Talk:Battle of Valcour Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBattle of Valcour Island is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starBattle of Valcour Island is part of the Canadian campaign of 1775 series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 11, 2011.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 21, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 1, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
April 28, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
June 16, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 11, 2013, and October 11, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Possible additions to article[edit]

From misnamed duplicate by an anon, preserving here because some details could be added to this article:

"Makeshift rebel green wood navy holds off British advance in Battle of Valcour Island (sometimes called battle of Lake Champlain).

The attempt to take Quebec fell short (but just barely), so in June, 1776 Benedict Arnold began to withdraw south to the northen end of Lake Champlain. The British, led by General Guy Carelton was in hot pursuit, within musket range at one point. Arnold was the last to leave Canada: he rode to the water's edge, shot his horse so as to leave nothing of value for the British, then boarded the last boat for safety at Crown Point

Arnold surmised that the British plan was to control the 130+ mile long Lake Champlain. With Carleton coming from the north, and another army pushing north up the Hudson, New York state would effectively be cut in half - New England would be cut off from the rest of the colonies. Defeating Carleton might be too much to hope for, but if Lake Champlain could be denied Carelton before the weather turned, perhaps he would withdraw to Canada for the winter.


Arnold knew Carleton to be a cautious leader -- perhaps overly cautious. If Carleton could be made to think a major fleet awaited him, it might slow his preparations. So, carpenters and workmen from as far away as Boston and Rhode Island were hired to build "Admiral" Arnold's fleet of 20 ships.

The pace was frantic, so much so that "green" wood had to be used which caused the ships to leak almost immediately. Indian scouts reported the activity to Carleton, who himself began building more ships. As each of Arnold's ships were ready, their maiden trip would be to the north where they would fire off a round or two of cannon in a show of defiance. Sure enough, this caused Carleton to build more of his own ships, even going so far as to disassemble the 3 masted, 18 gun HMS Inflexible carry to Lake Champlain and reassemble it there.


By September, Arnold had 17 ships including his flagship Congress, the 54 foot Philadelphia and 7 more like her and a number of smaller boats, all armed with cannon. All were flat bottoms row galleys of Arnold's own design, but still would be no match for the 18 guns of the HMS Inflexible.

In October, the British began moving south with nearly 10,000 men including British regulars, Canadians, Germans and Iroquios Indians in some 640 flatboats and canoes trailing the Man-o-War. Arnold knew they stood no chance against the Inflexible, so he moved his fleet into the mouth of Valcour Bay.

On October 10th, the British sailed by without seeing it. Arnold let the Inflexible and 2 schooners pass , then opened fire on the smaller boats. They sunk and crippled several ships right off, including one that exploded when an open magazine took a direct hit. The large British lead ships were unable to turn into the tricky winds and were unable to return for for sometime.

The British were suprised but were better trained in naval tactics - some reports have Arnold rushing from gun to gun sighting them for the inexperienced soldiers and militia now sailors. As the large British ships struggled to get into position the gunboats returned fire in a ferocious battle. Arnold's flagship Congress took several hits as did The New York, Philadephia and Jersey. On the Washington, a single officer was the only person still in action.

The battle started just after noon, but it wasnt until dusk that the Inflexible was able to get into position. Several of Arnold's ships concentrated fire on her and caused her to withdraw a bit. As dusk settled, the British bottled up the Armericans in the mouth of the bay with a blockade, content to finish off Arnold's Armada in the morning.

Arnold, as he often did, had other plans. During the night his ships slipped around the flank and rowed south. When the morning came, the bay was empty, but in the distance the American "navy" was rowing for its life.

The British pursued but it took the better part of 2 days to catch up. When they did, The Congress and The Washington held off the entire British fleet while the smaller ships escaped. When The Washington was finally crippled, Arnold had his men row into the wind thru the cardon where it would be difficult for the larger British ships to follow. The Congress and several smaller ships made a mad dash for the nearest shore. Arnold refused to strike his colors and had the Congress burned instead.

The Americans retreated to Fort Ticonderoga. When the British approached, cannon was fired to give the appearance it was well manned and well fortified. With his Indian allies warning of snow and rough water on the lake approaching, Carleton gave up the campaign and withdrew to Canada.

In spite of having built a small navy from scratch, then taking on the world naval superpower with row galleys and fight it to a draw, in terms of 18th Century warfare, Arnold didnt win. The British weren't defeated and it was the Armericans who retreated. He did however accomplish what he set out to do - preventing the 2 British Armies from linking up and cutting the colonies in two. In causing Carleton to withdraw, an entire year was bought giving the Continetals time to fortify and strengthen their hold on northern New York state.

The Continetal Congress didnt quite see it that way and Arnold received some criticism for the "failed" campaign. This was probably partly due to frustration at not a single clear American victory in all of 1776 (as yet), partly that many in Congress didn't like Arnold and partly that this "loss" was also on the heels of his failure to take Quebec.


In June 1997, the last ship unaccounted for -- The Spitfire -- was located."

Stan 07:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gondolas[edit]

In the "Forces assembled" subsection, the American naval force is described as containing eight gondolas, but the link is to an article on Venetian gondolas, sculled shallow draft transport vehicles with no military value, and there is no indication in that article that gondolas ever had a military purpose. There is a disambiguation page, but the article on Venetian gondolas is the only one pertaining to a naval context. Can someone please add here a description of a military gondola, in lieu of the link? Or, if it's too detailed a subject, create a small article on military gondolas and link it instead? Otherwise, the casual reader has no idea what sort of naval vessels we're talking about here. I imagine it's along the lines of an 18th Century gunboat (a deckless shallow draft vessel with one or two fixed guns or a number of swivel guns), but the term "gondola" is not used in that article. 12.22.250.4 20:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

google "gondola gunboat" is a place to start

(there are enough hits that you can be selective) Tedickey 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Valcour Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have the following comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I can see that this article is carefully written. However, it may benefit from more context and background. Even though I am somewhat familiar with the history, I had to follow the article very carefully, rereading most of it, to keep track of the locations etc. It might benefit from a more general map showing the overall location for those not intimately familiar with the American Revolution.
  • A short background section may set the stage for those with little knowledge of the American Revolution and the role of Canadian geography.
  • Some of the writing is awkward and repetitious. Repetitions of the word "only", for example (Unfortunately, I did not copy any examples.) I tried to vary the wording in some places by copy editing. Also, I think there is an over use of the word "which" (a word that FAC editors dislike).
  • Overall it is an excellent article. My suggestions are in no way criticisms of it. The article very close to GA.

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; I'll see what I can do. In the mean time, do you think this map would be helpful? Magic♪piano 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by your second point. I'm wondering what additional background (that is not in the "Strategic Importance" section) you might find useful. (The only notable thing I think is missing there is the location of Saint-Jean, which is immediately referenced in the next section.) Magic♪piano 18:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if the changes I've made to the background (and the map I added) address your concerns. (I've left a fact tag for material that needs to be cited; if you're OK with the words, I'll actually provide cites.) Magic♪piano 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looks good. I will go through it tomorrow. I notice that there is a {{citation needed}} tag on it. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I have to justify the first paragraph. This won't be hard, but I wanted to be sure you liked it before I went to the trouble. Magic♪piano 01:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

This is a fine article and you need not worry that it will not pass GA. I have one remaining question, and that is about the focus of the article. It seems to switch between the American and the Canadian/British point of view. I am wondering why, at the end, you say what happens to Captain Pringle but not to Benedict Arnold? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a POV thing, just that nothing really notable happened in the American camp that was somehow associated with this event. The fact that Pringle was criticized I thought worthy of mention; ditto the four admirals. I normally try to balance these sorts elements (I like NPOV); in this case, Arnold's near future acts (defense of Rhode Island, I believe), and distant acts (turning sides) aren't really consequences of this action. And both armies are basically going into winter quarters. Magic♪piano 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Makes sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Sets topic in context b (focused): Remains focused on article topic
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

In response to a request I made to his user page justifying the removal of Category:Naval battles involving the United States, User:Az81964444 replied:

I would be more than happy to justify my actions, the category "Naval battles involving the United States" is not for individual naval battles. There is already a category called "Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War", that is where the Valcour Island battle belongs, not in the other. Take a look at the first category I mentioned, in it you will find several sub categories and only the naval battles the U.S. fought while not at war. The naval engagements the U.S. fights during a war belong in the specific categories, in this case only the category "Naval battles of the American Revolutionary war" should be used for the Battle of Valcour Island. I will remove the other category now. (for the third time)--Az81964444 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This stance is inconsistent with most other "Naval battles involving <country>" categories. Are you proposing to make this sort of change to most of the articles listed in Category:Naval battles involving France, Category:Naval battles involving Great Britain, and Category:Naval battles involving Spain, all of which have articles categorized both by war and separately by participants? (If you do, I suggest you raise the subject at WT:MILHIST before starting.) Magic♪piano 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sure don't, thats up to the British, Spanish and French do decide as far as I am concerned. As for the U.S., the specific categories are the only ones needed. I have already had a discussion about this with another user. (You might still find it on the talk page of the category I removed from the Valcour island battle page) I was origionally adding the "naval battles involving the US" category to all of the US naval battle pages. During which I stopped and told by another user what I am telling you now. Please don't make the same mistake I made. --Az81964444 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They may have told you that because Category:Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War was incorrectly categorized under Category:Naval battles involving the United States (I have now removed it). This categorization is not normal practice, check out just about any other "Battles of <war>" category for a major war.
These two categories serve very different purposes, and neither should be subordinate to the other. The reason this article is in both categories is because the battle was one of the few ARW naval battles that actually involved the US. There are many many many articles that are categorized in ways similar to this:[Naval] battle of <war>, [Naval] battle involving <country1>, [Naval] battle involving <country2>, and so on. Whoever told you otherwise was wrong (and you'll have give me a useful pointer beyond "someone told me someplace once long ago" if you expect me to read the previous discussion you had). Feel free to open a discussion about this on WT:MILHIST. Magic♪piano 20:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have solved the problem, the proper category did not exist. Since this is a multiparty conflict it should have categories listing battles by country since not all countries fought in all battles. I have created Category:Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War involving the United States similar to what exists for WW2, WW1, and several other conflicts. Similar categories should be created for France, Spain, and the Neatherlands for the naval Battles. Since britain was the only beligerant on its side with a navy, there is no need to create a similar category for it. Naval Battles of the American Revolutionary war can simply be subdirected under Naval Battles involving Britan to prevent redundancy.XavierGreen (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate map[edit]

I'll leave this image here in case it is needed later.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic American Victory?[edit]

Brendan Morrissey in Quebec 1775: The American Invasion of Canada states "Carleton's failure to retake Ticonderoga and Crown Point probably had little effect on events in 1777." This is a fair point, since Burgoyne had no trouble taking the forts in 1777, and holding the forts over the winter of 1776-77 would have been logistically costly for Carleton. Thoughts?McMuff (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snuck[edit]

What does "snuck" (3rd line 3rd para) mean ? Some kind of US slang ? Please change to a register appropriate to an encyclopedia. -- अनाम गुमनाम 01:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiktionary:
"The past and past participle snuck is primarily found in North American English, where it originated in the late 19th century as a dialectal form, and where it is still regarded as informal by some; its use appears to be increasing in frequency and acceptability. It is sometimes found in British and Australian/Hiberno English too. (Compare The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, Webster's New World College Dictionary)." Brutannica (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, this word is one that is occasionally altered (between "snuck" and "sneaked") by editors of one language persuasion or another. We are a people divided by a common language. Magic♪piano 02:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "secretted" or "stealthily moved" would avoid the problem? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This learned reference [1] suggests sneaked is "safer". Agree with OP that it is slangy even to a native speaker of American English. Brianhe (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The strategic purpose of the battle needs to be brought out[edit]

The article is excellent in general, but ends without a summing up of purposes and consequences. After his repulse from Canada, it seems pretty evident that Arnold - almost alone on the American side - had a clear strategic appreciation of the situation. The Americans desperately needed time to put together a military force capable of effective defence, and a British thrust down the Hudson River would sever the colonies and perhaps end any hope of building such a force. He lacked the resourses to defeat the British, so he crafted and executed extremely well a delaying action that in fact succeeded in holding off the British just long enough. The Valcour Island battle itself was only part of his plan. By the time it took place he had already succeeded in delaying a British advance by several months. All he needed was to hold them off until winter weather could intervene, and this battle and his fighting retreat accomplished this.

I think the article should reflect a bit better this lesser-known but very important aspect of Arnold's career as well as the strategic significance of the campaign of which it was a part.

As to whether it relates to his later actions, it helps to consider that Arnold didn't just "feel" he had been wronged when the Continental Congress repeatedly refused to promote him and instead promoted lesser men. He was surely aware of the real impact of his vision and actions (here and elsewhere) and the recognition it deserved, so the bitterness he harbored is indeed connected to this campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.126.189 (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that Arnold was the best equipped general for dealing with the British at that time, something Gates (to his credit) eventually recognized. He was certainly the most aggressive of the generals in northern New York, and the only one with notable seafaring skills. You are correct that there are issues (specifically the loss of his papers and his consequent inability to document his costs in the Canadian campaign to Congressional inquiries) that played into Arnold's later unhappiness. This probably ought to be mentioned here. I'm not sure that Arnold was alone in understanding the importance of mounting a defense -- he was in the right place at the right time to actually do things, and kept cool in what was a fairly disorganized retreat.
It's also my opinion (which is echoed by some historians) that Arnold's other actions (specifically the destruction of the facilities at Saint-Jean and all usable watercraft) had more of an effect on delaying the British than the battle proper did. This is why the lead reads "The American defense of Lake Champlain stalled ..." instead of "The battle stalled ..." The British were going to have to build a fleet anyway, and these actions made that more difficult. Magic♪piano 12:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'generally regarded'[edit]

I have a very small question about this nicely done article. Is there a minority point of view among scholars that this was not "one of the first naval battles of the American Revolutionary War"? If this is a mere statement of fact, why can't the sentence read "the battle is one of the first naval battles of the American Revolutionary War"? "Regarded as" is conventional when presenting a value judgment that reflects scholarly consensus to which exceptions are assumed, such as "regarded as one of the greatest generals" (some might disagree), or when the facts can't be determined with absolute certainty: "generally regarded as Shakespeare's earliest comedy" would imply that a few might argue that some other comedy was earlier. In this case, it seems that "one of the first" avoids asserting an absolute chronology: we're not saying it's the first. If there's a minority view that the battle is not "one of" the first of the Revolutionary War, I didn't see discussion of that in my quick skimming of the article. Hope the editors here don't find this too trivial a question, and thanks for your patience. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several naval actions that took place earlier. The Battle of Machias predates even the existence of the Continental Navy, and the Battle of Block Island took place earlier in 1776. I think it's more a question of how one defines "earliest" than anything else. Magic♪piano 12:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there are in fact some scholars who would object to the flat statement "the battle is one of the first naval battles of the ARW", because of these earlier actions? I see. Then "generally regarded" is not as otiose as it might have struck me at first. I'm not really interested in things like "earliest" and "first" for their own sake. But I do wonder whether this battle ought to placed more explicitly within naval military history in the Background section, a couple of sentences along the lines of what you've said here, to establish its place in the overall chronology of the early navy. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is easily the first fleet action of the war, since Machais only involved 3 ships and Block island involved an american squadron against a single frigate.XavierGreen (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


CONGRATULATIONS!![edit]

BAROOOM!!!! -- A broadside salute to the editors who devoted their time and effort in making this article a featured Article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Valcour Island. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Valcour Island. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Valcour Island. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armament of HMS Thunderer[edit]

The article says that the armament of Thunderer is (six 24-pound guns, six 12-pound guns, and two howitzers), which totals 14. A look at HMS Thunderer (1760) shows Thunderer was a third rate ship of the line of 74 guns. Lower gundeck: 28 × 32 pdrs, Upper gundeck: 28 × 18 pdrs, Quarter deck: 14 × 9 pdrs, Forecastle: 4 × 9 pdrs. Though the armament of a ship may change during its service history, 14 vs. 74 is so drastically different that a note would be helpful if both descriptions are correct. --Happyseeu (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Thunderer that was launched on Lake Champlain was not HMS Thunderer (1760). The vessel that was launched is described in more detail in the order of battle. Magic♪piano 17:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. But it seems unusual for the Royal Navy to have two ships to have the same name at the same time. A ship name is usually re-used after the previous one has retired from service. --Happyseeu (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Valcour_Island&oldid=1206186144"