The Battle of New Orleans

Subject: RE: The Battle of New Orleans
From: Snuffy
Date: 26 Nov 17 - 07:06 AM

Unlike Johnny Horton, Lonnie Donegan seems to have had no qualms about portraying a British defeat. But in his version Packenham is commanding the Americans!

Subject: RE: The Battle of New Orleans
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Nov 17 - 09:34 AM

> The American force suffered just over 1% fatalities, the British just over 2%.

Very low rates, but each side also suffered roughly four times those numbers in wounded.

If you or a loved one had been among the relatively few casualties, the "slaughter" would have been, shall we say, significant.

Subject: RE: The Battle of New Orleans
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 17 - 07:03 PM

"If you or a loved one had been among the relatively few casualties, the "slaughter" would have been, shall we say, significant."

I suppose that would depend upon how far one would wish to distort the accurate definition of the noun, or the verb to slaughter.

Noun used in the context of a battle: "the killing of great numbers of people indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war."

As far as the Battle of New Orleans goes there was no indiscriminate killing of great numbers of people.

Verb used in the context of a battle: "to slay in great numbers; massacre."

As far as the battle of New Orleans goes there was no massacre and the numbers slain were minute compared to the number of troops engaged.

In simple terms, if you had fought at the battle of New Orleans you would have stood a 98% chance of survival. For people of a certain age group with a certain sort of lifestyle you face greater danger of being killed just going out on a Friday or Saturday night in many major cities throughout the world than you would have than if you had fought in the Battle of New Orleans.