Talk:Fort Bowyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First and Second Battles of Fort Bowyer[edit]

Did 1815 3rd U.S. Infantry, Col. Gilbert Christians Russell, Sr., 1782-1861 (earlier Col. 20th U.S. Infantry), have anything to do with either the First or Second Battles of Fort Boyer? Russell County, Alabama, is named for him. I can e-mail his picture if you want it? ∞ focusoninfinity 11:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focusoninfinity (talk • contribs)

The Second Battle of Fort Bowyer[edit]

How did the Second Battle of Fort Bowyer lose its page. I think it should be changed back instead of being combined with the Fort Bowyer page. All battles/engagements no matter how big or small should have its own page on wiki. I believe in organization. Because other battles have thier own page and Forts alone have their own page this shoud be converted back. Also because I was planning on making the First Battle of Fort Bowyer Page. I dont know why somebody thought it would make more sence having one article illustrating three topics or events. Fort Bowyer, and the two battles should each have their own page. If anyone agrees, please re create the Second Battle of... page for me.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who combined the pages because I thought it better to have one good article than one-and-a-half articles. May I suggest that you build out the first battle in the current article, and then we can readily split them up again. One of the good things about Wikipedia is that these things are easy to do. We can continue to improve as we go. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of the British in September 1814[edit]

The actual strength of the British forces in September 1814 does seem overstated. It is not well sourced, either, and seems to be based on opinion/ propaganda from the 19th Century.

The current article states 130 Marines, 100 Spaniards and 600 Indians.

Hickey estimates the force to be 225 Marines and Indians. William James mentions 60 Marines & 120 Indians. Notwithstanding the British landing at Fort San Miguel, Pensacola on 23 August 1814, it seems unlikely that the Spanish would have violated their neutrality. John Marshall states 60 Marines & 100 Indian warriors, and his figures of 17 and 6 killed in action on the Hermes and Sophie are spot on.

The muster books, recording the presence of every person on board a ship, can be used to corroborate numbers. (Note: this is a verification against an existing source, not a case of new research). In the "Supernumerary" section, the musters for HMS Carron show about 60 Royal Marines, of whom 10 are artillery, who have been detached from the Royal Marine battalion on the Chesapeake, and were disembarked at Pensacola on 31 August. The muster also states 'Indian Warriors victualled - 58 in number'. The muster for HMS Hermes went down with the ship, although the pay book was saved. HMS Sophie's muster does record in the "Supernumerary" section the presence of Lt Colonel Nicolls, 2nd Lt John McWilliams and several warriors, and no other military forces.

One other issue is the identity of the fourth ship. The log for HMS Sophie makes continual reference to Childers. The pervasiveness of the American news reports refer to Anaconda, and this has been treated as "fact" but there is nothing among British sources which would support this. Nonetheless, the outcome for the British was disastrous. Keith H99 (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John K. Mahon's "The War Of 1812" has a quote, on page 347, from a letter sent from Cochrane to the Admiralty, dated 25 August 1825, reference ADM 1/506 folio 478: 'Nicolls, 3 other officers, a surgeon, 11 non-commissioned officers, and 97 enlisted men landed and occupied Fort San Miguel [at Pensacola]. Besides their own arms, they carried 3 field pieces, 1000 stands of arms, and 300 British uniforms for the Indians.' The names of the three officers and the surgeon are mentioned on page 277 of Paul Harris Nicolas's "Historical Record of the Royal Marine Forces, Volume 2".
Among this force, Nicolas, on page 228, mentions the composition of the force which attacked Fort Bowyer in 1814 to be: 60 Marines, 120 Indians and one 5.5" howitzer. Keith H99 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to augment the quality of this article[edit]

Fort Bowyer update[edit]

Hi Keith:

I've looked again at the article, and added one new source and five new cites to cover various gaps. As IO've now edited it, it's probably best if someone else reviews it. You've done good work on it, for which you should be proud.  Roger Davies talk 08:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your perusal, Roger. Funnily enough, when I was in Waterstones yesterday, purchasing the Andrew Lambert book on the War of 1812, I noticed that René Chartrand had published a book on forts! Would you be able to approach some contacts with regard to reviewing the Fort Bowyer article? I am also having trouble getting someone to review the Battle of Pensacola (1814) article; a skirmish involving two forts and a gun battery, all of which were rebuilt after the war. Keith H99 (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best is probably to list the article/s here. They usually get a reasonably fast turnround ;)  Roger Davies talk 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further feedback sought[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 with regard to referencing and citation. It had been lacking inline citations. Please can you provide some pointers as to what further work would be required to raise the standard via Talk:Fort Bowyer Similarly, in relation to Pensacola... Best wishes Keith H99 (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The objective is to have a reference per paragraph. I have added {{citation required}} tags so you can see which ones are lacking them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the Missing Citation tag where appropriate. Keith H99 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fort Bowyer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scale of the Second Battle of Fort Bowyer[edit]

Howdy, it has been previously agreed on in the talk that the battle was ultimately minor in scale. Especially in comparison to those of Plattsburgh, Fort Erie, Baltimore, Pensacola, etc. etc., but the edits are constantly being reverted by a user who is not logged in. Is there a solution to this? Much obliged. MarkMcCain (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The engagement at Fort Bowyer may be minor, though that term is not well defined. The issue of the last conflict in the war is a different issue. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I Have previously had difficult discussions with MarkMcCain on Battle of New Orleans, it appears the edits are not in line with Wikipedia's policy. Unsure why in the lede of the Second battle there is a mention of Rio de Janeiro when that is not directly relevant to the lede of the second battle, it does not belong there and is irrelevant. It is quite wrong to word it as "forces from the two countries would be on land in a hostile manner" when forces of the Sauk Indians defeated US Rangers in May 1815, with a British commander in the area. Nautilus could also well be considered a British vessel commanded by a branch of the British military meaning it was also not the last naval battle. I would also agree that "minor" is subjective and carries different definitions, I would not say the last storming of the war was a minor incident, especially as it was one of the positions fortified after the war of 1812 was over by the US in their goal to never be blockaded by the Royal Navy again.--AlbionJack (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was implied that the last engagements mentioned only British and American forces, the primary belligerents. Especially gives the natives were later defeated. Much like British troops at Fort Negro in Spanish Florida the following year. But in any case, if I'm going against Wikipedia policy, my apologies. If we've agreed Fort Bowyer was minor, it should be mentioned. MarkMcCain (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fort Negro is also irrelevant and did not even feature British troops, they were fugitive slaves as colonial marines not British troops in the conventional sense at all. I am not sure why you continue to mention these irrelevant occurrences so frequently. We also have not agreed it was minor, not even remotely, it was not minor in many senses as previously stated.--AlbionJack (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colonial Marines were trained no differently than British troops. Just because they weren't white does not mean they were not British government-trained troops, and remnants did participate in the battle. Although I agree it has nothing to do with anything mentioned. I think it's you that doesn't agree with Fort Bowyer being a minor engagement, you seem to be the only one believing it was a major battle and also the only one not providing some form of reference(s) supporting what is as of now nothing more than your opinion. The fort was a strategic leap pad for what would have been a major assault on Mobile, that's all. But because the British camped on the outer banks until peace arrived, never launching the assault, in the end the engagement was minor in scale. Both tactically and in terms of casualties. British Royal Marine infantry and sailors sustained heavier casualties than that getting "riddled through" at Tristan da Cunha afterwords so I fail to see in any way how the battle was a major one. MarkMcCain (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colonial marines that were paid off were no longer marines as they were no longer employed by the British army. This is a FACT. Whether you like it or not you have this strange revisionist history that is fully on display all over your editing history, even the mere mention of Ft Negro shows this. These were not British troops. I am not the only one believing it was a major battle, I said it was not a "Minor" battle, as minor is subjective as the original comment in reply to yours agreed. Shall we add "major" to the engagement where the Shannon humiliated the Chesapeake? where they said "don't give up the ship!" but they.. already had done this quite blatantly. In summary your edits are emotive and not backed by references and motivated purely by clouded emotions.AlbionJack (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Colonial Marines were paid off, but if you'll keep reading you'll notice the article clearly states most remained at the fort and took part in its defense. And I'm afraid that's a fact whether you like it or not, a little confused why this is still a topic though. You could make that a major battle in the same way the capture of the Dominica right after and later sinking of the Reindeer in the English Channel could be. Maybe the brief American blockade of Bahia, Brazil, which captured Peacock in 1813. But I don't see the relevance in that either. Not emotional, but I don't like deceiving context. I suppose as long as it doesn't tag the battle as a major one, and it doesn't, the current version of the article is acceptable to me. This half agrees, this half doesn't. So to hell with it, keep it like it is. MarkMcCain (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What free men do with their own time and liberty is irrelevant to the British army, they stayed? so what, they were not British troops. This is again revisionist history. You could make the very last land battle of the war a major one also when the American rangers were defeated by natives. Or the entire blockade that meant ships could not even leave port for the majority of the war. Or the capture of President in humiliating fashion, or the capture of USS Essex, just again emotive editing but not valid.AlbionJack (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's illogical. They were paid off, not dead. At least not until U.S. troops blew up their fort. I think you're in denial about that one, but I'm done arguing about this with you. And you can keep mentioning battles the British won against the Americans, but it will always be so that American infantry and naval forces won the final series of them. In any case, I'm bored with this. Take care, gentlemen. MarkMcCain (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's correct, someone no longer employed by someone no longer works for them, ergo, they were not British or even troops, they were ex colonial marines. Sorry your agenda has clouded your judgement. You can keep mentioning these imaginary great victories but infantry forces lost the last two battles, one at Bowyer, one against Natives. The last naval battles were insignificant compared to the Royal Navy blockade that destroyed the American economy, I think it is you who is in denial. Britain dominated 2 of the 4 frontiers of the war and the Americans none. The Americans didn't even win the "final series" of them like you think. AlbionJack (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well regardless of who they worked for, they were still government-trained and armed troops. I'm sorry you refuse to accept that. And no, actually, they didn't. Royal Marines are infantry forces, even equipped with the British Army's famed red coat uniform. U.S. Marines are also infantry forces, and the capture of Penguin was largely the result of a musketry duel. The Americans won ending battles at Big Sandy Creek, Black Rock and Buffalo, HMS Epervier off Cape Canaveral, Plattsburgh, HMS Reindeer, Fort Erie, Cook's Mills, Malcolm's Mills, Fayal, Pensacola, Caulk's Field, Farnham Church, Baltimore, New Orleans, Siege of Fort St. Philip, HMS Cyane, HMS Levant, HMS Penguin and EIC Nautilus. I don't know how that isn't winning the final series of battles, or why you're still going on with this when I was under the impression everyone had moved on. MarkMcCain (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, they weren't, irrelevant is their training and irrelevant is their origin, I am sorry you are still utterly clouded by your judgement. And YES they did. Arguing it was infantry that won a naval battle is utterly ludicrous, it would be arguing that Shannon humiliating Chesapeake was in fact an infantry battle due to the performance of those on board Shannon, please do not become a journalist or historian with this nonsense. It was a naval battle, this is established fact. So not only did on land the Americans lose the battles at Battle of the Sink Hole and Fort Bowyer the final two land battles, but also you mention things like Reindeer and Levant, and Fort Erie completely ignoring the fact HMS Levant (1813) was recaptured AFTER, that HMS Medway took USS Siren after Reindeer, that the Battle of Lake Borgne was a British victory occurring far after Fort Erie, USS Tigress and Scorpion also being captured late in the war by the British too. It is utterly remarkable how you are so unaware of all these things and apparently unable to work out the dates that these things happened after your own "victories". Meaning that the last actions of the war were actually won on land by Britain and natives and fairly neutral at sea. Please, do read up on these things before trying to make such an incorrect point again.AlbionJack (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Borge was in Louisiana, which the British were forced to withdraw from completely after their defeat at New Orleans and Fort St. Philip. So, meh. And read up on things yourself, you'll see most casualties inflicted during the taking of Penguin were due to the infantry's musket fire rather than cannon fire. Fancy "red coat" for you. No one is saying it wasn't a naval battle, but when troops are involved and land is within a stone's throw, I don't feel it matters. No difference firing your rifle across a ship or a parapet. The last battle is irrelevant if the British were defeated in back-to-back engagements prior and post said engagement. This back and forth bickering is the true nonsense, everyone has gone and here we sit for reasons unknown. MarkMcCain (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well again no, as "meh" is your response to that battle and also to the RN blockade it shows your lack of critical thinking. Also it is you who is making it an infantry battle, you are claiming that it was the last infantry battle, instead of Bowyer and the Natives, which is laughable, even your mention of "red coat" shows this. You not feeling it matters is completely irrelevant when historians care and that's what goes on here, it's a naval battle nothing to do with infantry. You also again state the last battle is irrelevant when the "British were defeated in back-to-back engagements prior and post said engagement" but this is also wrong, when America lost back to back land battles at the end of the war that were also the last battles on land, meaning the US lost back to back engagements that were the final battles on land, fact. We are not even bickering, you are being disingenuous and it is no wonder no one debates with you as you are not honest or even critical in your statements.AlbionJack (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you believe no infantry forces take part in naval battles shows how little you understand naval warfare, especially of the 18th and 19th centuries. Marines are infantry troops, while at sea they protect the commander and ship from mutiny while repelling boarding attempts with small arms fire (i.e., muskets). Royal Marines did, in fact, wear a red coat. Maybe you should go back and obtain a better understanding of Marines, I doubt highly they'd appreciate people like you attempting to discredit their job title and the sacrifices they've made on all battlefields. The British lost the final battles against the Americans, which indeed were engagements between infantry forces as well as sailors, and came shortly after the blunders at Plattsburgh, Fort Erie, Baltimore and New Orleans. Evidently that bugs you, and I'm sorry for that. But I didn't write history, that's something you'll have to accept - or don't. I understand you disagree with me, but facts are facts. And we are no longer arguing to a definitive point, instead you've devolved into insults and an egotistical flex of muscles, which is unimpressive to say the least. MarkMcCain (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, just because "infantry forces" take part in a naval battle doesn't make it an infantry battle like you are saying. You have previously said that we should ignore the fact that the US lost consecutive infantry battles at the end of the war to Natives and the British because of a naval battle, this is utter nonsense again. Laughton professor of Naval history at Kings Andrew Lambert did a lecture at the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 and explained this quite well, perhaps you should listen to him. I feel it is you who does not understand naval warfare at all and are shoehorning something that does not exist. The British won final battles after Erie, (as previously explained at Borge) against USS Siren (after Reindeer), at Bowyer as well as the natives beating the US too in the final land battles. You clearly cannot accept these facts because you continue to mention them but ignore the fact the British won battles AFTER them. I am not going to waste time debating with someone who has no grasp of how a calendar works.AlbionJack (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is saying it isn't a naval battle, for the last time. Just because infantry forces are involved doesn't mean it isn't a naval engagement. Plattsburgh was a naval battle, yet it involved infantry Marines and soldiers and ended the final British invasion along the Canadian-American border. Fort Erie's siege was already ongoing, and ended 10 days after. British forces lost the final engagements along the northern border and in the mid-Atlantic. The engagement at Lake Borge is meaningless, given that it was only attacked to lay siege to New Orleans - and we all know how that worked out. My point is any British victory is overshadowed by an American victory, and the natives were also later defeated, so it doesn't mean a whole lot to win the final engagement in one conflict if you're defeated outright in another. The British lost more men killed and wounded after Fort Bowyer, so naturally the attention is on the bloodier battle. Those are my only points really at this point, but apparently egos flare when Her Majesty's almighty gets taken out by what was at the time a significantly weaker country. In any case, I think it's best we agree to disagree and go our separate ways because this is going nowhere. MarkMcCain (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well again, no, you were the one saying it should be regarded as an infantry battle as "it had infantry involved and land was a stones throw", so it is YOU who is saying this incorrectly and now trying to backtrack on your nonsense. The engagement at Lake Borge is meaningless? yet it occurred after Fort Erie and was a clear British victory, again occurring after your beloved Erie that you continue to mention. Any British victory actually overshadows American victories, in fact the British and natives not only won the last two land battles and many of the final naval battles, but the result of the war was clear to see when the decades after 1812 ended US fiscal defence spending was spent on building stone forts in every harbour up and down the east coast as they refused to be humiliated by the Royal Navy again in such a war. So to clarify, the British victories overshadow the American, Naval battles are strictly naval and it is you who was trying to argue otherwise, the British won the final land battles, and they also dominated 2 of four frontiers and the Americans none. Thanks.AlbionJack (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said any of that actually, that's your spastic assumption. I said there were infantry troops involved in the battle, meaning there were infantry aspects to it. That doesn't mean I'm saying they weren't naval battles. My point is you're fixated with one fort because you believe that was the final infantry vs infantry battle and it's simply not the case. There were blue coat infantry firing their rifles at red coat infantry following Fort Bowyer just as they were at New Orleans a month or two prior. It was the Americans that inflicted the final casualties and accepted the last officer's surrender. You're obviously a little biased and have a hard time coming to terms with that, but don't be a broken record and keep saying the same things with altered context because you have nothing else to say. MarkMcCain (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You literally did say that, you are STILL arguing that this was an infantry on infantry battle onboard ships, this is simply incorrect, you would get laughed out of a lecture for such ridiculous statements. Also personal attacks can and often get users banned. Fort Bowyer WAS the last infantry vs infantry battle, and the Natives was also the final infantry vs infantry battle. This simply IS the case. You say these statements and then also say "But that's not what I said" When it literally is, you have simply contradicted yourself so many times it is borderline hilarious. It was Britain who won the final land battle, the natives won the other. These are indisputable facts that your revisionist history and blind nationalism is trying to change. Unfortunately for yourself you can't.AlbionJack (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of interesting how you can go from warning me about personal attacks, when I haven't made any, and then attack me personally. Speaking of contradictions. I have never said it was an infantry battle, I said it was a naval battle in which infantry forces and tactics were used also. Fort Bowyer may have been the last land battle, but it was not the last infantry battle. Given that Fort Bowyer wasn't as bloody, and most casualties inflicted after were due to infantry musket fire, I don't really see a difference. A battle is a battle, and in a war where the result is a stalemate with no victor, winning the final battle is a nationalistic must I suppose. Also, the last time the Americans held British prisoners captive, they were on land in Brazil until transferred to Portuguese control. I did not say that was a battle. That said, we're still wasting our time here. MarkMcCain (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are still shoehorning infantry onto a naval battle, wonderful lack of critical thinking. It was the last infantry and land battle, Royal marines boarding and fighting an Argentinean vessel that closed and was firing upon each other is still a naval battle and nothing to do with infantry. So yes, the British won the last infantry and land battle of the war, and the Natives the other. We are done here.AlbionJack (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a naval battle, but that has nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of infantry forces. Just because a battle or campaign is naval in nature doesn't mean there aren't troops involved. You also refuse to acknowledge Royal Marines as an infantry force, and they clearly are. So seconded, we're definitely done here. Take care. MarkMcCain (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More contradictions and more falsities stated without critical thinking. All the best!.AlbionJack (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marines are infantry, nothing contradicting or false about that. Cheers fella, good talk. MarkMcCain (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately I never argued otherwise, but context and critical thinking matters. :)AlbionJack (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you implied and belittled quite a bit, I reckon that's enough. But I agree, they do matter. Fortunately, I never argued otherwise. (: MarkMcCain (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USS Peacock vs Nautilus[edit]

See: Capture of East India Company ship Nautilus Nautilus was a brig belonging to the Bombay Marine, the naval arm of the British East India Company, which in turn governed India. Lt. Boyce was an officer in the Bombay Marine, not the Royal Navy. That said, the engagement was between a US warship and what was indirectly a British naval vessel. The Bombay Marine and the RN routinely cooperated in campaigns. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then does that make the Capture of HMS Penguin the final engagement between British and American forces, or Peacock v. Nautilus? MarkMcCain (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peacock vs. Nautilus. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right then. And the belligerents, should the United Kingdom be added above the East India Company? MarkMcCain (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the phrase "Bombay Marine of the British East India Company", that should do it, at least to my mind. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll fiddle with it a bit. MarkMcCain (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Territory[edit]

Save for discussing the modern location, should the in-article references for Fort Bowyer being located in Alabama be changed to the Mississippi Territory? The state of Alabama was not created until 1819, and the Alabama Territory was not formed until 1817--two years after the Second Battle of Fort Bowyer. It looks like the same problem applies to Template:Battles of the War of 1812. Dofftoubab (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Bowyer&oldid=1199291699"