Overall not a bad read but it suffers from one of the most enduring myths of the War of 1812. Namely, the militia myth. The Battle of Chateauguay is one of the only examples of the war in which British regulars were not only present but did much of the heavy lifting. While there were several important "Canadian" militia and Fencible units in the conflict, Lundy's Lane, Fort George, Queenston Heights, Sackett's Harbor, Stony Creek, Detroit, Seige of Fort Megis, the Battle for the Great Lakes, New Orleans, Washington, etc were conducted mainly by British regulars, supported by British artillery and led by British officers. Yes, there were militia and native forces at many at these battles and in some cases played a pivotal role such as during the capture of Detroit in 1812. For a good example, take a look at the battle honours of the 41st Regiment of Foot. (A unit the future Duke of Wellington served with 30 years prior) This British regular regiment's honours reads like a timeline of the conflict in Upper Canada. They seemed to have detachments everywhere and in every battle.
What is most amazing to me is that garrisons of Upper and Lower Canada were hardly Britain's A team. That army was fighting with Arthur Wellesley, the later Duke of Wellington, in the Peninsula while the B team was in India and defending Britain against attack. It was only later in the war following the defeat of Napoleon that significant numbers of Penisular War veterans were freed up.
The militia myth is one that has been pervasive in the interpretation of the War of 1812 and for a good reason. Much of the early writing on the war was done by militia officers 40 - 50 years after the fact. For a variety of reasons, they tended to "massage" the facts, and in some cases flat out lie, in order to use the war as justification as to why Canada should focus its defense on a militia model rather then an expensive permanent force.
