Talk:Battle of Bennington/Archive 1

Some Stuff
First of all, the reference to "Canadians" is pretty well established as those who come from what became the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. While those provinces didn't exist in an official, British legal capacity, the region was well known as "Canada."

Also, Burgoyne was not trying to destroy the Rebellion at Bennington; he had sent subordinates (Baum) to Bennington to forage for fodder and food.

Random Stuff
There seem to be some small factual errors and omissions in the wikipedia version. I have tried to write a more complete version, included below. Still a work in progress

Battle of Bennington August 16th

As with many battles, the Battle of Bennington was not fought at its namesake, Bennington, Vermont. In fact, the battle took place a few miles over the border into the New York colony.

It is generally understood that Gen. Burgoyne was not trying to escape from northern Hudson River valley. After the recent British victories at Hubbardton, Fort Ticonderoga, and St. Clair, Burgoyne was simply awaiting reinforcements so that his army could defeat the American forces in the area and then continue south to Albany and on to the Connecticut River Valley, dividing the American colonies in half.

However by late July, Burgoyne's progress towards Albany had slowed to a crawl and his army's supplies began to dwindle. Burgoyne himself did not fight at Bennington. Instead, he sent forth from Fort Miller a detachment of about 800 troops under the command of the German Lt. Col. Friedrich Baum. Half of Baum's detachment was made up of German mercenaries, while the other half consisted of local Loyalists, Canadians, and Indians. Baum was ordered to raid the supply depot at Bennington, which was guarded by fewer than 400 colonial militia.

On August 13th, en route to Bennington, Baum learned of the arrival in the area of 1,500 New Hampshire milita under the command of Gen. John Stark. Baum ordered his forces to stop at the Walloomsac River, about 4 miles west of Bennington. After sending a request for reinforcements to Fort Miller, Baum took advantage of the terrain and deployed his forces on the high ground. In the pouring rain, Baum's men dug in and hoped that the weather would prevent the Americans from attacking before reinforcements arrived. Deployed a few miles away, Stark decided to reconnoiter Baum's positions and wait until the weather cleared.

On the afternoon of August 16th, the weather cleared and Stark ordered his men ready to attack. Stark is reported to have rallied his troops saying ''There are your enemies, the Red Coats and the Tories. They are ours or this night Molly Stark sleeps a widow.'' Upon hearing that the militia had melted away into the woods, Baum assumed that the Americans were retreating or redeploying. However, Stark had recognized that Baum's forces were spread thin and decided immediately to envelop them from two sides while simultaneously charging Baum's central redoubt head-on. Stark's plan succeeded, and after a brief battle on Baum's flanks, the Loyalists and Indians fled. This left Baum and his German dragoons trapped on the high ground without any horse. The Germans fount valiantly even after running low on powder. The dragoons led a saber charge and tried to break through the enveloping forces. However, after this final charge failed and Baum was mortally wounded, the Germans surrendered.

Shortly after this battle ended, while the New Hampshire militia was disarming the German troops, Baum's reinforcements arrived. The German reinforcements, under the command of Lt. Col. Heinrich von Breymann, saw the Americans in disarray and pressed their attack immediately. After hastily regrouping, Stark's forces tried to hold their ground against the German onslaught. Fortunately for the New Hampshire militia, before their lines collapsed a group of several hundred Vermont militiamen arrived to reinforce Stark's troops. The Green Mountain Boys, commanded by Seth Warner, had just been defeated at Hubbardton by British reinforcements and were eager to exact their revenge on the enemy. Together, the New Hampshire and Vermont militias repulsed and finally routed von Breymann's force.

Total British and German losses at Bennington were recorded at 200 dead, 700 captured, compared to 40 American dead, 30 wounded. Stark's decision to intercept and destroy the raiding party before they could reach Bennington was a crucial factor in Burgoyne's eventual surrender, because it deprived his army of supplies.

Chadloder 01:00 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)



Looking over this and the main article, there seems to be a lot of vocabulary that needs changing to improve communication with the wider English speaking world. But I suspect that some of this would look pejorative to those who have become accustomed to these usages (or not pejorative enough!), so the problem is finding common ground.

Here are some examples:-

- "Tories" should be called "Loyalists" or something to that effect, since "Tory" has quite other meanings elsewhere.

- "Colonials" should change, since the Loyalists were Colonials themselves; while nobody else would have a problem with calling them "Rebels", I suspect their descendants and inheritors would have.

- "Mercenaries" should become "Subsidiaries", since that is just precisely what they were, whereas "Mercenary" was an unjust and factually incorrect pejorative adopted at the time. But nobody is going to understand this technical meaning of "Subsidiary".

And maybe a few other terms here and there.

The thing is, I suspect that those who grew up with the entrenched biasses perpetuated by their histories genuinely believe they are NPOV! So how to achieve a genuine NPOV? PML.



Let's please avoid political correctness and stick to factual correctness. I can see changing "Colonials" to "Rebels"; that makes sense, although I don't understand your comment hinting that their descendants would have a problem with that word? Is that what you're warning about, or did I misunderstand you.

And "Loyalist" is a better term than "Tory", you're right. As regards mercenaries vs. subsidiaries -- here you cease to make sense. A mercenary is defined as "A soldier hired for service in a foreign army." This describes the Hessian soldiers exactly -- it's not meant to be pejorative, and in fact the article describes them fighting valliantly. Again, let's please focus on making the articles factually correct and clear to all English readers, rather than obscuring things to make them seem more NPOV. Chadloder 04:53 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)



You understand me correctly in the first paragraph; I felt obliged to be ultra-discreet in case people got too touchy too soon.

As for mercenaries, no - your definition is right, but that is precisely what they weren't. The way this thing worked in the 18th century, one power did some sort of cost-sharing with another that went anywhere from assisting an ally in difficulties up to outright hiring the forces from those that had them; but the soldiers were still regulars, from their original army on some form of secondment, and not mercenaries at all (except by extending the language) - they remained with their original armed forces. The French sent their regulars to North America in that war on the same basis, and those didn't get called mercenaries despite the fact that the French were also in it for what they could get (though it ended up Pyrrhic for them). PML.



No, I think your facts are incorrect. First, neither the French fleet nor French troops was ever attached to, or put under American command. Second, the Americans did not pay France for its involvement (indeed, they could not have afforded it). France sent troops because the France was vying strategically with Britain both abroad and in Europe. France also wanted to regain the commercial relationships it had with the colonies prior to the Sever Years War. The French fought by their own leave, and even occasionally left in the middle of a battle to fight the British in the West Indies. To sum up: no payment for forces, no control over the military, no attachment of troops -- I believe the word for that is an alliance.

In contrast, the German divisions were bought by the George III for silver, paid directly to the nobles in Hesse-Kassel or Brunswick. The German divisions were attached directly to the British army, as you pointed out. As a typical example, Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel was paid £3 million for use of his troops. That is the very definition of mercenary, and if we can't use the word here, then it may as well cease to exist.

If you would like to read more about the role of Hessian mercenaries in the American Revolutionary War, I would probably recommend the history of the Hesse-Kassel Jaeger Korps, and I have somewhere the diary of a Hessian mercenary soldier which I can dig out if you want the reference. Chadloder 06:28 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)



It just occurred to me that our disagreement might be based on whether you think a mercenary is necessarily a willing participant in the war. If your definition of a mercenary includes the notion of willing participation, then you may feel that my use of the word 'mercenary' implies that the Germans were here because they were greedy or because they wanted to kill Americans. I am not implying that, nor do I think that definition of mercenary is a valid one.

I could be wrong about the sense of the word, but I don't think so. Do you have an OED handy? Chadloder 06:39 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think mercenary is a perfectly good word to describe the Hessians (and the Brunswickers etc..). They were 'soldiers for hire' fighting in a foreign war. This was a practice that various German princelings has been carrying on for many years and that kept the economy of their domains afloat. Many of the men were pressed into service, but this doesn't detract from the fact that they were not fighting for their own cause or the cause of their masters, other than in the purely economic sense. If you really want to change the word, then 'auxiliaries' would be better. As for the word Tory, we know what it means in this context, I see nothing wrong in it, but loyalist serves exactly the same purpose. Mintguy

The Wikipedia article Mercenary contradicts the usage in this article: "A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and 'is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party'."

The "National" part of the definition is meaningless. Braunschweig was not a nation, it was a duchy. And George III was the Duke of Hanover, so every man in Burgoyne's army served a German.

The section in quotes is where we get the real contradiction. The Brunswick soldiers were not motivated to go fight in North America based on promises of substantial material compensation in excess of their British allies. They went because Duke Karl I ordered their regiments there. To call them mercenaries is so unfair that one may as well define "Mercenary: any soldier serving in a foreign country." Mingusboodle 03:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)



Canadians
I'm not sure what the use of Canadians in this article signifies, as there wasn't exactly a political unit known as Canada back then. The Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada didn't exist until 1791, well after the date of this battle. Does the article mean soldiers from other English colonies on current Canadian territory like Nova Scotia? Or does it mean French soldiers from the British-controlled Province of Quebec who might have been known as Canadiens, anglicized as Canadians? Clarification, anyone? Aizu07 10:03 Aug 16, 2007

Vermont
1st sentance under "American Forces", I believe that the "New Hampshire Land Grants" were disputed between NY and NH; and would LATER become the "Vermont Republic". Llandale (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the time of this battle Vermont had already declared its independence; see Vermont Republic. New Hampshire's claims to any Vermont territory in this time frame were weak; they would have been limited to communities along the Connecticut River which mostly didn't care whose jurisdiction they were in, but wanted to be in the same jurisdiction as their neighbors across the river and petitioned NH for inclusion there. (You can read about the somewhat sordid back-and-forth on the subject of Vermont's path to statehood in Van de Water's The Reluctant Republic.)  Magic ♪piano 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Decisive victory?
I propose to change the result of this engagement to a decisive success for the American forces. The article clearly states; "The battle was an important victory for the rebel cause, as it reduced Burgoyne's army in size by almost 1,000 men, led his Indian support to largely abandon him, and deprived him of needed supplies, all factors that contributed to Burgoyne's eventual surrender at Saratoga. The victory also galvanized colonial support for the independence movement, and played a role in bringing France into the war on the rebel side". Burgoyne's army had been doing pretty well up to this point, only suffering around 100 dead and captured in battle alone, but Bennington deprived him of over 900 men. For an army that only numbered 8,500 to start with, the drop of 100 dead up to this point + 900 reduced his army in size by around 12%, which is a pretty severe loss in military terms for a single engagement affecting the overall campaign. At this point in the campaign, Burgoyne's Hessian dragoons were not mounted, the expedition to Bennington was to acquire horses for the dragoons, which would have presented a more serious threat to the Americans, horses for the wagons (draft horses) which would have sped up Burgoyne's progress southward, and further supplies. The defeat at Bennington denied Burgoyne's army all three of these. As stated by the article itself, the battle also denied the British forces the bulk of their Indian support, galvanised colonial effort for the campaign and caught the attention of France to enter the war. All of these factors would clearly pass as a decisive success in any school of thought, so why not this one? (86.8.38.134 (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Battle of Bennington. 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/20121105045948/http://njcar.homestead.com:80/National-Project.html to http://njcar.homestead.com/National-Project.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vermontpersonnel.org/htm/holiday.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413150926/http://www.bennington.com/chamber/walking/monumentdescription.html to http://www.bennington.com/chamber/walking/monumentdescription.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821013358/http://tps.cr.nps.gov:80/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=407&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=407&ResourceType=Site

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Bennington.jpg

From the todays point of view ...
the whole battle (and a very lot of different actions) was a clever staging of the freemasons: The British Empire needed a bigger Golem like themselves for the dirty work of world domination and a tool, which could never associated with GB itself. (Like Wotan in the "Ring"-Operas of Richard Wagner - what a surprise). This need for "a Golem for the foully" was the reason for founding the "United States" and this is the reason for all those senseless battles of the USA against the whole world and everybody outside and inside: A Grand Theatre to show us: GB and USA are "absolutely" different, with different interests etc. ... lol But: Check the cash flow between the richest families of those "nations", only seemingly each other "hostile" populations and you will learn a little about history and how it works in reality ... Why this article keeps silent about all this - everybody today has the possibility to add 2 + 2 about the historical facts. So this article is not an encyclopaedical article, thats simply and only a very foolish, non-scientific misleading propaganda. Please delete this article. Thanks.


 * Can I have some of what you're smoking?  Magic ♪piano 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—180.191.185.46 (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to me to be correct (they match the location of the Bennington Battlefield State Historic Site). If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

1905 Article describing the battle
Here is a detailed description of the battle from 1905. (Therefore it is old enough to be in the public domain.) It seems worthwhile to add as a reference, but I am not sophisticated enough in Wikipedia to add it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42889850#metadata_info_tab_contents The article is titled: STARK'S INDEPENDENT COMMAND AT BENNINGTON found in: Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association Vol. 5 (1905), pp. 24-95 (72 pages) Bread2u (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)