Talk:Battle of Monmouth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contradiction?[edit]

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)

What?[edit]

"...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[edit]

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 But some here are keen on using sources which do not cite secondary and / or primary sources and somehow altering to indecisive is "maximising every British victory".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 (talkcontribs) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Tactical British Victory?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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

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[edit]

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. 

Block quote </>"In the early morning, Lee advanced over rough ground that had not been reconnoitered and made contact with the British rear, but Clinton reacted quickly and maneuvered to envelop the American right flank. Lee, feeling that his force was in an untenable position, began a retreat that became quite confused. Wahington rode up amidst the confusion and , exceedingly irate to find the advance guard in retreat, exchanged harsh words with Lee. He then assumed direction of what had to be a defense against a British conterattack. The battle that followed, involving the bulk of both armies, lasted until nightfall on a hot, sultry day with boths sides holding their own. For the first time the Americans fought well with the bayonet as well as with the musket and rifle and their battlefield behaviour generally reflected the Valley Forge training. Nevertheless, Washington failed to strike a telling blow at the British Army, for Clinton slipped away in the night and in a few days completed the retreat to New York. Lee demanded and got a court-martial at which he was judged, and perhaps unjustly, guilty of disobedience of orders, poor conduct of the retreat, and disrespect for the Commander in Chief. As a consequence he retired from the Army, though the controversy over his action at Monmouth was to go on for years."

----



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?[edit]

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.[edit]

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"[edit]

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)