Talk:Battle of Princeton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Contradictions
According to the article, around 500 British soldiers were killed. On the other hand, according to the battlebox, 195 British casualties were incurred. Which piece of information is correct? AndyZ 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- The 195 is more likely, because battles in the Revolutionary War are not known for the number of men killed. I have no proof by the way. - TopAce 14:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The battle box is way off compared to the article
[edit] Washington chose the ground at the second battle of Trenton
Washington was not 'cornered' at the second battle of Trenton, as the text currently states. See Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer (ISBN 0195170342), page 277: "The Americans expected an attack in great strength by British and Hessian troops. In council they decided to receive it in Trenton on ground of their own choosing." The Americans re-crossed the Delaware to Trenton in expectation of engaging the British and Hessian troops; they were not cornered there. (Signed on 2/28 - forgot to sign this the first time) Valtam 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question for the 4.240.*.* editor
When you say, The 17th, part of the 55th, and the Dragoons broke through, continuing down the road to Trenton, pursued by Washington, who broke off his pursuit when some of Leslie's troops came into sight, I'm a little confused. Weren't the British attacking through the orchard, away from the Princeton-Trenton road? That is, if they 'broke through', wouldn't they be on the wrong road (the eastern road, which Washington used in the march from Trenton to Princeton the night before)? My (limited) understanding was that the British turned and retreated at this point. But, if you could explain it to me, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Valtam 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Perspective is Skewed towards Americans
- Battle is listed as a "Decisive American Victory" when the only decisive thing about the entire battle was that the Americans were left in control of the battlefield. By this measure, Bunker Hill is a "Decisive British Victory," although it is only listed as Phyrric, and Monmouth should be a "Decisive American Victory" although it is only listed as Inconclusive. What you basically have is an American force 1) attacking a British force in a peicemeal fashion, 2) meeting heavy resistance, 3) failing to destroy a numerically inferior enemy, 4) allowing said enemy to escape and fight again, 5) slinking off to lick its wounds before Cornwallis can catch it, and 6) failing to capitalize on any of the real strategic goals open to it. By this measure, the battle of Khe Sahn was an NVA victory. I feel it should be listed as either a Phyrric American Victory, or Inconclusive. Tactical American Victory at the very most.
- Americans over the course of the battle VASTLY outnumbered the British, especially towards the end. However, the battle box misleading claims the British force was 8,000 men. this might be true in the agregate, but at the actual battle, only the rearguard of 1,200 was involved, and the main body too far away to be of assistance had it even known what was going on. Thus according to the battle box, you have the Americans outnumbered by the Brits 2:1, while in actuality the battle started off about even with an eventual 6:1 manpower advantage on the part of the Americans.
- No mention of the loss of General Mercer is made the in the battle box, despite his importance to the Continenal cause.
- No mention is made of the failure of Washington to follow up and take 70,000 pounds in Silver in New Brunswick after the battle, despite the fact that it was virtually undefended and had the Americans captured it, might have caused the British to sue for peace right then and there. I feel this is at least as important as mentioning that NJ then mostly fell to the Continental forces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btswanfury (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
- I would be happy calling this a "Tactical American Victory." I'll make the change.
- Regarding numbers - the main body of the British force was only a few hours' march away, to the south. Washington carried out an unexpecting, daring move by stealing away in the night and attacking the British from the rear. The audacity of this helps make the victory impressive to many Americans.
- I don't know much about the silver - did Washington definitively know it was undefended in New Brunswick? Do you have a source for his knowledge?
- I look forward to working with you on the article! Valtam 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reply regarding the silver.
From: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1290.html "Washington was faced with a crucial decision. The aggressive side of his character wanted to march directly on the British regional headquarters at New Brunswick, which held ₤70,000 in silver and a huge store of supplies. His more conservative side, however, realized that Cornwallis was in pursuit and that his own army was exhausted. The latter prevailed."
From: http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/american_revolution/3033596.html?page=3&c=y "'My original plan when I set out from Trenton was to have pushed on to Brunswick,' Washington later explained to Hancock, 'but the harassed state of our own troops (many of them having had no rest for two nights and a day) and the danger of losing the advantage we had gained by aiming at too much, induced me, by the advice of my officers, to relinquish the attempt. But in my judgment, six or eight hundred fresh troops upon a forced march would have destroyed all their stores and magazines, taken (as we have since learned) their military chest containing 70,000 pounds, and put an end to the war.'"
From the Burlington Country Web site: "The American generals would have liked to continue the chase, following the British regiment from Princeton on the road to New Brunswick, where immense supplies and a British military chest containing 70,000 English pounds were stored under light guard. The rank and file, however, were exhausted, and the American army moved north, into the hills."
I could come up with some hard-paper references for you if you must have them, but I am at the office. Regardless of wether or not Washington knew of the pay chest being at New Brunswick and virtually undefended (wether he knew the chest was there or not remains open to debate), there is no doubt that 1) he knew there were at the very least massive British army stores there for the taking, and 2) that if he had captured the British military pay chest, there is little doubt (even in his mind) that its capture would have led to an almost immediate peace...nearly 6 years before the cessation of hostilities.
- Thanks for the links Btswanfury. (I presume it's you - don't forget to sign your posts with the four tildes.) I'm at the office, too, so I'll try to digest them tonight. Interestingly, the book "Washington's Crossing" doesn't discuss the silver, if I rightly recall. Thanks for the links! Valtam 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Follow-up - Washington's aside, "as we have since learned" makes it uncertain to me whether he knew of the silver on the day of the battle. I want to research this some more. Valtam 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
