Americans claim victory at Waterloo re-enactment after showing up towards the end

[T_i_B]

http://newsthump.com/2015/06/22/americans-claim-victory-at-waterloo-re-enactment-after-showing-up-towards-the-end/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

American forces have claimed victory at the Battle of Waterloo re-enactment, after arriving just as it was about to finish anyway.

The Americans were accused of reverting to type as they claimed a decisive victory at the re-enactment, despite only making an appearance when hostilities were almost at an end and with French troops fleeing in disarray.

As Napoleon’s defeated army streamed from the battlefield, United States fighter jets strafed them with cannon fire and then hit them with a number of guided missiles launched from USAF drones, killing and wounding in excess of one thousand pretend French soldiers.

A descendant of the Duke of Wellington refused to comment when we spoke to him last night but he did raise his eyes heavenwards and mutter “Oh for fuck’s sake” under his breath.

[jakeXT]

1. Waterloo was like 1815 and the USA just fought a war against the Brits

Is that like droning the wrong wedding?

Trade with France

In 1807, Britain introduced a series of trade restrictions via a series of Orders in Council to impede neutral trade with France, with which Britain was at war. The United States contested these restrictions as illegal under international law.[12] Also, historian Reginald Horsman states, "a large section of influential British opinion, both in the government and in the country, thought that America presented a threat to British maritime supremacy".[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=War_of_1812[/div

[T_i_B]

2. The war of 1812 was essentially an offshoot of the Napoleonic wars.

It happened because of the ongoing wars between Britain and Napoleonic France at the time

[Wounded Bear]

3. Yep, and Britain was a little miffed...

Because the US had just bought Louisiana in 1806. That not only helped finance Napoleon's wars for another few years, it was also land that England hoped to claim after defeating France.

We learn so little about the rest of the world in our own history classes.

[T_i_B]

5. What it also shows...

...is what parts of your own history are big parts of another countries history.

The war of 1812 is a big part of American history, but in British history, it's dwarfed by the wars against Napoleon.

Similarly, it's easy to forget how big the rivalry between France and the Hapsburg Empire was in times past.

[Wounded Bear]

7. Well, to add to that...

It was far from the first time. Certainly a big part of France intervening in the Revolution was because of that rivalry. Of course, not long before that, what we call the French & Indian War was an extension of a European conflict, where France was fighting Prussia, and England intervened, resulting in England winning the Canadian colony.

We Americans invaded Cananda in both the Revolution and W1812 unsuccessfully trying to "free" them from their British overlords.

Prince William's War earlier than that was based heavily on European politics, too.

[T_i_B]

8. All this leading up to the Monroe doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Monroe_Doctrine

Good policy for it's time, although IMHO it didn't translate quite so well into the 20th Century.

[CBGLuthier]

4. Well I guess it is progress that america, which showed up late for two world wars now is doing

their best to be in on the start of one.

[alarimer]

6. We probably would have been on France's side in any case.

Having just fought the British to a draw. They were not our friends at the time they way they are now.

But I'm not sure Napoleon was either, come to think of it.