Thank God, we FINALLY beat the Brits in something. I mean, other than that "unpleasantness" from the late 18th century...
Didnt do so hot facing off against the A team that time around, as opposed to the Hessians the British employed for the first fight.
Oh well, who wanted Canada to begin with.
SHUT UP! We did not lose the War of 1812! It was a TIE! Just like Vietnam...
I'm tellin' you, baby, they kicked your little ass there! Boy, they whooped yer hide real good!
I only read Poor Richard's Almanac and they said we won.
The US went against, what was considered at the time, some of the best British generals in the Revolutionary war. It turned out some of those generals were pretty awful.
War of 1812 was a stalemate to minor British victory - it restored the status quo, but neither side really achieved their war aims.
Of course, the best British generals had a bigger fish to fry on the European Continent at the same time as the War of 1812, which - thankfully for the U.S. - got the bulk of their resources and attention.
There are some really interesting histories of the War of 1812 out there. It's weird to think of naval battles being fought on Lake Erie and the River Raisin (Raisin River?), but that shit happened!
Cool to think about. But let's face it, all battles back then were "warfare light" compared to modern warfare. Didn't more people die in the first few hours of D-Day than died during the entire War of 1812?
"Purely a factor of the size of the armies"??? For real? OK, here is what I propose to test your theory. I'll get an M4A1 rifle with an M320 grenade launcher, and you can have a Revolutionary War-era muzzle loader. We shall then stand 50 yards apart and commence warfare. Last one standing, wins.
Seems like your proposal is leaving out strategic improvements, protective equipment advancements, as well as, you know, basic medical hygiene.
I dont' really know what the relative casualty rate is of warfare at various points in time, but one point I do know is that death from battlefield injuries is at historic lows for U.S. soldiers.
Proclus is correct. In WWI, WWII and the Civil War you had tens of thousands of soldiers facing each other down. In the era of modern weapons you have much, much smaller encounters over larger land areas. Armies don't mass 50-100,000 troops to face each other directly along a front. Heck, there hasn't been a war with a "front" since Vietnam.
If you have thousands of soldiers shooting lead at each other from short range with crude weapons, you will have a hell of a lot more casualties than having dozens of soldiers square off over larger distances with the most modern of weapons.
Since facts are lacking I'll give you one: The battle of Gettysburg took place over 3 days.There were over 46,000 casualties. In 3 days. Try to find a recent battle that is anywhere close. The simple fact is that since the mid-20th century there have not been battles where large armies face off directly.
War is still terrible, but the math is completely different these days.
Yeesh, guess I should have been far more specific in calling it "warfare light" back then. Yes, there are less casualties in modern warfare (per capita), but that's mostly a function of better protective equipment and (more than anything else) the benefits of modern medicine, not "more humane" or less gruesome warfare today. And yes, there have been massive changes between WWII and, say, Iraq that make the latter far less deadly (although a lot of that is limited vs. "total war," the latter which we haven't seen really since, at least not in the U.S.).
But here is an honest question: You have two options. You can either:
1. Stand in a straight line batle formation faced off against a few dozen other guys, who are shooting a musket ball at you, or;
2. Be part of a unit going house-to-house un an urban combat situation facing off against well armed guerilla fighters.
Which would you choose?
See my post above. The reason the rate of casualties are down does involve battlefield medicine, but the fact that modern warfare involves 30 guys trying to clear village versus 100,000 guys ttrying to secure a football field size area is a MUCH larger factor in the total number of casualties. It's arithmetic.
The death tolls and casualty counts are so high in older conflicts in large part because the number of participants was so much higher. The scale just doesn't compare. The highest number of US troops deployed in the Iraq War was 112,000 in 2010-1 (thank you wiki). The US Army had 104,000 troops at Gettysburg (a 3 day battle!) facing 75,000 Confederate Troops. (thank you again wiki). The US had 122,000 casualties in the Argonne Forest in 47 days (last time, wiki). That's more troop casualties in a month and half in WWI than total troops deployed for almost two whole years in Iraq. With all due respect, you really should read more about warfare in the late 19th and early 20th century (~1850-1950). The scale was completely different. Battles on the eastern front in WWII involved literaly millions of soldiers and if you count civilians, they also involved millions of casualties. The Russians lost (KIA or MIA) almost 500,000 soldiers in Stalingrad in less than 6 months. Let that sink in and then see if you think the size of the armies matters....
They attempted to take Canada and drive the British out. They failed.
The British solidified their hold on the Northern territory.
The British burned Washington D.C. to the ground.
In fact the only Battle the U.S. is credited with winning was the Battle of New Orleans. Which took place after a peace treaty had already been negotiated and signed. As the British ships were leaving the harbor the Americans opened fire.
Sure the American military grew out of the defeat. But the War was exactly that. A defeat.
Battle of York (Toronto parliament is burned)
Battle of Fort Baltimore (, Invasion of Northeast stopped, British general who burned white house is killed"
Battle of Lake Erie (decisive naval victory giving america complete control of great lakes)
Battle of Thames (Broke British and Native American military power in the midwest)
Battle of Plattsburg (British invasion of North America defeated)
All major US victories. The only losers of the war of 1812 were the Native Americans who's ability to resist American expansion into the Northwest territories was broken forever.
History is your friend.
The War of 1812 was just a Friendly.
It doesn't count.
And by "our enemy," I assume you mean Ukraine, Georgia, Crimea, etc.? That, plus "the gays," must keep you very busy, Comrade?
"That Sam I am, that Sam I am, I don't like that Sam I am!"
Huge win! Hope he can take it all the way!
Muller win this one in 5 against Cilic, but that is not looking good.
Cilic could be his kryptonite. Basically the same as Sam but faster and quicker.
But I suppose at this level, this far in, you have to beat the best.
and a far better backhand
I want to see Federer win it all... besides Querrey of course. But I think Federer can beat the Joker this tourney.
It was a great match....well, until the fourth and fifth sets when Sam dominated. There is another match going on now that looks to be going to a fifth set.
Going 5.
Again, if Muller gets thorugh somehow, I really like Sam's chance.
Cilic already up 2 breaks at 4-0 in the 5th set. This one doesn't appear that it will have the dramatic ending many other matches have.
God love her but my late sister Anne was the only person I knew that LOVED watching tennis on TV. For the life of me I dont get it at all but I'd watch with her cause she was so into it. For me tennis ranks below soccer, golf (post Tiger golf) and stock car racing on the sports other people find interesting that bore me to death.
retired due to injury.
I see you rolled your way into the semis. Dios mio, man.
This brought me way more joy than it probably should have.
Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick is up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes click.
This guy terrifies me when he smiles. He looks like he is going to eat my face or something.
Raonic just can't hang with Federer on grass. He can barely hang with him on any surface but Federer on grass is just ridiculous. Raonic just seems to be step down from the Big 4. He may sneak in and steal an Australian or US Open at some point but until Nadal and Rfed are done or no longer competitive he has no shot at Wimbledon or the French.
Federer is unreal...Dominating win over Raonic today, who won 7 of 8 tiebreaker points after going down 3-0 in the third set.
The guy has had an unbelievable career so far and generally seems like a nice guy but I can't stand him and his look on the court for some reason. Can't really explain why. Anyone else feel this way?
Meanwhile I generally root for Federer as he exudes class in my opinion.
I feel the same way. I can't stand the way he turns around and screams at his coaching box after every point lost. It's one thing to show frustration and yell at yourself but the way he doesn drives me nuts. I've never been able to root for the guy.
His body language seems to be a downer.......generally always.
First serve fault and then his shoulders slump for the second serve.