Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane

message: I have always been told by my teacher that Catherine Lundy is a very importanat figure at Lundy's lane, However, there seems to be no article about her, and I don't know enough to actually start it, so could someone please do that? Only a suggestion, but...--Johanna451940 00:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Catherine Lundy opened her home to wounded British soldiers at the Battle of Niagara Falls. This was unique as most women simply hid from war, and most certainly saved lives and demonstrated the loyalty of the people of Canada. 2607:FEA8:E5D:8100:2553:510C:35B8:4E2B (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Catherine Lundy was born in the late 1700s to Elizabeth Garvey and Lieutenant Daniel Shannon of the British army. As a teen, she married Thomas Lundy, with whom she would eventually have eight children. They settled at Lundy Lane, just one mile west of Niagara Falls. On July 25, 1814, British soldiers passed her house on their way to meet the Americans. Rather than fleeing with everyone else, she provided them with water after their 14-mile march. Furthermore, as a battle broke out just one mile east of her property, she opened her home to tend to the wounded. The British army was so appreciative of her help that one officer gave her his sword as a thanks. Catherine Lundy died in the middle of the 19th century, going down in history as a "saint". 2607:FEA8:E5D:8100:2553:510C:35B8:4E2B (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Catherine Lundy?

message: I bring up the matter of whether the American invasion was halted at Lundy's Lane or was halted earlier due to the lack of support from Commodore Isaac Chauncey, and the question that the British counter-stroke was blunted at Lundy's lane. It is known to all those who study the War of 1812 that control of the Great Lakes was of supreme importance for a successful land campaign. After the US victory at Chippewa Major Gen. Jacob Browne advanced his force to Queenston. After receiving word that Chauncey had no intention of sailing to aid Browne, the General wisely decided to withdraw south to the old Chippewa battlefield. 
It was at this point that Lt. Gen. Drummond decided to launch a counter attack and drive the Americans from the Niagra. My point is that the British were not in effect making a defensive stand at Lundy's Lane but in reality moving to attack the Americans south of the Chippewa.
Danwild6 02:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Offensive or British Counter Offensive?  

message: Whether you're Canadian, British or American its fairly easy to see that the Battle of Lundy's Lane was indecisive as it did not drive the Americans from Canada-in fact the Americans held the field at the close of the fighting-in the end American forces left Canada of their own valition after the American victory at Fort Erie. Danwild6 02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't so easy to see. Consider this quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "Each side claimed it as a victory over superior numbers. The truth is beyond question that the British had the advantage in numbers, and a still greater advantage in position; while it is equally beyond question that it was a defeat and not a victory for the Americans."  Silverchemist (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Please bear it in mind that it took over a year to reach the current concensus. See Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane#American Decision to Retreat. No new evidence (as opposed to opinion) has been presented since. Do not replace this verdict lightly. HLGallon (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result Indecisive 

message: Does anyone have a source for the result? I'm looking for one, but there is apparently a dissagrement right now. Red4tribe (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one, in "1812:The War that Forged a Nation". page 196.Red4tribe (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: According to "For King and Canada; the story of the 100th Regiment of Foot" the regiment was at both Chippawa and Lundy's lane but I don't see them in the order battle.  Any ideas?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[100th Regiment of Foot]]

message: can someone make this correction for me? I tried and the format 
came out wrongly. (General Scott survived until 1866) 184.151.190.65 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say he was killed...apparently we are using a + as "wounded". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Well it doesn't, really, we use the cross sign (†) here for Killed in Action and the plus sign for wounded. It doesn't seem very wise, because obviously the two are very similar. I'm not sure why we use any signs at all actually. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winfield Scott wan't killed at this battle. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Lundy's Lane. 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/20100814144152/http://www.archives.gov.on.ca:80/english/on-line-exhibits/1812/niagara-1814.aspx to http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/1812/niagara-1814.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210061406/http://www.niagarafalls.ca/city_hall/departments/parks_recreation_and_culture/art_scene/community_groups/heritage/battlefield_wall.asp to http://www.niagarafalls.ca/city_hall/departments/parks_recreation_and_culture/art_scene/community_groups/heritage/battlefield_wall.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617172225/http://www.pm.gc.ca:80/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=4823 to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=4823
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705184901/http://www.nflibrary.ca:80/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=295&key=2265 to http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=295&key=2265
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705184716/http://www.nflibrary.ca:80/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2265 to http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2265
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article asserts that the battle was a strategic victory for the British. I think the article lacks sufficient evidence to support that assertion. To be a strategic victory it would need to accomplish a strategic end of one of the combatants. In this case, neither side achieved any strategic objective. One might make the argument that it had an operational level impact but that will require additional source material. Even asserting that it was a British Empire tactical victory is arguable as was discussed below in detail.--Bemcfarland (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic, Operational, or Tactical? 

message: On canadian indigenous remembrance day its ironic that there is no mention of the mohawk warriors and the significance they played in the battle.  Without them parts of what is now Canadian would be American soil. About time  true history is shared, not just white history. 2605:B100:72E:D103:4CBF:B6D4:C68:EFF1 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohawk at Lundy's Lane