What do you think?
The War of 1812
This compact history of the war attempts to separate myth from reality. Professor Coles narrates the main operations on both land and sea of the three-year struggle. He examines the conflict from the British (and Canadian) as well as the American point of view, relating events in America to the larger war going on in Europe.
"A balanced analysis of tactics and strategy, this book also summarizes succinctly and clearly recent scholarship on causes and describes briefly the war's military, economic, and political consequences. Coles has surveyed thoroughly the existing literature but arrives at a number of independent judgments. It is the best single-volume account of the war in all its aspects. In recounting sea battles, Coles puts aside the patriotic blinders that have for so long prevented a sensible understanding of American capabilities and strategic necessities; thus American naval victories are put in a proper perspective. And in dealing with land engagements, he has shunned the mocking and amused attitude which has so often passed for historical judgment. Undergraduates will be stimulated by the hints of modern parallels and will find useful the excellent annotated bibliography and simple maps."— Choice
"A balanced analysis of tactics and strategy, this book also summarizes succinctly and clearly recent scholarship on causes and describes briefly the war's military, economic, and political consequences. Coles has surveyed thoroughly the existing literature but arrives at a number of independent judgments. It is the best single-volume account of the war in all its aspects. In recounting sea battles, Coles puts aside the patriotic blinders that have for so long prevented a sensible understanding of American capabilities and strategic necessities; thus American naval victories are put in a proper perspective. And in dealing with land engagements, he has shunned the mocking and amused attitude which has so often passed for historical judgment. Undergraduates will be stimulated by the hints of modern parallels and will find useful the excellent annotated bibliography and simple maps."— Choice
307 pages, Paperback
First published August 15, 1966
About the author
Harry Lewis Coles
7 booksA specialist in American military history, Harry Lewis Coles was professor emeritus of history at the Ohio State University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 10, 2014
I found this a good overview of the one of the “forgotten” wars of the United States. Professor Coles does a good job in telling the causes and reasons for the United States wanting war. He also does a commendable job of tell the weaknesses of the US military. Both the Navy and Army were small and in the Army’s case ill led. The Navy while not have the ships to challenge the Royal Navy head to head, had exceptional leaders and what ships they had were outstanding. Their results are still enshrined the Navy traditions. However by '13 the ocean going Navy was confined in port due to the British Blockade.
In looking at the causes of the war, Prof. Coles says it was a case of Right vs rights. The main British focus during this time frame was containing and then defeating Napoleon, which the author says was the absolute right thing to do. However, in accomplishing this they trampled on the “rights” of the United States eventually driving it to war.
In looking at the war itself, his appraisal of the early efforts of the US to conquer Canada is that the Army was overconfident and ineptly led. The disasters that befell the Army were a combination of over confidence on the US’s part and professional competence on those leading the Canadians. Many in the US gov’t expected the Canadians just to roll over and quit. It didn’t happen that way. Each year of the War the US attempted to conquer Canada and each year it was repulsed. In looking at the war in the North, the author explains the importance of controlling the Great Lakes, esp Lakes Huron and Erie.
In his discussions on the war in 1814, Prof Coles makes it clear that British operations in the Chesapeake Bay were not intended to be an invasion, but a raid. Washington DC was almost undefended because for some reason, the Sec of War did not considerate a strategic target. Baltimore was more stoutly defended and the resulting British attempted to subdue Ft. McHenry in Baltimore harbor resulted in the poem that became the US National anthem.
Also by 1814, the US Army was becoming more professional and had found the leaders it needed in Winfield Scott and Andrew Jackson. Winfield Scott could assume the role Von Steuben had the Revolutionary War. He had trained his troops to such a standard that when they fought the Battle of Chippewa in 1814, the British commander is reported to have exclaimed, “Those are Regulars, by God”. The modern 6th US Infantry traces its linage to regiments that fought there and still uses that as their motto.
His look at Jackson and Battle of New Orleans is also well done. While the best of the British Army had arrived, Coles makes an interesting suggestion that by approaching NO from the south, it played into Jackson’s hand, making it infinitely easier for him to defend. If they had taken Mobile and then approached NO overland from the north, the battle might have ended differently.
In summing up the war, Prof Coles feels that many of the war aims were technically impossible to achieve due to distances involved and communications difficulties of that time.
Due to the nature of this book and sometimes stilled prose, I would give it 3.5 stars rounded down to 3 for good reads.
In looking at the causes of the war, Prof. Coles says it was a case of Right vs rights. The main British focus during this time frame was containing and then defeating Napoleon, which the author says was the absolute right thing to do. However, in accomplishing this they trampled on the “rights” of the United States eventually driving it to war.
In looking at the war itself, his appraisal of the early efforts of the US to conquer Canada is that the Army was overconfident and ineptly led. The disasters that befell the Army were a combination of over confidence on the US’s part and professional competence on those leading the Canadians. Many in the US gov’t expected the Canadians just to roll over and quit. It didn’t happen that way. Each year of the War the US attempted to conquer Canada and each year it was repulsed. In looking at the war in the North, the author explains the importance of controlling the Great Lakes, esp Lakes Huron and Erie.
In his discussions on the war in 1814, Prof Coles makes it clear that British operations in the Chesapeake Bay were not intended to be an invasion, but a raid. Washington DC was almost undefended because for some reason, the Sec of War did not considerate a strategic target. Baltimore was more stoutly defended and the resulting British attempted to subdue Ft. McHenry in Baltimore harbor resulted in the poem that became the US National anthem.
Also by 1814, the US Army was becoming more professional and had found the leaders it needed in Winfield Scott and Andrew Jackson. Winfield Scott could assume the role Von Steuben had the Revolutionary War. He had trained his troops to such a standard that when they fought the Battle of Chippewa in 1814, the British commander is reported to have exclaimed, “Those are Regulars, by God”. The modern 6th US Infantry traces its linage to regiments that fought there and still uses that as their motto.
His look at Jackson and Battle of New Orleans is also well done. While the best of the British Army had arrived, Coles makes an interesting suggestion that by approaching NO from the south, it played into Jackson’s hand, making it infinitely easier for him to defend. If they had taken Mobile and then approached NO overland from the north, the battle might have ended differently.
In summing up the war, Prof Coles feels that many of the war aims were technically impossible to achieve due to distances involved and communications difficulties of that time.
Due to the nature of this book and sometimes stilled prose, I would give it 3.5 stars rounded down to 3 for good reads.
July 28, 2014
I wavered between 3 and 4 on this one. Mr. Coles obviously did his homework before tackling this project and conveying a wealth of information like this can be daunting. In this case....maybe too daunting! The first 2/3rds of the book are a continuous assault at the reader with numbers and skirmishes. So much so that I got lost in the "translation". Names, numbers, towns and rivers all began to run together. Perhaps there is no resource for the actually battles themselves to draw from but individualizing and spending a bit more time focusing on the ones that were more important and pertinent would have held my interest more. When he went deeper into the individual battles is where, I feel, the author excels. The segment on the battle for Washington and the surrounding areas were good. And then the history of the Battle of New Orleans was great! Old Hickory is a story himself so the plethora of information the author had made the explaining and reliving of the Battle intriguing and appreciated. I went with 4 stars because Mr. Coles did work hard to bring about an amazing accumulation of facts together and retell the story of "the forgotten war".
June 4, 2018
First with this. Actually bought this Fort Meigs gift shop, years back.
I will give credit. That author seems to have done a lot of research for this.
Yet to my feelings. Spends to much time on trivial points.
A dry read, where facts given from analytical points.
A LOT of minor officers and characters brought up.
That just seemed like. He was trying not to leave anyone out.
Their contributions or impact, miniscule at best.
(One part, naming all four leaders of British regiments.)
Then paragraph or two. That part or phase over.
Only one of them having a noticeable part.
He also has a tendency to drift off.
More then once going into other historians debates and names.
As to local interest Battle of Fort Meigs and naval battle on Lake Erie.
They gained only a few passing paragraphs each.
He spent more time on going into.
Ship builds, sizes, armament, and other facts for sailing.
Who and where they were building them.
Then he did the battles themselves.
So heavy in facts and numbers.
Yet not a very attention getting read.
I appreciate the amount of time. That must have gone into research.
Yet just think too clinical. As well as focused on minor, insignificant information.
Including quoting past debates and sayings of previous historians.
I will give credit. That author seems to have done a lot of research for this.
Yet to my feelings. Spends to much time on trivial points.
A dry read, where facts given from analytical points.
A LOT of minor officers and characters brought up.
That just seemed like. He was trying not to leave anyone out.
Their contributions or impact, miniscule at best.
(One part, naming all four leaders of British regiments.)
Then paragraph or two. That part or phase over.
Only one of them having a noticeable part.
He also has a tendency to drift off.
More then once going into other historians debates and names.
As to local interest Battle of Fort Meigs and naval battle on Lake Erie.
They gained only a few passing paragraphs each.
He spent more time on going into.
Ship builds, sizes, armament, and other facts for sailing.
Who and where they were building them.
Then he did the battles themselves.
So heavy in facts and numbers.
Yet not a very attention getting read.
I appreciate the amount of time. That must have gone into research.
Yet just think too clinical. As well as focused on minor, insignificant information.
Including quoting past debates and sayings of previous historians.
September 9, 2019
it way very boring for me and I had I hard time.
July 29, 2026
This was a pretty dry read for me. It wasn’t bad and I got a lot out of it but just didn’t match what I was hoping for or expecting.
January 13, 2018
I've read a great deal about the War of 1812, but I realized (when visiting the USS Constitution recently) that I didn't actually have a book on the whole war. So I picked up this National Park Service Handbook, to fill that void. It has useful timelines at the front end, and a nice list of relevant historic sites in both the US and Canada at the back end. Between them are ten essays by twelve authors, covering the major topics relevant to the war, including the aftermath. There are many illustrations, and some general maps of the various theaters of war, with symbols marking the locations of battles and other features.
It's not a bad reference to have, and it gives a rather thorough summary of the War. It lacks some things you might expect, though. None of the battles, on land or sea, are actually described. Some of the essays use academically evasive language, which means that they can be essentially vague. Also, it takes a rather weak and conciliatory line on Canada and its continued existence.
The book did remind me that one should study the actions on Lake Champlain a bit more, the Battle of Plattsburgh in particular. The idea that both sides had to build separate fleets on each lake system along the border makes an interesting strategic puzzle. Each side had to have a fleet above Niagara Falls, a fleet below Niagara Falls, and a fleet on Lake Champlain, since the Richelieu River had no canal at the time, for getting past the rapids.
There is the solecism "free reign" on page 101. It's "free rein", folks. Free rein.
My favorite quote, from the section "The War of 1812 in Canadian Memory" by Donald E. Graves:
The War of 1812, Canadian historian Charles Stacey once remarked, is "one of those episodes in history that make everybody happy, because everybody interprets it in his own way." He then elaborated:
The Americans think of it as primarily a naval war in which the pride of the Mistress of the Sea was humbled by what an imprudent Englishman had called "a few fir-built frigates, manned by a handful of bastards and outlaws." Canadians think of it equally pridefully as a war of defence in which their brave fathers, side by side, turned back the massed might of the United States and saved the country from conquest. And the English are the happiest of all, because they don't even know it happened.
It's not a bad reference to have, and it gives a rather thorough summary of the War. It lacks some things you might expect, though. None of the battles, on land or sea, are actually described. Some of the essays use academically evasive language, which means that they can be essentially vague. Also, it takes a rather weak and conciliatory line on Canada and its continued existence.
The book did remind me that one should study the actions on Lake Champlain a bit more, the Battle of Plattsburgh in particular. The idea that both sides had to build separate fleets on each lake system along the border makes an interesting strategic puzzle. Each side had to have a fleet above Niagara Falls, a fleet below Niagara Falls, and a fleet on Lake Champlain, since the Richelieu River had no canal at the time, for getting past the rapids.
There is the solecism "free reign" on page 101. It's "free rein", folks. Free rein.
My favorite quote, from the section "The War of 1812 in Canadian Memory" by Donald E. Graves:
The War of 1812, Canadian historian Charles Stacey once remarked, is "one of those episodes in history that make everybody happy, because everybody interprets it in his own way." He then elaborated:
The Americans think of it as primarily a naval war in which the pride of the Mistress of the Sea was humbled by what an imprudent Englishman had called "a few fir-built frigates, manned by a handful of bastards and outlaws." Canadians think of it equally pridefully as a war of defence in which their brave fathers, side by side, turned back the massed might of the United States and saved the country from conquest. And the English are the happiest of all, because they don't even know it happened.
May 16, 2010
Accuarte depiction of the War of 1812, but I think it could be better-written for the casual audience, especially in the Northern Theater. I think that when it comes to the battles, the book is a bit too cursory and assumes reader knowledge. You do get the picture if you know your history. The final section is the best, describing war aims from the British and the United States, as well as describing Ghent, and the problems after the war. Three stars because it is average, but not terrible.
April 27, 2015
I recently visited River Raisin National Battlefield Park in Monroe, Michigan. This is one of the newest sites in the National Park system and was a very interesting place to visit. I picked up this book here. It was a good read on this little known War.
April 2, 2015
Its good
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews