Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights

"Fox Hunt" edits

The edits to this section do not seem to be at all an improvement on the original contribution, except for some additional facts. Can we have the original text back, please?

I agree with the above unsigned comment.

British troops made a tactical error by having their light infantry buglers sound a fox hunting call, "gone away," while in pursuit. This was intended to insult Washington, himself a keen fox hunter, having learned the sport from Lord Fairfax during the French and Indian War. "Gone away" means that a fox is in full flight from the hounds on its trail. The Continentals, who were in orderly retreat, were infuriated by this and galvanized to hold their ground.

What evidence is there for this? The British Light Infantry routinely used hunting horns to transmit battlefield commands, as demonstrated at Harlem Heights. How can this be presented as a tactical decision, let alone a tactical error?

There is no indication that the British bugle calls reported by Joseph Hodgkins- "which was for a reinforcement"- and by Joseph Reed (despite the comments made to his wife, quoted below) were anything other than battlefield commands. The identification of the bugle calls as a fox-hunting call 'Gone Away' appears to be a modern embroidery of Reed's aside, "as is usual after a fox chase". Random derisory bugle calls would not only show a lack of discipline in a crack unit but risked causing confusion. Certainly, a drummer would not have sounded non-regulation bugle calls without instruction.

It was Joseph Reed's subjective perception that the British "sounded their bugles in a grossly insulting manner"; an understandable conclusion given his admitted sense of disgrace at that point and given that the Philadelphia attorney had little experience of the British light infantry in action.

Reed had already analysed the situation: "Finding how things were going, I went over to the General, to get some support for the brave fellows who had behaved so well." Do we have a record of how Washington perceived the British bugles and any impact it had on command decisions? If not, then the subject matter of this rather rambling section is partisan folklore and should either be edited as such or excised. JF42 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As the query regarding this insertion has been pending for over three years, I think the reference to the hunting horns should be excised. It has no place in the introduction, anyway, It is overlong, speculative and is based on a single witness' observation, which is open to interpretation. The only point of mentioning the Light Infantry horn signals at all is the hubris inferred from what Reed believed to be mockery; which over- confidence arguably led to the British advancing without sufficient caution and only narrowly avoiding Knowlton's intended trap. As we can't be sure what the calls were or what their intention was, this is a fairly minor point. It might be of more significance if we knew for sure that Washington decided such evidence of over-confidence made it worth trying to draw the British down to where they might be flanked. If we do, then that point should be made in the appropriate place in the narrative.JF42 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this has been addressed in the revised OTD for Friday 16 September 2016. Bugles and hunting-calls and sundry speculations alike are now gone, following discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors The link to OTD in the box above has not yet been updated (to do so is way beyond my capacity). Haploidavey (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hessians

Hey there. I see you replaced the Hessian component in the belligerents section of the infobox on Battle of Harlem Heights. I think that while it is technically true that the Hessians were involved, there's not much reason to separate them out from the British. There were lots of militias involved on the American side, but for this battle, we can lump them all together into the Continental Army. Perhaps if we can figure out the numbers, we can put them in the strength section (see Battle of Long Island. However, to argue your side, if you look at Battle of Fort Washington, there is Hessians in the belligerents section. Perhaps we should bring something up on the project space to standardize this? What do you think? Tan | 39 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No answer from editor. Per consensus from Task Force discussion here, removing Hessians as belligerent force. Tan | 39 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page, along with White Plains keeps being altered to an American victory, deleting the references and placing marks on the page to not alter it. These two pages need to be locked to established users only (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Well, this article is next on my list of battles to expand to GA status (it's the chronologically logical continuation of Landing at Kip's Bay, which I just greatly expanded and improved). Anyway, we will have to discuss this, because David McCullough, in 1776, cites this battle as an American victory. Tan | 39 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet Britishbattles.com cites the battle as a draw, as there was no clear victor in strategic or tactical senses. Also, the page should be locked to stop the vandals who keep editing it (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

fulldisclosure: I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the fact that I'm tan's admin coach and am watching his edits/projectsThat being said, I'm a history buff, and I suspect that this is a scenario wherein the history is written by the victors/differing sides---with different expectations. What to an established military might be considered a draw, might be deemed as a victory to a struggling nation. In other words, the very fact that the British Army wasn't victorious, could be seen as a victory needed by the American military..Balloonman (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) sorry, didn't see entire discussion below

That statement does not make sense. By that reasoning, because the British didn't win decisively, they were defeated decisively? Neither side held the ground that the very battle took place on, Washington retreated and so did the British = draw. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

One could say that it was victory for the Americans to hold their ground against a numerically superior British force. There may not have been any real strategic victory achieved, but I am certain that this battle must have been a great psychological victory for the Americans at that stage of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.5 (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox disagreement

Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
OK, so we have some sources saying draw some saying american victory for various reasons. I would suggest we avoid the whole debate and instead opt for a result of Result disputed. or perhaps simply American withdrawl or British remain in control of the field or one of many other possibilities (Like combining various ones, Tactical result disputed, American withdrawl). Trip, Red, any of this tickle the fancy? Narson (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Good idea. I've changed it to "American withdrawal, British remain in control of the field, tactical and strategic outcome unclear". (Trip Johnson (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) For the record, I disagree with this solution. Do we have a precedent for something this long and awkward? I have four reliable references here, let's see what they say: "But then, the very next day, September 16, to the astonishment of everyone, it would be the Americans' turn to claim success.", "Reporting to Congress on the Battle of Harlem Heights, Washington referred to it only as 'a pretty sharp skirmish' and made no claims to a great victory. But to the troops it was a genuine victory at long last, and an urgently needed lift to their self-respect." - McCullough, David (2005). 1776. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. pp. 216, 219. ISBN 0-7432-2671-2. "The British light infantry came on, full of confidence. When they reached the fence, the Americans rose up and fired. The British infantry stopped, then fell back under heavy fire. The Americans came forward firing, and the British retreated with heavy losses. It was a small victory, but timely. An American officer wrote, 'Our troops were in the most desponding Condition before, but are now in good spirits.'" - Fischer, David Hackett (2004). Washington's Crossing. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 107. ISBN 0-19-517034-2. "The next day British carelessness and contempt for their enemy produced the battle of Harlem Heights, hardly more than a skirmish... As Frederick Mackenzie [a British soldier] confided to his Diary, the light infantry pursued the Americans without 'proper precautions or support' and blundered into an unfavorable position 'and were rather severely handled by them'". - Middlekauff, Robert (2005). The Glorious Cause. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 356. ISBN 978-0-19-516247-9. Howe now realigned and turned north, but at Harlem ran into a strong position in considerable depth, with both flanks anchored on water." - Griffith II, Samuel B. (2002). The War for American Independence. University of Illinois Press. p. 313. ISBN 0-252-07060-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Now, I don't have any "vested interest" in an American victory here. I really just want this article to be as accurate as possible, and as this is next on my hit list to expand to GA status (after I finish Landing at Kip's Bay), I would really like there to be agreement on this before I start mucking about with things. Also note that Britishbattles.com states, "An inconclusive fight which revived American morale but had no particular benefit for either side." While this isn't quite the victory that McCullough, Fischer or Middlekauff claim, it does seem a bit more than a draw. Was not the morale-boost provided to the Americans here a desperately needed spoil of the battle? Eh, that's my own analysis, I guess, and we should discount that. But I think the referential consensus is definitely leaning towards an American victory - perhaps "American morale victory"? Tan | 39 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Well my assessment would be an American tactical victory, British strategic victory. Though that is my opinion and frankly the cites so far are so mixed it is difficult to draw much. Some of them praise it as a US victory because they didn't flee at the first sight of the British, which is, IMO, a poor standard. The Americans fought the British to a stand still before withdrawing in good order, at least according to those sources provided by trip and Red. Frankly, I'd call the whole thing 'Indecisive' but I know people like the quick info up there. Narson (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Well, for the moment ignoring Trip Johnson's dismissive attitude and unwillingness to discuss changes, I could agree with this - however, isn't it the opposite - "American strategic victory, British tactical victory"? The Brits technically "won", as they ended up taking the ground, but the morale boost to the Americans was more intangible and thus probably a "strategic" gain. What a mess. I wish some other people would quote other sources. My four I quoted above skew towards American victory, and the Britishbattles.com (is this a non-biased reference? I don't think it can be considered as significant or reliable as Pulitzer winners as I have quoted) even touches on the fact that it was an American morale victory. We need some more opinions in here ;-) Tan | 39 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Well, tactically it was really a stalemate (The British attacked and withdrew, americans withdrew from the field), strategically it was mostly indecisive (British kept the real estate, Americans got a feather in their cap) I was just trying to simplify :). It is a pain to try and assign some grand result to little skirmishes like this, it is like finding great philosophical meaning in south park episodes. Narson (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I agree. The more I think about it, the infobox "result" doesn't need to be exact, just relatively accurate; the article itself (and even eventually the lead summary paragraph) can explain in more detail. I'll wait to change until we perhaps get some more opinion here, but "Indecisive" is probably the most concise, accurate way to go. Tan | 39 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I believe that this battle was a tactical victory for the British, but a strategic victory for the Americans. The battle had the immediate result of delaying subsequent moves by the British. Also, it increased the support for the reorganization of a permanent army for the duration of the war rather then the short-time enlistments that were occurring. I believe putting American Strategic Victory/British Tactical Victory would be acceptable in the info box. dashiellx (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Remember though, as Kevin Myers pointed out to me in another discussion: "In any content dispute on Wikipedia, the very first question that must be answered is: What do the published secondary sources say? A common mistake Wikipedia editors make is to think that they should analyze the evidence and come to a conclusion, but that's original research and not allowed here. I'm not saying that's what either of your are doing; I'm just saying that finding out exactly what the sources say is the next step in resolving the question, rather than asking for other opinions. What does Fischer say? How does Ketchum characterize the outcome? If the battle was a "pyrrhic British victory", which historians have called it this? Discuss the sources rather than the evidence." Kevin is right. We cannot analyze this ourselves, we must figure out what the consensus of historians have said. Per the five I quoted above (and the only ones I have access to at the moment), this is an American victory. Even the britishbattles.com reference states (paraphrased), "draw, but some benefit for Americans". There is no historian that has said "a complete indecisive battle, a total draw" and there is no historian that has said, "American strategic victory", etc. We are drawing our own conclusions by doing this, and that is against Wikipedia policy. In the body of the article, we can obviously explain that it was mostly indecisive and only had limited morale benefits for the Americans, but when it comes right down to it, we have multiple Pulitzer historians above (McCullough, Fischer) stating, almost unequivocally, that this was an American victory. Tan | 39 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC) From poking around on google books I am finding a few sources that show it as a delaying action, so, I have to admit, I'm leaning towards an American victory. The real issue is that this is a minor skirmish in a much larger series of maneuvers so most mentions of it span a whopping two sentenced. Narson (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Tan, bating me into an argument isn't going to work, sorry. British battles does not say it was a gain for the Americans. I'll copy the exact quote: "An inconclusive fight which revived American morale but had no particular benefit for either side". Disregarding Tan's false statement based on a claim on the result of spamming my talk page, I believe we could call this battle a "British victory overall, American psychological victory", in terms of the American morale boost as they were not instantly routed. (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) Personal attacks aside, I quoted above exactly what you did from britishbattles.com (can you explain how this is as reliable a source as a History Pulitzer winning book?) and then stated a paraphrase from it. If you disagree with my paraphrase, that's fine, I respect that. However, from the consensus of reliable sources I have quoted, I would say the consensus is for an American victory. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of published historians. "Baiting" you into an argument is apparently the only method that gets you to discuss the issue, instead of just ignoring my question on your talk page, deleting it without a response, and making the controversial edits anyways. For the record, here and here are the edits where you simply deleted my "spam"; apparently this constitutes the "false claim" I made. Others can make up their own mind about how agreeable you are to work with on building an encyclopedia via Wikipedia policy. I have no idea why you are so combative about this; I haven't even changed this yet without a consensus on this discussion. Tan | 39 22:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Tan, you are clearly over-reacting. I hardly think adding a couple of flags and nations into the Belligerents section and deleting a few words is hardly warrant enough for a massive online discussion. If it was so then every talk page would be filled with "Can I add a flag to this battle?" or "I think "pyrrhic victory for the Romans should be removed" and so on. I hardly call those controversial edits. What would be a controversial edit is if I edited something like the Saratoga campaign as a Decisive British success, and re-wrote every article as a British victory. That would be controversial, not adding a couple of flags, something which does not need a discussion. Also, pugnacious and vindictive attitude aside Tan, as I have said, baiting me into an argument is not going to work. I will willingly discuss any matter, but not if it is so petty as to adding a couple of flags to a belligerents section on the military engagements infobox. The fact that you technically re-wrote what was on the Britishbattles site to nod to an American victory is a false mark on history. Both sides withdrew, so neither side held the ground that was attacked. All of the sources I put on here before they were deleted by red, all point to a draw. Argument baiting and the attitude aside, I believe we should edit this to what I stated above: "British victory overall, American psychological victory". (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) You didn't merely add flags, you changed the belligerent from "Continental Army" to "US", which is, well, wrong. You are using britishbattles.com as your end-all-be-all reference and COMPLETELY ignoring the four that I quoted. It's pretty clear that you and I (well, you and anyone, considering the other comments on your talk page) are not going to get along on here, so perhaps we should steer clear of each other. However, when you start making blanket, undiscussed changes to a dozen battle articles in a WikiProject that I participate in, I'm not going to stand by. I start with a mild comment on your talk page, then a second, but when you dismiss me as "spam" without a reply, it's going to escalate into something like this. Tan | 39 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Well in that case, the Siege of Yorktown needs some editing doesn't it? I mean, that has United States on it so it must be seriously wrong. Also, rather than bashing new members to Wikipedia, how about you set a good example and give advice instead of placing sarcastic hints into your comments like an experienced wiki-goer is supposed to do? If United States is wrong, here is some pages that will require some serious editing: Siege of Yorktown, Battle of Eutaw Springs, Battle of Green Spring, Battle of Hobkirk's Hill, Battle of Guilford Courthouse, Battle of Cowan's Ford, Battle of Cowpens, Battle of Camden .... need I go on? (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) Yep, haven't got to them yet, but yer right, they need to be worked on. Harlem Heights was just my next logical project after Kips Bay. Tan | 39 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) How's about as a good gesture of good will and putting this petty bickering aside, I go through and give you a hand, editing them to British Army and Continental Army as such where required? (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) I believe it is an American victory for a few reasons. 1. I have found 4 references saying it was an American Victory. 2. The British suffered heavier casulties than the Americans. 3. It was undoubtedly an American Moral victory. What is up now is a good short term solution, but we will need to make a decision here sometime soon.(Red4tribe (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) The one thing I would say is that casualties are not the sole thing to be looking at. There are quite a few battles where the victor incured more casualties, especially in siege or situations where there is an obvious attacker/defender and any kind of preperations. Narson (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I would like to discuss the term belligerent. I believe that belligerent refers to the overall opposing parties (i.e. United States and Great Britain) not to the forces they employed. I have stated a discussion on the Main Talk Page of the American Revolutionary War task force hoping for some other opinions as I think this does need clarification. dashiellx (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Just because the British suffered heavier losses that does not mean it is an American victory. If that is the case, the British won the War of 1812 and the Germans won World War 2. Both sides retreated, so it was nothing more than a overall draw, but the fact that the Americans did not retreat instantly, means this battle should be a psychological victory for the Americans. I have more than four references stating that it was a draw, but I really don't think it is down to a bunch of people squabbling to dictate history. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Generally, not always, when one side suffers heavier losses, they lose the battle. However, in this battle I do believe it was a huge moral victory(as said above) and with the heavier losses on the British side=American Victory. (Red4tribe (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Remember that it is not up to us to decide, analyze, or interpret this. We have to use the consensus of published historians. Right now, we're running 4-1, more or less, on referenced material stating that this was an American victory, albeit a minor one. Again, I have zero vested interest in this - I just finished a 4x major expansion of a battle where the Brits demolished the Americans - don't think this is a personal thing. It's history, not a sport. Trip Johnson, if you have four references there that say this was a draw (I assume one of them is Britishbattles.com), can you cite them here (with quotes) in this discussion, as I did with mine above? It's really hard to give ephemeral references any weight... Tan | 39 14:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the term belligerent. I believe that belligerent refers to the overall opposing parties (i.e. United States and Great Britain) not to the forces they employed.

I have stated a discussion on the Main Talk Page of the American Revolutionary War task force hoping for some other opinions as I think this does need clarification. dashiellx (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I happened to talk a glance at what was written about the battle in other languages, and all of the ones that had an outcome written had an American victory. And it appears at the moment, as tan said, we are running 4-1 for an American Victory. (Red4tribe (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

That does not mean you can alter the result. No consensus yet, so do not change it. For the record, here is some sources which state the battle as a draw, or implications that it was a draw:

< This article states that Washington ordered his army to withdraw
< Same as the above
< states the battle as a draw
< states the battle as a draw
< states the battle as a draw. I think it is time we reached an agreement on this. I think the best course of action we can opt for, is "American withdrawal, British troops hold the ground but suffer heavier casualties, American psychological victory, tactically and strategically indecisive". (Trip Johnson (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

It clearly means that many more people believe it was an American Victory. You seem to be too stubborn to accept that. Yes, I have read your references, and take a look at this

The importance of this action for the Americans was that it was the Virginia militia who had fled the British the day before who fought steadily and effectively alongside the Northern Rangers, going a long way to restoring the confidence of the American army in itself.

It restored great confidence in the American Army. To me, that, with the combination of heavier British losses, makes it an American Victory.

(Red4tribe (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't care what you think. That quote does not warrant a tactical or strategic victory. BOTH SIDES WITHDREW FROM THE FIELD. It was overall a draw, but an American PSYCHOLOGICAL victory. Until we reach an agreement, it STANDS. (Trip Johnson (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Appears someone is losing their temper here....you cannot seem to face the fact that it was an American victory, and you will be to stubborn to ever accept anything else, so I really see no point in any type of agreement with you here. Prehaps this is new to you but you do not have full reign over wikipedia.

Now, for everyone else whos mind is flexible enough to accept changes here is why I believe it is an American victory

1.I have a number of reliable references(if you wish for me to list them just ask)
2.The British suffered heavier losses
3.It was a great moral list, it showed the Americans could fight against the British
4.Every other language here says its an American Victory
5.This battle prevented the British from driving up into the Hudson Valley

Now, other than trip, we all seem to agree it is an american victory, not a decisive victory, or a very important battle, but still an american victory. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Judging from your partisan opinions, my guess is you are an ultra-patriotic, hardcore American who believes that every battle in which the British suffered more casualties and because of a few AMERICAN websites calling it an American victory it makes it so. Since neither side held the ground, there is a draw. If the British suffered heavier casualties, that warrants World War 2 an Axis victory, the War of Independence and 1812 a British victory etc. Casualties is not a ground for victory. It was clearly a draw, as neither side held the ground, that just can't seem to go through that thick blinded patriotic naive skull of yours. A psychological victory yes, but not a tactical or strategic one. I have given you that it is a psychological victory, and altered it to be so. Now, are you going to waste your life arguing or are you going to do something amazing and leave this be? (Trip Johnson (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm maybe I'm wrong but isn't British Battles(and maybe the others, i'll have to look again) a British site? As I have said before,(and you convienently left out) that suffering heavier casulties generally, not always, means a victory. I would be willing to bet that more than half of the time when a side suffers heavier casulties, they lost the battle. And once again, I will have to tell you that I am not a native born American.....yes I do live in America now(I'd also be willing to bet that your not American), but I was not born here nor did I go to school here. If it was "clearly" a draw why do 3 others here seem to agree with me when you seem to be alone in a corner? Look at the other pages in other languages. They claim an American victory. You, as I have said before, are too stubborn to accept anything else and there is no way I will be able to change your mind. I am not the only one you seem to have a problem with, I have looked through your past versions of your talk page and found you have had other disagreements escalate into ridiculous arguments such as this one has. You need to stop your babelling nonsense and go edit something you know about. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Have you two considered that if there are conflicting opinions about it (As you get in history) perhaps trying to find clarity in a one line answer in an infobox is a bad idea? It seems that with all the references both sides are gathering, there is potential for a section looking at the different (cited) reasons for the various claimed results. Why would the Americans claim it is a victory? What do sources say was the import of the troops standing? Why would the British be happy to take a few more casualties? Because New York is important? Is there a cite somewhere that says New York was an important British stronghold (Hint: Yes there are plenty)? Providing you can source the reasons (that is very important in these kinds of paragraphs, it has to be others reasons, not your own) it could make for an interesting read on a page about a small skirmish. If that was the case, you could just replace the infobox result with 'Disputed (See this section for details)'. Avoids the argument and gets you two working together towards what could be a very interesting paragraph providing the sources are there, and you two do seem to be proving there are indeed sources that claim victories for various sides for various reasons. Narson (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite my following of the request of listing references, I listed 5 which either implies or clearly states the battle as a draw, they continue to be ignored and the battle result edited, so I clearly think that my sources are being deliberately ignored just to suit an American victory. I have changed the result to "American and British withdrawal" to state that both sides withdrew, and "American Psychological victory" as well as "overall indecisive". This result should be fitting for both sides, including you red, as the result box does not now need to be flooded with thousands of references, all the same references I might add. This should be fitting now, so please, leave it alone and let's end this godforsaken edit war. (Trip Johnson (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Well, Red, I am glad we have finally reached a consensus here on the Battle of Harlem Heights, but I can foresee future engagements on the result grounds of White Plains, which you keep editing to an American victory, when it was clearly not, as the Americans withdrew, leaving Fort Washington open to an attack, the Battle of Trenton which you keep editing to a Decisive engagement, when it wasn't, it was Resounding at the best, and the Battle of Princeton which you keep editing to a solid American victory. Many, including administrators may consider these edits as vandalism, so we should leave these as the following:
Battle of Harlem Heights: American withdrawal, American psychological victory
Battle of White Plains: British tactical victory, American withdrawal
Battle of Trenton: Resounding American victory
Battle of Princeton: Tactically Indecisive, American strategic victory.
I hope that you can agree, and that these result statements be left alone. (Trip Johnson (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

References

An American Victory

This was obviously a huge moral victory for the Americans after the collapse at New York, it also stalled the British advance into the Hudson Valley. The British also had more deaths and wounded. (SaudiArabia44 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

While I am reluctant to wade back into this fray until I am sure Trip Johnson has left the building, and while I appreciate your input into this, Saudi, I think that it should be pointed out that all of our opinions are essentially moot. This entire debate should not be consensus-building of our own personal opinions of the outcome of this battle; the debate should be a building of consensus from references. What is published? What do significant historians say? That is what I pointed out way above, and something valuable I learned from Kevin Myers. You and I aren't here to analyze the data and formulate a conclusion. Tan | 39 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm so sorry for disagreeing with your opinions Tan. I didn't realise I had to follow the false information around here. You want to know why I'm difficult to work with? Because I'm not a sheep thats why. I don't follow other opinions, If I don't like them. So, again, sorry for not agreeing with your opinions, but hey, deal with it. I think this could be done to be left as it is. If you don't like to work with me, fine. I aint going to lose sleep over it. That is no justification for talking about me wherever you please and trying to bait me into an argument, to try and get me banned. And for god's sake casualties is NOT a grounds for victory. Saying the Americans won this battle because they suffered less casualties is like saying Germany won both World Wars because they suffered less losses in both wars. (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm afraid the usage of websites to resolve this has provided an inaccurate result. An exhaustive query of books available online found 19 in favor of "American Victory", and 2 in favor of "British Victory", discounting a few essays, genealogies, and dictionaries. As these 21 sources each have drawn from 5-8 sources on the New York campaign, it is fairly clear at this point that the idea of a British victory is along the lines of WP:FRINGE. If another editor is able to produce an equal amount of reliable sources (Not "Myrevolutionywar.com" etc.), I would support changing the outcome to draw. Until then, it is unnecessary to mention the victory was psychological in the infobox, that is for the text of the article to accomplish. MrPrada (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Per your latest change, Trip Johnson, can you show where this consensus is? Reading this admittedly exhaustive argument here, it seems that you were the one making the claim of "American withdrawal, American psychological victory" and wouldn't accept any other answer. It appears that all the other editors (including me) basically just gave up arguing with you. Is this the consensus you are claiming? Tan | 39 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally like to recommend that Trip Johnson VERY CAREFULLY read WP:CIVIL, especially the section on "Engaging in incivility." This recent edit summary is completely inappropriate, and I think an apology to MrPrada is in order. Alphageekpa (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, so if you wish to delete my account, go ahead. I couldn't care less. I would rather spend more time in real life than argue with a bunch of total thickheads who claim to be mature editors. So do it, because to be frank, I don't give a damn. I think what this place needs is a total wash over, because whenever I disagree with an admin's opinions I get reported for vandalism. Its just biased favouritism for wanting to downplay British victories / draws in this war. I provide sources, they get removed, but do the admins do anything about it? No of course they don't because they're too damn lazy to do anything about it. But when its me doing something the admins are gloating their authority around, pretending to sound mature by giving me "formal warnings". And if you people here can't see that, then you're more ignorant than I took you for.(Trip Johnson (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Coming here for the first time, and reading some of the history of this discussion, I tend to agree that the various significant published viewpoints (the measure in WP:NPOV) characterize this battle as an "american victory". I don't find significant use of the term "american psychological victory" at all, or similar qualified representations. I do see some use of "tactical draw" to qualify the immediate result. I suspect those are viewing the battle independent of the larger situation. In a narrow point of view, the battle surely was a minor victory at best and a stalemate by immediate measures and also a verification that the american army was no match for the british overall. but from the larger perspective, it seems characterized as a victory. Since the infobox "result" entry is merely a place to summarize — and the article is the place to qualify in great detail what the tactical outcome was compared to the strategic — I think the result should be "american victory" in line with the larger context summation in sources. But the article should and does go into the greater detail and the result as per the individual battle and any other views. In terms of additional citations, I find american / u.s. victory used in these papers as well:

• Hood, Clifton. (2004) An Unusable Past: Urban Elites, New York City's Evacuation Day, and the Transformations of Memory Culture Journal of Social History - Volume 37, Number 4, Summer 2004, pp. 883-913
• Keller, Allan (1971) THE BATTLE FOR NEW YORK American History Illustrated 1971 6(4): 4-11, 44-49 14p.

also, I found that US President James Monroe was "appointed a lieutenant in the Third Virginia Regiment and participated in numerous engagements; severely wounded in the Battle of Harlem Heights" from the source: U.S. Congress, Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1949 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950), p.1576. Would anyone like to add that notable mention in both this article and his article? - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... can't find any other citations backing up the wounded note, perhaps that directory from 1950 really meant Battle of Trenton when he took a bullet in the shoulder? Not finding second citations to back it up. there do seem to be other citations though implying that harlem heights was monroe's first command and perhaps first major combat action in the third virginia regiment. So there might be something worth mentioning in there with more research. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Monroe (a lieutenant at the time) was wounded in the (first) Battle of Trenton, per David McCullough in 1776. This is sort of confirmed by Middlekauf in Washington's Crossing; he "served with distinction" at the Battle of Harlem Heights and White Plains but was still on active duty in November 1776, etc. In fact, Monroe is one of the prominent figures in Leutze's Crossing the Delaware! I agree this should go in the article, though. As all the recent drama in this arena seems to have died down, I plan to finish my contributions to the Landing at Kip's Bay article soon - and this one was the next (chrono)logical article to work on. If you or some other editor hasn't added Monroe's participation by then, I'll put it in. Tan | 39 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to hate on consensus or anything, or get another huge debate going, but reading that the Americans withdrew was a huge surprise, as everything else in the article says the Americans won. Did the British pursue the withdrawing Americans and retake the ground they had lost? Regardless of definition, withdrawing cannot be considered a true tactical victory. The article says "This instead infuriated the Americans who galvanized to hold their ground. " in the intro, when in reality, to my understanding, they didn't ultimately hold their ground. However insignificant in the whole scheme of things it seems, the fact that the Americans withdrew should be mentionned in the intro. Just my thoughts. M.Nelson (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically the Americans did hold their ground. The Americans held their own against the initial British attack, so they held their ground against the first wave. The British withdrew as the Americans had the high ground, and the Americans only withdrew when Cornwallis advanced up with a much larger number of troops than could be fought by Washington. This is where the big debacle comes in over the result; was it a draw because there wasn't really any clear victor, or was it a British victory because the Americans withdrew or was it an American victory because the British attack into New York was blunted? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

The battle was a Draw, the British found themselves attacked on 3 sides and began their retreat. Under persistent attack, the British retreated to a field in the Hollow Way. The fighting continued for an hour until the imminent arrival of more British forces caused Washington to call his troops back. The number of troops grew to nearly 5,000 on each side as the British were pushed back. Washington called off the attack after 6 hours because the Americans were not ready for a general engagement with the full British army. Nothing Strategic or Tactical was gained out of this skirmish so therefore can be called indecisive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your POV on the battle does not really compare to that of an historian like Edward Lengel. He, in the book(I have it) specifically says it was an American victory. I have other books that concur with what he says. The source says it was an American victory and thus, it should be left as such.-Kieran4 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're an American patriot, but I'm sorry patriotism cannot get in the way of historical facts, and the facts are that the Virginia Militia retreated back to Washington at the end of the day, there was no Benefit on either side thus leaving it indecisive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not serious. I have not interest in making this article anything other than accurate. The source says it was an American victory. Do not revert it unless you find multiple sources contradicting it. I have many, many sources which cite it as an American Victory. If you don't have any sources, you have no argument.-Kieran4 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, I lined this article up for GA review earlier this evening, but was called away from the computer before I had quite finished the review and now see that the article has been passed by someone else. Although I respect their review, I did have some comments on the article that the editors may find helpful.

• "British troops made a tactical error by sounding a fox hunt bugle call while in pursuit, meant to insult the Continentals, who were in orderly retreat. This instead infuriated the Americans who galvanized to hold their ground. After flanking the British attackers, the Americans slowly pushed the British back. After the British fled, Washington had his troops end the chase. The battle went a long way to restoring the confidence of the Continental Army after suffering several defeats." - a number of problems here: 1) state at the start of the sentence when the British made the error (e.g. early or late in the battle). 2) "meant" isn't quite right in the context, I think "intended" would be better 3) "who galvanized": at the very least it should be "who were galvanized", although I'm not convinced by the word galvanized here (perhaps "turned and held their ground" is a better way of putting it) 4) There is no mention in the article at all of the British fleeing, withdrawn is a much better word to use (unless they actually did flee, in which case it should be clearly stated in the article) 5) "a long way" is a bit colloquial, perhaps "helped" or "aided"
• "After a month without any . . ." do you mean after the battle? If so, say so.
• "defeats, at White Plains and Fort Washington. After these two defeats," - try to vary the words used, in this example, the "defeats" appear too close to one another. This problem recurrs throughout the article.
• I'd like to see a little more background at the start of the background section: how old was the war at this point and who, if any one was winning at this stage. I know the British objective is mentioned in the lead, but conisider repeating it in greater detail in this section.
• "flee at the sight of the enemy, and even with Washington's arrival on the scene they refused to obey orders and continued to flee." - try "fall back" instead of one of the "flees"
• "retreat. The retreat" - make one of the "retreats" a "withdrawal"
• "2nd and 3rd Battalions" - of what? you haven't named the regiment that fought Knowlton.
• "too far away" - you mean "far enough away"
• Although OK for GA, the writing of the battle is a little simplistic: who made the crucial decisions at each stage (i.e. the attack on the British on the hilltop?), How many seperate attacks were made on the positions the British withdrew to and what happened in them (its says the British "held out" on the hill, but against what?), under what weather conditions was the battle fought? etc.
• "buckwheat Field." - misplaced capital
• I mean no offence, but the sentence that ends "the troops gave a loud "hurra" and left the field in good order." reads a lot like the work of a rebel propagandist - who says so and where exactly?
• Aftermath seems very incomplete: how is the battle commemorated today and how has it been commemorated since? Memorials, events renactments etc. What is the battlefield like today? How was the defeat received in Britain? How in America outside the army?

Although this is quite a long list, it would not all have been essential in my GA review. There are however some quite serious problems that should be addressed very soon. In summary, a decent article but not a "Good" one quite yet in my opinion. That said, I respect the review and have no plans to challenge it, these suggestions are given solely for the future improvement of the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Info boxes, and wastes of time

For years Narson and I have worked on the War of 1812 and tried to get as much straight as we could. Far too much time has been taken up by a one liner in an info box. Folks very little can be ascertained by an info box, the War of 1812 is perhaps one of the best points where 3 nations had major changes in outlooks to one another, major alliances formed where none existed before, and Modern Canada arose from the ashes of that war, yet all anyone wants to talk about is an outcome in an info box... Perhaps we all need to grow up a little and start seeking to really improve the articles and the citations and give the public the beauty of knowledge this project has always promised to be.Tirronan (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How can this be an American victory if....

The battle of Monmouth is a 'long term American victory'? They were both rear-guard actions, the British fought a successful rear guard at Monmouth, Washington fought a successful rear-guard here. The Americans evenutally took the ground at Monmouth, the British took the ground here. So either the result on the Monmouth page is wrong, or this page is wrong. Ben200 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A fair point. The action at Harlem Heights was a check to the British advance up Manhattan. It didn't prevent the British occupation of New York (for the next six years or so) and it didn't stop Washington from abandoning Manhattan and withdrawing towards White Plains. Nor, clearly, did it destroy Washington's army as an effective force or bring about the capitulation of the Continental Congress. Those are examples of the possible fruits if either side had been able had been to claim victory. Instead, the action was INCONCLUSIVE.

The American troops may have enjoyed a boost to their moral after successfully withstanding an attack by crack British infantry- which they already done at Brooklyn (their generals had let them down there)- and indeed they had exploited the enemy's over-confidence and forced them to make a tactical withdrawal- but on the other hand the Americans had lost a popular and effective battlefield commander in Knowlton which should also be factored into the moral calculation.

Britain managed to construct a moral victory out of the evacuation at Dunkirk - and are doing so still- but it nevertheless it followed a complete and utter defeat- and before anyone gets upset, there the parallel with Harlem Heights ends (although arguably Long Island/Brooklyn was Dunkirk in microcosm). JF42 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ILLUSTRATION

Is there no better illustration available than this wildly anachronistic print showing the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment wearing Crimean War-era uniforms from the mid-C19th? Their headgear is also on the wrong way round.JF42 (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Map- "The Battle of Harlem Heights"

Apart from being captioned "The Battle of Harlem Heights" and having the area of Harlem Heights marked in small print in the extreme upper right hand corner of the box, I am unclear as to why the map currently included. It can't be considered an aid to understanding the battle. Surely there are more detailed maps of the battle area available.

Would this one be serviceable:

https://archive.org/stream/battleofharlemhe00john#page/n97/mode/2up >  ?

By the way the links below are 'orphans' and the last two are dead.

JF42 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed re: troop numbers in battle

Could someone with access to sources please check the troop numbers given in the article and infobox? An IP editor changed the infobox figures, upping the numbers of American troops to 9,000, versus 5,000 British troops. That seems to match the figures in the article as it stands; but older versions of the article (for example, this) had 1,800 Americans versus 5,000 British, both in the article and its infobox. This revision increased the American forces to 9,000 in the lead, though not in the infobox. The issue is not clarified by a close reading of the lead or the article itself. Haploidavey (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The 5000 troops on the British side, as entered in the info box, is the figure cited by David Mcullough and would seem to be wildly inflated, perhaps more accurately reflecting the British troops available in the section of the British line closest to where the action unfolded, or indicating the total number that Washington risked having to deal with if he allowed his men to advance further south.

Johnston, still the most thorough commentator, though hardly objective, stated that the British troops engaged at the height of the battle were, numerically somewhat inferior to our forces. I don't believe he suggests how many that might in fact have been. Given that the force holding the American attack comprised elements of two Light infantry battalions (at most), the 42nd Highlanders (with one 'wing' back in reserve) and a detachment of yagers, that seems a reliable computation. Black Watch sources cite six or seven hundred light infantry, four companies of the 42nd (perhaps 400) and the yagers. That might come to about twelve hundred men.

JF42 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I hesitate to comment on the contents of the information panel which seems to absorb a disproportionate amount of energy on this page, but the figures for the numbers engaged are badly skewed; as are those on the accompanying map. McCullough, the cited source, cannot be relied on here. While there may have been 5000 troops available on the British left had a general action ensued, there were not 5000 British troops involved in the skirmish of 16th Sept. A comparitive figure for the Americans would include at least the forward brigades on Harlem Heights. As pointed out above, Johnson calculates the British engaged were "numerically somewhat inferior" to the Americans deployed on the buckwheat field, drawn from the units listed above. Washington sensible pulled his troops back before they found themselves drawn into a more serious encounter.

Returning to the map, what is the function of the phrase 'Chasing Feint' which dominates the map?

JF42 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Adjustment of narrative

The narrative in most recent edits was still seriously out of kilter with reference to the sequence laid out by Johnson, the cited source. I have adjusted that, and I believe made the narrative more concise and clearer in relation to the geography. THere are still gaps in the timeline relating to the end of the first phase of the running fight in the woods and the start of Washington's attempted flanking manoeuvre. JF42 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Info box 2018: Numbers engaged; Casualties

The information box evidently remains unresolved. The current information re. numbers involved is misleading, and that for casualties incoherent

The figures shown for the American army reflect the estimated number of troops that were gathered in the main exchange of fire in the buckwheat field. The figure of 5000 for the British represents a generous estimate of the troops that might have been available had the Reserve and all the German troops come up and been engaged. It does not represent the number of British troops engaged at the height of the action on the heights (probably three battalions at most and the jägers). A comparable figure for the American side would include troops remaining in Washington's lines. Analysis of the units known to have been directly engaged supports Johnson's conclusion that the number of British engaged was slightly less than the Americans confronting them.

The numbers for casualties are also misleading. It is not consistent to show the estimated figures of American casualties as if they are a proven fact and then enter figures for British casualties so wildly variant as to be meaningless. Moreover, the figure '92–390 killed and wounded' does not match any figures in the main text, which undrmines the authority of the article. All that can be derived from the figure '92-390' is that the figures are disputed and it might be better simply to state that.

With regard to the sources cited, it's not clear where McCullough's figures come from, although inflated estimates were recorded on both sides. The article in Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, a comprehensive revision of Boatner's Biographical Dictionary of the American War of Independence 1763–1783 quotes, with reservations, Howe's reported estimate of 92 British casualties and then categorically states, without explanation, "the toll was 14 killed and 154 wounded." The source for this figure seems to have been taken from Kemble's diary entry (which reports 16 dead including two officers mortally wounded and 157 wounded).

Johnson's calculation of British casualties - 14 killed and 157 wounded- reflects Kembles diary entry more accurately (although he mislaid the two mortally wounded). As this calculation is used as the source for American casualties in the information box,if it is felt necessary to offer concrete numbers where none exist, it would be sensible and consistent to use Johnson's figures for the British side as well.

I suggest that the place to explore inconsistencies in casualties reported should be in the main text, not in the information box.

JF42 (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) JF42 (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

an early glimmer of the courage and resolve

I have been reflecting on this quotation from Lengel. Washington's response may have been astute but deciding to exploit the mistake of the British patrol for the benefit of boosting his troops' morale at little risk, while perfectly sensible, does not seem to demonstrate to any great extent the qualities to which Lengel refers. Washington showed more resolve in the withdrawal from Brooklyn, and more courage, to the point of recklessness, trying to stem the rout in the face of the British advance the previous day. This quotation risks being unduly flattering towards Washington and does not add to our understanding of the battle. JF42 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Note JF42's deletion. Shenme (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Bias in the article?

I've just come across this article and it seems heavily slanted towards the US version of events. Is there some sort of co-ordinated effort going on here or is there a lack of sources for the British side? Thanks! digital_me (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you illustrate what you mean by "seems heavily slanted", giving examples and a breakdown of what the article should contain in order to present an overall neutral point of view?. I have watched this article for several years and I don't share your perceptions of bias or imbalance, at least not overall. Many episodes in history are better represented or described by one side (usually the winners) than by the other. Haploidavey (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)