A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 17, 2011, January 17, 2013, and January 17, 2014.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: South Carolina Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina. Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) American Revolutionary War task force

Archives

Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Cowpens. 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/20070809234459/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/cowp/bearss/chap1.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/cowp/bearss/chap1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060808192724/http://www.nps.gov/cowp/dmorgan.htm to http://www.nps.gov/cowp/dmorgan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624212824/http://www.usachcs.army.mil/TACarchive/Acwin98i/Hourihan.htm to http://www.usachcs.army.mil/TACarchive/Acwin98i/Hourihan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621174308/http://www.history.army.mil:80/books/RevWar/KM-Cpns/AWC-KM-FM.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/KM-Cpns/AWC-KM-FM.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101013027/http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil:80/carl/resources/csi/Moncure/moncure.asp to http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Moncure/moncure.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Please stop throwing around the word "Patriot," it is extremely inaccurate as a descriptor for Colonists who were fighting at the time. The people in what would become America in the 18th century were just as complex as we are, they had multiple reasons for joining the militia or army - much of which was the pay. The idea that a slave was a Patriot (note capitalization) is at best not amusing, but at worst deeply offensive. Grouchy highlander ( talk) 04:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Someone claims that IF YOU LOOK ON THE TALK PAGE YOU WILL FIND THERE IS A CONSENSUS, STOP CHANGING THIS! As can be seen, its only a statement of one editor; no trace of a consensus.

I am changing to Patriot, because there was Americans on both sides. You wouldn't label the Battle of Gettysburg and American victory, would you. Why are enslaved people of significance here? Not one word in the article! If slaves were present, they were found on both sides. Creuzbourg ( talk) 14:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I reverted because "Patriot" is inconsistent with how the forces opposing the British are referred to (ie US). If this is to be changed, then the body of the article needs to change first. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Battle of Cowpens.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The image in the article and linked here...

 
/info/en/?search=File:Battle_of_Cowpens.Dean.USMA.edu.history.png

...indicates the Broad river as next to the battlefield when modern maps show it is in NC over 4 miles to the north. crcwiki ( talk) 04:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Is there a reason the historically supported consensus, and according to the own history of this page the consensus other editors reached a few years ago, is continuously changed by someone? As far as I can see the consensus reached by historians and by earlier editors was that it can be considered a decisive victory. 162.221.218.49 ( talk) 15:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply

You have been repeatedly directed to the guidance at MOS:MIL that specifically deprecated applying qualifiers to the result. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

War at Saber Point by John Knight, page 160:

"The number of Americans Tarleton faced has been the subject of debate. Morgan believed he had fewer than 1,000 men. Tarleton claimed the Americans had over 1,800 present, a total historians later ridiculed as a face-saving exaggeration. But a study of pension records by military archaeologist Lawrence Babits proved Tarleton's estimate was conservative. Morgan's force numbered between 1,800 and 2,400 soldiers, giving the Americans a superiority of between 700 and 1,200 men"

The source cited by Knigh for this analysis is Babits' A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle of Cowpens pages 27-36. I don't have access to this resource at the moment, so would another editor be able to corroborate it? If so, is it then worth reflecting this in the information box? F.M. Sir D.H ( talk) 10:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

In “Aftermath”, The third paragraph is opinion without attribution. The comment about Cornwallis pushing Tarleton is valid but an exact quote would be unimpeachable. Other than that, the paragraph needs to be deleted, or replaced by an unbiased assessment by historians who aren’t all preaching from the same book. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 06:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply