Talk:Siege of Boston

message: Is it 1941 or 1901 that Evacuation day has been celebrated since?  This page conflicts with the entry on the holiday's page.  My guess is 1901 is correct, but it would be good to get a source to back that up.  WilliamKF 15:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: The article states that Washington reoccupied Breed's and Bunker's hills without opposition, however James Thomas Flexner states in George Washington in the American Revolution (1775-1783) "the sentinels who were visibly manning Bunker Hill had proved, after a gingerly approach and close inspection through glasses, to be dummies holding ruined muskets." This statement wold indicate that prior to the evacuation that at least Bunker Hill and probably Breed's Hill were still in British hands.  Danwild6 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Red4tribe (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reoccupation of Breed's and Bunker's Hills 

message: The article text cites April 19th as the start of the siege, but the page is linked from April 20 and not April 19.  Which is correct?  Did it start overnight?  Both the Siege of Boston and April 20 pages list the start as "after the battles of Lexington and Concord." Flwyd (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it really depends on what you mean by siege, and when the conditions around the city of Boston qualify as a siege.  By the end of the day on the 19th, militia forces had effectively blocked access from both Boston and Charlestown to the rest of the mainland.  Whether they would have contested attempts by British forces to cross either neck is a theoretical question. Magic♪piano 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Date 

message: Nathanael Greene: A Biography of the American Revolution
"Greene and his Rhode Islanders were placed under the command of Major General Charles Lee" (http://books.google.com/books?id=MfEpwjscMUEC&pg=PT38)
"Now on April 1, 1776 ... He had as yet done nothing spectacular" (http://books.google.com/books?id=s3ACB79MSdAC&pg=PA30)
WikiParker (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, contra the Greene-pushing anon editor.  From what I've read, Lee, Gates, and the Massachusetts generals were more relevant to this action than he was. Magic♪piano 01:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathanael Greene's importance 

message: At the start of the seige, did the British seize any American-owned ships used later in the evacuation?  Presumably not before then, but maybe after, just before the evacuation?  Were the owners compensated or promised compensation for any ships seized?  Guessing that they would have paid for at least some of any ships seized, as many must have belonged to overt Loyalists.
Did the British leave any or many ships to their owners upon evacuation?  Presumably they would seize or scuttle any ships that could be converted to war use.  Would there have been compensation for those?
What maritime commerce (either inter-colonial or international) was possible for Boston after the seige?  It sounds like they had safe commerce with other places along the New England coast.  Is that right? Wondering how things worked for Boston after the seige and how hard the recovery was.
Not looking for in-depth answers---just the basic facts in a handful of sentences.  Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose ships?  Conditions of Boston's maritime commerce after the evacuation? 

message: [copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&action=edit§ion=42 ]
The British were never "defeated" at the Siege of Boston. There were no battles; the total number of casualties that occurred after the Americans brought in the guns from Ticonderoga were a handful. Your statement that the British were "defeated" at the Siege of Boston doesn't even conform to the evaluation of the Siege in the Wikipedia article on that subject! 
Even in Boston itself the annual celebration of the raising of the Siege of Boston is not called "Victory Day": it's called "Evacuation Day". When the British made the strategic choice to "evacuate" Boston they had that city entirely in their power, and Washington fully expected that they would burn the city before they left - there would have been absolutely nothing he and his army could have done to prevent them from doing so. So I don't see how anyone of sound mind can call this a "defeat" of the British! Sieges are an expensive military operation that often cause more casualties to the besiegers than to the besieged. Even though the American artillery on Dorchester Heights was unable to sink a single British ship in Boston Harbor, the British commanders decided that it would be far wiser to move to the pro-British city of New York and wide-open New York Harbor where their ships could maneuver much easier than in the treacherous island-and-shoal-ridden Boston Harbor. By doing so they effectively cut much more radical New England off from the rest of the rebellious colonies. By moving their naval operations north to Nova Scotia they could allow the sailors to disembark in a non-hostile area for training and relaxation while at the same time reducing the length and increasing the security of their supply lines. It was a wise strategic retreat and nothing more. 
It is said in another message here that you are a "professor of history". I don't suppose you are a professor of *military* history.
IWPCHI (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes see Richard J. Jensen.... I was a professor at the US Military Academy West Point & have published books on Civil War & WW2. "On March 17, 1776, British forces are forced to evacuate Boston following General George Washington’s successful placement of fortifications and cannons on Dorchester Heights, which overlooks the city from the south." says History Com= the British SOLDIERS in Boston could not be protected from American artillery, so they were outgunned and retreated from a major strategic location. Joseph Ellis says the Dorchester Heights guns "placed Howe’s garrison within range of American artillery, thereby forcing Howe’s decision to evacuate or see his army slowly destroyed." [Ellis, "Washington Takes Charge:" Smithsonian (Jan 2005). James Flexner says, "Historians have praised George Washington's success in forcing the British out of Boston in March, 1776" American Heritage (Dec 1967). Here's an excerpt from Military History (Dec 2002) p 88: "Neither Howe's guns in Boston nor those on Royal Navy ships could be sufficiently elevated to threaten the new American batteries on Dorchester Heights. "The rebels have done more in one night than my whole Army would have done in a month," Howe lamented as he looked for a way out of his predicament. Like his predecessor Gage, Howe was loath to throw whole regiments away in a vain and bloody attempt to dislodge the Americans, but he thought it necessary to try. A short but violent storm subsequently intervened to halt preparations for such an assault. At that point, Howe saw no option but to begin arrangements to quit Boston. General Howe threatened to set fire to the city should American artillery harass the embarkation of troops and equipment onto British ships. The British troops' departure, however, was quite acceptable to Washington, who allowed the evacuation to proceed unmolested. Howe himself left Boston on March 17, an event still commemorated in the city. The British departed in such haste that they left 250 artillery pieces behind." 10:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Boston dispute 

message: Change "2nd Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Jones" to "2nd Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General James Robertson"
Change "4th Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General James Robertson" to "4th Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Valentine Jones"
Change "3rd Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Paget" to "3rd Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General Sir Robert Pigot"
Change "Commander of Artillery & Engineers, Colonel Cleveland (commanding officer of the 4th Battalion)" to "Royal Arillery and Engineers, Colonel Samuel Cleaveland"
Remove "33rd Regiment of Foot"
Remove "53rd Regiment of Foot" ColtF33 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023