Best infantry from 1720-1820.

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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

 

[Clay_Allison]

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

 

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

..... 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]

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

 

[vikingBerserker]

Yea, the true losers were the Indians, unfortunately.

 

[flojo]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[B-17engineer]

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

 

[BombTaxi]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.