Click here: helixsleep.com/brandonf for up to $200 off your Helix Sleep mattress plus two free pillows! The process was super easy and I was able to get the whole thing set up, on my own, in just a few minutes! #helixsleep
Hello Brandon, I comment to you to try to bring your attention to an equally dishonest political advocacy group/ Think tank called Gravel institute. Long story short, they are the self proclaimed “left wing counterbalance to PragerU”, they seem to be the same in dishonesty, oversimplification and political dedication in comparison to PragerU. Thank you for making a video explaining PragerU’s rather dishonest take of the 1812 war.
I haven't heard of them until now, but yikes there are some 'interesting' takes on that channel, too. Though not as much I'd be qualified to 'reply' to, as most of their "history" stuff is mid to late 20th century it looks like.
@@donaldk.6586 By promoting a narrative that political 'others' don't merely disagree with them on how to best run the country, but actively want to harm it. By encouraging men to feel bad about themselves if their interests don't align with traditional masculine roles. By inviting men like Brian Kilmeade, who has compared the father of a POW to the very terrorist who kidnapped their son in his appearance and has made statements against interracial marriage, to present for them. Should I keep going? Honestly just looking at some of the comments here are pretty good proof, in my mind.
The implication that the British didn’t know the utility of fortifications is absolutely absurd when you remember the famous lines of Torres Verdes had been erected by Wellington while the Americans were failing to conquer Canada
I actually had a little rant about that in the first cut of this video! I did drop it for time, though, as I figured it wasn't too too important for the video.
Wellington is considered one of the best defensive commanders in history. The British absolutely understood engineering. What they underestimated was the terrain and how the American's fought. Several British veterans of the battle remarked that it was a more vicious campaign than ones where they had fought against the French. Adjusting to the American style of war was a process in and of itself. The British infantry considered themselves better marksman than French infantry, who would often rely on some firepower but have strong melee training with bayonets. The British were also used to French using narrower formations and bringing less firepower to bear at a slower speed. The US forces relied on marksmanship and firing capability like the British did, and that specific factor hurt them badly. It's not that the British had bad infantry; far from it. But it was very much re-learning on the fly. Much like on the sea, the British learned very rapidly that the Americans, in many ways, fought like they did.
@@willd7596 In a very real sense much of American naval doctrine can be traced back to the Royal Navy, as in once you're engaged go for the win, hold nothing back! Capture 'em or sink 'em but BEAT 'em! One of the reasons the RN beat the French so often that it became a given was the French navy, either the navy of the "Ancien Regime" or the Revolutionary Navy never had the same doctrine and rarely the same agressiveness. As the song says: "We ne'er see the foe but we wish they would stay! "They never see us but they wish us away! "If they won't fight we'll chase them and run them ashore, "For if they won't fight us what can we do more?"
@@willd7596 You put it best, taking that grain of truth from Prager (accuracy) and instead weaving it with a better understanding of the conflict that is far more honest than that presentation
Aye. Idealogues and Politicans tend less to be interested in history than a supporting myth based on history. It applies to lots of ideologies too (and to lesser and greater extents).
CORRECTION: So PragerU has some hot takes about slavery, but one of the videos I show a thumbnail of at the end, their 'was the civil war about slavery' video, is definitely NOT one of them. That video actually explains how slavery was the driving course of the war very well! Silly and stupid mistake to make, on my part. I think I was confusing it with another piece of content but I should have verified it before editing it into the video.
Let’s be honest, none of us would be surprised if they pulled an unironic Checkmate, Lincolnites! No, the real surprise is that they didn’t go full Lost Cause in that video 😂
the civil war was fought over cheap cotton and senate seats. Nobody said other wise until the 1960's. Its not hard to track when it became illegal to import new slaves, 1807, when tarriffs made cotton very cheap for the north 1828, when the south got the tarriffs over turned, and all of a sudden the industrialist started supporting abolitionist but turned them from peaceful abolitionist to supporting slave rebellions 1831 which killed the abolitionist movement in the south, to the north realizing kansas is not a good state to grow cotton and sending arms to kansas to make sure a non cotton state did not get slaves, to the south realizing they made a mistake when they let non slave states have more senators than slave states so they decided to leave the union, to the corwin amendment, and the emancipation proclamation clearly saying they could keep their slaves if they surrendered before january 1st 1863. That is not defending slavery in america, nor is it saying slavery played no part. But it obviously came down to cheap cotton and senate seats.
They are trying the old switcheroo by pointing out that Lincolns party were the republicans and that the democrats were the party of slavery and the klan. They seemed to have worked out that a good many Americans weren't already aware of that due to the stellar public education system.
I'd been told I had an ancestor at the Battle of New Orleans, Nathanial Collins. (Might have been Samuel). When I got ahold of his records, it turned out he was garrisoned there with a cavalry unit. After the battle. And that he was fined $80 for losing his horse while on duty. It kills me that I'll never know how he lost his horse. Poker game?
That isn't as bad as mine. I had a great-great (I think) uncle who joined the Army as a paratrooper sometime before World War 2, and he was kicked out because he refused to jump out of the plane during training. He, according to my grandma, "wasn't quite the same after that". People were people, they kept things running decently enough somehow, and that's alright with me.
You think that's the saddest ancestor story. My ancestor fought in the Civil War... For one singular battle... The first Battle of Manassas, then he was captured and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp
What the US tried to do early in the War of 1812 was the equivalent of sniping a few unguarded provinces in a Total War game, only to get stack-wiped by a few militia units
I don’t know why Britain was so generous to to the US at the Treaty of Paris and after 1812, we should have gotten the Haitian treatment and Britain should have supported banditry in Appalachia and pirates along the coast, no economic relations with the United States should have been presented as a part of the peace to Talleyrand and Louis XVIII at Vienna
@@Me-yq1fl the US wasn’t doing so well and with the peninsular war and broader Napoleonic conflict winding down it would have been a great opportunity for Britain to put more into and crush this abomination. Also, the US had no friends among the great powers.
@@tiberivsgracchvs2393 Because if we had done that to the US, we couldn't very well turn around and refuse Prussia gobbling up more of the German states than they did or Russia going for huge landgrabs in Eastern Europe. Also, lucrative trade.
"I have no idea where this guy got this information" is far more polite than, "these guys just pulled 90% of their content out of their ass to push a long discredited fiction".
To do such a hatchet job is remarkable as I would assume he’s got a solid grasp of what actually happened and dumped all the “irrelevant facts” to push his narrative.
@@theodorebear6714 Prager isn’t Q. They are arch conservative propaganda. Their interests at times align with the Qrazies in opposing the growth and expansion of American democracy, however.
Yeah agreed-Brandon seems to be less of a "We should harass and oppress minorities" conservative, and more of a "The government shouldn't interfere with people's rights" conservative. People like me, even if we disagree with this guy, can work with him-as opposed to US Republicans, who seem hell-bent on making me a second-class citizen at the moment and therefore can hardly be negotiated with.
@@ob2kenobi388 Nobody is “hArAsSiNg miNoRiTiEZ”, kiddo. Talk about “pulling facts out of nowhere”. Aside from being absolute hypocrites (and you all are) you godless, evil postmodernist/leftist cruds certainly are melodramatic. Good grief. Quit moaning and posturing your NGO-appointed victimhood status. Nobody’s watching.
@@ob2kenobi388weird I don’t get that vibe at all. He’s a materialist so for me that rules out conservative. But I’m American, so take that for what you will.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Unfortunately, yes some peoples at least over 20,000 seem to believe them if we take the number of like at face value. Certainly not the majority but the fact that they don't even know about thier own nation's history seem shocking to me.
@@inquisitorsteele8397 Of course they don't know their history. The education system has been controlled by progressives for a very long time. Young people were during that time reformed into fanatic woke climate jugend and green shirts hating the world they are living in especially those horrible white people.
It's funny that he emphasizes the rag-tag, motley character of the American armies. In Canada we have the "Militia Myth" that really started during the War of 1812 particularly at the Battle of Queenston Heights, that we didn't really need an army and if we need to fight all we need is to hand out guns. That myth is still somewhat a part of the zeitgeist and kind of evolved through the World Wars, into the Cold War and the peacekeeping myth. It's mostly just an excuse for our government not to fund the military appropriately. Of course the myth is untrue, the militias acquitted themselves well but the few regulars in the country were what really won the victories. It's just funny to see that same characterization from the other side of the same war.
It is really funny that both countries have their own militia myth that regulars aren't needed for sovereignty. while the Canadian militia did have some great success like at Chateaugay, most of the victories were by the regulars. From the outset Brock had a dim view of Canadian ability for self-defense, hence his reliance on regulars and native allies.
@@Tareltonlives As I understand i though the regiments raised in Canada (not militia) were pretty darn good in their own right. According to one Canadian historian those Canadian regiments are the probable source of the Canadian militia myth.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Would those be the Voltiguers (Canadien light infantry) and other Fencibles (which were often enough Canadien or black Canadians with Scottish officers)? They were quite impressive, a cut above most militia and more along the lines of Revolutionary state troops like the elite Marylanders.
@@Tareltonlives Yes, I believe so, although I'd have to hit the book on that one. The first one that usually springs to mind is the Newfoundland Regiment, raised in Newfoundland but deployed to the mainland in Lower Canada which is mostly present day Ontario. I've been to Newfoundland twice so that's the reason they're the first ones I think of. Those locally raised Canadian regiments were definately a cut above militia, I'd have to call them semi-regulars for lack of a better term.
In a weird twist, the Canadian Army was called the "Canadian Militia" right up to 1941. In a way, Canadian militia did push back Americans (though some of those militias are semi-professional/semi-regulars and not actually militias as we'd know it). On a funny note, the fact that the Canadian Army was known as the Canadian Militia means that you have a militia at one point in possession of artillery, tanks, and machine guns.
in canada we're taught that the united states invaded us, then the british went and burned their president's house down, and that it would be a funny prank if a canadian went and did it again. so, to say there is a general lack of understanding on the topic in both the u.s and canada is an understatement.
Hey, the wife and I were in a Laura Secord candy store in Saint John's Newfoundland and asked the girls behind the counter who Laura Secord was. They had no more idea than we did, and they were Canadian! Great candy by the way!
A case could be made that the war did provide Canada with a sense of being an independent nation (even though that was still decades off) and not just a British territory. The U.S. continued to believe that Canadians were anxious to become a part of the United States and they launched three invasions, none of which was successful.
@@jayseaborg3895 Oh that’s absolutely the Truth. Many Americans don’t seem to understand how much of a spiritual victory this was for the people in Canada, the concept of “Canada” gained so much of its legitimacy and momentum from the War of 1812, the Idea that we could be free in our own way. Without the overbearing Americans.
Regarding the "the British were all too happy to accommodate them" - perhaps the most important factor at play as to the reason why the British were actually _not_ too happy to accommodate them was the fact that the US was one of the biggest trading partners of Britain. British merchants lost so much money through lost trade with America that they were banding together to pressure the British government to sign peace. It was a similar story in America too, particularly in New England. Hell, New England almost seceded from the Union over the war.
Most of the frontier in Ontario and New York was vehemently against the war. They were doing fine, they didn't care about the native wars in the Midwest, and they didn't care about the Royal Navy getting pushy. Most of the complaints were from the port cities, midwest land speculators, and the big political faction of the 19th century, the southern planters. The northern border was absolutely peaceful and thriving.
One often overlooked factor in the War of 1812 is the significant number of America-born Loyalists (not Americans) who chose to move to Canada following the United States gaining independence who were, then, forced to fight their former neighbours and relatives a generation later. They were almost certainly decisive to the fate of what was left of British North America, the future Canada.
The American Tory by William H Nelson. It's clear from the stories of American Loyalists that they considered themselves American. Some of those who travelled to England realised very quickly that they missed home and felt very much like fish out of water.
Both the Americans and (to a lesser extent) the British were thinking of how the Loyalist population would react to the invading Americans. The Brits worried they could not be relied upon as proper militia.
Unless we’re talking about basic human biology, religious values, and the western ideals and beliefs that built our country into what is today… then ya your statement may be correct
@@ashercroy4982 Eeehhh... You mean outdated sciences, outdated and unneeded religious values, and again, outdated ideals and beliefs? Should we... just finish killing off the natives then? Cause... that was kinda our beliefs back in the day
@@ashercroy4982 PragerU has never once put out a video that had any value in any area of anything. To be honest the sheer moronic laziness of the propaganda in the videos it astounds me that anyone would bother to pay for it in the first place.
No, you do. Your gods are postmodernist idealists. You know nothing of anything and you will learn in due time the folly of your ways. Where’re through medication or the grave, you will learn
I'm curious, what do Conservatives not like about PragerU? I manly dislike it because of their annoying adds, awful accusatory and flat out false statements. but I always thought the point was that they were trying to appeal to conservatives.
@@charlieterry8506 I personally don't like how they seem like their talking down to you, and that they some how know everything since the read a book on philosophy once and somehow have now ascended the libs bull crap because of it.
@@charlieterry8506 Because some conservatives aren't as stupid or have such short attention spans as the demographic Dennis Prager tries to pander to, & have the self awareness to understand that the only thing worse than having an opponent skilfully dismantle your philosophy, is to have someone who claims to support it butcher it beyond parody.
Great video! Couple points: -check out the book 6 Frigates, which covers the campaigns of the US navy during the war and how seriously the British took the American threat. It goes heavily into how much the US frigates shocked the Royal Navy and the British population. Up to this point, the British could confidently rely on any of their ships beating a French or Spanish vessel 1 on 1. They deeply believed in a level of quality superiority. But once US frigates had started to beat British frigates 1 on 1, it deeply shook the British. Also, by this point the US had the second largest merchant fleet in the world only behind the British. Intelligent British commanders absolutely did know what they were signing up for. -Andrew Jackson is a very interesting character, not ideal. What isn't covered is how much Davy Crockett and Jackson did not get along. They would severely clash later in life over politics and temperament. Davy Crockett did not believe Andrew Jackson was a good man, and the opinion of Davy Crockett should actually be taken seriously. -I agree with your point with Jackson not being incompetent but not being decisive also. American soldiers and fighters were very capable, and honestly would have probably won that battle whether Jackson was in command or not. There were many good leaders with that force. There were first hand accounts from many British soldiers that felt that that was a particularly vicious battle, more so than any that had been fought in Europe in a concentrated fashion. They had remarked that the Americans had fought in a savage and 'hunting style' fashion that the French had not. The British were definitely not incompetent, but they definitely were soundly beaten. -From someone that was in the Army and has trained in Louisiana, it is not an exaggeration to say that Louisiana is some of the most unforgiving terrain in the US.
@@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874 Actually no, it had NO armor, or at least what we would call armor today. It was sheathed in, I believe, Live Oak (not sure of the species), and it had thick outer skin, and from what I understand, its frames were closer together than was usual (16 inches vs 24 inches), so fairly mediocre as far as armor goes, but it was enough to prevent the British cannon shot from penetrating the hull. With regard towards the guns, yes, the CONSTITUTION carried heavier guns, but that was because she carried 24 pounders, whereas the British Frigates of the time carried 18 pounders, but that is not why she received the nickname of Old Ironsides.
“Inaccurate at best, dishonest at worst” should be the PragerU motto. It’s the worst collection of culture warrior woohoos to ever slip on a bad fitting suit.
@@brandonproductions8401 they don’t only lie, get everything wrong, and act really weird… no… it’s the lowest fruit most retarded conservative propaganda in the game… and that’s really hard to do.
@@brandonproductions8401 Rather than demanding that OTHER people do research to convince you of something that's really easy to verify on your own, why don't YOU do research and come to a conclusion based on your own mental effort? It's unreasonable to expect a research memo from a YT comment. If you can watch Prager U videos and don't see any factual inconsistencies or very clear bias, then you have perception issues that a link to an article are not going to fix. Like, what kind of source are you looking for? Peer reviewed journal article explaining how Prager U is propaganda? Full psychological profile on their content creators? Who would spend that much time publishing a scholarly work about something so obvious? If you're looking for info on how Prager U is disingenuous about their presentation of history, then literally watch the video you're commenting under.
Brandon, exposing PragerU's point: "He's the true answer, the response of America against overwhelming enemy power *dramatic pause*" Me: Weeeell that sounds like "Great man history" bullshit! Brandon: It's great man history to a T, and that's just so silly! I just love everything about your videos, the integrity, the nuances, the details!
as someone who hasn't watched a Brandon F video in a while and has nothing but contempt for PragerU, this is the perfect video to get back into the swing of things. thanks big b
I love you’re channel Brandon, I’ve been watching you for about 3 years and you’re video editing and writing has become so much more refined. It’s been amazing watching you grow as a content creator. Cheers
I giggled like a little kid when he skipped the entire war and addressed the only American victory as the key point of the war, truly shameless There is no other nation in the world that would have their capital burnt down and say “ok, a draw it is” 💀💀 like something out of Monty Python
Paraguay. >Declares war on Brazil >Get stomped by a coalition of Brazil’s allies >Lose so much people that you begin drafting children >Your general dies in mortal combat with Brazil’s own general >Lose so much males that your male population wouldn’t be able to recover a 50/50 equal ratio with females >”Tis a draw. We survived!”
How is having a building burnt down equate to a total loss of the war. With your logic any army could just focus on burning down any capital building and say they're the winners
@@gaven5479 Yeah I definitely phrased myself terribly considering the ironically more significant war of 1812 in Russia saw Napoleon find out why it’s kind of pointless to just sit in the capital Was more talking in the context of this war: the USA was the only one who actually wanted war yet somehow managed to have its country invaded and capital destroyed without inflicting any damage on Britain… while claiming even spoils? They basically believe that the war was necessary for petty problems which normal diplomacy would resolve. They got arrogant and were swiftly humbled, and I’m proud to admit it because it forced us to stop relying on militias… yes I am American so I’ll stop referring to us in the third person. I live in England now and funnily enough they don’t teach it, I think people mistake Britains lack of coverage for bitterness when in reality it just isn’t anywhere near important , both 1776 and 1812 compared to English history overall. Obviously I learn about it in the USA because it’s our history, but idk why people expect everyone else to besides Canada Common misconception that Britain was anti-American too , even King George III loved the USA , and before they burnt the whitehouse they had a toast; “Peace with America, down with Maddison”
Brandon, your description on this video was amazing! And to prove a point on Pakenham, personally, Pakenham should've just taken New Orleans when Old Hickory didn't have Line Jackson fortified, despite having the supplies dwindling away, and constant skirmishes with the American militia, they could have taken the city in good time, plus, the Americans didn't have the ammunition, powder, and musket flints to bear against Pakenham's forces. This battle could have gone in many different directions, but despite having Line Jackson, that was actually not the only battle line The American forces had, it turns out, about six to eight reserve battle dug lines, but less fortified than Line Jackson itself, the battle could've continued for the next few days, even for the rest of the month of January. Correct me if i am wrong.
I believe Packenham's intention was to change the treaty provisions and impose more punishing terms before the treaty stopped all fighting. I think the nature of the defeat came from the fact that it was rushed. He didn't have to time to try different' maneuvers, bring up the squadron or try for a siege.
@@Tareltonlives I agree. Only becuase he had enough poweder and ammunition for a march, not for a siege. Not to mention that fact, that they couldn't maneuver due to the Mississippi river and the swamp, they had to march straight towards Jacksons defense.
My Michigan History class covered the war in detail. I would take issue with the US having no strategy, generals or resources. We were actually winning the early war, especially after the battles of Lake Erie, until the British opened up a new theater in the Chesapeake. It is the Chesapeake theater that everyone remembers. That is when Washington burned and the National Anthem was written.
Actually, the early campaigns were pretty pathetic displays of American military power: yes, there’s the twin victory at Erie and Thames but that’s the sole W(s) between the first two campaigns, and that was after disastrous invasions of Canada in 1812 and earlier in 1813
It was more the other way around: both sides struggled when they took the offensive in this war. Since the US had the advantage early on, what with most British troops being in Europe, they tried to attack into Canada and came unstuck ultimately, resulting in the burning of Washington, after the US burnt York (Toronto) earlier. When the British got the numerical advantage, after the surrender of Napoleon, and had the choice of where to attack, they too suffered defeats and set-backs. The terrain and defenceability of North America is really the ultimate take-home point of this war. And ... beyond 'punishing' the US for starting the war, what were the real goals for the British? There weren't really any besides defend Canada (tick) and (eventually) secure the North America sea routes (tick) again. Once the threat of the 6 super-frigates of the US were somewhat diminished (50% were captured....I know, not the USS Constitution) the US merchant fleet was almost strangled (New England traders and merchants really started to get itchy about this), and the British capturing as many US merchant ships towards the end of the war, as the Americans had in the early part of the war. So beyond that, what more could Britain do but capture in costly assaults on American port cities? It would achieve nothing.
@@abanico_rodilla Then why the hell did they even try to take cities? The lack of trade was also hurting the UK. I would think it's quite reasonable to assume that the UK wanted to seize American territory in order to secure highly favorable conditions during peace negotiations, which they didn't achieve. I definitely don't think the US won, but it's silly to say that the UK did as well. This is not a conflict that should just be defined in terms of winners and losers. That is far too simple.
I couldn't believe the gall, well ignorance of basic history that guy had to claim that has the worst defeat Britain has ever faced was there. There are dozens if not hundreds more, from Afghanistan to quiberon. The fact a million people have watched that and will have such a warped view of history is saddening, when we know they are ly ing, lazy and have no knowledge on the topics they talk about and all funded by an oil company.
Brian Kilmeade and the rest of the lying filth at Fox News can be written as Faux News because the word faux means false in the French language. Also, Fox and Friends can be written as Faux and Fiends.
@@stevenredpath9332 Most British do not claim Dunkirk was anything but a defeat. That being said its seen here as a remarkable achievement by the Royal Navy nonetheless, and for the consequences. What do I mean by that? Well consider this. If Britain had lost not just the BEF's heavy equipment in France, but also lost the men, what then are its options? At the time the BEF was the vast majority of Britain's available land forces. That is why Dunkirk is remembered, not because it was a victory, it was not, however, the sheer scale of the evacuation ensured that Britain could continue to fight on. Had those men been lost, there is a very strong case for the argument that Britain would have been forced to seek surrender terms.
Great video as always. Just to chime in on the “worst defeat in British military history” part, I think a strong contender has to be the 1842 retreat from Kabul. Unmitigated disaster right from the beginning, overseen by an incompetent doddering old general. I believe I am right in saying military casualties were effectively 100% on the retreat. Of the approx 4,500 men in the army (not including civilians who were travelling alongside) only a literal handful actually made it through the mountain pass. The rest were all killed, died from the cold or captured. Of the captured, most were sold into slavery and fewer than 100 were released in September after a British punitive expedition. Even if you round up to 100 who were either released later or made it through and don’t count them as casualties, that’s still a loss of 97.8%. The entire army was effectively wiped out.
Flashy made it out though and the quivering poltroon was even dubbed "the hero of Jallallabad". The start of his unearned reputation for martial courage.
I'd have to disagree there. While 1842 was a debacle, it didn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. It's similar to Isandlwana in some respects. Awful, highly embarrassing and most likely preventable, but relatively small scale and didn't significantly affect the overall course of British/Empire geo-polictics/strategy (Britain losing the Zulu War was always highly unlikely, and losing Kabul didn't really endanger India all that much). 'Worst defeat in British Military history' would have to be something either at a significantly larger scale than other defeats, and/or had major fallout on the progress of the wider war/foreign policy. So you're looking at things like Cartagena di Indias and the River Plate campaign (both of which blocked British expansion into South America, and was fairly large scale on the case of Cartagena), Yorktown (as the point that Britain had to accept the loss of the 13 Colonies) or Singapore 1942 (iirc the largest scale single surrender of British forces ever, massively scuppered the British warplan for the Far East AND damaged the prestige of the Empire enough that it was a notable contributor to the end of Empire in Asia). Personally, I'd go for Singapore.
It’s actually an adaptation of an anti-war book of the same name, published in the 2930s I think. So I’d say it would be rather accurate. Take my words with a grain of salt though. Most of what I just said was light research.
As far as I have heard, it's inaccurate, but a great movie. One of those things that's minor inaccuracies add up to not being a historically accurate, but historical fiction goodness
It's based off of a post WWI novel written by a German WWI veteran, which has been adapted into multiple films and some series. The book first came out in 1928. Even though Paul, the main character, is fictitious, his experience as written is believed to be the most accurate piece on WWI combat we have ever seen. The 1930's movie was and has been seen as extremely accurate, with many of the extras being US and German WWI veterans, and some of the most gruesome scenes being direct memory of those WWI veterans. The modern film adaptation through Netflix takes place later in the war than the book. I would argue it is still probably one of the most authentic WWI movies ever made. Steven Spielberg and many modern war film directors and producers were heavily influenced by the 1930 All Quiet on the Western Front; it is the cultural great grandfather of many movies depicting ground combat. There is one scene towards the end where there probably wasn't ever that high a concentration of flamethrowers deployed in that concentrated of a manner by the French, but overall AQOTWF is still one of if not the most authentic WWI stories we have in existence. Also, from someone that has served in the Army during ground combat... there is a feel that AQOTWF gets right... and it's just the sheer randomness of how things happen.
Excellent video! We Canadians tend to take interest in the War of 1812, and take pride in it (even though the war itself was more or less a draw, lol). I'd just like to say I've been following along with this channel for some time now - a little over 2 years. I'm a bit of a history buff, especially when it comes to the 18th century, and this channel covers quite a bit in that century. I've learned a heaping amount of knowledge. Keep up the good work, Brandon ^^
We certainly stopped an invasion (with the help of the British and even some Native tribes), but if you look at the politics of the war, it was definitely more or less the US against Britain - and that part was a draw as someone mentioned.
My sentiments, exactly, ever since I laid my eyes on this video when studying my home state of Indiana during the 1812 war for my history degree. Thank you, Brandon!
I’m shocked. How could a long respected academic institution like Prager University get so much wrong? This calls into question the credibility of there entire history department.
What? PregerU not telling history in an fair light? I’m shocked. I hate that I used to use them in my homeschooling. Took a while to understand just how misleading they are.
Well, better late than never I guess. But, I'm confused about how anyone could think them legitimate in the first place since they're have been so many videos about how not legitimate they are. Then again they still do have quite a large viewer base so it's not impossible.
@@peggedyourdad9560 sorry if I wasn’t very clear. I grew up very republican and very Catholic. Along with being homeschooled and most of my experiences out of my own family being in Church. I didn’t get a lot of other perspectives. PregerU was what was allowed at my home (when the evil internet was even allowed at all) hence why I believed them up until I moved out and started learning more about the world and history.
@@natpat6394 Oh ok, that makes a lot more sense, I thought you were using them for a homeschool program. I was also homeschooled, but thankfully not for any political or religious reasons. Although I definitely knew people in your situation or similar at the partnership where I took extra classes.
As I understand it, Pakenham knew the math. He was gambling on the possibility of, like at Bladensburg, Jackson's force scaring, and running from the whistle of the Congreve rockets.
@@aralornwolf3140 yeah, along with the traitor Eisenhower also praised the evil Lee, therefore Ike must have been a rebel secessionist. Or maybe, there might be more wisdom in his words than fools and college students who boozed their way through class.
Wait, they defended sleazy newspaper editor who was one of our most embarrassing presidents before the 21st century? Checks out, actually. Considering the money behind PragerU, it’s not surprising they’d defend the guy who allowed the Teapot Dome Scandal to go on.
I ran into prageru just a few days ago. I follow quite a few science tubers but one in particular really rubbed me the wrong way, Brian Keating. He didn't really say anything untoward but his face, demeanor and way of talking just screamed narcissist so I looked him up. Sure enough, when he's not selling his scientific integrity or complaining about being robbed of a Nobel (which he didn't deserve because his research was bunk), he's shilling for prageru. I just can't fit it in my head how a physicist can support such a blatantly anti science forum as prageru. It actually makes the world a worse place.
I watch this video about their course on the War of 1812. Only two words to describe that video.... "Good grief." And i am not saying that in a good way. Disclosure... I was talking about the PragerU video. Brandon f. Your video here is outstanding.
*The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict* by Donald Hickey, page 300: 'The war, afterall, had achieved none of the nation's goals, neither a renunciation of British maritime practices nor the conquest of Canada. Instead, the Treaty of Ghent seemed to confirm what Federalists had been saying all along about the futility of the conflict...As Christopher Gore [Federalist politician] put it: "The treaty must be deemed disgraceful to the government who made the war and the peace...." There was one Federalist, however, who was not so optimistic. James Robertson of Philadelphia said that the [Jeffersonian] Republican strategy was already apparent. They would ignore the causes of the conflict and portay it as "a war on our part of pure self-defence against the designs of the British to reduce us again to subjection". By portraying the war in this light, they could claim it was a great triumph. "The President", Robertson concluded, "will only have to call it a glorious peace, and the party here will echo it"'. Prager U is propagating domestic propaganda made by the Madison Administration 200 years after the fact 🤦♂️
its an outdated way of seeing war based on WW1 tactics ..... we have seen outnumbered forces overcome larger forces many times usually by apply better technology and tactics in said attack
@@reform-revolution Yes, this was a rule-of-thumb based on conventional, symmetrical warfare. This was indeed roughly what prevailed during the War of 1812, the First and Second World Wars. It would have prevailed in a Third World War scenario between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for instance with a Warsaw Pact advance with armour through the Fulda Gap. But it is a good rule-of-thumb even today. It was what guided the build-up to the First Iraq War.
@@windalfalatar333 it didnt prevail in WW2 at all .... again there were many cases where outnumbered attackers won a battle cause they had better weapons or tactics in the Pacific for example the Americans were often outnumbered far more then 3-1 themselves and often won battles fairly handedly Iraq outnumbered the coalition and still lost the fight ...... cause the coalition had better technology and tactics this is like saying "well volley fire may be an old way of doing things but it is relevant today"
@@reform-revolution Which Pacific theatre examples are you thinking of? We were both of us wrong about the First Iraq War. Allied forces outnumbered Iraqi by 159% (so they were neither inferior nor outnumbered them by 300%): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
To be fair, no one seems to understand the war of 1812. Americans think they won, which they did, Britain thinks they won, which they did, and Canadians think they won, when they didn't exist yet.
Another fact that Americans always turn a blind eye to is the fact that the attacking force was mainly Scottish - 21st Regiment of Foot & 93rd Regiment of Foot, there were also a significant minority of black troops attached to the force. I think the "visual" of American troops gunning down ranks of kilted warriors with bagpipes playing in the background, like some "Culloden 2", with the occasional hapless black dude getting his brains blown out, is not one that they wish to embrace. Which is quite understandable, but that's no excuse for misrepresentation. To also pretend that a force of 8,000 was a garrison for occupation, and without any evidence that an occupation was even planned, especially when peace was already concluded between the governments - is, to put it mildly, another misrepresentation.
@@chlorhexidine2506 of course it wasn't, but you have misinterpreted the original comment, he was talking about New Orleans, I'm Canadian I have no reason to belittle our participation in that war but the truth is our militia wasn't ever that far from Canada
Indeed- the battle of New Orleans might be the last instance of African Americans (West India regiment vs Louisiana Volunteers and US Marines) firing on each other in military capacity. Bladenburgh saw a fierce firefight between the US Marines (where 1 in 6 men was black) and the Colonial marines (freed slaves), with the US marines being the only ones who didn't panic and managed to retreat in good order.
@@warlordofbritannia If they did, then they would have to acknowledge that the ideal system in their head is even less functional than the problematic system already in place 🤣
Brandon, I really enjoy watching your videos, they are most informative. In your recent PragerU video, you briefly identified a battle that took place outside of Washington as the Battle of Bladenburg. It is in fact Bladensburg. Respectfully, Michael “Iron” Regimenti
How some Americans view the war of 1812 makes me think of Monty Python's The Black Knight. Britain isn't interested in having a fight. America starts the fight. Britain then proceeds to beat the crap out of America. Then, because they never really wanted anything anyway, Britain just shrugs and walks away. America says "We'll call it a draw."
On the impressment issue, it's also worth noting that US diplomats overseas had been selling false US citizenship papers to British men who wished to avoid service. How officially supported (tacitly) this was from the US authorities is unclear, though they did not crack down on the practice either. It certainly doesn't change the general point (or that some were genuine US citizens), but there was an additional reason for mistrust beyond 'simply not viewing the US as a proper country'.
Ah yes The war that we did badly in but somehow ended up in a better position afterward (The uss constitution was fucking dope tho. New England pride boop boop)
The Constitution's battle record is very very good. Never struck her colors once, and definitely fought some capable opponents. Also directly influenced a British ship building response, which never happened with the French or the Spanish during the Napoleonic Wars.
The bankrupting of the economy, recognition of total British control over maritime law and demonstration of America's acute vulnerability to blockade made her stronger?
@@skibbideeskitch9894 by the end of the war the us had gained control over what had been tecumsehs confederacy, did not have to make any territorial concessions, and the British stopped doing what had been the cassus belli for the war (impressment of sailers and arming of native warrior) mostly just because they didn’t have to anymore with Napoleon gone. Also our bad performance showed us that we couldn’t just rely on militia to win wars, which was an important lesson to learn. It’s a lot more complicated than what I wrote initially I know, but I was mostly just memeing.
@@menschman1464 Fairs, although the US could've beaten Tecumseh without also declaring a suicidal war on Britian, and been better off waiting for the Napoleonic Wars to end rather than trying to fight over impressment
I remember seeing PragerU ads a few years ago and thought "huh, ok cool. I'll look at that later." Then promptly forgot about it until I saw how off the walls it was. Their cliff notes of history are worse than a 4th grader trying to pass social studies.
Something funny is that while the Battle of New Orleans is not really considered a major upset in military history, two battles from the War of 1812 are. Those are the battles of Brownstowns and Lacolle Mills
@@arwing20 but they got it back in September 1813 with an embarrassing British retreat from Detroit and Proctor running miles ahead of his own men 🤷♂️
Another glossed-over point but an important one was the composition of the defenders. About a quarter of the defenders were Spanish and French residents of the area (these groups formed the famous French Quarter and lesser-known Spanish Quarter in that important seaside port. Jackson, desperate for more troops, solicited help by promising freedom to slaves if they helped defend New Orleans (NOLA), and they comprised another quarter of the overall defenders. The British, preparing for the fight, had neglected to bring siege ladders, so the attack was delayed while some men went back to their camp and brought them forward. These ladders proved critical to breaching the brestworks because, at one point, British soldiers made it inside the American lines among the slave defenders. Fighting was brutal and intense, but the British were forced to abandon their breach and retreat. Jackson's only comment on the battle scene was warning his fellow slave owners to never again promise freedom because it incited the blacks to extreme violence. Indeed, it was the rebellions of Stono and Nat Turner that prompted the Southerners to outlaw teaching slaves to read and write in an effort to suppress the notions of human dignity and freedom. Jackson, an ardent racist, hated the British, Native Americans, and blacks; he thought nothing of breaking his word to the slaves who had been promised their freedom to those brave blacks who fought and in some cases died in the battle. Indeed, he ordered the whites to turn on the blacks so they could be shackled and carted off to their plantations. Yes, he was that cold. Jackson himself was very much a man of dichotomies. His patriotism for America surpassed his devotion to the continuation of slavery; both of his brothers died after fighting the British, and his mother died of cholera contracted while she nursed American prisoners in prison ships in Charleston harbor. The scars on his hand and head were earned when he refused to polish an officer's boots and he was beaten with the flat of a saber. Yeah, he hated the British. During his presidency in the 1830s the issue of whether or not to abolish slavery came up, and war threatened to break out. John C. Calhoun, Jackson's VP and another devoted to enshrining slavery, thought would lead the Southerners in the fight ahead, but Jackson raised his glass and toasted, "To the Union." Then he told Calhoun that if rebellion broke out and states tried to leave, he would lead the Northerners himself. Jackson abolished the Central Bank because there were fears that greedy bankers would use predatory loan practices to enrich themselves and displace middle-class and farming families. But, on the other hand, Cherokee chief John Ross won the fight in the Supreme Court against white encroachment on their lands and violating the signed treaty. Jackson's reply was that the Supreme Court made their ruling, "then let them enforce it." Gold had been found in Georgia and the Indians needed to be expelled. Thousands of Cherokee, Chocktaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole died on the Trail of Tears. Jackson was historically an important figure, but I don't think I would have liked being in the same room with him. Very informative video. A fan of your videos for some years, I wish I wasn't always on the edge of poverty as I would definitely become a patron. Slainté
I used to live in Cambridge, MA and went to the USS Constitution museum. One of the interesting pieces of trivia we were told was that after losing naval engagements against American frigates, the British Admiralty issued an order that no British ships were to engage an American frigate without at least a 2:1 numerical advantage. I haven’t found a corroborating primary source but then again I’m not a naval scholar. Still, pretty interesting if true.
I wouldn't be surprised- the Royal Navy's best sailors and men were deployed to the other side of the Atlantic. They were fine with using half-assed ships and conscripts for America until they found out that the US Navy had grown exponentially more formidable since the revolution (where it didn't really exist except for some pirates) with well-trained crews from the very marine northeast using state of the art French ships.
That isn't out of the question. America's greatest advantage was the fact they were able to use a specific type of wood that was much more resistant to cannon balls, to the point the only way to do any real damage was to be point blank.
The US Army military doctrine as late as 2016 mandated that, to attack a force in a prepared and fortified position, you need a numerical force superiority of at least three to one. Put another way, even if the Americans were outnumbered by just over 2 to 1 as is so confidently asserted by the PragerU propagandist, US military doctrine suggests the British were likely to loose based simply on the numbers involved. That fails to take into account that the British had to advance through open ground on a narrow front (nearly always military suicide) against heavy bombardment. From the battle alone, it would be hard to argue that Jackson was anything more than of average competence as a military commander; though other factors relating to the lead up to the battle, and inspiring his forces to fight might raise that assessment. As an aside, it should also be noted that the battle was militarily inconsequential. That is because at the time it was signed, the treaty had already been signed. Had the British had an overwhelming victory, and seized New Orleans; when news of the treaty finally reached them from Britain, they would have simply packed up and gone home. So while the battle may have been tremendously important in terms of the American view of themselves, and even more so in terms of Andrew Jackson's reputation - militarily it meant nothing.
This 3 to 1 ratio is true, doctrinally. The battle was ultimately tragic, as it did nothing but severely damage some British Army units for zero gain. I also agree that Jackson wasn't that consequential. In terms of no military meaning... alongside the work of the US Navy, it did cement that the US was on a very very rapid trajectory militarily. While it obviously didn't effect the actual end of the war as the treaty was signed before the battle even happened, it did cement the thought in very intelligent British leaders that the US was going to be a truly capable power in the future and had to be taken seriously. In a span of only 40ish years, a former colony had grown to a nation that could produce armies and ships of similar if not greater fighting quality to the British, which was a significant note in and of itself as the British forces were considered by many to be the best in almost every military arm from a qualitative standpoint. When you take into account the exploding American birth rate and the fact the US merchant fleet was the second largest in the world already, intelligent British leaders started to see the writing on the wall that if the US could maintain a high level of quality at an exploding quantity... the US couldn't be underestimated.
@@willd7596, I agree that the Battle of New Orleans, if nothing else, showed the USA to have a competent military; but that has already been established in the Revolutionary War. I also agree that the War of 1812 in general established that the US could produce sailors, and soldiers and small to medium sized ships of equal, and sometimes superior quality to the British. But stating that they could produce "armies of ships of similar if not greater fighting quality to the British" without qualification is misleading. The only Ship of the Line the US attempted to produce during that war (the USS New Orleans, of 87 guns) was never completed; and no frigate could destroy a Ship of the Line except under very unusual or fortuitous circumstances. In 1812, the British had 130 Ships of the Line, and 600 Frigates. This compares to the United States 8 Frigates in 1812 (and not many more during the war). Had the British been as committed to the war in 1812 as they were to the war against Napoleon, they would have brought the US to its knees in very little time.
Well... no. Numbers means very little in war, as seen by a certain ongoing event across the Atlantic. Add to that, the first phase '03 invasion of Iraq (don't worry I'll avoid the political stuff here) was handled with a mere 4-5 divisions. 3-1 is the historic "good zone" but there's plenty of times where you need even more, or manage to exploit Sun Tzu's sayings, and win the battle without ever fighting it.
@@nukclear2741, what exactly are you saying no to? To my pointing out that citing a mere 2:1 numerical inferiority for the Americans does not prove Andrew Jackson was a military genius? Or my pointing out that standard US military doctrine calls for a 3:1 numerical superiority for an attack against a prepared, fortified position? Of course it is true that mere numbers tells the whole tale. Significant imbalances in technology, moral, or training can make nonsense of such numerical calculations - a fact known since the Spartans and their allies almost held the pass of Thermopylae against (at best) 10 to 1 odds (and at worst, 40 to 1 odds). But PragerU was trying to tell a false tale with numbers, when the numbers did not even support their narrative.
PragerU's phrasing of things is so funny when you look at more than one sentence at a time. "10,000 soldiers and 60 ships vs Andrew Jackson" is such a ridiculously slanted presentation of the situation it's hard to imagine saying it with a straight face lol
Like...just Andrew Jackson? Did Old Hickory beat them all BY HIMSELF? Great Man Theory is seriously damaging to history, because it boils down every notable event to a single person rather than a single person leading many
I used to watch PragerU a lot and thought they had good ideas. Until I noticed that several things in several of their videos didn't line up with reality. And as I went back through some of their other videos and checked it against other available information, I found it permeated their whole collection. So now I largely write them off as conservative propaganda.
During my time in the Army I spent some time at Fort Polk, LA. It gets extremely cold at night, I have no idea why but that place has some of the craziest swings in temperature I've ever experienced. Sometimes getting into the 80's or 90's during the day and the 40's at night and once it got down into the 20's. Combined with how wet everything is all the time the nights out there are miserable and shitty. Really terrible weather and terrain.
As a fellow history nerd and a history teacher I always love seeing an expert in the field debunk prager u. My background is in Irish history and their British empire video was not good nor accurate the one time they brought up the Irish language in it.
Thanks for your explanation about the purpose of this video near the end. I think the battle is easily overstated. It still is special as New Orleans is a special city strategically and culturally.
I've always thought that the plan was to use New Orleans as a bargaining chip to get some concessions from the US. None of this would have worked, because the Battle was done AFTER the Peace Treaty was signed.
New Orleans was a valuable strategic location in that it controls the mouth of the Mississippi and would have opened up the interior of the United States to raids by the RN. The Union did a similar thing in the US Civil War. If the war had continued and the British had won at New Orleans it would have almost certainly been a major base of operations and supply.
@@mickaleneduczech8373 There is a baseless claim that does the rounds saying the British would've repudiated the Treaty of Ghent if they'd taken New Orleans. This is total rubbish designed to make America's most famous wartime victory actually have a modicum of consequence; the British signed the Treaty of Ghent in the full expectation that the expedition to New Orleans would succeed. Any understanding of the Liverpool's priorities in late-1814 should rubbish the notion of the British continuing an unpopular war they had pretty much won by the summer of that year.
@@skibbideeskitch9894 I don't think they would've continued the war. I just suspect evacuating New Orleans would have taken a little longer, and maybe so more concessions would have to be made to move things along.
Bradon one thing you missed was that much of the Canadian Local Forces , including the Famous Voltigerurs, were not Militia but Fencibles. These were basically Colonial Regulars full time troops but only liable for service in North America it is in fact a common Myth that it was the Militia that did the fight over the Fencibles
They aren't fueling bigotry. Their takes on wars aren't great, but most of their current stuff, like showcasing the indoctrination going on in schools, is pretty spot-on.
@@bigyin2586 the South Korean gov at the time wasnt much better then North Korea to be honest (and then there was the warcrimes from the South Koreans and Americans during the fighting) if you look at the wars during the cold war its just a superpower propping up dictators and corruption because that particular dictator liked said superpower
I always get a little discouraged when folks talk about the War of 1812 because they almost always gloss over the fascinating naval battles on the Great Lakes.
I'm sure that in his book, Kilmeade mentioned that he was sure that Donald Trump could have done a much better job in the battle, because of his military expertise. I've always wondered if PragerU was somewhat like Trump University?
Fake News! Prager U is propaganda masquerading as education. Trump University was just a scam to separate suckers from their money by making them think they were getting lessons on real estate.
Brian Kilmeade and the rest of the lying filth at Fox News can be written as Faux News because the word faux means false in the French language. Also, Fox and Friends can be written as Faux and Fiends.
Another thought: this disrespect by Britain to other sovereign states was actually very common in the period. It would especially be true of the newbie republic, but it was also true between kingdoms. There is an excellent book, Napoleon's wars: an international history, 1803-1815, and it has a revealing look on how the reason the allies kept losing was because each one put their own interests above everyone else, leading to constant breakdowns and defections and the failure of a concentrated war effort. IF Napoleon posed a threat to the US, or even if a more pro-British president was in power like Adams, they would not have turned to war.
As a Canadian, and with a great deal of tongue-in-cheek, I exclaimed loudly in a theater whilst watching Independence Day when the White House was destroyed, "yeah, and we did it first with less tech."
To be fair, the "Was the Civil War about Slavery?" video is actually really good. It's by Col. Ty Seidule, a Southerner who has rejected the Lost Cause, and it is unambiguous about the fact that the Civil War was indeed fought by the South to preserve slavery, and eventually by the North to overthrow it.
I thought everyone knows it was about slavery? The only non-standard version I heard is that the North abolished slavery not out of pure moral principles, but to cripple the South's previously slave-reliant economy to make them economically dependant on the North, preventing their further attempts at separatism/autonomy.
Sure but then they use that fact to support the lie that modern Dems are the slavery party even though it's not them who engage in confederate apologia. Because even when PragerU says something actually true, they will use it to support another lie.
Slavery was abolished in a Northern State, I think West Virginia, after it was abolished in the South. Not long after, but considering it was maintained throughout the war while fighting for the North shows how the ends justifying the means is true for many conflicts.
British attacked a point on the American line which a Spanish deserter from New Orleans told them had been weak. When it turned out that section was not weak, they hung the Spaniard. The Brits actually won the battle on the West Bank of the Mississippi and had the American position at Chalmette in their sights for infilading fire, but the British officer on the East Bank had already called for a ceasefire fire. And the campaign did not end at New Orleans. The British navy spent several days attacking Fort St. Philips below the city. After that failed, they sailed to Mobile and captured Fort Bowyer. Worst British defeat? Arthur Percival breathes a sigh of relief
This attitude towards the British Empire and its motives comes when you get most of your historical information on the British Empire from Mel Gibson movies… Also, I would consider Singapore, in WWII, to have been a worse defeat…
32:02 in all fairness, the "Was the Civil War About Slavery" video actually rebuts many revisionist arguments arguing that the war wasn't fought over slavery quite well (and therefore unsurprisingly drew quite a bit of ire from a sizeable portion of PragerU's audience)
Thanks for breaking down their Andrew Jackson ad masquerading as a history video. Respectfully I disagree with your comment at 22:15 about the term "Indian". As I understand it, the debate over "Indian vs Native American" is very much alive, in part because those on reservations use the term Indian and those off reservation use Native American. CPG Grey covers this in 2 of his videos I believe, but another issue that should be discussed is the confusion between describing those whose ancestors come from the Subcontinent vs those who were first on these lands. Telling people that the name that outsides first gave them is bad and that another set of outsides is now the new name that should use is perverse logic, but letting them settle on their own name and discussing confusions arising from 2 distinct people groups in the same nation sharing the same description is worthy of debate.
Well, with over 473 comments so far there's probably little I can add. Suffice to say for a VERY good study of the War of 1812 (And yes, it's a bit more complicated than Brian Kilmeade's war story) there's a book I can recommend very highly. "Don't Give Up The Ship! (Myths of the War of 1812)" by Donald R. Hickey, published by the University of Illinois Press in 2006. A VERY in-depth and quite entertaining book that studies the war from all sides, American, British, Canadian, and Native American and well worth reading. The Battle of New Orleans? Well let's say it might not be so much that Jackson won it as much as Packenham lost it. Jackson remembered Bunker Hill inasmuch as militia could give a good account of themselves IF they had good strong fortifications to fight from. If Packenham knew of Bunker Hill he sure didn't learn from it. Packenham had also been on Wellington's staff and apparantly didn't learn anything from the Iron Duke either. Wellington never would have done what Packenham did.
Click here: helixsleep.com/brandonf for up to $200 off your Helix Sleep mattress plus two free pillows! The process was super easy and I was able to get the whole thing set up, on my own, in just a few minutes! #helixsleep
Hello Brandon,
I comment to you to try to bring your attention to an equally dishonest political advocacy group/ Think tank called Gravel institute. Long story short, they are the self proclaimed “left wing counterbalance to PragerU”, they seem to be the same in dishonesty, oversimplification and political dedication in comparison to PragerU.
Thank you for making a video explaining PragerU’s rather dishonest take of the 1812 war.
I haven't heard of them until now, but yikes there are some 'interesting' takes on that channel, too. Though not as much I'd be qualified to 'reply' to, as most of their "history" stuff is mid to late 20th century it looks like.
complete shocker that prageru could be a bit of a unreliable source on the war of 1812
Tell me, Brandon. How exactly DOES Prager U convince Americans to "hate" the people within America? Give us a few examples.
@@donaldk.6586 By promoting a narrative that political 'others' don't merely disagree with them on how to best run the country, but actively want to harm it. By encouraging men to feel bad about themselves if their interests don't align with traditional masculine roles. By inviting men like Brian Kilmeade, who has compared the father of a POW to the very terrorist who kidnapped their son in his appearance and has made statements against interracial marriage, to present for them. Should I keep going?
Honestly just looking at some of the comments here are pretty good proof, in my mind.
The implication that the British didn’t know the utility of fortifications is absolutely absurd when you remember the famous lines of Torres Verdes had been erected by Wellington while the Americans were failing to conquer Canada
I actually had a little rant about that in the first cut of this video! I did drop it for time, though, as I figured it wasn't too too important for the video.
@@BrandonF
Honestly that topic deserves its own full-length video anyways
Wellington is considered one of the best defensive commanders in history. The British absolutely understood engineering. What they underestimated was the terrain and how the American's fought. Several British veterans of the battle remarked that it was a more vicious campaign than ones where they had fought against the French. Adjusting to the American style of war was a process in and of itself. The British infantry considered themselves better marksman than French infantry, who would often rely on some firepower but have strong melee training with bayonets. The British were also used to French using narrower formations and bringing less firepower to bear at a slower speed. The US forces relied on marksmanship and firing capability like the British did, and that specific factor hurt them badly. It's not that the British had bad infantry; far from it. But it was very much re-learning on the fly. Much like on the sea, the British learned very rapidly that the Americans, in many ways, fought like they did.
@@willd7596 In a very real sense much of American naval doctrine can be traced back to the Royal Navy, as in once you're engaged go for the win, hold nothing back! Capture 'em or sink 'em but BEAT 'em!
One of the reasons the RN beat the French so often that it became a given was the French navy, either the navy of the "Ancien Regime" or the Revolutionary Navy never had the same doctrine and rarely the same agressiveness. As the song says:
"We ne'er see the foe but we wish they would stay!
"They never see us but they wish us away!
"If they won't fight we'll chase them and run them ashore,
"For if they won't fight us what can we do more?"
@@willd7596 You put it best, taking that grain of truth from Prager (accuracy) and instead weaving it with a better understanding of the conflict that is far more honest than that presentation
When ideologues take a crack at history, take it with a whole shaker of salt.
I take it with the entire oceans worth of salt
How is your comment five days old when the video was just posted five minutes ago?
Aye. Idealogues and Politicans tend less to be interested in history than a supporting myth based on history. It applies to lots of ideologies too (and to lesser and greater extents).
@@dondajulah4168 I post the videos early on Patreon.
unfortunately PragerU are very late to that very game... bipartisan problems take years for us oblivious to notice.
The basic summary of the war of 1812 is that the Americans and British tied, but the Native Americans lost (hard).
Especially after Tecumseh was slain in battle
This isn't wrong.
"Tied" implies Britain wanted to occupy, we mostly came along to put America back in it's place before going home
Canada was the biggest winner. They fought off multiple invasion attempts against vastly larger American armies.
You'd be hard pressed to view the absolute state of the US after 2 year of military and diplomatic setbacks, then call it a tie
CORRECTION: So PragerU has some hot takes about slavery, but one of the videos I show a thumbnail of at the end, their 'was the civil war about slavery' video, is definitely NOT one of them. That video actually explains how slavery was the driving course of the war very well! Silly and stupid mistake to make, on my part. I think I was confusing it with another piece of content but I should have verified it before editing it into the video.
Let’s be honest, none of us would be surprised if they pulled an unironic Checkmate, Lincolnites!
No, the real surprise is that they didn’t go full Lost Cause in that video 😂
Well, I stand corrected,. They might have one normal video on their channel after all...
@@warlordofbritannia Checkmate, Brandonites!
the civil war was fought over cheap cotton and senate seats. Nobody said other wise until the 1960's. Its not hard to track when it became illegal to import new slaves, 1807, when tarriffs made cotton very cheap for the north 1828, when the south got the tarriffs over turned, and all of a sudden the industrialist started supporting abolitionist but turned them from peaceful abolitionist to supporting slave rebellions 1831 which killed the abolitionist movement in the south, to the north realizing kansas is not a good state to grow cotton and sending arms to kansas to make sure a non cotton state did not get slaves, to the south realizing they made a mistake when they let non slave states have more senators than slave states so they decided to leave the union, to the corwin amendment, and the emancipation proclamation clearly saying they could keep their slaves if they surrendered before january 1st 1863.
That is not defending slavery in america, nor is it saying slavery played no part. But it obviously came down to cheap cotton and senate seats.
They are trying the old switcheroo by pointing out that Lincolns party were the republicans and that the democrats were the party of slavery and the klan. They seemed to have worked out that a good many Americans weren't already aware of that due to the stellar public education system.
I'd been told I had an ancestor at the Battle of New Orleans, Nathanial Collins. (Might have been Samuel). When I got ahold of his records, it turned out he was garrisoned there with a cavalry unit. After the battle.
And that he was fined $80 for losing his horse while on duty.
It kills me that I'll never know how he lost his horse. Poker game?
Honestly a better story than if he was just another footslogger though, eh?
@@BrandonF Yeah, but mannn...
That isn't as bad as mine. I had a great-great (I think) uncle who joined the Army as a paratrooper sometime before World War 2, and he was kicked out because he refused to jump out of the plane during training. He, according to my grandma, "wasn't quite the same after that". People were people, they kept things running decently enough somehow, and that's alright with me.
Grand Theft Equine maybe?
You think that's the saddest ancestor story. My ancestor fought in the Civil War... For one singular battle... The first Battle of Manassas, then he was captured and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp
What the US tried to do early in the War of 1812 was the equivalent of sniping a few unguarded provinces in a Total War game, only to get stack-wiped by a few militia units
Tecumseh was the main reason.
This is so accurate 😂
I don’t know why Britain was so generous to to the US at the Treaty of Paris and after 1812, we should have gotten the Haitian treatment and Britain should have supported banditry in Appalachia and pirates along the coast, no economic relations with the United States should have been presented as a part of the peace to Talleyrand and Louis XVIII at Vienna
@@Me-yq1fl the US wasn’t doing so well and with the peninsular war and broader Napoleonic conflict winding down it would have been a great opportunity for Britain to put more into and crush this abomination. Also, the US had no friends among the great powers.
@@tiberivsgracchvs2393 Because if we had done that to the US, we couldn't very well turn around and refuse Prussia gobbling up more of the German states than they did or Russia going for huge landgrabs in Eastern Europe. Also, lucrative trade.
"I have no idea where this guy got this information" is far more polite than, "these guys just pulled 90% of their content out of their ass to push a long discredited fiction".
I have seen used toilet paper that is more appealing than the propaganda that is lying "PragerU"!
To do such a hatchet job is remarkable as I would assume he’s got a solid grasp of what actually happened and dumped all the “irrelevant facts” to push his narrative.
"That's a nice argument PragerU, why don't you back it up with a source?"
"My source is that I made it the fuck up"
Yes but it could also come from the lexicon known as q anon
@@theodorebear6714 Prager isn’t Q. They are arch conservative propaganda. Their interests at times align with the Qrazies in opposing the growth and expansion of American democracy, however.
As a Liberal I appreciate a Conservative who is willing to call out Conservative organizations who push fallacies.
Yeah agreed-Brandon seems to be less of a "We should harass and oppress minorities" conservative, and more of a "The government shouldn't interfere with people's rights" conservative. People like me, even if we disagree with this guy, can work with him-as opposed to US Republicans, who seem hell-bent on making me a second-class citizen at the moment and therefore can hardly be negotiated with.
@@ob2kenobi388
Nobody is “hArAsSiNg miNoRiTiEZ”, kiddo. Talk about “pulling facts out of nowhere”. Aside from being absolute hypocrites (and you all are) you godless, evil postmodernist/leftist cruds certainly are melodramatic. Good grief. Quit moaning and posturing your NGO-appointed victimhood status. Nobody’s watching.
@@ob2kenobi388weird I don’t get that vibe at all. He’s a materialist so for me that rules out conservative. But I’m American, so take that for what you will.
@@seppo532
I believe he mentions in the video that he is politically conservative, which is what I'm basing my comment off of
@@ob2kenobi388 Content makers like Brandon and VloggingThroughHistory have much improved my impression of American conservatives!
The amount of americans that seriously believed PragerU on that video was quite shocking imo.
I earned a master's degree in history. I have seen used toilet paper that is more appealing than the propaganda that is lying "PragerU"!
Wait people believe them?
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Unfortunately, yes some peoples at least over 20,000 seem to believe them if we take the number of like at face value. Certainly not the majority but the fact that they don't even know about thier own nation's history seem shocking to me.
@@inquisitorsteele8397
Of course they don't know their history. The education system has been controlled by progressives for a very long time. Young people were during that time reformed into fanatic woke climate jugend and green shirts hating the world they are living in especially those horrible white people.
I find it much more shocking they believe in the nonsense and lies all those politicians from whatever party produce every day .
Brandon F. Vs Prager U. Begin!
It was over before it began.
@@BrandonF I shall spread propaganda on the prageru comment section
I shall send them to your channel
@@JavaScrapper I don't think that'd really do anything than make people upset, including you with the replies. Play nice, now.
@@JavaScrapper the only propaganda you should end is leaflets to the brave oppressed loyalists ready to fly the Union Jack!
@@BrandonF I really admire people like you who don't present history as a way to back propaganda...👍...keep up the good work!
It's funny that he emphasizes the rag-tag, motley character of the American armies. In Canada we have the "Militia Myth" that really started during the War of 1812 particularly at the Battle of Queenston Heights, that we didn't really need an army and if we need to fight all we need is to hand out guns. That myth is still somewhat a part of the zeitgeist and kind of evolved through the World Wars, into the Cold War and the peacekeeping myth. It's mostly just an excuse for our government not to fund the military appropriately.
Of course the myth is untrue, the militias acquitted themselves well but the few regulars in the country were what really won the victories. It's just funny to see that same characterization from the other side of the same war.
It is really funny that both countries have their own militia myth that regulars aren't needed for sovereignty. while the Canadian militia did have some great success like at Chateaugay, most of the victories were by the regulars. From the outset Brock had a dim view of Canadian ability for self-defense, hence his reliance on regulars and native allies.
@@Tareltonlives As I understand i though the regiments raised in Canada (not militia) were pretty darn good in their own right. According to one Canadian historian those Canadian regiments are the probable source of the Canadian militia myth.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Would those be the Voltiguers (Canadien light infantry) and other Fencibles (which were often enough Canadien or black Canadians with Scottish officers)? They were quite impressive, a cut above most militia and more along the lines of Revolutionary state troops like the elite Marylanders.
@@Tareltonlives Yes, I believe so, although I'd have to hit the book on that one. The first one that usually springs to mind is the Newfoundland Regiment, raised in Newfoundland but deployed to the mainland in Lower Canada which is mostly present day Ontario. I've been to Newfoundland twice so that's the reason they're the first ones I think of.
Those locally raised Canadian regiments were definately a cut above militia, I'd have to call them semi-regulars for lack of a better term.
In a weird twist, the Canadian Army was called the "Canadian Militia" right up to 1941. In a way, Canadian militia did push back Americans (though some of those militias are semi-professional/semi-regulars and not actually militias as we'd know it).
On a funny note, the fact that the Canadian Army was known as the Canadian Militia means that you have a militia at one point in possession of artillery, tanks, and machine guns.
in canada we're taught that the united states invaded us, then the british went and burned their president's house down, and that it would be a funny prank if a canadian went and did it again. so, to say there is a general lack of understanding on the topic in both the u.s and canada is an understatement.
Hey, the wife and I were in a Laura Secord candy store in Saint John's Newfoundland and asked the girls behind the counter who Laura Secord was. They had no more idea than we did, and they were Canadian!
Great candy by the way!
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 That's a shame.
As a fellow Canadian I feel like My education on the topic was pretty adequate, Though I may have just gotten lucky…
A case could be made that the war did provide Canada with a sense of being an independent nation (even though that was still decades off) and not just a British territory. The U.S. continued to believe that Canadians were anxious to become a part of the United States and they launched three invasions, none of which was successful.
@@jayseaborg3895 Oh that’s absolutely the Truth. Many Americans don’t seem to understand how much of a spiritual victory this was for the people in Canada, the concept of “Canada” gained so much of its legitimacy and momentum from the War of 1812, the Idea that we could be free in our own way. Without the overbearing Americans.
Regarding the "the British were all too happy to accommodate them" - perhaps the most important factor at play as to the reason why the British were actually _not_ too happy to accommodate them was the fact that the US was one of the biggest trading partners of Britain.
British merchants lost so much money through lost trade with America that they were banding together to pressure the British government to sign peace. It was a similar story in America too, particularly in New England. Hell, New England almost seceded from the Union over the war.
Most of the frontier in Ontario and New York was vehemently against the war. They were doing fine, they didn't care about the native wars in the Midwest, and they didn't care about the Royal Navy getting pushy. Most of the complaints were from the port cities, midwest land speculators, and the big political faction of the 19th century, the southern planters. The northern border was absolutely peaceful and thriving.
One often overlooked factor in the War of 1812 is the significant number of America-born Loyalists (not Americans) who chose to move to Canada following the United States gaining independence who were, then, forced to fight their former neighbours and relatives a generation later.
They were almost certainly decisive to the fate of what was left of British North America, the future Canada.
What do you think the trajectory of their decisive effect was?
Well, the American Loyalists are the ones referred to as "The people who MADE Canada."
The American Tory by William H Nelson. It's clear from the stories of American Loyalists that they considered themselves American.
Some of those who travelled to England realised very quickly that they missed home and felt very much like fish out of water.
Both the Americans and (to a lesser extent) the British were thinking of how the Loyalist population would react to the invading Americans. The Brits worried they could not be relied upon as proper militia.
@@chrisgibson5267
It reminds me of Edward Carson refusing to be the first fist minister of Northern Ireland.
You were accurate with "PragerU Doesn't Understand", no other modifiers were needed.
Unless we’re talking about basic human biology, religious values, and the western ideals and beliefs that built our country into what is today… then ya your statement may be correct
@@ashercroy4982 Eeehhh... You mean outdated sciences, outdated and unneeded religious values, and again, outdated ideals and beliefs?
Should we... just finish killing off the natives then? Cause... that was kinda our beliefs back in the day
@@ashercroy4982 what
@@ashercroy4982, Giggle, the US doesn't need racists speaking for it.
@@ashercroy4982 PragerU has never once put out a video that had any value in any area of anything. To be honest the sheer moronic laziness of the propaganda in the videos it astounds me that anyone would bother to pay for it in the first place.
PragerU doesn't want to teach history, they want to teach mythology.
No, you do. Your gods are postmodernist idealists. You know nothing of anything and you will learn in due time the folly of your ways. Where’re through medication or the grave, you will learn
I’ve always loved how both Conservatives and Progressives consider PragerU to have as much credibility as a one armed swordfighter
I'm curious, what do Conservatives not like about PragerU?
I manly dislike it because of their annoying adds, awful accusatory and flat out false statements.
but I always thought the point was that they were trying to appeal to conservatives.
@@charlieterry8506 the lies and the misrepresentation of conservative arguments mostly
@@charlieterry8506 I personally don't like how they seem like their talking down to you, and that they some how know everything since the read a book on philosophy once and somehow have now ascended the libs bull crap because of it.
@@charlieterry8506 Because some conservatives aren't as stupid or have such short attention spans as the demographic Dennis Prager tries to pander to, & have the self awareness to understand that the only thing worse than having an opponent skilfully dismantle your philosophy, is to have someone who claims to support it butcher it beyond parody.
I earned a master's degree in history. I have seen used toilet paper that is more appealing than the propaganda that is lying "PragerU"!
Great video! Couple points:
-check out the book 6 Frigates, which covers the campaigns of the US navy during the war and how seriously the British took the American threat. It goes heavily into how much the US frigates shocked the Royal Navy and the British population. Up to this point, the British could confidently rely on any of their ships beating a French or Spanish vessel 1 on 1. They deeply believed in a level of quality superiority. But once US frigates had started to beat British frigates 1 on 1, it deeply shook the British. Also, by this point the US had the second largest merchant fleet in the world only behind the British. Intelligent British commanders absolutely did know what they were signing up for.
-Andrew Jackson is a very interesting character, not ideal. What isn't covered is how much Davy Crockett and Jackson did not get along. They would severely clash later in life over politics and temperament. Davy Crockett did not believe Andrew Jackson was a good man, and the opinion of Davy Crockett should actually be taken seriously.
-I agree with your point with Jackson not being incompetent but not being decisive also. American soldiers and fighters were very capable, and honestly would have probably won that battle whether Jackson was in command or not. There were many good leaders with that force. There were first hand accounts from many British soldiers that felt that that was a particularly vicious battle, more so than any that had been fought in Europe in a concentrated fashion. They had remarked that the Americans had fought in a savage and 'hunting style' fashion that the French had not. The British were definitely not incompetent, but they definitely were soundly beaten.
-From someone that was in the Army and has trained in Louisiana, it is not an exaggeration to say that Louisiana is some of the most unforgiving terrain in the US.
I can defo vouch for 6 Frigates
The USS Constitution was known as "Old Ironsides" because it had thicker armor and bigger guns than most British frigates.
Fort Polk
@@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874 Actually no, it had NO armor, or at least what we would call armor today. It was sheathed in, I believe, Live Oak (not sure of the species), and it had thick outer skin, and from what I understand, its frames were closer together than was usual (16 inches vs 24 inches), so fairly mediocre as far as armor goes, but it was enough to prevent the British cannon shot from penetrating the hull. With regard towards the guns, yes, the CONSTITUTION carried heavier guns, but that was because she carried 24 pounders, whereas the British Frigates of the time carried 18 pounders, but that is not why she received the nickname of Old Ironsides.
@@davidbriggs7365 The oak hull WAS the armor I was talking about. Wooden armor is still armor, as far as wooden sailing ships are concerned.
“Inaccurate at best, dishonest at worst” should be the PragerU motto. It’s the worst collection of culture warrior woohoos to ever slip on a bad fitting suit.
@@brandonproductions8401 they don’t only lie, get everything wrong, and act really weird… no… it’s the lowest fruit most retarded conservative propaganda in the game… and that’s really hard to do.
@@brandonproductions8401 Rather than demanding that OTHER people do research to convince you of something that's really easy to verify on your own, why don't YOU do research and come to a conclusion based on your own mental effort? It's unreasonable to expect a research memo from a YT comment. If you can watch Prager U videos and don't see any factual inconsistencies or very clear bias, then you have perception issues that a link to an article are not going to fix.
Like, what kind of source are you looking for? Peer reviewed journal article explaining how Prager U is propaganda? Full psychological profile on their content creators? Who would spend that much time publishing a scholarly work about something so obvious? If you're looking for info on how Prager U is disingenuous about their presentation of history, then literally watch the video you're commenting under.
PragerU spews misinformation and hates making America look bad.
@@brandonproductions8401if you mean the video, well it’s right in front of you. If you mean other PragerU videos, others make videos about that stuff
Their grafs are extremely funny tho
Love seeing PragerU get dragged by someone who knows the topic better than they do. Love your stuff.
"Prager U doesn't understand (insert topic here)" is pretty much their unofficial slogan
Brandon, exposing PragerU's point: "He's the true answer, the response of America against overwhelming enemy power *dramatic pause*"
Me: Weeeell that sounds like "Great man history" bullshit!
Brandon: It's great man history to a T, and that's just so silly!
I just love everything about your videos, the integrity, the nuances, the details!
I love the 100% accurate historical quotes on Helix mattresses.
as someone who hasn't watched a Brandon F video in a while and has nothing but contempt for PragerU, this is the perfect video to get back into the swing of things. thanks big b
A pleasure to welcome you back!
If it helps, their acronym is PU.
I love you’re channel Brandon, I’ve been watching you for about 3 years and you’re video editing and writing has become so much more refined. It’s been amazing watching you grow as a content creator. Cheers
Thank you!
I giggled like a little kid when he skipped the entire war and addressed the only American victory as the key point of the war, truly shameless
There is no other nation in the world that would have their capital burnt down and say “ok, a draw it is” 💀💀 like something out of Monty Python
Paraguay.
>Declares war on Brazil
>Get stomped by a coalition of Brazil’s allies
>Lose so much people that you begin drafting children
>Your general dies in mortal combat with Brazil’s own general
>Lose so much males that your male population wouldn’t be able to recover a 50/50 equal ratio with females
>”Tis a draw. We survived!”
Weird that they didnt at least mention Lake Champlain too.
How is having a building burnt down equate to a total loss of the war. With your logic any army could just focus on burning down any capital building and say they're the winners
Isn't that exactly what the Russians have been praised for at times?
@@gaven5479 Yeah I definitely phrased myself terribly considering the ironically more significant war of 1812 in Russia saw Napoleon find out why it’s kind of pointless to just sit in the capital
Was more talking in the context of this war: the USA was the only one who actually wanted war yet somehow managed to have its country invaded and capital destroyed without inflicting any damage on Britain… while claiming even spoils? They basically believe that the war was necessary for petty problems which normal diplomacy would resolve. They got arrogant and were swiftly humbled, and I’m proud to admit it because it forced us to stop relying on militias… yes I am American so I’ll stop referring to us in the third person. I live in England now and funnily enough they don’t teach it, I think people mistake Britains lack of coverage for bitterness when in reality it just isn’t anywhere near important , both 1776 and 1812 compared to English history overall. Obviously I learn about it in the USA because it’s our history, but idk why people expect everyone else to besides Canada
Common misconception that Britain was anti-American too , even King George III loved the USA , and before they burnt the whitehouse they had a toast;
“Peace with America, down with Maddison”
Brandon, your description on this video was amazing! And to prove a point on Pakenham, personally, Pakenham should've just taken New Orleans when Old Hickory didn't have Line Jackson fortified, despite having the supplies dwindling away, and constant skirmishes with the American militia, they could have taken the city in good time, plus, the Americans didn't have the ammunition, powder, and musket flints to bear against Pakenham's forces. This battle could have gone in many different directions, but despite having Line Jackson, that was actually not the only battle line The American forces had, it turns out, about six to eight reserve battle dug lines, but less fortified than Line Jackson itself, the battle could've continued for the next few days, even for the rest of the month of January. Correct me if i am wrong.
I believe Packenham's intention was to change the treaty provisions and impose more punishing terms before the treaty stopped all fighting. I think the nature of the defeat came from the fact that it was rushed. He didn't have to time to try different' maneuvers, bring up the squadron or try for a siege.
@@Tareltonlives I agree. Only becuase he had enough poweder and ammunition for a march, not for a siege. Not to mention that fact, that they couldn't maneuver due to the Mississippi river and the swamp, they had to march straight towards Jacksons defense.
A Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “any army runs on its Grade A quality sleep on a Helix Mattress”
If Bonaparte had Grade A Quality Helis Mattresses, he would have conquered Russia from Moscow to St Petersburg.
He also said "Not tonight Josephine. I'm loving this Helix mattress too much to want to do anything but sleep".
My Michigan History class covered the war in detail. I would take issue with the US having no strategy, generals or resources. We were actually winning the early war, especially after the battles of Lake Erie, until the British opened up a new theater in the Chesapeake. It is the Chesapeake theater that everyone remembers. That is when Washington burned and the National Anthem was written.
Actually, the early campaigns were pretty pathetic displays of American military power: yes, there’s the twin victory at Erie and Thames but that’s the sole W(s) between the first two campaigns, and that was after disastrous invasions of Canada in 1812 and earlier in 1813
You’re correct that the main problem was US “strategy” (or lack thereof) though
It was more the other way around: both sides struggled when they took the offensive in this war. Since the US had the advantage early on, what with most British troops being in Europe, they tried to attack into Canada and came unstuck ultimately, resulting in the burning of Washington, after the US burnt York (Toronto) earlier. When the British got the numerical advantage, after the surrender of Napoleon, and had the choice of where to attack, they too suffered defeats and set-backs.
The terrain and defenceability of North America is really the ultimate take-home point of this war. And ... beyond 'punishing' the US for starting the war, what were the real goals for the British? There weren't really any besides defend Canada (tick) and (eventually) secure the North America sea routes (tick) again. Once the threat of the 6 super-frigates of the US were somewhat diminished (50% were captured....I know, not the USS Constitution) the US merchant fleet was almost strangled (New England traders and merchants really started to get itchy about this), and the British capturing as many US merchant ships towards the end of the war, as the Americans had in the early part of the war. So beyond that, what more could Britain do but capture in costly assaults on American port cities? It would achieve nothing.
@@abanico_rodilla Then why the hell did they even try to take cities? The lack of trade was also hurting the UK. I would think it's quite reasonable to assume that the UK wanted to seize American territory in order to secure highly favorable conditions during peace negotiations, which they didn't achieve. I definitely don't think the US won, but it's silly to say that the UK did as well. This is not a conflict that should just be defined in terms of winners and losers. That is far too simple.
Conditions like "don't expand west," which they were attempting to effect before the war.
I couldn't believe the gall, well ignorance of basic history that guy had to claim that has the worst defeat Britain has ever faced was there. There are dozens if not hundreds more, from Afghanistan to quiberon. The fact a million people have watched that and will have such a warped view of history is saddening, when we know they are ly ing, lazy and have no knowledge on the topics they talk about and all funded by an oil company.
It's Brian Kilmeade... better known for his semi-permanent place on Fox and Friends...
Brian Kilmeade and the rest of the lying filth at Fox News can be written as Faux News because the word faux means false in the French language. Also, Fox and Friends can be written as Faux and Fiends.
The retreat from France in 1940 was a much bigger defeat. Dunkirk was not a win.
I assume Quiberon refers to the 1795 invasion of France, and not the battle of Quiberon Bay in 1759 which was a British victory?
@@stevenredpath9332 Most British do not claim Dunkirk was anything but a defeat. That being said its seen here as a remarkable achievement by the Royal Navy nonetheless, and for the consequences.
What do I mean by that? Well consider this. If Britain had lost not just the BEF's heavy equipment in France, but also lost the men, what then are its options? At the time the BEF was the vast majority of Britain's available land forces.
That is why Dunkirk is remembered, not because it was a victory, it was not, however, the sheer scale of the evacuation ensured that Britain could continue to fight on. Had those men been lost, there is a very strong case for the argument that Britain would have been forced to seek surrender terms.
I’m just here for the comments 🍿
Here's the comment , Habibi
All you need is "PragerU doesn't understand" and it applies to literally every single thing they come up with
Great video as always. Just to chime in on the “worst defeat in British military history” part, I think a strong contender has to be the 1842 retreat from Kabul. Unmitigated disaster right from the beginning, overseen by an incompetent doddering old general. I believe I am right in saying military casualties were effectively 100% on the retreat.
Of the approx 4,500 men in the army (not including civilians who were travelling alongside) only a literal handful actually made it through the mountain pass. The rest were all killed, died from the cold or captured. Of the captured, most were sold into slavery and fewer than 100 were released in September after a British punitive expedition. Even if you round up to 100 who were either released later or made it through and don’t count them as casualties, that’s still a loss of 97.8%. The entire army was effectively wiped out.
Flashy made it out though and the quivering poltroon was even dubbed "the hero of Jallallabad". The start of his unearned reputation for martial courage.
@@garylancaster8612 ahhh a man of culture
I'd have to disagree there. While 1842 was a debacle, it didn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. It's similar to Isandlwana in some respects. Awful, highly embarrassing and most likely preventable, but relatively small scale and didn't significantly affect the overall course of British/Empire geo-polictics/strategy (Britain losing the Zulu War was always highly unlikely, and losing Kabul didn't really endanger India all that much).
'Worst defeat in British Military history' would have to be something either at a significantly larger scale than other defeats, and/or had major fallout on the progress of the wider war/foreign policy. So you're looking at things like Cartagena di Indias and the River Plate campaign (both of which blocked British expansion into South America, and was fairly large scale on the case of Cartagena), Yorktown (as the point that Britain had to accept the loss of the 13 Colonies) or Singapore 1942 (iirc the largest scale single surrender of British forces ever, massively scuppered the British warplan for the Far East AND damaged the prestige of the Empire enough that it was a notable contributor to the end of Empire in Asia). Personally, I'd go for Singapore.
If you count England for it then I'd say it's the Battle of Bouvines
@@Innerste_ yeah, that one gets double points for loosing to the French too
Brandon, how accurate is the 2022 “All Quiet on the Western Front?” I was just curious about some scenes.
It’s actually an adaptation of an anti-war book of the same name, published in the 2930s I think. So I’d say it would be rather accurate. Take my words with a grain of salt though. Most of what I just said was light research.
As far as I have heard, it's inaccurate, but a great movie. One of those things that's minor inaccuracies add up to not being a historically accurate, but historical fiction goodness
@@appletree13 2930s?
@@kornsuwin Yep, a time machine gets invented sometime between now and then.
It's based off of a post WWI novel written by a German WWI veteran, which has been adapted into multiple films and some series. The book first came out in 1928. Even though Paul, the main character, is fictitious, his experience as written is believed to be the most accurate piece on WWI combat we have ever seen. The 1930's movie was and has been seen as extremely accurate, with many of the extras being US and German WWI veterans, and some of the most gruesome scenes being direct memory of those WWI veterans. The modern film adaptation through Netflix takes place later in the war than the book. I would argue it is still probably one of the most authentic WWI movies ever made. Steven Spielberg and many modern war film directors and producers were heavily influenced by the 1930 All Quiet on the Western Front; it is the cultural great grandfather of many movies depicting ground combat. There is one scene towards the end where there probably wasn't ever that high a concentration of flamethrowers deployed in that concentrated of a manner by the French, but overall AQOTWF is still one of if not the most authentic WWI stories we have in existence. Also, from someone that has served in the Army during ground combat... there is a feel that AQOTWF gets right... and it's just the sheer randomness of how things happen.
Excellent video! We Canadians tend to take interest in the War of 1812, and take pride in it (even though the war itself was more or less a draw, lol). I'd just like to say I've been following along with this channel for some time now - a little over 2 years. I'm a bit of a history buff, especially when it comes to the 18th century, and this channel covers quite a bit in that century. I've learned a heaping amount of knowledge. Keep up the good work, Brandon ^^
What tie? You won!
@@historiamowiosobie4515 True. Their objective was to stop American forces from advancing deep into British Canada
People often say it was a draw for the US and UK, but it was definitely a victory for Canada.
@@someguy3766 what do you mean?
We certainly stopped an invasion (with the help of the British and even some Native tribes), but if you look at the politics of the war, it was definitely more or less the US against Britain - and that part was a draw as someone mentioned.
Who was it that said something like "Napoleon was pressing American sailors too, but he had nothing that we wanted". Great video.
My sentiments, exactly, ever since I laid my eyes on this video when studying my home state of Indiana during the 1812 war for my history degree.
Thank you, Brandon!
Oooh, this is going to get very spicy!
(grabs tubs tons of eucalyptus from the gum tree)
Never been this happy to see a video. Thanks for this one, Brandon!!
I’m shocked. How could a long respected academic institution like Prager University get so much wrong? This calls into question the credibility of there entire history department.
They’re a phony channel not a real university.
What? PregerU not telling history in an fair light? I’m shocked.
I hate that I used to use them in my homeschooling. Took a while to understand just how misleading they are.
Well, better late than never I guess. But, I'm confused about how anyone could think them legitimate in the first place since they're have been so many videos about how not legitimate they are. Then again they still do have quite a large viewer base so it's not impossible.
@@peggedyourdad9560 sorry if I wasn’t very clear. I grew up very republican and very Catholic. Along with being homeschooled and most of my experiences out of my own family being in Church. I didn’t get a lot of other perspectives. PregerU was what was allowed at my home (when the evil internet was even allowed at all) hence why I believed them up until I moved out and started learning more about the world and history.
@@natpat6394 Oh ok, that makes a lot more sense, I thought you were using them for a homeschool program. I was also homeschooled, but thankfully not for any political or religious reasons. Although I definitely knew people in your situation or similar at the partnership where I took extra classes.
As I understand it, Pakenham knew the math. He was gambling on the possibility of, like at Bladensburg, Jackson's force scaring, and running from the whistle of the Congreve rockets.
It was a long shot gamble.
I knew they were trouble when they defended Warren G. Harding.
What about their video on why monuments of Robert E. "Traitor" Lee shouldn't be removed?
@@aralornwolf3140 yeah, along with the traitor Eisenhower also praised the evil Lee, therefore Ike must have been a rebel secessionist. Or maybe, there might be more wisdom in his words than fools and college students who boozed their way through class.
@@aralornwolf3140 Lee was a traitor and way overrated as a general.
Wait, they defended sleazy newspaper editor who was one of our most embarrassing presidents before the 21st century?
Checks out, actually. Considering the money behind PragerU, it’s not surprising they’d defend the guy who allowed the Teapot Dome Scandal to go on.
They *what*-
I think the War of 1812 is best labeled as "The War of Demanding to Be Taken Seriously."
Always good to see PragerU taking to task by people who know what they are talking about. Good vid Brandon
Thank you so much! That is very generous of you and really helps me out.
I earned a master's degree in history. I have seen used toilet paper that is more appealing than the propaganda that is lying "PragerU"!
I ran into prageru just a few days ago. I follow quite a few science tubers but one in particular really rubbed me the wrong way, Brian Keating.
He didn't really say anything untoward but his face, demeanor and way of talking just screamed narcissist so I looked him up. Sure enough, when he's not selling his scientific integrity or complaining about being robbed of a Nobel (which he didn't deserve because his research was bunk), he's shilling for prageru.
I just can't fit it in my head how a physicist can support such a blatantly anti science forum as prageru. It actually makes the world a worse place.
I watch this video about their course on the War of 1812. Only two words to describe that video.... "Good grief." And i am not saying that in a good way.
Disclosure... I was talking about the PragerU video. Brandon f. Your video here is outstanding.
*The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict* by Donald Hickey, page 300:
'The war, afterall, had achieved none of the nation's goals, neither a renunciation of British maritime practices nor the conquest of Canada. Instead, the Treaty of Ghent seemed to confirm what Federalists had been saying all along about the futility of the conflict...As Christopher Gore [Federalist politician] put it: "The treaty must be deemed disgraceful to the government who made the war and the peace...."
There was one Federalist, however, who was not so optimistic. James Robertson of Philadelphia said that the [Jeffersonian] Republican strategy was already apparent. They would ignore the causes of the conflict and portay it as "a war on our part of pure self-defence against the designs of the British to reduce us again to subjection". By portraying the war in this light, they could claim it was a great triumph. "The President", Robertson concluded, "will only have to call it a glorious peace, and the party here will echo it"'.
Prager U is propagating domestic propaganda made by the Madison Administration 200 years after the fact 🤦♂️
Similar to the French believing they won Waterloo.
Donald Hickey is awesome!!!
Check out Troy Bickham’s “The Weight of Vengeance” and Alan Taylor’s “Civil War of 1812”
My dad, who was in the armed forces, always said you needed a three to one numerical superiority as the attacker (for 20th Century warfare).
its an outdated way of seeing war based on WW1 tactics ..... we have seen outnumbered forces overcome larger forces many times
usually by apply better technology and tactics in said attack
@@reform-revolution Yes, this was a rule-of-thumb based on conventional, symmetrical warfare. This was indeed roughly what prevailed during the War of 1812, the First and Second World Wars. It would have prevailed in a Third World War scenario between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for instance with a Warsaw Pact advance with armour through the Fulda Gap. But it is a good rule-of-thumb even today. It was what guided the build-up to the First Iraq War.
@@windalfalatar333 it didnt prevail in WW2 at all .... again there were many cases where outnumbered attackers won a battle cause they had better weapons or tactics
in the Pacific for example the Americans were often outnumbered far more then 3-1 themselves and often won battles fairly handedly
Iraq outnumbered the coalition and still lost the fight ...... cause the coalition had better technology and tactics
this is like saying "well volley fire may be an old way of doing things but it is relevant today"
@@reform-revolution Which Pacific theatre examples are you thinking of?
We were both of us wrong about the First Iraq War. Allied forces outnumbered Iraqi by 159% (so they were neither inferior nor outnumbered them by 300%):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
To be fair, no one seems to understand the war of 1812. Americans think they won, which they did, Britain thinks they won, which they did, and Canadians think they won, when they didn't exist yet.
Very fare post.
Seems like PragerU has been learning their history from Mel Gibson
Another fact that Americans always turn a blind eye to is the fact that the attacking force was mainly Scottish - 21st Regiment of Foot & 93rd Regiment of Foot, there were also a significant minority of black troops attached to the force. I think the "visual" of American troops gunning down ranks of kilted warriors with bagpipes playing in the background, like some "Culloden 2", with the occasional hapless black dude getting his brains blown out, is not one that they wish to embrace. Which is quite understandable, but that's no excuse for misrepresentation. To also pretend that a force of 8,000 was a garrison for occupation, and without any evidence that an occupation was even planned, especially when peace was already concluded between the governments - is, to put it mildly, another misrepresentation.
most were Canadians wym
@@chlorhexidine2506 Not at New Orleans
@@sanspeter9925 yeah bro because the whole war was about new orleans, sure
@@chlorhexidine2506 of course it wasn't, but you have misinterpreted the original comment, he was talking about New Orleans, I'm Canadian I have no reason to belittle our participation in that war but the truth is our militia wasn't ever that far from Canada
Indeed- the battle of New Orleans might be the last instance of African Americans (West India regiment vs Louisiana Volunteers and US Marines) firing on each other in military capacity. Bladenburgh saw a fierce firefight between the US Marines (where 1 in 6 men was black) and the Colonial marines (freed slaves), with the US marines being the only ones who didn't panic and managed to retreat in good order.
As an American Veteran I thank you for doing this video. I absolutely agree.
Prager U is so wrong about historical conflicts so is their video about the War of 1812 really surprising.
“People who don’t understand central banks have their hero” lmao
It’s amazing how little people understand about central banks and what they actually do
@@warlordofbritannia If they did, then they would have to acknowledge that the ideal system in their head is even less functional than the problematic system already in place 🤣
12:16 Germany 100 years later: *Yes, we are surrounded! These fools have fallen for our master plan!*
Brandon,
I really enjoy watching your videos, they are most informative. In your recent PragerU video, you briefly identified a battle that took place outside of Washington as the Battle of Bladenburg. It is in fact Bladensburg.
Respectfully,
Michael “Iron” Regimenti
How some Americans view the war of 1812 makes me think of Monty Python's The Black Knight.
Britain isn't interested in having a fight. America starts the fight. Britain then proceeds to beat the crap out of America. Then, because they never really wanted anything anyway, Britain just shrugs and walks away. America says "We'll call it a draw."
Didn’t happen at all like that. The USA didn’t want a war either plus the USA beat Britain winning the majority of battles.
On the impressment issue, it's also worth noting that US diplomats overseas had been selling false US citizenship papers to British men who wished to avoid service. How officially supported (tacitly) this was from the US authorities is unclear, though they did not crack down on the practice either. It certainly doesn't change the general point (or that some were genuine US citizens), but there was an additional reason for mistrust beyond 'simply not viewing the US as a proper country'.
Ah yes The war that we did badly in but somehow ended up in a better position afterward
(The uss constitution was fucking dope tho. New England pride boop boop)
The Constitution's battle record is very very good. Never struck her colors once, and definitely fought some capable opponents. Also directly influenced a British ship building response, which never happened with the French or the Spanish during the Napoleonic Wars.
The "Task Failed Successfully" of wars.
The bankrupting of the economy, recognition of total British control over maritime law and demonstration of America's acute vulnerability to blockade made her stronger?
@@skibbideeskitch9894 by the end of the war the us had gained control over what had been tecumsehs confederacy, did not have to make any territorial concessions, and the British stopped doing what had been the cassus belli for the war (impressment of sailers and arming of native warrior) mostly just because they didn’t have to anymore with Napoleon gone. Also our bad performance showed us that we couldn’t just rely on militia to win wars, which was an important lesson to learn. It’s a lot more complicated than what I wrote initially I know, but I was mostly just memeing.
@@menschman1464 Fairs, although the US could've beaten Tecumseh without also declaring a suicidal war on Britian, and been better off waiting for the Napoleonic Wars to end rather than trying to fight over impressment
I remember seeing PragerU ads a few years ago and thought "huh, ok cool. I'll look at that later." Then promptly forgot about it until I saw how off the walls it was. Their cliff notes of history are worse than a 4th grader trying to pass social studies.
"Worst British military defeat" - Huh? Worse than Saratoga? Yorktown? Raid on the Medway? English Armada? Retreat from Kabul? Singapore?
The Somme...
@@zombieoverlord5173 Yep! I mean, take your pick!
Thank you for the mental image of a regiment of redcoats setting up their mattresses at the end of the day. Love it.
Something funny is that while the Battle of New Orleans is not really considered a major upset in military history, two battles from the War of 1812 are. Those are the battles of Brownstowns and Lacolle Mills
Actually New Orleans is.
Add Detroit as another embarrassing military upset for the Americans in that list
@@arwing20 but they got it back in September 1813 with an embarrassing British retreat from Detroit and Proctor running miles ahead of his own men 🤷♂️
@@TheIceman567 and the Americans ran away from Washington with the president leading the retreat
@@Fishing_Nature25 but yet that would happen to the British at Baltimore weeks later🤷♂️
Another glossed-over point but an important one was the composition of the defenders. About a quarter of the defenders were Spanish and French residents of the area (these groups formed the famous French Quarter and lesser-known Spanish Quarter in that important seaside port. Jackson, desperate for more troops, solicited help by promising freedom to slaves if they helped defend New Orleans (NOLA), and they comprised another quarter of the overall defenders. The British, preparing for the fight, had neglected to bring siege ladders, so the attack was delayed while some men went back to their camp and brought them forward. These ladders proved critical to breaching the brestworks because, at one point, British soldiers made it inside the American lines among the slave defenders. Fighting was brutal and intense, but the British were forced to abandon their breach and retreat. Jackson's only comment on the battle scene was warning his fellow slave owners to never again promise freedom because it incited the blacks to extreme violence. Indeed, it was the rebellions of Stono and Nat Turner that prompted the Southerners to outlaw teaching slaves to read and write in an effort to suppress the notions of human dignity and freedom. Jackson, an ardent racist, hated the British, Native Americans, and blacks; he thought nothing of breaking his word to the slaves who had been promised their freedom to those brave blacks who fought and in some cases died in the battle. Indeed, he ordered the whites to turn on the blacks so they could be shackled and carted off to their plantations. Yes, he was that cold.
Jackson himself was very much a man of dichotomies. His patriotism for America surpassed his devotion to the continuation of slavery; both of his brothers died after fighting the British, and his mother died of cholera contracted while she nursed American prisoners in prison ships in Charleston harbor. The scars on his hand and head were earned when he refused to polish an officer's boots and he was beaten with the flat of a saber. Yeah, he hated the British. During his presidency in the 1830s the issue of whether or not to abolish slavery came up, and war threatened to break out. John C. Calhoun, Jackson's VP and another devoted to enshrining slavery, thought would lead the Southerners in the fight ahead, but Jackson raised his glass and toasted, "To the Union." Then he told Calhoun that if rebellion broke out and states tried to leave, he would lead the Northerners himself. Jackson abolished the Central Bank because there were fears that greedy bankers would use predatory loan practices to enrich themselves and displace middle-class and farming families. But, on the other hand, Cherokee chief John Ross won the fight in the Supreme Court against white encroachment on their lands and violating the signed treaty. Jackson's reply was that the Supreme Court made their ruling, "then let them enforce it." Gold had been found in Georgia and the Indians needed to be expelled. Thousands of Cherokee, Chocktaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole died on the Trail of Tears. Jackson was historically an important figure, but I don't think I would have liked being in the same room with him.
Very informative video. A fan of your videos for some years, I wish I wasn't always on the edge of poverty as I would definitely become a patron. Slainté
I used to live in Cambridge, MA and went to the USS Constitution museum. One of the interesting pieces of trivia we were told was that after losing naval engagements against American frigates, the British Admiralty issued an order that no British ships were to engage an American frigate without at least a 2:1 numerical advantage. I haven’t found a corroborating primary source but then again I’m not a naval scholar. Still, pretty interesting if true.
I wouldn't be surprised- the Royal Navy's best sailors and men were deployed to the other side of the Atlantic. They were fine with using half-assed ships and conscripts for America until they found out that the US Navy had grown exponentially more formidable since the revolution (where it didn't really exist except for some pirates) with well-trained crews from the very marine northeast using state of the art French ships.
@@Tareltonlives the USS Essex is certainly a fun story.
No, not the carrier, as funny as that concept would be, but the Carronade Frigate.
@@nukclear2741 Oh yeah. Porter was a good pirate, but he bit off more than he could chew and threw a tantrum when he was clobbered
That isn't out of the question. America's greatest advantage was the fact they were able to use a specific type of wood that was much more resistant to cannon balls, to the point the only way to do any real damage was to be point blank.
Singapore was our worst military defeat imho!
The US Army military doctrine as late as 2016 mandated that, to attack a force in a prepared and fortified position, you need a numerical force superiority of at least three to one. Put another way, even if the Americans were outnumbered by just over 2 to 1 as is so confidently asserted by the PragerU propagandist, US military doctrine suggests the British were likely to loose based simply on the numbers involved. That fails to take into account that the British had to advance through open ground on a narrow front (nearly always military suicide) against heavy bombardment. From the battle alone, it would be hard to argue that Jackson was anything more than of average competence as a military commander; though other factors relating to the lead up to the battle, and inspiring his forces to fight might raise that assessment.
As an aside, it should also be noted that the battle was militarily inconsequential. That is because at the time it was signed, the treaty had already been signed. Had the British had an overwhelming victory, and seized New Orleans; when news of the treaty finally reached them from Britain, they would have simply packed up and gone home. So while the battle may have been tremendously important in terms of the American view of themselves, and even more so in terms of Andrew Jackson's reputation - militarily it meant nothing.
This 3 to 1 ratio is true, doctrinally.
The battle was ultimately tragic, as it did nothing but severely damage some British Army units for zero gain.
I also agree that Jackson wasn't that consequential.
In terms of no military meaning... alongside the work of the US Navy, it did cement that the US was on a very very rapid trajectory militarily. While it obviously didn't effect the actual end of the war as the treaty was signed before the battle even happened, it did cement the thought in very intelligent British leaders that the US was going to be a truly capable power in the future and had to be taken seriously. In a span of only 40ish years, a former colony had grown to a nation that could produce armies and ships of similar if not greater fighting quality to the British, which was a significant note in and of itself as the British forces were considered by many to be the best in almost every military arm from a qualitative standpoint. When you take into account the exploding American birth rate and the fact the US merchant fleet was the second largest in the world already, intelligent British leaders started to see the writing on the wall that if the US could maintain a high level of quality at an exploding quantity... the US couldn't be underestimated.
@@willd7596, I agree that the Battle of New Orleans, if nothing else, showed the USA to have a competent military; but that has already been established in the Revolutionary War. I also agree that the War of 1812 in general established that the US could produce sailors, and soldiers and small to medium sized ships of equal, and sometimes superior quality to the British. But stating that they could produce "armies of ships of similar if not greater fighting quality to the British" without qualification is misleading. The only Ship of the Line the US attempted to produce during that war (the USS New Orleans, of 87 guns) was never completed; and no frigate could destroy a Ship of the Line except under very unusual or fortuitous circumstances. In 1812, the British had 130 Ships of the Line, and 600 Frigates. This compares to the United States 8 Frigates in 1812 (and not many more during the war). Had the British been as committed to the war in 1812 as they were to the war against Napoleon, they would have brought the US to its knees in very little time.
Well... no.
Numbers means very little in war, as seen by a certain ongoing event across the Atlantic.
Add to that, the first phase '03 invasion of Iraq (don't worry I'll avoid the political stuff here) was handled with a mere 4-5 divisions.
3-1 is the historic "good zone" but there's plenty of times where you need even more, or manage to exploit Sun Tzu's sayings, and win the battle without ever fighting it.
@@nukclear2741, what exactly are you saying no to? To my pointing out that citing a mere 2:1 numerical inferiority for the Americans does not prove Andrew Jackson was a military genius? Or my pointing out that standard US military doctrine calls for a 3:1 numerical superiority for an attack against a prepared, fortified position?
Of course it is true that mere numbers tells the whole tale. Significant imbalances in technology, moral, or training can make nonsense of such numerical calculations - a fact known since the Spartans and their allies almost held the pass of Thermopylae against (at best) 10 to 1 odds (and at worst, 40 to 1 odds). But PragerU was trying to tell a false tale with numbers, when the numbers did not even support their narrative.
@@tom_curtis no, my problem lied purely with the 2016 report by the army.
Should've specified that.
You’re a national treasure, thanks for everything.
PragerU's phrasing of things is so funny when you look at more than one sentence at a time. "10,000 soldiers and 60 ships vs Andrew Jackson" is such a ridiculously slanted presentation of the situation it's hard to imagine saying it with a straight face lol
Like...just Andrew Jackson? Did Old Hickory beat them all BY HIMSELF?
Great Man Theory is seriously damaging to history, because it boils down every notable event to a single person rather than a single person leading many
As much a legend as he was I don't think it'd be possible for him to do all of that.
Didn't expect you to talk about PragerU, but god damn I love it. Great video
I used to watch PragerU a lot and thought they had good ideas. Until I noticed that several things in several of their videos didn't line up with reality. And as I went back through some of their other videos and checked it against other available information, I found it permeated their whole collection. So now I largely write them off as conservative propaganda.
During my time in the Army I spent some time at Fort Polk, LA. It gets extremely cold at night, I have no idea why but that place has some of the craziest swings in temperature I've ever experienced. Sometimes getting into the 80's or 90's during the day and the 40's at night and once it got down into the 20's. Combined with how wet everything is all the time the nights out there are miserable and shitty. Really terrible weather and terrain.
This lines up with nearly every experience I've heard of Fort Polk, of the place just being unfathomably hellish and most likely a circle of hell
@@rustyshackle8000 It's pretty bad. I spent 2.5 years there and I've sworn I'm never setting foot in Louisiana again.
@@LSgaming201 Yup, I've heard exactly the same
As a fellow history nerd and a history teacher I always love seeing an expert in the field debunk prager u. My background is in Irish history and their British empire video was not good nor accurate the one time they brought up the Irish language in it.
Thanks for your explanation about the purpose of this video near the end. I think the battle is easily overstated. It still is special as New Orleans is a special city strategically and culturally.
I've always thought that the plan was to use New Orleans as a bargaining chip to get some concessions from the US.
None of this would have worked, because the Battle was done AFTER the Peace Treaty was signed.
Even though the peace treat had been signed, I think if the British held New Orleans, they wouldn't have given it up without some more concessions.
New Orleans was a valuable strategic location in that it controls the mouth of the Mississippi and would have opened up the interior of the United States to raids by the RN. The Union did a similar thing in the US Civil War. If the war had continued and the British had won at New Orleans it would have almost certainly been a major base of operations and supply.
@@mickaleneduczech8373
Not unlike how they used Detroit after the Revolutionary War
@@mickaleneduczech8373 There is a baseless claim that does the rounds saying the British would've repudiated the Treaty of Ghent if they'd taken New Orleans. This is total rubbish designed to make America's most famous wartime victory actually have a modicum of consequence; the British signed the Treaty of Ghent in the full expectation that the expedition to New Orleans would succeed. Any understanding of the Liverpool's priorities in late-1814 should rubbish the notion of the British continuing an unpopular war they had pretty much won by the summer of that year.
@@skibbideeskitch9894 I don't think they would've continued the war. I just suspect evacuating New Orleans would have taken a little longer, and maybe so more concessions would have to be made to move things along.
Bradon one thing you missed was that much of the Canadian Local Forces , including the Famous Voltigerurs, were not Militia but Fencibles. These were basically Colonial Regulars full time troops but only liable for service in North America it is in fact a common Myth that it was the Militia that did the fight over the Fencibles
Prager U doing research challenge (impossible)
Love the ad placement for Helix mattress.
"PragerU doesn't understand.."
All you need to say. If they weren't fueling such wonton bigotry they would be harmless.
They aren't fueling bigotry. Their takes on wars aren't great, but most of their current stuff, like showcasing the indoctrination going on in schools, is pretty spot-on.
Sometimes I'd love to know how many of the "local militia and volunteers" were freshly exiled Bonapartists.
The War of 1812 is the Korean War of the 19th Century.
...except that in Korea, America was fighting AGAINST the bad guys, not with them as effective allies.
@@bigyin2586 the South Korean gov at the time wasnt much better then North Korea to be honest (and then there was the warcrimes from the South Koreans and Americans during the fighting)
if you look at the wars during the cold war its just a superpower propping up dictators and corruption because that particular dictator liked said superpower
I always get a little discouraged when folks talk about the War of 1812 because they almost always gloss over the fascinating naval battles on the Great Lakes.
Always great to see your videos appear on my dash. Good to see you combat misinformation.
Will you do a video on French revolutionary tactis sometime?
Welsh flag in the background? Absolutely based.
Already watched the video on Recast but great video
Still coming here to leave a comment for the algorithm- chad move
I'm sure that in his book, Kilmeade mentioned that he was sure that Donald Trump could have done a much better job in the battle, because of his military expertise.
I've always wondered if PragerU was somewhat like Trump University?
Fake News! Prager U is propaganda masquerading as education. Trump University was just a scam to separate suckers from their money by making them think they were getting lessons on real estate.
I earned a master's degree in history. I have seen used toilet paper that is more appealing than the propaganda that is lying "PragerU"!
Brian Kilmeade and the rest of the lying filth at Fox News can be written as Faux News because the word faux means false in the French language. Also, Fox and Friends can be written as Faux and Fiends.
A straight up scam? I think so too haha
Another thought: this disrespect by Britain to other sovereign states was actually very common in the period. It would especially be true of the newbie republic, but it was also true between kingdoms. There is an excellent book, Napoleon's wars: an international history, 1803-1815, and it has a revealing look on how the reason the allies kept losing was because each one put their own interests above everyone else, leading to constant breakdowns and defections and the failure of a concentrated war effort. IF Napoleon posed a threat to the US, or even if a more pro-British president was in power like Adams, they would not have turned to war.
As someone who maintains a desperately apolitical TH-cam feed, I just subscribed to your channel.
As a Canadian, and with a great deal of tongue-in-cheek, I exclaimed loudly in a theater whilst watching Independence Day when the White House was destroyed, "yeah, and we did it first with less tech."
I mean, that's great and all, but also really rude to do in a theater?
@@chawk6201 A Canadian theater bud... Crowd burst out laughing
@@scipio7837 Fair enough, should have figured lol
@@scipio7837 and did everyone begin clapping? Nice reddit tale
@@WrenchWhacker no need. Comedy doesn't get applause, it gets laughter... Lots of laughter
To be fair, the "Was the Civil War about Slavery?" video is actually really good. It's by Col. Ty Seidule, a Southerner who has rejected the Lost Cause, and it is unambiguous about the fact that the Civil War was indeed fought by the South to preserve slavery, and eventually by the North to overthrow it.
I thought everyone knows it was about slavery?
The only non-standard version I heard is that the North abolished slavery not out of pure moral principles, but to cripple the South's previously slave-reliant economy to make them economically dependant on the North, preventing their further attempts at separatism/autonomy.
Sure but then they use that fact to support the lie that modern Dems are the slavery party even though it's not them who engage in confederate apologia.
Because even when PragerU says something actually true, they will use it to support another lie.
Technically they fought to preserve and expand slavery
@@maarekstele2998 yes
Slavery was abolished in a Northern State, I think West Virginia, after it was abolished in the South. Not long after, but considering it was maintained throughout the war while fighting for the North shows how the ends justifying the means is true for many conflicts.
British attacked a point on the American line which a Spanish deserter from New Orleans told them had been weak. When it turned out that section was not weak, they hung the Spaniard. The Brits actually won the battle on the West Bank of the Mississippi and had the American position at Chalmette in their sights for infilading fire, but the British officer on the East Bank had already called for a ceasefire fire.
And the campaign did not end at New Orleans. The British navy spent several days attacking Fort St. Philips below the city. After that failed, they sailed to Mobile and captured Fort Bowyer.
Worst British defeat? Arthur Percival breathes a sigh of relief
Respect for the opening didn’t think you would Go there good man
Long have I waited.
Thank you so much for standing up to prager u. I keep getting their ads and i hate them so targeted ads confuses me!
This attitude towards the British Empire and its motives comes when you get most of your historical information on the British Empire from Mel Gibson movies…
Also, I would consider Singapore, in WWII, to have been a worse defeat…
32:02 in all fairness, the "Was the Civil War About Slavery" video actually rebuts many revisionist arguments arguing that the war wasn't fought over slavery quite well (and therefore unsurprisingly drew quite a bit of ire from a sizeable portion of PragerU's audience)
Yeah, Prager U doesn’t understand a lot of things.
Thanks for breaking down their Andrew Jackson ad masquerading as a history video.
Respectfully I disagree with your comment at 22:15 about the term "Indian". As I understand it, the debate over "Indian vs Native American" is very much alive, in part because those on reservations use the term Indian and those off reservation use Native American. CPG Grey covers this in 2 of his videos I believe, but another issue that should be discussed is the confusion between describing those whose ancestors come from the Subcontinent vs those who were first on these lands. Telling people that the name that outsides first gave them is bad and that another set of outsides is now the new name that should use is perverse logic, but letting them settle on their own name and discussing confusions arising from 2 distinct people groups in the same nation sharing the same description is worthy of debate.
Well, with over 473 comments so far there's probably little I can add. Suffice to say for a VERY good study of the War of 1812 (And yes, it's a bit more complicated than Brian Kilmeade's war story) there's a book I can recommend very highly.
"Don't Give Up The Ship! (Myths of the War of 1812)" by Donald R. Hickey, published by the University of Illinois Press in 2006. A VERY in-depth and quite entertaining book that studies the war from all sides, American, British, Canadian, and Native American and well worth reading.
The Battle of New Orleans? Well let's say it might not be so much that Jackson won it as much as Packenham lost it. Jackson remembered Bunker Hill inasmuch as militia could give a good account of themselves IF they had good strong fortifications to fight from. If Packenham knew of Bunker Hill he sure didn't learn from it. Packenham had also been on Wellington's staff and apparantly didn't learn anything from the Iron Duke either. Wellington never would have done what Packenham did.