|
Post by privatepaddy on Sept 29, 2013 12:30:39 GMT
So are we literally supposed to believe at the battle of New Orleans the US side used alligators as cannon? It's been two hundred years I think its time we knew the real story.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2013 14:23:41 GMT
sounds almost as believeable as the idea that the entire battle was over in just two volleys.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Sept 30, 2013 2:03:32 GMT
What you mean the author of that little ditty exaggerated? We can't see a mock up of an alligator being used as a cannon?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2013 13:50:39 GMT
I would be more likely to expect it to refer to a gator being used as an IED or rocket.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Sept 30, 2013 13:59:08 GMT
I would be more likely to expect it to refer to a gator being used as an IED or rocket. But would the defenders? Could they say we lit their backsides pointed at the British and watch some angry critters chase em all the way to...? Alternatively there was some plumbing around at the time called an "alligator" ?
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 30, 2013 14:44:13 GMT
This was posted more than a few times on Discovery. I can't recall specifics off the top of my head but the simple answer is no - the only possibly I can think of would be a leather cannon using alligator hide.
Well OK, the other possibility is that they used a cannon or two who's muzzle was decorated to look like the mouth of an alligator - which seems unlikely for the period or that area of the world to be honest.
OK, OK there is another possibility. It could be a misreporting of what was used, a matter of the story being warped over the years or simple misunderstanding.
It could be that they were using large earthen/stone ware pots as mortars (not cannon). The name for such containers is crock - and this *might* have been mispelled as 'croc' as in crocodile, and hence further mistranslated as 'Alligator'. I'm guessing that a large crock set into the ground might serve as a makeshift mortar.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Sept 30, 2013 14:53:24 GMT
This was posted more than a few times on Discovery. I can't recall specifics off the top of my head but the simple answer is no - the only possibly I can think of would be a leather cannon using alligator hide. Well OK, the other possibility is that they used a cannon or two who's muzzle was decorated to look like the mouth of an alligator - which seems unlikely for the period or that area of the world to be honest. OK, OK there is another possibility. It could be a misreporting of what was used, a matter of the story being warped over the years or simple misunderstanding. It could be that they were using large earthen/stone ware pots as mortars (not cannon). The name for such containers is crock - and this *might* have been mispelled as 'croc' as in crocodile, and hence further mistranslated as 'Alligator'. I'm guessing that a large crock set into the ground might serve as a makeshift mortar. Now its a fact it was put into words and made into a country song, might be interesting just to see an alligator chase someone all the way to the Gulf of Mexico with its BS lit, but I am sure several organisations would object Check, check, check,
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 30, 2013 15:02:46 GMT
You guys do realize that the song is just a novelty piece, right?
The line in question is basically just an exaggerated - and deliberately humorous - way of saying that they found ways to continue fighting even after the rate of fire they were maintaining was enough to compromise the cannons they had.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 30, 2013 15:05:59 GMT
You guys do realize that the song is just a novelty piece, right? The line in question is basically just an exaggerated - and deliberately humorous - way of saying that they found ways to continue fighting even after the rate of fire they were maintaining was enough to compromise the cannons they had. Like I said I do have to wonder if putting crock pots into the ground to use as makeshift mortar would have worked. It might be as far from accurate as you could get, but would give the impression that you had more working guns than you really had.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Sept 30, 2013 15:09:04 GMT
You guys do realize that the song is just a novelty piece, right? The line in question is basically just an exaggerated - and deliberately humorous - way of saying that they found ways to continue fighting even after the rate of fire they were maintaining was enough to compromise the cannons they had. There are a few students of history present, yes it is a song, yes we know that the man oops person that wishes to make a cannon out of a alligator, is probably lunch. Can we have a little fun please?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2013 15:20:30 GMT
I would think the first order of business would be research to see what legends exist surrounding the battle, so we can separate urban myth from folksong entertainment. here is the British perspective: www.93rdhighlanders.com/myths.html note that a dead alligator is mentioned in passing, but not used as a cannon. so it appears to me that the only connection to war stories and the particular verse was the immense volume of fire the Americans were maintaining.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Sept 30, 2013 15:25:08 GMT
I would think the first order of business would be research to see what legends exist surrounding the battle, so we can separate urban myth from folksong entertainment. here is the British perspective: www.93rdhighlanders.com/myths.html note that a dead alligator is mentioned in passing, but not used as a cannon. so it appears to me that the only connection to war stories and the particular verse was the immense volume of fire the Americans were maintaining. I seam to recall that the British had a problem (again) with the bloke in charge. But as far as the myth regarding the alligator, you are correct it should be investigated.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2013 15:27:01 GMT
I think I would summarize the British perspective of it as "we came, we sat in the mud and got shot at. We didn't have the numbers and equipment to get through their fortifications and we got tired of sitting in the mud and being shot at, so we left again."
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2013 15:29:03 GMT
I would think the first order of business would be research to see what legends exist surrounding the battle, so we can separate urban myth from folksong entertainment. here is the British perspective: www.93rdhighlanders.com/myths.html note that a dead alligator is mentioned in passing, but not used as a cannon. so it appears to me that the only connection to war stories and the particular verse was the immense volume of fire the Americans were maintaining. I seam to recall that the British had a problem (again) with the bloke in charge. But as far as the myth regarding the alligator, you are correct it should be investigated. the biggest beef in that particular account was that the company who was supposed to have brought the scaling ladders left them in camp. - besides the fact that they were trying to do military maneuvers in a swamp under constant artillery fire.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Sept 30, 2013 15:29:31 GMT
I think I would summarize the British perspective of it as "we came, we sat in the mud and got shot at. We didn't have the numbers and equipment to get through their fortifications and we got tired of sitting in the mud and being shot at, so we left again." Range..........
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2013 15:54:47 GMT
here is another account, from the American perspective. note that it specifies they used riflemen as a strategic tactic, and also that they maintained a high density firing order.
I am wondering if the gator reference might be to the signal rockets the british mention using, and which might have also been used by the Americans. - if they were done in chinese decorative design, they might have been referred to as gators. (note this is 100% speculation and has no evidence at all to support it.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2013 15:56:56 GMT
I think I would summarize the British perspective of it as "we came, we sat in the mud and got shot at. We didn't have the numbers and equipment to get through their fortifications and we got tired of sitting in the mud and being shot at, so we left again." Range.......... the british journal account appears to specifically mention their camp getting hit by artillery fire. (I would interpret that to be of the "I'm sorry we shot your house with a cannon" variety, but it still counts as getting shot at.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2013 16:04:04 GMT
this is an interesting weapon, and could have inspired the gator reference: Congreve Rockets It was the Congreve rocket that were those in '...the rocket's red glare..' Two sizes of Congreves were used in New Orleans, 12 and 32 ounders.Congreves were used to great effect in the battle before Washington, causing the American force to flee. They were unprdictable weapons, which in some cases returned to where they had been fired from .By the time of the Battle of New Orleans, the Americans had learned that its bark was worse than its bite . battleofneworleans.org/weapons.htm(addendum, particularly if the rocket crews had a high rate of misfires, early detonations, and errant rockets)
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 30, 2013 16:21:49 GMT
here is another account, from the American perspective. note that it specifies they used riflemen as a strategic tactic, and also that they maintained a high density firing order. I am wondering if the gator reference might be to the signal rockets the british mention using, and which might have also been used by the Americans. - if they were done in chinese decorative design, they might have been referred to as gators. (note this is 100% speculation and has no evidence at all to support it.) They were not manufactured in any decorative design, since they were mass produced. Signal and Congreve rockets were not the same thing. Signal rockets were coloured flares used for, well, signalling at night. Ships used them in place of flag-signals (as the flags could not be seen at night) for identification, as well as for manoeuvres - for example attack when you see a red flare. Congreve rockets were offensive weapons, pure and simple. I've seen no evidence that the American forces had rockets during the war of 1812 - which is not surprising considering that the British had only been using them for a couple of years at that point.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 30, 2013 16:33:14 GMT
here is another account, from the American perspective. note that it specifies they used riflemen as a strategic tactic, and also that they maintained a high density firing order. I am wondering if the gator reference might be to the signal rockets the british mention using, and which might have also been used by the Americans. - if they were done in chinese decorative design, they might have been referred to as gators. (note this is 100% speculation and has no evidence at all to support it.) They were not manufactured in any decorative design, since they were mass produced. Signal and Congreve rockets were not the same thing. Signal rockets were coloured flares used for, well, signalling at night. Ships used them in place of flag-signals (as the flags could not be seen at night) for identification, as well as for manoeuvres - for example attack when you see a red flare. Congreve rockets were offensive weapons, pure and simple. I've seen no evidence that the American forces had rockets during the war of 1812 - which is not surprising considering that the British had only been using them for a couple of years at that point. like I aid, 100% speculation. and yes, I did assume a difference between the signal rockets and the congreve rockets. and yes, while my research was very shallow, I saw nothing referring to an alligator except the one account of seeing a dead one as the british evacuated. (I call it an evacuation, rather than a retreat because that was more in character of the maneuver)
|
|