Talk:Rogers' Rangers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nomenclature of "Rogers' Rangers."[edit]

The proper name of this unit is "Rogers' Rangers." That is the historically accurate, correct English title. Do not edit this article to change the apostrophe or add an extra "s." His name was not "Robert Roger." It was "Robert Rogers." This is a simple English 211 rule.

Possessive form of Roger: Roger's
Plural possessive form of Roger: Rogers'
Possessive form of Rogers: Rogers's <--- The proper form for this article Ergbert 21:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Elements of Style Ergbert 21:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Bartleby/Strunk link is very old rules (at least pre-1922). It may be "right", but here are some alternate modern guides from USA Universities that say to ommit the "'s" in possesive nouns that end with "s": [1], [2], -- further, a search at A9 (across published books only) shows that most ommit the "'s" and use the form Rogers' --Stbalbach 21:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's from 1918. Wikipedia:Manual of Style says that if one spelling sees much greater use it should be used, even if it's incorrect...I really don't like that, as omitting the final "s" completely changes the meaning from a singular possessive of one word to a plural possessive of another, but I don't run Wikipedia... Ergbert 22:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other Notes[edit]

Some of these minor points should be worked into this article or correpsonding articles:


1. The majority of the minutemen who rallied at Concord Bridge on April 19, 1775, to combat the British Army had served as formal members of Rogers' Rangers during the French and Indian War. Historians believe the spark of the American Revolution began in the ranks of Rogers' Rangers as the British had treated the rangers poorly during the French and Indian War and mocked their shortcomings. In 1775, many former members of Rogers' Rangers fired upon the British at Concord and Lexington. Thus, there is a question of whether the minutemen fired at Concord Bridge not so much for liberty, but to settle an old score. [This assertion is not only wrong, it is just ridiculous. There's no evidence for this whatever. The incidents at Concord and Lexington had their own causes, growing out the mounting tensions between the Brits and the Patriots. From: Breeze09]


2. In 1758, Robert Rogers was given command of all colonial rangers serving in North America. Rogers picked as his second-in-command John Stark, a young man who would later become the legendary hero of the Battle of Bunker Hill (June 17, 1775) and the Battle of Bennington (August 16, 1777). Stark's leadership and strategical expertise were also vital to Rogers' Rangers throughout the French and Indian War. This individual is significant as Robert Rogers and, when this article is expanded, should be more than just a footnote. [Again, from Breeze09, not true. Rogers commanded the 12-14 companies on the NY & Great lakes frontier, Joseph Gorham commanded the Nova Scotia ranger corps and there were rangers on the Georgia frontier that were not under his command. But yes, he commanded the vast majority]


3. The rangers formed by Rogers continued their duties on the frontier from the end of the French and Indian War into the outbreak of the War for Independence. Most of these rangers joined the Patriot side and provided badly needed leadership for the Continental Army.[NO! They were disbanded after Pontiac's Rebellion!]

Other rangers joined the Loyalists. They were active throughout the American Revolution in scouting and recruiting along the frontiers of New York, Lake Champlain and what was later to be known as Vermont. They participated in the capture of the American forts of Fort Anne and Fort George and were instrumental in a raid on Ballstown, New York, that netted a number of rebel prisoners. They also spied for the Crown forces in rebel territory. Disguised as civilians, their fate -- if captured -- was to be hanged.


4. A ranger unit under Robert Rogers played a role in the capture of Nathan Hale, the famous spy for the revolutionary cause. In September 1776, Robert Rogers captured Nathan Hale, a spy for the Continental Army and now a famous American hero. A contemporary account of Hale's capture written by Consider Tiffany, a Connecticut shopkeeper and Loyalist, was obtained by the Library of Congress.

In Tiffany's account, Rogers met Hale in a colonial tavern and saw through Hale's disguise of a harmless schoolmaster. After luring Hale into betraying his espionage activities by pretending to be a patriot himself, Rogers and his Rangers later apprehended Hale near Flushing Bay. After a trial before British General William Howe, Hale was sentenced to be hanged as a spy. Before being hung from the gallows, Hale made the timeless statement: "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." [3] [4]


5. John Paul Jones' ship during the American Revolutionary War was named The Ranger in honor of Robert Rogers and his famous unit. Several key triumphs of the Continental Navy during the War for Independance were achieved by The Ranger. Under John Paul Jones' command, this famous ship would later witness the first salute to the American flag by a foreign country.


Although Rogers' Rangers were most significant in the French and Indian War, these links to the American Revolutionary War need to be referenced as they provide glimpses into the evolution of American history and our perception of the colonials.


Most of the information cited is obtained from The Annotated and Illustrated Journals of Major Robert Rogers (link) by Robert Rogers, Timothy J. Todish (Contributor), Gary S. Zaboly (Illustrator).

Rogers Island llink is wrong[edit]

Could someone change the link on the text Rogers Island. the correct URL should be: http://www.rogersisland.org/

That is already what the link is and has been for months. Rmhermen 21:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Be nice to break out the attack on St. Francis into a separate article with somewhat more detail: reason for the attack, Rangers' losses, accusations of theft by Abenaki, St. Francis forced to move their village, etc. It could then be referenced from "French and Indian War," "Abenaki," etc.Student7 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconnaissance/Scouting[edit]

I appreciate both changes that were made to these words. However, the records will show that the group was tasked with "scouting." The word "reconnaissance" not being in general use at the time. I kind of liked the piping from one to the other. Obviously one editor found it jarring. How far back do we change the word? Did Caesar legionnaries "scout" or "conduct reconnaissance activities?" How about Joshua? Student7 13:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find "scouting" to be a perfectly valid term and it's certainly more in touch with the time period; I just dislike piping. I'd prefer to avoid doing it if possible, but I wouldn't get into a revert war if you were to change it back. EvilCouch 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Francis link is wrong.[edit]

The link in the discussion of the raid on St Francis should link to Saint-François-du-Lac, not Saint-François. Saint-François-du-Lac is where the raid actually took place, Saint-François is entirely another city (over 60km apart, and on the wrong side of the St Lawrence River).

I can't argue geography with you - you could be right, but entries in Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia for Francois de Sales mission, seems to be the same as where the attack took place. Maybe those sources are wrong, as well. Do you have a pointer/source that confirms "Francois du Lac"? We would certainly need that reference in order to justify any change.Student7 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, here's the area I'm talking about http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&z=11&ll=46.052982,-72.782707&spn=0.229208,0.466919&om=1. If you zoom in, you'll notice three locations all grouped close together: St-François-du-Lac, Pierreville, and Odanak. If you scroll south-southwest along the large river (St Lawrence), you'll see the incorrect St-François on the island of Laval. From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13348a.htm - "... near Pierreville" and "... In 1759 a strong New England force under Major Rogers surprised and destroyed the settlement, including the mission church and records, killing 200 Indians." From http://www.patrimoine-religieux.qc.ca/mission/missione.htm (4th paragraph)- "They then regrouped in Odanak..." and "It was pillaged and destroyed in 1759 by troops led by Rogers." From http://www.avcnet.org/ne-do-ba/rrr_4.html - St-François-du-Lac translates to "St Francis of the Lake", and it's right on the St Francis River that's mentionned as Rogers' escape route. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenaki#Location - "Two large tribal communities formed near St-Francois-du-Lac and Bécancour." I think that should be plenty... sorry if it's formatted weirdly, I haven't contributed to wikipedia before, and didn't feel like signing up just for this correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.154.191 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, and I just checked the wikipedia and catholic encyclopedia links that you mentionned... it's the wikipedia one that's wrong as well, and because of the same confusion. The Catholic Encyclopedia article mentions the Yamaska region, which is http://www.cogeby.qc.ca/img/Le%20bv%20Yamaska.gif (well, that's the yamaska drainage basin, but it's the same area). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.154.191 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I guess I'm convinced. I've changed it. I also changed St. Francois du Lac, only in English, to reflect that it is was the target of Rogers Rangers. I also left a note for the other St. Francis that they weren't the correct one! My French is a "little" rusty, to say the least! If you wan't to amend the article yourself or leave something more comprehensible in French, someone might appreciate it, although I doubt there is much traffic there. Probably a good article to start on if you want to amend something. Incidentally, my links to English version did not seem to make the transition to the French discussion page.Student7 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The change should also be made to the "Raid on Saint-François" link in the 'Battles' section on the sidebar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.153.86 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not an American unit[edit]

I think this is probably the second or third time I've had to revert a change dropping mention or linking to the United States Army Rangers page. Rogers' Rangers wasn't a United States unit. Yeah. I know. I also know that Rogers' Rangers are considered by most Rangers and many historians to be the parent unit from which all later US Ranger units descend from. As such, there's a fair amount of cross-over between the two articles. Being one of the earliest Ranger units, it gets a fair amount of information in the US Army Rangers article and is pretty important to have in the template. Also, because of the context the Ranger article provides, it gives much greater information as to what sort of a unit that Rogers' Rangers was than the generic disambiguation Ranger page could ever hope to. EvilCouch (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the English Common Law is the parent of USA law, but you don't add a USA Law template to English law. It's grotesque to attach this tag to a unit that was on the other side, just because the rebels learned from it. -- Zsero (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Other side"? What the hell are you talking about? Rogers' Rangers was disbanded prior to the American Revolution. The United States cannot be considered to have been on the "other side" of Rogers' Rangers because the US DIDN'T EXIST at the time! In fact, many of the commanders within Rogers' Rangers felt more strongly American than British that they fought for the US during the American Revolution. The fact is that Rogers' Rangers were an American Ranger unit and are a distinct part of the US Army Ranger lineage. The reasons for inclusion far outstrip the reasons for exclusion. EvilCouch (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rogers formed a unit during the Revolution for the British (after being rejected by the Americans). I'm not sure what they were called, but they may be what Zsero is referring to. The main point still stands, the Rangers were not a part of the US Army, since they pre-date the US Army. --Ahc (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article, category and template in question were titled "American Army Rangers", the argument would immediately become invalid. It's a semantics issue. "American Army Rangers" is more appropriate for this article. "United States Army Rangers" is more appropriate for virtually all other uses. Excluding very topical content because of a naming concern strikes me as wholly unnecessary. Renaming it to bring it in line with the few articles that it'd be correct for is similarly undesirable. Leaving it as is is imperfect, but probably the best solution that I can see. EvilCouch (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't until the Revolution that the colonists thought of themselves as "Americans." They thought of themselves as "English" before that. If they had picked a modifier for the Rangers, it most likely would have been "British Rogers Rangers." Student7 (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they probably would have thought of themselves as belonging to their state. The Articles of Confederation predate the American Constitution by 10 years, indicating that belonging to a local state was more important than belonging to a nation to American Colonists.
At any rate, the argument isn't really applicable. It doesn't matter how they would have self-identified; that they were an American unit is impossible to refute. The unit was formed and fought mostly in America. The men that comprised the unit were almost exclusively of American birth. They lived in America and with few exceptions, died in America. Again, it's an issue of semantics. Is it better to separate a wealth of Ranger information from this article because they don't fit in with the naming scheme or is it better to have them aggregated, even though they should be labeled slightly differently? I'm a firm believer that more information is better than less and I see no reason to remove content. EvilCouch (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right about the state. And you may be right about American, as well.
Small point which may be irrelevant - "the Americas" probably referred to South as well as North American at the time. But your point is that we are talking about now, not then, of course. Student7 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with folks here who see it as an anachronism to describe the unit as "U.S." or "American" Rangers--this has always bugged me because of its innaccuracy. Yes many of the men were from colonies that became part of the U.S. 12-15 years later. BUT, when Rogers' Rangers were around they were part of the British Army. Period. Organized by the British army. Paid by the British. Fought for the British. The unit's direct descendents were not American units but the Queen's Rangers, a Loyalist unit fighting for the British during the Rev. Sure some former members of the French and Indian war companies fought for the Patriot cause, but they made that decision as individuals--not because they were former rangers. As to identifying with their states during the French and Indian War--no. First off there were no states until July 4, 1776, the colonies were British territory before that. Also, the ranger corps was fairly large at its height in 1758-60, containing probably 1,200 to 1,400 men, but it was dwarfed by the British "regular" army in North America at the time--numbering about 35,000, and by the combined provincial forces as well that totaled about the same--30-35,000 at the time. So the rangers were only about 2% of the British troops fighting in the war, that's right TWO PERCENT (1,400 out of approx. 71,500). Now they were VERY important and VERY valuable troops for sure, but they were really a proverbial drop in a much bigger imperial army bucket. There's no way one can even claim they did a majority of the fighting. Sure they did their fair share, but MOST of the fighting involved British "regulars" and provincial troops (raised by the colonies). While Rogers' original unit (about 50 men) was raised in central New Hampshire by that colony, the company was transferred or adopted into the British army. Later on (within a year) the rapidly expanding corps started recruiting men from all over the colonies--NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, and PA and recuited men from all over the British Empire as well (who had come to America)--English, Scots, Irish, Germans, Dutch, etc., as well as Indians (mainly Stockbridge Mohicans from NY State and Mohegan and Pequot Indians from Connecticut), and even some slaves and free blacks. Theres even a Portugese guy in Rogers' own company. The units would not have had any sense of a "home" colony (remember there were no states yet) for their company as men in the units hailed from multiple places, and served mixed together in 12 to 14 different companies. Their base of operations was not the colonies but the British garrisons at Fort Edward, Fort William Henry, and later Fort Michilimackinak (later Detroit). Now some units were more mixed than others. A few were fairly homogenous--like John Sheppard's company, which was almost all men from New Hampshire. Or Wendall's first company who were virtually all Palatine Germans from upstate NY (the unit probably spoke German in the field--Wendall was an ethnic German as well). Sure the units were influential on American military tactics--but it was more an issue of former members bringing the expertise they had learned fighting for the Brits into the American military establishment. Oddly, American irregular tactics were taught mostly to other Americans in British units, some of whom later used this knowledge in light infantry tactics to help train American troops to fight the British. Its all very incestuous when you get right down to it. [Posted by Breeze09]

Loyalists[edit]

Shouldn't the fact that many of Roger's Rangers fought on the loyalist side be noted in the introduction alongside the patriot references?Starviking (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rogers is the brother of Robert Rogers[edit]

My ancestor is Richard Rogers. You can find information or Richard Rogers in Steuben County, NY archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallcounty (talk • contribs) 07:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Should we perhaps consider merging Queen's Rangers and King's Rangers here? I have also posed this question at the Military History talk page (here) - theWOLFchild 16:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rogers' Rangers. 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:

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) 04:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rogers%27_Rangers&oldid=1200127357"