Talk:Invasion of Canada (1775)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian military history task force United States military history task force

[edit] Merge?

That is a good idea, they are both part of the same campaign and together they might make a good artical. I've added a bit to this one here so I say go for it. Marc29th 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger seems reasonable, but Arnold expedition is probably the better name. It can be used in text without piping; and it may avoid PoV protests. Septentrionalis 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Arnold expedition article says that that title refers to the Eastern advance on Quebec City up the Kennebec River. hte campaign box refers to them collectively as te "Canada Campaign". Mike McGregor (Can) 08:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, unless we are going to have to dab from Amherst's or Wolfe's Canada campaign.Septentrionalis 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Touchet... : ) Mike McGregor (Can) 08:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merger is a good idea, under the name Invasion of Canada (1775) (not Arnold expedition, which does not apply to Montgomery's expedition, which was the main thrust). If, at some time in the future, this article gets too long, the Arnold expedition can be broken out again as a "daughter" article. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I now think the scope of this article should be expanded to include everything in the campaignbox, which covers both the American invasion of 1775 and Carleton's counter-invasion of 1776. Basically, then, the Canadian theater of the war up until the Saratoga campaign. The reason for this is I believe every campaignbox (which cover both campaigns and theaters) needs its own article, in order to keep the main article (American Revolutionary War) at a reasonable length. Carleton's counter-offensive is important enough to cover at length, and this should be the place to do it. This holds true whether or not Arnold's expedition is merged into this article. It can always be a "daughter" article, with a brief summary here. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shameless Plug

The Canadian Military History Task Force of the Wikiproject Military History is looking for participants...

[edit] Green lumber may be an unsourced claim

The accounts I've seen about the Arnold Expedition, in print and online, were clear on the poor construction of the bateaux, which were unrowable, weighed about 400 pounds apiece, and were a horror to get over the portages. However, all of the online references I've seen that excuse the quality of the bateaux, on the grounds that Colburn was obliged to use green lumber at that time of year, trace back to a single source: a descendant of Colburn's who's been singlemindedly championing his cause. What I haven't seen is him citing any source(s) for that assertion. The Arnold Expedition wasn't heavily documented, and I'm not aware of any contemporary account that discusses the particular circumstances of Colburn's design decisions.

Also, the claim seems a little odd on the face of it. What does season have to do with green lumber? Trees are green in season, but that's not the same "green" that's meant when talking about lumber. Newly cut lumber, a.k.a. green lumber, is green in any season.

If sustained, this objection also applies to the entry on Major Reuben Colburn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.217.252 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC).