Talk:Battle of Princeton

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: 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)
thread_title: Battle box

message: Washington was not 'cornered' at the second battle of Trenton, as the text currently states.  See Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer (), 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)
thread_title:  Washington chose the ground at the second battle of Trenton 

message: 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)
replies: text: Eight months later, I've simplified the references by removing the exact names of the smaller British units. Valtam 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for the 4.240.*.* editor 

message: 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)
thread_title: Separate article for park?

message: 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)
thread_title: Nassau Hall, Princeton University

message: 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)
replies: text: I think we should probably leave this decision to an admin, whether to keep the long-standing FACT that Washington had 4,600 men, or a more unreliable number of 1,400. (Trip Johnson (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins have no special insight that makes their judgment on content any more valid than anyone else's. Could I suggest, however, that you provide your references that support the figure of 4,600, whether printed or online, so that people looking at this third opinion request can assess the reasons for the discrepancy. CIreland (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think myrevolutionarywar.com is that reliable a source - it's based on an older edit of the Wikipedia page.  I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that I wrote an early draft of the Wikipedia 'Battle of Princeton' page, after reading 'Washington's Crossing.'  (Prior to that, the page was just a stub.)  It looks like myrevolutionarywar.com just copied the text to their page. Valtam 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, it shouldn't even be considered for use for this page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not really a justification. The website still cites no articles or secondary sources, and makes no claims of how verifiable its information is. It's not a news source and it doesn't seem to be run by anyone who's notable on the subject, so why should it be used? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please, one of you, look up an actual book on the subject. The standard reference would still be The Battles of Trenton and Princeton by William S. Stryker, which has been reprinted fairly recently and should be widely available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a copy of the book? What does it say? I'll assume good faith on this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try ILL, but I'll see if I can find it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Google Books? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want an impeccable cite John Ferlings Almost a Miracle:The American Victory in the War of Independence is a good place to start, he lays out the actual numbers as agreed with countless other American and British Revolutionary War academics. The British were heavily outnumbered in both men and cannon yet the colonists struggled to overcome their opposite numbers, to claim the battle was 'decisive' is questionable at best and ludicrous at worst, I'll edit to read 'American victory' and add-in the completely over-looked fact that the British were very heavily outnumbered. Twobells (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting on a 3O

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out, someone must have vandalized it a while back but it was missed, but anywyas, I restored the text.-Kieran4 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Battle? 

message: The coordinates need the following fixes:
* Write here
98.234.212.102 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be an issue. Kyle McInnes[citation needed] 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mercer wounding 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've edited the lead to read the historical facts including two cites, if anyone wants any more just ask. Twobells (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The answer is simple. With a brilliant nighttime maneuver, the Americans evaded Cornwallis' main army, decimated his rearguard, effectively liberated almost all of New Jersey for the rest of the war, and prevented the destruction of the Continental Army. Numbers of combatants + casualties don't make a "great victory", the results of the battle do. If a simple, bloodless strategic maneuver won a war overnight, would that not be a "great victory"? Think about it. 24.255.189.207 (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavily outnumbered 

message: 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":
From Princeton Battlefield: 
From Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania: 
From Trenton Battle Monument: 
From Delaware and Raritan Canal: 
From Monmouth Battlefield State Park: 
From First Bank of the United States: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Battle of Princeton]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019174027/http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=60370 to http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=60370
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) 20:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Postscript: Having checked Ketchum, he makes no reference to Harlem Heights. This appears to have been an editor's own conclusion. In addition, the cited text reference ('p.309') is incorrect, and relates to his chapter on the battle of Trenton, rather than Princeton.
JF42 (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'still angry from the foxhunt call from Harlem Heights' 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218191827/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) 05:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lede