Talk:Canadian Voltigeurs

Muskets
the osprey book and most other sources I've seen indicate that the Canadian Voltigieurs carried India Pattern Muskets, rather then "tower pattern Muskets"Mike McGregor (Can) 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll check, but I believe the two patterns were essentially the same; the only difference being that the East India pattern were originally contracted for by the East India company, the Tower pattern were a further production run for the British Army. My source for the Voltigeur's arms were the web sites listed in the article. (A "New Land Service Musket" was used by British light infantry units, this doesn't seem to have found its way to the Americas, except in the hands of units like the 90th Foot.) HLGallon 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

British Columbia Voltigeurs
First to note that there's not even a Voltigeur disambiguation page, but also to req someone from MILHIST to write British Columbia Voltigeurs, which was a colonial-era unit created by Governor Douglas.Skookum1 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Another fine example of revisionistic history.....
"As war with the United States threatened, on 15 April 1812 Sir George Prevost, the Governor General of Canada, authorised the enlistment of a Provincial Corps of Light Infantry under Lieutenant Colonel Charles de Salaberry, to serve during war or the "apprehension of war".

was the position not the Governor General of British North America as it became Canada under the independence in 1867 adn Canada was not a name yet?

All these bloody commercials about how great Cananda was in the 1812 war when it was the British not Canada" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.52 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Tories are big on rewriting history for their own use and comic-book minds, your tax dollars at work. Government commercials I hope are certainly notbeing used as citations here, nor any of those "Heritage Minutes" things from historica.ca which are often just as bad.  The War of 1812 theme of the current govt likes to claim that was the last major conflict and the beginning of long friendship......well, I guess the Oregon Dispute, Aroostook War, San Juans/Pig War, Alaska Boundary Dispute, Bering Sea Crisis, Fenian Raids and all that weren't important at all in the scheme of things...if you listen to the Tory script writers.  This isn't a blog so I'll desist but yeah the War of 1812 has been totally overblown as well as repropagandized...what got me about the one commercial I saw in a theatre in Hamilton was how noble and handsome all the British troops were, and what caricatures of natives the FN actors were, and how it was British officers, not Tecumseh, who got the cameo.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel commemorating the War of 1812 has been "totally overblown". Perhaps you might want to posit how North American history would have been different had it not happened or not happened as it did and whether there'd be a Canada at all.


 * But that aside, critiquing a commercial for not being a thorough documentary is a bit over the top. They're only meant to get people's attention and hopefully get them thinking about Canadian stories that we tend not to hear over the dim from the south. It falls to other sources to flesh things out for the interested and considering the time constraints of the Heritage Minutes, they're more part of the answer than part of the problem. The other disputes you raise will have their moments but in general, peace has reigned since the War of 1812 and I think it a bit truculent to gainsay recognition of its bicentennial.


 * And just in case you're inclined to respond calling me a Tory apologist or somesuch, I'm anything but. I'm just one of those odd ducks who recognises the signal role the War of 1812 played in creating the dynamic that led to Confederation. Natty10000 | Natter  17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum so won't engage you on that, my point is clear, the War of 1812 was unprecedented hype about something that wasn't even really a victory and wasn't OUR affair, but Britain's, and the hype that peace supposedly reigned because of the war's resolution is utter nonsense. In the early 1840s (Oregon Dispute), again in 1859-71 (San Juans Dispute/Pig War) and in 1885 (the Bering Sea Crisis which was near the brink of global war), and in 1898-1901 there was not just risk of outright war but actual conflicts, apparently unknown to the secure, navel-gazing Central Canada bubble; anyy one of those conflicts if they had gone to full war would have brought Canada (ON-QC) and the Maritimes into them; the US also considered intervening in the Riel Rebellions, it's not like the US and "Canada" were holding hands and singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing" since 1815.....and I can tell you the Heritage Minutes have so many glossovers and bad "synth" it's embarrassing.....your claim that those other disputes "had their moments" is a gross understatement; 1885 was in the middle of the Great Eastern Crisis in Europe, and even despite that Britain was ready for all-out war because British Columbian vessels had been seized by the US....I guess maybe if that had happened on Lake Ontario you might have heard about it.Skookum1 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And how is spending $28 million dollars on a cheesy, revisionist bicentennial of a long ago war to celebrate non-existent military glory when veterans' benefits are getting cut not overblown. And every Tory apologist I hear in news forums claims that they're not.  WP:DUCK applies.Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Geez, we could have had half a dozen gazebos for the same amount....Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've copied this to my talk page as this really isn't the proper forum for this kind of discussion. I'll address your points there tomorrow Natty10000 | Natter  02:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)