Battle of Harlem Heights has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Battle of Harlem Heights is part of the New York and New Jersey campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The edits to this section do not seem to be at all an improvement on the original contribution, except for some additional facts. Can we have the original text back, please?
As the query regarding this insertion has been pending for over three years, I think the reference to the hunting horns should be excised. It has no place in the introduction, anyway, It is overlong, speculative and is based on a single witness' observation, which is open to interpretation. The only point of mentioning the Light Infantry horn signals at all is the hubris inferred from what Reed believed to be mockery; which over- confidence arguably led to the British advancing without sufficient caution and only narrowly avoiding Knowlton's intended trap. As we can't be sure what the calls were or what their intention was, this is a fairly minor point. It might be of more significance if we knew for sure that Washington decided such evidence of over-confidence made it worth trying to draw the British down to where they might be flanked. If we do, then that point should be made in the appropriate place in the narrative. JF42 ( talk) 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. I see you replaced the Hessian component in the belligerents section of the infobox on Battle of Harlem Heights. I think that while it is technically true that the Hessians were involved, there's not much reason to separate them out from the British. There were lots of militias involved on the American side, but for this battle, we can lump them all together into the Continental Army. Perhaps if we can figure out the numbers, we can put them in the strength section (see Battle of Long Island. However, to argue your side, if you look at Battle of Fort Washington, there is Hessians in the belligerents section. Perhaps we should bring something up on the project space to standardize this? What do you think? Tan | 39 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This page, along with White Plains keeps being altered to an American victory, deleting the references and placing marks on the page to not alter it. These two pages need to be locked to established users only ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
Extended Discussion |
---|
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
OK, so we have some sources saying draw some saying american victory for various reasons. I would suggest we avoid the whole debate and instead opt for a result of Result disputed. or perhaps simply American withdrawl or British remain in control of the field or one of many other possibilities (Like combining various ones, Tactical result disputed, American withdrawl). Trip, Red, any of this tickle the fancy? Narson ( talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Siege of Yorktown, Battle of Eutaw Springs, Battle of Green Spring, Battle of Hobkirk's Hill, Battle of Guilford Courthouse, Battle of Cowan's Ford, Battle of Cowpens, Battle of Camden .... need I go on? ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
I believe it is an American victory for a few reasons. 1. I have found 4 references saying it was an American Victory. 2. The British suffered heavier casulties than the Americans. 3. It was undoubtedly an American Moral victory. What is up now is a good short term solution, but we will need to make a decision here sometime soon.( Red4tribe ( talk) 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
I would like to discuss the term belligerent. I believe that belligerent refers to the overall opposing parties (i.e. United States and Great Britain) not to the forces they employed. I have stated a discussion on the Main Talk Page of the American Revolutionary War task force hoping for some other opinions as I think this does need clarification. dashiellx ( talk) 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
Generally, not always, when one side suffers heavier losses, they lose the battle. However, in this battle I do believe it was a huge moral victory(as said above) and with the heavier losses on the British side=American Victory. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC))
I would like to discuss the term belligerent. I believe that belligerent refers to the overall opposing parties (i.e. United States and Great Britain) not to the forces they employed.
I have stated a discussion on the Main Talk Page of the American Revolutionary War task force hoping for some other opinions as I think this does need clarification. dashiellx ( talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I happened to talk a glance at what was written about the battle in other languages, and all of the ones that had an outcome written had an American victory. And it appears at the moment, as tan said, we are running 4-1 for an American Victory. (
Red4tribe (
talk) 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC))
[1] < This article states that Washington ordered his army to withdraw
[2] < Same as the above
[3] < states the battle as a draw
[4] < states the battle as a draw
[5] < states the battle as a draw. I think it is time we reached an agreement on this. I think the best course of action we can opt for, is "American withdrawal, British troops hold the ground but suffer heavier casualties, American psychological victory, tactically and strategically indecisive".
(
Trip Johnson (
talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
It clearly means that many more people believe it was an American Victory. You seem to be too stubborn to accept that. Yes, I have read your references, and take a look at this
The importance of this action for the Americans was that it was the Virginia militia who had fled the British the day before who fought steadily and effectively alongside the Northern Rangers, going a long way to restoring the confidence of the American army in itself.
It restored great confidence in the American Army. To me, that, with the combination of heavier British losses, makes it an American Victory.
(
Red4tribe (
talk) 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Appears someone is losing their temper here....you cannot seem to face the fact that it was an American victory, and you will be to stubborn to ever accept anything else, so I really see no point in any type of agreement with you here. Prehaps this is new to you but you do not have full reign over wikipedia.
Now, for everyone else whos mind is flexible enough to accept changes here is why I believe it is an American victory
1.I have a number of reliable references(if you wish for me to list them just ask)
2.The British suffered heavier losses
3.It was a great moral list, it showed the Americans could fight against the British
4.Every other language here says its an American Victory
5.This battle prevented the British from driving up into the Hudson Valley
Now, other than trip, we all seem to agree it is an american victory, not a decisive victory, or a very important battle, but still an american victory. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Judging from your partisan opinions, my guess is you are an ultra-patriotic, hardcore American who believes that every battle in which the British suffered more casualties and because of a few AMERICAN websites calling it an American victory it makes it so. Since neither side held the ground, there is a draw. If the British suffered heavier casualties, that warrants World War 2 an Axis victory, the War of Independence and 1812 a British victory etc. Casualties is not a ground for victory. It was clearly a draw, as neither side held the ground, that just can't seem to go through that thick blinded patriotic naive skull of yours. A psychological victory yes, but not a tactical or strategic one. I have given you that it is a psychological victory, and altered it to be so. Now, are you going to waste your life arguing or are you going to do something amazing and leave this be? ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Hmmm maybe I'm wrong but isn't British Battles(and maybe the others, i'll have to look again) a British site? As I have said before,(and you convienently left out) that suffering heavier casulties generally, not always, means a victory. I would be willing to bet that more than half of the time when a side suffers heavier casulties, they lost the battle. And once again, I will have to tell you that I am not a native born American.....yes I do live in America now(I'd also be willing to bet that your not American), but I was not born here nor did I go to school here. If it was "clearly" a draw why do 3 others here seem to agree with me when you seem to be alone in a corner? Look at the other pages in other languages. They claim an American victory. You, as I have said before, are too stubborn to accept anything else and there is no way I will be able to change your mind. I am not the only one you seem to have a problem with, I have looked through your past versions of your talk page and found you have had other disagreements escalate into ridiculous arguments such as this one has. You need to stop your babelling nonsense and go edit something you know about. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
References
This was obviously a huge moral victory for the Americans after the collapse at New York, it also stalled the British advance into the Hudson Valley. The British also had more deaths and wounded. ( SaudiArabia44 ( talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Coming here for the first time, and reading some of the history of this discussion, I tend to agree that the various significant published viewpoints (the measure in WP:NPOV) characterize this battle as an "american victory". I don't find significant use of the term "american psychological victory" at all, or similar qualified representations. I do see some use of "tactical draw" to qualify the immediate result. I suspect those are viewing the battle independent of the larger situation. In a narrow point of view, the battle surely was a minor victory at best and a stalemate by immediate measures and also a verification that the american army was no match for the british overall. but from the larger perspective, it seems characterized as a victory. Since the infobox "result" entry is merely a place to summarize — and the article is the place to qualify in great detail what the tactical outcome was compared to the strategic — I think the result should be "american victory" in line with the larger context summation in sources. But the article should and does go into the greater detail and the result as per the individual battle and any other views. In terms of additional citations, I find american / u.s. victory used in these papers as well:
also, I found that US President James Monroe was "appointed a lieutenant in the Third Virginia Regiment and participated in numerous engagements; severely wounded in the Battle of Harlem Heights" from the source: U.S. Congress, Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1949 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950), p.1576. Would anyone like to add that notable mention in both this article and his article? - Owlmonkey ( talk) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The battle was a Draw, the British found themselves attacked on 3 sides and began their retreat. Under persistent attack, the British retreated to a field in the Hollow Way. The fighting continued for an hour until the imminent arrival of more British forces caused Washington to call his troops back. The number of troops grew to nearly 5,000 on each side as the British were pushed back. Washington called off the attack after 6 hours because the Americans were not ready for a general engagement with the full British army. Nothing Strategic or Tactical was gained out of this skirmish so therefore can be called indecisive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I know you're an American patriot, but I'm sorry patriotism cannot get in the way of historical facts, and the facts are that the Virginia Militia retreated back to Washington at the end of the day, there was no Benefit on either side thus leaving it indecisive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I lined this article up for GA review earlier this evening, but was called away from the computer before I had quite finished the review and now see that the article has been passed by someone else. Although I respect their review, I did have some comments on the article that the editors may find helpful.
Although this is quite a long list, it would not all have been essential in my GA review. There are however some quite serious problems that should be addressed very soon. In summary, a decent article but not a "Good" one quite yet in my opinion. That said, I respect the review and have no plans to challenge it, these suggestions are given solely for the future improvement of the article.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
For years Narson and I have worked on the War of 1812 and tried to get as much straight as we could. Far too much time has been taken up by a one liner in an info box. Folks very little can be ascertained by an info box, the War of 1812 is perhaps one of the best points where 3 nations had major changes in outlooks to one another, major alliances formed where none existed before, and Modern Canada arose from the ashes of that war, yet all anyone wants to talk about is an outcome in an info box... Perhaps we all need to grow up a little and start seeking to really improve the articles and the citations and give the public the beauty of knowledge this project has always promised to be. Tirronan ( talk) 04:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The battle of Monmouth is a 'long term American victory'? They were both rear-guard actions, the British fought a successful rear guard at Monmouth, Washington fought a successful rear-guard here. The Americans evenutally took the ground at Monmouth, the British took the ground here. So either the result on the Monmouth page is wrong, or this page is wrong. Ben200 ( talk) 16:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
A fair point. The action at Harlem Heights was a check to the British advance up Manhattan. It didn't prevent the British occupation of New York (for the next six years or so) and it didn't stop Washington from abandoning Manhattan and withdrawing towards White Plains. Nor, clearly, did it destroy Washington's army as an effective force or bring about the capitulation of the Continental Congress. Those are examples of the possible fruits if either side had been able had been to claim victory. Instead, the action was INCONCLUSIVE.
The American troops may have enjoyed a boost to their moral after successfully withstanding an attack by crack British infantry- which they already done at Brooklyn (their generals had let them down there)- and indeed they had exploited the enemy's over-confidence and forced them to make a tactical withdrawal- but on the other hand the Americans had lost a popular and effective battlefield commander in Knowlton which should also be factored into the moral calculation.
Britain managed to construct a moral victory out of the evacuation at Dunkirk - and are doing so still- but it nevertheless it followed a complete and utter defeat- and before anyone gets upset, there the parallel with Harlem Heights ends (although arguably Long Island/Brooklyn was Dunkirk in microcosm). JF42 ( talk) 21:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there no better illustration available than this wildly anachronistic print showing the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment wearing Crimean War-era uniforms from the mid-C19th? Their headgear is also on the wrong way round. JF42 ( talk) 09:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Apart from being captioned "The Battle of Harlem Heights" and having the area of Harlem Heights marked in small print in the extreme upper right hand corner of the box, I am unclear as to why the map currently included. It can't be considered an aid to understanding the battle. Surely there are more detailed maps of the battle area available.
Would this one be serviceable:
https://archive.org/stream/battleofharlemhe00john#page/n97/mode/2up > ?
By the way the links below are 'orphans' and the last two are dead.
JF42 ( talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Could someone with access to sources please check the troop numbers given in the article and infobox? An IP editor changed the infobox figures, upping the numbers of American troops to 9,000, versus 5,000 British troops. That seems to match the figures in the article as it stands; but older versions of the article (for example, this) had 1,800 Americans versus 5,000 British, both in the article and its infobox. This revision increased the American forces to 9,000 in the lead, though not in the infobox. The issue is not clarified by a close reading of the lead or the article itself. Haploidavey ( talk) 13:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
JF42 ( talk) 22:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
JF42 ( talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The narrative in most recent edits was still seriously out of kilter with reference to the sequence laid out by Johnson, the cited source. I have adjusted that, and I believe made the narrative more concise and clearer in relation to the geography. THere are still gaps in the timeline relating to the end of the first phase of the running fight in the woods and the start of Washington's attempted flanking manoeuvre. JF42 ( talk) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The information box evidently remains unresolved. The current information re. numbers involved is misleading, and that for casualties incoherent
The figures shown for the American army reflect the estimated number of troops that were gathered in the main exchange of fire in the buckwheat field. The figure of 5000 for the British represents a generous estimate of the troops that might have been available had the Reserve and all the German troops come up and been engaged. It does not represent the number of British troops engaged at the height of the action on the heights (probably three battalions at most and the jägers). A comparable figure for the American side would include troops remaining in Washington's lines. Analysis of the units known to have been directly engaged supports Johnson's conclusion that the number of British engaged was slightly less than the Americans confronting them.
The numbers for casualties are also misleading. It is not consistent to show the estimated figures of American casualties as if they are a proven fact and then enter figures for British casualties so wildly variant as to be meaningless. Moreover, the figure '92–390 killed and wounded' does not match any figures in the main text, which undrmines the authority of the article. All that can be derived from the figure '92-390' is that the figures are disputed and it might be better simply to state that.
With regard to the sources cited, it's not clear where McCullough's figures come from, although inflated estimates were recorded on both sides. The article in Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, a comprehensive revision of Boatner's Biographical Dictionary of the American War of Independence 1763–1783 quotes, with reservations, Howe's reported estimate of 92 British casualties and then categorically states, without explanation, "the toll was 14 killed and 154 wounded." The source for this figure seems to have been taken from Kemble's diary entry (which reports 16 dead including two officers mortally wounded and 157 wounded).
Johnson's calculation of British casualties - 14 killed and 157 wounded- reflects Kembles diary entry more accurately (although he mislaid the two mortally wounded). As this calculation is used as the source for American casualties in the information box,if it is felt necessary to offer concrete numbers where none exist, it would be sensible and consistent to use Johnson's figures for the British side as well.
I suggest that the place to explore inconsistencies in casualties reported should be in the main text, not in the information box.
JF42 ( talk) 09:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) JF42 ( talk) 08:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been reflecting on this quotation from Lengel. Washington's response may have been astute but deciding to exploit the mistake of the British patrol for the benefit of boosting his troops' morale at little risk, while perfectly sensible, does not seem to demonstrate to any great extent the qualities to which Lengel refers. Washington showed more resolve in the withdrawal from Brooklyn, and more courage, to the point of recklessness, trying to stem the rout in the face of the British advance the previous day. This quotation risks being unduly flattering towards Washington and does not add to our understanding of the battle. JF42 ( talk) 21:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I've just come across this article and it seems heavily slanted towards the US version of events. Is there some sort of co-ordinated effort going on here or is there a lack of sources for the British side? Thanks! digital_me ( talk) 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Harlem Heights has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Battle of Harlem Heights is part of the New York and New Jersey campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The edits to this section do not seem to be at all an improvement on the original contribution, except for some additional facts. Can we have the original text back, please?
As the query regarding this insertion has been pending for over three years, I think the reference to the hunting horns should be excised. It has no place in the introduction, anyway, It is overlong, speculative and is based on a single witness' observation, which is open to interpretation. The only point of mentioning the Light Infantry horn signals at all is the hubris inferred from what Reed believed to be mockery; which over- confidence arguably led to the British advancing without sufficient caution and only narrowly avoiding Knowlton's intended trap. As we can't be sure what the calls were or what their intention was, this is a fairly minor point. It might be of more significance if we knew for sure that Washington decided such evidence of over-confidence made it worth trying to draw the British down to where they might be flanked. If we do, then that point should be made in the appropriate place in the narrative. JF42 ( talk) 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. I see you replaced the Hessian component in the belligerents section of the infobox on Battle of Harlem Heights. I think that while it is technically true that the Hessians were involved, there's not much reason to separate them out from the British. There were lots of militias involved on the American side, but for this battle, we can lump them all together into the Continental Army. Perhaps if we can figure out the numbers, we can put them in the strength section (see Battle of Long Island. However, to argue your side, if you look at Battle of Fort Washington, there is Hessians in the belligerents section. Perhaps we should bring something up on the project space to standardize this? What do you think? Tan | 39 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This page, along with White Plains keeps being altered to an American victory, deleting the references and placing marks on the page to not alter it. These two pages need to be locked to established users only ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
Extended Discussion |
---|
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability. |
OK, so we have some sources saying draw some saying american victory for various reasons. I would suggest we avoid the whole debate and instead opt for a result of Result disputed. or perhaps simply American withdrawl or British remain in control of the field or one of many other possibilities (Like combining various ones, Tactical result disputed, American withdrawl). Trip, Red, any of this tickle the fancy? Narson ( talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Siege of Yorktown, Battle of Eutaw Springs, Battle of Green Spring, Battle of Hobkirk's Hill, Battle of Guilford Courthouse, Battle of Cowan's Ford, Battle of Cowpens, Battle of Camden .... need I go on? ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
I believe it is an American victory for a few reasons. 1. I have found 4 references saying it was an American Victory. 2. The British suffered heavier casulties than the Americans. 3. It was undoubtedly an American Moral victory. What is up now is a good short term solution, but we will need to make a decision here sometime soon.( Red4tribe ( talk) 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC))
I would like to discuss the term belligerent. I believe that belligerent refers to the overall opposing parties (i.e. United States and Great Britain) not to the forces they employed. I have stated a discussion on the Main Talk Page of the American Revolutionary War task force hoping for some other opinions as I think this does need clarification. dashiellx ( talk) 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability. |
Generally, not always, when one side suffers heavier losses, they lose the battle. However, in this battle I do believe it was a huge moral victory(as said above) and with the heavier losses on the British side=American Victory. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC))
I would like to discuss the term belligerent. I believe that belligerent refers to the overall opposing parties (i.e. United States and Great Britain) not to the forces they employed.
I have stated a discussion on the Main Talk Page of the American Revolutionary War task force hoping for some other opinions as I think this does need clarification. dashiellx ( talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I happened to talk a glance at what was written about the battle in other languages, and all of the ones that had an outcome written had an American victory. And it appears at the moment, as tan said, we are running 4-1 for an American Victory. (
Red4tribe (
talk) 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC))
[1] < This article states that Washington ordered his army to withdraw
[2] < Same as the above
[3] < states the battle as a draw
[4] < states the battle as a draw
[5] < states the battle as a draw. I think it is time we reached an agreement on this. I think the best course of action we can opt for, is "American withdrawal, British troops hold the ground but suffer heavier casualties, American psychological victory, tactically and strategically indecisive".
(
Trip Johnson (
talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
It clearly means that many more people believe it was an American Victory. You seem to be too stubborn to accept that. Yes, I have read your references, and take a look at this
The importance of this action for the Americans was that it was the Virginia militia who had fled the British the day before who fought steadily and effectively alongside the Northern Rangers, going a long way to restoring the confidence of the American army in itself.
It restored great confidence in the American Army. To me, that, with the combination of heavier British losses, makes it an American Victory.
(
Red4tribe (
talk) 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Appears someone is losing their temper here....you cannot seem to face the fact that it was an American victory, and you will be to stubborn to ever accept anything else, so I really see no point in any type of agreement with you here. Prehaps this is new to you but you do not have full reign over wikipedia.
Now, for everyone else whos mind is flexible enough to accept changes here is why I believe it is an American victory
1.I have a number of reliable references(if you wish for me to list them just ask)
2.The British suffered heavier losses
3.It was a great moral list, it showed the Americans could fight against the British
4.Every other language here says its an American Victory
5.This battle prevented the British from driving up into the Hudson Valley
Now, other than trip, we all seem to agree it is an american victory, not a decisive victory, or a very important battle, but still an american victory. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Judging from your partisan opinions, my guess is you are an ultra-patriotic, hardcore American who believes that every battle in which the British suffered more casualties and because of a few AMERICAN websites calling it an American victory it makes it so. Since neither side held the ground, there is a draw. If the British suffered heavier casualties, that warrants World War 2 an Axis victory, the War of Independence and 1812 a British victory etc. Casualties is not a ground for victory. It was clearly a draw, as neither side held the ground, that just can't seem to go through that thick blinded patriotic naive skull of yours. A psychological victory yes, but not a tactical or strategic one. I have given you that it is a psychological victory, and altered it to be so. Now, are you going to waste your life arguing or are you going to do something amazing and leave this be? ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Hmmm maybe I'm wrong but isn't British Battles(and maybe the others, i'll have to look again) a British site? As I have said before,(and you convienently left out) that suffering heavier casulties generally, not always, means a victory. I would be willing to bet that more than half of the time when a side suffers heavier casulties, they lost the battle. And once again, I will have to tell you that I am not a native born American.....yes I do live in America now(I'd also be willing to bet that your not American), but I was not born here nor did I go to school here. If it was "clearly" a draw why do 3 others here seem to agree with me when you seem to be alone in a corner? Look at the other pages in other languages. They claim an American victory. You, as I have said before, are too stubborn to accept anything else and there is no way I will be able to change your mind. I am not the only one you seem to have a problem with, I have looked through your past versions of your talk page and found you have had other disagreements escalate into ridiculous arguments such as this one has. You need to stop your babelling nonsense and go edit something you know about. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
References
This was obviously a huge moral victory for the Americans after the collapse at New York, it also stalled the British advance into the Hudson Valley. The British also had more deaths and wounded. ( SaudiArabia44 ( talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Coming here for the first time, and reading some of the history of this discussion, I tend to agree that the various significant published viewpoints (the measure in WP:NPOV) characterize this battle as an "american victory". I don't find significant use of the term "american psychological victory" at all, or similar qualified representations. I do see some use of "tactical draw" to qualify the immediate result. I suspect those are viewing the battle independent of the larger situation. In a narrow point of view, the battle surely was a minor victory at best and a stalemate by immediate measures and also a verification that the american army was no match for the british overall. but from the larger perspective, it seems characterized as a victory. Since the infobox "result" entry is merely a place to summarize — and the article is the place to qualify in great detail what the tactical outcome was compared to the strategic — I think the result should be "american victory" in line with the larger context summation in sources. But the article should and does go into the greater detail and the result as per the individual battle and any other views. In terms of additional citations, I find american / u.s. victory used in these papers as well:
also, I found that US President James Monroe was "appointed a lieutenant in the Third Virginia Regiment and participated in numerous engagements; severely wounded in the Battle of Harlem Heights" from the source: U.S. Congress, Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1949 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950), p.1576. Would anyone like to add that notable mention in both this article and his article? - Owlmonkey ( talk) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The battle was a Draw, the British found themselves attacked on 3 sides and began their retreat. Under persistent attack, the British retreated to a field in the Hollow Way. The fighting continued for an hour until the imminent arrival of more British forces caused Washington to call his troops back. The number of troops grew to nearly 5,000 on each side as the British were pushed back. Washington called off the attack after 6 hours because the Americans were not ready for a general engagement with the full British army. Nothing Strategic or Tactical was gained out of this skirmish so therefore can be called indecisive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I know you're an American patriot, but I'm sorry patriotism cannot get in the way of historical facts, and the facts are that the Virginia Militia retreated back to Washington at the end of the day, there was no Benefit on either side thus leaving it indecisive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I lined this article up for GA review earlier this evening, but was called away from the computer before I had quite finished the review and now see that the article has been passed by someone else. Although I respect their review, I did have some comments on the article that the editors may find helpful.
Although this is quite a long list, it would not all have been essential in my GA review. There are however some quite serious problems that should be addressed very soon. In summary, a decent article but not a "Good" one quite yet in my opinion. That said, I respect the review and have no plans to challenge it, these suggestions are given solely for the future improvement of the article.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
For years Narson and I have worked on the War of 1812 and tried to get as much straight as we could. Far too much time has been taken up by a one liner in an info box. Folks very little can be ascertained by an info box, the War of 1812 is perhaps one of the best points where 3 nations had major changes in outlooks to one another, major alliances formed where none existed before, and Modern Canada arose from the ashes of that war, yet all anyone wants to talk about is an outcome in an info box... Perhaps we all need to grow up a little and start seeking to really improve the articles and the citations and give the public the beauty of knowledge this project has always promised to be. Tirronan ( talk) 04:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The battle of Monmouth is a 'long term American victory'? They were both rear-guard actions, the British fought a successful rear guard at Monmouth, Washington fought a successful rear-guard here. The Americans evenutally took the ground at Monmouth, the British took the ground here. So either the result on the Monmouth page is wrong, or this page is wrong. Ben200 ( talk) 16:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
A fair point. The action at Harlem Heights was a check to the British advance up Manhattan. It didn't prevent the British occupation of New York (for the next six years or so) and it didn't stop Washington from abandoning Manhattan and withdrawing towards White Plains. Nor, clearly, did it destroy Washington's army as an effective force or bring about the capitulation of the Continental Congress. Those are examples of the possible fruits if either side had been able had been to claim victory. Instead, the action was INCONCLUSIVE.
The American troops may have enjoyed a boost to their moral after successfully withstanding an attack by crack British infantry- which they already done at Brooklyn (their generals had let them down there)- and indeed they had exploited the enemy's over-confidence and forced them to make a tactical withdrawal- but on the other hand the Americans had lost a popular and effective battlefield commander in Knowlton which should also be factored into the moral calculation.
Britain managed to construct a moral victory out of the evacuation at Dunkirk - and are doing so still- but it nevertheless it followed a complete and utter defeat- and before anyone gets upset, there the parallel with Harlem Heights ends (although arguably Long Island/Brooklyn was Dunkirk in microcosm). JF42 ( talk) 21:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there no better illustration available than this wildly anachronistic print showing the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment wearing Crimean War-era uniforms from the mid-C19th? Their headgear is also on the wrong way round. JF42 ( talk) 09:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Apart from being captioned "The Battle of Harlem Heights" and having the area of Harlem Heights marked in small print in the extreme upper right hand corner of the box, I am unclear as to why the map currently included. It can't be considered an aid to understanding the battle. Surely there are more detailed maps of the battle area available.
Would this one be serviceable:
https://archive.org/stream/battleofharlemhe00john#page/n97/mode/2up > ?
By the way the links below are 'orphans' and the last two are dead.
JF42 ( talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Could someone with access to sources please check the troop numbers given in the article and infobox? An IP editor changed the infobox figures, upping the numbers of American troops to 9,000, versus 5,000 British troops. That seems to match the figures in the article as it stands; but older versions of the article (for example, this) had 1,800 Americans versus 5,000 British, both in the article and its infobox. This revision increased the American forces to 9,000 in the lead, though not in the infobox. The issue is not clarified by a close reading of the lead or the article itself. Haploidavey ( talk) 13:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
JF42 ( talk) 22:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
JF42 ( talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The narrative in most recent edits was still seriously out of kilter with reference to the sequence laid out by Johnson, the cited source. I have adjusted that, and I believe made the narrative more concise and clearer in relation to the geography. THere are still gaps in the timeline relating to the end of the first phase of the running fight in the woods and the start of Washington's attempted flanking manoeuvre. JF42 ( talk) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The information box evidently remains unresolved. The current information re. numbers involved is misleading, and that for casualties incoherent
The figures shown for the American army reflect the estimated number of troops that were gathered in the main exchange of fire in the buckwheat field. The figure of 5000 for the British represents a generous estimate of the troops that might have been available had the Reserve and all the German troops come up and been engaged. It does not represent the number of British troops engaged at the height of the action on the heights (probably three battalions at most and the jägers). A comparable figure for the American side would include troops remaining in Washington's lines. Analysis of the units known to have been directly engaged supports Johnson's conclusion that the number of British engaged was slightly less than the Americans confronting them.
The numbers for casualties are also misleading. It is not consistent to show the estimated figures of American casualties as if they are a proven fact and then enter figures for British casualties so wildly variant as to be meaningless. Moreover, the figure '92–390 killed and wounded' does not match any figures in the main text, which undrmines the authority of the article. All that can be derived from the figure '92-390' is that the figures are disputed and it might be better simply to state that.
With regard to the sources cited, it's not clear where McCullough's figures come from, although inflated estimates were recorded on both sides. The article in Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, a comprehensive revision of Boatner's Biographical Dictionary of the American War of Independence 1763–1783 quotes, with reservations, Howe's reported estimate of 92 British casualties and then categorically states, without explanation, "the toll was 14 killed and 154 wounded." The source for this figure seems to have been taken from Kemble's diary entry (which reports 16 dead including two officers mortally wounded and 157 wounded).
Johnson's calculation of British casualties - 14 killed and 157 wounded- reflects Kembles diary entry more accurately (although he mislaid the two mortally wounded). As this calculation is used as the source for American casualties in the information box,if it is felt necessary to offer concrete numbers where none exist, it would be sensible and consistent to use Johnson's figures for the British side as well.
I suggest that the place to explore inconsistencies in casualties reported should be in the main text, not in the information box.
JF42 ( talk) 09:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) JF42 ( talk) 08:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been reflecting on this quotation from Lengel. Washington's response may have been astute but deciding to exploit the mistake of the British patrol for the benefit of boosting his troops' morale at little risk, while perfectly sensible, does not seem to demonstrate to any great extent the qualities to which Lengel refers. Washington showed more resolve in the withdrawal from Brooklyn, and more courage, to the point of recklessness, trying to stem the rout in the face of the British advance the previous day. This quotation risks being unduly flattering towards Washington and does not add to our understanding of the battle. JF42 ( talk) 21:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I've just come across this article and it seems heavily slanted towards the US version of events. Is there some sort of co-ordinated effort going on here or is there a lack of sources for the British side? Thanks! digital_me ( talk) 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)