Talk:Battle of Baltimore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The oversized flag[edit]

"Operating in darkness and in foul weather, this diversionary attack failed. On the morning of September 14, an oversized American flag, which had been hastily sewn in hopes of this event, still flew over Fort McHenry, and Cochrane and Brooke knew that victory had eluded them."

May be inaccurate, just watching the History Channel's War of 1812 program. The storm flag flew overnight and after the retreat of the British fleet was the oversized flag flown.

I guess the above comment is by 24.21.144.103

Bug[edit]

Anyway, this page has a rendering problem; in the classic skin that I use the "edit" links for the first two parts are misplaced and come out next to the little box below the regular taxobox -- superimposed on text. Bug? ;Bear 05:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the problem is what i think it is, it is a bug. I had a similar issue with a templat that i developed. You might want to leave a not on the talkp page on for the template, if you have not arleady , Template:Infobox Military Conflict (talk · links · edit) and let them know. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)m alec is gay[reply]

Geography[edit]

The British also sent a fleet up the Potomac to threaten the prosperous ports of Alexandria and Georgetown, which lie just west of Washington

Old Town Alexandria is almost due south, not west.71.63.88.158 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Old Town Alexandria and Georgetown were actually PART of Washington, D.C. at the time - both were WITHIN the city limits.
Alexandria was until 1846, and Georgetown still is.
It should read:
The British also sent a fleet up the Potomac to threaten the prosperous ports of Alexandria and Georgetown in Washington, D.C.
Mark Rizo (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Reverted Vandalism by anon IP[edit]

Someone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:65.189.228.131) made a claim in the Casualties that the British suffered over 2,000 casualties and the Americans less than 20. Rubbish! I have reverted this edit (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Official US Army recognition[edit]

Just for the record, the US Army only recognizes ths Campaign (their word for it) as being the Fort McHenry Campaign, and credit it taking place overnight on 13 September, 1814. Here is the summary report from the US Army Center for Military History:

Fort McHenry, 13 September 1814. While the British marched on Washington, Baltimore had time to hastily strengthen its defenses. Maj. Gen. Samuel Smith had about 9,000 militia, including 1,000 in Fort McHenry guarding the harbor. On 12 September the British landed at North Point about 14 miles below the city, where their advance was momentarily checked by 3,200 Maryland Militiamen. Thirty-nine British (including General Ross) were killed and 251 wounded at a cost of 24 Americans killed, 139 wounded, and 50 taken prisoner. After their fleet failed to reduce Fort McHenry by bombardment and boat attack (night of 13-14 September), the British decided that a land attack on the rather formidable fortifications defending the city would be too costly and on 14 October sailed for Jamaica. Francis Scott Key, after observing the unsuccessful British bombardment of Fort McHenry, was inspired to compose the verses of "The Star Spangled Banner."

The United States Army Institute of Heraldry has issued a streamer for the campaign that is embroidered as follows: Fort McHenry 13 September 1814.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diversionary force[edit]

I've read in a handful of online sources that the British diversionary force (mentioned in the Fort McHenry section) which attempted to move around the fort into the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and was repelled by the fort's artillery cannons also suffered 330+ casualties, whereas the article currently simply states that the attack "failed". If those numbers can be confirmed, shouldn't they be included in the info box? 24.255.189.207 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph[edit]

"American forces 'repulsed' sea and land invasions off the busy port city of Baltimore, Maryland"

does not make any sense. The British forces won the only land engagement of the battle and suffered no lossess during the naval bombardment, and withdrew without loss and completely unmolested; so using the word 'repulsed' is misleading. Should read 'successfully resisted', which is how most historians describe it. Thecitizen1 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the British mission was to capture the key port of Baltimore, and they failed. They did route some American militia (with very light casualties on both sides), but the Americans killed their commander (Ross). Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before I edited this article, North Point wasn't even mentioned in the opening paragraph, it just had reference to Ross' death. I'm not suggesting that it wasn't it was a failure, I was trying to give a less biased, more accurate description of the result in the opening paragraph. The only engagement on land that took place was a British victory, so that rules out the suggestion the British were repulsed on land, they withdrew unmolested. The only action at sea that took place was the bombardment on Fort Mcenry, and while it did not achieve its odjectives, it did not result in losses to the British fleet, so that rules out the British being repulsed at sea. If this was an action by an American fleet/army, the result would be indecisive. Thecitizen1 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
when you fail to take your objective (Baltimore) by land or by sea, and your commander is killed (Ross), things look like failure . The Brits did win a very small battle against local militia. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a[edit]

i dont understand what the conditions were like... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.140.247 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More British propaganda than history.[edit]

The most obvious signs are the British ‘point of view’ of the article, stating the British took a defnsive stance from the start; the total lack of any mention of the British impressing American sailors; and the USS Constitution’s defeats of HMS Java and HMS Gueirre as “vs” with outcomes omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcalli2 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Baltimore. 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}}).

checkY 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) 13:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Baltimore&oldid=1205821424"