Talk:Braddock Expedition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article still needs at least two additions. First is a discussion of impact, such as the growing distrust between the regulars (especially officers) and militia. This grew until the revolution. We also need something on governor Dinwiddie's reaction.

The second is a note of the key players who went on into the revolution. A partial list includes Gage, Washington, Daniel Morgan. I know there are others, but haven't had time to build a list. Lou I 03:43 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


When I was in elementary school, while studying local geography and Braddock Road we learned about some sort of buried treasure left behind by this expedition, somewhere near the road. Now research I've done on the Internet shows that this was a result of the payroll being lost (with the supplies). If found, this supposedly buried cache would be $15000 to $25000 in English gold coins ($300,000 today), and probably also contain pre-Revolutionary war relics (absolutely priceless). I live in Virginia, but the treasure is probably buried somewhere in Pennsylvania, and this is probably a "local legend" all along the path; I would appreciate it if someone did some good research and added it to the article. 06:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It was suggested that this article should be renamed Braddock expedition. The vote is shown below:

Is there any reason to capitalize Expedition? Septentrionalis 17:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(Thomas Fawcett) ... shot Braddock through the lungs ..." - Edith Fawcett Zelley, 1925.[edit]

I am a descendant of Thomas Fawcett, and I have a 1925 text written by Edith Fawcett Zelley claiming that Thomas Fawcett "... saw Braddock cut down his brother Joseph ... (Thomas) raised his gun and shot Braddock through the lungs and he fell mortally wounded."

This corroborates the information found on this website:

The Zelley text also notes: "Some have thought it was John Fawcett who shot General Braddock. I found the account in five histories in the Pittsburgh Libraries, all of which gave his name as Thomas Fawcett."

It is not clear if the Zelley information was handed down within the Fawcett family whereupon Zelley researched it more, or if while researching her family, Zelley came across this information. (I am suspicious of the latter.) It is also not clear if the reference to "I found ..." was Zelley or another researcher, Elmer F. Kirtland.

Confirmation of the General's demise by his own men may not be possible, but the lack of consistent discipline and tactics throughout his army unit (differing strategies of the colonials and British troops) may have been a significant factor in the defeat of Braddock's combined forces. Braddock may have been defeated from within as well as from without.


We should all be skeptical of any source written a hundred seventy years after the event in question. Anyone can say their "ancestor" did "something" but it is usually BS - like the unprovable idea, invented a hundred years later, that Betsy Ross sewed the first flag.Princetoniac (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ironically, at this point the demoralised and disorganised British forces still outnumbered their opponents, who had not even dared to pursue.[edit]

This statement is somewhat false and a rather elaborate claim. In total, there was 852 French and Indian troops against 1,500 British and Colonials. After the battle ended, the French had suffered a mere 39 casualties, bringing their total strength down to 813. The British however, suffered more casualties than the French had men; they lost 878. So, that brings the British strength down to 622. How does 622 men outnumber 813? Should this statement be altered? (Trip Johnson (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

There seems to be considerable juggling of the numbers in this article with no sourcing. G. Washington's own statement is that there were about 300 French & Indians and 1300 British & colonials. Numbers need to be sourced or estimates changed to sourced numbers.Tttom1 (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The numbers on this article need to be changed to reflect the full numbers involved in the campaign. Currently they only shows those involved at the Battle of the Monongahela, while in fact the forces engaged that day were both detachments of larger forces involved in the campaign.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of the Monongahela[edit]

I've split off Battle of the Monongahela into a seperate article.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

=="Of the approximately 1,300 men Braddock had led into battle, 456 were killed and 422 wounded. Commissioned officers were prime targets and suffered greatly: out of 86 officers, 26 were killed and 37 wounded" Note that 35% of the ranks were killed, but only 30% of the officer. The numbers here say the men suffered more. The officers, evidently led in a wya the caused a lower rate of casualties among the officers. Perhaps the text should reflect this.

Between this fact and the fact of the destruction of the superior weaponry to speed the retreat, a story is told of the "valor" of the officers. (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]