Talk:Battle of Bloody Marsh

ended the war?

Some sources say that this battle effecively ended the War of Jenkin's ear. That should be put in there if it is correct, but I'm not well-enough versed in it to be sure. Does anyone know? Bubba73 (talk) 01:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article says that the ambush was during the Spanard's siesta hour, but the external links didn't mention that. Is that correct? Bubba73 (talk) 03:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The pages on the Fort Frederica site that I just looked at did not mention that either. Sounds legend-ish. -WCFrancis 23:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It did not end the war of Jenkin's ear, it ended the Spanish invasion of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:280E:2253:C9BA:DC7F (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Gully Hole Creek

The only British casualty was a highlander who passed out and died from the heat. I remembered this as being Bloody Marsh. I remembered this wrong from childhood visits to Fort Frederica's museum. The battle of Gully Hole creek preceded Bloody Marsh - the Spaniards drove the British back to Fort Frederica from Fort St. Simons. -WCFrancis 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Another source: Georgia Encyclopedia

Casualties

According to this link, the Spanish only lost 19 men in Gully Hole Creek and Bloody Marsh. The "50 casualties" in Bloody Marsh may be another British exaggeration of the Jenkins' Ear War, like the "victories" of Edward Vernon in Portobello and Cartagena de Indias (the second was, in fact, the worst British defeat in History).--Menah the Great 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think I got the "about 50" from the marker at the site of the battle. Bubba73 (talk), 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I went by Bloody Marsh today, and there are three markers describing it. None of them say how many were killed. Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The US Park Service and the New Georgia Encyclopedia state that casualties were between 7-50. However, at least one other source lists casualties as high as 200. Is there some definitive source for an accurate number? Or will we be forced to say that casualties were between 7 and 200, which sounds ridiculously vague.Gulbenk (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I initially read about 50 from a good source but I later read that the Spanish reported about 6 killed. Recently someone gave the 200 figure, so I don't know. And sometimes casualties include wounded or captured. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba73 for your comments and past contributions to this article. I was hesitant to reverse the IP user's number of 200 casualties, because the author he cited is quite notable. But that is all I know about the reference. I have not read (nor have I been able to locate) the book (which was published quite a few years ago). Perhaps a library down your way has it on the shelf. I don't know if the IP user simply misread the passage, or if the information cited in the book has been corrected (downward) in the last several decades. With multiple sources citing the much lower numbers of 7-50, I decided to go with that. If you should have any additional information on this point, I would be most interested to hear it. Gulbenk (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There has, once again, been some back-and-forth on the casualty figures. I have contacted the IP user, at his TALK page, with a request that he participate in a discussion here before making further changes to the numbers. I've asked him to bring forth the sources he is using to support the higher casualty numbers, so that we can determine if there is consensus for change. Everyone interested in this discussion should participate. Gulbenk (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a discussion of these figures, rather than a slow-motion edit war. I should point out that the apparent source for the higher number originates with a hand written report by one of the British participants, who may have had reason to embellish. I can provide a link to that report, if anyone cares to read it. This British report is offset by a contemporary Spanish accounting, listing seven dead. Robert Preston Brooks used the British number, and several non-historian authors repeat that. The National Park Service, The New Georgia Encyclopedia, and the Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Georgia (found here: http://scwsav.org/Portals/13/Users/002/02/2/SOCW%20History.pdf ) use the lower numbers. So, lay out your best arguments (for or against) and let us see if there is consensus for change. Until that time, the long standing wording will be retained. Gulbenk (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a big problem as to what counts as a casualty. Sometimes it is the number killed, other times it includes wounded, captured, and missing. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Early reports muddy the waters even more, adding in the number of captured. If possible, let's stick to the number killed. Gulbenk (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a long list of sources which confirm the number of roughly 200 Spanish casualties (all of the sources I've provided specifically state 200 Spanish killed). More even than I've listed here. However, the most authoritative source on this matter is Society of Colonial Wars, who themselves have numerous documents confirming these figures. The number of valid sources confirming the 200 figure vastly outweigh those supporting these bizarrely lower figures.

1a) History of Georgia By Robert Preston Brooks page 77

1b) https://books.google.com/books?id=QA_VAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA77&dq=History+of+Georgia++By+Robert+Preston+%22About+two+hundred+Spaniards%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XejuVKb7BZSZoQTH2oHoBw&ved=0CB8Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=History%20of%20Georgia%20%20By%20Robert%20Preston%20%22About%20two%20hundred%20Spaniards%22&f=false

2) Florida's Past: People and Events That Shaped the State, Volume 1 By Gene M. Burnett page 181

3) The American Colonial Wars: a concise history, 1607-1775 Nathaniel Claiborne Hale, General Society of Colonial Wars (U.S.) Hale House, 1967 page 54

4) Society of Colonial Wars, 1892-1967: seventy-fifth anniversary (General Society of Colonial Wars, 1967) page 231

5) Thomas Spalding of Sapelo, Ellis Merton Coulter, (Louisiana State University Press, 1940) page 278

6) A History of Florida By Caroline Mays Brevard, Henry Eastman Bennett page 75

I added the direct link to the Robert Preston Brooks source because somewhat mentioned they couldn't find a hard copy of it. I can do so for the rest of the sources if need be as well. If these are not enough sources to make the point, I also have more. It's a very well-sourced figure. BadgerStateHistorian1967 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

BadgerStateHistorian1967 Thank you for your input here.

1(a) / 1(b): It appears that Robert Preston Brooks (who was a notable historian at the University of Georgia) was using the one British account, as his sole reference to this event, when he included the Battle of Bloody Marsh in his more comprehensive work on the History of Georgia. There doesn't appear to be any acknowledgement of other conflicting numbers, or of the contemporary Spanish account (with its much lower number). In the 102 years since Brooks' book was published, the number he used has come into question. This is noted in the edit you deleted.

2: Gene M. Burnett wrote for Florida Trend magazine, and published a few books on Florida history as a popular writer. I can not find any academic credentials for him. It may be that he simply repeated from the Brooks book (or one of the several later articles/books who repeated Brooks).

3 / 4: Your reference, the General Society of Colonial Wars is offset by the Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Georgia (which opposes their numbers). Since these groups are similar in stature, and don't agree on a number, there doesn't appear to be a clear resolution, either way.

5: Even though Ellis Merton Coulter has been criticized by modern historians, I find no reason to doubt his work on Thomas Spalding. He, unlike many of the popular authors who simply repeated the Brooks number, may have had direct access (at UGA) to the British hand written account of the events. But there is no indication that he knew of (or read) the Spanish accounts, or other accounts which supported the lower number.

6: Caroline Mays Brevard and Henry Eastman Bennett were, roughly speaking, contemporaries of Brooks. Bennett was on the faculty of William & Mary, and wrote books on subjects such as School Efficiency (a manual for modern school management) and School Posture and Seating. Brevard had a better reputation, in Florida, but there is no indication that she did anything other than accept the numbers published by the Rhodes Scholar in the neighboring state to the north. Like Brooks (at UGA) her work is quite dated.

In summary: The U.S. Government and the State of Georgia don't support the 200 number, and no one of equal stature has supported that number in over 100 years. Gulbenk (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dismissing the above listed sources without providing better sources to counter with appears slanted. The pattern seems to be to deem the Spanish account legitimate and the British account illegitimate. This is not a good reason for listing lower figures.

On the contrary. The long standing edit, which I seek to preserve until there is consensus, states both positions (with a notation that the Brooks number has been disputed in recent years). Your edit, on the other hand, simply assumes that you are right... which is not supported by current authorities. You should respect the effort to reach consensus, rather than simply impose your view. Gulbenk (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you editors come to some sort of agreement. I've wondered about it for years, but I have few references. I'm not going to weigh in because I don't know enough about it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

PS, I've added a close-up photo of the historical marker at the nearby Battle of Gully Hole Creek. It says that the Spanish forces numbered over 100, and losses were about 1/3, whatever is counted in "losses". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Bubba that's the battle of gully hole creek, not the battle of bloody marshes. It seems like the 200 figure not only has the most sources but also the most reliable sources. The lower figures are largely either reliant on taking the word of the people who lost the battle or are nothing short of rank revisionism for the sake of revisionism. The 200 figure has the most sources backing it up and the most reliable ones. The tour guide at Fort Frederica stated that there is disagreement over the figures but it was "most likely around 200 killed" during bloody marsh. This seems like the most legitimate count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:280E:2253:C9BA:DC7F (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I know it was the battle of Gully Hole Creek - I stated that. But it was a battle the same day, a few miles away, involving the same armies. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mid-importance?

This battle is labeled as mid-importance, "The subject is not well-known or particularly significant ". This battle drove the Spanish out of the Colonies and they didn't return. It also established the area as Brittish territory - originally the Brittish claimed only down to the Altamaha River. Isn't that significant? Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the fact Georgia would potentially be a Spanish-speaking territory had this battle gone differently justifies upping the level of importance here.BadgerStateHistorian1967 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Changed to high-importance (for Georgia). Gulbenk (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Province of Georgia?

Recent changes give it as being in the Province of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia. As I understand it, the location was not in the province of Georgia as of 1742. The 1732 boundary of Georgia went down to the Altamaha River; it wasn't until 1763 that the area was claimed as part of the Province of Georgia. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Sources clearly states that 1950 Spanish soldiers (from at least 50 vessels) were involved in this battle. After the defeat Gully Hole Creek 200 Spanish grenadiers covered the retreat of the 150 man reccon force of which the rest of the invasion force took part in Bloody Marsh. Bruichladdich1 (talk), 21:01, 11 June 2010 (GMT)

I went to the library and got Coleman's book, and it says that the Spanish lost only a "handful" of men. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Spanish lost around 30 men out of 115 of the reconn force at Gully Hole Creek or a a third of the force. Whilst only 50 men during the Bloody Marsh engagement... out of a total of just less than 2,000 men .... this is only a handful. Bruichladdich1 (talk), 21:48, 11 June 2010 (GMT)

According to other sources, after the battle of Guly Holle Creek, the Spanish troops withdrew without any problem because Oglethorpe feared falling into a trap and ordered his men hold their positions. Montiano, convinced that his force outnumbered the British, ordered the next day an European-style attack in lines. Then, about 200 Spanish grenadiers under Antonio Barba moved into the swamp and attacked the British, forcing Captain Demere's regular troops to withdraw. However, Mackay's Highlanders and lieutenant Sutherland's platoon continued fighting for two hours. When the Spanish ran out of ammunition, they attacked, but only to be rejected. Then Antonio Barba ordered his men withdraw. The Spanish were not pursued, and both sides suffered only a few casualties. Several days later Oglethorpe unsuccessfully attacked Fort Simon in command of 500 men. Montiano only returned to Florida when he thought British reinforcements arrived after see five British warships on the horizon. ElBufon (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WRONG! 200 Spanish grenadiers covered the retreatof the reconnaissance force that was defeated at Gully Hole Creek. If you read the source correctly you will see this. The rest of the Spanish force which consisted of aprrox 1,900 men were involved in the battle of Bloody Marsh there are sources that state this. If only 200 were involved what was the point of invading Gerogia?! The fact that Montiano retreated is well known. Bruichladdich1 (talk), 23:48, 11 June 2010 (GMT)

If reliable sources differ then I say list both, but reference it. I don't have the sources myself, but I've read that the British claimed 50 Spaniards killed at Bloody Marsh. Other sources say that Spanish records indicate 5, 6, or 7 killed. I don't know what is right. Also, "casulties" may include wounded. "Lost" may include captured. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See discussion, continued above, under Casualties Gulbenk (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a long list of sources which confirm the number of roughly 200 Spanish casualties (all of the sources I've provided specifically state 200 Spanish killed). More even than I've listed here. However, the most authoritative source on this matter is Society of Colonial Wars, who themselves have numerous documents confirming these figures. The number of valid sources confirming the 200 figure vastly outweigh those supporting these bizarrely lower figures. I added the direct link to the Robert Preston Brooks source because somewhat mentioned they couldn't find a hard copy of it. I can do so for the rest of the sources if need be as well. If these are not enough sources to make the point, I also have more. It's a very well-sourced figure. BadgerStateHistorian1967 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the works you have cited appear to be old, out-dated studies which have neglected the usage of Spanish sources. I've added several modern works which give a completely different account on the battle and state that the Spanish force lost few men. Nevertheless, I've left also the old narratives, but putting them on context. Weymar Horren (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that an anonymous IP is deleting the modern views on the battle that I've been adding with exhaustive references to many different sources. It claims that the old works, the majority of them dating back to the early 20th century, are better despite having neglected the usage of Spanish sources. I've tried to portray both old and modern approaches to the battle through my editing of the article, but my work is being continuosly reverted by anonymous IPs.Weymar Horren (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So it's correct to say the sources you've added are not reliable, in fact they are far less reliable than the older sources. Many of them are completely unacademic, coming from popular histories from private publishing companies and so forth. Others, have no sources for their claims but reproduce information that appeared on wikipedia in previous years (such as the "almanac"). The 200 figure stands.BadgerStateHistorian1967 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

old/new-style dates

There is some confusion about the old style versus new style date. I thought that July 7 was the old style date for the battle. Is that right? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate article

I've tagged the article as unaccurate. All my editions having been removed without any satisfying explanation by several anonymous IPs and the users BadgerStateHistorian1967 and 2602:30a:2cc9:1790:706e:4719:7e2f:a0dc, it makes a highly unaccurate, outdated narrative of the events. The work is based entirely in English-language sources, many of them dating back to the first half of the past century, which are endogamic and have neglected the study of the Spanish sources on the battle. There is evidence in and outside Spanish works which points that the traditional Anglo-saxon view of the battle is a myth. New academic works such as David Marley's Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the Western Hemisphere, 1492 to the Present (2008) or Fernando Martínez Láinez and Carlos Canales' Banderas Lejanas: La exploración, conquista, y defensa por España del territorio de los actuales Estados Unidos (2009), both of which have made use of Spanish sources, give a very different narrative of the battle's course, outcome and casualties. They state that a Spanish force of some 150 or 200 grenadiers was sent to cover the withdrawal of the Spanish troops defeated at Gully Hole Creek and that the 'battle' was no more than a skirmish with few casualties. A 1996 article by Thomas G. Rodgers, military historian from the Alamaba University and author of Osprey Publishing, Colonials collide at Bloody Marsh, supports this view and states that the Spanish losses were 7 men killed and 2 prisoners. In a 2010 academic article entitled La Batalla de Bloody Marsh: Una victoria de la Florida española durante la guerra de la oreja de Jenkins, the historian Salvador Larrúa Guedes, collaborator of the Colonial Heritage of Florida, even claims that the battle ended in a Spanish victory, as the goal of stopping the British chase was achieved. Local historians like Jingle Davis had recently published works which assume the new approaches and consider the traditional one a myth. Weymar Horren (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly these "new" claims seem extremely far fetched and heavily dependent on the version told by the losing side. Given the revisionist (and nationalistic for the Spanish) version of events I would argue that the "disputed" claim should not be there because it is only "disputed" by what would appear to be extremely biased, or otherwise unreliable sources.2601:341:4000:600:DCFC:1179:8406:88E3 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The works that I've cited rely both on English and Spanish sources, unlike the older ones. Their authors are historians of different background. I guess they are reliable. Moreover, Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and other principles note that, regarding to neutrality: "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view". We can discuss which view is the more supported currently, but it's evident that a number of works approach to the battle in a way that isn't shown in the article. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it does not appear this minority viewpoint really is significant. Which I think is key to the argument here. These minority viewpoints are not only revisionist but are also from questionable sources. They are not enough for the article to have a "disputed" tag on it.2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me disagree. I think not only that the point of view that I have expressed is currently the more supported by historians, but also I'm sure that the sources I have provided are 100% reliable according to Wikipedia's policies, so it should be included. I hope you will be at least open to a third party mediation. And please, don't remove the tag if there is no consensus. Weymar Horren (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It really isn't honest to but the counter-claim up there. While there appears to be a trickle of sources that use what look like very questionable Spanish sources (which themselves are dependent on ignoring the vast majority of sources, on the grounds that they are "British" even though some of them aren't). I don't think a "disputed" tag is fair for this article. The evidence too overwhelmingly on one side.MaverickGA (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC) It seems pretty clear this tag really doesn't belong here. There's a massive majority of sources, which are generally more modern and reliable as well as those which are more traditional, which support the 200 figure. The smaller figures seem, as mentioned by MaverickGA and 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174|2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174, entirely reliant on dismissing the majority of sources on frivolous grounds. The tag really should be removed.BadgerStateHistorian1967 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As a sockpuppet investigation has proved that all the users whom I've been discussing above are the same person, I've restored the inaccuracy tag. I hope we will be able to reach a consensus to include all the views and left aside the bombardment of references to push a POV. Weymar Horren (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Good work Weymar Horren. I support the use of the lower casualty numbers, which were a stable part of this article until BadgerStateHistorian1967 began a series of unproductive edits. Gulbenk (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gulbenk. I've checked several of the books cited by Badger, and they only mention the battle in a few lines (at most). In comparison, the works that I've mentioned above are far more detailed and give a complete narrative of the fight. Interestingly, several Spanish reports on the campaign were published in English in 1913 [1]. I wonder why they have been forgotten so long... When I've finished with a matter in which I'm now busy, I'll make a rewrite of the article in my sandbox in accordance with the current state of the topic's research. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Number killed (again)

I was at Fort Frederica National Monument yesterday and I watched the NPS film about Frederica and the battles of Gully Hole Creek and Bloody Marsh. At Gully Hole Creek they were in close contact and the film said that ten Spaniards and one British soldier were killed. (It also gave the number killed and captured.) At Bloody Marsh, the forces were shooting at each other from a distance. The film said that the casualties were "light". It also said that the British exaggerated the results of the battle. By saying that the casualties were light, I think they mean probably fewer than ten killed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A series of edits by sock puppets and (subsequently) blocked users championed the higher number of killed. Reputable, modern, sources support the lower numbers. Gulbenk (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The article currently says "Roughly 200 killed" and has a ton of references. But (I'm just guessing about this) they may all trace back to a single source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we had a discussion along those lines, some months ago. I think that Brooks was the most scholarly of the bunch, and the others just (more or less) repeated what he said. Gulbenk (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia vs. English wikipedia

According to the Spanish Wikipedia: 7 Spaniards killed in action, and 10 taken prisoner. I think that Bloody Marsh became a Georgian foundation legend, with a great deal of local bragging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.90.6 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Forget the (overrated) Alamo: Bloody Marsh was not a carbon-copy of the battle of San Jacinto

The Spaniards were not caught off guard when bivouacking. They were advancing and firing, in the open. And the Brits were firing, under cover. Part of the British force (colonials?) panicked and fled.

Oglethorpe's letters, courtesy of the Georgia Historical Society: Captain Antonio Barba and 2 other captains with 100 grenadiers and 200 foot besides Indians and negroes advanced from the Spanish camp into the Savannah with Huzzahs, and fired with great spirit but not seeing our men by reason of the woods none of their shot took place but ours did [...] Some platoons of our in the heat of the fight, the air being darkened with the smoke and a shower of rain falling retired in disorder [...] I ordered them to halt and march back against the enemy [...] [I] arrived just as the Spaniard fire was done. I found the Spaniards entirely routed by one platoon of the Regiment under the command of Lt. Sutherland and the Highland Company under the command of Lt. Charles Mackay. And officer whom the prisoners said was captain Don Antonio Barba was taken prisoner but desesperately wounded and two other were prisoners and a great many dead upon the spot.

A miracle: a platoon (a tactical provisional ad hoc unit) and a company -150 men at most?- kill 200 Spaniards with smoothbores, allegedly no hand to hand fighting, and raining.

Note: the British soldiers in flight belonged to a company of regulars, it seems.

This article should be titled The Battle of Bloody Marsh according to Oglethorpe and BadgerHistorian1967

Other Oglethorpe's letter: Having intelligence from the Spanish camp that they had lost 4 captains and upwards of 200 men in the last action besides many killed in the sea fight and several killed in the night by the Indians even within or near the camp [...] There was a general terror amongst them upon which I am resolved to beat....

Oglethorpe's estimate is through the grapevine. Rule of thumb. And loss doesn't mean killed in action, as BadgerHistorian1967 believes. It means KIAs+POWs+wounded. Casualties.

Spaniard losses acording to the Spaniards

Any mistake, omission or duplication is my fault.

-Naval operations: 6 KIAs (including an artillery lieutenant), 9 wounded.

-Sailors killed by Indians when searching for fresh water: 8.

-The corpses of 2 scouts (a dragoon and an indian ally).

-Gully Hole Creek: 12 KIAs, 10 wounded, 13 prisoners (Captain Hernández escaped after a while, allegedly after killing his 2 captors)(who knows?).

-Bloody Marsh: 7 grenadiers killed (including an ensign), 11 wounded.

Antonio Barba

Spaniard Captain captured mortally wounded at Bloody Marsh. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Montiano doesn't mention him in his otherwise rather detailed dispatch. And Montiano mentions by the name a lot of his officers: when they are killed, when they are captured, when they do their duty. According to the Spaniard version, the officer killed and Bloody Marsh was Miguel Bucardi or Bucareli. Bucardi most likely is a clerical error. Related or not -I don't know-, incidentally there was a young nobleman called Antonio or Manuel Antonio Bucareli y Ursúa (1724-1742). Bucareli is the Spanish script for Bucarelli. If the Spaniard dispatches used the abbreviations used at the time for the first names (Antonio became Aº, for instance), perhaps the American scholar who translated into English the Spaniard official accounts from 1742 read Miguel instead of Manuel (I have no idea which were the shorts for both Manuel and Miguel). It's just a theory.

Montiano's version

In this action, the 2 companies lost 7 men killed and 11 wounded; among the killed, the ensign of the company of Havana [...] The Militia suffered no loss, because they formed the rear group {...].

The template...

Spanish strenght: 150-200. Spanish losses: 200 killed.

It's ludicrous. Let's eliminate once and for all BadgerStateHistorian1967's antics from 2015.

Lt. Sutherland's version

This Patrick Sutherland according to some of his Canadian descendants. The officer who held the ground while most of the British line was in flight. Source:"https://vault.georgiaarchives.org/digital/collection/adhoc/id/996".

In both actions they [Spaniards] lost 2 Captains, 1 lieutenant, 2 drums and about 160 private men. And one Captain and 19 men were taken prisoner

Oglethorpe's Thanksgiving

Oglethorpe on steroids, omitting any reference to the flight of 3 British platoons. Source: Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe, Founder of the Colony of Georgia, published in 1841 by Thaddeus Mason Harris.

We may say surely that the hand of God was raised for our defence, for in the two skirmishes more than a 500 fled before 50; though the enemy fought vigorously a long time, and, especially, fired their grenades with great spirit; but their shooting did little hurt, so that not one of us was killed; but they were thrown into general confusion and pursued with so great loss, that according to the account of the Spaniards since made prisoners, more than 200 returned not to their camp.

Once again: hearsay. An estimate.