Talk:Alexander Cochrane

The New Orleans campaign was largely the fault of Cochrane
This statement has been dumped into this article, and there is no reasoning as to why the failure of the British Army on land ends up squarely as the fault of a Naval officer. Either this statement gets removed, or the rationale as to why it failed and how he is to blame should be added in support. Keith H99 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Vice Admiral Alexander Cochrane and the Battle of New Orleans
Hello Peter, I have come across your essay from nearly 12 months ago on this topic


 * One source explains that, at New Orleans, "naval support continued to be a problem, however, and though the British force led by Colonel William Thornton was able to take control of the artillery, they arrived too late. By the time the Royal Navy delivered Thornton’s troops, the battle was already lost". Cochrane subsequently filed two reports with his own version of the battle where he controlled an armada with 8,000 men. The American Naval History and Heritage Command does not lay blame on any individual in the British forces, but concludes that the "British then made a tactical error. Rather than pressing forward, they were allowed time to rest". This source also mentions that forces from the ships finally decided to attack with 1,200 British sailors and marines, but "after 36 hours of rowing, the invaders faced a hail of grape shot".

Source 1 Source 2

I was going to delete it, but I thought it better etiquette to ask if this can be improved upon.

My first observation was that being copied like this from a website, it could be construed as plagiarism. The second is that I do not understand what you are trying to convey, in relation to Cochrane. The Battle of New Orleans was fought on land by around 8,000 soldiers of the British Army. There were 100 sailors and 100 marines that played an active part, but I do not see from your prose how they, or the 360 soldiers commanded by Thornton, would have made a material difference to the outcome of the battle.

The subsequent part is muddled, in my opinion. The source consulted is no longer accessible. It makes reference to the events of 14 December 1814, but I thought the paragraph was supposed to be talking about the failures made on 8 January 1815. Even then, it is unclear how Cochrane has used his power and influence, and as a consequence made decisions which resulted in the British Army being soundly defeated on 8 January 1815. Are you saying he was a liar who published a different account of the Battle of New Orleans on 8 January 1815?

Ideally, at the end of each sentence, there should be an inline citation. Where possible, secondary sources of books published by historians who are recognised as reliable sources will carry more weight than websites. In a lot of cases, historians like Clowes and Roosevelt have books that have been made available online, so can be accessed for free. Being able to provide more than one source for a fact adds extra credence, too.

If the present content can be improved, so that the points about Cochrane are made in a clearer manner, that would be great. Kind regards Keith H99 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Seasons greetings and hello Peter K Burian, if there is anything unclear in what I have posted, please do let me know. I would like to tidy up the information about Cochrane relative to the operations in Louisiana in January 1815 ahead of the anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans, if possible. Keith H99 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing any changes to this, and in the event of any clarity or proper sourcing, I think it should be removed. Keith H99 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)