The War of 1812 was a difficult one for the new the United States of America, as the country struggled to find its place on the world stage. It was hampered by its association with France, the presence of Great Britain and her native allies to the north, the uncertainty of the path its leaders would choose for her and in no small part her own hubris. All of these factors would be present in some part at the battle of Bladensburg, which has often been referred to as “the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms” and that defeat changed the mindset of many, setting the US on the path that created today's modern military. I will examine the immediate ramifications if there was a change in the proficiency of US military intelligence of the day and how that would have affected Bladensburg. Further I will hypothesize on how the US would look today if Bladensburg had been a US victory. The War of 1812 had been going on for over two years when the troop movements that would begin the Battle of …show more content…
Winder’s indecision and lack of clear guidance led to Stansbury marching troops around in the dark of night. Stansbury himself trading a better position for a weaker one and failed to destroy the bridge the British primarily used to turn their forces toward Washington. Due to the failure of the US forces two days after the battle, on August 26th, the British troops entered an undefended Washington and burned many government buildings including the Library of Congress and the White House. President Madison’s wife Dolley even had to flee from the British advance and the Madison’s would never again reside in the White House during their tenure as President and First Lady. The pillaging of Washington was even immortalized in an 1816 poem which satirized President Madison’s fleeing of
It is far easier for us in the present than it was for those at Gettysburg, to look back and determine the path that the leaders should have taken. As students, studying battles such as this, we have the advantage of hindsight, knowing the outcome. Nonetheless, we can still learn valuable lessons from it. To do so, this analysis will explore some of the decisions of the leaders at Gettysburg, and how they were affected by the operational variables. This essay will scrutinize some of the leaders at Gettysburg, and the impact of their actions. The outcome of this analysis will show that what was true in 1863 is still true today. While many variables are vital to a successful army on the battlefield, none should be neglected. Each variable discussed in this examination will prove to be important, but the information battle will be paramount in the battle of Gettysburg.
By 1863, the Confederate hold on the Mississippi River was limited to Vicksburg and Port Hudson– both strong bastions– difficult to overcome. In a daring move, U.S. Grant, commanding the Union forces, sent his troops past Vicksburg and landed to the south of the city. Grant's troops then defeated Confederate forces in five separate engagements. After a 6 week seige, Confederate forces surrendered.
Many Americans overlook the War of 1812, not realizing it played a vital role in the development of what was still a very young and untested country. The war was a complex standoff between the United States and Britain and peculiar in comparison to other notable wars in United States history due to the lack of conviction each side displayed for much of its duration. As Donald Hickey says in his book, Glorious Victory, “No one on either side of the Atlantic really wanted this war,” (Hickey 14). The War of 1812 was complicated and unpredictable from the first conflict up until the Americans found themselves in the Battle of New Orleans near the end of the war. Hickey writes a well-designed account of the war, with a focus on the significance of the Battle of New Orleans and more specifically the leadership exhibited by Andrew Jackson. Hickey shares time convincing the reader that the Battle of New Orleans was the most important and decisive conflict in the war and
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
The war of 1812 was the unfinished revolution that America was fighting. It was requested by President James Madison to protect American ships and U.S. sailors from being captured by the British. The war also had other purposes such as trying to prevent the British from creating alliances with Native Americans on American Frontier. Some people called this War of 1812, “Mr. Madison’s War,” others viewed it as a “second War of Independence,” a chance for Americans to protect their rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the War Hawks, loudly demanded war as a means to retaliate against the British for the economic outbreak caused by the blockade and for the resistance for Britain’s support of expansion for the United States. Yet, there
One of the most basic expectations regarding the army as a whole was the subordination of the military power to civilian authority. American fears of military usurpation of civil liberties or the use of the army for political repression were aroused once again during Bleeding Kansas. (23)
The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and Great Britain from June 1812 to the spring of 1815 (Findling, 15). When the war began, it was being fought by the Americans to address their grievances toward the British, though toward the end, the issues eventually were unjustified and reasons manipulated. There is no single cause for the War of 1812 but instead, several related causes, such the influence of the War Hawks, the impressments as well as the Embargo and Non-Intercourse acts, and the British's possible interference with the Indian Nations, and land ownership disputes between the Natives and Americans, ultimately leading to the Battle of Tippecanoe.
It is interesting to note of those who were involved in the Battle of Bunker Hill. No documentation can prove that French soldiers had involvement in this battle or from any other country involved other than the British and the American colonists. However, Black individuals were allowed to fight. These were freemen, however, freemen and slaves who were serving in place of their masters, fighting for freedom they would most likely never see for themselves. It is sad to learn that these individuals would never experience the same freedoms that the same men next to them in battlefield would obtain.
“Tours Medieval Battle Reconstructed” is an essay that uses the Battle of Tours as an example to show how history is written with the writer's bias affecting the story. The Battle of Tours was important in that it stopped the surge of Muslim conquest as they were defeated at the hands of the Franks. The Battle of Tours is more of a symbolic victory than a pivotal victory it was laid out to be by writers.
This paper examines lessons learned that are timeless in their relevance for all types of warfare with respect to the lesson materials discussed in the Warfare Studies course. The first lesson learned that this paper examines is the United States’ adaptability in response to changing nature of warfare. The United States has experienced various types of warfare ranging from war of annihilation, war of attrition, or fourth-generation warfare; the United States has no identifiable American way of war. Second, this paper looks at the importance and enduring nature of fourth-generation warfare and counterinsurgency operations. These events are here to stay and will be significant in the future conflicts. The third lesson learned discusses America’s poor planning and preparation for stability, security, transition, and reconstruction operations (SSTR) and demonstrated the need to avoid stovepiped, single agency planning. The apparent lack of planning for SSTR operations severely complicated and extended the United States mission in Iraq. Fourth, America must always strive to be on the cutting edge and maintain technological superiority over our adversaries in order to secure great advantages. However, the United States cannot solely rely on technological savvy military to achieve success. The last lesson learned discusses the growing relevance of information IOP as a powerful tool of war and the importance of it in shaping public opinion.
Furthermore, the third book, which is Don’t Give Up the Ship! Myth of the War of 1812 by Donald R. Hickey, examines the myths that were originated from the War of 1812. The author covers each aspect of war with the same importance, that is, Hickey balances his book with information of the causes of the war, maritime and land battles, roles of the principal characters and the after effects of the war. Unlike Daughan whose focal point are the American victories of the naval battles. In the...
The Battle of Argonne Forest, also known as the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, was the deadliest battle in United States history (Lengel). The battle dealt a decisive blow to the German offensive and helped assure an allied victory in World War I. An analysis of this major battle covers an overview of events before the battle, force comparisons between sides, doctrinal methodology used, logistics, intelligence, conditions and morale as well as battlefield leadership present.
The Battle of Tannenberg was the first battle on the eastern front during World War I. It was fought between the larger Russian army against the forces of Germany. The major battle was a continuation of the Gumbinnen encounter. The failure of the battle at Gumbinnen created the opportunity for the Headquarters of his majesty the Emperor of Germany to recall General Paul von Hindenburg from retirement. The Russians defeat at the hands of the German Eighth Army during the battle of Tannenberg was almost a complete annihilation of the Russian forces. The battle of Tannenberg is known as the battle won that loses the war. There were many factors that lead to the German victory, these included the terrain, communications, intelligence and strategy.
The battle of Chancellorsville is a victory that never materialized for the Army of the Potomac. The Union’s Army of the Potomac, on paper, was a force clearly superior in terms of manpower and technology to that of their adversary, however, tactical mistakes proved to be detrimental to their cause. On the contrary, planning and the execution of those plans propelled the Confederacy’s Army of Northern Virginia to the most recognized underdog victory in the American Civil War. Examining the Battle of Chancellorsville from both the Union and Confederate perspective provides military leaders an example of the importance of planning, adapting to the fluidity of combat, and the crucial nature of military warfare tactics all while leveraging the war-fighting functions necessary to achieve victory on the battlefield.
David Galula and Roger Trinquier have common roots, they were French citizens and both lived in the 20th century when the study of counterinsurgency theory was coming into focus. Each of these men experienced bitter conflicts of war. Galula fought in North Africa, Italy, and France. In addition, Galula fought in irregular wars located in China, Greece, Indochina, and Algeria. Galula was a lieutenant colonel when he decided to author his now classic book. Whereas, Trinquier an officer in the colonial infantry defended the French concession in Shanghai and later in Indochina under the Japanese occupation where he was held prisoner of war in a Japanese internment camp. After Trinquier’s release from prison, he continued to serve in Indochina and additionally in Algeria. Both men wrote from first-hand experience and published their accounts in 1964 while the Cold War waged. Communism ideology vs. the free world theorists collided across the face of the globe in a race for domination. Counterinsurgency has been an American strategy since the 1960s ebbing and flowing in strategic signi...