Talk:Battle of Trenton/Archive 1

older comments
Should there be information about the historic reenactments that the city of Trenton has recreating this battle. I have lots of info about this.--68.45.76.174 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Does anyone have an idea why this page is suddenly being vandalized so often? It seems like most of the vandals are editors on shared IP addresses in schools. Maybe it's because it's October and people are back in school... Valtam 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As an important battle of the Revolutionary War, it is a popular topic discussed in history classes. Because WP is such a popular site, this is one of the first resources found in search engines. Since kids will be kids ... Olessi 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well at least it's being taught and they're coming to WP because of it, though we'd hope they'd learn from and improve the article rather than grafitti it. Hopefully some are doing the former. I know in school, getting assigned to learn about x meant that x was probably annoying and in the end I remember very little, except I liked a girl in a university in Trenton. :)


 * With Wikipedia, I'm starting to become more interested in history and politics, especially around the Revoutionary War, so maybe I'll learn something and enjoy learning it. Gotyear 12:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way, Gotyear - in the past, I've read a lot about the Civil War, but am learning more about the Revolutionary War now, through books and Wikipedia. (You spent time in Trenton?  That must have been interesting - it's not exactly a touristy town at the moment...  About six months ago, on my way to Philadelphia, I visited the Trenton battle memorial and walked past the little church where Rall died.)
 * Another good thing about Wikipedia is that you can learn a whole lot about certain conflicts by reading some pages' Talk Page: my favorite is the Falkland Islands. Even the naming of that page causes ongoing edit wars!   Valtam  21:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Who won the battle of trenton
to be honest I think the people who started this war won it. The reason why i think that is because they knew exactly what they where doing.
 * Can you be more specific? Valtam  22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Background Information
Shouldn't the background information that Gen. Washington was able to convince many of his men to stay beyond their enlistment terms (which were about to expire) which led to the victory at Trenton be added to this section?
 * Good suggestion. You are welcome to add the information - it is relevant to the article.  (When were the enlistments running out?  December 31, I think?)  Valtam  19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This played more of a role in 2nd Battle of Trenton/Battle of the Assunpink than First Battle of Trenton. He had convinced them to stay on past the December 31 deadline by saying they would receive a monetary bonus. Some say his intent was to go after a British cache of money in New Brunswick and pay the men from that store. But 2 Trenton and Princeton wore the men down, they went directly into winter quarters at Morristown/Jockey Hollow and he never did go after the money, while the success of the Ten Crucial Days campaign created enough good will to enable him to raise recruits and keep the few men who had remained with him. crowncate at verizon.net72.73.197.170 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead
The following was added to the intro unwikified. A summary of the battle in the introduction should be concise and accessible. Those feeling up to it can try to salvage this paragraph. Olessi (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"After being driven out of New York by the British and forced to retreat to the West bank of the Delaware in the late summer of 1776, the Americans were feeling defeated. In the harsh winter, Washington was faced with the crisis of the end of the Continental Army’s period of enlistment. Because of this, he decided to attack the Hessian position at Trenton southern end of the British line along the Delaware before his army was gone. Washington’s plan was to cross the Delaware and attack the Hessian town. Washington had about 2,400 men from Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. The force set off for the Delaware, where they embarked in a flotilla of the Delaware River boats. It was a cold, dark night and the river was running with flowing ice. At about 11 o’clock, a heavy snow and sleet storm broke. Washington’s force did not reach the east bank until around 3 in the morning. His soldiers were badly clothed and many did not have shoes. His men then marched to Trenton, some of them leaving traces of blood on the snow. The Hessian commander had been ordered to construct defenses around the town but had not bothered to do so, as he did not consider the Americans a threat. On the night before the attack he was at dinner when he was brought information that the Americans were approaching. He ignored the message, which was found in his pocket after his death. The main American force, under Washington, entered Trenton from the North-West. Other sections marched around the town and attacked from the South. The remainder took a position to the North East, cutting off the Hessians’ retreat. The Hessians attempted to form in the town but were under attack from all sides. The Americans occupied the houses and shot down the German gunners and foot soldiers. The Hessian troops retreated to an orchard in the South East of the town, where they surrendered. The Americans suffered only 4 casualties, although 2 soldiers froze to death. About 20 Hessians were killed and 100 were wounded. As many as 1,000 soldiers were captured."

Some points
I tend to agree with Gary's assessment that the article needs a thorough copyediting, which I've started working on. I feel there are also some problems with subject matter and organization that need to be addressed. There are probably some other improvements to be made, but these are the ones apparent on first reading. Choess (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Background" section is a little confusing. It starts off by introducing the loss of New York and the retreat across New Jersey, but the second paragraph seems to recapitulate "The American Plan". Perhaps discuss the size of the garrison in "Hessian Moves" and the weather in "The Crossing and March"?
 * "South Jersey Rising" seems to be a term used only by Fischer. Could this be replaced by a more descriptive phrase, such as "Revolutionary militia assembling in South Jersey"?
 * The article should probably present a more balanced perspective on Rall's confidence. The performance of American troops at Kip's Bay likely played a role in his thinking. A fuller explanation of why he didn't build the redoubt also seems worthwhile. (It sounds like he wanted to retain mobility for his forces and not get held to one front where the Americans might or might not attack.)
 * The mention of the "note" on Washington's desk is confusing. From reading the source, it appears that Washington was just writing out the watchword. Perhaps it would read best as "Washington chose 'Victory or Death' as the watchword..." without any mention of Benjamin Rush's presence.
 * Who is "Pauli"?
 * The Hessian regiments ought to be consistently named. I'd recommend a style like "Knyphausen's Regiment," but we should cleave to contemporary sources.
 * In "Aftermath", the statistic that "1,000 men reported ill" needs to be put in context and its significance (for Washington's tactics at Princeton) explained. (Effects of weather and retreat across New Jersey and so on.)

Boats
The famous painting of Gen. Washington could never have happened in real life, since standing up would have sent the whole boat toppling over. (unsigned - added by User:68.7.140.96, 02:33, 2006 November 6)
 * That is utterly untrue - The boats had flat bottoms and were leaky - if you sat down in them, you would have become wet, in the middle of winter. Most of the people on the boats stood.  Valtam  15:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * David Fischer in Washington's Crossing (page 216) states that if the soldiers sat in the boat during the crossing they would have been sitting in ice water since they were crossing during a storm. As a former Marine who trained in cold weather, I also would have chosen to stand. Since the type of boat used was most likely barges, they would have been steadier than the type of boat depicted in the painting and standing up would not have been a problem. I edited the section of the article - Legacy - that covers this and added the Fischer reference. BTW, my congratulations to those who have worked on this article. As a history fanatic who spends most of my spare time reading, I have found errors, mistakes and oversights in most of the American history articles on WP. However, except for the "standing up/sitting down" question, I felt that this article was simply Outstanding! Fasulo (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Washington crossing the Delaware
No purpose served by separate articles. Merge that one into this one. Vidor 09:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true. The crossing, on its own, is an important moment in American history.  The Battle of Trenton is a separate event, which happened many hours after the crossing.  They each should have their own page.  Valtam  15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the same day. Vidor 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly true. The crossing began on 12/25, and most of it was accomplished by midnight.  It was completed by 3 a.m., and the march on Trenton started at around 4 a.m.  The Battle happened on 12/26, which is not the same day as 12/25.  Valtam  15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly: in fact I think there ought to be an article on Washington putting his right foot in the boat and a separate article on him putting his left foot in the boat. These events were separated in time, and both are historically significant because if he had only put one foot in the boat, the battle could never have taken place. 72.81.99.2 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Johann Rahl
I'd like to comment that at the Old Barracks Museum in Trenton, which serves as the unofficial visitors center for the Battles of Trenton, we use Rall as the spelling as it tends to be less confusing to people and seems to be more commonly used in modern language as opposed to Rahl which was frequently used in 19th c. spellings. see www.barracks.org or www.tencrucialdays.com. Cate Crown, former Marketing Director and current volunteer, crowncate at verizon.net72.73.197.170 05:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an editor who made that infobox change. It was likely vandalism since he changed nothing else and Johann Rall is a valid link, whereas the other is not. Googling "Johann Rall" trenton gives me 938 results, with reliable sources such as and.

Googling "Johann Rahl" trenton gives me 12 unique results. However, this National Parks Service PDF "Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey" says Rahl x4 and Rall x0. An Edited Guide entry of H2G2 (it's been run through their peer review and cannot be easily modified after that). And a few personal pages.

Are these typos or is Rahl an accepted (German?) alternate spelling? Gotyear 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I speak German, and can tell you that Rall and Rahl are two distinct names.  I did a little research on your question and found:
 * German Wikipedia uses the spelling Rall for Johann Rall.
 * German Wikipedia lists 4 people with the last name Rall and 2 people with the last name Rahl. Therefore, these two last names are in usage, and are distinct.
 * Neither Rall nor Rahl mean anything in German, other than being names. (A Ralle is a German name of a type of bird, though.)
 * My conclusions: Rall is correct; Rahl is incorrect; they are not interchangable; the article should use Rall only, and not Rahl. Good question, Gotyear!  Valtam  15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the research and the explanation, Valtam!
 * It somewhat disturbs me that a publication of National Parks Service gets it wrong, but I guess that's the phrase "Good enough for government work" in action. ;) And other government works got it correct. Gotyear 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, going forward, we can hope that future government publications will look to Wikipedia for guidance - and we can hope that people continue to undo the damage from all the vandals who seem to love this page so much! Valtam  19:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what a "56-year soldier" is, but according to the WP article on Rall, he was born around 1726, which would have made him at most 50 years old. 72.81.99.2 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Decisive victory?
How was it? Though it preserved the army's morale, that was about it. The Battle of Trenton inflicted no major defeat on the British & Allied army and it did little to change the course of the campaign. The only three major decisive encounters the Americans actually won (with support) was Saratoga, Cowpens and Yorktown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Updated the infobox to "American victory." Alphageekpa (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A decisive victory can also be a moral victory. In Washington's Crossing, David Fischer relates how the colonists were at the end of their rope in believing they could win. Many were taking the oath to the King that General Howe was asking them to. This even included one person who signed the Declaration of Independence. After Trenton, the feelings on both sides turned almost 180 degrees. The colonists believed they could win. British and Hessian officers began to believe they couldn't. The Battle of Antietam during the American Civil War was not decisive for either side as a military conflict. But it gave Lincoln the excuse he needed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation that was a decisive move in winning that conflict. The Viet Cong offensive during Tet in 1968 was a military victory for the American and Viet Nam forces. It destroyed the Viet Cong infrastructure, which suffered huge losses in troops. However, it was a decisive political victory for the other side in that it portrayed the Viet Nam war as unwin-able. Fasulo (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fasulo. The battle did not include large numbers, but it is one of the most, if not the the most, important event of the war. There are also a number of sources which list this a decisive, and which I have added. Red4tribe (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Fasulo. Of course the battle changed the course of the campaign if the Americans would have given up without a moral victory. 82.28.237.200 is a British IP. Nice try, sour grapes. 72.81.99.2 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you people serious? Giving the casualties involved and the size of the overall forces, I can't imagine this being anything more than a minor skirmish.


 * You don't know much about this war, do you? It has documented conflicts involving 8 men on each side, and even a one-vs-ten action.  A far cry from some 18th century European wars, where the casualty counts alone (killed+wounded, never mind prisoners) of some battles exceeded the total number of troops involved in this action. Troop numbers have little to do with how decisive an action is.  Magic ♪piano 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction
The introduction to this article states that the Hessians did not post a dawn sentry, were caught by surprise, and then captured before they could resist. Yet the main article recounts that the Hessian outposts detected the American advance and warned the main body of the army, so that the Hessians were wide awake and getting ready when the Americans arrived. A short but furious battle in the streets followed, and it was a miracle that the Americans suffered so few casualties. Should I alter the introduction so that it agrees with the main text? Richard M. Ketchums excellent book on the campaign, "The Winter Soldiers", agrees with the main body of the article that the Hessians were not surprised in their beds and put up a hard fight before surrendering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.60.119 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect
Is there any consensus on Semi-Protecting the page? The vandalism seems to come exclusively from anonymous IP addresses (which seem to be from computers in schools). Semi-Protect would require an account to edit, right? Valtam 14:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

waghington and his troops won mi know i my great great great grandpa gought in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.203.164 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you have written but I believe this talk page is not a forum and Wikipedia doesn't need to know who or whatever fought in the American Revolutionary war. If I'm guessing, you're trying to write: Washington and his troops won (mi?) I know my great, great, great grandpa fought (could be possibly got?) in it. But evidently, you did this on purpose and I'm sure you think it's funny but it's not. I'm suggesting I should revert this edit, but I'm not going to revert this "edit". I hope user and other non-users (including you) understand what I'm saying.Allied Rangoons (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's nearly pointless, and probably a total waste of time to respond to messages from several years ago. Those who left them are unlikely to be watching for a response, or to care. They are stale and should have been archived long ago. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good to see or I mean, well you know. But surprisingly a user wrote a question on Battle of Bunker Hill's talk page and it was written 4 years and 5 months ago and I answered and he answered me instantly.Allied Rangoons (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's unusual, and he answered with sarcasm you may have missed. The one who posed the original question did not respond. It was a dead issue long ago. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have my evidence. I calculated the year between the time he wrote the question and he replied to me. He wrote the question on 2009 and now is 2014.Allied Rangoons (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's your time to spend as you wish. I was trying to suggest you might look for more constructive ways to spend it. Let's not prolong this discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I am using my time wisely. Our class this quarter is learning about the American Revolution which I have plentiful information and facts. I was searching up facts so while I'm studying, I also answer other people's question. A question could be written back when Wikipedia just started but I'd answer it anyway as long as I'm still contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to help me though. With many appreciation,Allied Rangoons (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

Another source, external link...
...The American Revolution. The Battle of Trenton, The Glorious Cause for American Independence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crab rangoons (talk • contribs) 01:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)