Talk:Battle of the Monongahela

Comment
The Notes refer three times to "Preston (2015)", but there is no such book or article in the reference list. Whoever added the references should be asked to identify the source properly.Saintonge235 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment
I heard in a documentary that George Washington was referred to by many as "The Survivor of the Monongahela." Is this true? If so, perhaps it should be mentioned. Mdriver1981 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Officers and men
A great deal is made, in both this page and the "Braddock's expedition" page, about how brave the officers were in relation to the enlisted men and how much those officer were targeted as a result.

The numbers belie this. There were 26 of 86 officers killed - about 30%. Overall there were 456 of 1300 English killed - or about 35%.

A high proportion fo the women in the expedition were killed. That might say something about the priorites of the leadership in regards to their won skins.

My imagining is that the officers were targeted, and they did take casualties that were disportionately high in relation to the exposure of said officers to actual danger. That is, given the choice, the French and Indians would have targeted officers.

The fact is the officers were relatively safe compared to their men.

In the aftermath? It was the officers who decided to destroy their superior weaponry and retreat back to Virginia.

Although it can be argued that the Brish did not outnumber the french after teh battle, the contrary argument could also be made. In any case, the French certainly did not have the force to attack the English, had the English deployed theri artillary on a hilltop- of which there are plenty in the vincinity.

As to the valor of the English officers? I think it belongs in the same category as Washington's famous cherry tree and the silver dollar thrown accross the Potomac.

My opinion? Bunch of cowardly aristocrats and slave owners with large egos. They wrote the history, though. So. perhaps I should say "bunch of lying, cowardly slave owners and aristocrats."

I think all the reports of "valorous officers" could be removed fromm this page. 65.246.25.3 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is based on several sources that provide evidence of the behaviour of the officers. Whether it was brave or foolish is another question. If you want to make these changes you need to provide sources that support your claims. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably also worth noting that most of the troops were Irish rather than English.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

George Washington on commander's section
Shouldn't there be the flag of British America next to George Washington's name rather than the British Empire's?66.72.208.218 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadians or Canadiens
Somewhere I read that "Canadien" is perfectly acceptable and often used in Canada, whereas "Canadian" is the U.S. style. I found both in this article, with most instances being "Canadians," with only two instances of "Canadiens." Therefore, for consistency, I changed those two to "Canadians." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Indian allies- contradictory information
In the informations box it is stated under 'Belligerents':
 * Abenaki
 * Lenape
 * Shawnee

In the body of the article, under 'Battle' the text reads:
 * 'The Indian tribes allied with the French, the Ottawas, Ojibwa and Potawatomis...'

Which is correct? JF42 (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The “native” people involved would have all fallen under the Algonquian (speaking) Peoples.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_peoples

There are many different “tribes” or “clans”. The Ottawa’s, Ojibwa and Potawatomi are all subgroups of the larger Anishnabee ethnic group that would be included in the larger Algonquin peoples. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_First_Nations_peoples

DocNZane (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)