Talk:Battles of Saratoga

message: I realize this may be a minor thing, but I want to clarify my reason for twice removing incorrect references on this page to George Washington as a major general. Simply put, George Washington was not a major general. The relevant resolution and commission of the Continental Congress quite clearly identifies him as "General and Commander in chief," and goes on to identify Artemas Ward and Charles Lee as "first major-general and second in command" and "second Major general to be third in command," respectively. Washington's rank was general, and he wore three stars on his epaulettes; majors general, his inferiors in rank, wore two. Publius (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But yet Commander in Chief is an important role.(174.134.124.132talk) 18:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Major General" George Washington

message: I agree that the story could be more balanced by including more on the German, Indian and Tory contingents, and the American Militias involved. The Germans were almost 60% of the troops involved. A seemingly forgotten fact is that the British used almost 30,000 German troops and only about 38,000 British troops in the revolutionary war. There should also be a much more detailed account of what Milita groups were involved and where they came from and what they did. Originally this section didn't even have anything on the important role played by the Tyron county militia in the Battle of Oriskany. There is also almost no mention of the Indians involved who served as significant British auxilaries. Their involvement in this and more battles seems to be a taboo subject. The Battle of Oriskany, Wyoming Valley Massacre, Cherry Valley Massacre, Stockbridge Massacre and continued depradations on settlers in New York and Pennsylvania directly led Washington to order in 1779 the Sullivan Expedition which essentially drove most of the Iroquois out of New York into Canada. This was the major action by American forces in 1779. After we get the basics right it might be worth worrying about the British.
Cheers; 
D'lin 19:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Revisionism or just forgotten history?

message: I will try to add something about Kosciuszko's fortification impact. In the opinion of some of the contemporaries, it was crucial for American victory; yet it is not even mentioned in the article.
:Since there are no objections, within a week I will add something about Kosciuszko involvement in battle of Saratoga Szopen 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very important.  There is a whole set of monuments to Kosiuszko as you enter the park.  I'm kicking myself for not taking the photos right away thinking there would be more later on.  But it's a one way road.   Americasroof 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosciuszko 

message: In the last paragraph of the "Points of Interest" section of the Battle of Saratoga, it states: 
"It is said that on the Battle of Saratoga Historical site there is a statue of a single leg with no caption. Purportedly this represents the response Benedict Arnold (wounded in the leg in Quebec and Saratoga) got when he asked a British officer what the Americans would do if he were captured: "They would cut your leg off and bury it with full military honors for your work at Quebec and Saratoga. The rest of you they would hang."
I believe there is an eror in stating that Arnold asked the British officer a hypothetical question about what "the Americans would do if he were "captured" -- since he is asking a British officer, and the logical answer from that officer is that "they" -- certainly implying the British forces --would have "cut your leg off and bury it with full military honors for your work at Quebec and Saratoga. The rest of you they would hang." I take that to mean that the British officer would respect Arnold's military prowess, in the honorable way that officers of even opposing armies would acknowledged such things in the 18th century, but that the British government would hang him, along with other American Revolutionary political and miliray leaders, for treason.
I can't imagine that the Briritish officer would assume that would be any reason for the Americans to "capture" Arnold, or that the Americans would have any reason to hang Arnold -- at least not at this juncture in the war, when he was still an  active General on the side of the Continental Army, and was considered to be somewhat of a war hero (by everyone except Gen. Gates, perhaps) for his military successes in Quebec and Saratoga.
This is my first attempt at making an update/correction on Wikipedia. I hope it is up to your standards and proper procedures...!
:You did well. (Just be sure to sign your discussion page posts by typing "~~~~" at the end of your last paragraph, so people know who wrote it.) Probably the story about the British officer talking to Arnold, if true, dates from after Arnold's treason, long after Saratoga, when he was on the same side as the British. The British officer is saying that, if the Americans recapture Arnold (as sometimes happened), they'd hang him for treason but honor the leg. Sounds like a bogus quote to me, and it needs a source. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore the article on Benedict Arnold also includes this quote but in a slightly different words, therefore one of them (possibly both) are wrong. We need to check for consistency here. 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of interest Section 

message: I removed this paragraph:
:It is interesting to note that the Battle of Saratoga was the first time that both powers had a sizeable army on a battlefield at the same time. Most of the fighting done prior to Saratoga leaned heavily on "guerilla warfare" (essentially terrorism) tactics on the part of the Revolutionaries. Moreover, the Battle of Saratoga would serve as the first major army-to-army clash. It was the first battle America had won without surprising British forces (See: Battle of Trenton) and it helped convince the French monarchy that they could hurt the British significantly by helping the Americans.
This was an inaccurate unsourced stream of consciousness.  The Americans won the Siege of Boston which was the last big battle in New England and Saratoga marked the failed British initiative to retake New England.  The Battle of Long Island was the biggest battle in the conflict. Americasroof 22:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you will find there where 14,000 allied on the field of Yorktown and a French fleet anchored close by, and probably the largest battle of the war. Tirronan (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in Points of Interest

message: There are some numerical errors in this article... I don't know the exact figures, so I can't correct them. 129.237.168.103 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tut tut! Hmm, so I know what's wrong; the article's not wrong but someone's trying to make someone else take their time to find and correct the "mistake". If it's a true mistake, you must point them out, don't just sit their in front of the computer and type: There are some numerical errors in this article... I don't know the exact figures, so I can't correct them.Allied Rangoons (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: The Aftermath section has this sentence: "Burgoyne returned to England as a hero--he was a prominent leader in London society." The article on Burgoyne states: "Following Saratoga, the indignation in Britain against Burgoyne was great. He returned at once, with the leave of the American general, to defend his conduct and demanded but never obtained a trial. He was deprived of his regiment and a governorship which he held."
Would some expert please resolve the contracdiction between the articles? I suspected vandalism in the Saratoga article, but the text has been around for a while.
Joconnor (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between this article on the one on Burgoyne 

message: In response to the posts above about the structure of the articles, I have merged the Freeman's Farm and Bemis Heights articles into this single article. Vidor (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and merging

message: I'm not sure what is going on with the numbers here but this much I am sure of, there were never 20,000 continentals on that battlefield and I rather suspect that the Brits were down to 5,000 or so effectives and pretty badly outnumbered.  However British Battles is not a website of great authority and therefore should not be used as a source, unsourced additions to a battle of this importance is to be highly discouraged. please be aware that I have added this article to my watch list. Tirronan (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers, Statistics, and outright lies

message: There is SO much vandalism that's been happening to this page, so can someone semi-protect it? Viet|Pham (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the Battle of Bennington is mentioned in the very first paragraph, as part of the background for this battle (for a more comprehensive role of that battle in the campaign, read its article or the one on the Saratoga campaign).  Secondly, John Stark did not participate in either battle of Saratoga, so the fact that his name does not appear here is not entirely surprising.  While he was instrumental in completing the encirclement of Burgoyne in the days after the second battle, omitting his name is hardly an act of vandalism. Thirdly, there is no claim in the article that New Hampshire militia are under a New York commander here.  The only militia grouping whose commander is identified is the "force of 1,200 New York militia under Brigadier General Abraham Ten Broeck".  Fourthly, Stark objected to serving under Continental Army authority, not New York authority.  He refused orders from Benjamin Lincoln, a (Massachusetts) Continental Army general. Magic♪piano 12:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I just read in the Wall Street Journal 11/26/2208 that because of the battle of Saratoga, Sam Adams started the holdiday of Thanksgiving. I think this would be an intersting addition to consider on this page. - Anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.138.240 (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanksgiving

message: User:Fabartus made changes to the lead, adding content not reflected in the body of the article (and also significantly altering the layout of the top of the article).  I've reverted those changes; please find a suitable place in the body of the article for your contributions before modifying the lead.  (Also note that the lead is a "Synopsis"; we do not need a section with that sort of name.) Magic♪piano 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, a valid point, thank you for some useful feedback.  If Fabartus had indeed removed the previous mention of the consequences, that portion of his contribution might have been useful.  On the other hand, some of his writing was also "not even good quality and needs fixed" (whatever that means -- my irony meter registered high when I read a paragraph complaining about quality of writing where each sentence contained grammatical errors). Magic♪piano 01:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate changes to lead

message: Is it necessary to combine the two in one article? Is this like your "Snowshoes" battles which you ended up separating. It is the combination that deters me from reviewing it for GA! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The main difference between this and the Snowshoes battles is that the Snowshoes battles were not obviously connected to each other; they were only weakly related by geography and personnel.  These battles, on the other hand, are intimately linked, especially considering that the armies are camped so near each other between them.  Establishing context for the second battle would require replicating all of the background, and then provide a summarized version of the first battle.  (Although the battles are separated by three weeks, I liken it to Battles of Lexington and Concord, which would also be difficult to split.) Magic♪piano 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two battles in one article 

message: 216.198.172.29 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014 

message: Although Burgoynne's army sustained heavier casualties than Gate's force in the first engagement and his victory was indeed only marginal in that he took the field; his casualties were nevertheless not destructive to his intentions. He prepared his army for a second offensive the following morning. The battle box credits it as a pyrrhic victory without a source, I would argue unless a source is found is should be listed simply as a victory or tactical victory.Thecitizen1 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "Pyrrhic" was added by an anon editor 2012.  It's IMHO a dubious application. Magic♪piano 01:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Burgoyne's desperately needed to break through the American lines in order to escape.  He had 100% failure there.  That means it was a defeat and made his surrender more inevitable.  He suffered twice as many casualties as the Americans. In the matter in victory and defeat it is the business of achieving objectives (And not who occupies the particular small battlefield at the end of the day) and the Americans achieved their main objective of preventing Burgoyne from escaping and he totally failed.  Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: At the point in the Battle, September 19, neither side even committed half their force to action. Burgoyne was not at that point in need to "escape". He remained in an offensive posture.Thecitizen1 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

text: It might be more accurate to term the result as inconclusive. I don't think Pyrrhic victory accurately reflects the situation immediately following the battle. Thecitizen1 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question whether the freeman's farm was a Pyrrhic victory?

message: James Kirby Martin does not place Arnold at Gates's headquarters during Freeman's Farm, though he does mention Arnold paid Gates a visit to plead for reinforcements and then went to reenter the field, upon which Gates had Arnold ordered him back. ("Benedict Arnold, Revolutionary Hero: An American Warrior Reconsidered", pages  378-381.)  Martin acknowledges that his depiction of General Arnold at Freeman's Farm differs from that of Luzader (Ibid, 514, n1.) Martins' views command respect, since his research for "Bendict Arnold" was extensive. I feel we should mention Martin's take on General Arnold's whereabouts at Freeman's Farm, but we can keep Luzader's opinion in if need be.
Thoughts anyone?TH1980 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benedict Arnold Not At Gates's HQ During Freeman's Farm? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battles of Saratoga. 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/20091106151343/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/sara/s-act.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/sara/s-act.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battles of Saratoga. 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/20120819005540/http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx to http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In Heinrich von Breymann we read: 
:"Breymann's unit was driven behind a redoubt, where he grew frustrated at the poor performance of his men, attacking four with his saber before he was killed by one of his own men.Mintz, Max M. The Generals of Saratoga: John Burgoyne & Horatio Gates. Binghamton: Yale University Press, 1990. p. 211: "[...] The Americans mounted the parapet and found the Germans fled and Breymann lying dead. Maddened at the timidity of his men, he had sabred four of them, and then one of them had shot him.""
Is this credible? If so, the ref at least should probably be added to this article. - Snori (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Breymann's death

message: Would someone who can unlock this please add a wikilink under the main header "Second Saratoga" to reference Second Saratoga order of battle? Thanks! 47.138.93.197 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add wikilink to order of battle? 

message: Is this section up referenced and up to the required article standard? Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in popular culture 

message: you noob me pro you are to slow'--63.79.61.176 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019 

message: i request that u nam ethe armys and why there was a war in the first place 198.237.71.72 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020 

message: :The Battles of Saratoga (September 19 and October 7, 1777) marked the climax of the Saratoga campaign, giving a decisive victory to the Americans over the British in the American Revolutionary War.
This made me do a double take when I first came to the article, as it strongly reads to me as if it's saying that the Patriots' victory at Saratoga was decisive in the war rather than simply the campaign. I think if any reader comes to this article without already knowing the barebones timeline of the war, they'll immediately conclude from that sentence that Saratoga marked the end of the Revolutionary War, in place of the Battle of Yorktown. I see that the sentence has read this way for a number of years, so perhaps I'm alone in this. But if I'm not, would anyone object to rewording it? My own off-the-cuff proposal would be The Battles of Saratoga (September 19 and October 7, 1777) marked the climax of the American Revolutionary War's Saratoga campaign and gave a decisive victory to the Americans over the British. Binabik80 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence misleading? 

message: Separate issue, so I'm creating a new section. The lede currently states that Saratoga brought Spain into the war as well as France. The statement about Spain is unsourced, isn't supported by the body of the article, and (I would assert) is untrue. Spain was brought into the war (two years after Saratoga) by France's entry into the war, not by Saratoga. If the Patriots had won their victory at Saratoga, and France had not entered the war, then Spain wouldn't have, either. It'd probably be a good idea to mention Spain's later entry in the section on why France coming into the war as a result of Saratoga is such a big deal (the "French Aid" paragraph in Aftermath), but I'm taking the sentence about Spain's entry being a direct consequence of Saratoga out of the lede unless it can be given a source. Binabik80 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saratoga bringing Spain into the war