struggle to see how the war of 1812 was a British defeat. British troops occupied Washington and New Orleans and prevented a US invasion of Canada. That's a strange kind of defeat IMHO. It is true that the Rn suffered heavily at sea, but the actions against the US Navy did not have much effect in terms of damaging the far more important maritime war against France, which was still successfully prosecuted despite the tactical victories scored by the Americans.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 1, 2009)

I think War of 1812 was more of a draw then anything else.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 2, 2009)

The War of 1812 may have been of no consequence or matter to the British but to Americans it meant alot. The British had their hands full with the French at the time, and Americans were able to protect the Lousiana Purchase. As a matter in fact the Battle of New Orleans was celebrated for years. In 1959 Jimmie Driftwood topped the Billboard charts with the traditional fiddle tune "8th of January" to the song "Battle of New Orleans". About the American volunteers who fought in Louisiana.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKk3Q8CgNCE_


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 2, 2009)

Yes it was an incredible battle and a great victory for American no doubt about it.

However the Treaty of Ghent stipulated that borders would return to where they were before the war and none of the root causes of the war were ever even addressed by it.

I had no idea that Jimmie Driftwood had written/sung the song. I do remember Johnny Horton singing it - still have the album I believe.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2009)

I've always liked the song by Johnny Horton!
 
The Americans besting the British forces in the War of 1812 may have been looked at as a draw but in reality, it was a victory for the Continentals in a few respects.

For the second time in a generation, a small nation was able to go head to head with a global empire and not only survive the encounter, but walk away with concessions.

Another aspect of the victory would be the political recognition that the Americans were capable of being a part of the world stage, and not just a small country out in the sticks somewhere.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 2, 2009)

Very true. It also jumpstarted the US peacetime spending, bolstering the economy and like Grau pointed raised the public opinion of the US in the world.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 2, 2009)

I guess one of us has revisionist history but this says it best for me
"To America's leaders in 1812, an invasion of Canada seemed to be "a mere matter of marching," as Thomas Jefferson confidently predicted. How could a nation of 8 million fail to subdue a struggling colony of 300,000? Yet, when the campaign of 1812 ended, the only Americans left on Canadian soil were prisoners of war. Three American armies had been forced to surrender, and the British were in control of all of Michigan Territory and much of Indiana and Ohio"
Please understand I live in the middle of the Niagara Frontier within 10 miles I have the battle fields in Chippawa, Queenston heights, Ft George, Newark, Ft Erie and others and I can literally throw a rock from my house and hit the Lundys Lane Battlefield, scene of the bloodiest fight in the war


----------



## Amsel (Aug 2, 2009)

> The year 1813 saw a more sober US strategy of winning control of the Great Lakes, the key to their defeats of the previous year. A US force took York (modern Toronto) and Newark, looted them, and burned the government buildings, something they were to regret. In September under Cdre Perry they won by far the most significant naval engagement of the war against a British flotilla of equal strength on Lake Erie, enabling them to reverse the land results of the previous year. Two British invasions of Ohio failed and at the battle of the Thames east of Detroit, the Americans caught up with the retreating Anglo-Indian army and trounced it, killing (and skinning) Tecumseh, who had earlier suggested that the British commander should wear petticoats. Elsewhere skirmishing characterized by incompetence when not treasonable corruption left the British controlling much of the frontier.
> 
> In the south, with little assistance from the British save for the use of Pensacola as a base of operations for escaped slaves and Indians, later to be called Seminoles, some of the Creek people fought their own war 1813-14 until Andrew Jackson instilled some order in the militia rabble under his command by executing one of them, and destroyed the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend in March 1814. Among those under his command were Crockett and Sam Houston, later heroes of Texas independence.
> 
> ...


Hickey, Donald R., The War of 1812: A Short History (Urbana, Ill., 1995)

We and the rest of the world considered it a victory at the time but obviously those loyal to the crown didn't.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 2, 2009)

I'll get that book but might I suggest in return to try and get 
The Invasion of Canada, and Flames Across the Border by Pierre Berton


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2009)

PB, in some ways I envy you. That must be beautiful country you live in and with your interests, there must be a sense of history everywhere in your neighborhood. I now live in country where General Crook campaigned against the Apache but of course it is much more recent history and not nearly as momentus in terms of world history. Was not Winfield Scott present at Lundy's Lane?


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> PB, in some ways I envy you. That must be beautiful country you live in and with your interests, there must be a sense of history everywhere in your neighborhood. I now live in country where General Crook campaigned against the Apache but of course it is much more recent history and not nearly as momentus in terms of world history. Was not Winfield Scott present at Lundy's Lane?


Yes he was but is better known for his failure on the Queenston Heights where had a superior force on top of the heights which is about a 140 ft very steep incline , going to see the reanactors next week at Fort Erie doing a recreation of the siege


----------



## Amsel (Aug 2, 2009)

He was better known for his failure in your area but not ours.



> Winfield Scott (June 13, 1786 – May 29, 1866) was a United States Army general, and unsuccessful presidential candidate of the Whig party in 1852. Known as "Old Fuss and Feathers" and the "Grand Old Man of the Army", he served on active duty as a general longer than any other man in American history and many historians rate him the ablest American commander of his time. Over the course of his fifty-year career, he commanded forces in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Black Hawk War, the Second Seminole War, and, briefly, the American Civil War, conceiving the Union strategy known as the Anaconda Plan that would be used to defeat the Confederacy. He served as Commanding General of the United States Army for twenty years, longer than any other holder of the office.
> 
> A national hero after the Mexican-American War, he served as military governor of Mexico City. Such was his stature that, in 1852, the United States Whig Party passed over its own incumbent President of the United States, Millard Fillmore, to nominate Scott in the United States presidential election. Scott lost to Democrat Franklin Pierce in the general election, but remained a popular national figure, receiving a brevet promotion in 1856 to the rank of lieutenant general, becoming the first American since George Washington to hold that rank.


 From Wiki



> During the War of 1812 in Canada, Lieutenant Colonel Scott took command of an American landing party during the middle of the Battle of Queenston Heights (in today's province of Ontario in Canada) in October 1812, but was forced to surrender after New York militia members refused to cross into Canada in support of the invasion.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 2, 2009)

Amsel said:


> He was better known for his failure in your area but not ours.
> 
> From Wiki
> 
> "During the War of 1812 in Canada, Lieutenant Colonel Scott took command of an American landing party during the middle of the Battle of Queenston Heights (in today's province of Ontario in Canada) in October 1812, but was forced to surrender after New York militia members refused to cross into Canada in support of the invasion."



Ok, that would have really sucked.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> I must confess I know very little about the ACW (or whichever term you prefer for it). I have relatives in NC and have visited Richmond and Petersburg while staying with them (in fact, I walked a large part of the battlefield), and I have read a grand total of four books on the conflict. Short of that (and playing a couple of PC strategy games on the subject), I know nothing
> 
> I do get the impression though that the Confederate infantry were a force to be reckoned with in the early days of the war, and they progressively lost this edge as casualties and the worsening conditions in the south took thier toll. The 'what-if' of the British Army joining the CSA forces fascinates me, a boost to the numer and quality of the infantry facing the USA could well have changed the course of the war.


Hell with troops, we'd have won if the Brit Navy had broken the blockade and given the South food and weapons. All we had to do was abolish slavery, a thing we didn't really need. Clinging to the past cost us European recognition, that cost us the war and our freedom.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 2, 2009)

Just for your info where Scott picked to cross the Niagara River in my mind was a fools choice the river is if your not aware is probably the IMHO the most powerful river in the World , he had surprise and the terrain on his side when he got across but the small details like supplies and the such were messed up without forethought not a mark of great planning.. The Brits with the Loyalists would have to come up the river on the left side the right side is Lewiston NY. Ft George and Ft Niagara are at the end of the river about 6 miles up
The picture below is at the peak of the heights looking toward the FTs
I think I''ll try and make up a pic album on the Fts and Battlefields


----------



## Amsel (Aug 2, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Just for your info where Scott picked to cross the Niagara River in my mind was a fools choice



Are you saying that you are a better general then Winfield Scott? Sometimes I just have to chuckle at some of the things said on forums these days by armchair generals. General Scott was captured and paid the price for his "fools choice". But that is war, no?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> ...I think I''ll try and make up a pic album on the Fts and Battlefields


That would be cool, pb!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Are you saying that you are a better general then Winfield Scott? Sometimes I just have to chuckle at some of the things said on forums these days by armchair generals. General Scott was captured and paid the price for his "fools choice". But that is war, no?


Anybody is a better General with hindsight and research taking the place of foresight and intelligence.


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2009)

Good stuff, PB.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 3, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Are you saying that you are a better general then Winfield Scott? Sometimes I just have to chuckle at some of the things said on forums these days by armchair generals. General Scott was captured and paid the price for his "fools choice". But that is war, no?


in this case yes the current is about 5 mph and its about 300yds/metres wide the raisond d'etre for the place he crossed at Queenston Ontario or Lewiston NY is that it is as far up as you can go on the river before you have to portage by the Falls


----------



## Amsel (Aug 3, 2009)

Regardless of your opinion of Winfield Scott, he is considered to be one of the best Generals of the 19th century along with Napoleon, and Wellington.


----------



## renrich (Aug 3, 2009)

Scott was outstanding. His campaign in Mexico was masterful and the Anaconda Plan alledgedly by him was too.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 3, 2009)

When a genius does something stupid, that doesn't magically make it smart.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 3, 2009)

renrich said:


> Scott was outstanding. His campaign in Mexico was masterful and the Anaconda Plan alledgedly by him was too.


remember that most of the early defeats by the US were engineered by Issac Brock who was without a doubt the best commander of either side with only the militia and only 1 regiment


----------



## flojo (Aug 5, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> from the viewpoint here you lost War of 1812 one of the goals was freeing us poor Canadians from the Brits and at that you failed, also recall that Britain was fighting the French at the same time



sorry, I was perhaps a little bit quick about the war of 1812  - btw we didn't fail then, we were also fighting the french at that time and that quite successful


----------



## imalko (Aug 5, 2009)

flojo said:


> ..... we didn't fail then, we were also fighting the french at that time and that quite successful



It was successful only because Napoleon himself was pretty busy in Russia at that same time (in 1812)...


----------



## Bernhart (Aug 5, 2009)

only people who really lost out in the 1812 war was the indians, they got screwed by the Us and Britian


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 5, 2009)

Yea, the true losers were the Indians, unfortunately.


----------



## flojo (Aug 8, 2009)

imalko said:


> It was successful only because Napoleon himself was pretty busy in Russia at that same time (in 1812)...



No, we were quite fair to wait until Napoleon left Russia before we started to fight him  Actually not before December 30th 1812. And to make it less mysterious - I am neither US nor British.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 8, 2009)

Bernhart said:


> only people who really lost out in the 1812 war was the indians, they got screwed by the Us and Britian


lots of people on both sides got hurt,
IMHO its tough luck for the native people they did get the dirty end of the stick but that was 200yrs ago . 
The pic taken this pm from the reenactment of the Siege of Ft Erie


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

It was pretty much survival of the fittest back then. Colonists did some bad things to the Indians, but they didn't really have some cushy life in the old world to fall back on. Many people came to this continent from Europe under the threat of starvation. Most from at least a background of abject poverty. When you are desperate enough to get on a wooden ship (many of which wound up wrecked in storms) and sail to someplace you know nothing about on the vague hope of farming in a climate you know nothing about, you just aren't going to be thinking of the property rights of weird (to you) indigenous peoples.


----------



## renrich (Aug 9, 2009)

Interesting photo. Looks like they are trying to portray Hawkeye, Uncas and Chingacok(spelling)


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 9, 2009)

Andrew Jackson's soldiers at the Battle of New Orleans. French Speaking Creoles, Slaves, A few American Infantrymen, Pirates etc.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 17, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> It was pretty much survival of the fittest back then. Colonists did some bad things to the Indians, but they didn't really have some cushy life in the old world to fall back on. Many people came to this continent from Europe under the threat of starvation. Most from at least a background of abject poverty. When you are desperate enough to get on a wooden ship (many of which wound up wrecked in storms) and sail to someplace you know nothing about on the vague hope of farming in a climate you know nothing about, you just aren't going to be thinking of the property rights of weird (to you) indigenous peoples.



Very true - it still doesn't excuse what was done to the native population though. Nor does it excuse the fact that the US carried on doing it for over a century (not counting what was done before independence as well) until the native population virtually ceased to exist and Manifest Destiny was fulfilled. Whatever spin you try to put on it, wiping out the original population of a country so you can develop it for yourself is still a huge crime to commit...


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 17, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Very true - it still doesn't excuse what was done to the native population though. Nor does it excuse the fact that the US carried on doing it for over a century (not counting what was done before independence as well) until the native population virtually ceased to exist and Manifest Destiny was fulfilled. Whatever spin you try to put on it, wiping out the original population of a country so you can develop it for yourself is still a huge crime to commit...



IMHO opinion the Brits did just as many if not more crimes against the natives , we also got stuck with all the stupid treaties the Brits made it costs Billions upon Billions to pay for everything they promised .No taxes , free higher education, free everything and this is the reason natives have and continue to eradicate themselves


----------



## renrich (Aug 17, 2009)

The Indians in America were barbarians with a way of life that was totally different from that of the settlers and a way of life at absolute odds with modern societies of the 18th and 19th centuries. Some of the Indians assimilated successfully into the European way of life. The ones that did not either had to go to the reservations or had to be eliminated. The two different cultures could not coexist. There were a lot of wrongs perpetrated by settlers from Europe and a lot of wrongs perpetrated by Amerindians on Europeans and on other Amerindians. I agree with PB that in many cases government policy which was intended to be helpful to Amerindians has worked to their detriment.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Aug 17, 2009)

renrich said:


> Interesting photo. Looks like they are trying to portray Hawkeye, Uncas and Chingacok(spelling)


You might have a point there renrich, though I don't see the club that Chingachgook carries with him. 



BombTaxi said:


> Very true - it still doesn't excuse what was done to the native population though. Nor does it excuse the fact that the US carried on doing it for over a century (not counting what was done before independence as well) until the native population virtually ceased to exist and Manifest Destiny was fulfilled. Whatever spin you try to put on it, wiping out the original population of a country so you can develop it for yourself is still a huge crime to commit...



BT- Your facts are correct. The U.S. did a lot of terrible things to the Native Americans during those two hundred years, same with the British and with the French in Africa and Asia. However, just remember that during this time, societie's ideas and morals were a lot different than what they are today. I mean, consider that fact if you were an abolitionist during the Ante-Bellum period in the United States, you would be considered and radical and very dangerous to the majority of the population. I mean, giving a slave human rights during this time was out of the question to a lot of members of American society (especially in the South). There was no UN charter that stated the basic human rights that everyone was entitled too, and there was certainly no large movements of people to stop the persecution of minority groups, like the movements we saw during the 1960's. Look at Rome 2,000 years ago. They had people beating each other to death, feeding Christians to lions, all for the purpose of entertainment. I'm not trying to proove you wrong or anything like, I'm just saying that we can't really get an accurate picture by comparing the societies of the past centuries with the moral standards of today's society.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 18, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Very true - it still doesn't excuse what was done to the native population though. Nor does it excuse the fact that the US carried on doing it for over a century (not counting what was done before independence as well) until the native population virtually ceased to exist and Manifest Destiny was fulfilled. Whatever spin you try to put on it, wiping out the original population of a country so you can develop it for yourself is still a huge crime to commit...


Survival neither has nor needs excuses. It just happens. People have fought for as long as there has been people. Some people win and some lose.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Very true - it still doesn't excuse what was done to the native population though. Nor does it excuse the fact that the US carried on doing it for over a century (not counting what was done before independence as well) until the native population virtually ceased to exist and Manifest Destiny was fulfilled. Whatever spin you try to put on it, wiping out the original population of a country so you can develop it for yourself is still a huge crime to commit...


While I would say that's a valid point, I would also say that the U.S. has not done anything that hasn't been done by any race of man since the last ice age.

Man is territorial by nature and has always tried to dominate other peoples or regions by various means. From great Empires colonizing portions of continents or a stronger tribe subjugating it's weaker neighbor, it's something that has been going on through the ages and (unfortunately) most likely will continue, until humankind gets it's collective head out of it's a** and figures out a way to get along with one another.


----------



## renrich (Aug 18, 2009)

FF, I not only can't spell the name of Uncas' father but I can't pronounce it either. That photo looks to me like the trio was trying to mimic the movie,"Last of the Mohicans" The costume of the guy in the back looked like something that Daniel Day Lewis wore. The Indians, of course, in North Ameica, did not face nearly the problems the natives did in Central and South America. A lot more Amerindians perished accidently from diseases brought from Europe which they had no immunity to than from battle wounds. Some of the tribes received reservation land which turned out to be rich in natural resources. I was living in Durango, CO, and the Southern Ute tribe there is quite wealthy and members of the tribe individually have nice incomes. The Mountain Utes have pretty scenery but no oil and gas. In modern revisionist history, which is about all we have now, one seldom reads much about the many Amerindians who just melted into the white man's society and became just plain Americans. My attitude toward the Amerindian is colored by being a native Texan and my ancestors took part in a 200 year war against the Commanche, who were not native to Texas and who were a menace not only to Whites but also to many other Amerindians. The Indian apologists like to ignore the Commanch and his allies.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 18, 2009)

renrich said:


> FF, I not only can't spell the name of Uncas' father but I can't pronounce it either. That photo looks to me like the trio was trying to mimic the movie,"Last of the Mohicans" The costume of the guy in the back looked like something that Daniel Day Lewis wore. .


Mohawks , Seneca are the tribes being represented

A Few pics from the recreation of the Siege of Ft Erie for those of you not familiar with the Geography its directly across the Niagara River from Buffalo NY but on the Canadian side


----------



## Amsel (Aug 19, 2009)

renrich said:


> Some of the tribes received reservation land which turned out to be rich in natural resources. I was living in Durango, CO, and the Southern Ute tribe there is quite wealthy and members of the tribe individually have nice incomes. The Mountain Utes have pretty scenery but no oil and gas. In modern revisionist history, which is about all we have now, one seldom reads much about the many Amerindians who just melted into the white man's society and became just plain Americans. My attitude toward the Amerindian is colored by being a native Texan and my ancestors took part in a 200 year war against the Commanche, who were not native to Texas and who were a menace not only to Whites but also to many other Amerindians. The Indian apologists like to ignore the Commanch and his allies.



My Great great grandpa fought the Utes for years and lost his arm during the Utah Blackhawk War. He also learned the language and became an interptretor and close friend of the Utes after the hostilities eased. That is how things were done in the old days. The Utes, among many native tribes, were a war making culture. Many of the settlers were not warlike people but learned to deal with the hostile natives. I don't think many people these days can understand the brutality of the Native American tribes in their everyday life. I would recommend to those that revise history also look at the wars,torture and cannabalism that was prevalent in North America prior to the arrival of Western Civilization.


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 22, 2009)

Of course, the British did terrible things to the native inhabitants of the Empire - that's why we were at war almost constantly between 1815 and 1914, and I hold the same opinion of those actions as I do of American actions against the Indians. My intention wasn't to US-bash as such, just to point out that social Darwinism is not, IMHO, a justification for eliminating a population and taking their property. Nor do I subscribe to the idea that the native population was barbaric and needed to be eliminated because it was not capable of joining 'civilised' society, whatever that may be. It is true that the Indians fought each other, tortured each other and practiced cannibalism to some extent. But I hardly think that it can be said that the persecution of their race was for their own good. Stamping out cannibalism would naturally be a good thing, but I think it would be hypocritical of Western Civilisation to try to stop anybody fighting or torturing each other. I'm not attempting to be an apologist - I would not know nearly enough about the subject to do that - but I do feel that popular culture glorifies the reduction of the Indian population while conveniently failing to recognise the evil inherent in attempting to wipe out a whole race. I personally find that a little worrying.


----------



## renrich (Aug 24, 2009)

We did not take their "property" They had no concept of property rights. Their concept was that the land belonged to no one but could be used by everyone except that a certain tribe had a loosely defined area of hunting grounds and if another tribe intruded, war ensued. This worked well when there was lots of land and few people. I would imagine that many outdoor sportsmen in today's "civilisation" would welcome an arrangement like that but it is hardly practical in modern society. The real crime aginst the Amerindians was to solemnly grant them ownership of reservation land in various places and then turn right around and let railroads, settlers, miners, etc intrude on that land. The least cruel policy toward the Amerindians would have been to tell them to "root hog or die," assimilate and learn to live like a white man and give them limited help to make the transition. The two ways of life could not exist together except when the tribes finally were given absolutely "worthless" land.


----------

