That year the US went to war with Canada. (1 Viewer)

[StirFriedPanda]

That's right... the militia from a single state beat Canada in a war.





@MaiMelody

 

[ChiaraStar169]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIImma have to Google and see if this is true

 

[ChiaraStar169]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIImma have to Google and see if this is true

oh, apparently it is... but it was only til 1907!

 

[Ahsoka]

Sounds like the Pig War but with less ships and pigs and no obvious idiot Based on this at least. But also you’re talking about British Canada, which absolutely could destroy the New Hampshire militia if they wanted to, given the whole British bit

 

[StirFriedPanda]

Sounds like the Pig War but with less ships and pigs and no obvious idiot Based on this at least. But also you’re talking about British Canada, which absolutely could destroy the New Hampshire militia if they wanted to, given the whole British bit

The British had that mistaken line of thought... twice. You REALLY think they wanted a third go?

 

[Ahsoka]

@YouChanTheSheep isnt the war of 1812 prime proof that the New Hampshire militia would be fucked many times over? The might of the full American military couldn’t even defeat a small fraction of the British military then, they had to settle for a draw. There’s no way in hell that the US would have dared declare war on Britain in 1812 if the British weren’t fighting a (to them) much much more important war in Europe, and they knew that less resources would be put into the American war of 1812, simply because it was way less important 1835 isn’t that much later, so I see no reason it would be different

 

[StirFriedPanda]

@YouChanTheSheep isnt the war of 1812 prime proof that the New Hampshire militia would be fucked many times over? The might of the full American military couldn’t even defeat a small fraction of the British military then, they had to settle for a draw. There’s no way in hell that the US would have dared declare war on Britain in 1812 if the British weren’t fighting a (to them) much much more important war in Europe, and they knew that less resources would be put into the American war of 1812, simply because it was way less important 1835 isn’t that much later, so I see no reason it would be different

Hey, I'm not interested in your facts. Only my American delusions.

 

[Selfmate]

 

[Harmony_Starz]

Sounds like the Pig War but with less ships and pigs and no obvious idiot Based on this at least. But also you’re talking about British Canada, which absolutely could destroy the New Hampshire militia if they wanted to, given the whole British bit

pig war?

 

[Ahsoka]

@Firefly_Fairy yep, it started because the border divisions between the US and British Canada weren’t clear, so the British said an island was theirs and the Americans also said it was theirs. British and American people inhabited the island together. Then one day an American person shot an British guys pig, and things escalated to the point that American militia were sent to set up camp on the island, while British navy were sent. It was close to full on war. But luckily people decided the situation was stupid and refused to follow some orders that would lead to war. That’s the brief version, but I’m guessing you can see the parallels with the video in this thread

 

[Ahsoka]

Also @YouChanTheSheep while I’m here, I’ll also mention that it’s considered more or less absolute fact that the colonists would have lost the revolutionary war without the massive help of France and Spain. Especially given that France and Spain fought with Great Britain in Europe, thereby making Great Britain split their troops across continents, which wasn’t easy at the time. The British did have more help from native Americans than the colonists did, but the colonists were much more dependent on the French than the British on the Native Americans (though they absolutely played a big role). So neither of the examples you were thinking of would really show that the New Hampshire militia or the US could defeat Britain at the time if they don’t receive a lot of help from others.

 

[StirFriedPanda]

Also @YouChanTheSheep while I’m here, I’ll also mention that it’s considered more or less absolute fact that the colonists would have lost the revolutionary war without the massive help of France and Spain. Especially given that France and Spain fought with Great Britain in Europe, thereby making Great Britain split their troops across continents, which wasn’t easy at the time. The British did have more help from native Americans than the colonists did, but the colonists were much more dependent on the French than the British on the Native Americans (though they absolutely played a big role). So neither of the examples you were thinking of would really show that the New Hampshire militia or the US could defeat Britain at the time if they don’t receive a lot of help from others.

There's no doubt that the French made beating the British a lot faster and easier but America still would have won. Even if Great Britain hadn't been fighing multiple wars the US still wold have won. Bringing troops and equipment to the US was an insanely expensive, dangerous and time consuming process. Just the trip across the Atlantic was guaranteed to destroy ships, equipment and kill a large number of troops. This was before any shots were fired. The average ship could only Cary a hundred or so soldiers in miserable conditions. The Journey took from 3 to 6 months. This means every soldier, gun, bullet and bandage spent 3 months minimum at sea where even a small storm could destroy and kill all of them. There is also a season where they could even make the voyage to avoid the worst of the weather.

America at the time was already pretty self sufficient. Mainly what was brought from over seas was luxuries or higher quality items than could be made in the US. American soldiers readily tried tactics the British couldn't comprehend or thought to be barbaric. Seriously, the British thought standing in a tight formation, wearing bright red heavy uniforms was a great idea. The US was the first to use snipers in combat during the revolutionary War. Guns made in the US were superior to the British. US soldiers had superior calvary simply because shipping a horse across the Atlantic was really hard. Most either died and were eaten or were killed and eaten before they got to there destination. Lastly, the British soldiers had no real reason to win the Revolutionary war. Their families were safe on the opposite side of the world. The US population also had friendly places to retreat to. Unless the British got back on their ships everyone was hostile.

 

[Ahsoka]

@YouChanTheSheep the colonists could maybe have won if a miracle happened, but realistically defeat would have been much more likely. You’re right that the British had less reason to fight and faced difficulties with the whole having to get troops in at a time when sea travel was more difficult. And yes, some American tactics that the British deemed barbaric worked and helped the colonists. But the US was very very heavily reliant on the French, to the point victory without them would be super unlikely. Even if you throw out their troops they offered and the fact that they opened a second front in Europe, the colonists depended on them financially and for supplies. You say American made guns were superior, which they absolutely weren’t. For military purposes, they weren’t even close. They often weren’t made for war, and for other uses, and they lacked standardization and reliability. By the end of the war, an estimated 90% of guns used by colonial troops weren’t American made at all, they were French, who had guns much more suited to military engagements. And that was a theme throughout the war, primarily American troops fighting with equipment that is primarily French. Yes, American made weapons were used, and sometimes in ways the British wouldn’t think of, but they would be incredibly hindered if they had to supply all the weapons used by the colonial army. And that’s without even talking about probably one of the biggest points, which is gunpowder. At the start of the war, America had almost no gunpowder production, which is super essential obviously. They tried to increase it, but it was still extremely limited because they lacked important raw materials needed for its creation. That’s why, similar to the gun situation, over 75% of the gunpowder used by the colonists in the ending part war was from France, and a good amount of the rest was from other countries, including some stolen from Great Britain. Which gave the colonists an advantage because French gunpowder was regarded as the best gunpowder in the world, including the British. An extra advantage that they could not have gotten without the support of France, because even if they by some miracle managed to increase their domestic production, the quality would have been significantly worse. So yes, the British faced challenges that the colonists wouldn’t because their homeland was on another continent, but the US were so far from self sufficient in terms of materials needed for war that even with the challenges of Great Britain and their less passionate desire for the colonies, it’s highly doubtful the colonists could win without major help from another major power. And you also have to consider support (or lack thereof) of the general populous for the war. The colonial army didn’t have a standing army. Their army started off as volunteers who’d fight for some time, then go do other stuff, they maybe fight for some more time, and so on. At the start, plenty of the people didn’t even agree that there should be a war, or supported Great Britain. Either way, without European help, the war would have started of much worse for the colonists (more than it already did) based on all the things they lacked, so it’s unlikely that people would have wanted to continue a war that was going poorly for them, which could have also played a role in whether the war could continue. So yeah, overall it seems to me that an American victory was very very far from assured, because while the British faced big challenges, the colonists faced much bigger ones as a whole, ones that they could not manage on their own.

 

[Harmony_Starz]

@Firefly_Fairy yep, it started because the border divisions between the US and British Canada weren’t clear, so the British said an island was theirs and the Americans also said it was theirs. British and American people inhabited the island together. Then one day an American person shot an British guys pig, and things escalated to the point that American militia were sent to set up camp on the island, while British navy were sent. It was close to full on war. But luckily people decided the situation was stupid and refused to follow some orders that would lead to war. That’s the brief version, but I’m guessing you can see the parallels with the video in this thread

the most unrealistic part of this is where the people decided the situation was stupid, they had so much common sense?

 

[Ahsoka]

@Firefly_Fairy the fact that they could die may have influenced the decision If they shot, they’d also be shot at after all. Also the non zero chance it could lead to a full on war between the two countries

 

[StirFriedPanda]

the most unrealistic part of this is where the people decided the situation was stupid, they had so much common sense?

Joke of the year. Americans with common sense.

 

[Harmony_Starz]

@Firefly_Fairy the fact that they could die may have influenced the decision If they shot, they’d also be shot at after all. Also the non zero chance it could lead to a full on war between the two countries

I see,

 

[Harmony_Starz]

Joke of the year. Americans with common sense.

they lost their last braincell

 

[Ahsoka]

@YouChanTheSheep if it helps the people who decided not to follow orders and shoot were British, not Americans I forgot to specify