Where Right and Glory Lead! The Battle of Lundy's Lane, 1814

Winfield Scott recklessly lead his well trained brigade against General Drummonds British posted on the bluff above Lundy's Lane. Unlike many accounts of this battle told in most histories, here Mr. Graves shows us that Scott marched his brigade up to the British position, deployed it, and allowed it to be shot to pieces! The British artillery tore Scott's brigade apart while it stood dutifully at attention awaiting Scott's word to advance. But Scott held back, fearful of being outnumbered, and affraid to retreat before a superior enemy. Most histories tell us that Scott recklessy attacked, but the in-depth study of the battle provided here shows us this was not the case. Scott advanced his brigade to contact, but did not commit it completely to attack. Only when Ripley's and Porter's brigades reinforced subsequently did the American's finally attack and carry the British guns. But Scott's brigade will play no part in this process until later.

One of the interesting things about this battle is how poorly both sides fought it. Scott was reckless to the point of mania, while Drummond was weary after the recent defeat at Chippewa. The British general had only to advance his line at any point during the battle and the American position would have been untenible. Why Drummond did not make use of his six light companies to screen his force and harrass the American advance remains one of the mysteries of the battle. The series of British counter-attacks which took place to regain their guns has also been wrongly described by many historians of the action. As the battle continued from late afternoon into night the fighting became more and more confused. If Drummond had properly deployed his skirmishers Brown never could have captured the British artillery. Instead, the Americans were allowed to gain a lodgement in the center of the British line and a bloody series of close range fire-fights took place, all to no avail in driving
back the determined Americans. Both sides would lose in excess of 800 men and the battle would become one of the greatest debacles of the War. Both sides would claim victory, even though neither really could justify it.

For sure the 1814 Niagara Campaign and its battles deserves more attention. It was this campaign and its battles at Chippewa, Lundy's Lane, and later the siege at Fort Erie which made the ameteur American army into a respected fighting force. If not for these two battles the New Republic would have been disgraced.
We can certainly learn a lot from studying this campaign. Andrew Jackson and New Orleans has been done over and over again. There is little to learn from this one-sided battle which saw Americans safely defeating British regulars from behind entrenchments. What makes Lundy's Lane important is that Brown's brigades went toe-to-toe against British professionals. They gave as good as they got, and could have done a lot worse. Winfield Scott emerges as a somewhat vainglory maniac, who nonetheless drilled his brigade to the point where it could fight like a European army. His colume attack later in the battle, while another dismal failure, illustrates that the American army, when well trained and officered, could perform European tactics. Scott, for all his faults and recklessness, deserves a lot of credit for this.

In sum, Graves has done a great job rescueing an important battle from the dust-bins of history. The narrative is vivid, smooth, and un-biased. Many prints and pictures enhance the text. This is the deffinitive work on this battle for many years to come. All War of 1812 buffs should have it in their collection.


A Soldiers Battle in the War of 1812   April 21, 2002
 7 out of 8 found this review helpful

This is an excellent study on the bloodiest battle of the War of 1812. For many years little was known about the series of battles fought along the Niagara Frontier in 1814. This book helps to correct that gap. A companion volume to the author's earlier title on the Battle of Chippewa, here again many myths are corrected.

Winfield Scott recklessly lead his well trained brigade against General Drummonds British posted on the bluff above Lundy's Lane. Unlike many accounts of this battle told in most histories, here Mr. Graves shows us that Scott marched his brigade up to the British position, deployed it, and allowed it to be shot to pieces! The British artillery tore Scott's brigade apart while it stood dutifully at attention awaiting Scott's word to advance. But Scott held back, fearful of being outnumbered, and affraid to retreat before a superior enemy. Most histories tell us that Scott recklessy attacked, but the in-depth study of the battle provided here shows us this was not the case. Scott advanced his brigade to contact, but did not commit it completely to attack. Only when Ripley's and Porter's brigades reinforced subsequently did the American's finally attack and carry the British guns. But Scott's brigade will play no part in this process until later.

One of the interesting things about this battle is how poorly both sides fought it. Scott was reckless to the point of mania, while Drummond was weary after the recent defeat at Chippewa. The British general had only to advance his line at any point during the battle and the American position would have been untenible. Why Drummond did not make use of his six light companies to screen his force and harrass the American advance remains one of the mysteries of the battle. The series of British counter-attacks which took place to regain their guns has also been wrongly described by many historians of the action. As the battle continued from late afternoon into night the fighting became more and more confused. If Drummond had properly deployed his skirmishers Brown never could have captured the British artillery. Instead, the Americans were allowed to gain a lodgement in the center of the British line and a bloody series of close range fire-fights took place, all to no avail in driving
back the determined Americans. Both sides would lose in excess of 800 men and the battle would become one of the greatest debacles of the War. Both sides would claim victory, even though neither really could justify it.

For sure the 1814 Niagara Campaign and its battles deserves more attention. It was this campaign and its battles at Chippewa, Lundy's Lane, and later the siege at Fort Erie which made the ameteur American army into a respected fighting force. If not for these two battles the New Republic would have been disgraced.
We can certainly learn a lot from studying this campaign. Andrew Jackson and New Orleans has been done over and over again. There is little to learn from this one-sided battle which saw Americans safely defeating British regulars from behind entrenchments. What makes Lundy's Lane important is that Brown's brigades went toe-to-toe against British professionals. They gave as good as they got, and could have done a lot worse. Winfield Scott emerges as a somewhat vainglory maniac, who nonetheless drilled his brigade to the point where it could fight like a European army. His colume attack later in the battle, while another dismal failure, illustrates that the American army, when well trained and officered, could perform European tactics. Scott, for all his faults and recklessness, deserves a lot of credit for this.

In sum, Graves has done a great job rescueing an important battle from the dust-bins of history. The narrative is vivid, smooth, and un-biased. Many prints and pictures enhance the text. This is the deffinitive work on this battle for many years to come. All War of 1812 buffs should have it in their collection.


Gritty, Accurate Military History   July 19, 2000
 6 out of 6 found this review helpful

Donald Graves is the authority on the campaigns on the Niagara frontier during the War of 1812. Of his three five books on the period and campaigns, this is the best one. It tells the story of a fight that was one of the fiercest fought on the North American continent, even though the numbers on both sides were very small. One British officer who participated, and who had experienced wwarfare in Europe during the period, said it was the hardest, most savage fight he had ever been in. Both sides literally shot each other to pieces, ending in darkness, confusion, and a very unsatisfying draw.

This book is highly recommended. It, along with Graves other books, and those by John Elting and Henry Adams, give the complete story of the War of 1812, the huge amount of territory over which it was fought by small 'armies', the drama, inexperience of the Americans that finally grew into budding professionalism, and the bright moments at sea when the yearling US Navy humbled the proud, seeminly invincible Royal Navy.

Well-written authoritative text that is easy to read, exciting narrative, well-researched and very reliable, this book is one of the best of its type, and the author is one of the best living militiary historians.


A terrific book, makes you feel as though you were there.   October 3, 1999
 9 out of 10 found this review helpful

Graves knows his stuff and if you like military history, you will want to read this book. His research is impeccable and his writing style makes it seem as though you were reading a very historically accurate novel. The War of 1812 has been long neglected by historians and this, one of the largest and blodiest battles, is almost unknown despite taking place practically on top of Niagra Falls, Ont. This book corrects the situation and will certainly be the definitive work for years to come.