The War of 1812 Merged Thread

[Michael OLeary]

Good point though, if we had half the military we did even the DAY we entered the second world war we'd be somethin!

Are you sure that's what you want to see:

The Canadian Army ... was woefully lacking: in 1939, for example, the army had four anti-aircraft guns, five mortars, eighty-two Vickers machine guns, ten Bren guns, and two light tanks. Even trucks were in short supply. The Permanent Force had only 4,261 all ranks in mid-1939, every unit being under strength. - Granatstein/Morton, A Nation Forged in Fire, 1989

 

[JBP]

Are you sure that's what you want to see:


Quote
The Canadian Army ... was woefully lacking: in 1939, for example, the army had four anti-aircraft guns, five mortars, eighty-two Vickers machine guns, ten Bren guns, and two light tanks. Even trucks were in short supply. The Permanent Force had only 4,261 all ranks in mid-1939, every unit being under strength. - Granatstein/Morton, A Nation Forged in Fire, 1989

Fine, I negate my earlier response but alas! We sucked even back then yes, but the DAY we declared war, almost 50,000 Canadians volunteered to join the army! That's about everything we have in our entire armed forced right now. That I find impressive. Although I am shocked at the figures you produced above.

I'll attempt to find the link where I read that, it was few months back.

 

[pbi]

However, I for one think it is time to fight the new battles, not worry about who did what to whom 200 yrs ago.  If one is basing their current ability on what their forebearers did almost 200 yrs ago, that might be a fatal mistake.

Oh...come on now. Surely you don't deny us the right to enage in a bit of historical chit-chat, do you? Just because we bring up something nasty from the closet of history, is really only in keeping with the tone here, wouldn't you say? Nobody could trash us Canadians any harder than we Canadians trash ourselves, so we just assume everybody else has equally thick skin. As for basing our current ability on what our forefathers did 200 years ago, how would you account for the prevalence of Revolutionary War images and icons in the US (in particular the US military) today? The insignia of CJTF76 here in Afgh is a Minuteman.

Could it be that you guys are proud of what your forefathers did 200 years ago? Well-so are we on our side. Fair enough.

Cheers

 

[Infanteer]

Fine, I negate my earlier response but alas! We sucked even back then yes, but the DAY we declared war, almost 50,000 Canadians volunteered to join the army! That's about everything we have in our entire armed forced right now. That I find impressive. Although I am shocked at the figures you produced above.

I'll attempt to find the link where I read that, it was few months back.

Don't mistake absolute numbers for Army quality.   The Canadian Army in 1939 was a sad, hastily constructed force suffering from years of neglect (as Mr O'Leary has pointed out) and McNaughton's bizarre peacetime experiments.   As well, professionalism was spotty and the Army was not at all prepared to execute operational level combat.   Read English's The Canadian Army in Normandy for a good analysis of the Army in the 30's and 40's.

As well, the "sucked even back then" part sounds like you're talking out of your lane again.  Today, despite resource and manning issues, we have a very professional force serviced by leadership (Officers, WO, and NCO's) who have a great deal of real world operational experience (at least this is what our Allies consistently say).   Despite lacking in some key equipment departments, the rest of it is usually top-notch.   You're in the Militia and you are equipped exactly like your Reg Force brethren (service rifle, equipment, etc) - do you know how uncommon that is?  I've seen our Army (both Reg and Res) next to the soldiers of other countries; don't be so keen to discredit your fellow soldiers and your Army.

As for the original topic, past Canadian battles, I've been reading a bit about the War of 1812 in the last little while - a battle history of Chateauguay in a past issue of the ADTB and a battle history of Queenstown in Fighting For Canada.   What really grabs my interest is the primary source material that recounts the ferocity and feared combat abilities of the Natives of North America.   Their way of fighting, based off of "the hunt" (stalking, infiltration, marksmanship, etc) was truly asymmetric and could be used to great effect at times - witness Norton's roundabout assault with a handful of Native warriors at Queenstown.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

If we want to look at heroes on the Canadian side, we should indeed consider the efforts of Tecumseh's Indian Confederacy - without his help, certain early victories (like Detroit) would not have been possible - and the irony is he was American to boot   

I know our military has honoured him with a naval reserve location, but is that enough for the role that he, and the native people, played?

 

[x-grunt]

If we want to look at heroes on the Canadian side, we should indeed consider the efforts of Tecumseh's Indian Confederacy - without his help, certain early victories (like Detroit) would not have been possible - and the irony is he was American to boot    

I know our military has honoured him with a naval reserve location, but is that enough for the role that he, and the native people, played?

Actually, he probably would not have appreciated being called American. Native people then and to a large extent even now, consider themselves sovereign nations. This is esp. true of the Six Nations Confederacy!

I'm Ojibwe, and a fiercely loyal Canadian but I still say I'm a "Native North American living in Canada" when crossing the border.

As for honouring Native warriors, more recognition is in order. But then I think we need to honour ALL our warriors more. Especially the modern ones, from the "NATO/peacekeeping era" who are largely ignored and unknown to the Canadian public.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

My apologies, I should have said that Tecumseh and his confederacy were located on the American side - I knew they considered themselves independent from the US, hence their alliance with the British with the hopes to gain their sovereignty.

 

[a_majoor]

Tecumseh's legacy is honoured here in 31 CBG with the "arrowhead" insignia as our brigade patch. Older versions from when this was known as "London District" even had a portrait of sorts, but that has fallen by the wayside.

 

[JBP]

Fine, I negate my earlier response but alas! We sucked even back then yes, but the DAY we declared war, almost 50,000 Canadians volunteered to join the army! That's about everything we have in our entire armed forced right now. That I find impressive. Although I am shocked at the figures you produced above.

I'll attempt to find the link where I read that, it was few months back.


Don't mistake absolute numbers for Army quality.  The Canadian Army in 1939 was a sad, hastily constructed force suffering from years of neglect (as Mr O'Leary has pointed out) and McNaughton's bizarre peacetime experiments.  As well, professionalism was spotty and the Army was not at all prepared to execute operational level combat.  Read English's The Canadian Army in Normandy for a good analysis of the Army in the 30's and 40's.

As well, the "sucked even back then" part sounds like you're talking out of your lane again.  Today, despite resource and manning issues, we have a very professional force serviced by leadership (Officers, WO, and NCO's) who have a great deal of real world operational experience (at least this is what our Allies consistently say).  Despite lacking in some key equipment departments, the rest of it is usually top-notch.  You're in the Militia and you are equipped exactly like your Reg Force brethren (service rifle, equipment, etc) - do you know how uncommon that is?  I've seen our Army (both Reg and Res) next to the soldiers of other countries; don't be so keen to discredit your fellow soldiers and your Army.

As for the original topic, past Canadian battles, I've been reading a bit about the War of 1812 in the last little while - a battle history of Chateauguay in a past issue of the ADTB and a battle history of Queenstown in Fighting For Canada.  What really grabs my interest is the primary source material that recounts the ferocity and feared combat abilities of the Natives of North America.  Their way of fighting, based off of "the hunt" (stalking, infiltration, marksmanship, etc) was truly asymmetric and could be used to great effect at times - witness Norton's roundabout assault with a handful of Native warriors at Queenstown.

I apologize, I shouldn't have generalized again. I meant our equipment/combat machines. I realize now more then ever our level of training is amazing. I was very pleased when our Pat Pltn 2i/c gave us a historical run through of his career in the CF and what he's done. He's an excellent example of what us new recruits need to try and live up to. Our Sgts+Officers alike are an amazing resource.

First thing I noticed when we were issued kit was how MUCH kit. Couldn't believe it, most of my kit was new too! I was shocked and elated. Back on topic.

We need to remember our great Canadian heroes from the past! As the others have said, it may be a sore spot for some people, but we'll bash ourselves just as hard.

PS> Thanks for the reading suggestion Infateer.

 

[Jonny Boy]

If we want to look at heroes on the Canadian side, we should indeed consider the efforts of Tecumseh's Indian Confederacy - without his help, certain early victories (like Detroit) would not have been possible - and the irony is he was American to boot   

I know our military has honoured him with a naval reserve location, but is that enough for the role that he, and the native people, played?

i strongly belive that Tecumseh is not really reconized for what he did in the war of 1812. i have gone around to many people and asked if they know who he is and they have no idea. i have never asked someone and them say oh ya i know who he is. i is really sad. once Sur Issak Brock and Tecumseh were killed the native's way of life rapidly started to fall apart. 

 

[pbi]

I think we  could do more still to honour Tecumseh and the contribution he and his warriors made to the War of 1812. Back in the late 90's when we were planning the new "super HQ" on the Downsview site (where LFCA and friends are now...) I had the idea that we should call it the "Tecumseh Building".  Besides the NavRes div and the 31 CBG badge, are there any other formal military commemorations of him?

Cheers

 

[Love793]

I'm not to sure that the 31 CBG badge is really a tribute to Tecumseh, but more of a recognition of the Natives and their histories in the 31 CBG area of responsibility.  The Navy does have a history of naming ships after Native tribes though, and Airforce does use alot of Native reference in the naming of Squadrons.

 

[Danjanou]

Possible War of 1812 Battle Honours that present Units that perpetuate â Å“Canadianâ ? units militia and/or Fencible ( Regular) that fought there may be entitled to ( in alphabetical order):

Beaver Dams
Chateauguay
Chippewa
Crysler's Farm,
Defence of Mackinac
Detroit
Fort Castine
Fort Erie
Fort George
Fort Meigs
Fort Niagara
Fort Stephenson
Grand River
Lacolle Mill
Lake Erie
Lundy's Lane
Mackinac
Miami
Niagara
Ogdensburg
Patterson's Creek
Penobscot
Plattsburg
Prairie du Chien
Queenston Heights
Recapture of Fort George
River Raisin
Sacket's Harbour
Sandwich
Stoney Creek
Thames (Moravian Town)
York

Not including ones that â Å“Canadianâ ? units militia and/or Fencible ( Regular) were not engaged at:

Baltimore
Bladenburg,
Capture of Washington
Fort Bowyler
Georgia Coast
Mobile
New Orleans

Obviously from this list we would have to decide on say a half a dozen or so to be awarded. Perhaps combining some of the smaller engagements into one campaign honour such as "Niagara."

 

[pbi]

I think you are on to something here. The award of broad campaign honours, or even of  a "War of 1812" honour (similar to the "Korea" award carried by the RegF Inf Regts) might make it much easier to get this idea underway.

Cheers

 

[Danjanou]

Ideally the regiments eligible could be awarded all those entiltled but have a limit as to those that can be displayed on their Colours (as per WW1 &WWII) which would allow them to use say "Niagara"

Ok next step, what units would qualify?

 

[pbi]

Well, that could be bit tricky, dependng on our ability to establish lineage. Unless, of  course, we disregard lineage and say that the purpose is perpetuation for heritage purposes. In that case, I suggest:

Southwest Frontier:

Essex and Kent Scottish
4 RCR(London and Oxford)

Niagara Frontier
Lincoln and Welland Regiment
Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders/RHLI/Lorne Scots (one or more)
Toronto Scottish/RRegtC/QOR0fC/48Hghr (one or more)

St. Lawrence (Upper)
Hastings and Prince Edward Regt
PWOR
Brockville Rifles
SD&G Highrs

St Lawrence (Lower)
Voltigeurs
FMR/RMR/4R22er/RHC (one or more)
RduSag/5R22er

Atlantic Canada
RNBR
PLF
RNfldR
NSH

That is a very rough take on establishing a "field" for selection. Further work might have to be done to refine it, but I do not think that the final selection would look radically different. Cheers

 

[Bill Smy]

I've done a bit of work here, but I am sure that others can bring more expertise to the discussion:-

"Detroit"

Canadian militia present: 5 Lincolns; 1 & 2 Essex; 1, 2, 3 York; 1, 2 Norfolk; 1 Oxford.

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment; Essex and Kent Scottish; Windsor Regiment; Queen's York Rangers; Governor General Horse Guards; The RCR; 1st Hussars

"Queenston"

Canadian militia present: 1, 2.4, 5 Lincolns; 1, 2, 3 York

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment; Queen's York Rangers; Governor General's Horse Guards.

"Niagara"

Canadian militia present: 1, 2,3,4, 5 Lincolns; Glengary Light Infantry; New Brunswick Fencibles; Newfoundland Regiment; 1, 2, 3 York; 1, 2, Norfolk, 1 Oxford, 1 Essex, Canadian Light Dragoons; Volunteer Incorporated Militia

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: The Lincoln and Welland Regiment; Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders; Royal New Brunswick Regiment; Royal Newfoundland Regiment; Queen's York Rangers; Governor General's Horse Guards; The RCR; Essex and Kent Scottish; The Windsor Regiment

'Miami'

Canadian militia present:   1, 2 Essex; 1 Kent

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: Essex and Kent Scottish; Windsor Regiment

Proposed Battle Honours

'Chateaugay'

Canadian militia present: 1, 2, 3 Select Embodied Militia; 2 Beauharnois; Les Chausseurs; Boucherville Militia; Voltigeurs; Canadian Fencibles; Militia Light Infantry Battalion

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim:   R22R; Les Voltigeurs de Quebec

'Chrysler's Farm'

Canadian militia present: 1 Stormont; 1 Dundas; Newfound Regiment; Voltigeurs

Currrent units which might be able to establish a claim: PWOR; SDG Highlanders; Brockville Rifles (althoug rifles do not carry BH); Royal Newfoundland Regiment

A theatre battle honour such as War of 1812 should also be considered. That would enable units which did duty but were not involved in specific battles to claim the honour. Without a good Order of Battle, it is impossible to identify current units, but I would suspect the Nova Scotia Highlanders and others to qualify.

 

[pbi]

Yes-this is more scientific than my first cut. I wonder how we would go about getting this to happen? I definitely think it is worthwhile.

Cheers

 

[GGboy]

Much as I hate to quibble ... there was only one battalion of Incorporated Militia in the War of 1812 not 5 (that was the number raised during the 1837 rebellion) and it was awarded the Niagara battle honour in an almost unheard-of period of time, but still only a few months before it was disbanded in 1815.
For more info on the Incorporated Militia of Upper Canada, check out http://www.imuc.org a great site by a War of 1812 re-enactment group.

I think 1812 battle honours are a great idea, but we might want to be a bit careful about retroactively linking them to militia units that "participated" in actions like Lundy's Lane. The militia in 1812 was not a particularly military operation (the Inc. Militia of Upper Canada being the exception, along with the Glengarry Light Infantry and other fencible units, such as the Voltigeurs): they were basically civilians armed only occasionally with muskets and whose uniform consisted of a cockade on their hats or an armband. Accordingly, they were used largely as rear area troops during major battles (hauling ammo, retrieving wounded, etc.) and were considered by most generals of the period almost more trouble than they were worth since they were prone to either running in the opposite direction at the first sign of trouble and/or looting prisoners after the regulars had won the day. Not true of all militia units of course, but remember that the militia of 1812 was VERY different from that of 2005 ...

 

[pbi]

GGBoy: maybe he meant "Embodied Militia" not Incorporated Militia.

Anyway, my thought is that the end state is to have these honours carried by serving Canadian units. Therefore, if direct lineage cannot be demonstrated, we should go the "perpetuation" route, which IIRC does require the establishment of direct lineage in as rigorous a sense, but achieves the end state.

Cheers