Talk:Army of Northern Virginia

Flag is wrong
The flag you have as The "Army of north Virginia", is incorrect. That is his headquarters flag. It was made by his wife and daughters. This flag served as Lee's headquarters flag until 1863. The original is on display in the Museum of the Confederacy. The stars are arranged to depict the Ark of the Covenant. hope I did this right.

Did You Know?

Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard was instrumental in creating the battle flag that has come to be synonymous with the Confederacy. Following the First Battle of Bull Run in 1861, he approved a new flag design for the Army of Northern Virginia after recognizing that the original Confederate flag—known as the “Stars and Bars”—looked too similar to the U.S. flag when seen in the confusion of battle

Retrived from:

68.97.206.238 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)JD Glenn III

Untitled
You've been referenced by the media! See "According to wikipedia.com (sic), the Army of Northern Virginia, led by Gen. Robert E. Lee, was the primary military force of the Confederacy in the eastern theater of the Civil War." - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lee naming it
Beauregard and Johnston commanded the army itself beforehand, but Army of Northern Virginia, as a name, was created by Lee just after he was appointed to command. --Chr.K. 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have souped up the description a bit. I have a high degree of confidence in the Eicher citation; their Civil War High Commands reference contains an exhaustive history of unit lineage. I think what we have here is renaming retrospectively. It is probable that Eicher has documentation showing the name was assigned effective March 14 simply because some of those records were created after Lee assumed command. This is very similar in nature to other armies that had later more famous names. A prime example is the Army of the Tennessee, which is almost universally cited as fighting in the Battle of Shiloh, although that name was not formally designated until October 16, 1862. Hal Jespersen 00:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. The Official Records have a telegram from Joe Johnston in February of 1862 referring to himself as "commanding the Army of Northern Virginia."  http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=Army%20of%20Northern%20Virginia;rgn=full%20text;idno=waro0005;didno=waro0005;view=image;seq=1097 It's unclear when that name came into use, but it was most certainly prior to Lee assuming command. The Frog (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

edits of May 5, 2009
I don't attempt to maintain this article and don't feel like going through an extensive editing process to address the edits of today, but don't you think: Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The detailed order of battle data belongs more appropriately in the individual battle or campaign articles? (I hate to think that someone might try this for Army of the Potomac.) If a reader wanted to know who commanded an artillery unit at Gettysburg, would he really go here to find out? Why not just link to the many OOB articles that are already written and maintained by people familiar with those battles?
 * Footnotes should be in English for this version of the article?


 * I don't agree to your point about where the data about the units belongs; The people looking for data about the army will especially look for the basic history and structure of the army. This belongs clearly here. Shifting through all individual battles is counter productive to find that out. This provides a good basic overview with clear and simple tables. I agree that someone who wants to find out more about the individual campaigns will go and look there then, but this point got nothing to do with the history of the army itself. Linking to the OOB articles is a good additional idea, I'll see to that when I find the time.
 * Footnotes should be in english, of course. Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed.
 * Fixed some spelling.

Shibirian —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Well, one more data point. If you consult any of the books published about the Army of Northern Virginia, I do not believe you will find any that provide comparable tables, even though those books are obviously much longer and more detailed. Such tables are typically found only in books about the battles. And since Wikipedia has a rich collection of methods to create links pointing to other articles, the details could easily be handled using, say, Further templates pointing to the more complete order of battle listings. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Puffery
I found and removed only one word of what  might  have been puffery so i removed the box that said it had some.Lee Tru. (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging the article about the Confederate Army of the Potomac
I think that we should merge the article about the Confederate Army of the Potomac into this article, they're the same army, the only difference is the name. --23.31.136.201 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In a word, No. The Army of the Potomac was formed for a specific purpose and then was renamed as the scope of the civil war changed. It was not created to be the Army of Northern Virginia when it was formed. You are conflating two issues which shows a poor grasp of history. In recent history that is like combining the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) with the United States Army Vietnam (USARV). I have removed the templates because it would be daft to continue.5.81.1.114 (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)