Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane

Catherine Lundy?

I have always been told by my teacher that Catherine Lundy is a very importanat figure at Lundy's lane, However, there seems to be no article about her, and I don't know enough to actually start it, so could someone please do that? Only a suggestion, but...--Johanna451940 00:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Catherine Lundy opened her home to wounded British soldiers at the Battle of Niagara Falls. This was unique as most women simply hid from war, and most certainly saved lives and demonstrated the loyalty of the people of Canada. 2607:FEA8:E5D:8100:2553:510C:35B8:4E2B (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Catherine Lundy was born in the late 1700s to Elizabeth Garvey and Lieutenant Daniel Shannon of the British army. As a teen, she married Thomas Lundy, with whom she would eventually have eight children. They settled at Lundy Lane, just one mile west of Niagara Falls. On July 25, 1814, British soldiers passed her house on their way to meet the Americans. Rather than fleeing with everyone else, she provided them with water after their 14-mile march. Furthermore, as a battle broke out just one mile east of her property, she opened her home to tend to the wounded. The British army was so appreciative of her help that one officer gave her his sword as a thanks. Catherine Lundy died in the middle of the 19th century, going down in history as a "saint". 2607:FEA8:E5D:8100:2553:510C:35B8:4E2B (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

American Decision to Retreat

Langmann's edit summary of September 8 claims:

There is no evidence the Americans were worried about additional British forces, rather they were worried about resupply due to lack of support from Cmdore Chauncey. Read Graves before publishing op.

I need hardly mention that it is not acceptable practice to demand that contributors base their edits on any single source among the hundreds that may cover a given topic, especially when more recent publications exist. Both Zuehlke (Zuehlke, Mark. The Canadian military atlas: the Nation's battlefields from the French and Indian Wars to Kosovo. Toronto, Stoddart Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0-7737-3289-6) and Chartrand (also employed by the Department of National Defence) affirm that the American retreat was based at least in part on the knowledge that British reinforcements were forthcoming.

I've rather meekly stated, "The Americans may also have realized that they would soon be perilously outnumbered by additional British forces in the vicinity." There's no justifying the removal of this information given the manner in which I presented it. Albrecht 04:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Langmann replies:

- Those sources are also discussed in Grave's book. Much of the British/Canadian perspective is based upon Drummond's report, which is incredibly biased and much an attempt to cover his shortcomings which would be further demonstrated in his supreme failure at Fort Erie.

You are confusing the American withdrawal due to additional British forces in the vicinity with what was happening later in the east where British forces were coming in from the finished European theatre. In this actul battle, there is no evidence based upon American records that they were that worried about futher British forces but rather that they had lost so many officers, had suffered a large amount of attrition, and had no hope of being reinforced by Commodore Chauncey that they had retreat to Fort Erie and await further orders and supplies. In fact Ripley (now in command due to Brown's injuries) discovered that some 1000 Americans reinforcements were waiting at Chippawa.

Brown later ordered Ripley to return to the field of battle and attempt to defeat the British. Ripley did not do so since he felt that his army was in serious danger of being overstretched without supply and effective officers. Therefore they withdrew.

Zuehlke seemed to indicate that on top of Drummond's 1,600 men and Riall's 1,000, there was a third British force nearby at Ten Mile Creek (1,000 regulars), but he isn't clear on whether any of these were committed during the engagement. The reinforcements he speaks of may indeed have been those along the general front, i.e. based in Quebec City. But the broad concept of the Americans being in danger of losing numerical parity if they remained in Canada, minus the phrase "in the vicinity", remains essentially unchanged.

They were not particularly worried about British reinforcements, there is no evidence for that from American reports. Since Graves bases his book upon the actual data, I think we should believe him. His book is the definitive source in this particular case.

Probably. Of course, it's rather presumptuous of you to categorically denounce every other historian's methodology as inferior by default. Simply stating that Ripley may have feared British reinforcements seems more reasonable than trying to affirm that Ripley wasn't at all worried about British reinforcements.

What is often not mentioned is that the British also withdrew to Queenston and did not follow the American army until several days later. They were also suffering from the same problems that the Americans were.

The article describes both armies as equally exhausted, and of course, the casualties indicate as much (quite compellingly). Don't hesitate to add emphasis to this matter if you think it presently lacking.

What really caused the Americans to quit this front was not Lundy's Lane, in fact Drummond seriously botched Fort Erie so that wasn't really a factor either, but rather that the eastern front was being rapidly enforced by the British. The later invasions and burning of Washington left this front, which was generally a feint at best, out of mind.

I agree that Canada was generally no longer imperiled by 1814. However, that doesn't mean that the Americans couldn't have enjoyed immense local success in the Niagara theatre if successful at Lundy's Lane. Lake Erie was already mare nostrum. They held both flanks of the Niagara River at Fort Erie and Fort George. Had the Americans defeated Drummond's army on the night of July 22, I doubt the British could have offered effective resistance before Burlington.

Anyhow add what you want, but I see no reason to remove large parts of the article I contributed to, which is what you did.

Looking back, I may have been too hasty in my deletions. Drummond's failure to screen his guns, for instance, should definitely be mentioned. However, I feel I should remind you that much of your contribution was either unencyclopaedic (overuse of Harvard referencing) or POV ("Graves is the best/most accurate, etc." – your opinion, unless you care to present a historical journal in which the leaders of academia have voiced their consensus).

Let me also point-out that your own reversions have removed some of my stylistic and grammatical improvements, i.e. "Lundy's Lane was characterized by messy fighting in close quarters" vs. "It was messy fighting in close quarters."

Moreover declaring it a "Canadian victory" is really erroneous because Canada was not a real entity, rather this was a British American war more than anything.

Let's not go building objections on chimeras and technicalities. It's pretty clear in context that "Canada" alludes to the collective socio-cultural identity of Britain's central North American colonies (known as the Canadas since 1792), not to "a Dominion established by the Confederation of four British provinces in 1867." However, since most of the soldiers involved were in fact British rather than Canadian, the distinction – not affecting substance – could be useful.

Saying that this battle halted the American advance into upper canada and was likely a British strategic victory even though the battle itself was a British tactical loss is acceptable, and Graves seems to agree as he says as much.

I doubt the results of the battle favoured the Americans enough to justify crediting them with a "tactical victory".

The Battle of Jutland, for instance, is a well-known case of the British losing tactically but winning strategically: a much larger British fleet was savagely handled by the Kriegsmarine, which suffered only about a third and a half of British casualties in men killed and in tonnage, respectively (tactical). But the Germans then fled back to Baltic waters, leaving the British fleet intact and in control of the Atlantic (strategic).

The reasoning involved needs little explanation, and the strategic results hardly differ from those of Lundy's Lane. In 1814, however, the British weren't markedly more numerous than their enemies, and didn't suffer many more casualties. Instead, two roughly equal forces mauled each other almost to the point of dissolution before staggering away through shadows and smoke. The next day, neither battered army held the field, and neither was in any condition to fight. Surely, the previous version's "indecisive" was most in harmony with the facts.

To deal with sources: part of what makes Wikipedia so unreliable and unacceptable as a source is the lack of references. I have out of courtesy viewed your references and they are seriously lacking as are many publications about Lundy's Lane (it seems an aura of myth more than reality permeates this particular historical event), in fact one reference you quote covers Lundy's Lane in a single paragraph. (Cdn Military Atlas).

Wrong. Four paragraphs describe the battle in the Military Atlas. Furthermore, Zuehlke's bibliography contains War of 1812 books published in 1999 and 2000.

I am not trying to "revise history" as you claim (in fact I am a Canadian myself) but rather I am saying that here we finally have an exceptional book of 332 pages solely dealing with Lundy's Lane that uses both Canadian and American military records, as well as personal letters and other sources. I encourage you to read this book (Where Right and Glory Lead, By Graves (A renowned Canadian military historian) and I am sure you will be amazed at its perception. I invite you to examine the excerpt and the reviews from his website: http://www.ensigngroup.ca/Right-Glory.htm

Will do. In the meantime, I'm reverting the article to my last version. If you care to do me another service out of courtesy, please incorporate your material into the existing body text of that article. If you can refrain from altering the battlebox's "indecisive" – which I view as the linchpin of objectivity in a topic like this (there can be no departing from the overall principle that the battle ended in a stalemate) – while keeping all the above comments in mind, I think we can cooperate in reconciling Graves' observations with the traditionalist view without further difficulties. If time permits, I'll investigate Graves in detail shortly.

Thank you for your contributions and for your civility and common comradeship. Albrecht 23:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

-->Four paragraphs describe the battle in the Military Atlas. Furthermore, Zuehlke's bibliography contains War of 1812 books published in 1999 and 2000.

- I don't want to be rude, but Zuehkles's book (with only 1 paragraph really talking about the actual battle) pales in comparison to a thesis of 332 pages that Graves writes. I would not consider Zuehkle's book the ultimate authority nor would anyone. Rather it is a very concise summary and summaries are often confusing ie: regarding the reinforcement issue. Secondly while Grave's book is not published in a Military Journal (because journals rarely publish 332 pages) his book has been reviewed by several editors of Military Journals in both Canada and the United States. Some are listed on his web page I gave and others listed elsewhere if you look you'll find them. As journal articles are often viewed by three references that is sufficient. Moreover his book uses articles from journals as reference as well. In his aknowledgements are many astute historians who have given him support. Graves book, of which I have the current version was actually reprinted in 2003 with corrections. It is finally the most current work. All his statements and claims are clearly referenced, as any journal article or thesis would be. Graves is widely considered the ultimate authority and the most competent Canadian historian in regards to the War of 1812 in North America as one reviewer from the Journal of American History stated. This is not my POV, this is the POV of historians of this field - and that means something.

I thought this was clearer: The point was not to compare a survey with an in-depth treatise. The idea was to cite something that outlined the traditional interpretation of the battle. I picked Zuehlke because it sits on my shelf, but it need not be Zuehlke in particular. Consult just about any other thesis on the subject; Zuehlke's is the standard position.

I should also remind you that the contention does not rest on the issue of Grave's scholarship or reputation as an historian; rather, your insistence that "Grave and only Grave" should inform edits to this article was what I found irritating. But at any rate I think it stretches believability to rely on reviews taken from Grave's own for-profit website, created to promote and advertise his work, as providing a balanced view. This should be obvious. Albrecht 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article for several reasons:

1. The Americans voluntarily left the heights after the British had retreated. They won a tactical victory. The British had tried to retake the heights three times and failed. There would be no repeated attempt. Fighting stopped. The Americans held the field - how many days they would have had to hold to field for you to consider it a victory isn't important.

This is where we differ, and sharply. As far as I can tell, every point above is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. A temporary disengagement (if indeed the British left first)—owing to the deterioration of battlefield conditions—hardly constitutes a "retreat": it was a common enough measure of the period, and, considering the prospects of forthcoming reinforcements, a damn sensible one. There would be no repeated attacks on the heights because the Americans disappeared, mere hours after the British broke off, leaving the precious "captured" guns behind. If that's a "victory," it's a pretty thin one, and fraudulent as well.

This particular battle during the time of when shooting started to when it ended was a tactical victory for the American army, somewhat similar to the Jutland scenario you proposed.

No. The Kaiserliche Marine savaged the British at Jutland, while both sides suffered virtually the same casualties at Lundy's Lane. There's no comparison.

Strategically the British may have won, though as Graves wrote to me: "Once Yeo emerged on Lake Ontario in September 1814 with a ship of the line, the US lost control of that lake and knew full well that they would not be in a position to take it back until the spring of 1815. Therefore, advancing north again from Fort Erie to L Ontario and thence to Burlington Bay and York [Toronto] would have been very difficult. In fact, the American commander, Izard, decided to go into winter quarters. Both sides planned major offensives in 1815 but the war ended. " <--- here lies the real reason the Americans did not continue the campaign especially since they had dealt Drummond such a beating at Fort Erie. This isn't Grave's opinion, but rather from American military records and personal correspondence.

2. Canada was not the main combatant or protagonist. This was largely a British war largely held by historians to be due to British provocation of the US. In fact Canadians appear to have fought on both sides. Stating anything such as "this was a Canadian strategic victory" is very erroneous.

Fair enough. The idea I meant to convey was one of a "strategic victory for Canada." I think you'd agree with this, but in any case it's not important.

3. You made large deletions of my text without justifiable reasons. Feel free to add what you want if you like to the article, just don't in effect trash what I have written as it is the only material in the article actually based upon a reviewed reference.

I'm sorry if my edits annoyed you, but let me state that these "large deletions" were actually the removal of a few POV sentences praising Grave's book. You're welcome to start an article on his work, but it really had no place here. Albrecht 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to state in so many words : this battle halted the American advance into upper canada and was likely a British strategic victory even though the battle itself was a British tactical loss is acceptable, and Graves seems to agree as he says as much. I think you really ought to examine the sources for the American regress to Fort Erie from the American perspective, after all their reasons for their reposition at Fort Erie are all that matters after all. Fleshing out the whole reinforcement issue would do a service instead of trusting a summary. As I stated before, Ripley had 1000 fresh reinforcements only a few miles away at Chippawa and why he didn't use them doesn't appear to be based upon potential British reinforcements but rather his lack of supplies, decent officers, and marine support.

Feel free to edit grammar, much is not mine but was contributed before me. I did not make any major deletions to what was there before.

Please read Graves' book and then get back to this, and feel free to write to the author himself as he replies to questions. I really think you'll like this book, but also I did read your references so please read mine. I think you'll be very impressed.

I have every intention of doing so. You'll notice, at least, that I've refrained from editing the article. Anyway, I suppose I could agree to "Tactical American victory, strategic British victory." Albrecht 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been at this article, with images and orbats. I have also added information from a good recent American summary of the war (John R. Elting's Amateurs to Arms). They don't upset the concensus that the Americans withdrew exhausted rather than defeated, and that Drummond used poor tactics. I note from the orbat that there were indeed several hundred Canadians (perhaps 900 regulars or full-time troops and 600 militia) at Lundy's Lane (and 100 fighting for the Americans). HLGallon 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

American Offensive or British Counter Offensive?

I bring up the matter of whether the American invasion was halted at Lundy's Lane or was halted earlier due to the lack of support from Commodore Isaac Chauncey, and the question that the British counter-stroke was blunted at Lundy's lane. It is known to all those who study the War of 1812 that control of the Great Lakes was of supreme importance for a successful land campaign. After the US victory at Chippewa Major Gen. Jacob Browne advanced his force to Queenston. After receiving word that Chauncey had no intention of sailing to aid Browne, the General wisely decided to withdraw south to the old Chippewa battlefield.

It was at this point that Lt. Gen. Drummond decided to launch a counter attack and drive the Americans from the Niagra. My point is that the British were not in effect making a defensive stand at Lundy's Lane but in reality moving to attack the Americans south of the Chippewa. Danwild6 02:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Result Indecisive

Whether you're Canadian, British or American its fairly easy to see that the Battle of Lundy's Lane was indecisive as it did not drive the Americans from Canada-in fact the Americans held the field at the close of the fighting-in the end American forces left Canada of their own valition after the American victory at Fort Erie. Danwild6 02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't so easy to see. Consider this quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "Each side claimed it as a victory over superior numbers. The truth is beyond question that the British had the advantage in numbers, and a still greater advantage in position; while it is equally beyond question that it was a defeat and not a victory for the Americans." [1] Silverchemist (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when do later results matter who won a battle? The British repelled the invaders. The Americans were still in their territory but moved well away. That is a victory for the defenders and is in no way indecisive. Indecisive would be if the fighting stopped but both parties held their ground. Yes there was another battle after that near the border that the Americans won but they didn't simply retreat after that because they felt like it. After winning that later battle and moving further into enemy territory the Americans knew they were severely outnumbered in hostile country and that their efforts were futile. Instead of fighting a few more battles and eventually getting wiped out, they decided to retreat back to the USA and the American government was cool with that as they were honorably discharged. 24.36.241.34 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The original person to say indecisive referenced misleading facts and a non battle specific view on top of that. As of now everyone to opine afterwards has been against it being indecisive and in favour of it being a British Victory. This should be changed to simply say British Victory. Current count it 2-1 in favour of a change.24.36.241.34 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please bear it in mind that it took over a year to reach the current concensus. See Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane#American Decision to Retreat. No new evidence (as opposed to opinion) has been presented since. Do not replace this verdict lightly. HLGallon (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Result

Does anyone have a source for the result? I'm looking for one, but there is apparently a dissagrement right now. Red4tribe (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Found one, in "1812:The War that Forged a Nation". page 196.Red4tribe (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

100th Regiment of Foot

According to "For King and Canada; the story of the 100th Regiment of Foot" the regiment was at both Chippawa and Lundy's lane but I don't see them in the order battle. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Winfield Scott wan't killed at this battle.

can someone make this correction for me? I tried and the format came out wrongly. (General Scott survived until 1866) 184.151.190.65 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say he was killed...apparently we are using a + as "wounded". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

+ does mean killed. this plus sign should be removed. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.190.11 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't, really, we use the cross sign (†) here for Killed in Action and the plus sign for wounded. It doesn't seem very wise, because obviously the two are very similar. I'm not sure why we use any signs at all actually. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting but confusing I agree: I can see using the cross but the plus sign just winds up being confusing. 184.151.190.158 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Lundy's Lane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814144152/http://www.archives.gov.on.ca:80/english/on-line-exhibits/1812/niagara-1814.aspx to http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/1812/niagara-1814.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210061406/http://www.niagarafalls.ca/city_hall/departments/parks_recreation_and_culture/art_scene/community_groups/heritage/battlefield_wall.asp to http://www.niagarafalls.ca/city_hall/departments/parks_recreation_and_culture/art_scene/community_groups/heritage/battlefield_wall.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617172225/http://www.pm.gc.ca:80/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=4823 to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=4823
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705184901/http://www.nflibrary.ca:80/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=295&key=2265 to http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=295&key=2265
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705184716/http://www.nflibrary.ca:80/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2265 to http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2265

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Strategic, Operational, or Tactical?

The article asserts that the battle was a strategic victory for the British. I think the article lacks sufficient evidence to support that assertion. To be a strategic victory it would need to accomplish a strategic end of one of the combatants. In this case, neither side achieved any strategic objective. One might make the argument that it had an operational level impact but that will require additional source material. Even asserting that it was a British Empire tactical victory is arguable as was discussed below in detail.--Bemcfarland (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a strategic victory for Britain as it ended the U.S invasions of Canada Uk5056547 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Donald Graves regards Lundy's Lane as a tactical victory for the Americans, but concludes their failure to secure its fruits in terms of position and captured British guns rendered it an operational success for the British...But despite the pride they [the United States Army] could take in their performance in the field, once again the overall American effort was too little, too late: they had been unable to overwhelm the British defences even though these were yet to be reinforced from Europe"- Jon Latimer, 1812: War with America p.299.

Latimer then charts the American army's withdrawal as a direct consequence of Lundy's Lane. The last line is a clear indicator of strategic success; at Lundy's Lane the British defeated the final American invasion of the Canadas, stopping it in its tracks and compelling its withdrawal.

If we regard North Point as an American strategic victory for merely slowing down the British Army's march on Baltimore, then by what rational is a battle that definitively ended American attempts to invade Canada (Britain's primary concern on land throughout the war) as anything other than a qualified strategic victory in the name of British interests in North America? F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Result: •Tactically indecisive* •Strategic British victory

• unless we want to draw a clear distinction between tactical and operational objectives along the lines of Donald Graves, which nlmay be too much info for the outcome box, then indecisive is preferable IMO, reflecting mutual heavy casualties. F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

I don’t want to get into an edit war with anyone but I want to make my point that the result should be a strategic British victory as it even says that the British had a strategic win in the aftermath section so I believe it should say strategic British victory on the result of the battle Uk5056547 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why "should" the result be the non-standard "strategic British victory?". The Aftermath section gives one source only which states "strategic British victory". I would be happy to provide five or six equally reputable sources which state other outcomes. Your persistent advocacy of one result without discussion of the various sources (together with your user name) gives rise to suggestions of POV editing. Please review Template:Infobox_military_conflict#Parameters which gives the official Wikipedia guidelines as to info. box contents. Note that non-standard terms such as "strategic" are deprecated.

Please do not revert to your preferred version without discussion on this talk page. Your repeated edits are already verging on 3RR, and I will readily report any continuing edit warring to the relevant notice board (to damp down the flames, rather than seeking sanctions at this point). HLGallon (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How is the battle not a strategic British victory? The Americans were forced to retreat to Fort Erie after suffering lots of casualties. This battle ended the U.S invasion of Canada. Uk5056547 (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Mohawk at Lundy's Lane

On canadian indigenous remembrance day its ironic that there is no mention of the mohawk warriors and the significance they played in the battle. Without them parts of what is now Canadian would be American soil. About time true history is shared, not just white history. 2605:B100:72E:D103:4CBF:B6D4:C68:EFF1 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)