Talk:Pitched battle

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What succeeded pitched battles

A historical perspective would be interesting. What is the first documented pitched battle? What came after? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-b (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish?

There are multiple references (and a link) to the term skirmish, but how it is being used has nothing to do with how it is defined on the linked page. It seems to me that meeting engagement more closely matches in meaning how the word "skirmish" is being used in this article (as in "a chance encounter").

REggert (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word skirmish existed long before skirmishers the first reference is 1374 and the most recent reference the OED has is 1601 and a definition of "An irregular engagement between two small bodies of troops, esp. detached or outlying portions of opposing armies; a petty fight or encounter. Also occas. without article, as a mode of fighting." --PBS (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18 November 2008

I made a large edit a relatively large edit to this article today.

These edits were made for a number of reasons.

I put back the wording of the original sentence because the wording is IMHO more elegant and says the same thing.
I removed "and are sometimes referred to as duels on a larger scale. " because I don't know who would call them a duel but is a metaphoric and not a literal meaning. The battle of Warterloo may have been a dual between Napoleon and Wellington but although Wellington did fight a duel but it was on Battersea Park not down the road at Waterloo Station.
"Pitched battles are noted for lack of the element of surprise, ability to manoeuvre and lack of initiative available to either side." Well sometimes, but there are many many examples of where initiative, surprising tactics and ability to manoeuvre have won pitched battles.
"In military theory pitched battles are to be avoided, particularly by those troops that depend on the on the three above mentioned factors, such as insurgents." Well only if one things that pitched battles never involve initiative, surprising tactics and ability to manoeuvre. Also with insurgents it depends on the size of the insurgency.
"Pitched battles were however the preferred method of resolving a military campaign during the Renaissance and until the Franco-Prussian War because of the prevailing thinking that a decisive battle is to be sought as soon as possible." Yes it was the preferred method of some of the outstanding generals of history notably Marlborough and Napoleon, but one of the things that highlights Marlborough's career is that he was doing this during a time when most military campaigns were based on siege warfare.

--PBS (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of list

Would anyone else find the list of pitched battles more useful if it had some form of organization? Maybe it does and I'm not seeing it. But it's neither chronological nor alphabetical. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms? Etymology?

I don't think "set piece battle" is always synonymous with "pitched battle". The only source cited for that synonymy is a very old book. The Wikipedia entry on Set piece also doesn't agree. 188.27.81.59 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article should address the issue that the term "pitched battle" seems often to be used to mean "robust battles between highly-motivated combatants", which is an error (just as "begs the question" often gets used incorrectly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.46.2 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it's a pitched battle because it's set in a pitch, i. e. a battlefield, not because of other possible meanings of the word "pitch". Maikel (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that taking "pitched" to mean "set piece" is a bit of an obsession on wikipedia, and it does not sit right to my ear, and I suspect WP:UNDUE is in play. So, now I've just googled for etymologies and origins and it seem my personal conclusion has some basis. "Pitched battle" as been in use a long time and there is absolutely no consensus out there that "pitched" meant "set piece". I think it's more likely to have meant pitched as in historical word origins of pitchfork, pike, pit one against the other, pitch one against the other, and even ultimately fever pitch. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1880898 http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24605 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pitched-battle http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pitched%20battle?s=t Of course, what I think is likely is not important; however, there needs to be some pretty definitive citations added to justify the UNDUE that we see on umpteen battle pages on wikipedia. I would be open to hearing the idea that "it is how the word is used in military college", however, if that were true it would seem that there would be plenty of historical material to cite. Is it true? is there material? if not, it should receive the WP:UNDO <--pun treatment that Initialism got. 96.246.172.37 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This definition/article is just plain wrong

Pitched battle means "the two sides stand and fight each other". It does not include anything like "planned" or "chosen". Go to Google Books and search for "pitched battle". Look at all the various usages over the years, you will see that it simply means "battle each other" as opposed to harassing, raiding, seiging, etc. If two groups encounter each other by chance and fight, it is a pitched battle. 68.173.49.156 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like planned was an old sense of the word:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pitch?s=t "verb (used with object)... 13. Obsolete. to set in order; to arrange, as a field of battle."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pitched-battle?s=t

1. a battle in which the orderly arrangement of armed forces and the location have been predetermined.

2. an encounter in which the antagonists are completely and intensely engaged: "The dispute evolved into a pitched battle between management and labor."

(and further down that page, many usage example quotes stress the extremity over the chosen-ness

same page

British Dictionary definitions for pitched battle

3. a battle ensuing from the deliberate choice of time and place, engaging all the planned resources

4. any fierce encounter, esp one with large numbers

unfortunately, wikipedia is overrun with video gamers who "study" war, so words mean what they want them to mean, and the more archaic the better! 2601:183:102:BD3:C226:DE4:1EC1:FD4 (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever started this thread is contradicting himself/herself. Definition 3 points out "predetermined" means exactly "planned" or "chosen". A quick search on Google provides "a planned military encounter on a prearranged battleground". Again, it's planned, arranged, previously decided. I don't see any issue with the definition.

ICE77 (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring and New Content

Hello Wikieditors,

I will be adding several significant changes to this article over the next few weeks. Included are new sections to expand on content lacking in the article as well as an overhaul to the chronological ordering of the article. Sections that are soon to be added include the Middle Ages, Early Modern period, Modern period, and expansions to the World Wars section. I'm aiming to keep as much original content in as possible whilst fleshing out the scope of the article. New Images and info boxes will be added soon.

Cheers.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History wikiproject addition

Hello again all,

I am continuing to add edits and new content. I have now also linked the History Wikiproject .

Battle of Cannae date

Hi all,

The new image for the header is an excellent depiction of the tactical deployment of the battle. However, it features the wrong date. The battle was fought during 216BC not 215. Would a different image be useful, or perhaps an amendment in the description of the image? Cheers.