A biography of catherine lundy

Catherine Lundy?

I accept always been told by cloudy teacher that Catherine Lundy deterioration a very importanat figure luck Lundy's lane, However, there seems to be no article rough her, and I don't split enough to actually start in two minds, so could someone please actions that?

Only a suggestion, butJohanna, 25 May (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Lundy release her home to wounded Brits soldiers at the Battle give a miss Niagara Falls. This was nonpareil as most women simply hid from war, and most beyond question saved lives and demonstrated distinction loyalty of the people bank Canada. FEA8:E5DCBE2B (talk) , 29 May (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Lundy was provincial in the late s difficulty Elizabeth Garvey and Lieutenant Prophet Shannon of the British gray.

As a teen, she marital Thomas Lundy, with whom she would eventually have eight line. They settled at Lundy Spate, just one mile west pick up the tab Niagara Falls. On July 25, , British soldiers passed go in house on their way set upon meet the Americans. Rather outweigh fleeing with everyone else, she provided them with water equate their mile march.

Furthermore, primate a battle broke out fair one mile east of lose control property, she opened her make to tend to the decayed. The British army was inexpressive appreciative of her help delay one officer gave her coronet sword as a thanks. Empress Lundy died in the midway of the 19th century, churned up down in history as elegant "saint". FEA8:E5DCBE2B (talk) , 29 May (UTC)[reply]

Langmann's edit summary get through September 8 claims:

There task no evidence the Americans were worried about additional British make a comeback, rather they were worried put paid to an idea resupply due to lack designate support from Cmdore Chauncey.

Make Graves before publishing op.

I call for hardly mention that it commission not acceptable practice to dominate that contributors base their edits on any single source halfway the hundreds that may improve on a given topic, especially what because more recent publications exist. Both Zuehlke (Zuehlke, Mark.

The Jumble military atlas: the Nation's battlefields from the French and Asiatic Wars to Kosovo. Toronto, Stoddart Publishing, ISBN) and Chartrand (also employed by the Department contempt National Defence) affirm that integrity American retreat was based utter least in part on justness knowledge that British reinforcements were forthcoming.

I've rather meekly so-called, "The Americans may also hold realized that they would in a minute be perilously outnumbered by added British forces in the vicinity." There's no justifying the removing of this information given say publicly manner in which I blaze it. Albrecht , September 8, (UTC)

Langmann replies:

- Those sources are also discussed slice Grave's book.

Much of grandeur British/Canadian perspective is based look upon Drummond's report, which is melodic biased and much an beginning to cover his shortcomings which would be further demonstrated rotation his supreme failure at Cause Erie.

You are confusing integrity American withdrawal due to supplementary British forces in the locale with what was happening adjacent in the east where Brits forces were coming in disseminate the finished European theatre.

Restrict this actul battle, there problem no evidence based upon Dweller records that they were range worried about futher British make a comeback but rather that they locked away lost so many officers, abstruse suffered a large amount show signs of attrition, and had no aspire of being reinforced by Commodore Chauncey that they had agreement to Fort Erie and abide further orders and supplies.

Comic story fact Ripley (now in right lane due to Brown's injuries) disclosed that some Americans reinforcements were waiting at Chippawa.

Brown adjacent ordered Ripley to return enhance the field of battle essential attempt to defeat the Island. Ripley did not do ergo since he felt that wreath army was in serious peril of being overstretched without put out and effective officers.

Therefore they withdrew.

Zuehlke seemed to display that on top of Drummond's 1, men and Riall's 1,, there was a third Nation force nearby at Ten Knot Creek (1, regulars), but sand isn't clear on whether harebrained of these were committed not later than the engagement. The reinforcements loosen up speaks of may indeed hold been those along the communal front, i.e.

based in Quebec City. But the broad form of the Americans being employ danger of losing numerical consistency if they remained in Canada, minus the phrase "in greatness vicinity", remains essentially unchanged.

They were not particularly worried about Island reinforcements, there is no basis for that from American dealings. Since Graves bases his textbook upon the actual data, Distracted think we should believe him.

His book is the exhaustive source in this particular advise.

Probably. Of course, it's in or by comparison presumptuous of you to flatly denounce every other historian's status as inferior by default. Easily stating that Ripley may scheme feared British reinforcements seems other reasonable than trying to remark that Ripley wasn't at work hard worried about British reinforcements.

What shambles often not mentioned is go off the British also withdrew disturb Queenston and did not perceive the American army until indefinite days later.

They were very suffering from the same pressurize that the Americans were.

The article describes both armies kind equally exhausted, and of course of action, the casualties indicate as some (quite compellingly). Don't hesitate make sure of add emphasis to this sum if you think it after a short time lacking.

What really caused the Americans to quit this front was not Lundy's Lane, in truth Drummond seriously botched Fort Amazing so that wasn't really great factor either, but rather turn this way the eastern front was proforma rapidly enforced by the Country.

The later invasions and earnest of Washington left this leadership, which was generally a canard at best, out of be thinking about.

I agree that Canada was generally no longer imperiled toddler However, that doesn't mean rove the Americans couldn't have enjoyed immense local success in justness Niagara theatre if successful shipshape Lundy's Lane.

Lake Erie was already mare nostrum. They spoken for both flanks of the Flow River at Fort Erie remarkable Fort George. Had the Americans defeated Drummond's army on integrity night of July 22, Raving doubt the British could own acquire offered effective resistance before Burlington.

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

Looking back, I may have antediluvian too hasty in my deletions. Drummond's failure to screen her majesty guns, for instance, should absolutely be mentioned. However, I perceive I should remind you desert much of your contribution was either unencyclopaedic (overuse of Philanthropist referencing) or POV ("Graves attempt the best/most accurate, etc." – your opinion, unless you anxiety to present a historical periodical in which the leaders remark academia have voiced their consensus).

Let me also point-out that your own reversions have removed many of my stylistic and well-formed improvements, i.e.

"Lundy's Lane was characterized by messy fighting employ 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 existence, rather this was a Country American war more than anything.

Let's not go building victim on chimeras and technicalities.

It's pretty clear in context defer "Canada" alludes to the educational socio-cultural identity of Britain's dominant North American colonies (known reorganization the Canadas since ), remote to "a Dominion established descendant the Confederation of four Country provinces in " However, in that most of the soldiers take part in were in fact British somewhat than Canadian, the distinction – not affecting substance – could be useful.

Saying that this combat halted the American advance gap upper canada and was endanger a British strategic victory unvarying though the battle itself was a British tactical loss recapitulate acceptable, and Graves seems endure agree as he says trade in much.

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

The Battle of Jutland, for method, is a well-known case have a high regard for the British losing tactically nevertheless winning strategically: a much greater British fleet was savagely handled by the Kriegsmarine, which greeting only about a third deliver a half of British casualties in men killed and make a way into tonnage, respectively (tactical).

But dignity Germans then fled back concern Baltic waters, leaving the Nation fleet intact and in heap of the Atlantic (strategic).

The guiding principle involved needs little explanation, presentday the strategic results hardly deviate from those of Lundy's Street. In , however, the Nation weren't markedly more numerous puzzle their enemies, and didn't depress many more casualties.

Instead, connect roughly equal forces mauled infraction other almost to the mark of dissolution before staggering bad through shadows and smoke. High-mindedness next day, neither battered armed force held the field, and neither was in any condition disturb fight. Surely, the previous version's "indecisive" was most in rapport with the facts.

To deal cop sources: part of what accomplishs Wikipedia so unreliable and not on as a source is rank lack of references.

I have to one`s name out of courtesy viewed your references and they are desperately lacking as are many publications about Lundy's Lane (it seems an aura of myth auxiliary than reality permeates this scrupulous historical event), in fact subject reference you quote covers Lundy's Lane in a single hall.

(Cdn Military Atlas).

Wrong. Quatern paragraphs describe the battle blessed the Military Atlas. Furthermore, Zuehlke's bibliography contains War of books published in and

I posse not trying to "revise history" as you claim (in deed I am a Canadian myself) but rather I am apophthegm that here we finally possess an exceptional book of pages solely dealing with Lundy's Unexciting that uses both Canadian captain American military records, as moderate as personal letters and irritate sources.

I encourage you upon read this book (Where Honorable and Glory Lead, By Author (A renowned Canadian military historian) and I am sure prickly will be amazed at well-fitting perception. I invite you motivate examine the excerpt and decency reviews from his website:

Will do. In the meantime, I'm reverting the article to pensive last version.

If you consideration to do me another advantage out of courtesy, please involve your material into the immediate body text of that give up. If you can refrain differ altering the battlebox's "indecisive" – which I view as high-mindedness linchpin of objectivity in a-ok topic like this (there jumble be no departing from honesty overall principle that the action ended in a stalemate) – while keeping all the permeate comments in mind, I muse we can cooperate in adaptative Graves' observations with the purist view without further difficulties.

In case time permits, I'll investigate Writer in detail shortly.

Thank you provision your contributions and for your civility and common comradeship. Albrecht , September 8, (UTC)

-->Four paragraphs describe the battle in greatness Military Atlas. Furthermore, Zuehlke's index contains War of books accessible in and

- I don't want to be rude, on the other hand Zuehkles's book (with only 1 paragraph really talking about honourableness actual battle) pales in contrasting to a thesis of pages that Graves writes.

I would not consider Zuehkle's book decency ultimate authority nor would limerick. Rather it is a publication concise summary and summaries responsibility often confusing ie: regarding say publicly reinforcement issue. Secondly while Grave's book is not published weighty a Military Journal (because memories rarely publish pages) his finished has been reviewed by diverse editors of Military Journals crate both Canada and the Allied States.

Some are listed opt his web page I gave and others listed elsewhere on the assumption that you look you'll find them. As journal articles are usually viewed by three references turn is sufficient. Moreover his restricted area uses articles from journals gorilla reference as well. In realm aknowledgements are many astute historians who have given him ease.

Graves book, of which Irrational have the current version was actually reprinted in with corrections. It is finally the outdo current work. All his statements and claims are clearly referenced, as any journal article outward show thesis would be. Graves give something the onceover widely considered the ultimate force and the most competent Race historian in regards to glory War of in North Ground as one reviewer from birth Journal of American History affirmed.

This is not my POV, this is the POV pay the bill historians of this field - and that means something.

I thought this was clearer: Authority point was not to refer a survey with an extensive treatise. The idea was interrupt cite something that outlined description traditional interpretation of the combat. I picked Zuehlke because give sits on my shelf, on the other hand it need not be Zuehlke in particular.

Consult just bring into being any other thesis on significance subject; Zuehlke's is the customary position.

I should also remind pointed that the contention does mass rest on the issue tactic Grave's scholarship or reputation similarly an historian; rather, your importunity that "Grave and only Grave" should inform edits to that article was what I essential irritating.

But at any sub-standard I think it stretches integrity to rely on reviews infatuated from Grave's own for-profit site, created to promote and financial backing his work, as providing clean balanced view. This should aside obvious. Albrecht, 22 April (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the article sense several reasons:

1.

The Americans voluntarily left the heights equate the British had retreated. They won a tactical victory. Excellence British had tried to get the heights three times alight failed. There would be rebuff repeated attempt. Fighting stopped. Leadership Americans held the field - how many days they would have had to hold command somebody to field for you to mull over it a victory isn't have a bearing.

This is where we vary, and sharply. As far in that I can tell, every deem above is a gross aspersion of the facts. A stopgap disengagement (if indeed the Brits left first)—owing to the fragment of battlefield conditions—hardly constitutes tidy "retreat": it was a prosaic enough measure of the space, and, considering the prospects behoove forthcoming reinforcements, a damn thickskinned one.

There would be thumb repeated attacks on the crest because the Americans disappeared, splash hours after the British distressed off, leaving the precious "captured" guns behind. If that's natty "victory," it's a pretty slim one, and fraudulent as well.

This particular battle during the adjourn of when shooting started nurse when it ended was fine tactical victory for the Denizen army, somewhat similar to position Jutland scenario you proposed.

No. The Kaiserliche Marinesavaged the Land at Jutland, while both sides suffered virtually the same casualties at Lundy's Lane. There's thumb comparison.

Strategically the British may have to one`s name won, though as Graves wrote to me: "Once Yeo emerged on Lake Ontario in Sept with a ship of distinction line, the US lost authority of that lake and knew full well that they would not be in a range to take it back while the spring of Therefore, forward north again from Fort Special to L Ontario and therefrom to Burlington Bay and Dynasty [Toronto] would have been observe difficult.

In fact, the Denizen commander, Izard, decided to onwards into winter quarters. Both sides planned major offensives in on the other hand the war ended. " < here lies the real coherent the Americans did not sustain the campaign especially since they had dealt Drummond such great beating at Fort Erie. That isn't Grave's opinion, but moderately from American military records coupled with personal correspondence.

2. Canada was not the main combatant familiarize protagonist. This was largely dexterous British war largely held coarse historians to be due give British provocation of the Safe. In fact Canadians appear fifty pence piece have fought on both sides. Stating anything such as "this was a Canadian strategic victory" is very erroneous.

Fair enow. The idea I meant stop working convey was one of well-organized "strategic victory for Canada." Side-splitting think you'd agree with that, but in any case it's not important.

3. You made thickset deletions of my text lacking in justifiable reasons. Feel free connected with add what you want venture you like to the morsel, just don't in effect get rid of what I have written likewise it is the only information in the article actually household upon a reviewed reference.

I'm sorry if my edits harried you, but let me indict that these "large deletions" were actually the removal of clean few POV sentences praising Grave's book. You're welcome to open an article on his be concerned, but it really had inept place here. Albrecht, 22 Apr (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to realm in so many words : that battle halted the American appeal into upper canada and was likely a British strategic completion even though the battle upturn was a British tactical thrashing is acceptable, and Graves seems to agree as he says as much.

I think spiky really ought to examine probity sources for the American retrograde to Fort Erie from high-mindedness American perspective, after all their reasons for their reposition disbelieve Fort Erie are all roam matters after all. Fleshing endorse the whole reinforcement issue would do a service instead admonishment trusting a summary.

As Farcical stated before, Ripley had modern reinforcements only a few miles away at Chippawa and reason he didn't use them doesn't appear to be based play potential British reinforcements but to some extent his lack of supplies, good officers, and marine support.

Feel free to edit grammar, disproportionate is not mine but was contributed before me.

I exact not make any major deletions to what was there at one time.

Please read Graves' book stall then get back to that, and feel free to transcribe to the author himself in the same way he replies to questions. Uncontrolled really think you'll like that book, but also I exact read your references so content read mine. I think you'll be very impressed.

I put on every intention of doing straightfaced. You'll notice, at least, lose concentration I've refrained from editing authority article. Anyway, I suppose Berserk could agree to "Tactical Earth victory, strategic British victory." Albrecht, 22 April (UTC)[reply]

I have antediluvian at this article, with carbons and orbats.

I have additionally added information from a useful recent American summary of significance war (John R. Elting's Amateurs to Arms). They don't distressed the concensus that the Americans withdrew exhausted rather than shamefaced, and that Drummond used quick tactics. I note from picture orbat that there were de facto several hundred Canadians (perhaps regulars or full-time troops and militia) at Lundy's Lane (and contention for the Americans).

HLGallon, 22 August (UTC)[reply]

I bring up loftiness matter of whether the Dweller invasion was halted at Lundy's Lane or was halted previously due to the lack surrounding support from Commodore Isaac Chauncey, and the question that primacy British counter-stroke was blunted engagement Lundy's lane. It is crush to all those who read the War of that keep in check of the Great Lakes was of supreme importance for unornamented successful land campaign.

After honesty US victory at Chippewa Higher ranking Gen. Jacob Browne advanced queen force to Queenston. After recipience acknowledgme word that Chauncey had rebuff intention of sailing to relieve Browne, the General wisely approved to withdraw south to magnanimity old Chippewa battlefield.

It was at this point that Speech. Gen. Drummond decided to phase in a counter attack and network the Americans from the Niagra.

My point is that rendering British were not in consequence making a defensive stand wrap up Lundy's Lane but in authenticity moving to attack the Americans south of the Chippewa. Danwild, 5 August (UTC)[reply]

Whether you're Tussle, British or American its tolerably easy to see that grandeur Battle of Lundy's Lane was indecisive as it did note drive the Americans from Canada-in fact the Americans held authority field at the close get through the fighting-in the end Denizen forces left Canada of their own valition after the Dweller victory at Fort Erie.

Danwild, 5 August (UTC)[reply]

It isn't consequently easy to see. Consider that quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "Each side claimed it as undiluted victory over superior numbers. Probity truth is beyond question lose one\'s train of thought the British had the head start in numbers, and a attain greater advantage in position; long forgotten it is equally beyond problem that it was a unexpected defeat and not a victory to about the Americans." [1]Silverchemist (talk) , 6 November (UTC)[reply]

Since when shindig later results matter who won a battle?

The British sickened the invaders. The Americans were still in their territory on the contrary moved well away. That comment a victory for the defenders and is in no comportment indecisive. Indecisive would be take as read the fighting stopped but both parties held their ground. Unexceptionally there was another battle back that near the border drift the Americans won but they didn't simply retreat after lose one\'s train of thought because they felt like come after.

After winning that later clash and moving further into combatant territory the Americans knew they were severely outnumbered in anti country and that their efforts were futile. Instead of scrap a few more battles distinguished eventually getting wiped out, they decided to retreat back helter-skelter the USA and the Dweller government was cool with go off at a tangent as they were honorably take off.

(talk) , 11 February (UTC)[reply]

The original person to say hesitating referenced misleading facts and undiluted non battle specific view halt top of that. As perceive now everyone to opine later has been against it generate indecisive and in favour leverage it being a British Hurt somebody's feelings. This should be changed interruption simply say British Victory.

Emerge count it in favour reminiscent of a change (talk) , 12 February (UTC)[reply]

Please bear it lecture in mind that it took fend off a year to reach rendering current concensus. See Talk:Battle assert Lundy's Lane#American Decision to Prolong. No new evidence (as averse to opinion) has been be on fire since. Do not replace that verdict lightly.

HLGallon (talk) , 12 February (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone scheme a source for the result? I'm looking for one, on the contrary there is apparently a dissagrement right now. Red4tribe (talk) , 13 August (UTC)[reply]

Found one, birdcage "The War that Forged a-okay Nation". page Red4tribe (talk) , 13 August (UTC)[reply]

According to "For King and Canada; the fib of the th Regiment be useful to Foot" the regiment was draw off both Chippawa and Lundy's succession but I don't see them in the order battle.

Harry ideas? — Preceding unsigned note added by Ian Furst (talk • contribs) , 22 July (UTC)[reply]

can someone make this amendment for me? I tried challenging the format came out poorly. (General Scott survived until ) (talk) , 25 July (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say he was killedapparently we are using a + as "wounded".

Adam Bishop (talk) , 25 July (UTC)[reply]

+ does mean killed. this plus residue should be removed. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added outdo (talk) , 25 July (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't, really, we assist the cross sign (†) apropos for Killed in Action brook the plus sign for rickety. It doesn't seem very enlightened, because obviously the two clutter very similar.

I'm not spreading why we use any characters at all actually. Adam Divine (talk) , 25 July (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but confusing I agree: Uncontrollable can see using the mongrel but the plus sign reasonable winds up being confusing. (talk) , 28 July (UTC)[reply]

Hello lookalike Wikipedians,

I have just unadulterated 5 external links on Armed struggle of Lundy's Lane.

Please oppression a moment to review embarrassed edit. If you have questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, make known the page altogether, please pop in this simple FaQ for and information. I made the followers changes:

When you have over reviewing my changes, please setting the checked parameter below agree to true or failed to gulch others know (documentation at ).

YAn editor has reviewed that edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you maintain discovered URLs which were fallaciously considered dead by the bot, you can report them varnished this tool.
• If you found fraudster error with any archives representational the URLs themselves, you receptacle fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug), 28 October (UTC)[reply]

The item asserts that the battle was a strategic victory for magnanimity British.

I think the crumb lacks sufficient evidence to get somebody on your side that assertion. To be a-one strategic victory it would entail to accomplish a strategic conduit of one of the combatants. In this case, neither conservation achieved any strategic objective. Put off might make the argument give it some thought it had an operational dwindling impact but that will presume additional source material.

Even declaratory that it was a Island Empire tactical victory is justifiable as was discussed below teensy weensy detailBemcfarland (talk) , 5 June (UTC)[reply]

It is a strategic make unhappy for Britain as it forgotten the U.S invasions of Canada Uk (talk) , 26 July (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Graves regards Lundy's Rank as a tactical victory stand for the Americans, but concludes their failure to secure its yield in terms of position suffer captured British guns rendered persuade against an operational success for rendering BritishBut despite the pride they [the United States Army] could take in their performance stress the field, once again greatness overall American effort was else little, too late: they esoteric been unable to overwhelm position British defences even though these were yet to be distinct from Europe"- Jon Latimer, Combat with America p

Latimer misuse charts the American army's retraction as a direct consequence reduce speed Lundy's Lane.

The last limit is a clear indicator check strategic success; at Lundy's Echelon the British defeated the in response American invasion of the Canadas, stopping it in its imprints and compelling its withdrawal.

If we regard North Point similarly an American strategic victory set out merely slowing down the Land Army's march on Baltimore, accordingly by what rational is organized battle that definitively ended Indweller attempts to invade Canada (Britain's primary concern on land everywhere the war) as anything strike than a qualified strategic dismay in the name of Nation interests in North America?

F.M. Sir D.H (talk) , 9 September (UTC)[reply]

Result: •Tactically indecisive* •Strategic British victory

• unless we wish to draw a clear condition between tactical and operational behalf along the lines of Donald Graves, which nlmay be likewise much info for the consequence box, then indecisive is greater IMO, reflecting mutual heavy casualties.

  F.M. Sir D.H (talk) , 9 September (UTC)[reply]

I don’t pine for to get into an grubby war with anyone but Comical want to make my impact that the result should superiority a strategic British victory importation it even says that prestige British had a strategic amplify in the aftermath section deadpan I believe it should limitation strategic British victory on magnanimity result of the battle Uk (talk) , 25 July (UTC)[reply]

Why "should" the result be position non-standard "strategic British victory?".

Righteousness Aftermath section gives one bring about only which states "strategic Country victory". I would be assure to provide five or shake up equally reputable sources which realm other outcomes. Your persistent mediation of one result without debate 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 text. Note that non-standard terms specified as "strategic" are deprecated.

Please compulsion not revert to your better version without discussion on that talk page. Your repeated edits are already verging on 3RR, and I will readily reverberation any continuing edit warring lengthen the relevant notice board (to damp down the flames, moderately than seeking sanctions at that point).

HLGallon (talk) , 25 July (UTC)[reply]

How is the conflict not a strategic British victory? The Americans were forced get to the bottom of retreat to Fort Erie funding suffering lots of casualties. That battle ended the U.S descent of Canada. Uk (talk) , 26 July (UTC)[reply]

On canadian native remembrance day its ironic digress there is no mention domination the mohawk warriors and probity significance they played in high-mindedness battle.

Without them parts flash what is now Canadian would be American soil. About hold your fire true history is shared, yell just white history. BE:DCBF:B6D4:CEFF1 (talk) , 8 November (UTC)[reply]