Talk:Fort Bowyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Alabama (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

First and Second Battles of Fort Bowyer[edit]

Did 1815 3rd U.S. Infantry, Col. Gilbert Christians Russell, Sr., 1782-1861 (earlier Col. 20th U.S. Infantry), have anything to do with either the First or Second Battles of Fort Boyer? Russell County, Alabama, is named for him. I can e-mail his picture if you want it? ∞ focusoninfinity 11:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focusoninfinity (talkcontribs)

The Second Battle of Fort Bowyer[edit]

How did the Second Battle of Fort Bowyer lose its page. I think it should be changed back instead of being combined with the Fort Bowyer page. All battles/engagements no matter how big or small should have its own page on wiki. I believe in organization. Because other battles have thier own page and Forts alone have their own page this shoud be converted back. Also because I was planning on making the First Battle of Fort Bowyer Page. I dont know why somebody thought it would make more sence having one article illustrating three topics or events. Fort Bowyer, and the two battles should each have their own page. If anyone agrees, please re create the Second Battle of... page for me.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who combined the pages because I thought it better to have one good article than one-and-a-half articles. May I suggest that you build out the first battle in the current article, and then we can readily split them up again. One of the good things about Wikipedia is that these things are easy to do. We can continue to improve as we go. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Strength of the British in September 1814[edit]

The actual strength of the British forces in September 1814 does seem overstated. It is not well sourced, either, and seems to be based on opinion/ propaganda from the 19th Century.

The current article states 130 Marines, 100 Spaniards and 600 Indians.

Hickey estimates the force to be 225 Marines and Indians. William James mentions 60 Marines & 120 Indians. Notwithstanding the British landing at Fort San Miguel, Pensacola on 23 August 1814, it seems unlikely that the Spanish would have violated their neutrality. John Marshall states 60 Marines & 100 Indian warriors, and his figures of 17 and 6 killed in action on the Hermes and Sophie are spot on.

The muster books, recording the presence of every person on board a ship, can be used to corroborate numbers. (Note: this is a verification against an existing source, not a case of new research). In the "Supernumerary" section, the musters for HMS Carron show about 60 Royal Marines, of whom 10 are artillery, who have been detached from the Royal Marine battalion on the Chesapeake, and were disembarked at Pensacola on 31 August. The muster also states 'Indian Warriors victualled - 58 in number'. The muster for HMS Hermes went down with the ship, although the pay book was saved. HMS Sophie's muster does record in the "Supernumerary" section the presence of Lt Colonel Nicolls, 2nd Lt John McWilliams and several warriors, and no other military forces.

One other issue is the identity of the fourth ship. The log for HMS Sophie makes continual reference to Childers. The pervasiveness of the American news reports refer to Anaconda, and this has been treated as "fact" but there is nothing among British sources which would support this. Nonetheless, the outcome for the British was disastrous. Keith H99 (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

John K. Mahon's "The War Of 1812" has a quote, on page 347, from a letter sent from Cochrane to the Admiralty, dated 25 August 1825, reference ADM 1/506 folio 478: 'Nicolls, 3 other officers, a surgeon, 11 non-commissioned officers, and 97 enlisted men landed and occupied Fort San Miguel [at Pensacola]. Besides their own arms, they carried 3 field pieces, 1000 stands of arms, and 300 British uniforms for the Indians.' The names of the three officers and the surgeon are mentioned on page 277 of Paul Harris Nicolas's "Historical Record of the Royal Marine Forces, Volume 2".
Among this force, Nicolas, on page 228, mentions the composition of the force which attacked Fort Bowyer in 1814 to be: 60 Marines, 120 Indians and one 5.5" howitzer. Keith H99 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to augment the quality of this article[edit]

Fort Bowyer update[edit]

Hi Keith:

I've looked again at the article, and added one new source and five new cites to cover various gaps. As IO've now edited it, it's probably best if someone else reviews it. You've done good work on it, for which you should be proud.  Roger Davies talk 08:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your perusal, Roger. Funnily enough, when I was in Waterstones yesterday, purchasing the Andrew Lambert book on the War of 1812, I noticed that René Chartrand had published a book on forts! Would you be able to approach some contacts with regard to reviewing the Fort Bowyer article? I am also having trouble getting someone to review the Battle of Pensacola (1814) article; a skirmish involving two forts and a gun battery, all of which were rebuilt after the war. Keith H99 (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Best is probably to list the article/s here. They usually get a reasonably fast turnround ;)  Roger Davies talk 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Further feedback sought[edit]

Hello Hawkeye7. Thanks for having taken the time to review two articles, as requested. With regard to Fort Bowyer, I really thought that I had got there with regard to referencing and citation. It had been lacking inline citations. Please can you provide some pointers as to what further work would be required to raise the standard via Talk:Fort Bowyer Similarly, in relation to Pensacola... Best wishes Keith H99 (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The objective is to have a reference per paragraph. I have added {{citation required}} tags so you can see which ones are lacking them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Missing Citation tag where appropriate. Keith H99 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fort Bowyer. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)