Talk:Battle of Monmouth

Contradiction?

The main article contradicts the infobox. The infobox gives the result as a "tactical American victory", while the article clearly states it was a draw. As such I've changed the result to "Tactical Draw", but I also think something should be written about the strategic consequences in 1943, even though the Allies captured them.

• • I don't see your point. The result of the Philidelphia Campaign has no bearing on the result of the Battle of Monmouth.Mickalos 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section Far too Long

Makes the article very hard to read. Maybe relocate some content to other parts of the article or delete. MOS:LEAD. A Tree In A Box (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a fair point. I would agree.

JF42 (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What?

"...on July 1 the British army reached the safety of New York City, from where they were evacuated to New York."

Doesn't make sense. New York City is in New York, so what is this sentence trying to tell us? Daniel.Cardenas 08:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an American Victory

Wasn't the Battle a stalemate and not an American victory? (Also, I originally posted this comment, but I wasn;t signed in when I did, so I decided to re-post it signed in)

No one agrees on this. Some say draw, some say American victory. I'd say more say a draw, but there needs to be a source to replace this.-Red4tribe (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave a source which cites other sources for draw. But some here are keen on using sources which do not cite secondary and / or primary sources and somehow altering to indecisive is "maximising every British victory". To me that sounds like Gaelic and Latin combined, because there is no reasoning behind it. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

I have told you many, many, many times that British Battles is not reliable. Others have agreed with me. Find something else.-Red4tribe (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have told you many, many, many times that you are not the owner of Wiki and it is not down to you. Actually many more have agreed with me that your sources are not reliable as they do not cite any other primary / secondary sources, whereas britishbattles does. Why don't you stop being so hypocritical and discuss it first. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Here we are. Three sources all saying the same thing. (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

This was an American Victory for quite while now, not sure exactly how long. But then, all of a sudden, you burst back onto the scene, making all of these contreversial edits without dicussing orginally. None of the sources you have listed are reliable, you could list 1,200 of them, if they aren't reliable, you can't use them.-Red4tribe (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not down to you to determine reliability on your own. Unless you haven't noticed there are other people on Wikipedia too, you are not God around here. May come as a shock but thats the truth. How about you discuss it with more civilised people on here who are prepared to discuss this matter. Remember, it is down to the MAJORITY not the MINORITY. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Encyclopedia Britannica added as a source, possibly one of THE most reliable on the net. If you remove it without discussion now I will report you for vandalism without discussion. (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

why don't you say "tactical draw, while the Americans claimed victory in that they held the field", the main conclusion being that the Steuben training allowed the continentals to stand toe to toe with British regulars. lol is the war over yet? Pohick2 (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is Bias, in the battle of Harlem heights, the British were the ones on the battlefield, but that doesn't count be when it's the case with the American army being the one left on the battle field it's automatically a American victory, not any more I'm changing it to indecisive so everyone will stop being silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tactical British Victory?

I don't get why this is listed in the result box. If you add up the total casualties of each side, according to what they're listed as ATM, the Colonists suffered 500 casualties while the British suffered 1032 casualties. If anything, it's a tactical victory for the Americans alongside with strategic victory.

Anyone care to explain before I decide to remove it?--Red Wiki 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

I don't understand how this is a "Long-term American victory"

The fact that the Americans engaged a British rear-guard should tell you something, the British always intended to evacuate - they had been ordered to evacuate the whole of Philadelphia. Therefore the argument that the Americans were left in possession of the field means nothing. If anything it was a British victory because they completed their objective, evacuation Voucherman (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

Ok, please allow me to add the following from:

American Military History Volume 1: 1775-1902. Edited by Maurice Matloff. From Combined Books, Inc. 

----

A defense of a British counter attack, turned into a victory for Washington. Clinton abandoned the field, hence, a Victory for Washington. I am sure from a soldiers point of view, it was less than, but never the less, an abandoned field, for retreat, is a victory for the remaining army. I argue that there is no draw. Nor a tie, it was a Victory for the American Army. Clinton cut and ran.

How many times in history have we heard such things as "...Washington failed to strike a telling blow..." etc.....Meade should of pursued the Army of Northern Virginia....etc...

Yes, Washington failed to strike a telling blow, but so what? None of us were there. None of us know exactly how it un-folded. For all we know, G.W. might of had a belly full of battle that day, and retired. His Army held the field. It was banged up, but it held. Clinton had to retreat to lick his wounds, and not have to explain to George the III that he lost to a rag tag army, coming out of hibernation, from Valley Forge!! No less. G.W. had other things to do, and that included firing Lee for battle field blunder. I am sure that had his saddle sores flaring. His men just held there own, toe to toe with the worlds most power full land army. I say, he had enough, and was content that he was not heading the other way with his men retreating under foot. I am sure the camp followers / wives and maidens, were quite busy tending to the wounded and dead.

--LcozII (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)LcozII

What happened the Colonial Soldier whom General George Washington had arrested?

I have seen many documentaries on the Battle of Monmouth and they all mention that after General Lee ordered a retreat, there was a Colonial soldier who passed on the orders to retreat and (President) General George Washington had him arrested for spreading rumors, even though the soldier was only telling others what he was told by his higher ranking superior officers. This was before General Washington met General Lee and told him what he thought of his leadership skills. None of the documentaries tell what happened the soldier after he was arrested. Does anyone know what happened to him after he was arrested? Punishments in the Colonial Army could be very harsh, including flogging and the death penalty. A soldier arrested in the heat of battle for spreading rumors might get swift and extreme punishment on the spot. 74.76.237.57 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Merge discussion.

Please note that there is an unresolved merge discussion regarding Monmouth order of Battle on its talk page. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 04:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Long term American victory"

Considering the British forces were actually abandoning Philadelphia, I would argue that the results of this battle were more favorable to the British. I don't think calling it a 'long term American victory' is justified and there is no source for that statement either. The battle ended indecisively and the British achieved their objective of evacuating the colony with their army intact. The articles says: "The battle was a tactical British victory, as the rearguard successfully covered the British withdrawal. However, strategically it was a draw, as the Americans were ultimately left in possession of the field, and had, for the first time, demonstrated that the Continental Army regiments could stand against British regulars.[6]" Every battle seems to be an example of 'continental army proving they can stand up to British regulars', I don't think this justifies calling it an American victory. I suggest just leaving the result as a draw, because it could easily be argued that it was a British victory altogetherJimmysales7 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"tactical American victory" sounds like weasel words to me, as do "strategic and propaganda American victory, " with an unspoken 'nonetheless' or 'notwithstanding' hanging in the air there, as some contributors demonstrate a need to accentuate the positive for the American cause in this war. C'mon boys. We all know who won the war, don't we?

As jimmysales states, after the action at Monmouth Courthouse, the British continued unimpeded on their withdrawal to Sandy Hook, and thence to New York. Washington's aims were confused but he had carried out the harassing attack that had been the practical limit of his ambitions, even if the opportunity of disrupting the British baggage train had not been realised. A general action had not been his intention and a set-piece defeat of the British not within his reach.

Clearly the battle was inconclusive. Arguing about who held the field or number of casualties is not relevant, and seems a little desperate.

The objective of the Philadelphia campaign had not been achieved, so the battle was irrelevant to that. The war would eventually be lost (and was, arguably, unwinnable after winter 1777-78) but that was not a consequence of the fight at Monmouth Courthouse (why "Monmouth"?). These info box skirmishes are ultimately futile, but let's be sensible here. That current entry looks preposterous. I am changing to 'inconclusive- draw'JF42 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

The casualties listed in the info box are incoherent. If there is some unresolved point being argued, that is not the place to do it. I am changing the entry to match the text in the article.JF42 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that the figures for casualties in the information box have been reverted. Incoherent figures of that sort are effectively meaningless. They appear to reflect an unresolved divergence of opinion either among authors or among editors but the information box is no place to air such descrepancies, it simply undermines the authority of the article. It would be more sensible to present the official figures and discuss their reliability in the article.

The heavy dependence on one author ( Martin, Philadelphia Campaign) is also suspect. Martin, who I have not read, reports by far the highest British casualties I have come across. The book was published 25 years ago and has been superceded by other more recent works, not least 'Fatal Sunday'by Leder and Stone published last year.

I plan to update the relevant sections based on the book I have mentioned.

JF42 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC) JF42 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

TItle 'Monmouth'

I am surprised why this hasn't been mentioned. Why is the title of this article 'Monmouth?' The battle is generally referred to as 'Monmouth Courthhouse', that being the name of the village on whose lands the battle took place.

I am mystified as to why this contractin should be favoured.

The title should surely be 'Monmouth Courthhouse.... also known [if you insist] as 'Monmouth.

The disambiguation with the battle of Monmouth would be superflous for a start.

JF42 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311220214/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311220214/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218191827/http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx to http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

American strategic victory

I see that the change from 'American long term victory' to 'inconclusive' has now been amended to 'American strategic victory'. What does that mean?

The British campaign to occupy Philadelphia was ultimately futile. The British ultimately lost the American colonies. Neither of these was attributable to the events around Freehold on June 28th 1778. As has been pointed out, General Clinton proceeded with his withdrawal to New York; Washington's attack, of more modest ambition, did not affect that objective. The two armies fought. Men died. Perhaps more British than American. In the first general action since Germantown the American army performed well. None of these amount to 'strategic victory'- unless the coiner of this term wishes to point out that the rebel colonists eventually won their independence from the British Crown which, I would argue, is unnecessary in an information summary box on the Wikpedia page for the battle of Monmouth Courthouse.

I have looked but the change doesn't seem to have been clearly flagged in the editing Talk page. It would make sense to engage in discussion rather than covertly opt for what I believe is termed 'edit war.' I open this topic here to give - whoever- the opportunity to air their thoughts on an 'American strategic victory.' Meanwhile I shall revert to 'inconclusive.'

JF42 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Replaced "Inconclusive" with "Tactical Draw" because it more precisely describes the outcome."

This amendment is puzzling. It is hard to see in what way the term 'Tactical Draw' is more precise, how the word 'tactical' usefully qualifies the word 'draw,' or why the combination, replacing one word with two, is preferable. I would suggest that 'Draw' is more appropriate to a sporting contest where the final score can be calculated. In a battle where the result was inconclusive, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the more appropriate term remains - 'inconclusive.' JF42 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes by IP User:2605:6000:1522:47FF:3596:F7D8:768B:5AA9

I have been watching this page for some time and have recently observed a massive rewrite and connection to reliable sources by a trusted editor. I'm comfortable the casualty figures given in the infobox match those in reliable sources cited later in the page. The link to a fuller discussion of outcome to the appropriate section also seems to meet the guideline for proper referencing and appears to accurately reflect the judgement of cited sources. While I normally encourage editors to make bold changes, in this case I'm undoing these changes in order to allow the User:Factotem to weigh in. In this thread I encourage this new contributor to present reliable sources refuting the ones already given. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I have covered all the reliable secondary sources in coming up with those figures, but happy to hear of any that I might have missed and accommodate them. Would also point out that the result must reflect what those sources say about the battle itself. The result of the wider Philadelphia campaign is a completely separate issue. Factotem (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Lafayette's actions during retreat

Re: this edit, which inserts a statement in the lead asserting that Lafayette rallied the retreating Americans. Neither Lender and Stone nor Bilby and Jenkins make any mention of this in their works focused specifically on the battle. In both, it is Washington who rallies the retreating forces. Other reasons why this and asociated edits are problematical are:

• It inserts a statement into the lead that is not supported in the main body of the article. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises key details of the main body;
• Lafayette's role in the battle is not significant enough to warrant a mention in the infobox commanders section.

I've tried to look up Shachtman, provided as a source for the Lafayette assertion, but gbooks does not offer a preview. Would be interesting to know what specifically he says about Lafayette during the retreat. Until then, I've reverted the series of edits. Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Lmao it says andorran victory

Fix it ig 31.2.237.70 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Just routine vandalism - removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

----

A defense of a British counter attack, turned into a victory for Washington. Clinton abandoned the field, hence, a Victory for Washington. I am sure from a soldiers point of view, it was less than, but never the less, an abandoned field, for retreat, is a victory for the remaining army. I argue that there is no draw. Nor a tie, it was a Victory for the American Army. Clinton cut and ran.

How many times in history have we heard such things as "...Washington failed to strike a telling blow..." etc.....Meade should of pursued the Army of Northern Virginia....etc...

Yes, Washington failed to strike a telling blow, but so what? None of us were there. None of us know exactly how it un-folded. For all we know, G.W. might of had a belly full of battle that day, and retired. His Army held the field. It was banged up, but it held. Clinton had to retreat to lick his wounds, and not have to explain to George the III that he lost to a rag tag army, coming out of hibernation, from Valley Forge!! No less. G.W. had other things to do, and that included firing Lee for battle field blunder. I am sure that had his saddle sores flaring. His men just held there own, toe to toe with the worlds most power full land army. I say, he had enough, and was content that he was not heading the other way with his men retreating under foot. I am sure the camp followers / wives and maidens, were quite busy tending to the wounded and dead.

--LcozII (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)LcozII

What happened the Colonial Soldier whom General George Washington had arrested?

I have seen many documentaries on the Battle of Monmouth and they all mention that after General Lee ordered a retreat, there was a Colonial soldier who passed on the orders to retreat and (President) General George Washington had him arrested for spreading rumors, even though the soldier was only telling others what he was told by his higher ranking superior officers. This was before General Washington met General Lee and told him what he thought of his leadership skills. None of the documentaries tell what happened the soldier after he was arrested. Does anyone know what happened to him after he was arrested? Punishments in the Colonial Army could be very harsh, including flogging and the death penalty. A soldier arrested in the heat of battle for spreading rumors might get swift and extreme punishment on the spot. 74.76.237.57 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Merge discussion.

Please note that there is an unresolved merge discussion regarding Monmouth order of Battle on its talk page. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 04:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Long term American victory"

Considering the British forces were actually abandoning Philadelphia, I would argue that the results of this battle were more favorable to the British. I don't think calling it a 'long term American victory' is justified and there is no source for that statement either. The battle ended indecisively and the British achieved their objective of evacuating the colony with their army intact. The articles says: "The battle was a tactical British victory, as the rearguard successfully covered the British withdrawal. However, strategically it was a draw, as the Americans were ultimately left in possession of the field, and had, for the first time, demonstrated that the Continental Army regiments could stand against British regulars.[6]" Every battle seems to be an example of 'continental army proving they can stand up to British regulars', I don't think this justifies calling it an American victory. I suggest just leaving the result as a draw, because it could easily be argued that it was a British victory altogetherJimmysales7 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"tactical American victory" sounds like weasel words to me, as do "strategic and propaganda American victory, " with an unspoken 'nonetheless' or 'notwithstanding' hanging in the air there, as some contributors demonstrate a need to accentuate the positive for the American cause in this war. C'mon boys. We all know who won the war, don't we?

As jimmysales states, after the action at Monmouth Courthouse, the British continued unimpeded on their withdrawal to Sandy Hook, and thence to New York. Washington's aims were confused but he had carried out the harassing attack that had been the practical limit of his ambitions, even if the opportunity of disrupting the British baggage train had not been realised. A general action had not been his intention and a set-piece defeat of the British not within his reach.

Clearly the battle was inconclusive. Arguing about who held the field or number of casualties is not relevant, and seems a little desperate.

The objective of the Philadelphia campaign had not been achieved, so the battle was irrelevant to that. The war would eventually be lost (and was, arguably, unwinnable after winter 1777-78) but that was not a consequence of the fight at Monmouth Courthouse (why "Monmouth"?). These info box skirmishes are ultimately futile, but let's be sensible here. That current entry looks preposterous. I am changing to 'inconclusive- draw'JF42 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

The casualties listed in the info box are incoherent. If there is some unresolved point being argued, that is not the place to do it. I am changing the entry to match the text in the article.JF42 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that the figures for casualties in the information box have been reverted. Incoherent figures of that sort are effectively meaningless. They appear to reflect an unresolved divergence of opinion either among authors or among editors but the information box is no place to air such descrepancies, it simply undermines the authority of the article. It would be more sensible to present the official figures and discuss their reliability in the article.

The heavy dependence on one author ( Martin, Philadelphia Campaign) is also suspect. Martin, who I have not read, reports by far the highest British casualties I have come across. The book was published 25 years ago and has been superceded by other more recent works, not least 'Fatal Sunday'by Leder and Stone published last year.

I plan to update the relevant sections based on the book I have mentioned.

JF42 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC) JF42 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

TItle 'Monmouth'

I am surprised why this hasn't been mentioned. Why is the title of this article 'Monmouth?' The battle is generally referred to as 'Monmouth Courthhouse', that being the name of the village on whose lands the battle took place.

I am mystified as to why this contractin should be favoured.

The title should surely be 'Monmouth Courthhouse.... also known [if you insist] as 'Monmouth.

The disambiguation with the battle of Monmouth would be superflous for a start.

JF42 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311220214/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311220214/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/colonials-patriots/sitec23.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Monmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218191827/http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx to http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

American strategic victory

I see that the change from 'American long term victory' to 'inconclusive' has now been amended to 'American strategic victory'. What does that mean?

The British campaign to occupy Philadelphia was ultimately futile. The British ultimately lost the American colonies. Neither of these was attributable to the events around Freehold on June 28th 1778. As has been pointed out, General Clinton proceeded with his withdrawal to New York; Washington's attack, of more modest ambition, did not affect that objective. The two armies fought. Men died. Perhaps more British than American. In the first general action since Germantown the American army performed well. None of these amount to 'strategic victory'- unless the coiner of this term wishes to point out that the rebel colonists eventually won their independence from the British Crown which, I would argue, is unnecessary in an information summary box on the Wikpedia page for the battle of Monmouth Courthouse.

I have looked but the change doesn't seem to have been clearly flagged in the editing Talk page. It would make sense to engage in discussion rather than covertly opt for what I believe is termed 'edit war.' I open this topic here to give - whoever- the opportunity to air their thoughts on an 'American strategic victory.' Meanwhile I shall revert to 'inconclusive.'

JF42 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Replaced "Inconclusive" with "Tactical Draw" because it more precisely describes the outcome."

This amendment is puzzling. It is hard to see in what way the term 'Tactical Draw' is more precise, how the word 'tactical' usefully qualifies the word 'draw,' or why the combination, replacing one word with two, is preferable. I would suggest that 'Draw' is more appropriate to a sporting contest where the final score can be calculated. In a battle where the result was inconclusive, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the more appropriate term remains - 'inconclusive.' JF42 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes by IP User:2605:6000:1522:47FF:3596:F7D8:768B:5AA9

I have been watching this page for some time and have recently observed a massive rewrite and connection to reliable sources by a trusted editor. I'm comfortable the casualty figures given in the infobox match those in reliable sources cited later in the page. The link to a fuller discussion of outcome to the appropriate section also seems to meet the guideline for proper referencing and appears to accurately reflect the judgement of cited sources. While I normally encourage editors to make bold changes, in this case I'm undoing these changes in order to allow the User:Factotem to weigh in. In this thread I encourage this new contributor to present reliable sources refuting the ones already given. BusterD (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I have covered all the reliable secondary sources in coming up with those figures, but happy to hear of any that I might have missed and accommodate them. Would also point out that the result must reflect what those sources say about the battle itself. The result of the wider Philadelphia campaign is a completely separate issue. Factotem (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Lafayette's actions during retreat

Re: this edit, which inserts a statement in the lead asserting that Lafayette rallied the retreating Americans. Neither Lender and Stone nor Bilby and Jenkins make any mention of this in their works focused specifically on the battle. In both, it is Washington who rallies the retreating forces. Other reasons why this and asociated edits are problematical are:

• It inserts a statement into the lead that is not supported in the main body of the article. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarises key details of the main body;
• Lafayette's role in the battle is not significant enough to warrant a mention in the infobox commanders section.

I've tried to look up Shachtman, provided as a source for the Lafayette assertion, but gbooks does not offer a preview. Would be interesting to know what specifically he says about Lafayette during the retreat. Until then, I've reverted the series of edits. Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Lmao it says andorran victory

Fix it ig 31.2.237.70 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Just routine vandalism - removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Von Steuben's command of the left wing

This leaves out Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben's being placed in command of the left wing, of several brigades of the Contintental Army on Gen. Washington's orders. This was a key point in Lee's court-martial and almost caused a mutiny, or at least a mass resignation among the general officers for a foreigner upjumping the order of precedence.

Von Steuben's orders to collect the retreating men on the left, to reform them and later counter attack proved to be one of the critical moments of the battle, and Alexander Hamilton was quoted by William North as stating in later years as saying that until that day, until he saw the change in how the same troops performed under Lee versus Von Steuben, never truly understood or appreciated the value of military discipline until that day.

This is another case of Baron Von Steuben having been written out of the history books.

The Life of Frederick William Von Steuben, Major General in the Revolutionary Army Friedrich Kapp Jan 1859 · Mason Brothers 24.56.234.251 (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)