This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Bloody Marsh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some sources say that this battle effecively ended the War of Jenkin's ear. That should be put in there if it is correct, but I'm not well-enough versed in it to be sure. Does anyone know? Bubba73 (talk) 01:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Also, the article says that the ambush was during the Spanard's siesta hour, but the external links didn't mention that. Is that correct? Bubba73 (talk) 03:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
It did not end the war of Jenkin's ear, it ended the Spanish invasion of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:280E:2253:C9BA:DC7F ( talk) 16:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The only British casualty was a highlander who passed out and died from the heat. I remembered this as being Bloody Marsh. I remembered this wrong from childhood visits to Fort Frederica's museum. The battle of Gully Hole creek preceded Bloody Marsh - the Spaniards drove the British back to Fort Frederica from Fort St. Simons. - WCFrancis 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Another source: Georgia Encyclopedia
According to this link, the Spanish only lost 19 men in Gully Hole Creek and Bloody Marsh. The "50 casualties" in Bloody Marsh may be another British exaggeration of the Jenkins' Ear War, like the "victories" of Edward Vernon in Portobello and Cartagena de Indias (the second was, in fact, the worst British defeat in History).-- Menah the Great 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Bubba73 for your comments and past contributions to this article. I was hesitant to reverse the IP user's number of 200 casualties, because the author he cited is quite notable. But that is all I know about the reference. I have not read (nor have I been able to locate) the book (which was published quite a few years ago). Perhaps a library down your way has it on the shelf. I don't know if the IP user simply misread the passage, or if the information cited in the book has been corrected (downward) in the last several decades. With multiple sources citing the much lower numbers of 7-50, I decided to go with that. If you should have any additional information on this point, I would be most interested to hear it. Gulbenk ( talk) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I have requested a discussion of these figures, rather than a slow-motion edit war. I should point out that the apparent source for the higher number originates with a hand written report by one of the British participants, who may have had reason to embellish. I can provide a link to that report, if anyone cares to read it. This British report is offset by a contemporary Spanish accounting, listing seven dead. Robert Preston Brooks used the British number, and several non-historian authors repeat that. The National Park Service, The New Georgia Encyclopedia, and the Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Georgia (found here: http://scwsav.org/Portals/13/Users/002/02/2/SOCW%20History.pdf ) use the lower numbers. So, lay out your best arguments (for or against) and let us see if there is consensus for change. Until that time, the long standing wording will be retained. Gulbenk ( talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Early reports muddy the waters even more, adding in the number of captured. If possible, let's stick to the number killed. Gulbenk ( talk) 19:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a long list of sources which confirm the number of roughly 200 Spanish casualties (all of the sources I've provided specifically state 200 Spanish killed). More even than I've listed here. However, the most authoritative source on this matter is Society of Colonial Wars, who themselves have numerous documents confirming these figures. The number of valid sources confirming the 200 figure vastly outweigh those supporting these bizarrely lower figures.
1a) History of Georgia By Robert Preston Brooks page 77
2) Florida's Past: People and Events That Shaped the State, Volume 1 By Gene M. Burnett page 181
3) The American Colonial Wars: a concise history, 1607-1775 Nathaniel Claiborne Hale, General Society of Colonial Wars (U.S.) Hale House, 1967 page 54
4) Society of Colonial Wars, 1892-1967: seventy-fifth anniversary (General Society of Colonial Wars, 1967) page 231
5) Thomas Spalding of Sapelo, Ellis Merton Coulter, (Louisiana State University Press, 1940) page 278
6) A History of Florida By Caroline Mays Brevard, Henry Eastman Bennett page 75
I added the direct link to the Robert Preston Brooks source because somewhat mentioned they couldn't find a hard copy of it. I can do so for the rest of the sources if need be as well. If these are not enough sources to make the point, I also have more. It's a very well-sourced figure. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Dismissing the above listed sources without providing better sources to counter with appears slanted. The pattern seems to be to deem the Spanish account legitimate and the British account illegitimate. This is not a good reason for listing lower figures.
I hope you editors come to some sort of agreement. I've wondered about it for years, but I have few references. I'm not going to weigh in because I don't know enough about it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Bubba that's the battle of gully hole creek, not the battle of bloody marshes. It seems like the 200 figure not only has the most sources but also the most reliable sources. The lower figures are largely either reliant on taking the word of the people who lost the battle or are nothing short of rank revisionism for the sake of revisionism. The 200 figure has the most sources backing it up and the most reliable ones. The tour guide at Fort Frederica stated that there is disagreement over the figures but it was "most likely around 200 killed" during bloody marsh. This seems like the most legitimate count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:280E:2253:C9BA:DC7F ( talk) 16:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This battle is labeled as mid-importance, "The subject is not well-known or particularly significant ". This battle drove the Spanish out of the Colonies and they didn't return. It also established the area as Brittish territory - originally the Brittish claimed only down to the Altamaha River. Isn't that significant? Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the fact Georgia would potentially be a Spanish-speaking territory had this battle gone differently justifies upping the level of importance here. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes give it as being in the Province of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia. As I understand it, the location was not in the province of Georgia as of 1742. The 1732 boundary of Georgia went down to the Altamaha River; it wasn't until 1763 that the area was claimed as part of the Province of Georgia. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sources clearly states that 1950 Spanish soldiers (from at least 50 vessels) were involved in this battle. After the defeat Gully Hole Creek 200 Spanish grenadiers covered the retreat of the 150 man reccon force of which the rest of the invasion force took part in Bloody Marsh. Bruichladdich1 (talk), 21:01, 11 June 2010 (GMT)
See discussion, continued above, under Casualties Gulbenk ( talk) 01:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a long list of sources which confirm the number of roughly 200 Spanish casualties (all of the sources I've provided specifically state 200 Spanish killed). More even than I've listed here. However, the most authoritative source on this matter is Society of Colonial Wars, who themselves have numerous documents confirming these figures. The number of valid sources confirming the 200 figure vastly outweigh those supporting these bizarrely lower figures. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I added the direct link to the Robert Preston Brooks source because somewhat mentioned they couldn't find a hard copy of it. I can do so for the rest of the sources if need be as well. If these are not enough sources to make the point, I also have more. It's a very well-sourced figure. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
So it's correct to say the sources you've added are not reliable, in fact they are far less reliable than the older sources. Many of them are completely unacademic, coming from popular histories from private publishing companies and so forth. Others, have no sources for their claims but reproduce information that appeared on wikipedia in previous years (such as the "almanac"). The 200 figure stands. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 18:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There is some confusion about the old style versus new style date. I thought that July 7 was the old style date for the battle. Is that right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as unaccurate. All my editions having been removed without any satisfying explanation by several anonymous IPs and the users BadgerStateHistorian1967 and 2602:30a:2cc9:1790:706e:4719:7e2f:a0dc, it makes a highly unaccurate, outdated narrative of the events. The work is based entirely in English-language sources, many of them dating back to the first half of the past century, which are endogamic and have neglected the study of the Spanish sources on the battle. There is evidence in and outside Spanish works which points that the traditional Anglo-saxon view of the battle is a myth. New academic works such as David Marley's Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the Western Hemisphere, 1492 to the Present (2008) or Fernando Martínez Láinez and Carlos Canales' Banderas Lejanas: La exploración, conquista, y defensa por España del territorio de los actuales Estados Unidos (2009), both of which have made use of Spanish sources, give a very different narrative of the battle's course, outcome and casualties. They state that a Spanish force of some 150 or 200 grenadiers was sent to cover the withdrawal of the Spanish troops defeated at Gully Hole Creek and that the 'battle' was no more than a skirmish with few casualties. A 1996 article by Thomas G. Rodgers, military historian from the Alamaba University and author of Osprey Publishing, Colonials collide at Bloody Marsh, supports this view and states that the Spanish losses were 7 men killed and 2 prisoners. In a 2010 academic article entitled La Batalla de Bloody Marsh: Una victoria de la Florida española durante la guerra de la oreja de Jenkins, the historian Salvador Larrúa Guedes, collaborator of the Colonial Heritage of Florida, even claims that the battle ended in a Spanish victory, as the goal of stopping the British chase was achieved. Local historians like Jingle Davis had recently published works which assume the new approaches and consider the traditional one a myth. Weymar Horren ( talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well it does not appear this minority viewpoint really is significant. Which I think is key to the argument here. These minority viewpoints are not only revisionist but are also from questionable sources. They are not enough for the article to have a "disputed" tag on it. 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174 ( talk) 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It really isn't honest to but the counter-claim up there. While there appears to be a trickle of sources that use what look like very questionable Spanish sources (which themselves are dependent on ignoring the vast majority of sources, on the grounds that they are "British" even though some of them aren't). I don't think a "disputed" tag is fair for this article. The evidence too overwhelmingly on one side. MaverickGA ( talk) 19:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC) It seems pretty clear this tag really doesn't belong here. There's a massive majority of sources, which are generally more modern and reliable as well as those which are more traditional, which support the 200 figure. The smaller figures seem, as mentioned by MaverickGA and 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174|2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174, entirely reliant on dismissing the majority of sources on frivolous grounds. The tag really should be removed. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 17:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I was at Fort Frederica National Monument yesterday and I watched the NPS film about Frederica and the battles of Gully Hole Creek and Bloody Marsh. At Gully Hole Creek they were in close contact and the film said that ten Spaniards and one British soldier were killed. (It also gave the number killed and captured.) At Bloody Marsh, the forces were shooting at each other from a distance. The film said that the casualties were "light". It also said that the British exaggerated the results of the battle. By saying that the casualties were light, I think they mean probably fewer than ten killed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we had a discussion along those lines, some months ago. I think that Brooks was the most scholarly of the bunch, and the others just (more or less) repeated what he said. Gulbenk ( talk) 17:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
According to the Spanish Wikipedia: 7 Spaniards killed in action, and 10 taken prisoner. I think that Bloody Marsh became a Georgian foundation legend, with a great deal of local bragging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.90.6 ( talk) 13:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The Spaniards were not caught off guard when bivouacking. They were advancing and firing, in the open. And the Brits were firing, under cover. Part of the British force (colonials?) panicked and fled.
Other Oglethorpe's letter: Having intelligence from the Spanish camp that they had lost 4 captains and upwards of 200 men in the last action besides many killed in the sea fight and several killed in the night by the Indians even within or near the camp [...] There was a general terror amongst them upon which I am resolved to beat....
Any mistake, omission or duplication is my fault.
Spaniard Captain captured mortally wounded at Bloody Marsh. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Montiano doesn't mention him in his otherwise rather detailed dispatch. And Montiano mentions by the name a lot of his officers: when they are killed, when they are captured, when they do their duty. According to the Spaniard version, the officer killed and Bloody Marsh was Miguel Bucardi or Bucareli. Bucardi most likely is a clerical error. Related or not -I don't know-, incidentally there was a young nobleman called Antonio or Manuel Antonio Bucareli y Ursúa (1724-1742). Bucareli is the Spanish script for Bucarelli. If the Spaniard dispatches used the abbreviations used at the time for the first names (Antonio became Aº, for instance), perhaps the American scholar who translated into English the Spaniard official accounts from 1742 read Miguel instead of Manuel (I have no idea which were the shorts for both Manuel and Miguel). It's just a theory.
Spanish strenght: 150-200. Spanish losses: 200 killed.
This Patrick Sutherland according to some of his Canadian descendants. The officer who held the ground while most of the British line was in flight. Source:" https://vault.georgiaarchives.org/digital/collection/adhoc/id/996".
Oglethorpe on steroids, omitting any reference to the flight of 3 British platoons. Source: Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe, Founder of the Colony of Georgia, published in 1841 by Thaddeus Mason Harris.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Bloody Marsh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some sources say that this battle effecively ended the War of Jenkin's ear. That should be put in there if it is correct, but I'm not well-enough versed in it to be sure. Does anyone know? Bubba73 (talk) 01:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Also, the article says that the ambush was during the Spanard's siesta hour, but the external links didn't mention that. Is that correct? Bubba73 (talk) 03:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
It did not end the war of Jenkin's ear, it ended the Spanish invasion of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:280E:2253:C9BA:DC7F ( talk) 16:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The only British casualty was a highlander who passed out and died from the heat. I remembered this as being Bloody Marsh. I remembered this wrong from childhood visits to Fort Frederica's museum. The battle of Gully Hole creek preceded Bloody Marsh - the Spaniards drove the British back to Fort Frederica from Fort St. Simons. - WCFrancis 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Another source: Georgia Encyclopedia
According to this link, the Spanish only lost 19 men in Gully Hole Creek and Bloody Marsh. The "50 casualties" in Bloody Marsh may be another British exaggeration of the Jenkins' Ear War, like the "victories" of Edward Vernon in Portobello and Cartagena de Indias (the second was, in fact, the worst British defeat in History).-- Menah the Great 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Bubba73 for your comments and past contributions to this article. I was hesitant to reverse the IP user's number of 200 casualties, because the author he cited is quite notable. But that is all I know about the reference. I have not read (nor have I been able to locate) the book (which was published quite a few years ago). Perhaps a library down your way has it on the shelf. I don't know if the IP user simply misread the passage, or if the information cited in the book has been corrected (downward) in the last several decades. With multiple sources citing the much lower numbers of 7-50, I decided to go with that. If you should have any additional information on this point, I would be most interested to hear it. Gulbenk ( talk) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I have requested a discussion of these figures, rather than a slow-motion edit war. I should point out that the apparent source for the higher number originates with a hand written report by one of the British participants, who may have had reason to embellish. I can provide a link to that report, if anyone cares to read it. This British report is offset by a contemporary Spanish accounting, listing seven dead. Robert Preston Brooks used the British number, and several non-historian authors repeat that. The National Park Service, The New Georgia Encyclopedia, and the Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Georgia (found here: http://scwsav.org/Portals/13/Users/002/02/2/SOCW%20History.pdf ) use the lower numbers. So, lay out your best arguments (for or against) and let us see if there is consensus for change. Until that time, the long standing wording will be retained. Gulbenk ( talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Early reports muddy the waters even more, adding in the number of captured. If possible, let's stick to the number killed. Gulbenk ( talk) 19:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a long list of sources which confirm the number of roughly 200 Spanish casualties (all of the sources I've provided specifically state 200 Spanish killed). More even than I've listed here. However, the most authoritative source on this matter is Society of Colonial Wars, who themselves have numerous documents confirming these figures. The number of valid sources confirming the 200 figure vastly outweigh those supporting these bizarrely lower figures.
1a) History of Georgia By Robert Preston Brooks page 77
2) Florida's Past: People and Events That Shaped the State, Volume 1 By Gene M. Burnett page 181
3) The American Colonial Wars: a concise history, 1607-1775 Nathaniel Claiborne Hale, General Society of Colonial Wars (U.S.) Hale House, 1967 page 54
4) Society of Colonial Wars, 1892-1967: seventy-fifth anniversary (General Society of Colonial Wars, 1967) page 231
5) Thomas Spalding of Sapelo, Ellis Merton Coulter, (Louisiana State University Press, 1940) page 278
6) A History of Florida By Caroline Mays Brevard, Henry Eastman Bennett page 75
I added the direct link to the Robert Preston Brooks source because somewhat mentioned they couldn't find a hard copy of it. I can do so for the rest of the sources if need be as well. If these are not enough sources to make the point, I also have more. It's a very well-sourced figure. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Dismissing the above listed sources without providing better sources to counter with appears slanted. The pattern seems to be to deem the Spanish account legitimate and the British account illegitimate. This is not a good reason for listing lower figures.
I hope you editors come to some sort of agreement. I've wondered about it for years, but I have few references. I'm not going to weigh in because I don't know enough about it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Bubba that's the battle of gully hole creek, not the battle of bloody marshes. It seems like the 200 figure not only has the most sources but also the most reliable sources. The lower figures are largely either reliant on taking the word of the people who lost the battle or are nothing short of rank revisionism for the sake of revisionism. The 200 figure has the most sources backing it up and the most reliable ones. The tour guide at Fort Frederica stated that there is disagreement over the figures but it was "most likely around 200 killed" during bloody marsh. This seems like the most legitimate count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:280E:2253:C9BA:DC7F ( talk) 16:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This battle is labeled as mid-importance, "The subject is not well-known or particularly significant ". This battle drove the Spanish out of the Colonies and they didn't return. It also established the area as Brittish territory - originally the Brittish claimed only down to the Altamaha River. Isn't that significant? Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the fact Georgia would potentially be a Spanish-speaking territory had this battle gone differently justifies upping the level of importance here. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes give it as being in the Province of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia. As I understand it, the location was not in the province of Georgia as of 1742. The 1732 boundary of Georgia went down to the Altamaha River; it wasn't until 1763 that the area was claimed as part of the Province of Georgia. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sources clearly states that 1950 Spanish soldiers (from at least 50 vessels) were involved in this battle. After the defeat Gully Hole Creek 200 Spanish grenadiers covered the retreat of the 150 man reccon force of which the rest of the invasion force took part in Bloody Marsh. Bruichladdich1 (talk), 21:01, 11 June 2010 (GMT)
See discussion, continued above, under Casualties Gulbenk ( talk) 01:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a long list of sources which confirm the number of roughly 200 Spanish casualties (all of the sources I've provided specifically state 200 Spanish killed). More even than I've listed here. However, the most authoritative source on this matter is Society of Colonial Wars, who themselves have numerous documents confirming these figures. The number of valid sources confirming the 200 figure vastly outweigh those supporting these bizarrely lower figures. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I added the direct link to the Robert Preston Brooks source because somewhat mentioned they couldn't find a hard copy of it. I can do so for the rest of the sources if need be as well. If these are not enough sources to make the point, I also have more. It's a very well-sourced figure. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
So it's correct to say the sources you've added are not reliable, in fact they are far less reliable than the older sources. Many of them are completely unacademic, coming from popular histories from private publishing companies and so forth. Others, have no sources for their claims but reproduce information that appeared on wikipedia in previous years (such as the "almanac"). The 200 figure stands. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 18:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There is some confusion about the old style versus new style date. I thought that July 7 was the old style date for the battle. Is that right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as unaccurate. All my editions having been removed without any satisfying explanation by several anonymous IPs and the users BadgerStateHistorian1967 and 2602:30a:2cc9:1790:706e:4719:7e2f:a0dc, it makes a highly unaccurate, outdated narrative of the events. The work is based entirely in English-language sources, many of them dating back to the first half of the past century, which are endogamic and have neglected the study of the Spanish sources on the battle. There is evidence in and outside Spanish works which points that the traditional Anglo-saxon view of the battle is a myth. New academic works such as David Marley's Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the Western Hemisphere, 1492 to the Present (2008) or Fernando Martínez Láinez and Carlos Canales' Banderas Lejanas: La exploración, conquista, y defensa por España del territorio de los actuales Estados Unidos (2009), both of which have made use of Spanish sources, give a very different narrative of the battle's course, outcome and casualties. They state that a Spanish force of some 150 or 200 grenadiers was sent to cover the withdrawal of the Spanish troops defeated at Gully Hole Creek and that the 'battle' was no more than a skirmish with few casualties. A 1996 article by Thomas G. Rodgers, military historian from the Alamaba University and author of Osprey Publishing, Colonials collide at Bloody Marsh, supports this view and states that the Spanish losses were 7 men killed and 2 prisoners. In a 2010 academic article entitled La Batalla de Bloody Marsh: Una victoria de la Florida española durante la guerra de la oreja de Jenkins, the historian Salvador Larrúa Guedes, collaborator of the Colonial Heritage of Florida, even claims that the battle ended in a Spanish victory, as the goal of stopping the British chase was achieved. Local historians like Jingle Davis had recently published works which assume the new approaches and consider the traditional one a myth. Weymar Horren ( talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well it does not appear this minority viewpoint really is significant. Which I think is key to the argument here. These minority viewpoints are not only revisionist but are also from questionable sources. They are not enough for the article to have a "disputed" tag on it. 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174 ( talk) 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It really isn't honest to but the counter-claim up there. While there appears to be a trickle of sources that use what look like very questionable Spanish sources (which themselves are dependent on ignoring the vast majority of sources, on the grounds that they are "British" even though some of them aren't). I don't think a "disputed" tag is fair for this article. The evidence too overwhelmingly on one side. MaverickGA ( talk) 19:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC) It seems pretty clear this tag really doesn't belong here. There's a massive majority of sources, which are generally more modern and reliable as well as those which are more traditional, which support the 200 figure. The smaller figures seem, as mentioned by MaverickGA and 2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174|2602:30A:2CC9:1790:E91F:FA6F:5E9F:C174, entirely reliant on dismissing the majority of sources on frivolous grounds. The tag really should be removed. BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk) 17:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I was at Fort Frederica National Monument yesterday and I watched the NPS film about Frederica and the battles of Gully Hole Creek and Bloody Marsh. At Gully Hole Creek they were in close contact and the film said that ten Spaniards and one British soldier were killed. (It also gave the number killed and captured.) At Bloody Marsh, the forces were shooting at each other from a distance. The film said that the casualties were "light". It also said that the British exaggerated the results of the battle. By saying that the casualties were light, I think they mean probably fewer than ten killed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we had a discussion along those lines, some months ago. I think that Brooks was the most scholarly of the bunch, and the others just (more or less) repeated what he said. Gulbenk ( talk) 17:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
According to the Spanish Wikipedia: 7 Spaniards killed in action, and 10 taken prisoner. I think that Bloody Marsh became a Georgian foundation legend, with a great deal of local bragging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.90.6 ( talk) 13:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The Spaniards were not caught off guard when bivouacking. They were advancing and firing, in the open. And the Brits were firing, under cover. Part of the British force (colonials?) panicked and fled.
Other Oglethorpe's letter: Having intelligence from the Spanish camp that they had lost 4 captains and upwards of 200 men in the last action besides many killed in the sea fight and several killed in the night by the Indians even within or near the camp [...] There was a general terror amongst them upon which I am resolved to beat....
Any mistake, omission or duplication is my fault.
Spaniard Captain captured mortally wounded at Bloody Marsh. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Montiano doesn't mention him in his otherwise rather detailed dispatch. And Montiano mentions by the name a lot of his officers: when they are killed, when they are captured, when they do their duty. According to the Spaniard version, the officer killed and Bloody Marsh was Miguel Bucardi or Bucareli. Bucardi most likely is a clerical error. Related or not -I don't know-, incidentally there was a young nobleman called Antonio or Manuel Antonio Bucareli y Ursúa (1724-1742). Bucareli is the Spanish script for Bucarelli. If the Spaniard dispatches used the abbreviations used at the time for the first names (Antonio became Aº, for instance), perhaps the American scholar who translated into English the Spaniard official accounts from 1742 read Miguel instead of Manuel (I have no idea which were the shorts for both Manuel and Miguel). It's just a theory.
Spanish strenght: 150-200. Spanish losses: 200 killed.
This Patrick Sutherland according to some of his Canadian descendants. The officer who held the ground while most of the British line was in flight. Source:" https://vault.georgiaarchives.org/digital/collection/adhoc/id/996".
Oglethorpe on steroids, omitting any reference to the flight of 3 British platoons. Source: Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe, Founder of the Colony of Georgia, published in 1841 by Thaddeus Mason Harris.