Talk:American colonial marines

Confused| RE: response to 'Confused'

I'm confused by the purpose of this article. Is it to...

• cover all of the naval activities of the Continental Navy and the various state navies (implied by the presence of Arnold's and Washington's fleet in the text)?

No, the Continental Navy wasn't even thought up yet; this article stresses the historical accounts of the militiamen and sailors that were hired on as marines to serve the purpose as 'marines' for Washington's and Arnold's fleets. The colonial states also took it upon themselves to have hired men as marines to serve the purpose of their navies.—RekonDog (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• cover the naval activities of the various state navies (in which case, why are Arnold and Washington present)?

Yes, it also covers the naval activities of the various state navies, but only pertaining to the engagements that were marine-related. Arnold and Washington are doing their own fighting elsewhere. That is why there is a separated section in the article to reflect the different colonial militiamen that were serving as marines.—RekonDog (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what you mean by "pertaining to the engagements that were marine-related". Is this any action involving boats?

Arnold's fleet was a Continental Navy fleet, and should not be included here if you're not covering the Continental Navy, which was established (according to Continental Navy) in October 1775. Most of Arnold's fleet on Lake Champlain was built in 1776, and the men who fought at Valcour Island did so as sailors and gunners (there was very little close ship-to-ship or ship-to-shore action in that battle, it was mostly cannonades at range). As far as I know, all of his ships (including the ones taken in 1775) are listed as CN ships.

Washington's fleet outside Boston is debatable, but his issues in needing naval support clearly led to the creation of the Continental Navy, so that should probably be in an article about Continental Navy history. Magic♪piano 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• something else

Yes, something else. This article is about only the hired marines that were pulled from every source that they can get their hands on, the colonies. There was no single or secular naval unit in existence; it was a disarray of militias and navies, the colonies were not even structured or organized well enough to make it simple...pretty much a mess of things, they made do with whatever resources they were able to obtain.

If it's one of the first two, wouldn't it be more suitable to expand/write articles about the individual state navies, and join them by a List of state navies in the American Revolutionary War?

It is a thought, but this article is only tip of the iceberg. It wouldn't do any difference really because this article, again, only pertains to marine units during the Revolutionary War. Most of the state navies back then were only all-marine, the sailors fought as soldiers at the same time, never a distinction between the two...pretty much defining what a 'marine' is.RekonDog (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If the marines were just sailors (or soldiers/militia pressed into service on ships), why not write about the state navies then (which, as you say, were the organizing principle), including events that precede their formation, in articles dedicated to those navies (making sure credit is given for amphibious or "marine-related" activities where due)? This is at present a significant deficiency in Wikipedia, and it would keep this article from being a laundry list of events. (All of the state navy histories will have to be researched either way.) Magic♪piano 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(Note that I just did a significant expansion of Massachusetts State Navy -- there is more than enough material to support doing things this way.)

I'm also confused by the name of this article. The word "Marines" implies (to me, anyway), amphibious warfare, where this seems to be more about naval operations, some of which have amphibious components.

It was the closest thing that I could come up with, since there was not an organized entity. All it was, was a bunch of militiamen from the colonies that were filling it roles and duties as 'marines'. Also, to note, amphibious warfare wasn't really indoctrinated in those days. If one would compare our modern amphibious warfare of today, it wouldn't resemble it those back then. The early colonial marines weren't usually the main fighting force storming the beach, it was soldiers and sailors. The actual idea of 'amphibious warfare' came much later, and much more recognized as what we see it today.RekonDog (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If no organized Marines existed, we probably shouldn't be using the word in the title. Magic♪piano 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

-- Magic♪piano 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There is a factual error in the article (currently uncited, but the editor's source may be wrong on this count). The first naval engagement of the war was the Battle of Machias (June 11-12, 1775). Magic♪piano 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, any colonial variant marines participate? Most likely, this article doesn't really indicate what was the first naval battle. Just the first 'recorded' engagement, according to historian sources. There are so much details lacking in this article, I know, but it will grow, I promise you.RekonDog (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since, as you say, there were no marines, there weren't; it was all organized by local militia, essentially a variant of Lexington and Concord. (And this engagement was also "recorded, according to historian sources". The fact that it is missing from sources you've looked at should give you something to think about. How does USMC decide which events go into its official history?) Magic♪piano 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If this helps, there are much more details, albeit it pertains to the Continental and the latter United States Marines, on my wikibook page that I have been slowly developing. Care free to check it out if you want...Definitive History of the United States Marine Corps. This part is only covering the institution, which I consider the backbone, the most important entity of history; the organizations, and operations will be elaborated later when I lay down all the available resources.

I'm glad that you asked questions like these, last thing I need is to confuse anyone. The beginning days of our military structure was really confusing at is was, no organized military whatsoever. Ask more if you feel that my answers don't settle things. I hope this helped.RekonDog (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That there was "no organized military whatsoever" in the thirteen colonies is a bit of a misstatement. There were no real higher-level military units, but most of the colonies had established Patriot-run militia/minuteman organizations by 1775, and state-level brigading didn't take that long to set up once hostilities began.

I'm concerned that you're trying to describe something here that is a bit of a chimera, and this article will just devolve into a laundry-list of actions you think are somehow relevant, without any sort of objective criteria for inclusion. I think you should write a lead that explains clearly what the scope of article's content is, and how someone (not just you!) can determine if an event or action qualifies for description here. (Does Washington's crossing of the Delaware? Battle of Chelsea Creek? Some of the events described in Powder Alarm? Action of 6 April 1776? Don't answer the question here; please publish guidelines in the article so that I can decide whether an action has a "marine-related" component or not. If I have questions about the guidelines, I can ask them here, but right now I'm lost.) Magic♪piano 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best; I'm not much of an editor, or an article writer for that matter. I just have a knack of gathering a plethora of information and I post it, and it does tend to confuse others--all unintentional of course. But I see your point in having a lead. I hope readers and other editors have patience while I give myself some free time to work on that. I'll also ask other editors for suggestions as well. Perhaps if anyone else knows what this article is pertaining to, they can have a whack at it, it'll definitely relieve some tension.RekonDog (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I do tend to type articles like an essay, instead of an encyclopedia article, don't I?RekonDog (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Congress did not talk about an army on the 10th of June 1775.

This article states, "The 2nd Continental Congress passed a resolution on 10 June 1775, in creating the Continental Army from all the available colonial forces and militias around Boston; they appointed George Washington, a Congressman of Virginia, as the Commanding General of the Continental Army” This is incorrect and from the Journal of the American Congress, there is nothing mentioned of doing anything with an army or John Adams or George Washington. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc0021)) Also, George Washington is not even mentioned in connection to the army in Massachusetts until the 16th of June 1775. The entire paragraph needs to be stricken for false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Committee of Correspondence (talk • contribs) 04:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)