User talk:FantasticPlastic

Control of the Great Lakes in War of 1812
It is a bit complicated. Basically the British controlled most of Lake Huron for most of the time, but there were times when the Americans did take the initiative and attacked in Georgian Bay and burned the Nancy for example, but the forces on both sides were small. The British were able to keep supplying Mackinac Island which they had captured in the early stages of the war throughout. Lake Erie was disputed until the Battle of Lake Erie in 1813 which was decisively won by the American fleet. After that it was basically controlled by the Americans. The British had no port facilities on lake Erie so unlike Ontario could not rebuild their fleet after the loss. Lake Ontario had periods when first one fleet the the other had dominance, it depended on their shipbuilding capabilities with each side leapfrogging over the other with bigger and more powerful ships. Thus control was never firmly established by either side. Dabbler (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's amazing to me, especially considering the power comparison between the British Empire and the United States. I have to say I'm impressed by the audacity of the Americans to declare war on such a powerful and feared opponenent. But then again, seemingly, they had few ways, if any at all, to avoid doing so. And to be able to end the conflict the way they did tells me that when pushed too far, even the littlest of fighters can knock you down. I love these historical details That you simply don't learn about in any sort of non-collegiate educational system. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate a little.

FantasticPlastic (talk)


 * The British were heavily involved in fighting the French under Napoleon in 1812 and so did not have many resources to spare to deal with what was seen as a minor irritant by the London government. The American declaration of war was pretty well unnecessary as the British had already conceded the main points before war was declared, communications lag may have resulted in some of the confusion but to continue prosecuting the war against British North America was a political decision and seen by the British as a stab in the back. Even before Napoleon had been defeated, the Royal Navy had so effectively shut down American trade that the economy was suffering badly. If the British had decided to use the troops released by the end of the fight against Napoleon in North America, then the result might have been very different. These were battle hardened soldiers who had beaten one of the greatest military leaders of the time. However, the British were tired of war after more than twenty years fighting the French and so politically decided that they would rather negotiate than fight. Dabbler (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well on the contrary actually. Diplomatically, the issue of impressment was resolved; however, the Royal Navy continued to impress American sailors at sea, which in its own is a stab in the back. Minus the number of militia, British redcoats (marines and soldiers) and sailors, even at war's beginning, outnumbered the Americans. And the war raging against France, though it started up once again just as it started before after the Anglo-American war began, ended while it was ongoing - allowing the British to adopt a more aggressive stratagy, sending in an overwhelming number of 11,000 Royal Marines and British Army soldiers to assault a force of 4,000+. Many units of which veterans of the war against France, and extremely experienced in combat. Fighting a much smaller number of American bluecoat marines and soldiers at the Battle of New Orleans, they were defeated in the most one-sided and final major engagement of the war with thousands killed, wounded and captured. After winning the final infantry-naval engagements at sea during the Capture of HMS Cyane, HMS Levant and HMS Penguin, the captured troops and sailors were then taken to Rio de Janeiro (then still part of the Portuguese Empire), where they were escorted ashore by U.S. Marines and processed as the final POWs of the conflict. That being said, the war ended fairly-well for the Americans both politically and militarily and proved they were still fully capable of defeating the British after the Revolution and Northwest Indian war. So while I agree the empire had its hands full prior and partially during the conflict, resourcefulness was not an issue. Especially, as mentioned earlier, the French conflict ended in the middle of the war.

FantasticPlastic (talk)

Engagements on Lake Ontario
You have repeatedly inserted in the leading section of the article, the claim that, first the United States had 20 armed vessels in service to the British 7; then these figures were amended to 20 US against 13 British. You claim in your latest edit summary "The number of ships listed, clearly referenced information, means that the Americans posessed 20 ships in comparison to Britain's 13".

What is your source for these claims? The source used for the tables of vessels in this article are Roosevelt, with additional information from Lardas (2012), which amends Roosevelt in detail only. If you have merely counted vessels in the lists you will see that the totals at the end of the war were: US - eight, plus three building; UK - eight, plus three building. (Nine British vesseles are listed as being in service in 1814, but one was lost on 5 August.)

You may have missed the sentence "Most of the American schooners (converted merchant vessels which had been alarmingly unstable with their heavy armament) had been disarmed and were now used as transports only." (This is sourced, Roosevelt, pp.196-197). If so, then including schooners in service in 1812-1813 only brings the US total to 20 or so; but does not affect your British total.

If you have a better reliable source than Rooselvelt, Lardas (and Malcolmson), please cite it. Otherwise, please refrain from added unsourced estimates to the leading section. HLGallon (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)