History questions not worth their own thread IV

[GamezRule]

Well, I think it's important to note that during the War of 1812, it took a great deal of effort on the part of the United States to manage to fight Britain to a standstill in a war they more or less didn't care about and didn't "break a sweat" while fighting it.

I'd say that the United States managed to reach a relatively equal status regarding it's land forces in 1848. When I asked the question, I already accepted that the US had this ability by 1861.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, I think it's important to note that during the War of 1812, it took a great deal of effort on the part of the United States to manage to fight Britain to a standstill in a war they more or less didn't care about and didn't "break a sweat" while fighting it.

I'm really curious where this conception comes from. They didn't quite deploy as many men and ships as they did for the American Revolutionary War (partially because the war was shorter, but mostly because they had a fraction of the standing in North America than four decades prior), no, but the North American theater provided a frustrating distraction from the War of the Sixth Coalition.

 

[KaiserElectric]

Why is it that pre-Columbian Native Americans did not discover the wheel?

 

[Bowsling]

No use.

 

[AnthonyBoscia]

They beelined Philosophy instead for the free tech.

 

[Traitorfish]

No use.

Specifically, the fact that they lacked any domesticated animals strong enough to draw a cart, and they lacked the ability to build decently even and durable roads. Mesoamericans could have built the roads, but lacked the infrastructure do so on a particularly useful scale, while the Andeans had the infrastructure, and you could conceivably have convinced a llama to pull a cart (or at least bread a variety capable of doing so), but inhabited terrain that was decidedly unfriendly to wheeled vehicles. After all, strictly speaking most Old World cultures didn't invent the wheel either, they were just able to get the technology and the animals from people who had done.

On the other hand, they could have made use of a potters wheel and a water wheel, and it's not obvious that the transport-wheel is any sort of precursor to that- we know for a fact that plenty of Native American cultures were familiar with the wheel as a concept, and the Incas even applied it in some construction projects- so part of it may simply be the contingent factor of nobody ever thinking of it. Sometimes that just happens.

 

[History_Buff]

I'm really curious where this conception comes from. They didn't quite deploy as many men and ships as they did for the American Revolutionary War (partially because the war was shorter, but mostly because they had a fraction of the standing in North America than four decades prior), no, but the North American theater provided a frustrating distraction from the War of the Sixth Coalition.

Because even after Napoleon had been defeated, the British still didn't put too much effort into it. The bulk of their forces were simply demobilized so they could stop paying for them. There were a great many people calling for Wellesley to be deployed to North America and teach the Yanks a lesson, but his general opinion is that he wouldn't know what he'd do, since the Brits weren't going to bother to commit many extra troops, instead opting for the whole peace route.

That, as it turned out, was a pretty good decision.

 

[Cutlass]

Why is it that pre-Columbian Native Americans did not discover the wheel?

Actually, they did. They just didn't apply it to carts or work vehicles for the reasons TF stated. It was a toy to them. The most developed of Native American societies lived in mountains and jungles, so in addition to lack of draft animals, they had limited opportunities to build roads that human pulled carts would be a real advantage on.

 

[LightSpectra]

Because even after Napoleon had been defeated, the British still didn't put too much effort into it. The bulk of their forces were simply demobilized so they could stop paying for them. There were a great many people calling for Wellesley to be deployed to North America and teach the Yanks a lesson, but his general opinion is that he wouldn't know what he'd do, since the Brits weren't going to bother to commit many extra troops, instead opting for the whole peace route.

That, as it turned out, was a pretty good decision.

what. So they didn't have the funds in order to summon enough troops to defeat the Americans, and that's proof that they didn't care enough to put much effort into it? Funny, that's the same reason why Switzerland didn't conquer the Nazis.

 

[History_Buff]

They were certainly capable of fielding and paying an army that could have easily defeated just about anything America had; they cobbled one together again to help end the 100 Days Campaign. They chose not to, which was a political decision, taxes being ever unpopular.

 

[LightSpectra]

They were certainly capable of fielding and paying an army that could have easily defeated just about anything America had; they cobbled one together again to help end the 100 Days Campaign. They chose not to, which was a political decision, taxes being ever unpopular.

There's a significant cost difference between fielding an army in Belgium (right across the channel) and sailing a huge field army to Quebec that's large enough to conquer the United States, with no prior holdings and no reinforcement base in the hemisphere. Your comments really just amount to those folk that pop up every once in awhile and ask "why didn't Japan just invade California lol."

 

[GamezRule]

No, actually I think that was his point. Britain was the wealthiest nation in the world, even if this campaign was more expensive "per capita" then the campaign in Europe, it still wouldn't come close to the cost of 20 or so years of war that the British Empire was just engaged in, not to mention the debt that probably still existed from previous wars.* The British were in just as much debt as the French in 1783, they were just much better prepared to handle it.

*I don't know if Britain still had a large debt when they began to fight Revolutionary France.

 

[LightSpectra]

No, actually I think that was his point. Britain was the wealthiest nation in the world, even if this campaign was more expensive "per capita" then the campaign in Europe, it still wouldn't come close to the cost of 20 or so years of war that the British Empire was just engaged in, not to mention the debt that probably still existed from previous wars. The British were in just as much debt as the French in 1783, they were just much better prepared to handle it.

Explain to me how "the British would have won if they could afford more army" is at all a useful thought

 

[GamezRule]

Explain to me how "the British would have won if they could afford more army" is at all a useful thought

If Britain wasn't already exhausted from war, then they would have send a decent army and curbstomped the United States? I thought it was really quite simple...

 

[LightSpectra]

If Britain wasn't already exhausted from war, then they would have send a decent army and curbstomped the United States? I thought it was really quite simple...

Not only has no evidence been given for that thesis, there's also plenty of reason to think it bunk; the U.S. was in much better shape for a war in the early 19th century than it was during the American Revolution, what with the fact that in 1775, British troops were already stationed on the continent, half the population were loyalist, and the U.S. at that point had no functionally defensive navy. Shockingly, the U.S. fared much better in the War of 1812 than it did during the Revolutionary War.

Also worth noting is that the only place the U.S. really did explicitly poorly in either war was on Canadian soil, and the population of Canada something like tripled? between 1775 and 1812.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

So, if the Americans could hold their own against the British, you guys think they could have taken on the other nations with their top generals?

 

[Bowsling]

Well no, because when countries sent their top generals to the Americas, they tend to fail to grasp the nature of war in America and try to fight a European war in the Americas, only to get brutalised by guerillas and the like. See Joseph de Montcalm.

 

[Dachs]

Nobody else was in a position to fight them except maybe the French.

 

[Bowsling]

And Congress Poland, of course.

 

[Dachs]

Oh, right, of course. Them and the Amirligi of Bukhara.