Talk:Battle of New Orleans

Artillery in the historiography of the battle

In terms of getting a feel for the history of an event, it can be useful to get a feel for the historiography since the date it occurred and the present. Theodore Roosevelt mentions in his writings on the war of 1812 how British and American retellings of events in the nineteenth century are selective in their use of facts, so as to put forward their nationalistic agenda, with Sir Archibald Alison being singled out for this practice. In some cases, there is a lack of transparency as to where certain content has come from. In a more extreme case, Augustus Caesar Buell went so far as to fabricate primary sources in support of his agenda. Buell is in favor of the rifleman myth as the main source of casualties to the British, and has presented faked evidence to support this.

The following appears in a magazine article in 1897 authored by William Hugh Robarts and is partly reproduced in Stanley Clisby Arthur's book

My riflemen killed and wounded 2117 in less than an hour.... I heard a single rifle shot from a group of country carts we had been using, and a moment thereafter I saw Pakenham reel and pitch out of his saddle. I have always believed he fell from the bullet of a free man of color, who was a famous rifle shot and came from the Attakapas region of Louisiana. I did not know where General Pakenham was lying or I should have sent to him, or gone in person, to offer any service in my power to render. I was told he lived two hours after he was hit. His wound was directly through the liver and bowels.

I am of the opinion this letter from Jackson to Monroe was probably dug out of the back of the same sofa as some of Buell's fabrications.

None of the above is reflected in Jackson's communication to Monroe on January 9, and he first mentions he believes that Pakenham has died in his subsequent communication to Monroe dated January 13.

William Davis believes Pakenham was killed by artillery fire, and his footnotes go into detail about this. Robin Reilly shares the same opinion, and looks to debunk the rifleman myth which downplays the efficiency of Jackson's gunners.

Should there not be more of a mention of how the rifleman myth came into being, and how in later years this has been questioned as more of a romanticised nationalistic myth? There's a similar myth with the British Expeditionary Force of 1914, whereby their effective and rapid rifle fire was "believed" to be machine gun fire by the Germans, according to subsequent english language accounts... except there is no source-based evidence from Germany in support of this wartime propaganda. Keith H99 (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

An interesting comment on how the rifleman myth is presented in a fairly recent publication.

'The most myth-filled American account, by Dr. Robert Remini, reports, “The Tennessee and Kentucky riflemen never seemed to miss a target,” but just a paragraph earlier he cited British Lieutenant Gleig’s memoirs to show that “‘the Americans, without so much as lifting their faces above the rampart, swung their firelocks by one arm over the wall.’” Short of x-ray vision, the Americans could not have aimed such shots.'

A wry observation from the Mimir's Well blogger. Keith H99 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Vice Admiral Cochrane's shortcomings

@Tradeojax6

The Duke of Wellington held that Cochrane was largely at fault for the campaign's failure, and that the British attack could have succeeded were it not for the Admiral's shortcomings.

You added this to the article on April 24, 2019. This reads like a point of view. Is there a historian that has this viewpoint? Do they elucidate as to what these shortcomings were? In the absence of sources, I think it should be removed. Keith H99 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is what Richard Holmes actually wrote, prior to the quote

When the attack bogged down in the face of heavy fire from well-entrenched defenders, dome of the attacking infantry broke, and Pakenham rode forward to rally them, shouting “For shame” Recollect that you are British soldiers.” He was shot through the spine and killed.

Wellington was both sad at Ned’s death, and angry at Ned’s naval colleague, whom he blamed for the failure.

I am going to rewrite something closer to Holmes. I would see the gross incompetence and dysfunctional personality of Mullins as the root cause of the deaths of both Pakenham and Gibbs. Not only did the fact the siege stores (fascines & ladders) were not readily available to be picked up cause its own issues, but also the movement of 300 men through the column, the result that the formation became disorganized, and was thereafter unable to recover when blasted by Jackson gunners in the kill zone. Keith H99 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Death of Pakenham edit

The following edit was performed anonymously

It was then that Pakenham, learning of Mullins' conduct, placed himself at the head of the 44th and endeavored to lead them to the front with the implements needed to storm the works, when at around 500 yards away from the enemy front line, he fell wounded after being hit with grapeshot. On being assisted onto a horse, Pakenham was hit again and fell, this time mortally wounded.

Revision as of 19:24, 27 April 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_New_Orleans&oldid=717446907

The implication is that the references to grapeshot and 500 yards are taken from the sources, Porter pg 393 quoting Duncan quoting Dickson, and Smith (1904). There is a reference to grapeshot in Smith. Neither source positions Pakenham 500 yards from the front of Line Jackson.

It is something of an Augustus Buell moment. It looks plausible enough at first glance to be unquestioned, but there are no reliable sources of known provenance in support of this.

Davis, notes on pg 452, states that if Pakenham were hit by grapeshot, it was most likely to have come from the Flaujac battery. There is mention of an exploding howitzer shell, the fragments of which resulted in the deaths of Gibbs and Pakenham, as recounted by a Royal Navy officer.

Dickson, via MacDougall's testimony, and Captain Tylden's journal tell the same story of how Pakenham was wounded a first time, his horse dying under him, and receiving a mortal wounding whilst mounting a second horse. Keith H99 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style guidance re: national varieties of English

Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic

While (not whilst ;-) ) this article obviously has an important British element, it should be as apparent that the strongest tie is to American history, thus the use of American English in this article is appropriate. 2603:6080:E00:4F67:B4D7:F962:E12A:6D51 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Cite book and url links to google books

I find it very misleading that for a number of sources, there is a link to a Google Books url, yet when you click on the link, the entire book is not accessible, only a snippet view or similar. Keith H99 (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

These links ought to be removed as per WP:GBOOKS Keith H99 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello again @Carlstak,

I had not foreseen any edits to the sources taking place on what is usually a quiet article, with intermittent edits. Given your interest in improving the sources, and that there have been recent edits by @Hhfjbaker to try to meet the same aims, I thought it worth mentioning you both, so there is consensus on the changes that take place. As things currently stand, there is the scope for too many cooks.

I propose that the issue with Google books is remedied prior to any further root and branch edits on the sources. Keith H99 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Per policy, it is permissible to use a Google books link with just the id number minus the page number if the cited page has no preview, as long as the page number is given inline. The entire book does not have to be available for reading. If that were so, half of the refs in WP articles would have to be removed. It's analogous to citing a book that I have in my possession, but it has no online presence. I can certainly cite it per WP:INDICATEAVAIL:

If your source is not available online, it should be available in libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context.

Carlstak (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I have finished my edits, so I guess it is over to you two to perform whatever changes you are looking to do. Keith H99 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do after lunch. Carlstak (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about all that. Misunderstood search inside WAS snippets view. For the ones that were completely unavailable - mo excuse. Sorry. Boo Boo (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)