Talk:Battle of Bunker Hill

---

June 30, 2003 Rewrite

Text comparisions between the June 30, 2003 version and prior ones will be difficult, because I've basically replaced the article. I thought of placing the prior text here, but the article history does a good job. Just refer to a version dated before this one. That said, some comments are required about one or two specific changes.

The article would be longer still except that some background material went into the Siege of Boston article and individual people articles. Some additional rearrangement of material may make sense, but it can't all go here.GORGE WASHINGTON IS GAY BECAUSE HE LIKES MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BITE ME

The previous version noted that up to a third of the American forces may have been African-American. This comment came from a Library of Congres Web page, and may be politically correct, but its not factual. My best estimate is that 1 to 2 percent (20-40 men) of the defenders were black.

Fact - Salmon Poor was killed during the withdrawal from the redoubt. Hyperbole: He killed the British commander. The reasons I conclude this is unlikely include:

General Pigot commanded the last phase of taking the redoubt, and survived.

Major Pitcairn (Royal Marines) who led the flank battalion was killed on the flats north of the town, about 400 yards from the redoubt. While its possible that Poor fired that shot, given the timing, weapons, and distances, its much more probable that he fell to one of the snipers in Charlestown, only about 150 yards away and armed with long rifles not muskets.

Thanks for your attention. Lou I 04:48 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

British results quotation

I am curious about the source of the quote attributed to General Gage at the beginning of the article. I have previously heard this quote attributed to General Henry Clinton with the wording being "Another such victory and we are utterly undone." While either would be somewhat of an invocation of the original words by Pyrrhus, I wonder if it is perhaps misattributed.

-matt 06 June 2004

The Gage quote comes from a book by Robert Leckie (author). I can’t attribute it further. The Clinton quote that matt asked about can be attributed. Clinton himself says it’s in his diary, and its repeated in a reprint book:

• Clinton, Henry (William Wilcox, editor); "The American Rebellion: Sir Henry Clinton's Narrative of His Campaigns, 1775-1782, With An Appendix of Original Documents"; 1954, New Haven, Yale University Press. Originally published in London in 1783 by Henry Clinton as an explanation of his conduct during the revolutionary war.

To maybe justify Leckie, Clinton does say that he was discussing the battle’s outcome with General Gage, and I haven’t seen the diary itself (or its microfilm). But the Clinton quote is just as fitting, and has an attribution (above), so I’m going to change the article. Lou I 21:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

William Prescott

I have been thinking about this a long time. While it is true the Israel Putnam was on the field, he went no further than Bunker Hill. The man incharge of the fighting at Breed's Hill and directing units into line was William Prescott. For my source, I cite Decisive Day:The Battle of Bunker Hill by Richard M. Ketchum. For this reason, Prescott desrves to be listed under commander. (Steve 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Where's my relative?

For anyone who knows a good deal about this battle and feels there are things they might add, I want to draw your attention to a detail that I see has been neglected.

My ancestor, Major Andrew McClary, died at that battle. He was the highest ranking officer to die there and a fort, erstwhile styled Fort William, was named after him. That's about all I know. I know he got a cannonball in the hip! I thought I knew that he was a loyalist, but I found something on the internet calling him a "patriot." Doesn't that mean American? Whatever he was, he's been overlooked. I don't think that it takes someone with a filial bias to see this as an injustice.

Okay, military historians? Ready to do a fallen soldier justice? Good on ya. thx, L*** McClary

Loyalist? Nah, he was definitely on the rebel side. Until more gets written on the wiki, you might enjoy this piece. --iMeowbot~Meow 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Traitors?

"In the middle of the British lines, to attack the rail fence between the beach and redoubt stood the Reed's men and the remainder of Stark's New Hampshire regiment." Did these guys switch sides or were they just really, really confused? I think I know what the writer intended, but I'd rather leave it to be fixed by someone who knows for sure. Clarityfiend 05:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A few people have been vandalizing this page. It's annoying, since I'm doing a project that requires information about the Battle of Bunker Hill and I see random things that have been inserted in by idiots. Someone please do something about it.

Kainwolfe 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll put in a request for protection/warning on the vandal's talk page. -Releeshan 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm doing a project on the Battle on Bunker Hill, and I was just curious what it meant by the strength of the British and colonists. I mean, what does '2600' mean? 2600 Men? Please clear this up. Thank you.

Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.208.41 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by 2600 they are refering to 2600 British regular army soldiers versus the 1500 irregular (citizen soldiers) of the American forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.51.70 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ammunition

Would it matter if it were more specific and said "lack of gunpowder" rather than ammunition? They essentially both mean the same thing when it comes to firing them out of the gun but the Americans were never that short on lead. AllStarZ 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go ahead. --Releeshan 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gage

Hello, I was reading the article and noticed something you might want to fix. Under the BACKGROUND heading at the beginning of the article, you say "After armed conflict with the colonists started on April 19, 1775 at the Battle of Lexington and Concord, Gage's forces had been besieged in Boston by 8,000 to 12,000 militia, led mainly by General Artemas Ward."

As of this point in the article, I have no idea who GAGE is. You might want to define who he is and why he's important to what you're talking about.

Thanks.

69.141.55.46 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh something else. At the end of the BACKGROUND heading you say: "Many of the British troops were lost. From a territorial stand point, the British won, but from a casualty standpoint, the Continental Army won. Only about 450 Colonists were lost." I was really confused by this at first because you had just finished talking about how the British were besieging Boston prior to the battle. So when I read this sentence I was like, "What? How did they lose British troops in the seige?" Then I realized you're saying that they lost those troops DURING the actual battle. My thought is that this sentence probably should NOT be under the background heading since, well it's not BACKGROUND, it's... ya know... "GROUND."  :-)

69.141.55.46 15:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Colonial Forces

In the sidebar, the two combatants are listed as the British and Massachusetts Bay. This is oversimplified. There were at least three colonial "armies" (such as they were) at Bunker Hill - Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. There were more New Hampshire militia than there were Massachusetts troops, in fact. These colonial forces had separate command structures and certainly acted independent of each other in many cases. Perhaps, for the sake of accuracy, they should be listed separately as combatants. At the very least, a new term should be used to replace Massachusetts Bay to become more all-inclusive. 70.109.132.159 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In another Wikipedia article, under "Military History of Puerto Rico," I found a reference to Puerto Rican troops under a Captain General Torre fighting in the Balle of Bunker Hill. I've found scattered references in Wikipedia and other written sources alluding to the fact that Spain had supported the colonists in their fight against England, and that they had supplied not only open ports and supplies, but also Puerto Rican troops. However, I've never seen any detailed description of exactly what went on during these revolutionary war battles. It would be interesting if someone could research this and add the information to the article on Bunker Hill, at least. The United States and Puerto Rico have had a, shall we say, quaint relationship for the past hundred years, and it would be interesting, I think, for most stateside Americans (Puerto Ricans are Americans, too) to find out that Puerto Rico was there at the birth of the Republic. Cd195 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed that line from the Military History of Puerto Rico article you mentioned. It was uncited and unlikely. Armed conflict started only two months before and for the word to get to Spain and then to Puerto Rico and then for the troops to get to Boston stretches creditability. WikiParker 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the follow up. I wonder what the provenance for that statement was. I agree 2 months sounds like very rapid communication for the 18th century, although perhaps the decisions were made locally. I believe the Spanish southern campaign under Galvez, where the troops are supposed to have reached as far as Pensacola, seems to be documented. Maybe there is something to the involvement at Bunker Hill, but it will take someone with more free time than I to research it! Thanks againCd195 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)