Talk:Battle of Lake Erie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] What happend next?

What happend next?

Well, Britain lost control of the lake and found it much more difficult to supply their western garrisons, and they were defeated at the Battle of the Thames a month later. Is that what you mean? Adam Bishop 21:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Maybe he is asking what the next major naval battle of the war is? --Ignignot 20:59, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

The article says "successful invasion of Canada". I think this needs to be clarified. Canada as in British North America, or in reference to the Canadas - Quebec had been divided into Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (now Quebec)? They were successful on the western frontier of Upper Canada - where American successes on Lake Erie and victory at the Battle of the Thames gave them effective control of that part of Upper Canada. The British held onto Lake Ontario and the passage to the St. Lawrence, despite losses, and the Americans' progress was halted by British success at the Battle of Crysler's Farm.

SCrews 15:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"...sometimes referred to as the Battle of Put-in Bay." Who refers to the battle this way? I've never heard it called anything other than the Battle of Lake Erie.... Susan Davis 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is referred to that way in:
Barnes, Ian; Royster, Charles (2000). The Historical Atlas of the American revolution. New York: Rutledge. ISBN 0-415-92243-7. 
On pages 174 and 178. Dan D. Ric 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brigs Ain't Ships

I must leave it to someone with better formatting skills to remedy the silly tables listed under, now that I've fixed that much, "Vessels Involved". "USS" stands for "United States Ship", of which there were none on Lake Erie. The Niagara and Lawrence were brigs, so their designation, as indicated in Perry's dispatches, was "US Brig Niagara" etc. Ditto the schooners. This looks rather unimpressive. Czrisher 21:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The "silly" tables were lifted almost directly from Roosevelt, "The Naval War of 1812". You are quite correct about the designations for naval vessels; similarly, it should be "HM Brig xxxx" etc. However, the "USS" designations are those used in the entries for the vessels elsewhere in wikipedia; I believe an earlier attempt to drop the prefixes resulted in a revert to avoid redirections. HLGallon 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be most surprised to learn that TR made such an error and, indeed, in my e-text of 'The Naval War of 1812' I find the tables identical except for the fact that none of the vessel names begins with US (or HM) anything, to wit, "Lawrence/Brig/480/etc." Further, since "US Brig Niagara" now links to the non-existant vessel "USS Niagara", I fail to see why the relationship cannot be easily reversed by whoever is possessed of the knowledge to form such a re-direction. Wikipedia's search capabilities are far too powerful to justify such an incorrect entry for ease of location. If, however, you would direct my attention to such a previous discussion as you mention which you feel might be convincing, I'd be happy to read it. Czrisher 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detroit was best built?

"[T]he Detroit...was the best built ship on the Lake." This is quite a claim. Do we have at least explication of it, if not citation?Czrisher 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vessels involved - classes

This seems to be the subject of a growing edit war. I believe that the classification of the British vessels involved should go by rig, as described by Perry, rather than any arbitrary classification system.

The Little Belt for example, was described as a sloop she was sloop-rigged i.e carried both fore-and-aft and square sails on a single mast, and not as a sloop-of-war, a much larger class of vessel. Detroit, which might have been classed as a sloop of war, was ship-rigged, i.e. a three-masted square-rigged vessel, and was described as such throughout by Barclay. The term "corvette" was not official in the Royal Navy, and not used by any contemporary source or subsequent history of the Battle.

Finally, it is inconsistent to describe the U.S. vessels using one classification system and the British by another. HLGallon (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Another reason: Perry's message to General Harrison says "two ships, two brigs, one schooner, and one sloop", he doesn't use the term corvette. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perry's letter to Harrison was what I had in mind when I said "as described by Perry". Sorry, I should have been more precise. HLGallon (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I skimmed your message and saw that the "term 'corvette' was not official in the Royal Navy" and figured that was the cause of the reason. Normally, I'm good at reading. The IP doesn't appear to wish to discuss their actions. The request is in and now we wait for the wheels of bureaucracy to turn. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 16:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Though it wasn't a term yet used by the Royal Navy, the term Corvette was floating around during the Napoleonic Wars. Whether it wasn't yet officially used, the ship "was" a corvette. Also, the other ship was actually a sloop, a term which was used by the navy. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

You may term the Detroit a corvette, but no contemporary source does; certainly not Barclay who referred to her as "the new ship" throughout her construction. (See C.P. Stacey, "Another look at the Battle of Lake Erie"). Again, you may decide that Queen Charlotte was a sloop; she was never rated as such by the Royal Navy (and in any case always belonged to the Provincial Marine, rather than the RN). To impose an artificial classification on a subject where there is ample first-hand evidence to the contrary violates both Verifiability and No original research. HLGallon (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No no, the Queen Charlotte WAS a sloop, and the Detroit WAS a Corvette, though not termed by the Royal Navy. In my opinion, anything that floats is technically a ship or a boat, and also in my opinion, when someone sees the word "ship", they immediately relate to something like a frigate, or larger. Since "Wikipedia is not a propaganda site", I think it would be fair and justified to term them as a corvette and sloop, as the Queen Charlotte was a sloop, the term "sloop" was used, so there is no worming out of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this in anyway, I just wandered by. I would like to clarify the term 'sloop' and 'sloop of war' though as there seems to be some confusion over it. A Sloop-of-war is not a distinct class, it is a rating system, basically for anything under 18 guns, all the way down to the tiny commissioned cutters and so forth. Therefore Little Belt WAS termed a sloop of war by the Navy and not just a sloop. The rating system is not really to do with sail plans but with guns carried, so brigs, bomb vessels, etc could be lumped into this catch-all category. Little Belt's sail plan made her a 'sloop' along traditional mercantile lines, and her rating classification was as a 'sloop of war'. She was of a different type from the usual type of sloops that served with the Royal Navy as the classic 'sloops-of-war' but was nevertheless classified as such. Corvettes at this time referred to a class of ship in service at this time with the French Navy, and the term did not enter into the Royal Navy until the 1830s. In these circumstances, I'd suggest we use what the scholars use to describe these ships. This follows the guidelines laid down by WP:SHIPS, and avoids Original research. Benea (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Er, what do the scholars use to describe these ships? The RN of the time used terms such as "HM Brig so-and-so" or "HM Schooner such-and-such" i.e. below sloops of war of 20 guns or so and rated for a master and commander, the RN went with the practice of classifying by rig. Where clarification was required in official reports and orders, they used the form "HM Brig whatever, of 14 guns". HLGallon (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, this specific area of history is not my speciality. You've possibly answered your own question I'm not sure. As you can see, they can be classed by rig, or rating system and indeed were sometimes classified by either one, and at different times both. But what do scholars call these ships specifically? Do they call Little Belt a sloop or a sloop of war? Detroit a brig or a corvette? If you're trying to work backwards and imposing criteria on them yourself then that is really original research. I would suggest using the academically accepted and reported terms and thoroughly citing them. Benea (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have just been through every source I have immediately to hand. Roosevelt consistently refers to all vessels involved on both sides by rig, clarifying where necessary by referring to armament. Forester follows Roosevelt. C.P. Stacey refers to British vessels by rig, although to be fair he does refer to the two big American vessels (Lawrence and Niagara) as "brig corvettes". I will ignore the normally reliable J. Mackay Hitsman, who refers to Detroit as a brig (he may be confusing her with the vessel captured by Elliot late in 1812 and subsequently set on fire). The American John R. Elting is a bit vague; he states Detroit to be a sloop of war, but also states that only Queen Charlotte was armed sloop-of-war fashion. One important on-line source I have found is at an Ohio History site, containing the transcript of Barclay's court-martial, with most of the correspondence Barclay wrote while in command. Annoyingly for me, he states that at one point he commanded "Corvette No. 1, then called the Wolfe" on Lake Ontario. However, all his correspondence from Ontario was addressed from H. M. Ship Queen Charlotte or H. M. S(hip) Detroit. The only vessel which he describes as a sloop is the sloop-rigged Little Belt. If anyone can find an authentic *first hand* source describing either Detroit or Queen Charlotte as sloops of war, I will happily stand corrected, but I must take issue with Benea's assertion that sloop-of-war was a generic catch-all term for anything smaller than a frigate; it appears to have referred specifically to vessels requiring an officer of the rank of Commander in charge, during the early years of the Napoleonic Wars anyway. (Barclay's appointment was not to any specific vessel, but "His Majesty's Naval Establishment on Lake Erie".) I nevertheless maintain my objection, that neither Detroit nor Queen Charlotte were ever officially termed sloops of war, and certainly never corvettes; any description of them as such is WP:POV. Having at least stated my point, I shall request unprotection, and let others get on with it. HLGallon (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't particularly say they were. Sloop-of-war had multiple meanings that sometimes overlapped and sometimes meant different things, dependent on what the writer was basing his observations on, armament, rig, rating, etc.
  • In the early 18th century, first (100 plus guns on three gundecks), second (90-98 guns on three gundecks) or third (80, 74 or 64, or within that range on two gundecks) rates are 'ships of the line of battle'. Fourth rates (50 guns or more on one or two gundecks) were 'below the line', fifth (32 to 44 guns on one gundeck) and sixth (20 to 28 guns on one gundeck) were frigates. Command of all of these rates of ships were (except in unusual circumstances) held by an officer of the rank of Postcaptain.
  • Then comes the ship-sloops. These are unrated, carrying up to 22 guns on one gundeck, and are followed by the brig-sloops, carrying up to 28 guns on one gundeck. Both of these are commanded by an officer who held the rank of Commander.
  • Finally there are the even smaller ships, carrying up to 18 guns on one gundeck, and commanded by an officer of the rank of Lieutenant.
So what you term a ship can depend on all manner of criteria, particular to whatever the person who was doing the describing chose to apply. The rank of the officer commanding could play a role in determining what the ship was, but was often subordinate to guns carried, or the rig. If for some reason an officer ranking higher or lower than the usual rank assigned to the ship took charge, it did not suddenly change the rating of the ship! Little Belt could, at different times and to different people, be a sloop, or a sloop-of-war.
But this is really all bye the bye, though it does explain why an edit war has broken out. Our conventions (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) would indicate using the scholarly accepted works, even when this differs from what may have been used at the time - This is consistent with the ordinary Wikipedia naming practice of using modern names for articles even if different from the contemporary name. If the scholarly works describe the ships in a certain way, I encourage you to use that, no matter what you think they should be based on how contemporaries are describing them. Benea (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)