Talk:Battle of North Point

problem with "North Point"
The link of "North Point" linked to the North Point of Hongkong, not the North Point of Baltimore.

Errrh..sorry to spoilt it for those that would like to re-write history, but the British won the Battle of North Point. They took the field, and the Americans withdrew. Deathlibrarian 09:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

American victory?
How on Earth was this battle an American victory, and a strategic one at that? The British effectively won this battle, the British took the field and the American forces withdrew to Baltimore. How does that classify as an American victory? It is like trying to say the Battle of Britain was a Strategic German victory as the British forces did not gain any territory on the continent, its just pathetic and stupid to be honest. This article should have Indecisive at best. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

It saved Baltimore from being Burned down like Washington was. (Red4tribe (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Sounds like original research if you ask me. And, the Battle of Baltimore saved Baltimore, not North Point. (Trip Johnson (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC))


 * The British attacked from land a sea to try and take Baltimore. The Sea was stopped by Fort McHenry, and the land by North Point. The British may have had control of the field after the battle, but they were to weakk to assult the city. (Red4tribe (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC))


 * By the rules of war back then, whoever holds the field, wins. (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC))


 * That isn't your view on the Battle of Princeton is it? This battle saved Baltimore from being destroyed. The British might have held the field after the battle, but they were too weakend from the battle to make an attempt to take baltimore, thefore making it a strategic American victory. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Funnily enough, its my view on the Battle of Baltimore. At Princeton, both sides fell back to a certain degree, however since the Colonial forces outmaneuvered the British Royal troops, it was a strategic success. At Baltimore there was no such event. Also, your grounds that the British did not attack Baltimore after North Point makes it a great American victory is a load of crap. It is like saying that the Battle of Gazala was a immensely successful Allied strategic victory because Rommel could not press his advantage. It wasn't a strategic victory in any sense, because the Germans held the ground that they had attacked, but suffered heavy casualties rendering it a Pyrrhic Axis victory. I think we could term the Battle of North Point a Pyrrhic British victory or Indecisive at the very least. Obviously you are going to mention the fact that the British did not attack Baltimore straight away but why would they? 3,500 vs 12,000? The expedition to Baltimore was a suicide one at the very least. Again, your views also sound like original research, and you are also notorious for using very unreliable sources. Several users have already blasted your use of myrevolutionarywar, stating and backing up that it is unreliable. (Trip Johnson (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Neither of these are myrevolutionary war. You are too difficult to reason with so I have no intention of reading or responding to anything you put on here. You can continue with your effort to twist every battle into a British/English victory but I have every intention of making sure you list a reliable reference first. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm not trying to twist battles into British victories. Its just that some seem to have an inability to discuss before alterations. (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Copyright vio?
The current version of the article relies heavily on one page of one source – so much so that it may have been transcribed directly from that source, potentially constituting a copyright violation. The source citation only provides an author and page number. Would anyone have access to the original source so these concerns can be verified or eliminated? &mdash;Adavidb 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I found details regarding this original source and added them to the citation. The current article does in fact include significant amounts of literal text from the source material. Even with citations, I don't expect this usage would be considered "fair use" within copyright law. The article remains this way for now, though I encourage other editors to make changes and express opinions regarding this copyright concern. &mdash;Adavidb 11:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a copyright violation and must be resolved, regardless of the lack of discussion. I'm reverting the article back to its state before inclusion of this material. &mdash;ADavidB 12:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reassessed the article as start class. It needs further inline citations, at least, as well as further information on the article in general.Lawrencema (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rocket launchers?
The section "Main Battle" looks a bit strange due to the appearence of "rocket launchers": Brooke reorganized the British troops and prepared to assault the American positions at 3:00 pm.[8] He decided to use his three cannon and his rocket launchers to cover an attempt by the 4th Regiment to get around the American flank, while two more regiments and the naval brigade would assault the American center.[8] Maybe I am wrong, but as far as I know rocket launchers are from a distinct other era. Can this be confirmed or corrected? The Banner talk 01:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is the phrase "and the rockets' red glare" from the Star Spangled Banner of the same period... and I found a reference to 19th century Congreve rocket launchers: —ADavidB 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazing! It is never to late to learn. I am now totally convinced the text is correct. Thanks. The Banner talk 19:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a rocket detachment (some people have used the term "half-company") with the third Royal Marine battalion which arrived in the Chesapeake in July 1814. The rocket detachment saw action in 1814 at Bladensburg, North Point, and in 1814 at New Orleans and Fort Bowyer. There is an article on the Royal Marine Artillery by a retired US Army General in the Heidler's Encyclopaedia of the War of 1812.


 * Similarly, the two Royal Marine battalions which went to Canada in 1813 each had a rocket detachment, and they continued to see action in the Canadian theatre of war.


 * In the instance of the fighting at Baltimore, rockets launched from ships are more well-known, as the inspiration for Francis Scott-Key's lyrics Keith H99 (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is more appropriate to use the phrase "rocket launching frames" in relation to Congreve rockets, as I'm not sure that "rocket launchers" was a term in use until the Korean War Keith H99 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sniper Killed?
Article erroneously states "The sniper who shot him was spotted and killed moments after." No one knows for certain who shot Robert Ross. Credit has been historically given to Daniel Wells and Henry G. McComas, both of whom were later found dead near Long Log Lane where Ross was killed. This line should be removed, unless further references can be made. BBODO (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect GPS Coordinates
The GPS coordinates 39° 11′ 53.54″ N, 76° 26′ 29.39″ W (39.198206, -76.441497) given for this page are incorrect. It locates Ft. Howard (built 1986) at the very tip of North Point. This is where the British landed. The actual battle, however, took place about five miles north of these coordinates. The actual battle took place in an area centered approximately 39.279573,-76.479914. Can anyone help with correcting this, as it is linked to GeoHack? BBODO (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

casualties among the Royal Marines
As it currently stands, the article does make mention of the contradictory information in the casualty returns.

The Royal Marines can be categorised thus:
 * 1) Numbered list item Marines of the 2nd Battalion, commanded by Lt Colonel Malcolm
 * 2) Numbered list item Marines of the 3nd Battalion, commanded by Major Lewis
 * 3) Numbered list item ship Marines attached to the 2nd Battalion (from 15 vessels)
 * 4) Numbered list item ship Marines attached to the 3nd Battalion (from 2 vessels)
 * 5) Numbered list item ship Marines in a composite "battalion", commanded by Captain Robyns (from 4 vessels)

The Army return (page 2075 of the London Gazette)refers to:

6 killed and 20 wounded belonged to the 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the Royal Marines

ship Marines attached to the 2nd Battalion - 2 killed and 1 wounded

ship Marines commanded by Captain Robyns - 2 killed, 1 officer and 9 other ranks wounded

The Navy return (page 2078 of the London Gazette)refers to:

ship Marines attached to the 2nd Battalion -

HMS Madagascar - 1 Marine killed and 1 Marine wounded

ship Marines commanded by Captain Robyns - 2 killed, 1 officer and 9 other ranks wounded

HMS Tonnant - 1 officer and 2 other ranks wounded

HMS Albion - 6 Marines wounded

HMS Ramillies - 2 Marines killed, 5 Marines wounded

HMS Royal Oak - 1 Marine wounded

This does not reconcile with the Army's total of 4 killed and 11 wounded, but seems more plausible, given that the Navy return does mention specific names.

I have cross-checked the musters from the 15 ships, as a source verification exercise, and no further casualties came to light.

A further source of information is the transcript of the medical journal for HMS Diomede, which is online. This document refers to 11 seriously wounded Marine casualties, of whom 4 are from Captain Robyns' command (Cooper from Tonnant, Dunn and Parsons from Albion, Thomas from Royal Oak). Perhaps this is where the confusion arose, and where the British Army's casualty figures for the Royal Marines are derived from. Keith H99 (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Battle
-- Americans loaded their cannon with iron scraps including "horseshoes". In earlier paragraph the American cannon are "four pounders". The bore of a four-pounder cannon is not wide enough to admit an iron horseshoe. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Northpt.jpg

Rationale
I must concur with some of the previous editors -- the reasoning shown here for some of the conclusions made about the outcome at North Point is very shaky at best. Where are the citations for the long lede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.205.196 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)