Talk:Battle of Lake George/Archives/2019/September

Untitled

I disagree with the definition of this battle as a Pyrrhic victory for the British. Such a victory, by Wikipedia's definition, would involve a devastating loss to the victor. By the amount of estimated/possible casualties, the British victory cost them about 20% of their forces. I do not think that the losses were devastating, as the approximately 80% remaining forces managed to consolidate their gains by advancing a considerable distance down the lake and establishing a fort. The French suffered a similar number of casualties during the battle. Technically this would be considered a draw/stalemate. As the article says, the strategic result of this battle favored the British greatly. If the French were victorious, British forces would have been pushed back to Albany, benefiting French forces greatly. At this time I will not make any changes in order to prevent controversy. If nobody has any objections three days from now, I will attempt to find a more reasonable definition for this battle. CelticMarauder (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has voiced any objections, I will now change the definition of the British victory in the infobox. It will now be described as Tactically Inconclusive/British Strategic Victory. I believe that this is an accurate description because, although the British did not fully achieve all their objectives, they did manage to set back French operations in this area for nearly two years, until the French victory in the Battle of Fort William Henry. Also, as I mentioned before, the British did not suffer devastating losses. If anybody disagrees, please mention it here for further discussion. CelticMarauder (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly disagree; since Johnson's objective was to take Fort St. Frederic, its seems to me that the French won a strategic victory. "Johnson has been severely criticised for not moving forward to the capture of Crown Point." 84.23.155.84 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)