Talk:Battle of Fort Washington

Consequences

The Washington Heights history page says "The British now had New York and its harbor but were unable to control the Hudson River as they had initially wanted. They were bottled up in New York." This is different from our conclusion.--agr 11:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think this article has improved a lot in the past month and I think it is a GA article.

Bernstein2291 (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Lee merge/rename

I've tagged Battle of Fort Lee, a fairly stubby article, to have the minimal battle content maybe merged here. (That article also has content about the Fort Lee memorial sites, which might make the article useful under a different name.) Discuss on its talk page. Magic♪piano 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad Link

The link for James Patterson goes to a modern author. This James Patterson isn't on the disambiguation page. I'm not certain how to handle creating a disambiguation link for a person that doesn't have an article of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.78.125 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lord Stirling?

"About 200 yards from the American lines Percy halted the advance, waiting for the feint by Lord Stirling"

The above statement is confusing: Lord Stirling (William Alexander, [disputed] Earl of Stirling) was a 'patriot' and became a general in Washington's army. The (British) feint was assigned to the 42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment of Foot, which, according to Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island, was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Stirling (no wiki entry--not notable I guess). I think 'by Lord Stirling' should be deleted. Afragola (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hesse-Kassel not belligerents

Hello. My first WP discussion, I think. I'm not sure that Hesse-Kassel should be listed as belligerents. They were merely merceneries in the service of GB, and did not, as a nation, declare war on the 13 colonies. It would be like listing Nepal in any war in which the Gurkhas participated. See also the page on American Revolutionary War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippocrocopig (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hesse-Kassel not belligerents

Hello. My first WP discussion, I think. I'm not sure that Hesse-Kassel should be listed as belligerents. They were merely merceneries in the service of GB, and did not, as a nation, declare war on the 13 colonies. It would be like listing Nepal in any war in which the Gurkhas participated. See also the page on American Revolutionary War.Hippocrocopig (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Construction and defense

Great article. I was especially interested in the section "Construction and defenses", which states: "For over a month the troops brought down boulders from the heights of Manhattan to the edge of the river where they loaded them into a collection of hulks and cribs made of timber and stretched it across the river. The purpose of this chevaux de frise was to prevent British ships from sailing up the Hudson and outflanking the American position. When the chevaux de frise was finished, work on the Fort itself began." (I added italics to indicate specific words or phrases.) I suggest two areas for possible clarification, but I do not have sufficient competency to do so myself.

First, I viewed the hyperlinked article, "Cheval de frise", which states: "An anti-ship version was designed by Robert Erskine as a means of keeping British warships out of the Hudson River during the American Revolutionary War. The device was never deployed in the Hudson, but similar devices planned by Ben Franklin were used in the Delaware River near Philadelphia, in between Fort Mifflin and Fort Mercer. A cheval de frise was retrieved from the Delaware River in Philadelphia on November 13, 2007 in excellent condition, after more than two centuries in the river." The "Cheval de frise" statement that "[t]he device was never deployed in the Hudson" appears to conflict with the reference in the "Battle of Fort Washington" article. I have no idea which might be correct. Perhaps the "Cheval de frise" article means only that Erskine never deployed one, but that is not clear.

Second, not being familiar with the terms "hulks" and "cribs", I searched in Wikipedia and found "Hulk (ship)" which I assume describes the term used in this article. I am unsure however if the term "cribs" (as used in this article) refers to box crib or crib pier or something else. Can anyone provide further detail?--Rpclod (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• There must be an error, i think also. Perhaps a barrier was made across the Harlem River, rather than the Hudson River, which is too wide and deep. No way! And the Harlem River would have to have been blocked, or else indeed the British ships could go right around Fort Washington and "outflank" it. Specifically, I came to question the very same passage, that "They first prepared a cheval de frise to prevent British ships from sailing up the Hudson and outflanking the American position. For more than a month, the troops transported boulders from the heights of Manhattan to the edge of the river, where they loaded them into a collection of hulks and cribs made of timber and stretched it across the river.[9] When the cheval de frise was finished, they began work on the fort.[10]". --doncram 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Further, if the British ships sailed up the Hudson, you would not say they "outflanked" Fort Washington (which overlooked the Hudson), you would say they simply ignored it and went past it. If they went around it by going up the Harlem instead, then yes you would say that they outflanked it. --doncram 16:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, no error. Definitely the Hudson. It's well documented. Absolutely nothing to do with the Harlem. The Hudson was a major strategic target of the British to separate New England from the mid-Atlantic colonies. The whole point was to stop the British from controlling the Hudson. --Mikey P.

Sure, you don't want ships to get to the upper Hudson, by either coming up the Harlem to the Hudson or coming up the lower Hudson. I was just guessing about the Harlem, so drop that idea. But, the article would be better if it was more credible about there really being a barrier. To Mikey P., I don't know you and don't know if you saying "it's well documented" should be convincing. --doncram 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

About credibility on there being a barrier: I added copies of pics from the article to the above right here. Why is there no depiction of any barrier in any one of the 2 paintings and 2 maps in the article? There are 2 little diagonal projections from the water in the 2nd picture, but unless a source with knowledge says those are a depiction of some part of some barrier, I tend to think they're something else: small sloops? A picture would be worth a thousand words. Has anyone seen any depiction of a barrier? Without seeing book sources that are in the article directly myself and without some more specific evidence I really tend not to believe there was a barrier. There's too much possibility that an article in Wikipedia just gets it wrong, from someone misunderstanding a source. Maybe someone back then wanted there to be a barrier, and even started to try to build one, and a source says that, but that got twisted in the article writing and editing. Does someone who really has a source in front of them, see that the source really says there was a barrier actually in place across the Hudson, not across the Delaware as Rpclod suggests? An exact quote would help. Is there specific mention of a ship hitting a barrier or anything else about the barrier existing during the battle? Was the barrier partially completed? Did it stretch across and you could walk across it--i doubt that/ Was the barrier later dismantled? There's a lack of specificity here. And if it is not believed by Rpclod and me, it's probably not believed by other readers. --doncram 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A depiction of there being a barrier, at least on a map. Underwater.

Hmm, here's a map pic, from a section in the Hudson River Chain article, which is mostly about a real chain up at West Point. Okay, i believe there was some underwater barrier going on, from that pic and article, but then still this article could use some updating, including in the modern 2013 map. Harrumph. :( --doncram 04:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The above (after 2011) appears to be trolling about one sourced Background sentence by someone who doesn't bother to read the references or external links before insulting the editor who wrote that sentence. I removed the 4 images, which were misleading as placed and are all in the article anyway. 72.251.70.170 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Fort Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627191727/http://www.washington-heights.us:80/history/archives/evacuation_day_122.html to http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/evacuation_day_122.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Fort Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/evacuation_day_122.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213001047/http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_fwas.asp to http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_fwas.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604193021/http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/battle_of_fort_washington_35.html to http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/battle_of_fort_washington_35.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"firing at the British troops who were still crossing the river, killing or wounding 80 men."

The figure in this statement, referencing Ketchum in 'The Winter Soldiers,' is misleading.

THe original phrase states: "[On] the river eighty Highlanders were killed or wounded."

The 42nd Royal Highland Regiment under Lt Col Stirling, to which the statement refers, reported 11 men killed (1 Sgt; 10 men) and Lieutenants Patrick Graeme, Norman Macleod & Alexander Grant, together with 4 Sgts and 66 men, wounded; 84 casualties in total for the action of November 16th.

The 42nd did suffer disproportionately for what was intended to be a feint attack but the above figures are for the whole action, from the landing, the assault up the bluffs and the advance on Fort Washington, not simply the passage across the East River. Ketchum details how perhaps 150 militia in total took up position to fire on the troops being ferried across the river. Given the inexperience of the American troops, the innacuracy of the smoothbore musket as Ketchum himself has previously explained, and the difficulty in delivering accurate fire from a height, the proportion of casualties inflicted is unlikely to have been as high as Ketchum's narrative asserts. A regimental historian of the 42nd, simply described the enemy opening "a smart fire" without additional comment, while an officer of the 42nd on detached service elsewhere in the field, represented the enemy fire as one of the 'difficulties' over which the men of the 42nd prevailed, and pushed on through, to engage the enemy on the heights above.

As such, I suggest the subject statement is ill-founded and should be amended JF42 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"U.S."

I am curious as to why in Albion Jack's revision of 01:57, 26 January 2019 the term 'American' has been changed to 'U.S.' throughout (AFAICS), when the entity of the United States had not at that time come into existence. JF42 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"a pre-organized, pitched battle"

What purpose do these qualifications serve?

'Pre-organized' looks like empty jargon. Clearly it could not be a 'post-organised pitched battle.' Any meaning it might have is rendered redundant by the term 'pitched battle' (itself is rendered redundant by the article title ' Battle of Fort Washington') which suggests two armies forming up for a general field engagement. However the assault on Fort Washington was no such encounter, given that the isolated garrison had no choice in the matter.

The need to qualify the 'Battle of Fort Washington' seems wholly unnecessary. I reccommend this introductory sentence be amended. JF42 (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)