Our bicentennial celebration

[Papa_Complex]

Tomorrow we celebrate the Battle of York, from the War of 1812. I have to wonder why.

In 1813, when the battle occurred, "Muddy York" (Toronto) was a 'city' of some 750 people plus a few soldiers, quartered at Fort York. A few hundred could be called to muster.

The American army rolled in, 1600 strong. They out numbered the entire city by more than 50%; not just combatants. Basically the entire city of York yelled, "RUN AWAY!!!!!", and they did. The fort fought, and lost.

Not content with their victory the Americans blew up the powder magazine which killed about 20 American soldiers, 80-some Canadians (British), and wounded a few hundred. They then burnt the place to the ground which, at the time and given the force of the explosion, seemed much like killing a butterfly with an 8 pound sledge hammer.

And so we celebrate the turning of proto-Toronto into a smoking crater. Why the hell couldn't we be celebrating the revenge which consisted of a bunch of drunken Nova Scotia irregulars, led by a few British troops, burning The White House down?

[Rangerscott]

Guess cause you rebuilt.

[Method]

Perhaps its a celebration of the inspiration provided to the French for their battle cry.

Run away!!!

[fatbuckRTO]

It's odd to me that the War of 1812 is recognized there at all. Here it's barely mentioned as a footnote.

[OneSickPsycho]

It's odd to me that the War of 1812 is recognized there at all. Here it's barely mentioned as a footnote.

Probably because we lost... lol.

[Trip]

It is celebrated in America, just not by the sissy Yankees who got spanked.

Probably because we lost... lol.

We didn't lose and bend over and take it. We fuckin beat them like the bitches they are and put a man in the White House. It's not our fault you guys up north were bitches.

[OneSickPsycho]

It is celebrated in America, just not by the sissy Yankees who got spanked.



We didn't lose and bend over and take it. We fuckin beat them like the bitches they are and put a man in the White House. It's not our fault you guys up north were bitches.

Nobody in my family lived in the US at that time...

And, you're right... the south is tougher than the pussies in the north... I mean, just look at how the Civil War ended.

[Trip]

Nobody in my family lived in the US at that time...

And, you're right... the south is tougher than the pussies in the north... I mean, just look at how the Civil War ended.

We ran out of supplies and men, money won the day. Not being strong. It was our men that kept the war going as long as it did.

We also celebrate the Civil War down here, we aren't ashamed of our loses. :lol:

[OneSickPsycho]

We ran out of supplies and men, money won the day. Not being strong. It was our men that kept the war going as long as it did.

So you're saying the south lost because the north killed too many of their troops... Shit, obviously the weaker faction won.

[Trip]

So you're saying the south lost because the north killed too many of their troops... Shit, obviously the weaker faction won.

We both lost a ton of troops. We didn't have the ability to replace them like the North was and we didn't have the money to keep buying supplies like the North was....

If both groups keep taking massive losses, but one is replenishing those losses while the other one just keeps diminishing, it's pretty much impossible for that side to do anything no matter if they had superior forces to start with...

Germans were the same way. Superior force, way overmatched in numbers and supplies.

[OneSickPsycho]

We both lost a ton of troops. We didn't have the ability to replace them like the North was and we didn't have the money to keep buying supplies like the North was....

If both groups keep taking massive losses, but one is replenishing those losses while the other one just keeps diminishing, it's pretty much impossible for that side to do anything no matter if they had superior forces to start with...

Germans were the same way. Superior force, way overmatched in numbers and supplies.

This is some of the most idiotic rationale I've ever seen... yeah buddy, that's how EVERY war is won/lost...

And you can't be superior if you lose...

[Trip]

This is some of the most idiotic rationale I've ever seen... yeah buddy, that's how EVERY war is won/lost...

And you can't be superior if you lose...

So the best motorcycle/rider always wins the race? There are other factors that come into play in victory/defeat.

[OneSickPsycho]

So the best motorcycle/rider always wins the race? There are other factors that come into play in victory/defeat.

Yes, the best rider always win the race. The best fighter always wins the fight. The best always wins... that doesn't mean if you repeated the same thing 100 times, they'd win every time, but at the time they won, they're by definition the best.

[Trip]

Yes, the best rider always win the race. The best fighter always wins the fight. The best always wins... that doesn't mean if you repeated the same thing 100 times, they'd win every time, but at the time they won, they're by definition the best.

I disagree. Environment, timing, other factors can allow an underdog to win. They are not the best, may not even be close to the best, but they managed to scrap it out and win the day.

I noticed you left off the best motorcycle out of your answer. That for sure is not always the case and you know it.

We have seen it throughout history many times when the vastly superior force tries to occupy a lowly country and the residents of that country make it an absolute nightmare to keep control of it and eventually the superior country just gives up.

[OneSickPsycho]

I disagree. Environment, timing, other factors can allow an underdog to win. They are not the best, may not even be close to the best, but they managed to scrap it out and win the day.

I noticed you left off the best motorcycle out of your answer. That for sure is not always the case and you know it.

We have seen it throughout history many times when the vastly superior force tries to occupy a lowly country and the residents of that country make it an absolute nightmare to keep control of it and eventually the superior country just gives up.

The winner, by definition, is the better of the two.

[Papa_Complex]

It is celebrated in America, just not by the sissy Yankees who got spanked.

We didn't lose and bend over and take it. We fuckin beat them like the bitches they are and put a man in the White House. It's not our fault you guys up north were bitches.

Actually it was the "Army of the North" that did that, but only for so long. Also there weren't very many British Regular troops in Upper nor Lower Canada at the time. It was mostly the levy that beatcha ;)

Still doesn't explain to me why we're taking a weekend to celebrate a loss though. It is an interesting place to visit, despite being in the shadow of The Gardiner Expressway these days.

http://goo.gl/maps/PsEhI

[fatbuckRTO]

Probably because we lost... lol.

If we had lost, we would have become a colony of Great Britain again. By the end of it all, we had our capitol back (slightly toasted), kept New Orleans (unfortunately?) and the Brits quit conscripting our sailors. Not sure how we lost; I don't think the goal of the United States during that war was ever to conquer the Brits (or take Canada), just to get them to quit fucking with us.

My understanding is that a lot of Canadians consider it a victory for Canada. From where I sit, it was never even a war against Canada. It was a war against the British Empire, and Canada was one of the battlefields. That said, had we swept through Canada in a decisive victory rather than fought the Crown to a stalemate, we probably* would have kept it. So, from that perspective, I could see it being viewed as a sort of victory for Canadian independence. If you ignore that they belonged to the British Empire for another 50 years**...



*Definitely

**Or 115 years, or 165 years, depending on your benchmark. I never could really tell when the Canucks considered themselves independent.

[Trip]

The winner, by definition, is the better of the two.

The winner is by definition the one that won or is the victor of the event/race/battle. The better team/racer/whatever doesn't always win.

The year Bama beat LSU for the MNC is a good example. LSU barely beat Bama in the regular season and then Bama showed the country who was definitely the better team in the champ game.

[Trip]

Actually it was the "Army of the North" that did that, but only for so long. Also there weren't very many British Regular troops in Upper nor Lower Canada at the time. It was mostly the levy that beatcha ;)

I was talking about the Battle of New Orleans. It was the British regulars there and a lot of natives to that area were with Andrew Jackson to hold the line before the Brits gave up and went to pick on Mobile but never got the chance cause of the treaty signing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_American_order_of_battle

[fatbuckRTO]

Actually it was the "Army of the North" that did that, but only for so long. Also there weren't very many British Regular troops in Upper nor Lower Canada at the time. It was mostly the levy that beatcha ;)And you were fighting American militia, at least on the outset of the war. Not sure what kind of idiot starts a war without much of a standing army to call on; you'd have to ask President Madison and the 12th Congress.

[Papa_Complex]

If we had lost, we would have become a colony of Great Britain again. By the end of it all, we had our capitol back (slightly toasted), kept New Orleans (unfortunately?) and the Brits quit conscripting our sailors. Not sure how we lost; I don't think the goal of the United States during that war was ever to conquer the Brits (or take Canada), just to get them to quit fucking with us.

My understanding is that a lot of Canadians consider it a victory for Canada. From where I sit, it was never even a war against Canada. It was a war against the British Empire, and Canada was one of the battlefields. That said, had we swept through Canada in a decisive victory rather than fought the Crown to a stalemate, we probably* would have kept it. So, from that perspective, I could see it being viewed as a sort of victory for Canadian independence. If you ignore that they belonged to the British Empire for another 50 years**...



*Definitely

**Or 115 years, or 165 years, depending on your benchmark. I never could really tell when the Canucks considered themselves independent.

One of the stated goals of the United States, during the War of 1812, was annexation of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec). For that reason it was a victory ;)

.... well, except the part where we kept Quebec.

I was talking about the Battle of New Orleans. It was the British regulars there and a lot of natives to that area were with Andrew Jackson to hold the line before the Brits gave up and went to pick on Mobile but never got the chance cause of the treaty signing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_American_order_of_battle

Gotcha.

[fatbuckRTO]

I was talking about the Battle of New Orleans. It was the British regulars there It was British regulars (with a lot of veterans of the Napoleonic wars) that burned down Washington, too. Not that it would have made it any less stupid if we had let the war, which we started, end there.

[fatbuckRTO]

.... well, except the part where we kept Quebec.Not so dumb now, are we?

[Papa_Complex]

It was British regulars (with a lot of veterans of the Napoleonic wars) that burned down Washington, too. Not that it would have made it any less stupid if we had let the war, which we started, end there.

It was a small number of regular infantry, who led a large number of Maritimer conscripts.

Not so dumb now, are we?

And you wonder why we won't take Justin and Celine back? :lol:

[fatbuckRTO]

One of the stated goals of the United States, during the War of 1812, was annexation of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec). For that reason it was a victory ;):shrug: Wikipedia's thoughts on the matter:

"According to Stagg (1981 and 1983), Madison and his advisers believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their West Indies colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Stagg suggested that settlers demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land, but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking US settlement of the West.[35][36] As Horsman concluded, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it."[37] In agreement with Horsman is the view: "...American policy makers reasoned that they could take it [Canada] and hold it hostage while demanding that the British back down on other issues."[38] Hickey flatly stated, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war."[39] Brown (1964) concluded, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation, not to annex Canada."[40] Burt, a Canadian scholar, but also a professor at an American university, agreed, noting that Foster—the British minister to Washington—also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal.[41] During the phase prior to the war, he also rejected the possibility of an American declaration of war, despite having dinner with several of the more prominent War Hawks, so his judgement in these matters can be questioned. [42] Canadian scholar Reginald Stuart stated, "But what seemed like territorial expansion actually arose from a defensive mentality, not from ambitions for conquest and annexation."[43]"

[Papa_Complex]

If it had been taken it wouldn't likely have been given back, which means annexation. That we weren't beaten makes it a victory ;)

And you know better than to trust Wikipedia :lol:

[fatbuckRTO]

It was a small number of regular infantry, who led a large number of Maritimer conscripts.Wikipedia disagrees, from what I can tell (and for whatever that's worth):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg#Order_of_battle

British(Major General Robert Ross)

1st (Light) Brigade (Colonel William Thornton) (1100 men)
85th Regiment of Foot (Bucks Volunteers)(Light Infantry)
Light companies, 1/4th, 21st, 1/44th Foot
Company of Royal Marines, commanded by Lt Athelstan Stevens, detached from the Royal Marine battalion
Rocket Detachment of 26 Royal Marine Artillery gunners, commanded by Lt John Lawrence, likewise detached from the Royal Marine battalion
Company of Colonial Marines overseen by Captain Reed of the 2nd West India Regiment
2nd Brigade (Colonel Arthur Brooke) (1460 men)
1st Battalion, 4th (King's Own) Regiment of Foot
1st Battalion, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot
3rd Brigade (Colonel Patterson) (ca. 1460 men)
21st Regiment (Royal North British Fusiliers)
2nd Battalion, Royal Marines (commanded by Major James Malcolm) less one infantry company with the 1st Brigade, and the Rocket Detachment with the 1st Brigade.
composite battalion (formed from ship-based Marines) commanded by Captain John Robyns and guarding the shoreline at Benedict
Note: there were a total of 1350 Marines[28]

[fatbuckRTO]

If it had been taken it wouldn't likely have been given back, which means annexation. That we weren't beaten makes it a victory ;)Granted. But that seems to be the American attitude as well, even from that time. "Well, we didn't give up the mother country. I'm calling this a win." I guess when you poke a grizzly and limp away with all your limbs intact, that might be considered a victory even if you didn't get a trophy claw...

And you know better than to trust Wikipedia :lol:The Wikipedia article seems to be decently sourced. But I'm not engaged in this argument enough to look for better sourcing. At the end of the day, it was a stupid war fought because both sides were being pretty stupid. Thousands dead and the only change was in attitudes. We could have better settled our differences in 1812 through a rousing game of cricket.

[Trip]

The Wikipedia article seems to be decently sourced. But I'm not engaged in this argument enough to look for better sourcing. At the end of the day, it was a stupid war fought because both sides were being pretty stupid. Thousands dead and the only change was in attitudes. We could have better settled our differences in 1812 through a rousing game of cricket.

I think it was pretty useful. We finally settled shit. Brits got a little revenge burning down the white house, we got them off our backs. We eventually became best buds.

[Papa_Complex]

I think it was pretty useful. We finally settled shit. Brits got a little revenge burning down the white house, we got them off our backs. We eventually became best buds.

Less than 100 years later and all hatchets were buried. We're now more alike, I think, than any other two neighbouring countries in the world.

[VatorMan]

Less than 100 years later and all hatchets were buried. We're now more alike, I think, than any other two neighbouring countries in the world.

I like Canadians. Except Bieber. Don't know what you guys do up there but holy hell some of your women you send down here are f'n beautiful.

[Papa_Complex]

I like Canadians. Except Bieber. Don't know what you guys do up there but holy hell some of your women you send down here are f'n beautiful.

Eugenics programme.

[Papa_Complex]

Oops, I had it wrong. We blew ourselves up, along with the commander of the American force, then you guys burnt the remnants down. In my defence it has been...... let's just say 'a while' since high school history class.

[VatorMan]

BTW- You guys can come back and take New York, Washington DC and we'll throw Chicago and Detroit in for free !!

[Papa_Complex]

BTW- You guys can come back and take New York, Washington DC and we'll throw Chicago and Detroit in for free !!

Sounds like a fire sale. In other words burn 'em down first, then we'll think about it.

[Trip]

After my dad's experience with your healthcare in Calgary over the past few weeks, keep that too.

The GP just kept throwing antibiotics at him instead of sending him to a neurology specialist like he needed. Luckily we got him back in the States and hopefully he is going to get fixed up before he has a stroke. Probably terrible GP, but they would not let him see a specialist. They kept saying it was a tooth infection issue when it was an artery issue that they found in his neck with an MRI here.

[Papa_Complex]

Bad doctors are bad doctors anywhere.

[Trip]

Bad doctors are bad doctors anywhere.

Can you skip GPs though? According to my Dad, he cannot and has to see GP's first. Here you can go straight to the experts...

[Papa_Complex]

Can you skip GPs though? According to my Dad, he cannot and has to see GP's first. Here you can go straight to the experts...

You just have to understand the system, as with any bureaucracy. The last time I broke my collarbone I waited until the next day then walked into the emergency at St. Michael's Hospital, a two minute walk from my desk here at work, because I knew that two of the best orthropods in the country work there and, specifically, had done a study on plating collarbone breaks there.

I was scheduled to see one of them just two days after I walked into emergency.

[fatbuckRTO]

Sounds like a fire sale. In other words burn 'em down first, then we'll think about it.

:lol


That smilie just put me on a watch list...

[shmike]

You just have to understand the system, as with any bureaucracy. The last time I broke my collarbone I waited until the next day then walked into the emergency at St. Michael's Hospital, a two minute walk from my desk here at work, because I knew that two of the best orthropods in the country work there and, specifically, had done a study on plating collarbone breaks there.

I was scheduled to see one of them just two days after I walked into emergency.

Seems like the normal wait time up there.

My uncle only had to wait 2 (business) days to get someone to see him after his heart attack.

I mean; why should you get to see a heart specialist on Family Day just because you almost died, right?

[Papa_Complex]

Seems like the normal wait time up there.

My uncle only had to wait 2 (business) days to get someone to see him after his heart attack.

I mean; why should you get to see a heart specialist on Family Day just because you almost died, right?

Don't get me started on "Family Day" :skep:

You get to see a capable generalist rather quickly, in such cases. Specialists are heavily booked, so it might take a day or two. If you're misdiagnosed, as in the case of Trip's father, then your generalist becomes a roadblock rather than an advocate.

In my case my injury was relatively minor, and easily diagnosed, so I knew that I would be seeing one of the best guys in the country in short order.