Talk:Battle of Pensacola (1814)

Military history: North America / United States

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Article title[edit]

This battle was part of the War of 1812 but it took place in 1814. Shouldn't the title be Battle of Pensacola (1814), not Battle of Pensacola (1812)? Twpsyn Pentref (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will move the page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of the British in November 1814[edit]

The following are recorded as "Supernumerary" in the ship musters:

HMS Seahorse:
127 men, all believed to be Royal Marines, or volunteers in Nicolls's unit (numbers 1041 to 1168 in the muster)
4x Indian warriors (1211 to 1215 in the muster)
Spaniards (1170 to 1206)

HMS Childers:
Crew of HMS Hermes, which was abandoned in September 1814
102 Spanish 'Embarked from forts Rosa & Barrancas, by order of Capt Jordan'

HMS Sophie:
149 Spanish - disembarked at St Joseph's Bay on 30 November 1814
Entries 156 to 190 are escaped slaves
Keith H99 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of the Spanish in November 1814[edit]

Not speaking Spanish, it is difficult to ascertain which units were present, and their associated strengths. Googling does imply that a useful book would be "Los Uniformes Del Estado Militar De Espana Del Ano 1815" by Antonio Manzano Lahoz & Luis Gravalós González ISBN 8486629667

There appears to have been a local (militia?) force, the Luisiana Infantry Regiment, with a Cuba Infantry regiment which had come from Havana. A cavalry unit, Dragones de America, is also mentioned.

After the fighting on the Iberian peninsular had concluded, the 4th Tarragona light infantry and the Zaragoza infantry regiments were dispatched to the Americas.

A precursor to the Spanish Foreign Legion seems to have been the Infantería Española de Ultramar, similar to the Troupes de la Marine of France, units whose purpose was to serve overseas. Keith H99 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some discourse as to their uniforms

Spanish Uniforms for Florida 1812-1815

Keith H99 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the quality of this article[edit]

Hello Hawkeye7. Thanks for having taken the time to review two articles, as requested. With regard to Fort Bowyer, I really thought that I had got there ... Similarly, in relation to Pensacola, I had hoped that the addition of more inline citations would have raised the quality of the article. Would it be possible to provide some pointers as to what further work would be required to raise the standard via Talk:Battle of Pensacola (1814) Best wishes Keith H99 (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hohum,

Thanks for having taken the time to review the article, which I see you performed 2 hours ago. Based upon similar feedback on the Talk:Fort Bowyer article, I've tidied up the citations. Would you be able to pass on any hints as to what else is required in order to get to B class for the referencing and citation requirement. My achilles heel up to now is that I have been concentrating on citations within the paras, but have been allowing paragraph endings to remain unsourced. I'll be putting this on the Talk:Battle of Pensacola (1814) page. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've just looked at the Battle of Pensacola (1814) article. I've made a couple of minor-ish changes, but also tagged (with {{Citation needed}} the unreferenced statements that probably prevented you from getting a B-class when it was recently reviewed. Easiest way forward now is probably to find sources for the tagged statements, then resubmit for B-class. After that, you could take it to GA, I suppose. Good luck, Roger Davies ^talk 08:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Roger. I will seek a re-assessment shortly. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs editing[edit]

This article needs some serious editing. Many of the sentences aren't sentences, and some of the ones that are are very poorly worded. I'll try to come back to this once finals are over and see what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyh2014 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

This is somewhat problematic.

Tucker states, without recourse to source material, there were at least 15 dead or wounded, as suffered by the Spanish and British. This is stated in one primary source, authored by Edward Nicolls, the difference being this is his estimate of casualties suffered by Jackson's force!

1. Where does Tucker get his figures from?

2. Eaton's figures look plausible. Are the nine wounded men mentioned by name?

3. Has there been a similar compilation for the Spanish soldiers?

4. It seems plausible that, as per Nicolls statement, no casualties were suffered by the British, the reason being that there was no combat whatsoever for his troops! The British had retreated out to sea prior to Jackson's force arriving, to storm the outlying Fort San Carlos and Santa Rosa Punta de Siguenza battery.

I think this has been too inconsequential for historians to have bothered to have researched. There's more interest and glory with regard to the subsequent Battle of New Orleans. Keith H99 (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted Keith H99 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]