Talk:Battle of Fredericksburg

Date and place

The date and place info in this article isn't the same as on this site. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 22:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Casualties Inaccurate

The number of casualties in the War Box and the text of the article disagree by at least an order of magnitude. Guapovia 10:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a minor error in the text's Confederate figure, but perhaps you're confusing casualties with killed. Casualties = men lost due to death, serious wounds, and captured/missing. ACW articles rarely dwell only on actual deaths. Hal Jespersen 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the same error that was noted and "fixed" 13 years ago, but the article says the Union had more than three times the casualties of the Confederates. In none of the various categories for comparison in the text box do the Union numbers exceed 3x the Confederate numbers, so without knowing what was included in the ambiguous category of "casualties" this claim fails on the basis of the distributive property of mathematics. Or else the stats in the box are wrong. It's certainly true that some Civil War stats, especially from the Confederate side, can be debatable. But if that's the case, the article should acknowledge that in providing a range in the stats box and in adding qualifiers to the 3x claim in the text. Either way, the text and box should not be in such obvious mathematical disagreement. Ftjrwrites (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The troop strength differs between the text number and the number in the war box. Ctifumdope 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Most sources seem to agree on the Union losses being in the 12,500 range. My original 4,201 figure for the CSA came from official Army of Northern Virginia reports, but it may be too low. Confederate officers often didn't report minor battle wounds on their reports at all. Most sources have about what the article says now. As for the troop strength, Lee had just over 72,000, everyone agrees on that. For the Army of the Potomac, it depends on whether or not you count the men Burnside never brought over the river. user:Jsc1973

Added: Quote

I've added the quote said by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain after the war. 65.255.130.104 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)VonR

Oops, I reverted that change without providing an explanation in the edit history. Sorry, I will do it here. That quotation, provided without citation and poorly formatted, really has nothing to do with the aftermath of the battle. It may be more appropriate in Chamberlain's bio. Also, we don't do 'decisive.' See User:Hlj/adjectives. Hal Jespersen 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing reference: Sumner

Please add details/link for "Sumner". Assume you mean "Edwin Vose Sumner", but only his last name is used with no explanation or reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.53.179 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Effort vs Shaping Effort

I'd like some advice before making a change.

Nowadays we use the term "Main Effort" for the principal attack by a force and "Shaping Effort" for an attack which is to pin other enemy forces in place. The attack against Jackson was Burnside's Main Effort (altho' bungled orders denied it the force it needed to be successful) and the attack on Longstreet was the Shaping Effort. Where is a good place to put that in the article? CsikosLo (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When you say "we" I assume you are not talking about ACW authors, but about modern military writers. We generally avoid 20th/21st century military terminology unless the average civilian reader would be familiar with it. (I was in the Army for over 8 years and I never heard the term Shaping Effort that I can recall.) So I don't object to rewordings for clarity, but please find nonjargonistic ways to say it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I can find a way to do that. Wonder though, we do we use archaic terms rather than modern/current ones? I've encountered this before here and it still mystifies me. CsikosLo (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of too many 'archaic' terms in use, other than 'torpedo', but we always explain that. There are also fortification-related terms like redoubt, redan, etc., but there isn't much that can be done about those. The key stylistic test is whether a term appears in many of the numerous modern military history books not published by the DoD. Our potential readers are overwhelmingly not US military. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Penetration?

The article refers to a penetration on Jackson's front, making it appear that Meade broke through there, but that is not the case. Altho' Maxcy's Brigade was defeated, other forces (the term that comes to mind is secondary and tertiary defensive belts) were in place and were able to patch the hole in short order (altho' at some cost), most notably Early's Division but also D. H. Hill's, which was positioned along Mine Road. I'll take a look later at rewording that section when I have more time available, if someone else doesn't get to it first. CsikosLo (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Commanders

User 72.221.69.79 was been adding Longstreet & Jackson to the Conf. side of the infobox, as well as to the BoAnt, BoChanc, and others. Do we want this kind of expansion there? I we do the Union side should reflect this as well by adding key Corps commanders and such, and the list would be long and probably arbitrary in selection. What is the consensus? Kresock (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I have been reverting some of these changes before reading this Talk page. I guess my opinion should be apparent. :-) I think the only time we should have multiple commanders listed on a side should be those cases where isolated units from larger organizations were fighting. If two armies are generally engaged with each other, listing only the army commanders should be adequate, or we will be descending into editing hell putting entire orders of battle into the infoboxes. I am sure there are deviations from this already out there. (An example: the first battle I thought of that is an obvious exception is Battle of Perryville, where Alexander McCook's corps was the primary fighting element of Don Carlos Buell's army. So both of those guys are listed. On the Confederate side, I'm not sure why Leonidas Polk is listed in addition to Braxton Bragg. He probably should not be. Maybe it was simply to have a balance of names.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable firsts, etc.

I recently attended a talk about the Battle of Fredericksburg at Chatham Manor, the house across the Rappahannock which was used as a headquarters and hospital by the Union troops during the battle. The ranger mentioned that the battle was noteworthy for several reasons: it was one of the bloodiest urban battles in American history, if not the bloodiest; the building of the pontoon bridges marked the first time that troops attempted a bridging maneuver while under enemy fire (and as such could be considered a predecessor of the marine landings of World War II); and it was the first time that the civilian population of an American city was subjected to shelling. I had also heard that the Sunken Road was considered by some military historians to be a precursor of the trench warfare of World War I. I may have misremembered some of these, and of course an oral report isn't a reliable source. But if these are accurate, and if they've been noted by reliable sources (military historians, et al.), I think that these would be noteworthy additions to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on your first three points, but the fourth, shelling a populated US city, I have to believe the British hit some civilians (on purpose or not) during the American Revolution or in 1812. The natural trench at Antietam might be considered a precursor, just as are land mines, complicated entrenchments, ironclads, the turret, water torpedoes, subs in combat, etc. With more eyes on this, I bet examples and sources will be brought forward. Be patient, I guess! Kresock (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In my years fooling with Wikipedia, I have found it very difficult to sustain arguments about 'first', 'biggest', 'worst', 'bloodiest', etc. Few reputable secondary sources come out and say such things and counter-examples always show up. It is unclear what the real definition of "urban battle" is, for example. The real carnage at FB was south of town and at Marye's Heights, neither of which you'd consider urban. There was some shelling of the town, but few casualties resulted because almost everyone evacuated. If 'urban' means in or near a town, then Gettysburg was much bloodier. Although FB was one of the first instances of field fortifications playing a major role in defense in the war, it was not literally the first. Check out Battle of Fort Donelson or Second Battle of Corinth, two examples that spring to mind. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the superlative is debatable, it doesn't belong in the article. (That said, Marye's Heights was pretty close to the town proper, with scattered houses that can be seen in the Matthew Brady photographs of the battlefield.) Out of curiosity, what about the pontoon bridge water landing under fire, as compared to, say, Normandy and Iwo Jima? I realize I'm now heading into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, but I'm curious. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was that a few scattered houses might not be what people think of when the term 'urban combat' is used. Any attempt to compare the pontoon builders at FB to the amphibious landings at Normandy or Iwo Jima would be laughable and I would not advise it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the park ranger made that comparison and nobody laughed, but I'm sure you know the subject well enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

trenches

I have removed the uncited paragraph about traversed trenches. There is a description of this architecture in Piston's biography of Longstreet, Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant, but they make it clear that this is work done after the battle on the 35 mile long Rappahannock line. Hess's Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War also indicates that this post-battle line did not represent any innovation beyond designs that were already in the military literature of the time. Furthermore, the references I have about the battle indicate that the Confederate artillery was well protected, but the infantry did not construct elaborate earthworks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An Error Concerning John Pelham

The section regarding John Pelham has an error. It says that he held off the union with two canons, but really it was only one. One of John Pelham's canon broke very quickly, and the majority of his maneuvering was with a single canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.160.122 (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not an error exactly, just a short summary. Even his page offers this brief version, as does the book by Eicher (p. 400) in the references. However, I think I've read somewhere that he used only two guns to greatly slow Meade's force, then one was damaged by heavy Union artillery fire, leaving him with one, and he still continued to annoy their advance. Big, big balls on that young man! It might be from one of the Time-Life books or one of Catton's; I'll look into it. Perhaps another user can add to Pelham's account in the meantime, have patience. Kresock (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the difference is so significant in an article of this length, but I have updated the description. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Meade listed as a key commander?

He was the one who helped deal the majority of confederate casualties at Fredericksburg, and personally I've never heard of what Hooker did at Fredericksburg.--75.177.176.20 (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why you are referring to Hooker, but the commanders in the information box list only the army commanders, not selected subordinates. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to Hooker because he is listed as a key commander while Meade isn't. And what do you mean by selected subordinates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were referring to the list of commanders in the information box. The commanders in the picture gallery are the "grand division" commanders. They are there because of their positions, not value judgments about their contributions to the battle. More accurately titling the gallery "Army and Grand Division commanders" is a bit too lengthy. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish Brigade Casualties are wrong

The article states that the Irish Brigade lost over 50% of it's fighting force in the battle. I personally feel that over 50% is a very loose term, cause, as stated in the Irish Brigade Article: Battle of Fredericksburg where its fighting force was reduced from over 1600 to 256--Red Wiki 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have updated this article to include specific casualties, based on Meagher's returns in the OR (Gooolrick secondary source). The editors of the Irish Brigade article should reconsider (or at least cite their assertion). The only other reference I found to their brigade strength during this period referred to a very small number -- it might have been 256 -- at the end of February, but the Union Army suffered a significant number of desertions after Fredericksburg, and this might be a significant factor for this brigade. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hollow victory?

I see there is a dispute about the added paragraph:

Despite winning in the most overwhelming tactical sense, however, the Battle of Fredericksburg proved to be a hollow victory for the Confederates. The limitless resources of the North soon rectified Burnside's losses in manpower and materiel. Lee, on the other hand, found it difficult to replenish either missing soldiers or needed supplies. The Battle of Fredericksburg, although profoundly discouraging to Union soldiers and the Northern populace, made no decisive impact on the war. Instead, it merely postponed the next "On to Richmond" campaign until the spring.

This opinion is actually correct, but there are two problems with it in this article. First, a lament regarding a Confederate victory that turned out to be hollow because they eventually lost the war could actually be included in many of the battle articles about Lee, so it is not very valuable in this one. Second, although this article is not yet fully cited, this paragraph is obviously an opinion and should be accompanied by citations from secondary sources. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My rationale for questioning inclusion, exactly. Also, I think we can do better than copying verbatim the NPS text. Sswonk (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that, so thanks for catching it. (I thought it seemed well written.) We are trying to avoid plagiarism of that type. Although a number of articles still have some copied public domain text in them, is a good thing to root that out when we find it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, if that's the case then why don't one of you two write something similar to it. Since you happen to be "experts" in this field and always criticize whatever the I write, this seems to be a perfect solution.Red Wiki 23:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently in this case you didn't write anything yourself. But I have already given my opinion above about whether similar text should be included, even if properly cited. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said I wrote it. What I meant to say was that if I wrote something similar, you would just criticize it.--Red Wiki 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

With all due respect to a very good article that is very well researched and documented the issue of the quality of the victory is relevant. Many claim Fredericksburg is Lee's greatest achievement or amongst his greatest anyway. The mauling the Union took was painful but far from fatal - had the Army of the Potomac been trapped after a flanking maneuver it would have been quite different. The article ends a little abruptly with the lull and withdrawal part without examining why Lee (mistakenly or not) decided to forgo pressing an attack. The Union managed to extricate most of its troops and get away - with hardship certainly and leaving all manner of things behind but get away they did. This failure - and the same scenario at Chancellorsville - certainly contributed to hasten the moment that Lee would hit a wall when the North's greater resources started to tell: Gettysburg. I know this has been written about in quite a few academic publications but it is omitted is it worth digging this up or do you have a reason for not going into the reasons that made Lee fail to follow up? 81.164.98.215 (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Rowland Kirkland

Contained within the section "Aftermath" is a paragraph repeating the legend of "the Angel of Marye's Heights". While the other paragraphs in the section report on historical information following the battle, the Richard Rowland Kirkland paragraph only repeats the legend of a battlefield deed. The entry should be removed because it adds no verifiable useful information.Norwigger (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph carries a citation from Frank O'Reilly's definitive campaign study. If you have other citations indicating that this was merely a legend and not a fact, please provide them. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The details aren't compatible with the contemporary accounts and seem to be heavily embellished, though nobody actually seems to doubt Kirkland's personal heroism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Date on one diagram is off by a year

I notice that in one of the diagrams (specifically [[1]]), the year is wrong. Its legend says "Battle of Fredericksburg, Overview: 13 December 1863" when it means to say 1862. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.26.222 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Fixed. Thanks for catching. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix! Hank314 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

popular media

I have restored the deleted section "In popular media". I believe that the reference to WP:MILPOP was intended, as it states, to primarily suppress the trivial inclusion of weapon and equipment references. In contrast, many of the American Civil War articles include references to major motion pictures that depict applicable battles or generals, and these references are rarely abused as they apparently have been in other military history articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Fredericksburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130926073152/http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/va028.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/va028.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Fredericksburg. 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/20141006163936/http://www.usma.edu/history/SitePages/American%20Civil%20War.aspx to http://www.usma.edu/history/SitePages/American%20Civil%20War.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 01:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Fredericksburg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll be happy to review this article. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've done a quick first read and I think the article is interesting. There are no apparent grounds for immediate failure as I see no obvious evidence of copyvio and the article is stable – there have been just 100 edits in the last eighteen months and only two of those were at all significant. I'll commence detailed reading shortly and come back to this page as and when there's more to be said. I prefer to deal with minor fixes like typos, spelling, grammar and clarifications myself. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I should have added above that I'm impressed by the range and variety of images in the article, the credit for which goes to former editor User:Hlj. As far as I can tell, the majority are public domain and the rest are Hlj's own work. The maps he has created are very good. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary

I think I've seen enough now and I must fail the review because of verification issues. What typically occurs is that there is a multi-citation group at the end of a paragraph and I suppose that one of the components (or part of one) is the source for a given statement or quotation within the paragraph, but there is no certainty of that. An example of this syndrome is the last paragraph of the Movement to battle section which includes a lengthy quotation that is not directly cited, the paragraph ending with <ref>O'Reilly, pp. 51–52; Eicher, p. 398; Goolrick, pp. 39–40; Esposito, map 72; Marvel, pp. 169–70.</ref> There must be about thirty similar cases. Citations need to be added individually to the appropriate sentences, not presented in a block at the end of each paragraph. There are a few other paragraphs and statements which are completely uncited and I've flagged those.

Given the difficulty which these citation groupings present, I don't think it is worth placing the review on hold. I've decided to fail the review which is a shame because the article is fine in many other respects, especially the images. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)