# Talk:Battle of Hubbardton

There is a contradiction between the information box, which claims an tactical victory for the British and Germans, and the text itself, which claims a tactical victory for the Americans. Which is it? Woollymammoth 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A victory for the British and Germans because they forced the American troops off of the field. Claiming this battle as an American victory is like claiming the Battle of Cowpens as a British victory. It is just plain stupid. (Trip Johnson (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
Trip, I advise you not to remove my dispute tag, because it is disputed, whether you want it to be or not. I believe this was an American Victory, and I have provided my references to support it. Please show yours(a reliable one, neither of the ones you have shown are reliable)to back up your claims.  http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1296.html 
The Battle of Hubbardton, Vermont by John Williams, says the battle was an American victory, because heavy casualties were inflicted onto the British, and it stopped their advance. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

I am not sure that a won/loss is even appropriate here and even if counted a victory it would be a British victory as the German troops were under British command and hired from a German Prince.  Please consider that the Americans were attempting a cover/disengage which would preclude them declaring victory though the operation was successful, however claiming victory over a side that intended to stop pursuit and cover a retreat is hardly the stuff of victory either. Ruthless pursuit of the covering force and disrupting the retreat... now that is the stuff of victory.  Don't get caught up in the who won stuff, often its a waste of time and not really all that applicable and this is one of those cases. Tirronan (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The (unsigned) writer of the above comment has a valid point.  "Don't get caught up in the who won stuff, often its a waste of time and not really all that applicable and this is one of those cases."  I reviewed Christopher Ward's coverage of the battle in his War of the Revolution, and he doesn't state whether it's a victory for the British or the Americans.  He concludes the section, which contains Hubbarton, with "When St. Clair, with his main force at Castleton, got word of the disasters at Skenesboro and Hubbardton, there was nothing to do but to try to save the remains of his army." (416) The British clearly outmaneuvered the Americans.  British victory? Perhaps.  American victory?  Maybe on some "larger" scope, but as for the battle itself, probably not.  Given the differing opinions, I'd be interested in seeing what is said in other RELIABLE sources to see if some kind of consensus can be reached.  For the time being, however, I think that "British victory" is a fair assessment. I'd also like to note that a substantial amount of information regarding the battle is missing/omitted from this article.  Instead of debating which side "won," I'd like to propose that energy and effort be directed toward expanding and improving the body of the article.  Alphageekpa (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You see this occasionaly, the entire War of 1812 had to be counted as a draw, despite my feelings that we lost that one (American here), because you can't prove a darn thing but that both countries were so sick of the war that anything that got them out of it without a loss of face was perfectly ok and so they did. I've got a history with a copy of the letter from the PM of the time instructing his negoiators in very polite langauge to "get us out of the war the people are sick of it", and a US just frantic to get out of the war as well.  Both sides seemed to have withdrawn at the end of this battle and I would just leave it at that. --Tirronan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Battle of Hubbardton, The American Rebels Stem the Tide by John Williams, Published by the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation • October 1988 can be found online at http://community.middlebury.edu/~mcgill/battle/index.html.  This is very well researched and written.  According to this work Hubbardton was a tactical victory for the British because they held the field and forced Warner and his command to withdraw but a strategic victory for the Americans because it stopped the pursuit of St Clair's army on the eastern shore of Lake Champlain.  After the battle Burgoyne wrote about the people of Vermont and New Hampshire as "the most active and most rebellious race on the continent" and they were "hanging like a gathering storm" on his left. --Vermontpatriot (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class.
The article would benefit from: in-text citations. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Hubbardton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): This well written; prose style makes the article interesting.  b (MoS): Follows MoS 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): The article is well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects  b (focused): Remains focused on subject 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Very nice article. Congratulations!
—Mattisse (Talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Magic♪piano 23:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Hubbardton Battlefield should be merged into this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hubbardton. 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/20131022004023/http://midddigital.middlebury.edu/SharingVTHistory/BooksPamphlets/HRC/chap6HRC.htm to http://midddigital.middlebury.edu/SharingVTHistory/BooksPamphlets/HRC/chap6HRC.htm
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)