Talk:Battle of Barren Hill

Agreement

Trip, I'm willing to try and work out an agreement here. Anyway to try and clear things up, no I do not think Germantown was an American Victory, nor do I think it was decisive British. anyways, do you propose anything for this page? I don't see why it has to be all drawn out, imo I think it is much more simple, easier, and more clear to the average reader to just put an American Victory. (Red4tribe (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Ok this is fine. (76.15.57.115 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

I can't see that this can really be described as an American victory unless the American forces actually vanquished the British. As there seem to have few casualties on either side and this was just a skirmish, then something like "Successful American delaying action" would be more appropriate. If you look at the much more significant and bloodier Battle of Le Cateau the result is properly described as "Successful retreat by the Allies": to reduce that to "German victory" or "British victory" would just be plain wrong. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'Fabian' victory? aggressive Lafayette had a way of getting ambushed, but the British could never get a decisive victory against him, (like Battle of Green Spring, unlike Battle of Camden). Pohick2 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Militia Running then Skirmish

The entry should add another sentence about the "delaying tactic" that only gets one vague sentence. The Oneida Nation's website (in the footnotes) is a dead link. If you do a search on their site, however, it has more info. One of the excerpts is: "The Oneidas and their American counterparts met the front of one of the British columns sometime on the morning of May 20 and immediately engaged the mounted infantry in a brief but bloody skirmish. Louis de Tousard, a Frenchman who had accompanied the Oneidas from New York to Valley Forge, described the skirmish and the Oneidas’ “ability in firing,” adding that he owed “my liberty, perhaps more, to two Indians, and two French men who stood constantly by me.” Source: http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/history/28612644.html It was bloody and there was enough time for people to observe the Native's marksmanship skills. Engaging mounted infantry from the front would have been a bit more significant than the entry implies. I live about 1000 feet from the battle site and local historical sources support this. There are also colonial soldiers buried on the site who died in the engagement. Lafayette's handling of the situation deprived the British of an outright victory rather than it resulting in a clear "British Victory" as has been indicated in the side panel. The town I live in is called Lafayette Hill in honor of him.

Oh, and one last thing, wouldn't the belligerents be United States plus a mention of the Oneida Nation troops as well as the French soldiers? While it was not as though it was the nation of France, classifying all those involved as Americans gives a really poor picture of the situation. I'm no expert on your standards for this, it is just an added thought. I hope this helps. Thank you for reading. -- 69.248.196.168

I believe the Oneida are shown as american allies, in the infobox. the "French" are american officers, or volunteers fighting in american army, attached to Lafayette. the french army is not here, unlike Savannah, or Yorktown. the Oneidas number are small compared to the size of american force, but i will incorporate the reference. Pohick2 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

Uhhhhhh..... There are no casualties on the article. Lack of sources, vandalism, never put there, or what?SR Boxer (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Barren Hill. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi11.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=455&division=div1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706194941/http://friendsoflafayette.org/data/barrenhill.html to http://friendsoflafayette.org/data/barrenhill.html

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) 13:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The British...resumed their retreat from Philadelphia to New York.

"The British, having failed to win the battle or capture or kill Lafayette, resumed their retreat from Philadelphia to New York."

This sentence is wholly misleading. Stating that the minor engagement on 20th May had any part in the British decision to end the occupation of Philadelphia is a distortion of the facts and suggesting that the withdrawal was already under way makes no sense at all, apart from the fact that the evacuation took place a month later, in June 1778. JF42 (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)