The Battle of Queenston Heights 1812

[Massena]

This is an off-shoot from the thread on the American soldier of 1812-1815 on the Napoleonic Forum, and is a quotation from 'Mycroft Holmes.' Having ordered the book A Very Brilliant Affair The Battle of Queenston Heights 1812 by Robert Malcolmson because of the below quoted comments by 'Holmes', I have a few questions:

'At Queenston Heights the US lost at least 500 dead - and we know that the 'official' figures are inaccurate because Ensign Wool, one of the American officers who did well on the day, stated flatly that the casualties reported in Van Rensselaer's dispatch certainly didn't include the losses of his regiment (this is mentioned in Malcolmson's A Very Brilliant Affair). In fact it appears that the losses recorded by the US general are solely those suffered by the troops waiting to cross, when the British bombarded the embarkation point, and don't include those suffered in transit or in battle on the Canadian shore - possibly illustrated by Van Rensselaer's use of the weasel words 'known losses' - leaving historians to guess what the unknown losses might have been...'

-Where in the text or appendices is the comment by Captain (not Ensign) Wool (he was a company commander in the US 13th Infantry Regiment) regarding Van Rensselaer's dispatch regarding US casualties for the action?

-Why is the term 'known losses' regarded as 'weasel words'?

-Where does it 'appear' that the recorded US losses were only incurred in the US assembly area?

Malcolmson stated on page 193 that 'A precise accounting of the losses suffered by the Americans in the Battle of Queenston Heights has never been made; estimates ranged from 160 total casualties to 500 killed and drowned alone. The closest that Stephen Van Renssalaer came to making an exact statement about the human cost of the battle was in a letter to Henry Dearborn in which he estimated that there were 60 known dead and 170 wounded.'-193.

The US captured by the British numbered 925 (436 regulars and 489 militia), reported by the British.

So, I don't see the doubt posed by 'Holmes' here when this is the best data available, and was duly reported by Malcolmson.

Therefore, what was the point of the exercise?

As an aside, the book itself is excellent and is highly recommended.

Sincerely,
M

[strathnaver]

At the start the attack at Queenston Hieghts looked like an possible US victory. But the militia units on the US side refused to attack as they felt they were raised as defensive forces. This left US units on Canadian side without back up. But by then the damage had been done because the 1 causlty that counted was Isaac Brock, CinC UK forces Upper Canada who was killed by a sniper early on. If he had not been killed maybe the war would have been ended sooner.

[Cyan67]

Having just read this last night, I did a little research. . .

Originally Posted by Massena

This is an off-shoot from the thread on the

-Where in the text or appendices is the comment by Captain (not Ensign) Wool (he was a company commander in the US 13th Infantry Regiment) regarding Van Rensselaer's dispatch regarding US casualties for the action?

I did not find anything in Cruikshank (Documentary History of the Niagara Campaign) from Wool with regard to casualties. Most of Wool's comments regarded a news story that placed Captain Ogilvie in command at the time of the taking of the battery.

The concept of 500 dead (and wounded) is first raised by Sheaffe in his report of the battle. It was just an estimate of his, based on the belief that 1,400 men had crossed and he could account for 900 of them. S The exact number is not known. One American, a volunteer, claimed that 1200 (700 regulars and 500 militia) had crossed and 400 were killed or wounded. However, his number of regulars is too high. He probably is reporting the number of regulars who were supposed to have crossed, but a large number did not.

-Where does it 'appear' that the recorded US losses were only incurred in the US assembly area?

A number of casualties were taken here, but I've found no account that gives a figure except for the death of Captain Nelson of the 6th Infantry (he made part of Mulanny's detachment). I suspect it was relatively few as the British were not able to bear much firepower on the area.

Malcolmson stated on page 193 that 'A precise accounting of the losses suffered by the Americans in the Battle of Queenston Heights has never been made; estimates ranged from 160 total casualties to 500 killed and drowned alone. The closest that Stephen Van Renssalaer came to making an exact statement about the human cost of the battle was in a letter to Henry Dearborn in which he estimated that there were 60 known dead and 170 wounded.'-193.

The US captured by the British numbered 925 (436 regulars and 489 militia), reported by the British.

According to the British

19 officers and 398 regulars
54 officers and 381 militia/volunteers

V. Renssaelaer reported 386 & 378 respectively, but does not include the officers. VR's source was Col William Winder (14th U.S.) who was tasked with organizing an exchange of prisoners. The difference of 15 is statistically small, and probably is accounted for in tabulation errors or simply deaths of wounded men. One news report, which probably had Winder as a source mentions 62 wounded regulars (two since dead) and 20 militia. About half that was reported. It is likely that these numbers are included in the above captured. A number of wounded did recross to the American side. Taking the above number, and the reported 60 killed and 170 wounded and factoring about 88 wounded that arrived or were hit on the American bank gives 1,073 men engaged plus an unknown number that escaped or left the field during the battle. That comes close to squaring with the 1,200 number. Most American first hand accounts estimate about 100 killed and 200 wounded. From experience, I find most estimates tend to be on the high end. So 60 killed 170 wounded with 843 unwounded captured to be a fairly accurate number. The 2.8:1 wounded to killed ratio is a bit low, but is probably accounted for by some of the wounded being bayoneted or dying shortly after the battle.

[History fan]

Originally Posted by strathnaver

At the start the attack at Queenston Hieghts looked like an possible US victory. But the militia units on the US side refused to attack as they felt they were raised as defensive forces. This left US units on Canadian side without back up. But by then the damage had been done because the 1 causlty that counted was Isaac Brock, CinC UK forces Upper Canada who was killed by a sniper early on. If he had not been killed maybe the war would have been ended sooner.

Brock's peformance in this battle was questionable as he was behaving like a regimental commander rather than a general.

The people who deserve the praise in my view are

1) John Norton, quite possibly the finest Light Infantry fighter in the whole war. It was his quick thinking and Indians that terrified the Americans into lots of Rabbits in the headlights, and bought much needed time.

2) Roger Sheaffe the man has been despised and blamed for what would happen later at York, but it was his leadership and attack plan here that won the Victory.

[marktwain]

Originally Posted by History fan

Brock's peformance in this battle was questionable as he was behaving like a regimental commander rather than a general.

The people who deserve the praise in my view are

1) John Norton, quite possibly the finest Light Infantry fighter in the whole war. It was his quick thinking and Indians that terrified the Americans into lots of Rabbits in the headlights, and bought much needed time.

2) Roger Sheaffe the man has been despised and blamed for what would happen later at York, but it was his leadership and attack plan here that won the Victory.

Brock had courage, and siezed the opportunity at Detroit. He used his scarece resources well.

But -he did charge in to his glorious death, and the inexperienced Canadian militia panicked until:

Brock under that huge stone monument.]
Too thin the line that charged the Heights
And scrambled in the clay.
Too thin the Eastern Township Scot
Who showed them all the way,
And perhaps had you not fallen,
You might be what Brock became
But not one in ten thousand knows your name.

To say the name, MacDonnell,
It would bring no bugle call
But the Redcoats stayed beside you
When they saw the General fall.
Twas MacDonnell raised the banner then
And set the Heights aflame,
But not one in ten thousand knows your name.

You brought the field all standing with your courage and your luck
But unknown to most, you're lying there beside old General Brock.
So you know what it is to scale the Heights and fall just short of fame
And have not one in ten thousand know your name.

Stanb Rogers.

[Lance Williams]

Brock's death is arguably the main turning point in the war along the US-British/Canadian border. He was trusted by Tecumseh and his Native Confederation and almost certainly would have used the skills of these allies far more successfully (and aggressively) than his successors. I don't think that the eventual outcome would have been greatly different, the British/Canadians simply didn't have the manpower, but perhaps the border might not have been the Great Lakes (maybe closer to the Ohio River).

[SmackUm]

Originally Posted by Lance Williams

Brock's death is arguably the main turning point in the war along the US-British/Canadian border. He was trusted by Tecumseh and his Native Confederation and almost certainly would have used the skills of these allies far more successfully (and aggressively) than his successors. I don't think that the eventual outcome would have been greatly different, the British/Canadians simply didn't have the manpower, but perhaps the border might not have been the Great Lakes (maybe closer to the Ohio River).

I think that Tecumseh sailed to the Nipigon/Thunder Bay District on board the Northwest Company Schooner HMS Perserverence to recruit the native peoples.
They were influential at Detroit,Queenston Heights,Muddy Fort York,etc...
Here is a link that describes their importance to the British/Brock at the time... http://www.oldandsold.com/articles11...dwar1-24.shtml
They were closely asociated with Colonel William McKay 1812 (Fort William) Thunder Bay & Colonel Robert Dickson (Dickson's Post) Minneapolis Minnesota of the Canadian Corps of Voyageurs.
The HMS Perserverence was destroyed @ Point Aux Pins Shipyard Sault Ste Marie while Captain Robert McCargo hid HMS Recovery on Isle Royal.
Control of the Great Lakes was the key to the war of 1812 in North America as Lord Welington put it!