Talk:Battle of Fort Recovery

message: I find the direct statement about Blue Jacket's heritage to be erroneous. It very well maybe true but as of now there is little or no evidence supporting the claim the Blue Jacket was a white man adopted into the Shawnee tribe. Danwild6 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is problematic.  That's a problem for sure, but there are other even greater problems: the author is strongly biassed against both Tecumseh and the early American settlers and soldiers.  Nyttend 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are very few good sources for this battle, and they sometimes differ significantly.  One of the main inconsistencies I've noticed is the way casualties are reported.  This is because they were reported differently at the time, and so modern authors give different numbers based on their source.  For this article, I've elected to report the U.S. numbers given by Captain Gibson, who was the U.S. officer in charge at Fort Recover following the death of his superior officers.  His report given the following day breaks down casualties from dragoons, infantry, fort garrison, and civilian contractors.  I suspect that casualty reports which are lower exclude some of these, especially the contractors.  For the Native American casualties, I thought it was only fair to include the low estimate (17) and the high estimate (130), but William Wells finally settled on a range of 40-50 killed and around 100 wounded.  There are many other estimates out there, but I think we're safe giving the low, the high, and a consistent report that's somewhere in the middle.  The numbers on both sides are subject to debate, of course, but I wanted to let you know why I settled on the current numbers.  Please let me know if you think these should be changed. Canute (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I removed Egushawa from the article.  From what I've read, it's possible (and probable) that he was at Fort Recovery, given the large participation by the Ottawa and the fact that he led reconnaissance for the confederacy.  But I can't find anything that plainly states he was there, so I want to remove it before other people start citing Wikipedia and make it a false fact.  If anyone finds a reference to his participation, please re-insert him as one of the leaders at Fort Recovery.  Thanks.  Canute (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sugden (p. 162) says "both Egushaway and Little Otter were prominent" among the Three Fires forces. He also says that Little Turtle was probably there as well with a small contingent of Miamis, although no primary source mentions him by name. Kevin1776 (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Breaking news: I had a hunch that "Bear Chief" is actually a nickname for someone else, since no one uses the name "Bear Chief" except Gaff, who's not an expert on Natives. I finally found confirmation: "Bear Chief" is, in fact, Egushawa. See R. F. Bauman, “Pontiac’s successor: the Ottawa Au-goosh-away (E Gouch-e-ouay),” Northwest Ohio Quarterly (Toledo), XXVI (1954), 8–38, p. 17, online here. Money quote: "No doubt Au-goosh-away was a very distinguished war chief, for he was generally referred to as such in the various government communications; and Navarre spoke of him as "the great war chief of the Ottawa." He was actively engaged in Pontiac's war, most likely in prior engagements; and he was the prominent Ottawa Chief in St. Clair's and Wayne's wars known as the Bear Chief." Kevin1776 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find!  And thank you for putting him back in the Infobox.  I wonder if that would be a relevant addition to the Egushawa article? Canute (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. Probably a footnote here as well. Kevin1776 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egushawa 

message: I'm pretty sure this article should be called the Battle of Fort Recovery. That's what the Ball State reference page calls it, that's what Winkler calls it, that's what Nelson calls it in "'Never Have They Done So Little': The Battle of Fort Recovery and the Collapse of the Miami Confederacy," Northwest Ohio Quarterly 64 (1992): 43–55 (which unfortunately doesn't seem to be available online). A search on the Google Ngram Viewer seems to support "Battle of Fort Recovery" as the much preferred term. Any objections? Kevin1776 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was discussion about the name at one point, but I can't find it now.  I personally don't think it makes a great deal of difference.  If the sources support a different name, we should probably follow their lead. Canute (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name should be "Battle of Fort Recovery"