Talk:Battle of Queenston Heights

Decisive vs. Not
Was the Battle of Queenston Heights really a decisive British victory? I don't think it was...the Americans took considerably larger losses, but the British lost two of their highest senior officers (Brock and Macdonnell) while no major Americans were killed, and those captured were later exchanged. I'm not changing it back right now since I think it bears thought, but I dunno. Lord Bob 03:01, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, from the conclusion of the article: "Of General Van Rensselaer's 6000 troops, about 500 were killed or wounded, and 1000 were taken prisoner, including Brigadier-General William Wadsworth, Colonel Scott, four other lieutenant-colonels and sixty-seven other officers. By comparison, the British suffered about fourteen men killed, with seventy-seven wounded; one of the wounded was James Secord, husband of Laura Secord."


 * The loss of Brock was most certainly quite signifigant to the British side, as noted right after the above quote. However, remember the context: just prior to the battle, the US forces had crossed the border at the Niagara River and attempted to invade Canada. After the battle, they retreated back across the river.


 * If the US military had won the Battle of Queenston Heights, they could have continued their invasion campaign. They lost the battle, and so they retreated back to within their own borders. The complete failure of the US October 1812 invasion campaign across the Niagara means the battle was a 'decisive' victory, no? :) Cheers, Madmagic 13:05, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, then. Lord Bob 19:48, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Decisive-Yes! Comparing the strength of both armies-the Americans haev SIX times more men than the British! Yet the british managed to defeat the army losing a lot less men and destroy their plans of invading Canada. Therefore, the victory is decisive....In my opinion. I just wondered if America did invade Canada, will the map of Canada will just be an extended area of the US? (I came across this article lately and thought that i would like to debate this).

__

From what we learned about the War of 1812 (Ontario), the battle was considered decisive, since it halted American ambitions to conquer the whole of Upper Canada (Ontario). If the capture of Quebec was seen as the key to the fall of British North America, the conflicts in Upper Canada, historically, would prove to be a thorn in those plans.


 * It was only decisive in the sense that it ended U.S. ambitions for that year. Bear in mind that 1813 would see the capture of York and Niagara and their forces would get as far by land as Stoney Creek before being turned back. And Crysler's Farm happened in November 1813. Natty10000 09:03, Aug 09, 2008 (EDT)

My understanding is that Brock himself believed that, if the Americans captured Queenston Heights and its commanding position over the Niagara region, then the entire province would be lost. The Americans had the numbers to do just that, but the state militias on the other side of the river refused to cross. Despite the loss of Brock, the British prevailed against the odds. And the symbolism of the victory helped to encourage Canadian nationalism -- and hence, a conscious break with our cousins to the south.

SCrews 03:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree when it said Brock was shot because of his bright red coat. I think this needs to be clearer. Most British troops wore red. (Yes some Canadian mitlia units wore green) He was at musket range right? So would it be safe to say he was singled out by a rifleman because the was an officer leading the charge. Didn't he have an officers hat and sword instead of a shako and musket? Also he was on foot when he made the second charge. If you want to add that.
 * If you think it's worth adding, be bold and do so! It should be noted that a jacket for a general like a Brock is markedly different than the regular enlisted man's redcoat, so he would be presumably be fairly easy to see even in the crowd. Lord Bob 03:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe Lord Bob is making a pure speculation that General Brock was shot because “his bright red coat made him an easy target”. Is there a source where it states that he was targeted because of his bright red coat? Was it an American rifleman who took deliberate aim at him because “of his bright red coat” or was it just American riflemen shooting practice to shoot British officers who were leading a charge?
 * "[Brock is] brilliant in his scarlet coat, buttons gleaming, plumed hat marking him unmistakably as a leader...does he realize that he is a target? No doubt he does–he has already been shot in the hand..." Berton, The Invasion of Canada, page 240. Technically Berton talks about the hat as marking him as a leader, but his "two rows of gilt buttons on the crimson tunic" are mentioned later on the same page, and Brock's shirt is not that of a regular soldier. Lord Bob 05:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Brock was also an exceptionally tall man (for the times), and thus would stand out as a target for a sniper. Plus, it is good practice for snipers to shoot officers. This continues to modern times. Shooting regular soldiers doesn't have a huge effect on an army. Shooting officers does. 64.141.90.136 05:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we know for certain the General Brock was shot by a US marksman/rifleman? Is it possible that he just was shot during a volley? I imagine that if he was shot by a marksman/rifleman his name is lost to time. I have not read any name in any book yet. Please share if you have.
 * Marksman is kind of a relative term. More likely is that a number of Wool's troops would've been pointing their weapons in Brock's direction when they realised who was leading the charge. I think it would've been a volley shot although when the damage done was realised, a number claimed to have fired the fatal shot (success has a thousand fathers; failure's an orphan). The muskets then primarily in use were fairly useless in terms of accuracy beyond about 100 metres or yards (which is not to say that an experienced hand couldn't be effective beyond that range; just that it was exceptional). IIRC, Kentuckians were known to fall into that latter category.Natty10000 09:22, Aug 09, 2008 (EDT)


 * Most contemporary accounts state that a marksman stepped forward and fired at a range of fifty yards or less. Even a musket would be accurate at that range. A man named Robert Walcott later claimed to have been the marksman, but was proved to be a fraud. . Some WP:OR of mine for which I am trying to find first-hand cites; the soldiers of the 49th Regiment involved were the flank (Light and Grenadier) companies, composed of the hardest-bitten veterans. They fought at the Battle of Crysler's Farm in their grey greatcoats. Had they done so also at Queenston Heights, Brock in his scarlet uniform would have stood out among or in front of them. (Incidentally, several of the militia involved in Brock's attack wore scarlet uniforms, presumably the cast-off uniforms of the 41st Regiment. Brock had ordered the militia at the Siege of Detroit to wear these to make them appear to be regulars. Some at least of the volunteer militia present at Detroit were also present at Queenston Heights, although they were on the flanks of the 49th or still to the rear (i.e. the "York Volunteers"). HLGallon (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All things considered, one has to be able to demonstrate where it actually was that Brock fell. Certainly, the Cenotaph in Queenston is way beyond the likely range of a shot but 50 yards would be somewhere about here (43.162°N, -79.0511°W) which seems a tad close too given the overall distance to close, not to mention being under fire. And let's be honest, anyone who scores that kind of shot is going to qualify himself as a 'marksman' whether deserved or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natty10000 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In speaking with Guy St-Denis, it seems his investigations are leading that the cenotaph is off-angle and beyond range (although not so much as I might have thought). It'll be interesting when he publishes his findings.Natty10000 (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

America vs US
Using 'America' for the US can be confusing in modern times, but here it is certainly a bad choice because British territories were also American. So where the US is meant, that name should be used, I'd say. DirkvdM 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * At the time Canada was known either as "Canada" or "British North America", and the inhabitants were called either Canadian or British. The word "American", then as now, was almost always used to refer to a citizen of the United States of America.  The only contradictory meaning was when refering to "the Americas" which meant the continents of North and South America, so there is no confusion between Britsh (or even Canadian) and American soldiers.  That being said, if someone's taken the effort to make the article more technically precise by replacing all the "America"s with "US"s, I'm inclined to leave it as is, though the proper abbreviation ("U.S.") should be used. Geoff NoNick 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geoff NoNick on the use of "American", and should also point out that "British" is used consistently in this article to refer to the soldiers under Brock and Sheaffe and (in my original versions and Albrecht's edits) "American" to the soldiers under Van Rensselaer and Smyth. Personally, I find "American" a much better term, because a) it is simply a better adjective when describing a person from the United States, and b) I feel the chance of confusion is virtually nil. Lord Bob 15:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did change it all consistently, but that got reverted and now it's half one and half the other. Indeed, 'US' doesn't work well as an adjectve. I avoided that by using terms like 'US army' or 'US position'. In this case that worked nicely on all occasions, but I agree it can be a problem. But at least it isn't ambiguous and I hate ambiguities (bit of a logic-freak). The point is that the this is often disputed on Wikipedia, as elsewhere (see also Use of the word American). Not everyone means the US by America (although that usage is often tolerated, so to say). The best solution I can think of is never to use 'America' but only 'US' or 'Americas'. That last term is also disputed, but at least it isn't ambiguous. And in this article it is especially confusing because it is about a period when who or what constituted America was disputed at the time and this battle is a good example of that.


 * About the use of dots, that is not a standard. Actually, there are different standards on that (meaning of course there is no standard). I read an article on that, but can't remember where now. Here, I prefer consistency (being a logic freak :) ) and never use dots. As in USSR, UK, UN, laser, tv, vcr, eg. But when I write US on Wikipedia it always gets changed to U.S.. (That second dot is a period as in end of sentence - speaking of confusion :) .) Those in favour of no dots have pretty much thrown in the towel as I concluded from a discussion somewhere. Anyway, this is a minor point (there you go, I also throw in the towel :) ). DirkvdM 06:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * While I never use "America" to refer to the United States (that's just lazy writing), I stand by "American" as the best adjective for the situation. As you say, what America was was disputed at the time, certainly, but right now, in common usage, when the United States is doing something and Colonel Ed is described as an American, most people will know what country Colonel Ed is from. Of course, they'll also know where he's from if he's described as a US-er, but "American" saves us from awkward constructs to avoid the fact that "US" is pretty crummy, in terms of using it in sentences, as an adjective. Lord Bob 15:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is the only reason to use 'America' for the US. Then again, if you'd say he were a Yankee, everyone would understand what country he was from, too. Is that more lame than using 'American'? I'm not convinced. But 'Yankee' has the advantage that it isn't ambiguous (except to those who happen to know it originally referred to the Dutch :) ). And it can be used as an adjective. Still, I wouldn't quite be in favour of using that. But isn't the awkwardness of, say, 'Statesider' or 'Stateside' (as an adjective) not really a matter of us not being used to using that term? It has the advantage of also having part of the name of the country in it, but in a non-ambiguous way. But I wouldn't be in favour of using that either, so I'm rather stuck. The best way out seems to be to avoid 'American' where possible, and that is possible on all occasions in this article (as it is now). DirkvdM 08:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Yankee" is somewhat perjorative these days, "American" is not. And yes, I know there's a baseball team called the New York Yankees. There's a Washington Redskins too, but we're not calling the Mohawks that. I just think that 'American' is the best possible solution to what I only with effort can call a problem. And, by the by, as a Canadian I agree with Adam Bishop below (I posted above him since he didn't seem to be in direct reply to this comment). Lord Bob 16:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I wish you Europeans (or whatever you are) wouldn't be so concerned about the rest of us non-American North Americans. I don't know about South America, maybe they like to be called Americans, but I think it is fairly obvious that no South Americans are involved in this battle. Canadians are not Americans and there is absolutely no confusion here. It's kind of insulting that you think we should be confused about it. Adam Bishop 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If I may demean myself for a moment...

There is precisely  nothing  ambiguous or confusing about the current nomenclature. The only possible referent for "American" in the context of the article is:  United States of America.  Not Canada. Not Peru. Just the US.

The Manual of Style: "use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group."

"American" stays.

This "discussion" is dead. Albrecht 18:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Listen to yourself. Non-American North American? DirkvdM 07:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they are different things... Adam Bishop 16:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination with invitation to renominate
The main reason for failing this nomination is its lack of line citations. I also suggest starting stub articles to eliminate the redlinks and some copyediting. The introduction could be about a paragraph longer. Please renominate when ready: this is close to good article quality. Durova 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Marksman?
Do we know for certain the General Brock was shot by a US marksman/rifleman? Is it possible that he just was shot during a volley? I imagine that if he was shot by a marksman/rifleman his name is lost to time. I have not read any name in any book yet. Please share if you have.
 * In Pierre Berton's book The Invasion of Canada 1812-1813 on page 240 he says "Brock's nemesis steps out from behind a clump of bushes and when the General is thirty paces from him draws a bead with his long border rifle and buries a bullet in his chest, the hole equidistant from the two rows of gilt buttons on the crimson tunic." Not that this is necessarily what actually happened, but it is the "accepted" story. Not sure what the original source is though. And whether he was a marksman, who knows unless we know who the shooter was (Berton does not say). We do know he had a rifle and that his shot hit its mark. BC 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Push on, York Volunteers"
Brown's Point or Queenston? And why?

Personally, I think that (with all due respect) the post-chest-shot scenario is as dead as the General given the nature of the injury. Given the marker located on the Niagara Parkway here (N43.1937 W79.0539) that's far-from-recent (I'm assuming around 1910 or so), I'm inclined to side with Malcomson in having that phrase issued there and not Queenston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natty10000 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield coordinates
Over the past several days I have been placing the coordinates of the locations of War of 1812 battlefields which occurred in and around Ontario on the appropriate subject articles. In order to do this, I have researched historical maps regarding the engagements and then compared them to modern ones before making the final decision regarding placement of the location. In each case [except one, see Battle of Beaver Dams ] I have placed the coordinates at the location of the primary existing feature commemorating the battles, in most instances this consists of a physical monument, in some an existing structure. In all cases, the coordinate points were assigned to a location which is literally on the historic battlefield itself and is currently accessible to the general public. My intention in choosing the specific locations for the coordinates was not an attempt at personally indicating a "pivotal" tactical spot for each specific engagement, which in my opinion is a highly subjective endeavour. My intention is to indicate a usefully visible location which a modern visitor (or researcher) can look at and with some assurance be confident that the spot is literally located where these men fought and died, while at the same time being cognizant that modern changes in many cases have overgrown these sites and the spot chosen should allow easy access to a current visitor. Now for the fun part. I am going to take the liberty of (highly subjectively) tweaking the Queenston Heights coordinates back to my original choice of locations. With respect, I'd like to suggest that my fellow editors interpretation of what constitutes THE "pivotal" spot for this engagement is mistaken. The position of the redan battery on the side of the gorge, although important during the first stages of the battle, after the death of Brock, pales in comparison to the importance of the location of the primary (and final) line of engagement, which was centered on the tactically vital height of land itself, which is located several hundred meters west of the redan, near the Brock monument. When that line broke, the battle was over. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While I applaud your intentions in general and hope you continue, in this particular instance, I'd suggest that your choice of coordinates does something of a disservice in that the location is peripheral to the primary action. To whit, primarily what was impeding the U.S. landing operations (as far as artillery is concerned)? The guns in the Redan. What was it that Wool and his men were tasked to take to allow the attack to continue? The Redan. What did Brock give up his life to re-take? The Redan. What did Macdonell give up his life to re-take? The Redan. What did Sheaffe focus his assault on retaking? The Redan.


 * With all due respect, what made the Battle of Queenston Heights distinctive was what happened with the intention of possessing the Redan. The Redan Battery literally is pivotal in the Battle of Queenston Heights, its possession pivotal to ascension in the battle. Granted, had Brock not led his ill-fated charge, this battle would have faded in importance. With that in mind, using the coordinates of the Redan Battery as the location for the Battle of Queenston Heights is somewhat more supportable and less subjective overall than using Brock's Monument. The Heights themselves are the beginning, the jumping-off points, of both successful assaults on the Redan. That's the extent of their particular importance. The focus of their attack? Possession of the Redan. They're the periphery.Natty10000 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give you points for rhetorical flourish; but I'd like to suggest that you consult an accurate reconstruction of the actual positioning of the troops in the area of the heights that day before you make a final decision on what constitutes the actual core of the battlefield, Malcolmson [2003] pgs. 188 and 190 are excellent resources in that regard. If you're interested in continuing this discussion, I'd like to suggest that we move it to my personal talk page, lest we be accused of utilizing this article discussion page as a "forum". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While troop positions will determine the peripheries of a battlefield, the coordinates for the main page (IMHO) should by rights be representative of the centre or focus. Am I right? Of course! :) Of course, you likewise feel the same about your position. Personally, I'd suggest that having it out here would be educational and perhaps enlightening for someone with less knowledge researching the topic for the first time.  Natty10000 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Brock: One charge or two?
I think personal interpretation is creating a bit of misunderstanding here. Cruikshank has been cited as support for an assertion that Brock led two charges in attempting to retake the Redan Battery. His words verbatim from original source are:

"The rain had ceased and strong, slanting gleams of sunshine broke through the parting clouds. The ground was thickly strewn with fallen leaves, slippery with wet and yielding treacherously, and as the men stumbled and fell here and there the line was quickly broken. Wool sent a reinforcement to support his advance party, and their fire soon began to tell. "This is the first time I have ever seen the 49th turn their backs!" Brock exclaimed angrily as he noticed unwounded men dropping to the rear, and at the rebuke the ranks promptly closed up. McDonnell brought up in support the companies of Cameron and Heward, which had just arrived from Brown's Point much exhausted, having run nearly all the way. The force then engaged in the direct assault of the heights, including the last named companies, numbering about 190 men. The militia flank companies were uniformed in scarlet and advanced with such steadiness that Wool was led to believe that he was being attacked by four companies of the 49th. His own command had been increased to about five hundred rank and file, two-thirds of who were regular soldiers, yet notwithstanding their advantage in numbers and position, being at the same time pressed warmly on the flank by Williams's detachment, they began to shrink from the contest.

Seeing that the supports were lagging at the foot of the hill, Brock shouted to Macdonell to "push on the York volunteers," and led his own party to the right with the evident intention of joining Williams. A bullet struck the sword-arm inflicting a slight wound, to which he paid no attention but continued to wave his sword and encourage his men. His tall, portly figure and energetic gestures, as well as his conspicuous uniform and position several yards in front of the line, naturally made him a special target for the bullets of the enemy, although he does not seem to be personally recognized by them. At last a rifleman stepped out of a thicket less than fifty yards away and took deliberate aim at him. More than one man of the 49th observed this and fired hastily, but without effect. The fatal bullet struck their leader in the breast very near the heart and he sank slowly to the ground and expired, after murmuring a few broken sentences to those nearest him to conceal his death from the men and continue the fight. A group of of the 49th at once gathered about their prostrate leader and one of them was severely wounded by a cannon shot and fell across his body."

So there's the verbatim citation. I can't help but take (as most have) that there was but one assault on the Redan Battery led by Brock. It may have faltered and lost momentum before continuing. But there isn't any indication of a backtrack over previously-covered ground that would indicate two separate charges by Brock.Natty10000 (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful repeat edits by unidentified editors
As of late, there's been a rash of unidentified editors posting pointless changes to this and other War of 1812-related pages. Today, the IP seems to be 86.174.141.113 adding "decisive" hither and nigh (which bears a striking resemblance to 82.28.232.117 doing the exact same thing). Is there a way to moderate the changeability of pages or is the ability of unknown parties to repeatedly vandalise entries one of those things about Wiki that has to be just tolerated to a degree? TIA User:Natty10000 [Stop me before I edit again!] 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. You can request that this article be protected from IP editors by requesting semi-protection at WP:RFPP.  Be sure to state the reason it needs to be protected such as IP hopping vandalism.— cyberpower  Chat Online  16:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks and I'll try that route. The bicentennial of the War is just getting going and already a number of topics have been subject to vandalism. User:Natty10000 [Stop me before I edit again!] 03:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"the Mohawks furious over the deaths of two chiefs"
This statement could do with some explanation - who were the chiefs referred to? An appropriate wilimk might do the trick. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a note in Cruikshank's article in, which states that "Two Cayuga chiefs and three warriors, whose names have been preserved, were killed". Annoyingly, these names were not preserved in Zaslow. I suspect the answer lies in Cruikshank's "Documentary History", which I will re-read when I have time. HLGallon (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Battle of Queenston Heights. 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/20080905130504/http://www.historiclewiston.org/vanrensselaer.html to http://www.historiclewiston.org/vanrensselaer.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070411134712/http://www.historiclewiston.org:80/downloads/spring_summer_2006_placemat.pdf to http://www.historiclewiston.org/downloads/spring_summer_2006_placemat.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211192258/http://www.nfpl.library.on.ca:80/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2263 to http://www.nfpl.library.on.ca/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2263

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Queenston Heights. 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/20131029195223/http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/10/25/joint-support-ships-to-be-named-hmcs-queenston-and-hmcs-chateauguay/ to http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/10/25/joint-support-ships-to-be-named-hmcs-queenston-and-hmcs-chateauguay/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historiclewiston.org/downloads/spring_summer_2006_placemat.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nfpl.library.on.ca/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2263
 * Added tag to http://www.niagarapoetry.ca/warcontents.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)