Talk:Battle of Cowpens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plagiarism

I was just editing this article, and I found some plagarism. "Daniel Morgan knew both his men and his opponent" is a direct quote from a National Park Service article on Morgan found http://www.nps.gov/cowp/dmorgan.htm. sophysduckling

It's copied, not plagiarized. It's public domain--nothing was stolen.

Also it is too basic to be considered plagarism. Its a fact, not something that is copyrightable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to Cannae

I would like to delete this entire section, because it's so full of peackocking and sounds like hero worship. Civil Engineer III 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The goal of this strategy was to weaken and disorganize Tarleton's forces (which would be attacking the third line uphill) before attacking and defeating them.

Additionally, by placing his men downhill from the advancing British lines, Morgan exploited the British tendency to fire too high in battle

The above sentences appear in 2 consecutive paragraphs in the Cowpens article. They appear to be at odds with each other as to the position of the American forces. Were they uphill or downhill from the British? 170.97.167.61 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)68.48.66.107 (talk)

I think there is an interesting similarity to TWO of Hannibal's battles. The similarity to Cannae is so often noted that it's almost a cliche. However, the battle is also very similar to Hannibal's last battle at Zama in 202 BCE. Hannibal had three lines of troops, each composed of dissimilar units. Each of Hannibal's first two lines was not allowed to merge into the line behind it, but instead was forced to retreat to the flanks so as to stay out of the way of the line behind it. Morgan also used 3 lines. The first and second line were told to retreat to the left flank so as to stay out of the way of the line behind it.

The use of two of Hannibal’s battle plans is especially odd because Daniel Morgan was very poorly educated. While not much is known of his early life in New Jersey, when he arrived in Virginia after running away from home he could barely read and write. The man was a bar room brawler, not a classical scholar. To my mind, the similarity to two Punic War battles can’t be coincidence. Morgan must have known about them. The question is how did he know? USAF Nam Era Vet who reads a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.140.27 (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the comparison is trying to claim that Daniel Morgan was as good a tactician as Hannibal, or that Cowpens and Cannae should be held in the same regard as far as tactical handling of an army goes. It's just a comparison as there are similarities between the two. It doesn't mean that Daniel Morgan was educated on Hannibal and his tactics, only that the tactics they used happened to be quite similar. The fact he wasn't a learned man as far as reading and writing ability goes isn't that relevant. He could just as easily heard about it from others; this is after all the era where obsession with Ancient Rome was nearing its zenith. Everyone under the sun that was reaching great heights of power in the Western world were comparing themselves to the greats of Ancient Rome. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC))

Weapons Used

There is a total lack of description of the small arms used by both sides. The American Militia had their deer rifles, which took a relatively long time to load, but were accurate at a much greater range. The British had the fast loading, short range, smooth-bore Brown Bess, the Continentals, I believe had American Contract muskets, copies of the Brown Bess. So the tactic of the militia firing 2 shots, then retreating worked particularly well. Their first shot was loaded before the British were on the field. They were able to pick out individuals, rather than to just throw a bunch of lead in the general direction of the enemy. That is why so many British officers fell. They were targeted by accurate fire, while the Americans were still out of range of the B/Bess. The second shot was quickly loaded and that round also had devastating impact. But by then the British were within range of the Brown Bess, so the militia was more than happy to retreat. Their return was of course, after their loading a third shot. NotGrouchy highlander (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Continentals would have had a mix of smooth-bore muskets (stolen/found Queen Anne/Brown Bess, French Charleville muskets, Spanish or essentially anything they had on hand when they enlisted) and various types of colony-made rifles. There wasn't any major industry for making firearms in the Colonies (by design), so there wasn't the supply chain for an American-made standard musket during the ARW. Rifles were expensive, and the people that knew how to use them well were also valuable. Therefore, it would have been impractical to use them in the normal, formal lines of organized European armies of the day. Those Colonial or militia troops that lined up to face British regulars were almost all going to be using muskets; the riflemen were to the sides/rear, under cover, shooting at officers. America essentially invented this form of warfare by adapting techniques used by Native Americans against them.

The British would have used contract-made Queen Anne muskets, primarily of .75 calibre, with sergeants and officers using "fusils" that would have been smaller, lighter and of different calibres from 60, 62, or 69. The Brown Bess (Queen Anne musket) doesn't even have a rear sight; there was no aiming. The idea was to present a wall of fire that would devastate the enemy. Properly trained regulars would form a line three soldiers deep: first line kneeling, second line standing, third line reloading/preparing to move forward. First line fires, second and third lines move forward, second line kneels, first line moves to the rear to reload; repeat, creating a rolling fire barrage that killed in huge numbers.Grouchy highlander (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Retreat was a misunderstood order

The order by Howard was not meant for retreat but to turn slightly to the right to face the Highlanders. Because of the immense amount of noise on the battlefield, made worse by the bagpipes blowing, the troops began an orderly retreat. Here's what happened:

"Now Tarleton’s 71st Highlanders27, held in reserve, entered the charge toward the Continental line, the wild wail of bagpipes adding to the noise and confusion. A John Eager Howard order for the right flank to face slightly right to counter a charge from that direction, was, in the noise of battle, misunderstood as a call to retreat. As other companies along the line followed suite, Morgan rode up to ask Howard if he were beaten. As Howard pointed to the unbroken ranks and the orderly retreat and assured him they were not, Morgan spurred his horse on and ordered the retreating units to face about, and then, on order, fire in unison. The firing took a heavy toll on the British, who, by that time had sensed victory and had broken ranks in a wild charge. This event and a fierce Patriot bayonet charge in return broke the British charge and turned the tide of battle. The re-formed militia and cavalry re-entered the battle, leading to double envelopment28 of the British, perfectly timed. British infantry began surrendering en masse."[1] Jtpaladin 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle Events

From Events under Battle the following sentence. "It is a mystery why the Patriot higher command did not make more use of Morgan as a commander." There is no mystery. Morgan was suffering from chronic back pain and sciatica. After Cowpens, Greene retired him telling Morgan that he'd earned the right to go home. William (Bill) Bean 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you were watching the History Channel on July 4 as well? Is a cite to that particular episode of The Revolution acceptable?(SSJPabs 13:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Notes on the quotes

I got you started on the cite formats. You need notes on the quotes and the longer quotes should probably be blockquotes.Dave (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

The total casualties(including captured) for the British, add up to 1,239. How is that possible if there were only 1,100 troops? Red4tribe (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting that most of the wounded would also have been prisoners. 217.43.163.108 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Casualty figures are a bit misleading, as the amount of men captured also includes wounded. When an army was roundly defeated and forced to withdraw hurriedly, they often did not have the opportunity to evacuate their wounded, leaving many of them to be captured by the enemy. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC))

The number of Continentals listed in the Background is ridicules. "When Greene took command the southern army numbered only 230,000 men, of whom just 949 were Continental regulars.[7]" Only 230,000? More like 2,300. Dristen (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 26 December 2011

The number of casualties differs in the sidebar and main article.

Main article: The Colonial forces conducted a double envelopment of Tarleton's force, and suffered casualties of only 12 killed and 61 wounded. Tarleton was one of around 160 British troops to escape.

Sidebar: 25 killed, 124 wounded.

EETech (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Tarleton taking prisoners in other battles?

This doesn't seem like a difficult question. This is an article about the battle of Cowpens. The text should deal with the battle of Cowpens. The question of whether Tarleton did, or did not, consent to take prisoners in other battles should be dealt with in the article on Banastre Tarleton, the articles about those battles, or possibly larger articles about the American Revolution or about the campaign in the Carolinas. Tarleton was not in a position to take prisoners in this battle. Vidor (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here's the paragraph in question:

It was claimed by some of the Patriots after the battle that Tarleton had ordered his men, before they went into action, to take no prisoners. This may have been "black propaganda" of the sort that flourished amid the brutal conflict in the Carolinas during the Revolution. Tarleton's British Legion Cavalry were notorious for the way that they ruthlessly pursued defeated opponents, cutting them down as they tried to surrender. As a result, Tarleton was given the nickname "Barbarous Ban" by the Patriot press, a title that Tarleton relished since he felt it gave his command an advantage. But it is notable that nearly every time they defeated the enemy — Monck's Corner, Lenud's Ferry, Camden, Catawba Ford — Tarleton's men did in fact take some prisoners. Even at the Battle of Waxhaw Creek (alias The Buford Massacre), where Tarleton's men killed a high proportion of their opponents, they granted quarter to 203 Patriots.<ref name=page1174>Boatner, page 1174.</ref> By Tarleton's own account, his horse was shot from under him in the charge at Waxhaw Creek and chaos erupted when his men believed he had been killed. In the end, 113 Americans were killed and another 203 captured, 150 of whom were so badly wounded that they had to be left behind. Tarleton's casualties were five killed and 12 wounded.<ref name=page1174/> This does not disprove the allegation that Tarleton had issued a "no quarter" order before Cowpens but no explanation has been offered as to why Tarleton would suddenly have adopted this policy.

The first sentence contains the words "after the battle". The last sentence contains the words "before Cowpens". How do you claim this is not somehow about the battle? Why would comparisons to other battles not be appropriate, as long as focus is maintained?

I'll agree that some of this text is probably unnecessary (the description of Waxhaws for instance, can be trimmed significantly), but I think it is certainly valid to compare things that happened in and around a battle to others, and to discuss the reputations of its participants, in its article. Magic♪piano 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I claim the paragraph is not about the battle because it is not about the battle. It does not address the events of Cowpens at all. Also, the initial sentence that you cite is unsourced. The second sentence is both unsourced, a reference to the first unsourced sentence, and not about Cowpens. The third sentence talks about how Tarleton's Legion behaved when in pursuit, which they were not at Cowpens. The fourth sentence discusses Tarleton's nickname, which predated Cowpens. The fifth sentence discusses several battles, none of which were Cowpens. The next three sentences discuss the Waxhaw Massacre, which was not Cowpens. The final sentence, which echoes the initial in trying to refence Cowpens, is also unsourced. "it is certainly valid to compare things that happened in and around a battle to others" Tarleton did not take prisoners at Cowpens. Further, even if someone does come up with a source stating that participants at the battle of Cowpens accused Tarleton after Cowpens of not taking prisoners, it would STILL be irrelevant to the article unless it can be demonstrated that such belief somehow influenced the events of Cowpens. Did the Patriot soldiers at Cowpens kill any British troopers who were attempting to surrender? The paragraph makes no such claim. Vidor (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The question of citations is beside my point. I agree that the sentences are uncited; if this is your concern, place {{fact}} tags and delete the offending words a month later when no one has cited them. Otherwise you should also be deleting huge tracts of uncited text from the rest of the article.

Second, nearly every article battle article I've worked on contains descriptions of things that happen before and after the battle (or war, or campaign) -- things that are "not the battle". It's called context, and it's a valuable tool in understanding why people are there, and where they go afterwards, and what people thought and wrote after the battle. The whole point of this paragraph is to draw parallels (real or perceived) between Cowpens and those other "not Cowpens" events. The fact that this belief did not somehow influence events at Cowpens is beside the point; it may have influenced events afterward (like later battles elsewhere), or merely been widely publicized. Are you trying to say this sort of analysis has no place here?

"... participants at the battle of Cowpens accused Tarleton after Cowpens of not taking prisoners": this is a misreading of the first sentence. Magic♪piano 00:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's called context Context is often helpful. In fact, the article could use more context, in that it is short on material explaining where Morgan was going and why he was going there and how he wound up in that particular part of South Carolina facing Tarleton. I plan to bust out my copy of Buchanan's book and add that at some point. However, a paragraph-long digression on whether or not Tarleton had prisoners shot at other battles is not context. why people are there, and where they go afterwards, and what people thought and wrote The paragraph in question does not address either one of the first two you list, not at all. As for the third, there is no cite saying that the Patriots who fought at Cowpens made such an accusation about Tarleton after Cowpens. I doubt that they did, since, as I said above, Tarleton was in no position to take prisoners at Cowpens. The whole point of this paragraph is to draw parallels (real or perceived) between Cowpens and those other "not Cowpens" events. And what parallel is that? We have an article about Cowpens that is interrupted for one paragraph with a meditation on whether or not Tarleton was in the habit of taking prisoners when he won battles. Where's the parallel? it may have influenced events afterward (like later battles elsewhere), or merely been widely publicized. Are you trying to say this sort of analysis has no place here? Yes. That is precisely what I am saying. Whether or not anti-Tarleton propaganda influenced events after Cowpens is immaterial. Whether or not anti-Tarleton propaganda was "widely publicized" is even more immaterial. This article is about the battle of Cowpens. This article is not a biography of Banastre Tarleton nor a history of the Revolution in South Carolina. "Context" would include background information on why and how the battle was fought, and the battle's effects on the campaign in the Carolinas and the war. Vidor (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is generally lacking in context. Your characterization of the para as an interruption strikes me as odd; it appears after the description of the battle proper. As far as anti-Tarleton propaganda, if the propaganda is rooted in this event, it ought to be mentioned here.

I haven't done any significant work on this article; it happened to get on my watchlist for other reasons. If you're going to work on it, I'm not going to push this any further. Magic♪piano 03:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But the anti-Tarleton propaganda isn't rooted in this event, it's rooted in his previous victories, most notably at the Waxhaws. I absolutely agree that the material we're discussing would have homes in the article on the Waxhaws and the article about Tarleton. Vidor (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Prelude section

When Greene took command the southern army numbered only 230,000Italic text men, of whom just 949 were Continental regulars. This is ridicules it should be 2,300. Dristen (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC) December 26, 2011

[7]In accordance with what I wrote above, I have written a new introductory section, including some info on the commanders, the overall tactical situation, and the events that led to the battle. I think this is an improvement over the article in its previous form, which had very little of this. Vidor (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the obviously incorrect numbers. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of detail and innacuracy on Tarleton's army

The articles description of Tarleton's army I believe is innacurate; "Most of his infantry (including that of the Legion) would be assembled in linear formation". Its well established that the British fought almost entirely in open order loose formation from 1776-onwards, known as "loose files and American scramble", there is plenty of evidence for this including the study by Matthew H.Spring, also books like 'British Redcoat 1740-93'. Indeed, Tarleton himself blamed this style of fighting on his defeat: "the loose manner of forming which has always been practised by the King’s troops in America". http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-d1YAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=the+loose+manner+of+forming+which+had+always+been+practised+by+the+King%E2%80%99s+troops+in+America&source=bl&ots=gh4Y-bvJSk&sig=dkrPqdPIO1RPI9e9tyv7uNfXabY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=irrzUd_nJIiR7Aaq2IHoDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=the%20loose%20manner%20of%20forming%20which%20had%20always%20been%20practised%20by%20the%20King%E2%80%99s%20troops%20in%20America&f=false Tarleton goes onto explain the "extreme extension of files always exposed British regiments and corps", which is refering to the fact that the British advanced in extended file; one single line, which left no reserve if the main line began to falter. The British lines were so perilously extended in the southern campaign because their armies were so small, and the colonial armes were almost always larger which meant the Americans could create successive lines of defence. Ben200 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Results in infobox

We now have an edit war (repeated reverting without talk) about the "Results=" entry in the infobox. For a long time it said "American victory", recently changed to "Decisive American victory" -- revert, revert, revert... We have a WP:BRD guideline, but no WP:BRRR.... The results are now blank; this is as required when we have no consensus for an infobox entry, but I hope that's temporary. Readers will look for a result entry. Please, guys, find a source or two and list your opinion here, in talk. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

By WP:BRD this was supposed to be discussed first, instead of being vandalized over and over again, and now the page is protected over the IPs version instead of it years long stable version. Incredible situation. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually for a long time it has been regarded as a "Decisive American victory", which is something that qualified historians decide, not the Wikipedia editing community. Despite the fact the article itself states numerous times this was a decisive success and a turning point in the war in the South (a fact which is not in dispute whatsoever among historians), the edits were still being reverted without due reason provided. User AdjectivesAreBad was refusing to provide reasons for deleting edits that I made, and even deleted the message I left on the user's talk page requesting they either provide a reason or raise the issue on the talk page. My edit was sourced with a reference, and it was still deleted. What's the point in finding a reference if the editing community just decides to delete it anyway? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

Just a side note: RockDrummerQ, you wrote on AdjectivesAreBad's User page, not on his/her talk page, that's why you were reverted there.—capmo (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Noted for future reference. It doesn't change the fact that my edits were incorrectly identified as vandalism, and that AdjectivesAreBad was deleting content that was clearly referenced, as well as supported by the article and its sources. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You posted some random website you picked from google 1st page, and even that doesn't backed you claim. And no, the article don't support this, no surprise because it stayed that way for a long time. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That "random website" happened to be an educationally-based website, which DOES state that Cowpens was a turning point and a decisive victory. And yes, the article does support this, even the opening statement says it was a "decisive victory" for the Americans. In fact, let's take a deeper look at the article's opening text, shall we?
"The Battle of Cowpens (January 17, 1781) was a decisive victory by the Continental Army forces under Brigadier General Daniel Morgan in the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War over the British Army led by Colonel Banastre Tarleton. It was a turning point in the reconquest of South Carolina from the British. It took place in northwestern Cherokee County, South Carolina, north of the town of Cowpens."
Perhaps you should pay more attention to the pages you vandalise? :-) Even all the sources listed by Rjensen outright states the battle was a decisive success. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC))

Moreover, here is a direct quote from the website I used as a reference, which apparently doesn't back up that Cowpens was a decisive success. I quote:
"The Battle of Cowpens, in context of the Southern Campaign, was the turning point of the war in the South"
(RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC))

You insist on this nonsense that I vandalized page cause you gotta reverted from adding [2] decisive on the results. Incredible, stay like this and you'll go far. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You were doing. Also, you have not yet presented a single argument in favour of your point. I have backed mine up with references, a point you seem to be missing or ignoring out of convenience. You don't just revert something if it's been sourced. You have backed yours up with nothing but tiresome ad-hominem. What arguments or references do you possess that refute the claim that Cowpens was a decisive American victory? You have not yet presented a single one. If you do not have any, then you have to concede your argument is irrelevant to the discussion, ergo it is what credible sources have called it; a decisive victory. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

Also, AdjectivesAreBad, you were the one vandalising. I was providing a reference, as required by the Wikipedia guidelines. You were deleting the edits that was referenced without any given reason at all. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

The RS call it a "decisive victory": 1) Mary Mostert - 2005 - ‎"Morgan won a decisive victory"; 2) Larry R. Clark - 2007 - ‎" Morgan later won a decisive victory over British regulars at Cowpens"; 3) Paul T. Hellmann - 2006 - ‎"decisive victory won by Brig. Gen. Daniel Morgan..." 4) David R Higgins - 2013 -" the Americans shattered the British force and achieved a decisive victory." 5) John Hamilton - 2013 - ‎"American morale soared with yet another decisive victory." etc etc Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have seen zero edits involved in this dispute that are WP:VANDALISM; it is not helpful to use that term here. This is a content dispute, often lacking in WP:AGF. Now we need admins to help us with normal editing? We resolve such disputes on the talk page, supported by refs, not by reverting.

We have some refs that support "decisive". Do we have any that say it was not decisive? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we can all agree here that the majority of credible references and sources, as well as simple extrapolation from historical fact, that the battle was a decisive American success. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

It seems, yet again, we have an edit war going on, despite the consensus here and all the sources that agree the battle was a decisive victory. User Skavurzka continuously reverts the consensus without any reason given, or any notification on the talk page. Surely this falls within the site's definition of vandalism? (81.101.124.6 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC))

By our definition, no content disputes fall within WP:VANDALISM. Even if in doubt, we still WP:AGF. For myself, I think the term "decisive" is overused in many articles here, but what I think doesn't matter; none of our personal opinions matter, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We have refs that state "decisive", with no contrary refs. Most content disputes have some gray area; I see none here. Per WP:V, "decisive" stays. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where are the WP:RSs? I took a look and just saw exchanges of opinions. Frenditor (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In this talk section, @Rjensen: listed several. I don't know why they aren't cited in the article, however. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)