Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Bunker Hill/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

June 30, 2003 rewrite

Text comparisons between the June 30, 2003 version and prior ones will be difficult, because I've basically replaced the article. I thought of placing the prior text here, but the article history does a good job. Just refer to a version dated before this one. That said, many comments are required about one or two specific changes.

The article would be longer still except that some background material went into the Siege of Boston article and individual people articles. Some additional rearrangement of material may make sense, but it can't all go here.
The previous version noted that up to a third of the American forces may have been African-American. This comment came from a Library of Congress Web page, and may be politically correct, but its not factual. My best estimate is that 1 to 2 percent (20-40 men) of the defenders were black.
Fact - Salmon Poor was killed during the withdrawal from the redoubt. Hyperbole: He killed the British commander. The reasons I conclude this is unlikely include:
General Pigot commanded the last phase of taking the redoubt, and survived.
Major Pitcairn (Royal Marines) who led the flank battalion was killed on the flats north of the town, about 400 yards from the redoubt. While its possible that Poor fired that shot, given the timing, weapons, and distances, its much more probable that he fell to one of the snipers in Charlestown, only about 150 yards away and armed with long rifles not muskets.

Thanks for your attention. Lou I 04:48 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

British results quotation

I am curious about the source of the quote attributed to General Gage at the beginning of the article. I have previously heard this quote attributed to General Henry Clinton with the wording being "Another such victory and we are utterly undone." While either would be somewhat of an invocation of the original words by Pyrrhus, I wonder if it is perhaps misatributed.

-matt 06 June 2004

The Gage quote comes from a book by Robert Leckie (author). I can’t attribute it further. The Clinton quote that matt asked about can be attributed. Clinton himself says it’s in his diary, and its repeated in a reprint book:
  • Clinton, Henry (William Wilcox, editor); "The American Rebellion: Sir Henry Clinton's Narrative of His Campaigns, 1775-1782, With An Appendix of Original Documents"; 1954, New Haven, Yale University Press. Originally published in London in 1783 by Henry Clinton as an explanation of his conduct during the revolutionary war.
To maybe justify Leckie, Clinton does say that he was discussing the battle’s outcome with General Gage, and I haven’t seen the diary itself (or its microfilm). But the Clinton quote is just as fitting, and has an attribution (above), so I’m going to change the article. Lou I 21:01, 5 Dec 2004

William Prescott

I have been thinking about this a long time. While it is true the Israel Putnam was on the field, he went no further than Bunker Hill. The man in charge of the fighting at Breed's Hill and directing units into line was William Prescott. For my source, I cite Decisive Day:The Battle of Bunker Hill by Richard M. Ketchum. For this reason, Prescott deserves to be listed under commander. (Steve 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Traitors?

"In the middle of the British lines, to attack the rail fence between the beach and redoubt stood the Reed's men and the remainder of Stark's New Hampshire regiment." Did these guys switch sides or were they just really, really confused? I think I know what the writer intended, but I'd rather leave it to be fixed by someone who knows for sure. Clarityfiend 05:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Colonial Forces

In the sidebar, the two combatants are listed as the British and Massachusetts Bay. This is oversimplified. There were at least three colonial "armies" (such as they were) at Bunker Hill - Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. There were more New Hampshire militia than there were Massachusetts troops, in fact. These colonial forces had separate command structures and certainly acted independent of each other in many cases. Perhaps, for the sake of accuracy, they should be listed separately as combatants. At the very least, a new term should be used to replace Massachusetts Bay to become more all-inclusive. 70.109.132.159 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In another Wikipedia article, under "Military History of Puerto Rico," I found a reference to Puerto Rican troops under a Captain General Torre fighting in the Battle of Bunker Hill. I've found scattered references in Wikipedia and other written sources alluding to the fact that Spain had supported the colonists in their fight against England, and that they had supplied not only open ports and supplies, but also Puerto Rican troops. However, I've never seen any detailed description of exactly what went on during these revolutionary war battles. It would be interesting if someone could research this and add the information to the article on Bunker Hill, at least. The United States and Puerto Rico have had a, shall we say, quaint relationship for the past hundred years, and it would be interesting, I think, for most stateside Americans (Puerto Ricans are Americans, too) to find out that Puerto Rico was there at the birth of the Republic. Cd195 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed that line from the Military History of Puerto Rico article you mentioned. It was uncited and unlikely. Armed conflict started only two months before and for the word to get to Spain and then to Puerto Rico and then for the troops to get to Boston stretches creditability. WikiParker 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the follow up. I wonder what the provenance for that statement was. I agree 2 months sounds like very rapid communication for the 18th century, although perhaps the decisions were made locally. I believe the Spanish southern campaign under Galvez, where the troops are supposed to have reached as far as Pensacola, seems to be documented. Maybe there is something to the involvement at Bunker Hill, but it will take someone with more free time than I to research it! Thanks againCd195 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Bunker Hill ~~ is a battle outside Boston that ended with the British(redcoats,lobster backs) leaving the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babiegurl4life (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's my relative?

For anyone who knows a good deal about this battle and feels there are things they might add, I want to draw your attention to a detail that I see has been neglected.

My ancestor, Major Andrew McClary, died at that battle. He was the highest ranking officer to die there and a fort, erstwhile styled Fort William, was named after him. That's about all I know. I know he got a cannonball in the hip! I thought I knew that he was a loyalist, but I found something on the internet calling him a "patriot." Doesn't that mean American? Whatever he was, he's been overlooked. I don't think that it takes someone with a filial bias to see this as an injustice.

Okay, military historians? Ready to do a fallen soldier justice? Good on ya. thx, L*** McClary

Loyalist? Nah, he was definitely on the rebel side. Until more gets written on the wiki, you might enjoy this piece. --iMeowbot~Meow 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Elton's Battle of Bunker's Hill mentions McClary in two places (pg's 27 and 37). The first is with Stark and Reed's regiments entering the peninsula. The second mention with McClary is he went back to Bunker Hill after the battle was over to "lie in the long shadows, watch, and listen." Later, McClary "convinced that the British would advance no farther, he started back across the Neck, walking openly once he was out of musket range. A last blind broadside from an English warship killed him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.90.40 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

A few people have been vandalizing this page. It's annoying, since I'm doing a project that requires information about the Battle of Bunker Hill and I see random things that have been inserted in by idiots. Someone please do something about it.

Kainwolfe 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll put in a request for protection/warning on the vandal's talk page. -Releeshan 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm doing a project on the Battle on Bunker Hill, and I was just curious what it meant by the strength of the British and colonists. I mean, what does '2600' mean? 2600 Men? Please clear this up. Thank you.

Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.208.41 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by 2600 they are refering to 2600 British regular army soldiers versus the 1500 irregular (citizen soldiers) of the American forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.51.70 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Err... Well if you are referring to my attempted-corrections... Actually I was trying to point out an inconsistency in the text. It may not be a huge error, but the quotation: "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" is thereafter referred to as "don't *shoot* until..." So then I did a handful of research and I've seen the quote both ways. Which is right?

Anonymous. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.254.163 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gage

Gage was a British general who led the British in Lexington and Concord. Later I think Howe replaced him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.143.30 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Gage did not lead the British forces at Lexington and Concord. The initial force was led by Lt. Col Francis Smith. On the retreat back to Boston, command would shift to Brig. Gen. Percy when the initial force met up with a reinforcing brigade at Lexington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.107.126 (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Gage was the commander of all of the military forces in Boston at the time of Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. He assigned the Concord expedition to Smith, and the assault on Bunker Hill to Howe. After Bunker Hill, Howe replaced him as overall military commander. (Gage was also the Royal Governor of Masachusetts during this time, a post he would keep until it became irrelevant.) Magicpiano (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical maps

In my research I stumbled on this Historical map which is funny since I was doing Australian history, since its only recently been avaliable online I would assume not alot of people know of it. Map showing positions before Battle of Bunker Hill, June 15 1775 --Matthew yager (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Just one more A plan of the action at Bunker's Hill, on the 17th of June 1775 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew yager (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, those may have some potential. Thanks for the pointer. Magic♪piano 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
If these maps are shown or cited, caveats will be needed. The names of Bunker's and Breed's hills are swapped on both maps; that could mislead or misinform the viewer. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Colonial moral victory"

I think this should be removed from the information box. Correct me if I'm wrong but: moral relating to this battle did not increase, untill much later after the battle and "colonial" could refer to Loyalists or rebels. Pyrrhic British victory is enough. The rest of the article makes it clear what effect it had on the colonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.68.193 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this. I think there shouldn't be any moral victories in the information box. If there was such boost from this defeat, mention it in the text and keep it out from the information box as it only tells who won and who lost the battle. Muhvi 21:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC+3)
If some of what I've recently added is to be believed, the Colonists at the time didn't think of it as any sort of victory (Ketchum is pretty direct about this.) Anything else is just historical analysis. Magic♪piano 20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Bunker Hill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Colonists reinforce…, P1, S1: Who are Joseph Warren and Seth Pomeroy and why are they notable? Some context is needed. Fixed
    • Colonists reinforce…, P1, S4: Is 200 the total of the New Hampshire regiments or were there 200 in each? Fixed
    • Notable participants, P2, last S: How about a mention of or link to the Melville novel? Done.
    • The section titles under in the "References" section are misleading: What are labeled as Primary sources seem to actually be secondary sources as are most of the other works. I'm not so sure that the reader benefits by having references by their importance to this article.
      • Comment When there are many sources in an article, I actually find it useful if they are organized, rather than strictly alphabetical. I've renamed the references subheads.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Colonists reinforce…, P1, S5: The alternative outcome of the battle should be more closely cited, even if it's included in the cite after the next sentence. Fixed
    • Analysis, P1 has no citations. This reads rather ORish to me.
      • Comment This para is intended to be an introduction or lead into the material that follows. As such, does (or should) it require citation? (If you don't think it's doing that job appropriately, we can work to make it do that to your satisfaction.)
    • Because "Pyrrhic victory" can be an inherently POV term, the "Pyrrhic British victory" in the infobox needs to be cited to a source that refers to it by that name.
      • Comment See footnote 52 (in the version you reviewed, in case I add more). Clinton isn't the only Brit to make specific allusions to Pyrrhus; Abercrombie (of Battle of Carillon infamy) did too. I'll add that cite to the infobox.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Comment This article is a persistent IP-vandalism target, and is currently scheduled to come off semi-protection on the 26th. I'm going to ask for it to be extended at least through the end of the review period.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • It's too bad that there are typos in File:Bunker hill first attack.gif and File:Bunker hill final attack.gif
      • Comment I actually opened a request at the graphics map lab to get these maps redone (for several reasons, including readability at smaller scale) several weeks ago; the request went stale and has been archived.
        • You might post a query for Durova, who does a lot of great image work. At the very least he/she might be able to suggest someone who could correct and/or SVGify them. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Comment Those maps will definitely be improved before this article gets anywhere near FAC. I've already got a map restoration for a different article in Durova's queue; s/he seems pretty backed up.
    • Not sure I see the relevance of the flag illustrations to the article. They seem to be mostly for decoration.
      • Comment Other than being (allegedly) present at the event, they are basically decorative.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

There are a few prose issues and a couple of referencing issues that need to be addressed, but I'm most concerned about the paragraph directly under the "Analysis" header. Placing on hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some changes made, some comments, see above. Thanks for your detailed review. Magic♪piano 12:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've struck the items that have been addressed so far. One thing I just noticed that needs to be taken care of before any future A-Class or FA candidacies (it doesn't affect the GA review) is the date formats in the references section seem to be in the ISO-style rather than month day, year as in the rest of the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that takes care of the remaining issues? Magic♪piano 17:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes"

This order was certainly used well before 1743. There are several examples from the 17th century, if not older (haven't searched that much). Hexmaster (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory

To describe an event as a "pyrrhic victory" is only ever going to be a POV statement, isn't it? I shall remove that statement in a day or two unless a debate ensues here, cheers. Monk Bretton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

It was effectively called such by one the battle's participants -- did you read the whole article? You might also look at the results of searching Google Books for "Bunker Hill"+Pyrrhic. This is not some random Wikipedia editor's opinion. Magic♪piano 01:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. How could it be called otherwise, given subsequent events? MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment There is no requirement for a debate, the statement and definition as a Pyrrhic victory is correct.
Quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica:-
"Battle of Bunker Hill, also known as Battle of Breed’s Hill, (June 17, 1775), first major battle of the American Revolution, fought in Charlestown (now part of Boston) during the Siege of Boston. Although the British eventually won the battle, it was a Pyrrhic victory that lent considerable encouragement to the revolutionary cause. The Bunker Hill Monument, a 221-foot (67-metre) granite obelisk, marks the site on Breed’s Hill where most of the fighting took place"
Removal of the statement from the article would therefore be considered an act of vandalism and reverted by any editor. Richard Harvey (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ships named after the Battle

Is okay, if i added mentioning that number of US Warships were name for the the Battle? [named USS Bunker Hill]. -- Colt9033 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

'Pitched battle'

"Furthermore, the battle demonstrated that relatively inexperienced colonial forces were willing and able to stand up to regular army troops in a pitched battle."

This can't really be described as a pitched battle, the British were attacking an entrenched position. As we find out, the colonial forces were NOT able to stand up to regular forces in a REAL pitched battle. They were reguarly routed until the battle of monmouthVoucherman (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ammunition

Would it matter if it were more specific and said "lack of gunpowder" rather than ammunition? They essentially both mean the same thing when it comes to firing them out of the gun but the Americans were never that short on lead. AllStarZ 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go ahead. --Releeshan 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not necessarily the case. One report has Ward's forces scavenging lead from a church organ in Cambridge (Elting, The Battle of Bunker's Hill, 47). Also in Elting, "Because of their shortage of ammunition – and, doubtlessly, individual cussedness – some Americans had used scrap metal for musket balls." (ibid., 37) Washington found in the wake of the battle that they were critically short on lead and flints (Douglas S. Freeman, George Washington: Volume Three, Planter and Patriot,109-110). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.90.40 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Lack of gun powder is more specific, so if we know it was ONLY gun powder, that would be fine. I'd keep it ammunition.--Paddling bear (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about bunker hill why did they only have citizen soldiers why not their own military? NC from Miami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.127.8 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If your asking why the Colonists didn't have their own military, they were subjects of England, so only had militias. Since militia's are not professional soldiers, they are citizen-soldiers.--Paddling bear (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not quite correct! Most of the colonists were 'subjects' of the British Monarch, not of England. Those born to British parents were classed as citizens (natural born subjects), as were all born within the British Dominions. Just three years prior to the battle of Bunker Hill the British Nationality Act 1772 had changed the requirement allowing natural-born allegiance (citizenship) to be assumed if the father alone was British. Those who were not British subjects were considered to be visitors or foreigners. Individuals born in the dominion were citizens regardless of the status of their parents: children born to visitors or foreigners acquired citizenship under the right of Jus soli. Citizenship by birth was perpetual and could not be revoked regardless of residency. Those who were not British subjects who had sworn an oath of allegiance to the British monarch were classed as Denizens. A denizen was not a citizen because they did not have any political rights: they could not hold any civil or military office. However, the status of denizen allowed a foreigner to purchase property, although a denizen could not inherit property. However, an individual could become a 'British subject' with some of the rights of citizenship with ‘Naturalisation’. That granted all the legal rights of citizenship except political rights (e.g. holding office). Naturalisation required an act of parliament be passed. Denization was granted by letters patent, and was granted by the monarch as an exercise of Royal Prerogative. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency

"It was used by General Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham, when redcoats, heavily outnumbered, defeated Montcalm's army on September 13, 1759, by virtue of superior musketry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Plains_of_Abraham

I know not nearly enough to correct this, but the WP article about the battle in question seems to indicate that the Redcoats were not "heavily outnumbered"--in fact they had a slight edge at 4,800 to 4,400.

Maybe I'm missing something. Probably. Balonkey (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's either hyperbole or misreading on the part of the editor who added it, or on the part of the author of the cited source. I have tempered the statement, since the "heavily outnumbered" bit is not particularly significant here. Magic♪piano 19:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The True Story of the Battle of Bunker Hill

Smithsonian magazine just published an excellent article, entitled True Story of the Battle of Bunker Hill. It could serve as an excellent source for anyone looking to add verifiable information to this article. Squideshi (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We can add this article to the External links, where it becomes a resource to be drawn upon, and in the meantime accessed in its own right as supplementary material. It sounds like the book itself would be an even richer source of citable material. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit request of Melville title

Minor edit request to change reference under "Minor sources" from

  • Melville, Herman (1855). Israel Potter: his fifty years of exile: his fifty years of exile. G. Routledge. OCLC 13065897.

to

in order to correct title by removing repeated sub-title.

Lance.eck (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

American Strategic Victory?

Although the British did capture the hill, it seems that the battle could be considered as a strategic victory for the Americans. The loss of Charlestown was not an important one for the Americans: indeed, Abigail Adams wrote that "The loss of Charlestown affects them [the colonists] no more than a Drop in the Bucket." Morale actually rose after the militia realized how well they could fight. Meanwhile, the British had lost an astonishing number of men, rendering them unable to undertake any further expeditions to break the Siege of Boston. As the battle did not bring any long-term advantage to the British and disturbed its ability to make war, should the battle be considered an American strategic victory? Feel free to call me nuts - I am in no way even remotely certain about this. B14709 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A Solid Source for the “Whites of Their Eyes” Tradition

A history blog with an entry entitled A Solid Source for the “Whites of Their Eyes” Tradition may provide some useful material for this article. http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-solid-source-for-whites-of-their-eyes.html WikiParker (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Gage

Hello, I was reading the article and noticed something you might want to fix. Under the BACKGROUND heading at the beginning of the article, you say "After armed conflict with the colonists started on April 19, 1775 at the Battle of Lexington and Concord, Gage's forces had been besieged in Boston by 8,000 to 12,000 militia, led mainly by General Artemas Ward."

As of this point in the article, I have no idea who GAGE is. You might want to define who he is and why he's important to what you're talking about.

Thanks. 69.141.55.46 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are wondering who Gage is, Gage is a general who led the British regulars against the colonists during the Battle of Bunker Hill or otherwise known as the Battle of Breed's Hill. General Gage's full name is [Gage]. In Wikipedia articles, they usually use last names, or the rank they serve in, and then the add in their last name. Hope this helps!Allied Rangoons (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Oh something else. At the end of the BACKGROUND heading you say: "Many of the British troops were lost. From a territorial stand point, the British won, but from a casualty standpoint, the Continental Army won. Only about 450 Colonists were lost." I was really confused by this at first because you had just finished talking about how the British were besieging Boston prior to the battle. So when I read this sentence I was like, "What? How did they lose British troops in the seige?" Then I realized you're saying that they lost those troops DURING the actual battle. My thought is that this sentence probably should NOT be under the background heading since, well it's not BACKGROUND, it's... ya know... "GROUND."  :-) 69.141.55.46 15:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, background means a point of someone's point of view. Someone can visualize, or imagine what's going on. It helps someone understand better. So to sum it up; this sentence could be under the background heading. Have a good day!Allied Rangoons (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Joseph Warren killed

Dr. Joseph Warren fought as an ordinary private, and was killed in this battle. An important Patriot, his loss was a significant one. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so are you making a suggestion to improve the article or is this just a general comment?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he just meant a general comment, even though article talk pages are about how to improve this page.Allied Rangoons (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure glad you cleared that up for me. I was sitting here wondering patiently for the past 4 years and 5 months. I was begining to think that nobody was ever going to answer my question. JOJ Hutton 22:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Your welcome.Allied Rangoons (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Source of the name?

There needs to be an explanation of why it's called the Battle of Bunker Hill. How did this mixup come about? When and by whom? It's not enough just to excuse the discrepancy with the observation that Bunker Hill is next door. JKeck (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. From Breed's Hill: "The resulting conflict was called the Battle of Bunker Hill because that is where Prescott originally intended—and was ordered—to build the fortifications." I'm reluctant to add that to this article because I don't have a copy of the cited reference. Maybe someone else does.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if you placed a request someone could, like me. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Right! Please add. (It's been a long day.)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I will look for a source, so wait. Do not edit at the same time I edit, which will result as a edit conflict. Thanks. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 21:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 Not done: Actually, there is not any resources that that was true, so... Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The Ketchum book cited at Breed's Hill does look like a promising source, but consulting it might call for a library visit. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I got no problem, except one, with getting that book. The problem is that is it in my library? Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 23:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have just read Ketchum, pp. 82-83 and it supports none of the details in the statement about the battle in the article on Breed's Hill. Later, Ketchum does discuss the second-hand report that two "generals" (Colonel Prescott and almost certainly General Putnam) and an engineer (Richard Gridley) discussed, possibly heatedly, where to put the colonial force's redoubt, even though it appears they were ordered to Bunker Hill. The decision to fortify and put most of the force on Breed's Hill does not satisfactorily answer why the battle is called Bunker Hill, of course. (I have read or heard "or Breed's Hill" attached to it.) Maybe the exact question is answered later in the book. I will look for it. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is what Ketchum says on the first page (xiii) of his introduction: "Battles are usually called after the place where they occur, but there was such widespread uncertainty about the location of the action that some referred to it as the battle of Charlestown, some as Bunker Hill, still others as Breed's Hill." On the next page, he starts a sentence: "What occurred on the slopes of Breed's Hill..." He uses the "Battle for Bunker Hill" and "Bunker Hill" frequently, even in the introduction. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Great! You have the book, so that means I don't have to get it! Well, I still going to get it myself. Thanks for the information! Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that adequately answers the question: what was the source of the uncertainty? Is the geography of the region intrinsically confusing? No, maps of the area show Bunker and Breed's Hills to be decidedly distinct. Or perhaps the confusion emanated from the fog of war? JKeck (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

Please add Col. John Robinson of Westford as one of the notable participants of the battle of Bunker Hill. Sources http://www.westford.com/westford1775/Col_John_Robinson.html Also, John Robinson served at the front of the Battle in Concord at the North Bridge along side Issac Davis and Major Buttrick and was the highest ranking officer, Lt. Col., there. He also participated in Shay's Rebellion and was indicted though no charges or punishment was doled out. He served with distinction at Bunker Hill under Col. Prescott who noted Col. Robinson in a letter to John Adams source http://www.westford.com/westford1775/Prescott_letter.html Thanks! Whistory2 (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If Robinson is really notable, you should be able to create an article about him that will survive an article deletion request. If all he is known for is what you describe above, I don't think he's as notable as those currently listed here. Magic♪piano 14:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015

I am in school and know a lot about the battle of bunker hill and wish to add some of my thoughts. 216.163.216.15 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Hi 216.163.216.15! Wikipedia would always be glad to have more volunteers, but unfortunately this article has been a frequent target of vandalism and so editing by anonymous (IP) users has been disabled. If you have a specific fact you'd like to add, write it down here in the format "change XXX to YYY" or "after the text ZZZ add new text WWW", and we will be happy to make the change for you. If you would like the ability to edit this article yourself, please create an account, and make at least ten edits over four days and you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles like this one. Best, Altamel (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016

There is a grammar mistake in the summary at the top of the page where "giving" should be changed to fit the tense of the sentence. 172.88.214.3 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Phrase reworded in second paragraph. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2016

In the "Notable" section of the Bunker Hill article, I wish to make the following substantive addition:

Zeeb Green, born on September 11, 1754, was a Minuteman who fought in a multitude of Battles (Mass, NY, Vt, NJ) and was with Washington in New Jersey. Zeeb's son, Horace Green MD, went on to become the Father of American Laryngology. Zeeb's three brothers were killed in the Revolutionary War. Two of whom were killed in action at Bunker Hill. From all accounts, Zeeb Green represents the first case of "Saving Private Ryan". Zeeb's tombstone can be viewed here: https://www.academia.edu/25538369/ZEEB_GREEN_A_PATRIOT_S_PATRIOT_FREEDOM_FIGHTER_S_FIGHTER_A_WHISTLEBLOWER_S_DREAM_THE_EPITOME_OF_AN_AMERICAN_WAR_HERO_S_EPITAPH_THE_ULTIMATE_USA_MILITARY_CREDENTIALS_FINDING_THE_MUSCLE_BEHIND_THE_FORGED_FOUNDING_OF_THE_USA_TOMBSTONE ZeebGreen (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Typically, to be included in the "Notable participants" section, the subject should have a preexisting standalone Wikipedia article. For more information about how notability is determined on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Notability. Mz7 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Bunker Hill. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Bunker Hill. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

An Image I came across

I liked this contemporary depiction, in the Met and Public domain https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/371977 Timbow001 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

I was reading a few sources pertaining to the battle, and noticed that there's a noteworthy piece of information not included in the main body of the text concerning the battle itself. Notably, the first attack was to be preceded by an artillery bombardment from battalion guns brought onto the hillside, however, it was found that this did not occur as the guns had been supplied with the wrong calibre of ammunition. Consequently, gunners had to use grapeshot, and the mix-up stalled the momentum of the initial attack, delaying things further. Furthermore, the attack was impeded as the hay that grew on the hillside had not been harvested, meaning the soldiers had to wade through a waist-high sea of grass, concealing the natural obstacles (rocks, holes, uneven ground etc.) beneath their feet. Soldiers also had to dismantle fences every hundred yards or so in order to reach the redoubt. They were also loaded down with all of their packs, which normally soldiers would leave in the camp rather than haul into battle. Ebenezer Bancroft, a soldier at Bunker Hill, recalled that Prescott specifically ordered the men to aim for the officers. This comes from Nathaniel Philbrick. Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution (New York: Viking Press, 2013), p219-220, an excerpt of which can be read here: https://www.amrevmuseum.org/read-the-revolution/history/bunker-hill. It is particularly pertinent to the analysis of the combatants later on in the article, particularly highlighting the inefficiencies present in the British Army at the time.

Another source indicates that the reason the first two attacks failed was because the British troops stood in the open in long lines (thus exposing many of their men to fire) and blazed away ineffectually with their muskets. The Americans, low on ammunition, waited until they were within 50 paces, some as close as 15, before firing (this is corroborated by Philbrick's work, as is the point about the wrong calibre of ammunition for the artillery). The second attack in particular, impeded by the bodies from the first assault, stood in the open for a full 30 minutes, firing ineffectual volleys at the American lines. By the time of the third attack, colonial troops fleeing their posts had dwindled the defenders on Breed's Hill to only 7-800 men, with only 150 men in the redoubt under Prescott when the final attack was launched. It was only in the third attack that the British were instructed to ditch all of their equipment at the shore, the troops were reformed into columns rather than lines (thus exposing fewer men to the gunfire of the Americans), and were ordered to go in with the bayonet against the redoubt, rather than firing ineffective volleys. Again, this information would also be useful to the analysis section later on, highlighting how the British command underestimated the ability of the colonists to resist a frontal assault, and overestimated the ability of their troops to make one. This comes from Henry I. Kurtz. Men of War: Essays on American Wars and Warriors (Xlibris Corporation, 2006), p31-36, excerpts which you can read here [1]. (TomRidley (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

the Battle of Bunker Hill started on Tuesday, June 13, 1775 100.42.94.182 (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You would need to point to sources saying that. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

Change result from see aftermath to British Victory 86.152.143.32 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
86.152.143.32 - ScottishFinnishRadish I would be ok with "British Victory - see aftermath" if there is consensus support for that, as no one disputes it was a British victory. But "British Victory" by itself is a bit misleading. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Tom Gage's Proclamation

Shortly after the battle was over, a poem was written about what happened during the battle and ensuing colonial policy. Should this be added as a reference in the "Commemorations" section of the article? [2][3][4][5]

TOM GAGE'S PROCLAMATION:
Or blustering denunciation
(Replete with defamation)
Threatening devastation,
And speedy jugulation,
Of the new English nation,
Who shall his pious ways shun?
Whereas the rebels hereabout,
Are stubborn still, and still hold out;
Refusing yet to drink their tea,
In spite of Parliament and me;
And to maintain their bubble, Right,
Prognosticate a real fight;
Preparing flints, and guns, and ball,
My army and the fleet to maul;
Mounting their gilt to such a pitch,
As to let fly at soldier's breech;
Pretending they design'd a trick

--2603:8090:1C09:5A39:515F:2300:8E9D:F426 (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC) the people UwU

But peaceably, without alarm,
The men of Concord to disarm;
Or, if resisting, to annoy,
And every magazine destroy:
All which, tho' long obliged to bear
Thro’ want of men, and not of fear;
I'm able now by augmentation,
To give a proper castigation;
For since th' addition to the troops,
Now reinforc'd as thick as hops;
I can, like Jemmy at the Boyne,
Look safely on-fight you, Burgoyne;
And mow, like grass, the rebel Yankees,
I fancy not these doodle dances:
Yet ere I draw the vengeful sword,
I have thought fit to send abroad,
This present gracious proclamation,
Of purpose mild the demonstration,
That whoso'er keeps gun or pistol
I'll spoil the motion of his systole:
Or, whip his ----, or cut his weason
As haps the measure of his treason:
But every one that will lay down
His hanger bright and musket brown,
Shall not be bruised, nor beat, nor bang'd,
Much less for past offences hang'd;
But on surrendering his toledo,
Go to and fro unhurt as we do :-
But then I must, out of this plan, lock
Both SAMUEL ADAMS and JOHN HANCOCK;
For those vile traitors (like debentures)
Must be tucked up at all adventures;
As any proffer of a pardon,
Would only tend those rogues to harden:
But every other mother's son,
The instant he destroys his gun,
(For thus doth run the king's command)
May, if he will, come kiss my hand.
And to prevent such wicked game, as
Pleading the plea of ignoramus;
Be this my proclamation spread
To every reader that can read :-
And as nor law nor right was known
Since my arrival in this town;
To remedy this fatal flaw,
I hereby publish martial law.
Meanwhile, let all, and every one
Who loves his life, forsake his gun;
And all the council by mandamus,
Who have been reckoned so infamous,
Return unto their habitation,
Without or let or molestation.
Thus graciously the war I wage,
As witnesseth my hand, - TOM GAGE.”
By command of Mother Carey,
Thomas Flucker, Secretary

Pennsylvania Journal, June 28, 1775 Progressingamerica (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Bunker_Hill/Archive_1&oldid=1136552797"