Talk:Battle of Carillon

English POV?

I wouldn't like to sound like the people who have "POV" in their mouth all day, but isn't this article a little bit written from an English perspective ? :p Rama 21:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. However, since the Brits did most of the maneuvering (wisely, the French mostly just dug in), it will likely always properly talk more about their moves. If anyone has a good source looking at the battle from the French perspective I'd be happy to review and merge it in. I suspect this article also suffers from, what I expect is a common issue, the fact that since this is an English language article that most background material in the authors' primary language is primarily from 1 point of view. --Ahc 13:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"Result" in infobox

I've again changed "Result" in infobox from "decisive" to "convincing". "Decisive" is ambiguous, as it could imply that the campaign or war hinged on this battle - and we know the French lost the war. I'm less sure that "convincing" is the best alternative, but it least avoids wider importance. --Philcha (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I started this, I removed "decisive" because the outcome of this battle, while unambiguous, did not significantly affect (beyond delay and its attendant costs) the strategy or outcome of the war (in contrast with battles like Saratoga or Quiberon Bay). On the other hand, Albrecht is correct that the number of adjectives used in this field is typically fairly limited. That said, I'm somewhat indifferent on the use of adjectives -- if Albrecht really wants it to be decisive, I'm OK with that. Magic♪piano 13:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Changed back to decisive. While the French did lose the war, it was a decisive victory for the French at this point in the campaign. By that reasoning, the Battle of Austerlitz was not a decisive victory for the French under Napoleon as overall, Napoleon lost. Also by that reasoning, Camden was not a decisive victory for the British in the American Revolution as the British lost the war. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

This, of course, has been my position all along, so it should be no surprise I fully endorse the change. Albrecht (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Trepezet

The accent in Captain Trepezet's surname migrates from the first e to the second over the course of the article. Anyone know which is correct? Binabik80 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Title : "Battle of Carillon" imprecise and not helpful?

Clearly a great deal of work had gone into this article but the title seems to me to be unhelpful. The quest for precision can sometimes be at the expense of the very clarity and accessibility one aims to achieve.

As chosen, surely the title should read "Battle of Fort Carillon". There was no place nearby called 'Carillon,' from which the battle might have taken its name, only the fort of that name guarding the portage at Ticonderoga.

Where does the term "Battle of Carillon" originate? I have seen it used in a mid- 20th century study. Are there historical references to the battle by this truncated name?

However, I would go farther and suggest it is overly particular to refer to the fight on July 8th as the "Battle of Fort Carillon" when the action has for the last 200-odd years been commonly been referred in English as the battle of, or at, Ticonderoga. If French language sources commonly use 'Fort Carillon', that is obviously worthy of mention for clarification. The battle, for better or worse, is best known for the grievous losses suffered by the British and the suicidal bravery of the troops involved. For that reason it has, I suspect, assumed more importance in British historical tradition than those of other countries. I think we must also accept that down the years the Indian name has been preferred because it evoked the wilderness context of the battle more than the name of an obscure officer in the Bourbon army.

I would submit that choosing this name for an article that one is still most likely to reach via the article "Fort Ticonderoga" seems both unhelpful and a little perverse.

The fact that the post at Ticonderoga was known as Fort Carillon on the day of the battle is not sufficient justification in itself. One might argue that, in any case, the battle did not actually take place at the fort, but at the improvised fortification built the day before to screen the fort. More importantly, though, the British were attacking to gain to control of the narrows between Lakes George and Champlain. The Iroquois name for site, Ticonderoga, indicated clearly the strategic importance of the site which the fort was built to control and was known to Dutch, French and British alike before Fort Carillon was built. Hence the traditional reference to the Battle of Ticonderoga remains both accurate and reasonable.

In addition, I would suggest that "Also known as the 1758 Battle of Ticonderoga" is an unnecessary qualification ("also known" to whom?). As the disambiguation page shows, there is in fact little risk of ambiguity given that there was only ever one battle at Ticonderoga, that of 1758, the other battles of Ticonderoga, so-called, not being battles at all.

The current situation seems to me rather as if one was to post an main article named "Battle of Mont St Jean" (or rather "Battle of St Jean") that dealt with the "Battle of Waterloo."

At the very least, may I put in a strong appeal for clarity and style and recommend that the title be amended to 'Battle of Fort Carillon' with the simple subtitle 'also known as Battle of Ticonderoga'? .JF42 (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Following the above post in in 2012, I still firmly believe this is article is mis-titled and believe the matter should be reviewed. Links to 'The battle of Carillon' are now appearing on the web while it is clear to me this is a revisionist and minority usage within the scope of encyclopedia reference. In truth, this article really ought to be titled 'The battle of Ticonderoga'

JF42 (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is not what you think about this, the question is what sources used call it, and how it is commonly referred to. What sources do you have for what it should be called? Magic♪piano 01:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking as a guide for a quick survey the sources that you cite on the Wikipedia page itself, clearly the titles chosen by Rene Chartrand (Ticonderoga 1758) and William Nester (The Epic Battles of the Ticonderoga 1758) show what I would argue is the common usage.

Anderson (Crucible of War) in his index cites under 'Forts'- Carillon (See Ticonderoga). Under Ticonderoga (Ft Carillon) there are 23 references, I think. There is not an entry under Carillon as a place - but nor is there to Ticonderoga either. The scope of the work precludes that. After describing the place as "a spot called Carillon by the French and Ticonderoga by the British" (p.117), Anderson's references are consistently to Fort Carillon. The sub-title of Ch 24. 'Montcalm raises a cross' is 'The Battle Of Ticonderoga.'

In Holden and Wickes 'The campaign of 1758,' the authors introduce the subject as "Ticonderoga then also known as Carillon." Thereafter there are just four pages with references to Carillon, as "Fort Carillon", "the fort at Carillon" or to 'Carillon' as a position under assault. By contrast by a hurried count there are references, sometimes two or more, to Ticonderoga on almost every page between 4 and 143. "Abercrombie’s expedition against Ticonderoga" on p.111. is a clear example.

'The History of Canada: Canada under French rule IV' (1890) has 9 index references to Ticonderoga with about 35 page references in the text There are 4 Index references to Carillon with about 19 in the text, the first being on page 6 "the camp at Carillon… the stone fort of Carillon.” Thereafter, 'Carillon' appears always as a contraction, a positional reference relating to the French military post. Ticonderoga is used in the same way, usually in a British context but not exclusively.

In Parkman's 'France and England: A series of Historical Narratives' a text search shows 25 matches for Ticonderoga, 6 for Carillon. I couldn't get acces to the text itself.

In Thomas Mante's almost contemporary 'The history of the late war in North America' (1772) the references are exclusively to Ticonderoga as they are in David Stewart's Black Watch history in 'Sketches of the Highlanders' (1822).

Your final references, 'The Battle at Fort Carillon' -Bill Twatio, 'Battaile du Fort Carillon' - (?) Esprit du Corps, both, as can be seen, employ 'Fort Carillon' in reference to the military action, presumably from a Canadian perspective; that is to say, rather than 'The Battle of Carillon'

Not the most scientific survey, I admit, but nonetheless, even within your own cited sources the burden of evidence seems clear enough.

I won't repeat the points I made in my earlier comments as they are there to read. It seems plain to me, and while, yes, that is a question of what I think, others may agree, that the most common usage is 'Ticonderoga' with 'Fort Carillon' as a subtitle. I can see how much work has gone into the body of this article but I submit that 'Battle of Carillon' is not the most helpful title for readers wanting to look up this subject. I confess, I am not clear why you should think otherwise. JF42 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that the rhythm of this discussion is slow but having answered your question comprehensively within the terms of the article's cited sources, Magic, it would be interesting to know what other arguments there are for ths article being titled as it is.

As it is now some two months since I posted my reply and I sense from your last comment that there may be some defensiveness with regard to considering an amendment of the article title, I believe it may be best to move the discussion to a wider forum. I certainly have no wish to start editing your work unilateraly.

Sorry, I must have missed when the previous response was posted. I don't have any particular objection to what the name of this article is, but the homework needed to be done. I do recommend that you use this process for proposing any change, and make sure WP:WikiProject New France and WP:WikiProject Quebec (along with other relevant projects) are notified of your proposal, since objections may arise from there. Magic♪piano 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Decisive Victory

I'm a bit confused, I've noticed many battle articles describe battles as "decisive victories" even though the side that won battle ultimately lost the war. In the case of Carillon, just the next year the British totally undid it and virtually drove the French out of Canada, it didn't decide anything and didn't even severely hurt the British in the long run. I always thought a decisive battle was a battle that decided a war, like Gaugamela or Leuctra or Leipzig or Waterloo. If its just a victory then isn't it just a "major" victory? 123.243.215.92 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Decisive" has multiple meanings in the context of battle victories, and use of the word in infoboxes is a regular battleground for agenda-pushing infobox warriors. Magic♪piano 13:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Od This is still in the text, after seven years, so I have fixed it. I agree that the term 'decisive' should only be used when something ( a campaign, a war) has been decided; otherwise using it to denote a major, or a convincing, or a total victory is a) misleading, and b) lazy writing. I've deleted one use, and substituted 'complete' for the second. I've also deleted the term 'overwhelming', to describe the British numerical superiority; if it had been overwhelming they would have won. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(Casualties)

"over 3,000 casualties suffered. French losses were about 400,[1] while more than 2,000 were British.[6]" Who suffered the other 600+ casualties? Native Americans? Civilians? Pets? Pmbauer (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The numbers don't match those in the infobox, either: There it gives Fr losses of 100 killed, 500 wounded, 150 captured, and Br. losses as 1000 killed, 1500 wounded, 100 captured. Different sources? Different meaning of the term 'losses'? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Carillon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006220419/http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=61555 to http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=61555

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)