Battle of Princeton 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 Princeton 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the article, around 500000000000000000000000000000 British soldiers were killed. On the other hand, according to the battlebox, 195 British casualties were incurred. Which piece of information is correct? AndyZ 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The battle box is way off compared to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.53.16 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Washington was not 'cornered' at the second battle of Trenton, as the text currently states. See Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer ( ISBN 0195170342), page 277: "The Americans expected an attack in great strength by British and Hessian troops. In council they decided to receive it in Trenton on ground of their own choosing." The Americans re-crossed the Delaware to Trenton in expectation of engaging the British and Hessian troops; they were not cornered there. [20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)] (Signed on 2/28 - forgot to sign this the first time) Valtam 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
When you say, The 17th, part of the 55th, and the Dragoons broke through, continuing down the road to Trenton, pursued by Washington, who broke off his pursuit when some of Leslie's troops came into sight, I'm a little confused. Weren't the British attacking through the orchard, away from the Princeton-Trenton road? That is, if they 'broke through', wouldn't they be on the wrong road (the eastern road, which Washington used in the march from Trenton to Princeton the night before)? My (limited) understanding was that the British turned and retreated at this point. But, if you could explain it to me, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Valtam 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Other NJ State parks have their own entry. Why not this one? I don't know much about the history of the park, but presumably there is some, and descriptions of the site are appropriate.-- Natcase 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be more about the fighting at Nassau Hall and about Princeton University? First, John Witherspoon, the President of Princeton (then College of NJ I think) was part of the Continental Congress, and Nassau Hall had been used to house American troops prior to the British arrival. There is the famous story of Alexander Hamilton firing a cannonball which destroyed a painting of king george, and a cannon ball can still be seen lodged in the building. The surprise at Nassau Hall was very complete (this part of the battle I think is decisive) and the Continental Army was able to stock up on supplies found in the building. -- Rendsburg ( talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Edits are being persisted upon the Battle of Princeton, using an unreliable source. The ridiculous claim that Washington attacked with only 1,400 men, seriously contradicts the numbers that is listed in the article (over 4,000). Also the claim that casualties were 40 killed and 40 wounded heavily contradicts the part in the article that states "and suffered heavier casualties", referring to the American forces. A source had already been listed which states the American losses as 45 killed and 110 wounded, but with total ignorance to that source, it is continually replaced with the unreliable source. I have even found a source here which states the strength: http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/Princeton.html ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC))
If anyone has a third opinion, please post what you think here. I would be glad to hear it. From references I have heard British casualties from 40 killed and 58 wounded, up to 86 killed. So clearly there is a big gap there. Here are some references.
http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-princeton.htm
http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_prtn.asp
http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/Princeton.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1290.html
http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770103.htm
It is up to someone else to make the decision. As you can see we aren't getting anywhere.(
Red4tribe (
talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC))
Okay, so.. I'm having a hard time with these sources. There's nothing about http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770103.htm that makes me accept it as a reliable secondary source. The site doesn't make any claims about its sourcing or anything. doublegv.com seems to be a site for primary sources, and it says "Washington has but 5,200 men, many unreliable militia", which seems far larger than 1400. britishbattles.com says "Size of the armies: 7,000 Americans against 8,000 British and Hessians although only 1,200 British troops were principally engaged." But again, I'm skeptical of these sources.
As to the other issue about how many British casualties there were, well... I don't really know. I'd maybe say to show the numbers in a range (40-86?) but I don't know if that's the right way to go. Either way, I listed this discussion over at WT:MILHIST so hopefully somebody will come by to help settle this debate. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Myrevolutionarywar has come under a lot of critisisim,(and reasonably so) but how do we know that someone was not copying from their site onto wikipedia? ( Red4tribe ( talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
Ok then, for the strength of the Americans we'll use 4,200 or was it 5,200? I cant't remember. AS for the casualties I think 40-86 would look very odd. So we will have to come up for something on that. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this article seems to go straight from "background" to "aftermath". General Mercer's 350 Virginians "encounter" 800 British soldiers, and then...what? I'm using (or attempting to use) Wikipedia for actual research, so I'm afraid I can't give details. Help please?-- 75.105.64.38 ( talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The coordinates need the following fixes:
98.234.212.102 ( talk) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the description of General Mercer's wounding as it seemed emotive and biased. The order of events is skewed. He was not bayoneted and then clubbed which seems intended to suggest overkill- although, this was a melee in a running fight. By his own admission, Mercer brought his death on himself.
He was brought down by a musket butt (not a bayonet, note) and told to surrender. Resenting the 'epithet' of rebel, Mercer decided to go down fighting and attacked the men surrounding him with his sword. He was then bayoneted. Here is the reference:
"The tale which you have heard, George, is untrue. My death is owing to myself. I was on foot, endeavouring to rally my men, who had given way before the superior discipline of the enemy when I was brought to the ground by a blow from a musket. At the same moment, the enemy discovered my rank, exulted in having taken the rebel general, as they termed me, and bid me ask for quarter. I felt that I deserved not so opprobrious an epithet and determined to die as I had lived, an honored soldier in a just and righteous cause, and with out begging my life or making reply, I lunged with my sword at the nearest man. They then bayoneted and left me." (Waterman 159)
With Sword and Lancet, the Life of General Hugh Mercer Joseph MacNaughton WATERMAN pp. xi. 177. Garrett & Massie: Richmond, Va., [1941.] 1941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It has been >11 years since I first started editing this article, and it look so much better than it did back then! I'm putting this comment here to note that Mercer died 9 days after being wounded in the battle, so it makes sense that he told someone about the battle, before he died... Just wanted to note that here, to avoid future confusion... (probably coming from me!) Valtam 16:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
No mention is made of the fact that the British were heavily outnumbered which is often mentioned in numerous tomes both American and British, (and I'm not referring to websites rather unchallengeable academic cites) why is that? Also, the battle was talked up as being a great victory yet yet how can a far superior force winning be a 'great victory' ? Twobells ( talk) 14:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Princeton's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nris":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Princeton. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no way of knowing Washington's thoughts regarding the British Light Infantry bugle calls at Harlem on September 16th 1776, since they were not recorded. Since it was Adjutant General Joseph Reed who construed the calls as an insult, while others understood them to be intended either to rally the advance troops, or call up support, this observation can only be unfounded supposition on the part of the cited source, Ketchum. I'll excise it. JF42 ( talk) 18:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
JF42 ( talk) 11:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Princeton. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Serious duplication in the middle part of the lede, as though someone had edited a first draft but also left the original copy in place. And what is meant by The battle (while considered minor by British standards)... This is not referenced in the article, and therefore shouldn't be in the lede. Valetude ( talk) 19:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Battle of Princeton 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 Princeton 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the article, around 500000000000000000000000000000 British soldiers were killed. On the other hand, according to the battlebox, 195 British casualties were incurred. Which piece of information is correct? AndyZ 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The battle box is way off compared to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.53.16 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Washington was not 'cornered' at the second battle of Trenton, as the text currently states. See Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer ( ISBN 0195170342), page 277: "The Americans expected an attack in great strength by British and Hessian troops. In council they decided to receive it in Trenton on ground of their own choosing." The Americans re-crossed the Delaware to Trenton in expectation of engaging the British and Hessian troops; they were not cornered there. [20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)] (Signed on 2/28 - forgot to sign this the first time) Valtam 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
When you say, The 17th, part of the 55th, and the Dragoons broke through, continuing down the road to Trenton, pursued by Washington, who broke off his pursuit when some of Leslie's troops came into sight, I'm a little confused. Weren't the British attacking through the orchard, away from the Princeton-Trenton road? That is, if they 'broke through', wouldn't they be on the wrong road (the eastern road, which Washington used in the march from Trenton to Princeton the night before)? My (limited) understanding was that the British turned and retreated at this point. But, if you could explain it to me, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Valtam 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Other NJ State parks have their own entry. Why not this one? I don't know much about the history of the park, but presumably there is some, and descriptions of the site are appropriate.-- Natcase 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be more about the fighting at Nassau Hall and about Princeton University? First, John Witherspoon, the President of Princeton (then College of NJ I think) was part of the Continental Congress, and Nassau Hall had been used to house American troops prior to the British arrival. There is the famous story of Alexander Hamilton firing a cannonball which destroyed a painting of king george, and a cannon ball can still be seen lodged in the building. The surprise at Nassau Hall was very complete (this part of the battle I think is decisive) and the Continental Army was able to stock up on supplies found in the building. -- Rendsburg ( talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Edits are being persisted upon the Battle of Princeton, using an unreliable source. The ridiculous claim that Washington attacked with only 1,400 men, seriously contradicts the numbers that is listed in the article (over 4,000). Also the claim that casualties were 40 killed and 40 wounded heavily contradicts the part in the article that states "and suffered heavier casualties", referring to the American forces. A source had already been listed which states the American losses as 45 killed and 110 wounded, but with total ignorance to that source, it is continually replaced with the unreliable source. I have even found a source here which states the strength: http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/Princeton.html ( Trip Johnson ( talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC))
If anyone has a third opinion, please post what you think here. I would be glad to hear it. From references I have heard British casualties from 40 killed and 58 wounded, up to 86 killed. So clearly there is a big gap there. Here are some references.
http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-princeton.htm
http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_prtn.asp
http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/Princeton.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1290.html
http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770103.htm
It is up to someone else to make the decision. As you can see we aren't getting anywhere.(
Red4tribe (
talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC))
Okay, so.. I'm having a hard time with these sources. There's nothing about http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770103.htm that makes me accept it as a reliable secondary source. The site doesn't make any claims about its sourcing or anything. doublegv.com seems to be a site for primary sources, and it says "Washington has but 5,200 men, many unreliable militia", which seems far larger than 1400. britishbattles.com says "Size of the armies: 7,000 Americans against 8,000 British and Hessians although only 1,200 British troops were principally engaged." But again, I'm skeptical of these sources.
As to the other issue about how many British casualties there were, well... I don't really know. I'd maybe say to show the numbers in a range (40-86?) but I don't know if that's the right way to go. Either way, I listed this discussion over at WT:MILHIST so hopefully somebody will come by to help settle this debate. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Myrevolutionarywar has come under a lot of critisisim,(and reasonably so) but how do we know that someone was not copying from their site onto wikipedia? ( Red4tribe ( talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
Ok then, for the strength of the Americans we'll use 4,200 or was it 5,200? I cant't remember. AS for the casualties I think 40-86 would look very odd. So we will have to come up for something on that. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this article seems to go straight from "background" to "aftermath". General Mercer's 350 Virginians "encounter" 800 British soldiers, and then...what? I'm using (or attempting to use) Wikipedia for actual research, so I'm afraid I can't give details. Help please?-- 75.105.64.38 ( talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The coordinates need the following fixes:
98.234.212.102 ( talk) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the description of General Mercer's wounding as it seemed emotive and biased. The order of events is skewed. He was not bayoneted and then clubbed which seems intended to suggest overkill- although, this was a melee in a running fight. By his own admission, Mercer brought his death on himself.
He was brought down by a musket butt (not a bayonet, note) and told to surrender. Resenting the 'epithet' of rebel, Mercer decided to go down fighting and attacked the men surrounding him with his sword. He was then bayoneted. Here is the reference:
"The tale which you have heard, George, is untrue. My death is owing to myself. I was on foot, endeavouring to rally my men, who had given way before the superior discipline of the enemy when I was brought to the ground by a blow from a musket. At the same moment, the enemy discovered my rank, exulted in having taken the rebel general, as they termed me, and bid me ask for quarter. I felt that I deserved not so opprobrious an epithet and determined to die as I had lived, an honored soldier in a just and righteous cause, and with out begging my life or making reply, I lunged with my sword at the nearest man. They then bayoneted and left me." (Waterman 159)
With Sword and Lancet, the Life of General Hugh Mercer Joseph MacNaughton WATERMAN pp. xi. 177. Garrett & Massie: Richmond, Va., [1941.] 1941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It has been >11 years since I first started editing this article, and it look so much better than it did back then! I'm putting this comment here to note that Mercer died 9 days after being wounded in the battle, so it makes sense that he told someone about the battle, before he died... Just wanted to note that here, to avoid future confusion... (probably coming from me!) Valtam 16:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
No mention is made of the fact that the British were heavily outnumbered which is often mentioned in numerous tomes both American and British, (and I'm not referring to websites rather unchallengeable academic cites) why is that? Also, the battle was talked up as being a great victory yet yet how can a far superior force winning be a 'great victory' ? Twobells ( talk) 14:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Princeton's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nris":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Princeton. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no way of knowing Washington's thoughts regarding the British Light Infantry bugle calls at Harlem on September 16th 1776, since they were not recorded. Since it was Adjutant General Joseph Reed who construed the calls as an insult, while others understood them to be intended either to rally the advance troops, or call up support, this observation can only be unfounded supposition on the part of the cited source, Ketchum. I'll excise it. JF42 ( talk) 18:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
JF42 ( talk) 11:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Princeton. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Serious duplication in the middle part of the lede, as though someone had edited a first draft but also left the original copy in place. And what is meant by The battle (while considered minor by British standards)... This is not referenced in the article, and therefore shouldn't be in the lede. Valetude ( talk) 19:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)