Garde de Paris | 15 Jan 2020 7:38 a.m. PST |
AS I recall, the 7th Foot, Royal Fuzileers, City of London Regiment was there. They seem to have had hard luck this side of the Atlantic: part captured at Montreal in the AWI; part captured at Cowpens while under Tarleton; and many casualties among the 1,300 suffered by the British at New Orleans. Much impressed with their service in the Peninsular War – notably at Albuera. General Ross was later their brigade commander, only to be killed during the advance on Baltimore in the War of 1812. GdeP |
ColCampbell | 15 Jan 2020 8:09 a.m. PST |
Yes, it is the most forgotten American military victory. The Mississippi Archives had a program on Jan. 8 about the battle. The presenter called it the most important and most forgotten military victory. If the British had been able to capture New Orleans, they would have strangled American development of the territory west of the Appalachian Mountains for decades (IMHO). Even though Andrew Jackson is both loved and hated, we Americans need to give him great thanks for saving the expansion of this country. Jim |
Garde de Paris | 15 Jan 2020 8:50 a.m. PST |
I agree completely. Many say it was not important – fought after peace had been signed in Ghent, Belgium in December. But the British would probably have kept New Orleans if they had won, despite the peace. Ensured we would grow "from sea to shining sea!" GdeP |
ecaminis | 15 Jan 2020 9:59 a.m. PST |
It is not forgotten in New Orleans. They had a ceremony on January 8th. Also they had 2 days of activities with re-enactors on Friday & Saturday. There was also a small re-enactment on Saturday at another location( had some questionable weather but carried on anyway). |
Garde de Paris | 15 Jan 2020 10:28 a.m. PST |
A game could be quite colorful. There was a militia unit from New Orleans, uniformed as Grenadiers of the French Imperial Guard; pirates; "Kentucky" riflemen; local "free men of color"; and others. US ships firing into the British camps in days before the actual battle. Highlanders in trews on the British side, as well as West Indian black regulars. The 44th burned Washingto, paid dearly here – forgot the scaling ladders as well. GdeP |
42flanker | 15 Jan 2020 11:09 a.m. PST |
New Orleans in British hands would have been of little worth of itself; a beleagured piece of grit in the oyster that would never grow into a pearl. By 1814 I dont think Britain had much interest in the North American continent south of the fur country. The best New Orleans offered was as a bargaining chip, for some concessions in the far north west maybe, but since the peace had already been agreed, the value of that option would have been limited. |
4th Cuirassier | 15 Jan 2020 11:18 a.m. PST |
How would Britain have held on to it in breach of the peace treaty, exactly? |
Artilleryman | 15 Jan 2020 11:27 a.m. PST |
I tend to think that even if the British had won, they would have had to withdraw on ratification of the Treaty of Ghent. For Britain, it would have been a cul-de-sac. |
79thPA | 15 Jan 2020 1:30 p.m. PST |
Most Americans couldn't name the major belligerents in WWII, let alone comment on this battle. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 15 Jan 2020 1:40 p.m. PST |
Silly battle that meant nothing to either side in the greater scheme of things. Total side show, irrelevant to anyone except for the few denizens of New Orleans at the time who might have owned land. The war was already over, and even that was, at its peak, just a distraction. The Corsican was the only issue. Controlling the mouth of the Mississippi was of little utility until the nation had grown enough to need it to ship from states further up north. These did not really exist and I doubt seriously the Brits would have been interested in moving into the same areas as to what was then very much the American frontier. Too, the Spanish empire territories just to the west were a strong impediment to either victor doing much more expansion directly to the west for at least another 20 years. |
14Bore | 15 Jan 2020 2:06 p.m. PST |
Around Christmas I thought about it but there after I did. But what better then a battle with no change on the outcome? |
Old Glory | 15 Jan 2020 2:28 p.m. PST |
I love Johnny Hortons song ?? |
Brechtel198 | 15 Jan 2020 2:57 p.m. PST |
The war wasn't over when the battle was fought. The treaty had been signed, but had not been ratified by the US Congress. Therefore, a state of war still existed between the United States and Great Britain. |
Silurian | 15 Jan 2020 3:21 p.m. PST |
"… to occupy some important and valuable possession, by the restoration of which the conditions of peace may be improved, or, which we might be entitled to exact the cession of, as the price of peace." British governments wording. It is also said the British admirals exaggerated its importance because they had their eyes on the valuable prize money. Cotton, sugar and tobacco worth millions. But even with this 'forgotten' battle there are aspects further overlooked. The remarkable battle of Lake Borgne for instance. Or the amazing work of the navy getting the troops to the city through horrible terrain. The action on the west bank. Ghent specifically stipulated restoration of occupied territory so there would have been no question of hanging onto New Orleans if it had been a British victory. |
Rudysnelson | 15 Jan 2020 6:27 p.m. PST |
The British were reorganizing their forces after the battle by remaining on the Gulf coast. They were planning another assault on New Orleans. |
IronDuke596 | 15 Jan 2020 6:33 p.m. PST |
The more I read about this fascinating battle the more I realize that the British should have easily won it. British hubris was their greatest shortcoming. Nonetheless, a great credit to Jackson for his firm leadership. This battle has good potential for a war game and or campaign. My plan is to game the three battles that make up the 'Battle of New Orleans' in the Fall. I have completed 80% of the units involved. Has anyone gamed the Battle of New Orleans? |
Au pas de Charge | 15 Jan 2020 8:20 p.m. PST |
I think the whole war lives in the shadow of its Continental Big Brother. Is there a good book to get someone started on it? It seems to be too few battles too spread out. Battle of New Orleans is good stuff; worthy of a song and memorable because the British took it up the crumpet hole. |
Silurian | 15 Jan 2020 8:38 p.m. PST |
I beg to differ with the above. Once the British got back to the coast, there was never, ever any thought of going back to New Orleans. It was a physical and mental impossibility. They turned their attention to the second Gulf Coast objective, Mobile. This was captured on the 12th Feb, 2 days before they received news of peace. |
Silurian | 15 Jan 2020 9:06 p.m. PST |
Minipigs. In my opinion one of the best introductions to the war would be the 2 volume history by Pierre Berton. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 16 Jan 2020 9:20 a.m. PST |
I gamed in it once. Lovely looking game indeed but not terribly interesting as it had the same character of any forlorn hope frontal assault. Run as fast as you can forward and hope you survive long enough to make a hole in the line. No room or point to maneuvering, just get at them, hope for good dice. It was almost like playing a WW1 trench scenario with no meaningful decisions to be had for a player. I wouldn't play it twice unless there were some sort of gaming of the campaign leading up to the battle. |
IronDuke596 | 16 Jan 2020 10:55 a.m. PST |
"Aethelflaeda was framed" thanks for your response. Did you game the belated/too late but successful attack on the opposite bank by LCol Thornton? His group of marines and infantry routed Louisianian and Kentuckian militia and then the American sailors that were manning 16 heavy cannon that were enfilading the advance British columns. Thornton's group were in the process of redirecting these guns to fire into the flank of the American lines when they were ordered to retreat. |
42flanker | 16 Jan 2020 12:24 p.m. PST |
|
Aethelflaeda was framed | 16 Jan 2020 12:42 p.m. PST |
No, which was a shame. Those guns really make any attempt to get to the American position a low probability of success. Was a pretty fantastic looking game though. Ya just got to love the variety of militia units present. A nice way to study the battle if you weren't familiar with it (which I wasn't at the time despite living in New Orleans) but fairly limited in the "what if" for replay possibilities. A campaign would be better, along the lines of GMT's Savannah campaign from the AWI. But even that comes down to a single final assault with a forlorn hope. Siege assaults to me are the least interesting sort of fight as a mini game. Spectacular dice fests at best, but not much tactics to be able to think about. Even ACW battles of Cold Harbor or Fredericksburg might provide more interesting situations as a tactical problem, and I haven't tried those yet. Attacking redoubts or fortified positions are only interesting if you have a choice to do so or not. Bussaco suffers the same. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 16 Jan 2020 12:44 p.m. PST |
Crumpets usually do ha' lots of ‘em. Is where they soak up de butter. |
14Bore | 16 Jan 2020 12:48 p.m. PST |
Reading Sharpe's Tiger and thinking of trying a seige game maybe along the lines of the Battle of New Orleans |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 16 Jan 2020 12:53 p.m. PST |
As a skirmish game you probably have a ton of fun. |
Brechtel198 | 16 Jan 2020 1:53 p.m. PST |
The British were reorganizing their forces after the battle by remaining on the Gulf coast. They were planning another assault on New Orleans. Where did that come from? Pakenham's army had the daylights shot out of it and the battle was won by the American artillery. Three out of four British general officers were out of action, two of them dead or dying. The definitive book on the campaign and battle is British at the Gates by Robin Reilly. |
holdit | 16 Jan 2020 2:51 p.m. PST |
Pakenham's army had the daylights shot out of it I think "got a damn good thrashing/kicking/beating/hammering" are the fashionable phrases. :-) |
42flanker | 18 Jan 2020 3:23 p.m. PST |
"Crumpets usually do ha' lots of ‘em. Is where they soak up de butter." I have a feeling the reference was more anatomical |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 18 Jan 2020 6:05 p.m. PST |
Nah, think last tango in Paris. |
42flanker | 19 Jan 2020 2:37 a.m. PST |
|
Bill N | 19 Jan 2020 1:05 p.m. PST |
The British were reorganizing their forces after the battle by remaining on the Gulf coast. They were planning another assault on New Orleans. Where did that come from?
Just a guess: At the same time as the British army was trying to fight its way into New Orleans the British navy was trying to fight its way up the Mississippi to the city. The naval effort failed at Fort St. Philip. The navy was supposedly contemplating making another effort when the extent of the army's defeat became known. There was enough fight left in the British forces to take Fort Bowyer and try for Mobile. |
Florida Tory | 19 Jan 2020 2:08 p.m. PST |
Ghent specifically stipulated restoration of occupied territory so there would have been no question of hanging onto New Orleans if it had been a British victory. That clause did not apply to the Gulf borderlands. Britain regarded the Treaty of San Ildefonso as forced, and therefore, invalid. Consequently, the French sale of Spanish Louisiana to the United States was not recognized as legal. Jackson's victory made the issue moot. Similarly, it also forced the recognition of the United States' seizure of Spanish West Florida west of the Perdido River in 1810.. Rick |
Historydude18 | 20 Jan 2020 5:02 p.m. PST |
New Orleans isn't Napoleonic. That could be why. |
Au pas de Charge | 21 Jan 2020 8:11 p.m. PST |
"Crumpets usually do ha' lots of ‘em. Is where they soak up de butter." I have a feeling the reference was more anatomical Crumpets do have a lot of holes. Speaking of anatomical, do you know what else has a lot of holes? British Trousers after the Battle of New Orleans. :) |
4th Cuirassier | 22 Jan 2020 3:36 a.m. PST |
Also I think the British were more preoccupied with having captured the flagship of the US fleet on the same day as New Orleans. In fact they captured her twice as she tried to sneak off after surrendering the first time and had to surrender again. At 60 guns, USS / HMS President must have been the most heavily-armed frigate ever. She was much more heavily armed than USS Essex (captured 1814) or USS Chesapeake (captured 1813)… |
coopman | 22 Jan 2020 7:41 a.m. PST |
I usually remember its anniversary, but I totally forgot about it this year. |
42flanker | 22 Jan 2020 8:15 a.m. PST |
"British Trousers after the Battle of New Orleans." Do you have reference for that? Otherwise that comment is unhistorical and the point is moot. |
Au pas de Charge | 22 Jan 2020 8:15 a.m. PST |
Also I think the British were more preoccupied with having captured the flagship of the US fleet on the same day as New Orleans. Battle of New Orleans, January 8, 1815 Capture of USS President, 15 January 1815
Not quite the same day but I would imagine it is convenient to hope so to distract from the embarrassment at new Orleans. I do hear that the British were ecstatic at the prospect of finding trousers on board USS President without holes in them. |
Au pas de Charge | 22 Jan 2020 8:29 a.m. PST |
"British Trousers after the Battle of New Orleans."Do you have reference for that? Otherwise that comment is unhistorical and the point is moot. link Almost universal blame was assigned to Colonel Mullins of the 44th Regiment which was detailed to carry fascines and ladders to the front with which to cross the ditch and scale the parapet, as the soldiers fought their way to the American breastwork. The Colonel was charged with deserting his trust and half a mile to the rear when he was needed at the front. Pakenham learned of Mullins' conduct and placed himself at the head of the 44th, endeavoring to lead them to the front with the implements needed to storm the works, when he fell wounded after being hit with grapeshot some 500 yards from the front line. He was hit again while being helped to mount a horse, this time mortally wounded" I understand that Packenham's trousers were so riddled with grape that the seat of them was literally shot out and he was henceforth referred to as "Packing Ham" |
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 22 Jan 2020 3:15 p.m. PST |
To be fair, the Brits did indeed take it in the crumpet hole at New Orleans. Overconfidence may well have been a problem there. After all, to be equally fair, the Brits had torn the Yanks several totally new crumpet holes in most of the previous battles. Everyone made friends in the end though. |
Nine pound round | 23 Jan 2020 6:20 a.m. PST |
1812 is an odd war, in that partisans of both sides claim victory with equal sincerity and similarly inconclusive evidence. |
4th Cuirassier | 23 Jan 2020 6:48 a.m. PST |
The British claim to victory is based largely AIUI on the fact that the US completely failed in all its war aims other than the one about impressment, which Napoleon's 1814 abdication would have delivered anyway, war or no war of 1812. Britain didn't have any aims for the war as she didn't start it. Resumption of the status quo ante bellum was thus an entirely satisfactory outcome. Along with capturing the US Navy's flagship, twice. The US claim of victory is based AIUI on winning on the Lakes, in a few early single ship duels, and at New Orleans. This requires overlooking that the Lakes battles were fought because the attempted annexation of Canada by land had failed, that the single-ship victories were over by 1813 and reversed thereafter, that the RN captured more American privateers than American privateers captured merchantmen, that the British army more or less did whatever it felt like including burning the president's palace, and that New Orleans happened after the peace changing nothing. I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that nobody gained diddly squat by it, which is a funny kind of victory even if you think there was a winner. The US national myth gained something, but in Britain the war was little noticed and quickly forgotten. The equivalent British myth is perhaps the Spanish Armada, where every kid educated before 1980 knows about the Spanish being defeated in 1588 but nobody is aware that an English Armada was defeated by the Spanish just as handily in 1589. Or perhaps the Battle of Britain, where everyone knows the plucky outnumbered but radar-assisted RAF defenders defeated the Luftwaffe in 1940 thanks in part to their superior tactics and aircraft, but hardly anyone knows the plucky outnumbered but radar-assisted Luftwaffe defenders defeated the RAF in 1941 thanks in part to their superior tactics and aircraft. |
Nine pound round | 23 Jan 2020 12:20 p.m. PST |
the British army more or less did whatever it felt like including burning the president's palace But not Baltimore, which in those days was a much larger, more important, and better-defended city. There's a song about it; maybe you've heard it. |
Bill N | 23 Jan 2020 1:28 p.m. PST |
The US national myth gained something There is a good argument that the War of 1812 was almost as important in the AWI in forming a national American identity, for better or worse. It opened up much of the areas north of the Ohio and south of Tennessee to settlement. It saw the reinvigoration of national institutions after almost a decade of decline. It also impacted the future of slavery in the American south. Americans may tend to forget that the British onslaught was caused in part by American efforts to incorporate Canada into the U.S. That does not diminish that surviving that onslaught was no mean feat. There is no certainty that if the British had managed to defeat Jackson and captured New Orleans, that they would have given it back. Capturing Washington was a largely symbolic victory for Britain. The British army could not have held the town, and trying to do so would not provide benefits worth the risk. New Orleans was the key to the entire lower Mississippi valley. If the British had succeeded in defeating Jackson and opening up the lower Mississippi the city could easily have been held. With the situation on the ground so significantly altered, it would have been very tempting for the British government to try to find some justification for keeping it. |
42flanker | 23 Jan 2020 2:13 p.m. PST |
"The British army could not have held the town, and trying to do so would not provide benefits" Seems a good description of the situation at New Orleans. The British had no interest in further empire building in that quarter, far less in hundreds of square miles of swamp, populated only by irritable natives. They had enough of that in Canada. They were much more interested in keeping hold of their plantations in the West Indies and of as many as they could get of those belonging to the French, all of which promised a good deal more than a soggy Gibraltar (minus Rock) on the Gulf coast. |
Nine pound round | 23 Jan 2020 3:46 p.m. PST |
Not sure I buy that- they held onto Belize for more than a century, which is somewhere south of Nawlins on the scale of total strategic value. But the choice wasn't theirs to make, now, was it? But hey, they captured not one, but TWO flagships. I wouldn't have thought that much of a boast for the world's largest Navy, given that they did that in about an hour at Cape St Vincent, but whatever. |
4th Cuirassier | 24 Jan 2020 2:12 a.m. PST |
You can only work with what there is. |
42flanker | 24 Jan 2020 12:31 p.m. PST |
"they held onto Belize for more than a century, which is somewhere south of Nawlins on the scale of total strategic value.." Hardly the same. Belize was an extraction point for various profitable forms of hardwood exploited by British entreneurs for two hundred-odd years, much of the time with little or no British government presence. The strategic importance- a toe hold on the mainland perhaps- and the resources required to retain it, both seem to have been minimal. Periodic Spanish harassment in the mid-C18th appears to have been fended off by local forces without great difficulty. |
Bill N | 24 Jan 2020 1:40 p.m. PST |
42, I have been wracking my brain trying to come up with an European equivalent of New Orleans. The importance of New Orleans wasn't just from what it produced. It also was from what it controlled. Jefferson described the place as "There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three eighths of our territory must pass to market." This was not hyperbole. Before railroads and the construction of the Erie Canal a foreign power possessing New Orleans and the Mississippi outlet was in a position to severely dampen development of the trans-Appalachian U.S. Washington like New Orleans was far upriver, but militarily that is where the similarity between the two ends. The Mississippi banks below New Orleans in 1815 was nowhere near as accessible as the Potomac's banks below Washington. It would be hard for a land based power to supply an army below New Orleans without controlling the city. The guns needed to close the river to traffic below New Orleans were heavier than what was needed to interrupt traffic on the Potomac. Finally a sea power in possession of New Orleans had a secondary supply line through the lakes, the same route as the British army used to try and reach the city. |