Talk:Siege of Fort Meigs

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / North America / United States C‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Untitled

In attacking Harrison at Fort Meigs the British succeeded in keeping Harrison from attacking Detroit. General Harrison is the best leader. However since it was part of the American strategy to keep the British from invading Ohio it could not be considered a strategic victory for either side but a strategic stalemate. Yet in considering the actions around the fort, the battle is listed as a Tactical U.S. victory because the U.S. forces were able to withstand the British siege and remain in control of the fort. In lifting the siege Proctor eventually did retreat into Canada (although making one more failed attempt at Fort Meigs and Fort Stephenson).

Harrison succeeding Hull?

The article claims Harrison directly succeeded Hull. This article[1] says that James Winchester was commander of the Army of the Northwest between Hull and Harrison. -Sarcasmboy 09:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester was briefly the commander of the Army of the Northwest before Harrison and after Hull. He was very unpopular with the troops. --User: 1812Soldier

British tactical victory?

How does a failed siege work out as a British Victory? I could see indecisive but victory? Sheesh fix this! --Tirronan (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Procter couldn't continue the sige after the indians left, I think it is a defeat. In more ways than not, he failed to take the fort necessary for him to advance unharrassed. InternetHero (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story-like article

Ya, I'll fix it in a couple of weeks. As for now, please don't revert since it is very informative as well. Pierre Berton's references were like 50. InternetHero (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we've heard this before. I know of articles where the creator said that last February which haven't been touched since. This should have been created in your userspace before putting it out in article space. dougweller (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware we had a WP:DEADLINE. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's never too soon to fix an article. The real point is though that this article doesn't belong to anyone, so there is no reason to wait before making changes. Internethero's version is not encyclopedic, that's the long and short of it. And the other version uses more than one source dougweller (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbette embrasures

To this very day, a Barbette embrasure dug by the British can be seen in Fort Meigs Cemetery, which is approximately a half mile to the east. Musicwriter (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami du Lac River

In this time period, the Maumee river was known as the “Miami of the Lake”. See
Treaty of Greenville, 1795, 7 Stat. 49
Treaty of Detroit, 1807, 7 Stat. 105
Treaty of Brownstown, 1808, 7 Stat. 112
Act of Dec 12, 1811, 2 Stat. 668
Act of April 27, 1816, 3 Stat. 319.

“Miami du Lac River” is an anachronism from the 1680s of Frontenac.
Roseohioresident (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

victory

Please explain how this is a British victory of any sort before changing the results back. I don't see how the refernce posted confirms it was a British tactical victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.205.106 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it was as well but I think it should be said as an American strategic victory to make it more clear. The American counters were badly beaten in the final actions so while I don't want to call this a tactical British victory, I think it should be clear that it was a strategic U.S. victory and I don't think it would undermine how great this defense was. Will not act yet though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8161:C100:1DE2:8E9E:5B6A:2662 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]