Talk:Baylor Massacre
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Er, how can this represent a world view? This battle only occured in the US...I'm removing the tag unless someone explains why they feel that way.EricDerKonig206.154.229.13913:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comical really. Most of Wikipedia's Revolutionary War articles predominantly cite US historians... use Wikipedia at your peril. The British view point about many of these battles, particularly when you look through the regimental diaries and histories, paint a different picture. The casualties don't make any sense either. The case of Tarleton is worst example - he is labelled as a butcher simply because he bested the Americans in many skirmishes and was an effective cavalry commander.
As forworld view I'm not american and this entry is also my view.—Precedingunsigned comment added byRepublique2007 (talk •contribs)21:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remove the limited tag. i used a book published in london as a source, and it gives the same tone as the american sources. agree?Shirulashem (talk)20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this page[2] quotes some British accounts (that may be of course better researched and then included here). Also, quoting from a journal article reference,For British accounts of the Old Tappan action, see Sir Henry Clinton to Lord George Germain, Oct. [8], 1778, University of Michigan, William L. Clements Library, Sir Henry Clinton Papers, 43:3 and 43: 4. For a detailed American description of British atrocities at Old Tappan, see: James Thacher, A Military Journal During the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783...(Boston, 1823), 179-81. IMO the viewpoint tag should remain until those British accounts are described (also since the word "massacre" seems to have been only used by one of the sides, it might be better to leave it out). —Daniel Mahu ·talk ·22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the title beBaylor massacre? --Daysleeper47 (talk)18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Source is William Scarth Moorsom, Historical Record of the 52nd Regiment (1860).
See also "Sir Martin Hunter: With the 52nd in America 1773-1778", printed in The Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Light Infantry Chronicle, Vol VI, 1897 pps.122-134, which contains details of other incidents in the American war.
His reference to a small number of casualties, some of whom had been bayoneted, ties-in with the figures quoted.
Stanley C.JenkinsStanley c jenkins (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byStanley c jenkins (talk •contribs)20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worth pointing out that, according to Martin Hunter, the British light infantrymen were mounted.Stanley c jenkins (talk)21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to add this information in the form of a footnote (No.5) but have not been able to do so - perhaps a more experienced user could put the suggested footnote in the correct place?Stanley c jenkins (talk)21:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers are inaccurate. There is mention of "about 135" men in the info box and "about 100" in the article. Dr Griffith's letter[3] suggests 104 privates (not including officers). Counts of the wounded and killed appear to have been taken from this letter, but do not include the officers (an extra 1 dead, 3 wounded, 5 prisoners). Could this make out for the difference between the total of 61 in the infobox and 69 in the article?.. —Daniel Mahu ·talk ·22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put back the stub markers because
The battle took place in 1779 not 1778 wikipedia is not a source to rely on. this information is rong—Precedingunsigned comment added by96.234.0.37 (talk •contribs) 17:10, 20 February 2010
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onBaylor Massacre. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)04:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the attack on the 3rd light dragoons could be a diversion for the attack on Little Egg Harbor since they were 2 1/2 weeks apart. More likely, the Baylor attack fell under the heading of trying to stir Washington into action.
If no one objects, I think the paragraph mentioning Little Egg Harbor should be deleted.Humphrey Tribble (talk)10:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This quotation is from a commemorative plaque. The information is of unknown origin. It is clearly not neutral, and it lacks author, publisher, and date. It is not a reliable historical source and I have, therefore, deleted it.Humphrey Tribble (talk)07:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The light battalion was made up of the light companies detached from other regiments. Similarly the grenadier battalion was made up of the grenadier companies detached from other regiments. The light and grenadier companies of a British regiment were their best soldiers, and specialized as light infantry and assault troops respectively. The light and grenadier battalions probably included a detached company of the 52nd regiment of foot. Hence, some soldiers of the 52nd were likely present even though the regiment itself wasn't.
This might account for the diary record even though on the regiment wasn't officially part of the action.Humphrey Tribble (talk)12:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see your point. I'll try to find another way to get the message across. Revert if you think it can't wait.Humphrey Tribble (talk)13:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quickest fix is to revert in my head it. Coming up with a reference for the composition of light and Grenadier battalions will take longer.Humphrey Tribble (talk)22:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
