NCO armament?

[rajpoot]

Ah, because he is a gentleman, and killing another gentleman would be murder.

By contrast, killing the peasants he leads is sport.

But the peasants ought to kill the gentleman all the same shouldn't they?

And it sounds kind of, err........not reasonable, that they don't kill each other just because honour forbids it........I mean, I don't think even medieval knights were that chivalrous and code following.

[PBI]

More seriously, I suspect it was probably more just that muskets were so inaccurate that attempting to aim for any particular man in a formation was pretty much a waste of ammunition, hence it made more sense to order the men to just aim for the big mass of enemy soldiers, in the hope that even if you didn't hit the guy you were aiming for, you might hit the guy next to him. I suspect that shooting at officers was probably considered not so much unsporting or dishonourable as just impractical.

I wonder if this was different for the skirmisher battalions armed with rifles? Did they attempt to target officers?

I believe though that this was one of the problems faced by the British at the Somme; the tactics were based around the assumption that an officer or NCO didn't have a particularly higher chance of being shot than his men, which is fine against musket fire where being hit or not is pretty much a lottery, but with an enemy armed with rifles this was clearly not the case. Hence losses among the officers and NCOs crossing No Man's Land were extremely high, and as such the few battalions which did make it to their objectives had only a vague idea of what they were supposed to do once they got there.

[spmetla]

But the peasants ought to kill the gentleman all the same shouldn't they?

And it sounds kind of, err........not reasonable, that they don't kill each other just because honour forbids it........I mean, I don't think even medieval knights were that chivalrous and code following.

I'd say more because if all of one gentleman's levies started firing at the other gentlemen instead of his levies that the other party might by prodded by their (now pissed off and scared) lord to fire at the gentlemen of the first party.

[Celtic_Punk]

Out of interest, at what point did it become unacceptable to aim for an officer in the field, or is that a myth?

During the American invasion of Canada during the war of independence, The americans were met by Canadian militia far outside Montreal. The Canadians were dug in, and ready for a fight. The american's lined up and the American commander atop his horse rode up infront of his men and yelled for the Canadian's surrender. A young private stood up, and answered him with a single shot, ripping through the generals chest, killing him instantly. We won.

Dont mess with us, later in the american campaign in canada, they got to outside quebec city. another group of Canadian militia men flanked them round the left through a forrest at night, and opened fire. The first volley killed like 80% (dont quote me on that figure, but it was most of them, if not all) of the americans while they were just sitting there, being oblivious to the dirty flanking manouever

the general Brock was hit by an American sniper aswell.
we also burned down the white house just so yah know :D

dont believe everything your country tells you america. We won 1812.

[Sheogorath]

Do you have a specific battle/date/whatever for that first one? There were three major battles I can find that took place near Montreal. The commander of the first died in 1789, of a stroke. The second surrendered before the battle even started. The third was apparently aborted.
Sounds like a folk tale to me. Especially the 'young private' bit.
And, on a side note, any commander who rides up close enough to the enemy just before a battle that he can be shot like that totally deserves what he got.

The second incident...I don't think the Americans even attacked in that direction during 1812. As far as I can tell, all the American offensives took place in the Great Lakes region.

As to the burning of DC, it should be noted that A) There's no evidence that any Canadians took part in it and B) We looted your capital too, you know :P

The subject of who 'won' is much debated. I, personally, agree with the 'nobody won' idea. Status quo ante bellum. Both sides had their fair share of embarrassing defeats and losses, and the British knew full well that the only way to 'win' was to end the war by negotiation. There was no possible way they could've mounted a campaign against the US and dealt with the politics of Europe at the time. I doubt they could have succeeded in such a campaign even IF they didn't have the whole Napoleon thing to deal with.
Besides, we had Andrew Jackson. He ate Canadians for breakfast. With utensils made of shark teeth and grizzly bear claws, which he got by swimming to Alaska every morning because Kodiak bear claws make the best forks. I'm pretty sure he had laser vision too. And turned into a giant robot.

[Celtic_Punk]

both instances were in the war of independence. I saw it on "Canada: A peoples history" when i was in grade 7 lol.

EDIT: i just found the episode its in," Episode 5 A Question of Loyalties "

actually most of the men in the DC burning were canadian volunteers, not british soldiers. The operation was run by the british however.

your objective was to take and secure canada. You failed. the borders remained the same. war of 1812 is therefore a decisive canadian victory. How can you call it a draw if you ultimately fail to achieve any objectives, and the other side defends its borders successfully?

I dont mean to get off topic but seriously...

I gotta hand it to your boys. I've been to queenston heights. anyone who thinks you can attack that position is a frigging retard. maybe if gunpowder hadn't been invented... lol

I do hope that we see NCO's with pikes. But personally I'd be just as happy watching two officers duke it out for 10 mins with sabres.

[Megas Methuselah]

Sorry, CP, but the Burning of Washington was in the war of 1812. And it was only possible after Napoleon's defeat, when the Brits could concentrate more of their efforts in North America. Before this, it was virtually a defensive war on the Canadian front. I'm not sure about it being composed of Canadian volounteers, though.

However, I have to agree that the American objective of conquering Canada was a failure. Despite this, the later British objective of taking back their colonies was also a failure, so some say it balances out. Whatever.

When judging history, never let nationalism get in your way.


Anyways, back on topic, I doubt polearms are going to be included. CA will probably think about it for a few minutes and decide it just wouldn't look right. It's likely they already have. For my part, I'll be satisfied with swords and sabres.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Canadians are taught that they won. Americans are taught that they won. I think they're both wrong, personally.