Fact and Fiction Blends Together for a Great Event!
The Battle of Georgian Bay, 1802

When the first Battles of Georgian Bay were held in the late 1980's and early 1990's by the Provincial Government the groups which supported the event were primarily Revolutionary War re-enactment units and we on the committee felt they should be invited to participate once again. However, since then, the major re-enactment groups in the area do primarily War of 1812 and as we are looking for large local participation we opened the event to 1812 units.

Obviously, those of us with serious historical sensibilities (and as "Historical Animators" we should all have them) felt there was a problem with incorporating two periods into one event. While we on thecommittee are sensitive to these concerns, we will not "uninvite" anyone, nor will we ask any of these groups to modify their "kit" to conform to either of these two periods. Instead, we have another possible solution!

Bearing in mind that Discovery Harbour depicts life as a British naval and military base from 1817-1856 and that no such "Battle of Georgian Bay" ever occurred there, any such event is at best an historical compromise. So with the spirit of compromise and a blended history of fact and fiction, let's find a context for all of these conflicting items.

The military technology of these two periods is virtually identical. Cannons and flintlock muskets were the prime weapons of the day. Military drill was slightly different but the reasons for it were not. Militia companies often used older drill manuals so there is a ready explanation. H.M.S. Tecumseh is a post 1812 vessel, U.S.S. Niagara an 1812 Brig and H.M.S. Rose a Revolutionary War Frigate, yet when these period tall ships appear together does anyone even consider the minor differences in rig that reflects the eras from which they come from? Now if the U.S.S. Eagle or Bluenose II shows up (unlikely) there is a problem. But who would refuse them?

The biggest problem would appear to be uniforms of the two periods and their obvious differences. Throughout the eighteenth century uniforms changed slowly and to the layman almost imperceptibly. Only an expert (historians like ourselves) can tell the French uniform of 1744 from that of 1759. Larger changes happened up to and including 1776 (short tails and trimming of cocked hats to "helmets") but the basic coat, breeches and tricorns were still the order of the day. Not until the last years of the century did the folded back lapels and cocked hats disappear in favour of single-breasted short-tailed coatees and shako's and then only for some regiments. The campaigns in South Africa and Flanders of the 1790's had the regiments with uniforms almost unchanged from the 1770's.  The Corps of Marines wore cocked hats and folded-back lapels in 1797, as did the 2nd Foot, who also had fold-down collars. Around 1800 the British army moved to short coats and shakos but how universal was this? And what about the fringes of the empire or other nations?  If we select the turn of the century as our context, a "blend" or mix of uniforms would be historically appropriate. In fact, the "Tory" regiments of the Revolutionary War who settled in Upper Canada (Queen's Rangers, Butler's and Royal Yorkers) would probably answer a call
to arms in their own clothes or in the uniforms of the previous war. So if the first years of the 1800's would satisfy the uniform differences, the final problem becomes; "Why would a battle in the Georgian Bay region occur?

John Graves Simcoe himself selected Penetanguishene as a potential naval installation early in his tenure as Lt.-Governor.  What would have happened if the base had been constructed earlier, say in 1800? If this had occurred before the rapid expansion of the U.S. into the Great Lakes region of the next few years, perhaps the War of 1812 would have been the War of 1802 instead, or the U.S. might have had fewer states. With Americans adopting a more aggressive attitude in the world arena (the undeclared war with France of 1798-99 and the war with Tripoli beginning in 1802) it is possible that the navel dockyard at Penetanguishene would have been perceived as a real threat to American interest in the Northwest. William Henry Harrison was about to annex large parts of the Midwest (to the detriment of the natives), and Jefferson was negotiating the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, so military forces were being assembled to consolidate these gains. Congress authorized the President to utilize the armed forces of the U.S. against their enemies in February of 1802 (mainly for use against Tripoli), so almost all the elements are there. Tecumseh was emerging as the leader of the combined natives and with more active British support from a base on the upper great lakes, might have realized his dream of an independent native state. The American reaction to that is well documented. With Britain heavily involved in a European war an American strike against an isolated naval and military site might be wildly successful with little fear of reprisal. It was the logic used ten years later for an invasion of Canada.