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 is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofNew York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article claims in the first sentence that this battle "was the first significant action of the American Revolutionary War." Why? What does that make Lexington & Concord -- insignificant? Do tell. --Kevin Myers 12:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wow, this article is a POV mess. Honestly, how can anyone seriously call this a "decisive victory"? The 47 men inside Fort Ticonderoga were all unarmed and engaged in non-military duties when the Americans arrived. The fort was guarded by a mighty one (read: one) sentry. Not a single shot was fired. There were no casualties.also did you know that wikipedia can be edited and is not a safe resource?
Some "victory".
Indeed, it seems that the author(s) has taken a relatively insignificant event and tried to spin it into some grand and praiseworthy achievement. Pretty thin gruel. The only significance that I can attribute to the loss of Ticonderoga was that it opened the road to Canada - where real battles did occur. --Albrecht 21:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've made a few changes, and others have modified the article independently. It is now NPOV to my satisfaction. Albrecht 20:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
It's quite amazing that two colonels managed so much on their own too HHEHEEHEHEHE. Did they have any troops with them, what the heck do you think?
I expanded that article, but it doesn't say much more than this article does. Should be merged or perhaps that section taken out of this article? --AW 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.134.20 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors keep listing Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys as colonials. Vermont was never a colony. So it is 100% factually inaccurate to call people from Vermont colonials. The Goat (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The area in question was actually a part of the colony of New York, or am I mistaken. Even if it wasn't Vermont was not a sepearte entity from the colonies, it must have laid in some British colony. So calling them colonials is technically correct. Arnold wasn't even from Vermont, but was born in Connecticut. So he was a colonial no matter how you look at it.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The people living in Vermont had not recognized the authority of the colony of New York, the colony of New Hampshire or the King of England for several years prior to the Declaration of Independence. In fact after a petition for statehood in the USA was declined, Vermont declared itself an independent Republic in 1777.
Who is Arnold? Certainly Ethan Allen was born in Connecticut. Does that make him a colonial for the rest of his life? I would say no.The Goat (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was to merge.
The Battle of Crown Point article is basically a stub. The action at Crown Point is not even properly a battle. In the context of the capture of Ticonderoga, it merits little more than one paragraph of mention.
Unless there is substantially more content that can be written about the Battle of Crown Point, since the Battle for Fort Ticonderoga and this battle are basically one and the same, I support this merge. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs)23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources I've seen (3-4), I'm having a hard time imagining writing more than two paragraphs about it. It figures in a fairly small way in the disputes between Allen and Arnold, but most sources devote only about a paragraph to the main "action". Magic♪piano03:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Back to square one? I don't see what Crown Point is doing here. Okay to have three articles - one a "campaign" linked the other two, Capture of Ticonderoga and Battle for Crown Point", or just separate them. Crown point material maybe should be merged in Crown Point article? Just jarring to see semi-connected battles merged into one article IMO. Student7 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Within its walls was a collection of heavy artillery including cannons, howitzers, prostitutes,and mortars, armaments that the Americans had in short supply.[1][2]"
While it is hard to downplay the role of prostitutes, I am not aware of any artillery by this name, so I presume that this is only a humorous addition.
...when Benedict Arnold rode into the Green Mountain Boy's camp, he had orders from George Washington. The problem was the Green Mountain Boys mocked Benedict Arnold. The Green Mountain Boy's leader, Ethan Allen stopped the mocking and said only he gave orders to the Green Mountain Boys.
and
