Talk:Battle of Columbus (1916)

"Battle of Columbus"?

This article is veering away from history in dubbing this event the "Battle of Columbus". It's normally understood in historical sources to be a raid, and anyone who compares usage of Columbus Raid versus Battle of Columbus will find an overwhelming preference for the former. I just did it myself. On Google, "Columbus Raid" with the word Villa thrown in draws 4100 references. "Battle of Columbus" gets 433. On Google Books, "Columbus Raid" gets 662 references. "Battle of Columbus" gets only 4 citations. This article should be retitled Columbus Raid with in-text references altered appropriately. 69.106.75.244 (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A raid is a form of battle, battle or raid, both are appropriate. It was however fought more like a battle than a raid. It lasted for hours and ended with a successful American attack on a Mexican held hill. I should also mention that someone keeps changing the result from American victory to "Division del Norte", that unfortunately for Villa, is not true.--Az81964444 (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out how this article is invariably skewed to show the American side of the case. In Mexico, the history books show a different outcome to this battle. I believe it is American propaganda as it always seems to be when it comes to issues such as this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.45.17 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it at least possible that the Mexican view might be skewed as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This was not a battle by any definition of the word. 400 Villistas slipped over the border and raided the small hamlet. The military garrison was completely taken by surprise. It is not a fact that Villa personally participated. It is certainly not a fact that this was the division of the north. That army had disbanded by then. Villa had his elite forces, the Dorados, around him and recruited based on need from the villages he passed through. This article is historically speaking awful and needs to be fixed.60.247.107.98 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Mexican victory?

I am not in favor of either side, but from the description of the battle given to me, neither side truly won. Villa never was able to gain access to logistical supplies and ammo, and lost men in the process. He had failed to even partially complete this objective. The Mexican rebels had to retreat from United States soil because they were being pursued by cavalry.

According to the Spanish version of wikipedia, Villa was in search of an arms supplier whom had sold him faulty ammunition. Even in that account of the battle, the Mexican rebels had failed to capture/kill this arms supplier.

What objectives were accomplished? The Mexican rebels, from all the accounts I have read, lost much larger amounts of men than the Americans and had to completely withdraw from the United States as soon as possible (largely due to their failure to recognize the 330+ cavalry unit within the city). How can this battle be considered a Mexican victory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.239.175 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

The article says "With Colonel Slocum gone, Major Frank Tompkins led the cavalry's hot pursuit of Villa into Mexico and killed more than a hundred of his soldiers, for which he received the Medal of Honor, in 1918.[2]" The link says that Tompkins received the Army Distinguished Service Medal, not the Medal of Honor. I'm changing it to reflect the correct award. I'm also going to work on the wording, as the award citation is not "for killing a bunch of Villistas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.85.22 (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)