MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042744620 · doi:10.1353/ohh.2013.0008

"A Mysterious and Ambiguous Display of Tactics": The Second Siege of Fort Meigs, July 21-28, 1813

2013· article· en· W2042744620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Larry Lee Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueOhio history · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAmerican History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiegeInfantryBattleArtilleryCONTESTHistoryCourageVictoryAncient historyGeorge (robot)CowardiceSpanish Civil WarLawArt historyPolitical scienceArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"A Mysterious and Ambiguous Display of Tactics":The Second Siege of Fort Meigs, July 21-28, 1813 Larry L. Nelson (bio) American troops commanded by William Henry Harrison built Fort Meigs at the foot of the Maumee River rapids near present-day Perrysburg, Ohio, during the War of 1812. British and Native American forces besieged the post twice in 1813. In past accountings, historians have focused on the first of these sieges, fought from April 28 through May 9. The battle was a dramatic contest involving an extended artillery duel, massed infantry charges, hand-to-hand combat, thrilling escapes, scenes of both singular courage and astonishing cowardice, and remarkable reversals of fortune. Likewise, scholars have tended to minimize the post's second investment, fought from July 21 to 28. On this occasion, a British force much weaker than the one that had attacked the garrison in April and May surrounded the post and unsuccessfully attempted to lure the American defenders from the stockade. The invaders hoped that the Americans, once away from the fort's protection, would be vulnerable to an ambush. But the plan failed when the Americans refused to leave their post. As a result, the attackers simply withdrew after inflicting few casualties and giving no serious damage to the post itself. Moreover, after withdrawing from Fort Meigs, the invading forces then attacked Fort Stephenson at Lower Sandusky (present-day Fremont, Ohio), where a staunch defense orchestrated by that post's commander, Maj. George Croghan, dealt the attackers a severe and unmitigated defeat.1 [End Page 5] For the most part, historians have viewed the second siege of Fort Meigs as little more than an inadequately planned and ineptly executed prelude that foreshadowed the decisive and far more influential victory at Fort Stephenson. But close examination shows that during the second siege of Fort Meigs, British forces waged a deft and subtle campaign against the American garrison and that the battle carried lasting consequence. Moreover, a study of the garrison before and during the campaign reveals the strategic dynamics and tactical decisions that defined a period of great uncertainty during the Northwest campaigns of the War of 1812.2 American troops first occupied the Maumee Rapids in early February 1813 after a long series of reverses within the northwest theater. On July 17, 1812, British troops captured Fort Michilimackinac. In early August, the Americans abandoned Fort Dearborn near present-day Chicago, Illinois. A few days later, the American commander at Detroit, William Hull, surrendered the entire Northwest army and the Michigan Territory to the British. On January 22, 1813, the Americans lost a second, reconstituted Northwest army at Frenchtown on the River Raisin near present-day Monroe, Michigan, when British and Native American forces destroyed troops led by James Winchester attempting to reoccupy Detroit.3 Construction of Fort Meigs began on February 2. Harrison intended the post to serve as a supply depot and staging area to accumulate the men and supplies necessary for him to advance into Michigan, repatriate Detroit, [End Page 6] and then carry the war into Canada. When completed in late April, the fort's earth-and-log stockade enclosed nearly ten acres and contained seven blockhouses, five artillery batteries, two underground powder magazines, numerous ancillary structures, and a complex system of trenches and traverses, or earthen mounds that provided protection for those within the fort's interior. Artificer yards and workshops, a bakery, and a harbor and boat landing extended for a considerable distance in all directions beyond the post's exterior lines and across the flats lining the Maumee River below the garrison.4 A large force of British regulars and Canadian militia, commanded by Brig. Gen. Henry Procter, assisted by as many as twelve hundred Native American warriors nominally led by the Shawnee Tecumseh laid siege to the American post in late spring 1813. Tecumseh's warriors surrounded the post and harassed the defenders with small-arms fire while the British and Canadian troops established five artillery batteries on both sides of the Maumee River and attempted to bombard the Americans into submission. Harrison's troops, too few and too inadequately supplied to take meaningful offensive action against the attackers, sheltered...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOhio historySame topicAmerican History and CultureFrench-language works237,207