Talk:Battle of Chancellorsville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Chancellorsville article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email), Martin Osterman (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

An event in this article is a May 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] MoH

That list of Medal of Honor recipients is too much for a battle article. There is already a List of Medal of Honor recipients page that is suitable for tabular data of this kind. If some notable person in the article received the MoH (like Chamberlain in the various Gettysburg articles), it can be described in context of his actions, but just a list is too much. We don't list all the generals or units either. Hal Jespersen 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

One further thought: If you want to create a separate article, List of Medal of Honor recipients in the Battle of Chancellorsville, and put it into the See also section, I would not object to that. There is a precedent for putting the lengthy lists of order of battle (e.g., Nashville Union order of battle) into separate articles. Hal Jespersen 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I concer put List of Medal of Honor recipients in the Battle of Chancellorsville.Zginder 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to believe that the Confederates won, yet the casualties on both sides were almost the same. The Union lost only 3,000 more than the Confederates. Makes you wonder whether the commander of the Union forces had a brainl. An idiot could have won this battle.

An idiot? Lee could have seen his army decimated. He didn't. A lesser general would have. Trekphiler 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hooker's plan was plenty good enough to win. Even with his own mistakes, he would have likely won if either Sedgwick or Stoneham had done their jobs, or if Howard had simply obeyed his orders. Even with all of those failures, the odds against Lee were huge. An ordinary general, let alone an idiot, would not have won Chancellorsville. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By the numbers?

I'm inclined to change the corps designators to the modern form (I Corps, II Corps, so forth); is that anachronistic? Also, there isn't an order of battle; should there be? Or a link to one? Trekphiler 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Confederate corps, we used the convention First, Second, etc., and reserve the Roman numeral nomenclature for the Union corps. (After all, there is no precedent for a "modern" Confederate corps designation. :-) ) Check out my little style guide. There is no order of battle because no one has bothered to type one in, but you are welcome to do so if you are interested. You will find that most of the OOBs for the larger battles follow the formatting conventions in, for instance, Gettysburg Union order of battle. Hal Jespersen 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraphs should say where the battle occurred but don't

It took too long to figure out where exactly the battle took place. I finally saw the summary on the right about Spotsylvania but it should also be in the opening of the text-- and where in Spotsylvania?

161.98.13.100 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


I fixed it. This is an interesting data point that indicates some people don't pay much attention to the battle boxes. Hal Jespersen 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stonewall Jackson's Death

Only if he didn't die, things might have been different if Jackson didn't die. :(71.127.43.151 02:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrrhic?

I've yet to take a history class that didn't consider this Confederate Victory, while definitely still a victory, to come with grave costs to Lee's army. The article itself even says "But he paid a terrible price for it," referring to Lee. Furthermore, the article Pyrrhic Victory links here. It is not a stretch nor is it biased to consider losing 25% of your army a pyrrhic victory. It should remain like that, or the "Aftermath" section should be considerably reworded, and is so, the Pyrrhic Victory page should no longer link here. But I maintain that it should link here, and the battle's aftermath should be described as such. - Sestet

Due to the limitations of the one phrase allowed in these summary boxes, we generally avoid the use of adjectives modifying "victory" that require any sort of explanation. I have no objection to describing a Pyrrhic victory and what it means in the Aftermath section, but would prefer to avoid it in the summary box. The reason that Pyrrhic should be considered POV is that there is no objective measurement that describes it. You are suggesting that 25% qualifies, but that is your opinion, which might not be shared by someone else. Furthermore, the historical roots of Pyrrhic victories are in a series of losses that cumulatively mean the destruction of your army, and setting that into context of the Confederate campaigns requires additional explanation, which is inappropriate for the summary box. Hal Jespersen 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure it's my opinion, but it's also in the article. Paying a "terrible price", in this case losing 25% of a force, seems to support my "opinion" that 25% loses would be judged as considerable. I would agree the summary box is probably an inappropriate place to link to Pyrrhic Victory now, but surely it could be mentioned under "Aftermath." - Sestet —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say that 25% losses are not "considerable." I said that the label Pyrrhic Victory has no measurable standard (and is more correctly applied to one of a series of such battles, but I will waive that point). I have no objection to a textual description going into the Aftermath section (only) in context, although I would ask you to provide a citation from a secondary source that uses that term, rather than interpreting the definition yourself. Hal Jespersen 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why I did not edit it in myself. I'm sure an expert on Civil War articles has such a secondary source on hand. I do not. If anyone has such information readily available, and I'm sure some reputable academic source has used the term Pyrrhic Victory in reference to this battle before, I invite its included mention in the aftermath section. - Sestet —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Lee lost a very large proportion of his men, relative to the number engaged, but it was not a victory that disabled his army in any way. In fact, he took the offensive within weeks of winning the battle and advanced more than 150 miles before meeting a check. You would have more of a justification in calling Gettysburg a Pyrrhic Union victory. (I don't endorse that assessment, but it's a stronger case than here.) The Army of the Potomac suffered massive casualties at Gettysburg and declined to even contemplate battle again until November, in the abortive Mine Run campaign. Chancellorsville: 1) compelled the Union army to abandon a campaign; 2) resulted in the loss of initiative to its foe; 3) emboldened the Confederate leadership to strike deep into Union territory; and 4) created a crisis of leadership in the defeated force.
Hardly a Pyrrhic victory. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

There's a photo on this page showing Confederate dead at Marye's Heights. That photo should be associated with the Battle of Fredericksburg article instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.82.197 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The photo was taken in 1863. If you look at the maps in the article, you'll see that Sedgwick's corps assaulted through Marye's Heights during the battle of Chancellorsville. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dates

I just added a footnote that describes the disparities of dates for the battle. In almost all cases, Wikipedia battle articles take their basic details--dates, names, results--from National Park Service battle descriptions. If deviations are required from those details, they need to be cited. If there are a lot of deviations, as in this case, it is appropriate to stick with the NPS for the main text and put the others into the footnote. Part of the problem for this battle is that the term "Battle of Chancellorsville" is often interchangeable with the "Chancellorsville Campaign". Some authors include all of the actions in early May, while others separate things into three battles: Chancellorsville, Second Fredericksburg, and Salem Church. Some could argue that Wikipedia should have a campaign article and then three battle articles, but since the main battle is so well known and so much more significant, it ended up the way that it did and it is probably not worth rewriting. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ethnicity of XIth Corps emphasized improperly

The way the paragraph on the XIth Corps reads, it makes it sound like there is something intrinsically inferior about the German immigrants' fighting prowess. While a unit's predominant ethnicity is interesting in itself, and deserves mention, it shouldn't imply that the unit was therefore somehow less effective. Even if many of the troops did not speak English fluently, they could still communicate with each other. Howard and staff and liasons would effectively communicate with the Army of the Potomac's HQ. Also, Howard's mistake in failing to protect his right flank was just that, a mistake. "Incompetent" seems too strongly worded.AaronCBurke (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I asume this paragraph is the one in question:
"But what led most of all to the impending Union disaster was the incompetent commander of the Union XI Corps, Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard. Howard, whose 11,000 men were posted at the far right of the Union line, failed to make any provision for his defense in case of a surprise attack, even though Hooker ordered him to do so. The Union right flank was not anchored on any natural obstacle, and the only defenses against a flank attack consisted of two cannons pointing out into the Wilderness. Also, the XI Corps was a poorly trained unit made up almost entirely of German immigrants, many of whom did not speak English."
The page for the XI Corps does go into more detail about their leadership, numbers, and losses, and states "It contained 27 regiments of infantry, of which 13 were German regiments. The men of the XI Corps were good soldiers, for the most part tried and veteran troops, but their leadership let them down." If the word "incompetent" bothers you "poor perfomance" or such could be substituted, and the blame for their lack of training and preparation must be placed on their generals. What other wording would you suggest?
Kresock (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten this paragraph. Let me know what you think. Although the XI Corps page may refer to them as "veteran troops," they were generally not so at Chancellorsville. As to "incompetent," Stephen W. Sears describes (pp. 270-72) Howard (and Charles Devens, one of his division commanders):
Myopic indeed describes Charles Devens and Otis Howard in command that day. Neither personally investigated any of the reports of Rebel activity on their front, and Howard compounded his negligence by leaving his command for two critical hours. Neither sent anyone from their staffs to investigate the reports [of enemy activity to their front]. Devens, either through drink or intolerance of his lieutenants, failed in that most fundamental duty to protect his men from danger. Howard, having promised his superior that morning to take measures "to resist an attack from the west," took not one meaningful measure. A bitter Joe Hooker would charge that "my instructions were utterly and criminally disregarded."
Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thx! AaronCBurke (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)