Talk:Battle of the Plains of Abraham/Archive 1

= We need serious Wikipedia editor in this page=

I'm sick of people who put lies on this page

I will formely complain to the owner of this site so this stupid page can be removed Really both of the commanders died i dont no y they mostly talk about wolf

Not idiot ?
Obviously this page is done by amateur who can't make the difference between Howe and Johnson

This page is a disgrace of stupidity and your time is up

I will officially complain against your vandalism

It's about time wikipedia editor start to clean this racist web page

http://bataille.ccbn-nbc.gc.ca/fr/bataille-des-plaines-d-abraham/les-deux-armees-face-a-face/les-forces-en-presence.php

Where is the English defeat ?
Reading this you could almost beleive this was a victory without consequence.

Actually the British realise too late it was a huge mistake.

In 1783 there will be nothing left of the British Empire in america.

How can you call that a wounderfull victory ?

The British-Canadian will be expell from the USA and start from Zero

Reading your version it's like this was a win for the British forever.

That will bring them 20 years of misery and their worst catastrophic defeat.

Actually the British petition to return Quebec to France but the mistake was done.

A disgruntled French-Candian no doubt. Why don't you console yourself here http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_253.asp?

It's worded in a way that you might like (incorrectly).

To the unsigned poster :

I take strong offense to your personal attack against me this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I don't care about your opinion about me.

Truth be told, the um, "disgruntled French-Canadian" is more right than wrong. Because of the French Indian War, the Colonists learned to unite and fight against a common foe. This is what enabled them to rebel so well against the Crown. Beforehand, there appeared to be almost no possibility of the colonies ever uniting under a common cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.170.168 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral point of view
This article is not written with a neutral point of view. This is clearly the british and british-canadian account of the event.

Factual errors and no context
British general views and opinion should not be taken as historical facts. Also, many factual errors can be found in the text and the event is presented as a victory when serious historian knows this was a stategic blunder that will have disastrous consequence for the british empire. This battle being only the first part of a continental war that will end at Yorktown in 1781 is presented alone without any context misleading the reader to beleive this was a celebrated event.

Wolfe is not a hero
Today only the british and british-canadian still worship Wolfe and his gang. Celebrated american historian like Fred Anderson of Colorado call Wolfe a terrorist p 344 of his book the crucible of war for his murderous policies against civilians. John Knox, one of Wolfe soldier, explain in his journal how he could hear the scream of women and children while they were burned alived in their home by wolfe policies of burning civilian houses. Worst was the british policies of starvation and rape explain in Fred Anderson book. Amherst will poison civilian with small pox. Monkton also made war on civilian in acadia and pay for the scalp of indian children. In his book Road to Glory praising Wolfe the autor cannot fail to explain the starvation of babies by saying at least wolfe provided cow so women can feed their children. John Knox describe the dead civilian who starved in the street all cause by Wolfe sadistic policies. War on civilian is not heroic except maybe for british people.

American will be brutalised by William Howe the one who really climb the hill that night and they don't worship Wolfe since 1775. They worship Richard Montgommery and the people who defeat William Howe, the colonel of Wolfe. People like Georges Washington.

William Howe importance is missing
British want us to beleive in the myth of Wolfe the dauntless hero by erasing William Howe. Wolfe climb was without danger after Howe. And his battle action was to get shot death from the start and to die almost alone. This is hardly bravery or valor under fire. Considering his murderous brutality against women he's hardly a hero either.

The picture is a known fraud
Even the picture shown is a known fraud and a mythical misrepresentation of the event. Wolfe die alone with one or two person around him. This known forgery is presented as accurate portrait of the event. No serious historian would dare to use this propangada painting for a reality. At the very least the article should explain that Wolfe die like an idiot and alone and not like a hero. Even Murray knew that he didn't deserve it when he learn about the propaganda. A known caricature as no place in an encyclopedia.

Of course the french account is missing
In Townsend gloating review of his invasion he explain that most of the casualities on british happen at the hand of quebeckers while the british were butchering the fleing soldiers. Those quebeckers made a glorious defense and are simply not explained.

The article end with Rememberance day is done there every year. Of course the Fête Nationale is done there every year with 100 000 french people celebrating in a city 99 % french. Wolfe is not considered a hero in Quebec and Wolfe as totally failed to conquer the region for the british. Rememberance day is not popular in quebec.

The factual errors
William Howe is the one who climb the plain before Wolfe. While the article dwell on pointless detail on De Vergor, the British William Howe who will lose america is simply erased to hide what will really happen in the second part of the war (the american revolution).

Canada existed at that time. This battle is the Invasion of Canada. An article about the conquest of Canada that pretend it will lead to his foundation is ludicrus to said the least. Vaudreuil and his man were all proud Canadien (quebeckers)

The 1763 will give the British ALL north america exept the Louisiane territory. The article pretend it just won canada east. Again this is done to hide the fact that the british will lose New France territory at Yorktown in 1781 against the same french. Making the win of the plains completely pointless.

The section on the consequence of the war dwell and speak of victory when the British empire will be entirely lost because of this invasion cause by too much arrogance. 1763 is a temporary treaty that will not last and will soon be replace by the british defeat in the 1783 treaty. Simply saying Peace will not last is not enough.

Wolfe thugery is erased when no mention of his manifesto is explained. No mention either of his policies of war against civilian.

The perfect volley quote is a british general opinion and has no historical value. The british were using grape shot fire from a canon at that time and this pretensius volley was nothing special in that kind of battle. Pouchot the year before will kill 300 british who attack him at Carillon the same way. Lévis will make the british flee 6 month later. This was no different. Nothing magical about it either. Quote like it was like a single weapon is british slur but not historical event. Many idiot had their opinion on it but it doesn't make it true.

The article must be corrected
The opinion of people are given as accurate fact in the article, this is not the way to explain history. One cannot misquote part of many letter to reach is desired conclusion. Selective quoting is inappropriate. One should explain fact not built a fiction with half quote from people of the time who didn't know better or did not hold those opinion after they wrote it. Stick to the fact not constructive fiction.

When providing speculative controversy like Vaudreuil blame Montcalm you should provide the text and not just a lame reference to an old book by a british historian. If not people have to relie on your own personal speculation an opinion about primary source we don't have.

I will wait to see correction and I will provide them if it's not corrected.


 * Actually, in sourcing much of this article, I did seek out references that discussed the French viewpoint where I could, and in the rewrite tried to ensure - as pointed out in the first rejected A-Class review, and cleared up as noted by the promotion to A-Class in the second review - that this followed the neutral point of view as well as possible. None of this article is my speculation, it's been written based on research of texts discussing the battle. However, if you feel the article needs more input from the French side, and you have good reliable sources that you can work from in making those changes, then you're more than welcome to do so. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Date of battle
September 13 or September 18 or September 10? What day did this take place? I suppose it has to do with calander reform and such. (Compare with appropriate list of battles page as well -- dml
 * Sept. 13th is correct. Calendar change has nothing to do with it as it took place in 1752 in Britain and in 1582 in France. Rmhermen 19:24 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
 * September 13 is the battle, the 18th is the day the garrison in Quebec surrendered. Adam Bishop 16:42, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Burial of the Dead
Hello,

In the aftermath of the battle of The Plains of Abraham on Sept 13, 1759 the dead on both sides were collected. It is known that General Wolfe's body was transported back to England in a cask or caskette of Alcohol. At what location on the field or in the city were the British war dead buried?

Iain MacNeill Waterloo, On Canada

It is my understanding that, as was common practice at the time, enlisted men from both sides were buried in common graves on the battle field. Did religious considerations play a role, as in different pits for the Catholics and the Protestants, I don't know. It is my understanding that French dead from the battle of 1760 laid buried under a monument that currently lies at the corner of Chemin Sainte-Foy and Avenue Des Braves. I understand that the monument was displaced a few meters from its original location during a commemorative and restoration event maybe a century ago, and that bones were found and sent at some new resting place.

As I mentioned in the 'Trivia' section, it is my understanding that the wounded from both sides were sent to the Hopital General by the St. Charles River, and that those who perished at the hospital were buried just outside in a yard that has now been converted into a military cemetery. Montcalm's remains have recently been transferred from the Ursuline convent to a mausoleum on the grounds of this cemetery. I took part in the parade.

lambda 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting the numbers straight
Everytime I read something on this battle, I see different numbers. The story is mostly the same, but the numbers just never match. I invite the author(s) of this article to compare their sources with these two:

http://www.net4war.com/history4war/dossiers/moderne/quebec01.htm (French and in French)

http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/1759B.HTM (Quebec and in English translation)

Maybe this will help us determine the original source of the numbers. I am personally confused by all these different accounts. Mathieugp 22:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I was confused by it as well...I think most of the specific numbers I used are from the Historical Atlas of Canada. The problem seems to be that there were different periods of fighting using different numbers of troops, and that there were also reserves, reinforcements and unused garrisons on both sides, so total numbers probably don't match the actual numbers of men used. I guess it's the same for every other battle. Adam Bishop 22:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have to say this article seems to stray from a neutral point of view. The surrender of the French is described as "the ultimate tragic outcome," and the treatment of the decision by France to leave Canada, "a poor, underpopulated colony" and focus on its rich Caribbean possessions borders on historical editorializing, not reporting. Something tells me the author, or one of the authors, was rooting for the French. Patrick Grey Anderson 21:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Or maybe he saw the English and French Empires fighting each other for world domination (again) and the young people of Canada paying for it? Mathieugp 22:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * An anon seems to have added the "tragic outcome" and similar bits...but it was me who wrote about the rich Caribbean and poor Canada. I suppose what I mean is, France thought it was more worthwhile to keep a profitable Caribbean island, rather than a much bigger colony that had a small population and didn't produce much for them. I didn't mean to editorialize or sound pro-French, so you are welcome to reword it in a more neutral way. Adam Bishop 21:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

more details on how wofle found the pathway please, i got more even from school...


 * You are free to add that information yourself. Adam Bishop 01:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

French and Indian War vs. Seven Years' War
Okay.

1. The French and Indian War is the same thing as the Seven Years' War, as the War of British Conquest (Canada), as the War of Conquest (Quebec). Same war, different names. It's like the War of the Spanish Succession, also known as Queen Anne's War in former British colonies in the New World.

2. Scholarly sources. Scholarly sources, scholarly sources, scholarly sources. Refereed- peer-edited- journals! Random web sites should not, ever, be cited as sources. Why? Because significant facts and figures are listed. For example, Montcalm did not send out 4000 men to Wolfe's 4800, he sent out 4500 to Wolfe's 4400. (W.J. Eccles, "The Preemptive Conquest, 1749-1763." Readings in Canadian History: Pre-Confederation, 4th edition, R. Douglas Francis and Donald B. Smith eds. (Toronto: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1994): 180.).

3. Montcalm wasn't afraid of a siege, for resons listed in the article (namely that to bring provisions for the army up, the English would have had to haul them up the cliffs).

>>>>Here, I disagree--and this has been quite the debate over the past three and a half centuries. Montcalm DID have reason to fear the Brits might entrench on the Plains, and that they WOULD be re-supplied, thus opening up a second front on the city (the other being the entrenchments at Beauport). The geographic reality of the area is not all hanging cliffs. After the initial assault--gloriously (and questionably) depicted in illustrations of the time--, most of Wolfe's contingent probably went up a stream bed that comes down from the Plains onto the Anse-aux-Foulons cove. The bed is called la Coulée Saint-Denis, and though steep, it is hardly impracticable by soldiers known to carrying heavy military loads over portages in the wilderness. I DO feel Montcaml's best strategy on the morning of the 13 would have been to just roll over and go back to sleep--considering also the onset of fall, a rather uncomfortable season for trench warfare, to say the least. But as the military commander, Montcalm must have felt he had no choice but to come out and meet Wolfe. I understand he feared loosing his land communication with Montreal. He also distrusted the fortifications, and especially, the colonial officers that commanded its artillery. lambda 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Again, see the figures. Altered to be in line with what we can best ascertain to be true.

-

Is it proper to say that this battle is part of the French and Indian War? I know that's what Americans call the "North American phase" of the Seven Years' War, but we tend not to say that in Canada, and I'm sure Britain and France don't say that either. Adam Bishop 06:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that this battle is part of the French and Indian War and that it is part of the Seven Years War. The previous arrangment of the sentence implied that American called the entire Seven Years War the French and Indian War which is not true. We call both the European part and the overarching conflict the Seven Years War. The British are not consistent in this regard as they call the fighting during this same time period between:

Rmhermen 13:02, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * British vs. French and Red Indians (Native Americans) - part of the Seven Years War
 * British vs. French and East Indians - the 2nd Carnatic War
 * Well, I've checked in the Canadian history text books I have available (published in 1972, 1998, and 2000) and they all call it the Seven Years' War. (A book about the history of Quebec that I have simply refers to it as "the Conquest.") Do Americans really say this battle took place in "both" wars? Since this battle took place between the British and the French, and happened in the actual seven years of the Seven Years' War, I think SYW should at least be more prominent. Adam Bishop 19:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes we really say that it took place in both wars. It is no different than saying that the Battle of Midway was a battle in the Pacific War and in World War II. But we wouldn't say that D-day was a battle in the Pacific War, which is equivalent to what the article used to say. All of the battles in the French and Indian War took place between the British and the French and why the British named it the Seven Years War makes about as much sense as the name of the Hundred Years War. (Of course, Americans traditionally count WWII as 1941-1945 but merrily include the invasion of Poland in 1939 as part of the War.) Any suggestion on how to make it more prominent? Rmhermen 20:53, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah you Americans and your crazy war-naming schemes :) I'm not sure how to reword the opening; it just doesn't make sense to me to mention the French and Indian War at all...or, I should say, it would make more sense (to me) to say "the Seven Years' War, also known as the F&I War," but if that's not how you actually use it, then I don't know. Adam Bishop 21:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The war started in 1754 in North America, 1756 in Europe and India, 1758 in Africa, 1759 in the Caribbean, 1762 in the Pacific, so they call it the Seven Years Wars. Our system is crazy? What is that the weighted median length of the war? (I could say it doesn't make sense to me to mention the Seven Years War as you probably would never see that below a college-level text but that might reflect too much on the U.S. education system.) How would "was a battle during the French and Indian War, the U.S. name for the North American phase of the Seven Years' War." sound? Rmhermen 22:58, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh, it's the "Seven Years', More or Less, War". I don't think "...the F&I War, the US name..." would work either. I guess what I am thinking is that the battle is more important to Canadians than to Americans, so Canadian usage should be used (this is my POV of course, since it's probably equally important to both). But I don't want to be difficult/nationalistic, so maybe we should just leave it as it is now. Adam Bishop 06:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised Canadians don't just call it the "Franco-British War," or some such name like that. If/when Canada can settle on a name for the North American theatre, that could get precedence.  Until then...  Funnyhat 08:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware we have settled on a name, but apparently it's not good enough, and I'm not going to keep reverting when it gets changed. Adam Bishop 09:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to second Adams's opinion in regard to the name. The 2 names I have ever heard in Québec were "the seven years war" (relatively neutral and put the battles into their context) and "the conquest" (which make sense from a francophone standpoint but not from outside). "french and indian war" to me similarly only make sense if you were from the US or the UK. To people of french descent, using it would be like refering to a conflict as "That war we were involved in" and for other peoples, it sound as if you were picking on the francophones and the natives.--Marc pasquin 00:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While normally sympathetic to this type of distinction between a war and its theatres, I have to say that I've been pretty shocked at the mercilessness with which so many Seven Years' War-related articles have been hunted down and edited to fit the American nomenclature. As far as I know, the United States is the only nation to make reference to "French and Indian Wars" in its histories. As previously stated, we Canadians, as well as the Brits and French, all refer to the North American fighting as part of the "Seven Years' War" (especially since the character and outcome of our war was greatly influence by events in Europe). Germans, Austrians, Spaniards, Swedes, and Russians use the same nomenclature.


 * Again, I'm sympathetic to the name "French and Indian War", and I do understand that many Americans browse and contribute to these articles. Including links and references to the French and Indian War article whenever appropriate seems like a prima facie good idea.


 * But I do think that the current trend tends to unduly emphasize "F & I War" at the expense of "Seven Years' War", almost to the point where it seems that readers may be insulated from the European conflict. Bear in mind that the second paragraph of the Seven Years' War article explains and links to the French and Indian War.


 * The French and Indian War is explained in the body of this article. Mentioning it in the battlebox seems unwarranted, and it clutters up an otherwise aesthetic piece. If people have any passionate arguments they'd like to share for its inclusion, please do so. Albrecht 20:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Suspect source
There's a reference at the bottom of the article to "Canada, the great islam" by Donald Dillon. The title seems strange enough given the article content, and google searches for Dillon or the title haven't been showing me anything. The ISBN listed is not recognized by the Library of Congress or Amazon. -Joshuapaquin 02:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * True...and the anon who added it also added something else that was later removed. So the source has now been removed as well. Adam Bishop 04:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good day, I realize this discussion has been going on for a loooong time but my understanding is that the French and Indian War is a valid subset of the greater conflict known as the Seven Years War. It essentially lasted 5 of the 7 years (7 years being when war was declared in 1756 and the Peace of Versaille was written in 1763). I think it is fair to differentiate the two but that means setting a finite scope to what is included in the French and Indian War, and what beyond that makes up the rest of the Seven Years' War. The fact that most of the "European" world and Canada (which has been under British influence and thus impacted by British history-writers and war-namers) use the term "Seven Years War" is nothing more than in a matter of perspective and people cannot deny that a finite amount of the larger conflict consists of the French and Indian War.

Just my 2-cents.

Abraham Martin
Is it important to add that Abraham Martin was dead and that the land was not "his" as we would usually considered it, but had been his the previous century? -Acjelen 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Canadian Militia"
The first paragraph of the second section mentions "100 Canadian militia". Lower Canada didn't exist yet. Is this meant to refer to New French militia? Kimholder 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, "Canadian" is correct. "New French" could refer to the inhabitants of any French North-American colony, from Acadia to New Orleans, and isn't much use here. Albrecht 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand New France was divided in four segments: i) Acadia (now the Maritime Provinces of Canada), ii) Canada (the St. Lawrence Valley, Outaouais Valley, Richelieu Valley, Ohio Valley, and Great Lakes or "Pays-d'en-Haut"), iii) a hyphen area where the Ohio River meets the Mississippi River, and iv) Louisiana. Therefore, militia raised in the government of Canada, New France, is appropriately called "Canadian militia". One must understand that current use of the name Canada (from sea to sea to sea), does not express the same national reality as it did in New France. One can also argue that the current confusion is born from a wilful political choice to recuperate the word "Canada" to name a country that currently holds two founding European nations, whereas the original use of "Canadian" strictly meant "French colonial of a given region of New France". Enough said. lambda 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands
Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1
 * I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Any input would be very much appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Site Today
I went to Quebec and the tour guides showed us the plains but they were not real. The real plains are located under an office building and a parking lot, seriously. Rijaman 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you find a historical or accademic source to account for this?--Black Orpheus 21:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think "The Battle of the Plains" covered the 1,5 km extent of the plateau, now mostly developped land. Does this make numerical sense? 4500 soldiers in two ranks. Say a line of 2000 soldiers, shoulder to shoulder, with space between sections. Give just under a meter's width per soldier. Seems just about right. lambda 04:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Researching for improvement towards FA
As I'm trying to expand my Canadian history horizons, I came across this article and noticed that it's got a lot of potential to move towards Featured Article status (or at least to Good Article as a minimum; it's a solid article now, but could definitely be fleshed out to discuss more pre- and post-battle activities, cause and effect, etc. I've started gathering some resources and will be researching towards this over the next few weeks, with a goal of getting some writing done in January. Once I know what I'm doing (hah!), I'll post an outline and some of my thoughts here for discussion by anyone who's regularly involved with the article. Sound good, anyone? Tony Fox (arf!) 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
Good work so far. I just have a few suggestions and here they are:


 * 1) Is it possible to get an image of Wolfe apart from the one showing him dieing. Maybe a portrait seeing as you have an image for Montcalm.


 * 1) Also most editors recommend having eg pp. 39 instead of p. 39 in the inline citations.

Those are all my suggestions, good work and good luck in the future with this article. Kyriakos 06:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest requesting to get the article a formal peer review at WPMILHIST peer review deparment. Kyriakos 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments! I'll work on making some adjustments as I go along here, and look at a peer review soon. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

GA-Review
I did a couple of very small edits. Notes were changed to References, References were changed to Sources and a small fix on the External Edits. This is a very good article - covers all the points extremely well, nicely and completely referenced, well written. Congrats. Of course the next step is a formal peer review and then submission for Featured article. I would do that soonest.Peter Rehse 09:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! Thanks for the input - great to hear that the article's up to standards. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Plains of Abraham != Battle of the Plains of Abraham
There should be a separate article about the park itself, currently Plains of Abraham forwards to the entry about the battle. How does one go about getting a redirect cancelled?--Jeff 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit the redirect page, replacing the current text with whatever you think should appear in the article. The French wiki (fr:Bataille des Plaines d'Abraham) might be a good place to start. Albrecht 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've translated the Plaines d'Abraham article. Some clean-up, expansion, and inline citations are still needed. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up
The numbers in the text for Wolfe's deployment (3300) on the P of A do not match those in the box (4300). Which is it? Lafarge Dodger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafarge Dodger (talk • contribs) 15:42, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I'll take a quick look at my notes tonight and correct the infobox based on my research.


 * Any chance you can provide a reference for the paragraph you included regarding the terrain of the ground? I've tried to keep at least one reference in each paragraph. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian War Museum has an excellent display explaining how the shape of the ground played a role in the battle (which is sually the case). John Keegan also talks about the lay of the field in his book on North American forts. I'll have to dig it out. Keegan concentrates more on Wolfe's use of the bluffs to prevent flanking. Lafarge Dodger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafarge Dodger (talk • contribs) 22:39, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * The bluffs were discussed in pretty much every source I found, yeah, but none really discussed the positioning with relation to slope or rises, other than acknowledging that Wolfe was standing on one when he was wounded. Seems like a good addition if you can find that reference. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I should note that I've replaced some of the copy you removed earlier today; I hadn't noticed it until now. In the section regarding the battle, one of your edits removed a line that was sourced to Eccles, as well as the source itself which applied to a segment of text prior to that line. The effect was to leave portions of the text improperly sourced. As for the cultural references section, that was intended to be included as a "for example" kind of thing, and was a response to the previous A-Class review conducted on the article. I'm okay with it out for now, but if reviewers feel it should be reincluded, I'll look at putting it back in. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally innacurate source
This article reprint every inflated innacurate account by british imperialist propanda. Almost all of them fail to explain accuratly what happened. We have acces to at least three first hand account of the event. Townhend, Holmes letter and a soldier who was there.

Primary source, first hand witness
http://home.worldonline.co.za/~townshend/quebec1759.htm http://www.militaryheritage.com/quebec1.htm http://library.uwaterloo.ca/discipline/SpecColl/archives/holmes/holmes.html

No Magic Volley
I also know about another soldier account who speak about the mutual fire that last 10 minutes and speak of no magic volley. This British Imperialist Myth was done later by historian in London trying to make a bigger deal of this cowardly night attack that was anything but brilliant. Most of the work will be done by grapeshot canon, by the scottish regiment of Fraser (who will fail in his charge against quebec milician) and by the German and Swiss of the Royal american. What is stricking is that the soldier do not see anything unusual about the fight. It was normal fight for them. The same British regiment will be fleeing the french at the second battle of the plains of abraham 7 months later.

The charge that totally failed
The french were on retreat before any charge were ordered. All witness account explain it. The charge will not reach the retreating french army. What they will reach is defeat at the hand of the Quebec milician near the gate of the city. The scottish charge will be push back twice and will take their worst casuallity at that time according to Holmes letter itself. The charge not only did not make the french flee, it also totally failed. They push them back over the river but they did not defeat the french army. The army was protected by valliant hero. This is call retreat in good order.

The french retreat is normal
Their is nothing abnormal about a smaller army retreating from a bigger one. 30 % of the french were not equiped to charge (no sabre and no bayonnette on their gun). 4000 soldiers equip for charging against 3000 french that were devastated by grapeshot canon and had lost all their commander will not stay put. The retreat was NOT in disorder. They knew where to reach safety and they did reach it. The british charge will NEVER reach the french ranks. What they will get is a good beating by the Quebec milicia and they will RETREAT while taking canon shot in their ranks. If not for the british sadistic policies of killing the wounded the dead on each side would have been equal. 3300 french will be alive after the battle. Safely protected in their retreat by the heroism of the quebec milicia.

The only usefull canon was the english one
Their was a british canon firing grapeshot into the french fromation between the 47th and the 78th. They were shooting into the french compact formation from the start. Contrary to the British coward who were lying on the ground the whole time the french were Standing and taking grapshot canon into their rank. The 3 canons on the french side were too far and the British line was on the ground not standing making their canon completely useless. The french advance made the canon impossible to use when the fight started at what pont the British stood knowing the french canon will not reach them. NO account exist of french canon being use on Wolfe army. Because NONE were used on the plains. They will however defeat the Highlander charge near the city gate. When you have canon on your side you win. This is 18th century warfare.

Out numbered french army
The Quebec milicia was not equiped with bayonnette on their gun making the fight totally impossible for the outnumbered frenchman. On Wolfe own account his army had more professional soldier. Montcalm army was 30 % from the milicia and indians. One of his batallion, the languedoc, was of recent recruit with no experience. The best french army is not there. Lévis, Bourlamaque and Bougainville were fighting amherst in Montréal.

They attempted an attack and retreated when it failed
The french flank were totally open by the milicia who ran to the wood since they could not face a charge they were not equip to oppose. The most professional Roussillon was the worst attacked by the grapeshot of the english canon (witness account, primary source). The recruit of langedoc were the first to break rank. Like Murray army the french had two easy way to retreat. Like Murray in the second battle of the plain in April they ran for the Wall of Quebec. The British who did not sustain any canon shot were not affected. Of the only 67 dead, 3 happen in the Boat when landing. Most of our casualities happen after the battle against the quebec milicia according to Holmes letter account. This means that on the plains less then 30 were killed on the British side. This is because they were not shot at with canon and they were lying on the ground for 5 hours. (they were in place at 5 AM so until 10 AM they were lying down, the 2 first hours in the dark)

They came in Total Darkness
Every picture we see the soldier coming in full day light. This is plain wrong. The troop were all in place on the plains at 5 AM. This means that the sun will come up only 2 hours later at 7 AM. The landing, the attack, the take of the Samos Canon, the walk into the small access ramp by the whole army (exept 12) will all happen in PITCH DARK NIGHT. Since it was also RAINING. There was NO moon light. This is by no means courageous. On the 12th of july the Quebec milicia did the same Night attack on Lévis. They went totally undetected even after shooting their gun by mistake. They will be lying down even while the french advanced on them. Giving no target to the french advancing army to shoot at while receiving canon grapeshot in their rank.

The cleft in the Cliff
Only 10 or 12 soldier carried out the real attack on the post of Duvergor. It was total darkness and even at close range Duvergor could not see anything. It was MacDonald NOT fraser who climbed first and spoke french. Duvergor has NO way of seeing anything before the English were on them. The other Sentries WILL fire and kill 3 british. But what could they aim at in total darkness ? You cannot resist 4000 troups landing in the dark. The attack was the work of Colonel William Howe who will later lose the USA with is mistake. He did not climb himself he let a scott do it for him. But he will lead the attack on the Samos canon (The attack happen in the dark)

The number of dead
P. 130 of the Book Canada a popular History tell that their was 67 dead on the einglish side and 220 on the french side. This was due to a policy of killing the wounded by the english side. And the use of grapeshot BEFORE any fire was giving on the plains.

The courageous resistance by Quebec Milician is removed
The Quebec milician and Acadian Milicia (150) made three (3) stand. One in front the the Saint-Louis Gates where they stop dead a Scottish charge who crumble and ran away twice. The other was in the saint-Vanier Hill where they climbed back to protect the french retreat and where they fought until they were butchered. This prevented the english from killing the french army making it a retreat in order and while protected. 3280 french soldier left the plains alive and protected by the action of the Quebec Milicia. A third fight happened around a bakery near the river.

The battle was one hour long
The real battle happened after the firing on the plains. The totally failed scottish charges was defeated by the Quebec milician in front of Saint-Louis Gates. The french very sucessfully protected the retreat of the army by shooting their canon into the scottish charge. And Quebec milician will only be removed from the wood by the German and Swiss of the Royal american. The real British soldier never did much on that day. They let the scottish and the german do the fighting. Murray was not fooled by this. He resented Wolfe who was known to despise the scottish soldier since Culloden. Murray commented on Wolfe adulation from the British public this way : Wolfe do not deserve it. And when you know, like he did, what really happen. We know now that Wolfe did not deserve to be treated as a hero. Murray and Townhend did all the job on the plains. This is a Scottish and German victory.

The Royal american were German and Swiss Soldier
British account never mention the fact that the 60th 2 and 3 batallion were in fact 75 % of German origine (from pensylvania settlement) and Swiss from europe. It was the regiment of Haldimand and Bouquet. Even if Townhend lead them that day.

Wolfe is no hero
He came that night in total darkness and went by an easy access cleft between the cliff he knew was there. He walk in the dark into position and lay on the ground his army for 5 hours. He cowardly shot grapeshot into the french standing up army. He order fire and was shot dead. He did not lead any charge. He did not fight. He stood on the right side very far from the danger of the left side woods that he left to the scott and the german.

The consequence
20 years after the plains the British will be expelled from their american collonies by the second treaty of 1783. New France territory will be american not British. William Howe the invader that night will be soundly defeated and the British humiliated by the French Navy and Army. This battle will not decide the fate of america. This will only decide the fate of Quebec. And every body knows Quebec is a fully french city. And that Canada is not very solid. The French are still in Control of the Old Canada. Quebec 1759 was a strategic mistake that will lead to the worst british defeat of his empire at Yorktown in 1781. Each year the French Nationalist celebrates their national holliday on the Plains. Laugthing at the face of the British who wrongly beleive we lost that war. We are in full possession of Quebec and the British are long gone.

As I said before this article is to be rewritten entirely
The picture showing that the whole british army never scaled the cliff is in the link about the real witness at the battle. This picture as only ONE innacuracy. The landing happen in total darkness and while raining so their is no moon light. The drawing is not done to fool people like the present picture on the wiki site depict. benjamin west was inflating for propaganda reason. Most of the people there were not with wolfe. People who really were are not drawn. . This article is a one side point of view. This account is the British Imperialist inflated account and totally inacurate and must be replaced. Plains2007 15:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. It would appear that you have access to sources that completely disagree with basically every source that I looked at regarding this battle; I'd be interested to see the actual references you would consider to be putting these viewpoints forward, because it would be rather surprising to me to have the reports of respected historians such as Eccles be completely wrong, as you assert. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Submission for a new article or a merge
The article as it currently stand is misleading and innacurate. For the following reasons:


 * 1- the article should be about the battle only and not the siege or the war.
 * 2- the article give the personal opinion of historians, the soldiers and even the writer
 * 3- the article is misleading on many aspect of the battle
 * 4- the article is full of innacuracies and supposition that are not true
 * 5- the structure of the article don't measure up to well written battle article
 * 6- the article miss completely the fight that happen after the plain
 * 7- the article completely miss the importance of the canons
 * 8- the article is full off inacurate number based on speculation
 * 9- the article is based on dubious historians view when primary account are available
 * 10- the pictures have no historical value, this in an encyclopedia not a work of fiction
 * 11- the article contains weird comment on James Cook and the plains of today
 * 12- the article contains wild accusation of cowardice and attack of character

This is a battle article
The common structure can be found on many other well written article. (see the Battle of Culloden for an exemple of good battle article without mind reading)
 * 1- give a context of the battle alone very shortly
 * 2- give the formation in presence with all details
 * 3- describe the battle itself only with the most accurate account
 * 4- explain all the military movement while giving context to behavior
 * 5- conclude with the clear consequence of the battle alone
 * 6- when giving number allways add about
 * 7- make a strong warning that account are not allways corroborated
 * 8- remove all speech, mind reading, opinions, editorializing
 * 9- remove all picture of general since this is about the battle not them
 * 10- remove all the comment of what they should have done this is not an essay

The primary account
We have well written witness account that were written 4 days after the battle from people who were in it. The more detailed are the one of Parson Robert MacPherson and Malcom Fraser. They start from the landing and continue to the battle after the plain first fire. They corroborate each other since they were hiden personal letter and describe the same details. They are from soldiers who know about military strategy. The reference section will be amended. Most of the reference will either point to page 185 or 187 of sons of the mountain that reproduce the letter describing the battle in detail. Other will point to Montcalm original letter.


 * Holmes letters eye-witness account
 * Letters from Montcalm, Lévis, the Capitualtion from starvation

Secondary account
Carefull review should be taken with all other books because they contains innacurate information most of the time. They come from nationalistic people who have every reason to hide what is not good for their view. Most, if not all, fail to understand the real final consequence of the battle or of who William Howe is. Most of those historian can't read the french letters. The current article contains many dubious historians as if they were authority when they are not. The huge majority of them living in Ontario and are the people who has the most to hide about the real consequence of this battle. Since this will really end at Yorktown in 1781.

The most credible secondary references available
The Paths of Glory is written by the best autority on Red Coat army and battle of the 18th century. He understand the importance of darkeness and artillery and explain the line formation in Line and in column. He call Montcalm army a Motley crew since 1500 are civilians militians. Ian MacPherson McCulloch is the autority on Scottish fighter of the war. The reference for biographies that has credibility is the Canadian Biographies online :*Biographies of many participants

Point of view
The opinion of anybody is not fact, even eye-witness. It might still indicate a reason for a behavior but it will not make the statement the truth. Weasel word like routed or panicked should also be removed. The letters we have are perfect as they are. They are devoided of rewritting for after the facts knowledge.

User of Wikipedia deserves better
People who want to know what happen should be given the name of the regiment, their position, who they were. They should get the most accurate blow by blow account of the battle only. They should not be forced to read a long editorial of everybody opinion that day while getting innacurate information about the battle itself, the war and the siege...who are discussed elsewhere.

Possible merge of both version
The current article as a lot of merits and good information. The problem is that it give too many opinions that tell a one sided point of view and contains too many factual innacuracy. I have many reservation about the canadian historian given as reference who most of the time give a very bad account of this battle. I certainly don't blame anybody that get their information wrong about this battle. As the information available is full of mistake.

Wolfe order to Scalp and starvation
Wolfe provocked starvation on purpose, he said so to Amherst in a letter before the siege, starvation was not a mistake. It was intentional. Wolfe order was to scalp indians. Prisoner of the english were also butcher without mery according to Knox journal who saw Captain Montgommery do it. Fred Anderson rightly call Wolfe a terrorist.
 * Wolfe order was to scalp indians or Canadiens. dressed like Indians

They dont climb a vertical precipice
As the image provided clearly shows, only a small group of less then 20 people actually has to climb a small steep cliff. 99 % of Wolfe army including himself has an easy climb according to Parksman who explain correctly what really happen. We can clearly see this small path in the drawing of Wolfe aide who was there. John Knox credibility is very much a controversy. He spoke of a vertical precipice...that he will never have to climb. So we know he as a tendency to inflate. He's the only second hand witness to Wolfe reported last word. This make them very doubtfull as Knox is a known liar.

William Howe and Samos
William Howe light infantry dispatch to stop the canon of Samos were 400. The french were 70. The attack happen in the dark.

I will leave time to make corrections
Feel free to comment and challenge my reference and description.

Therefore, I submit the following new article or submit that a merge should be done

The context of the battle
The battle happened during the French and Indian War after a 3 month siege of Quebec city defended by General Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm, 47 years old, and the civilian governor de Vaudreuil since June 28 1759. The battle happened after the Battle of Beauport on the 31 july 1759 where the british were defeated. The british Major-General [James Wolfe] must take action as the summer is ending. Since the attack on the Beauport lines on the east side was attempted and end up in failure Wolfe considered an attack from the west side. His general urge him to attack farther west. However, James Wolfe, 32 years old, decided to launch a night attack closer to the city. From the former prisoner Stobo who was in prison just above on the plains he knew about a small access road west of the city. He also knew from two french deserters that the post is not well guarded. Since Duvergor who was guarding it let many of his men go to their field for harvest. Vaudreuil and others had expressed concern with the Foulon being a possible approach route, but Montcalm dismissed them, saying 100 men would hold off the army until daylight. He stated, "It is not to be supposed that the enemies have wings so that they can in the same night cross the river, disembark, climb the obstructed acclivity, and scale the walls, for which last operation they would have to carry ladders."

The british night landing
On the morning of the 13 september at 3 AM during the night, in complete darkness under a cloudy sky (it was raining) a first group of two boats landed on the Quebec city side of the Saint-Lawrence. It was a group of 24 light infantry soldiers and the Colonel William Howe that will first land on the bank of the river. It was a special force comprising of volonteers from many regiments. Their boats will drift to the West of the access road because of the strong current. The light infantry will climbed a cliff to reach by Captain Louis Du Pont Duchambon de Vergor french post. MacDonald of the 78th Fraser's Highlander regiment a bilingual scott (Scott jacobites were allies to the French in the previous war) will answer Duvergor call from his post. Not knowing who came in the darkness and who spoke to him in french Duvergor did not react. Still in darkness MacDonald soldiers will surprise the french sentries and make them surrender or flee. By that time the general James Wolfe with his two Brigadier-General Moncton and Murray had landed on the river bank. The upper post was cleared and they could walk by the access road. However, the british were taking fire from the other french sentries as the sentries killed 3 british in their boats.

As it was still in the dark Colonel William Howe was dispatch to attack the french batteries of canon of Samos on their left. He overrun the french who was there. The whole british army will then climb the access road in the dark. It was now 3 AM. They will proceed to the plains and make their formation in the dark and wait in the starting rain and mud. The british were order to lie on their belly on the ground to avoid taking fire from the sharpshooter in the woods. Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm on the Beauport lines 10 km away became aware of the presence of the british at 5 AM. At first he did not beleived the sentry. When he got confirmation of the landing Wolfe army was allready on the plain still the dark. The sun will only come up at 7 AM. The french army wake up and walk 10 km from the Beauport line, through a bridge on the Saint-Charles river and up the Saint-Vanier road near the city walls to reach the plains. They got to the plains at 6 AM still not in full light. The began their formation.

The british regiment formation
The british formation is given from left to right as seen on their side. In potence formation (an rotated L formation). The 2nd batallion of the 60th Royal American of german settlers from pensylvania, swiss and british officers from europe, the 15th, the 58th regiment of Anstrunter, the 78th Fraser's regiment of scottish Highlander in kilt and with broad sword (Simon Fraser himself was not present as he was wounded at the Battle of Beauport ), the 43rd and 47th Foot regiments,Bragg's regiment, 28th Foot of Lascelles, Louisbourg Grenadier consisting of portions of british regiment assembled at Louisbourg the previous year, the 35th Otway's regiment. Behind them in reserve the light infantry of Colonel William Howe, the The 3rd batallion of the 60th Royal American of german settlers from pensylvania, swiss and british officers from europe and the 48th regiment and a portion of the 58th.

Between the 47th and the 28th two field canons were firing grapeshot into the left side of Montcalm army into the Roussillon ranks. Wolfe is on foot between the 28th and the Louisbourg Grenadiers on the right far away from the wood full of sharpshooter. The british are set up in a long thin line of two soldiers deep that give no target to the french an let every soldier a clear aim to fire. The british are a total of 4400 professionals soldiers exept for the two Royal American german colonial battalion of the 60th 2nd and 3rd equiped to fight in the woods and who face the milician and the indians on the left. Those two german rangers regiment were assemble after the Braddock defeat of 1755. After the british realized they needed a unit to fight in the woods. The german wear round hat and light rangers uniforms. The grenadier wear an oval facing on their head gear. The scottish regiment of Fraser and Anstrunter wear kilt, beret and have broad sword like at the Battle of Culloden. The light infantry of Colonel William Howe are equiped to fight in the woods no for the Line fighting.

The french regiment formation
Lieutenant-Colonel de Sennezergue (Montcalm second in command) on their right, Fontbonne on the left, Malartic with Béarn, Saint-Ours, D'Argenteuil, Milicia from Montréal with Repentigny, Québec with Courtemanche and Tree-River with Boucher. Charles Langlade (a métis being half french and half ottawa) and a party of Ottawa indian (near Detroit) and indien from Michilimakinak of the present state of Wisconsin. A small cavalry of mounted milicia. Three canons that will only fired when the British line is lying on the ground before the french took the field and they could not be used anymore because they were not going to shoot over their own soldiers. Montcalm is on a black horse[26].

The french advanced in column formation because they have no choice. The plains are uneven and full of small Bushes that force the french to walk in long column giving the british canon a better target. All the french on the back are unable to fire when the fight start. The Languedoc are new recruits from europe. Jean Daniel Dumas, the hero of the victory over Braddock in 1755 is leading the quebec city milicians.

The regular colonial troop of Franche de la Marine are not present only the civilians milician are. The Montréal, Québec and Three-river milician are not equiped with bayonette or broad sabre. They are not train to fight in line formation either. This is totally new for them. They fire too soon, they don't keep the formation and they fall on the ground to reload. They are not professional european line fighters. This formation of putting the milician on each side of the french regular army is a mistake according to Malartic evaluation after the battle. As soon as the battle start the french flank are exposed since the milician go to hide in the wood after they fire their single shot. The milician are not equip to charge or defend against it. That is not what they are best at. Malartic suggest after the battle that the milician should have been put between the rank of professional line fighter. Either way they were of no use against a bayonette charge and cannot make one. On the british side the 60th of german rangers were not on the front line.

A desperate sortie
Montcalm is not planning a long battle as he don't even put a reserve behind his line. This will prevent any cover for retreat exept from his quebec milicians. This is a desperate sortie to prevent the british from digging themselves in a strong position. Montcalm can see the two field canons allready on the plain. This artillery worry him the most. If the british get more then this, his army is not going to be able to attack him. The city is starving allready and his food supply would be cut. Montcalm beleive Bougainville is too far to reach him. Vaudreuil cannot send more troops has he has to oppose a landing on the Beauport lines. Ramsey in the city don't let Montcalm take more then 4 iron canons too heavy to be move very far on the field. The decision to lauch this desperate attack is the same decision that Murray will take on the second battle of the plains in 1760. He beleive this is to be his only chance to attack before the british artillery makes it impossible. 30 % of his force are civilian milicians not even the colonial Franche de la Marine. Montcalm is facing 13 professionals regiments of the british in line formation that wait for his 5 regiments of regular in column formation. The 3 milicians batallions will never follow the line and will stay behind as they are not line fighters. Montcalm, said, “We cannot avoid the issue. The enemy is entrenching and already has two cannon. If we give him time to make good his position we can never attack him with the few troops we have.”

The battle on the plains
It is now 10 AM in full day time. From the start the British formation is harass by the sharpshooter in the woods on their left. The british line is on the ground. The Royal American of german rangers are the one who take the worst of it with the scottish 78th fraser regiment. The french advanced and fire at a lying down british thin line making the fire innefectual. When the french take the field the french canon stop. The british can stand up ,. When they are close enough the french fire first on the british thin line, followed quickly by the british line first fire. The thin line of british and the thick line of french make all the difference. The british fire is from half the soldier on the field, the french fire come only from the first smaller row, the milicia as allready fire their shot and are on the ground. The british target is a thick line of french in column formation. No bullet can miss. After two volley of the first and second row the fire become general for 10 minutes. When everybody has fire his gun the battle stop long enough to clear the smoke. The french are in retreat before any charge. The french are outnumber 4 to 3 their flank unprotected by the retreating milician who cannot fight in line battle. Senezergues, Fontbonne, Saint-Ours are either killed or wounded. Only Montcalm try to rally his man who run for the city walls. The british charge is on their back. The 78th highlanders were ordered to charge with their swords by Brigadier-General James Murray.

The battle that follow
Near the city at Saint-Louis gates a group of milician make a stand. With support of the city canon they stop the 78th fraser regiment of scottish in kilt charge. The charge is put to flee. Most of the french army reach safely the city wall the other groups run down Saint-Vanier steep road near the Saint-Jean gates. Montcalm is trying to reach the Saint-Louis gates when he is shot mortaly in the back. Montcalm, 47 years old, will die the next day.

Near Saint-Jean Gates another group of milician fire on the charging british. On the Saint-Charles river bridge Pierre de Vaudreuil can see the stream of french soldier running for cover. The hulk near the river fire their canons into the Scottish charges. Vaudreuil urge the french soldier to go back but only the Quebec milician listen to him. The french who sustained heavy fire on the plain are in no mood to continue. Their leader are all dead and they would not follow this colonial Governor who as no military training. But the milician will.

200 volonteers quebec milician with some acadians go back into the fight and climb the Saint-Vanier road to protect the french army retreat. Their combine fire stop the charging scott ex-jacobite twice. Discusted the scott send the 60th of german rangers and the 48th of the british to clear the woods. After a hard fight the outnumbered milician fall back down the Saint-Vanier road. Where they reach a backery for their last stand. The british open fire with canon on them and they slauther them almost to a man. James Wolfe orders was to kill the wounded milician even if they were helpless and on the ground. They would only save the french officer. The british were still remembering how the milician had humiliated them repeatedly at Braddock's defeat in 1755 and at the Battle of Carillon in 1758. Where the milician had slauther the charging 42th regiment of the BlackWatch in a fair fight.

The arrival of Bougainville
The fight will last about an hour, when the quebec milician make their last stand the army of Bougainville 2000 troups arrive on the plains from the East. Georges Townshend and the 3rd batallions of germans settler from the 60th and the british 48th that were both in reserve behind the Line fighting have now two canons and a better position on the field. Bougainville know the battle is over and the british are in a strong position with artillery. He safely go aroung them to reach Vaudreuil.

Vaudreuil combined with Lévis
Vaudreuil held a concil of war with his staff on the Beauport lines. He want to attack the british on the plains but the other officer vote to leave the city and combined their forces with Lévis's who come from Montréal. The Beauport lines are evacuated at 9 PM. Vaudreuil who was not in the fight and who is not a soldier himself wanted to attack immediatly. The french are in no state to start again. Starved and demoralised they prefer to wait for Lévis and fight another day. Many of their best leader are killed and Montcalm is mortally wounded. Lévis march is army from Montréal to Quebec city until he reach the Jacques-Cartier River. With Vaudreuil they plan to retake the city immediatly. Vaudreuil had given the order to Jean-Baptiste-Nicolas-Roch de Ramezay in Quebec city to surrender on the 20th.

The Quebec city capitulation because of starvation
To their dismay Ramsey, a scott, surrender the city on the 18th. Townshend could not beleive his luck. In a vote inside the city Ramsey and the french officer explain that the city is starving and could not last for 3 more days. The city is full of starving civilians caused by the scorched earth criminal policies of Wolfe. Women and children are dying of starvation. Townshend enter the city on the 18th. John Knox's journal who was with the 47th describe a terrible scene of destruction and starvation after the three month siege and the policies of Wolfe to burn the civilian farms around Quebec city. The city was not taken during the battle but 4 days later it will capitulated to protect its civilian population who cannot be submitted to a siege.

The aftermath
Lévis will defeat the very same regiment seven month later in Battle of Sainte-Foy on April 27th 1760. Murray will take the same decision that Montcalm took. Murray, a scott, decided to leave the city and fight outside to prevent a siege he could not sustain. This time it's the british soldier who flee in front of the french to reach the city walls. Only the arrival of the english fleet turn the tide in favor of the british. Unable to make a siege Lévis go back to Montreal under the protection of Jacques Vauquelin ships. Totally outnumber the french cannot fight. New France surrender in Montréal without a last battle. At Montréal that September, Lévis and 2,000 troops confronted 17,000 British and American troops. The French capitulated on September 8, 1760, and the British took possession of Montreal. The Treaty of Paris that was signed in 1763 to end the war gave temporary possession of New France to Great Britain. This first treaty will soon be replaced with the second Treaty of Paris(1783).

France real intention
France was outnumbered badly in america. The population was 1,2 millions english against 80 000 french people. But in Europe, France was 20 millions against england 7 millions. France decided to win the war in Europe since it was impossible in america. So in 1759 France had made a plan to invade England. The minister Belle Isle will explain to Bougainville that France cannot send more troops in Québec. First, they cannot pass the British Navy. But most importantly they needed the troops to invade England. This was the expédition particulière troops. The plan will fall when the french fleet of Toulon will be defeated in the Battle of Lagos and the Brest fleet will be defeated in the Battle of Quiberon. But France will only lose in Europe when the Russian pro-french Queen will die in 1761. At that time, the russian were defeating the german of Frederick II and were at the gate of Berlin. Frederick II was suicidal, England was broke. This last set back terminated France hope of winning in Europe. But this expedition particulière will still defeat england. Since this is the expedition that was sent to america to help Washington army. The Belle Isle plan will finaly succeed at Yorktown in 1781.
 * France wanted to invade England in 1759 they only asked Montcalm to hold as long as he could

The political consequence
Taking Quebec and the New France territory soon become a terrible burden for the British. William Pitt the elder is expelled from the negotiation in 1763. The British negotiatior John Russel (4th Duke of Bedfort) as many reservation about keeping quebec. If we replace the french in north american the american will have no need of us. Choiseul, the french negotiator knows it too. The american will soon turn against the british themselves. Even Murray want to give Quebec back to the french. But the british are pushed by the americans to keep Quebec. The result will soon become a disaster for the British. With the rising cost of the war the British will start taxing the american. But without a foreign enemy the British are not usefull. The British Empire will lose the entire New France territory at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 and in the second Treaty of Paris in 1783. The policies of assimilation of the french will also end up in failure. Today, the american don't consider Wolfe as a hero anymore. His personal friend William Howe will become the worst enemy of Georges Washington and the american patriot throughout the revolution (Bunkerhill 1775, New York 1776 and Philadelphia 1777). William Howe mistake to not support Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 will prove the decisive mistake for the British. As the french will enter the War because of it. William Pitt the elder who planned the invasion of Quebec will crumble in parlement in april 1778 when he realized the french were beating him in america. He will never recover from it and will die a month later. This dramatic turn of event is the object of the famous painting the death of Lord Chatham. The expelled and defeated british monarchist will have to move north.


 * Judging by your partisan opinons and your lousy grammar, I'm guessing your an angry, hardcore Frenchman who just can't admit that his ancestors got beaten by a Brit. I guess you're right and everybody else is wrong? 216.232.154.4 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The above suggestions
Somehow, I didn't see these on my watchlist when they were posted. I feel like a twit. I've asked for further assistance in the form of editors from the WikiProject Military History; it looks like there are some items that could be incorporated. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. The article would benefit by adding inline citations directly after the quotations, but overall, the article is well-sourced. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

3 Month Seige
At the beginning of the article, the battle's duration was labeled as 3 months. However, it actualy was over in less than an hour, and the British emerged victorius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilord17 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Once they got up the cliff, yes. They conducted a naval siege before that. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've gone through the first half of the article and basically improved the prose, which was a little awkward in places. I didn't substantively change any facts or the order in which they were presented. Nonetheless, I think the article as it stands is not very well organised. In the middle of the description of the French deployment, for example, we get a long excursus on French Canadian militia tactics. I think the sections of the article should be as follows - 1. Overview 2.Background on the SYW and Siege  3.Combatants (incl. brief things on the French commanders, British commanders, French units, British units, obviously with links to their respective pages)  4.The descent on L'Anse-au-Foulon  5.Deployment (Fr & Br)  6.Battle  7.Aftermath  8.Historical significance  9.Popular culture etc. As it is, the interlacing of these elements into one continuous narrative is not very encyclopaedic. I'm impressed at the sourcing, though, I must say. Anyway, I'll try some recrafting along these lines in the next while, unless there are objections. Jack (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No complaints here; when I did the big rewrite last year, I kept the same general order as the article was in at the time. I'll be interested to see what you do. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to say that the changes made to the page since my last visit is welcomed. The tone is different and the accuracy is better. However, some parts are still, I beleive, innacurate or misleading.

Questionable use of propaganda painting
I still find it odd that wikipedia would still publish a known forgery as a picture for this battle as a real drawing from a real witness is available. I don't know why the general picture appear here either since it's about the battle not them. Wolfe didn't do much but climb an easy slope and die that day. It is colonel William Howe who took the sentries and the Battery of Samos. The latter will become public enemis #1 for the american of Washington at Bunker Hill 1775, the invasion of New York in 1776 and Brandywine 1777. In the later he will be responsible for the lost of Saratoga (and by this america) because he went the wrong way. That is not a small detail.

Pierre de Vaudreuil is not a soldier
For the sake of Pierre de Vaudreuil we have to explain that he is a civilian governor and not a soldier at all. The Vaudreuil who take Oswego rambo style is his brother Pierre-François who was leading the Compagnie France de la Marine until he was taken and jailed in Halifax in 1755.

The civilian Pierre de Vaudreuil (Cavagnal) is not taking any decision alone. He confer with his officer who in a vote decide what to do. Each time Vaudreuil vote to fight but not his general. That's how they decided to leave to join Lévis. The plan was to attack later on the 18th but Ramsay surrender too fast. The voted was about the security and health of the civilian in the city who had nothing to eat thanks to Wolfe decision to burn the farms around Québec. Famish cause on purpose by Wolfe is what made Quebec surrender. And by the way Vaudreuil was not alone in blaming Montcalm. Every historian since agree with him and even the general of Montcalm.

The planed invasion of England in 1759
As for the naval battles of Quiberon and Lagos those ships and troops were intended to invade England in 1759 not to come to help Montcalm. This was called the Expédition Particulière and was yet another attempt by France to attack England. That expedition will serve the same purpose in 1779 and 1780 to scare the English to stay in Britain water. Eventually this secret operation will land in America to free the american from the English. You can find information about the american part on Xenophon web site. The part in 1759 is on a french historian site on Marianopolis history class in Montréal. It makes a lot of sense that France gave up in american and try to win in Europe.

The Royal German American
Two regiments of german colonist were on the plains. The so-called Royal-American were german from the rhine river who settled in america who were better suited to fight in the wood. After the disaster of Braddock those german were used for that purpose. The british raised those german american to fight against quebeckers on the left of Wolfe's army. Their leader were swiss protestant like Bouquet and Haldimand. (both not on the plain that day)

Misleading the casual reader
One would think that this invasion made the british victorious in america. The opposite is true. This invasion will become a terrible pain and a tragedy for those who did it. This invasion will lead to the fall of the british empire in america at their defeat against French and American at Yorktown in 1781. You should add as a consequence the treaty of 1783 who will so obviously replace the temporary treaty of 1763.

The invasion of Canada
One final note, this was the invasion of Canada. The territory of New France refers to the entire french territory of that time. All civilians in the city and region called themselves proudly Canadien (the old name for Québécois). New France will actually still be french as long as 1803 when France get it back to sell to their allies the american. As for the Ohio valley it will be liberated by french with Clark in 1781. So it would be misleading to tell this was not called Canada since it was call that way by everybody at that time and will continue to mean french people in quebec until 1960. In France the trial was called L'affaire du Canada.

I will not touch anything, I will leave you the information. Again, I thank whoever changed the article to make it a better read and more accurate. Sorry if my comment seems too angry. Actually I think the article is much better now. I would leave you guys to incoporate the information if you want. In the meantime good work for the rewriting... (Plains2007 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks again for the information. Could you please provide reliable sources for what you have described here? For example, none of the references I have ever read refer to any German colonists on the field of battle, and considering one of them included a specific order of battle that I referred to, I'm surprised that it was not referred to at all. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Description of the German in the Royal American 60th on the Plains of Abrahams
http://www.militaryheritage.com/60thregt.htm (Plains2009 (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Seperate article for the campaign?
Is there an article that describes the Quebec campaign in full? At the moment there are several one-off battles with articles such as this action and the Battle of Beauport, but not one that covers the entire siege. Would there be any support for the creation of a Siege of Quebec (1759) or a Quebec Campaign to offer an overview of all the operations around Quebec that year? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In fact, I began working on this not too long ago:
 * Bibliographie du siège de Québec de 1759 (French and English sources: there is a lot online, in full or in preview)
 * Chronologie de la Bataille des Plaines d'Abraham (is still a draft. May to Sept. 1759)


 * Siege of Quebec (1759) seems to me like the natural placeholder.


 * Since I am planning to write a full article on the subject, I ordered two books from Amazon:
 * 1. Guy Frégault. La Guerre de la Conquête, Montréal : Fides, 1955, 514 p.
 * 2. Charles Perry Stacey. Quebec, 1759: The Siege and The Battle, Toronto : MacMillan, 1959, 210 p.
 * I should be receiving them shortly. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice! I'm going to try and motivate myself to give this article a once-over for style, formatting, et al and see if it's ready for FA sometime in the near future. With the anniversary this year, might be nice to have it polished up. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, things always get more complicated than they should... Turns out I did not order Guy Frégault. La Guerre de la Conquête, I pre-ordered the new edition that is coming out only at the end of this year! I was unable to find a copy in used books stores (tried two) and in the Grande Bibliothèque, they have their copies in the Collection nationale, meaning they cannot be taken out of the building but only consulted on site. I did however borrow a copy of Charles Perry Stacey. Quebec, 1759: The Siege and The Battle. I have it for three weeks. The only good news is that I ended up purchasing a book that just came out this year and that will probably be the most useful source of all: Jacques Lacoursière and Hélène Quimper. Québec, ville assiégée. 1759-1760. It is kind of like a 270-page calendar with entries for almost every day between Jan. 1759 and Sept. 1760. On the left-side column of each page you get excepts of letters, journal entries, etc. written by the protagonists and witnesses, and on the narrower right-side column are the sources of the excerpts. Although the book is in French, it could be said to be "bilingual" because the original language is preserved for each excerpt. Even the old spelling is preserved. So I am back to my Chronologie du siège de Québec de 1759, which focuses on the period between May and Sept. 1759. -- Mathieugp (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Highland charge defeated by Quebecois militia?
That definitely did not happen.

By this do you mean that the account of the stand by some militia on the Coteau St. Genevieve during the retreat is fiction? Was there a stand at the boulangerie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Cook (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The section on Howe
I've removed this section again, for two reasons: one, it's written in a very fractured manner, and two, the majority of it has absolutely no relevance to his actions in this particular battle. That information might be reasonably used in his article, but not in this particular article. User:Plains2007, please avoid calling good-faith edits vandalism. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Restigouche?
Why is there no mention of Battle of the Restigouche in the aftermath? It seems to me that this resupply attempt, while arguably insufficient under the circumstances, deserves at least as much mention as Battle of Quiberon Bay does concerning France's ability to resupply New France.

And while I'm here, I'm surprised this article passed a MILHIST ACR without someone saying that it lacks any stage-setting background. Where and when did all these troops come from? Who sent them, and for what purpose? These are questions I'd expect an A-class article to answer, at least in summary form.  Magic ♪piano 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I'm going to try and pound on this thing for a while in the next few days, I'll look at that. I'm fairly sure I did discuss the background at one point when I did the rewrite, but things have been shifted around since then. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as I look it over quickly, there's definitely a section been taken out; an editor who did some major revamps to bring some French perspective may have lost that along the way. I'll look through the history and see if I can find it again. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Quebec under siege" section, which explained most of the setup, was blanked by a vandal back in April of last year, and nobody noticed, including me. I feel silly now. =P it's back, though! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That would certainly explain it...  Magic ♪piano 13:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting some editing
Okay, so as my part of WP:NODRAMA, I'm going to get off my arse and try to clean up some of the somewhat enthusiastic editing that's gone on here over the last year while I've been distracted. Basically, my intention is to clean up the prose, adjust any issues as I find them, and hopefully have it prettied up enough for a FA attempt shortly.

One edit I've just made to start it off was to change the number of forces listed in the infobox. The ones I removed were referenced to a book by Peter McLoad, but they were at odds with pretty much every other source out there; I felt that going back to the original numbers was the best. I'll try and find my notes again (wish me luck, and someone send an avalanche dog if I'm not heard from for a day or so) to source that, but for now I think it's better to go with the more recognized numbers.

I'll bring up any other issues that might need some commentary as I come across them. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to point out that some translations are under way. I wrote these over the past several months:


 * fr:Siège de Québec de 1759 => User:Mathieugp/drafts/Siege of Quebec (1759)
 * fr:Bataille de Beauport => User:Mathieugp/drafts/Battle of Beauport
 * fr:Bataille des Plaines d'Abraham => User:Mathieugp/drafts/Battle of the Plains of Abraham


 * User:Magicpiano has already copy-edited the first two. I just need to go back to them for some fix-ups using my copy of Stacey's. Regarding the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, as you can see, I did quite an extensive rewrite of it. In the French Wikipedia, the article was really poor so I ditched it completely, hence the re-write However in English Wikipedia, there will be a need to do a merge of both articles. In my opinion, the current live article suffers from incompleteness, lacks focus on the battle itself (digressions), is made of narration and comments rather than plain neutral description of events as they unfold, etc. I find a lot of what is written belongs to the more general article of the Siege of Quebec of 1759 I just wrote.


 * I also produced this from the Appendices section of Stacey's:


 * User:Mathieugp/drafts/Order of battle at the Siege of Quebec in 1759


 * I should be done with the translation of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham this week, or maybe even this weekend, since I am now apparently suffering from insomnia... ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the incompleteness, but I do agree the work done by Plains2007 in a few places wandered off of neutral. I'm not quite sure what you think should be replaced by the Siege of Quebec article. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Plains2007's edits in the article were not exactly neutral in tone and aimed to make a point. I believe that it is possible however to account for what he was trying to show all the while remaining carefully detached from the subject.
 * I am pretty much done with my translation to English, although it still needs to be copy-edited (by a native English speaker) and references from MacLoed's book need to be re-inserted (since I wrote the French article from the French translation of his work and the page numbers do not match). This is what is live in the French-language Wikipedia now. Feel free to review it when you have time and let me know how in your opinion we can merge all this information. Personally, I think we will need to move out some of the current article's contents to a detailed "Siege of Quebec" article, for which I already have a skeleton already. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There looks to be some information from the translation that could be brought in, but it also appears to have quite a lot of minute detail that would seem to be a little too much. I could be wrong. I'm still confused as to what you think should be moved to the siege article - I replaced the section on what happened in the run up to the battle because someone said it was necessary, so removing a lot of that would leave this without some key information. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I often felt the section on "Food supply" might be too long. I was meaning to show that supply was already a problem and that an important convoy was expected the night of the landing. I think the section could be made shorter without removing vital information. But I would not know what to remove from the other sections, although it may be possible to review for concision. Concerning this article, basically, what I think should be moved out of it is everything that is under "Siege of Quebec", and "Aftermath" which pertain more to the whole year of 1759 (and even 1760) than to the events leading to the battle on September 13 and the immediate consequences of it. These sections summarize a whole lot of events in a few sentences, which is fine, but would be more appropriate in a general article on the siege of 1759 than a specific article on the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, the "Siege of Quebec" section is in here because there needs to be some level of explanation as to where the troops came from, why they were in the area, and how they moved into place prior to the battle. It could be polished down a little, I suppose, and a more detailed version presented in the new article - this is a very much summarized version of the pre-battle siege, of course, and there's plenty of work that can be done to expand on that aspect of the conflict. I believe when I did the rewrite, I included that and the Aftermath section to match up with other articles on battles. (I should note that this article, with that information, did pass a MilHist A-Class review where a number of these points were discussed.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there must be a section on the Siege of Quebec, which provides context. However, now that we have (or are on the way of having) a full article on the Siege of Quebec, this section providing context can be a summary. In other words, it can open with For more details on this topic, see Siege of Quebec (1759). and be followed by two or three paragraphs recalling prior events. (A more general context being also available in French and Indian War.) I mean the same thing for the Aftermath section. Right now, the subject of the Siege and the Battle of September 13 are sort of fused together. This fusion is what, I believe, must have prompted User:Lord Cornwallis to suggest "an article that describes the Quebec campaign in full" on 23 February 2009. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm curious: What's Borneman's basis for revising the French casualties upwards so dramatically? I notice the monograph is quite recent (2007); is this enough time for us to determine that his figures met the approval of scholarly reviewers? Or, on the contrary, is it not best to present the widely-accepted ~600-700 casualty figures until the issue is resolved in Borneman's favour? Albrecht (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "widely-accepted ~600-700 casualty figures" should be presented for the reason stated by Albrecht, but also because McLeod's book, which was published in 2008, uses those same figures. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will say that this is random but somebody wrote Green Day as the title instead of preparations. I consider this vandalism and it should be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristian Zoppa (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Plan for 2010
In reference to the discussion in the above section (Starting some editing), I propose the following plan:


 * The contents of the current Battle of the Plains of Abraham article is merged into a new and improve Siege of Quebec (1759) article based on User:Mathieugp/drafts/Siege of Quebec (1759).
 * The draft User:Mathieugp/drafts/Battle of the Plains of Abraham (with an augmented intro + whatever changes and amendments are deemed necessary) becomes the new Battle of the Plains of Abraham article.

What do you guys think? -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your rewrites are very detailed, but I note that they seem to rely on one or two specific texts - the proposed Battle article is almost entirely out of the MacLeod book. Can I suggest that you invite some oversight from WP:MILHIST with regards to your proposals? This article did pass one of their A-class reviews, though it needs some updating and revamping as it stands. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think (based on the amount of material) that the siege and the battle(s) should be kept as separate articles. This would allow the context in this article (and Battle of Beauport) to be compressed.  I also concur with Tony that more sources should be used (at least as evidence that they have been consulted in preparation of the article).  This can probably be achieved (at least with respect to this article) by merger; the siege article is essentially a new contribution and can be expanded or modified with additional sources later.  (I frequently use only one or two sources when I start an article...)  Magic ♪piano 15:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Tony Fox: Yes, we can invite some oversight from WP:MILHIST. How do we go about doing this?
 * @ Tony Fox & Magicpiano: Regarding sources, I agree that a diversification is needed. As suggested by Magicpiano, the merge will lead to a certain diversification by itself. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history inviting interested parties to comment here.  Magic ♪piano 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The diagram "plains2009.jpg" is messy and inaccurate. E.g. the British deployment is all over the place; the 60th were in red not green jackets in 1759. Should it be deleted? Graeme Cook (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Diagram deleted.

Graeme Cook (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Did a Quebecoise write this?
This is not an entirely objective article, and the tone of the bias sounds suspiciously like Separatist propaganda. Please blow up Quebec to prevent them from vandalising the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.62.237 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This type of incendiary comment has no place in a civilized discussion (reason for strikeout). --Skol fir (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
It says in the info box that 1200 were wounded plus 200 killed. Then in the aftermath section it says the French lost 664 and the British some 656, which, considering that the British had only regulars and the French had mostly militia, would be a tactical French victory. Can someone therefore sort this out?

Did the French lose 1400 men or not? If not, then the aftermath should explain how the equal 600 casualties suffered by both still meant a British victory. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I returned it to the traditional numbers. As discussed above ("Starting some editing"), one author has recently used 1,200 for the number of French casualties but it is not clear that this is widely accepted. Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Inset depicting William Howe
I'm relatively new to this, but isn't the inset depicting William Howe actually a depiction of Sir William Johnson? In Wlliam Johnson'd article it is covered and these articles would support that - http://www.gallery.ca/bulletin/num7/stacey1.html & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_William_Johnson,_1st_Baronet Is this enough to edit that particular section of the article?Rattusnorvegicus (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "decisive"?
I think there is a problem with listing the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (BPOA) as a "Decisive British victory" when both the article itself and the entry for the Battle of Sainte-Foy acknowledge that a much bloodier battle was fought in nearly the same place (Sainte-Foy) the following year after the BPOA. I think the two articles need to be reconciled as the entry for the BPOA is in conflict with the entry for the Battle of Sainte-Foy. Even in this entry for the BPOA it lists the British Naval victory off France's Quiberon Bay as "the decisive battle for this part of New France." So either the BPOA was decisive (which the two articles do not seem to support as written) or Quiberon Bay was and the BPOA should simply be listed as a "British victory." Either the text of the two articles is wrong (calling into question their source material) or the conclusion is wrong. Surely it is only by including elements of opinion that the term "decisive" could be applied here? ERWalton (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Being bloodier doesn't make it more decisive. The British took Quebec at the Plain of Abraham and still held it after the Battle of Sainte-Foy in which the French failed to achieve their goals (not decisive) and the British barely survived (not decisive). Rmhermen (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Time to reawaken this I think; given latest reverts. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will merely observe that the use of phraseology other than simple "X victory" or "Inconclusive" is apparently now more formally discouraged, probably due at least in part to repeated edit-warring over the inclusion of debatable terms such as "Decisive". See the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict (relevant modifications were made in 2017 after some debate).  Magic ♪piano 16:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to see we're getting somewhere with this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions
I have been told a few things about this battle that, if verifiable, should be in the article.

One is that Montcalm repeatedly asked for reinforcements from France and was denied them. e,g. has "as Berryer, Minister of Marine, said to Bougainville, with the house on fire in France, they could not take much thought of the stable in Canada."

Another is often framed as a trivia question. With both Wolfe & Montcalm dead, the two seconds in command negotiated the formal surrender; what language did they do that in? The answer is claimed to be Gaelic since both were Scots, of course with a Catholic Highlander for the French. 99.224.165.88 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hibbert 1964?
Ref #14 points to a "Hibbert 1964". Is this a typo for "Hibbert 1959", or was there another work by Hibbert that hasn't been included in the Bibliography? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Engraving at British Museum - Windsor Castle
When I was a teeneager visiting England, namely Windsor Cast le, I came across this engraving celebrating what was a considered a great victory for the English i.e. Museum number 1849,1003.7. Description:
 * View of the St Lawrence river sweeping into the right foreground around Cape Diamond, with British troops rowing up from Cape Rouge to a breach in the cliff on the left, below a gun battery, while the defeated French troops are rowed from the cliff past the sloop of Captain York of the Royal Artillery, the Hunter sloop and the Leostaff frigate, towards Colonel Williamson's battery at Point Levy on the opposite bank on the right;

Is there a way of including this picture in the article itself and the wonderful appreciation it represents?TonyMath (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Old draft
I found what I think was a 2009 draft for this page that kind of vanished before this one started, now at Draft:Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Could someone check it against this version? It cites the same MacLeod book but with different page citations but I don't know. If so, be sure to cite that page for attribution purposes and we can redirect it afterwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (Repeating here what I wrote to Ricky81682 on his talk page a few minutes ago.)
 * Good move. This very advanced draft should have been turned into an actual Wikipedia article a long time ago... somewhere in 2010...


 * Basically, this draft is the English translation of what is already live at Bataille des plaines d'Abraham since (apparently) the 14th of July 2009. That complete rewrite was possible in the French-language Wikipedia because the initial content was very weak, contrary to what was (and what still is) at Battle of the Plains of Abraham.


 * I would still suggest what I suggested on January 23, 2010 on the Talk page of Battle of the Plains of Abraham. I doubt that I will find time to work on this myself any time soon... it would be awesome if someone wanted to pick up where I left off... more than 6 years ago! :-) --Mathieugp (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Battle of the Plains of Abraham. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-of-quebec.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.edhomme.com/pagecat.asp?annee=2008&codecat=ca&no=33&saison=Automne&page=28
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805150203/http://www.warmuseum.ca:80/cwm/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/battleground/clash-of-empires/introduction-the-seven-years-war to http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/battleground/clash-of-empires/introduction-the-seven-years-war
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908191344/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/encyclopedia/BattleofthePlainsofAbraham.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/encyclopedia/BattleofthePlainsofAbraham.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315222723/http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006320 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006320

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) 23:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of Quebec City.svg