Talk:Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton

Hessians

You should probably change all of the references to Hessians to Hesse-Kasselians or whatever the correct term is, there were multiple hessian states fighting in the revolution but only Hesse-Kassel had soldiers at trenten (as opposed to Hesse-Hanau).XavierGreen (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the correct term is "Hessian" if they're from Hesse-Kassel (or Hesse-Hanau). (Either that or the more cumbersome "Germans from Hesse-Kassel".) Magic♪piano 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then in the Section title a label saying Hesse-Kassel and United Kingdom rather than Hessian and British army?XavierGreen (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fine suggestion for the label. Magic♪piano 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Review

As requested on my talk page, I'm leaving a short review of this page here. Firstly, I think this is an excellent order of battle, and I really like the way that the tables are presented. I also think the paragraphs that begin each table are well-written and informative. My problems with the page relate to statistics. The advantage of this type of list is the ability to cram in statistics that would be rounded on as boring in a prose article, but are of interest to people wanting to look deeper at the raw data. In particular, the tables have no totals, giving us complete numbers of guns, men etc in each army. Secondly, there is no information about casualties in the battle by unit and a brief comment on the unit's activities during the battle - where known, this information would be a great improvement. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualty counts is an obvious thing. I believe Stryker actually lists the few American casualties by name and unit; I'm not sure if he has a breakout of the Hessian casualties at the regimental level since I haven't looked for it yet; Fischer does not provide one. Accounts of the battle are reasonably detailed; unit-level activity blurbs are definitely a possibility. There are totals provided for each division and brigade (on their respective lines), and I provide a grand total for the Continentals at the bottom of their table. Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 18:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct regarding the Continentals, although Hessian totals would be useful too.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

American numbers

There's a vast discrepancy between the American numbers for Washington's force given here (>5,000) and those cited in the article (2,400; some other sources say 2,700). The latter seems to be a figure generally agreed upon by other easily available references. This lists Sullivan's division as 2,624 and Greene's as 2,690, while other sources record them as 1,200 and 1,500 respectively. This is a huge difference--does anyone know why this variance exists? It's not just a matter of counting officers and musicians. Are the larger numbers perhaps enrolled or authorized strength instead of fit for service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.125.4.210 (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I've looked up Stryker and found a different one of his books, "The Continental Army at the crossing of the Delaware River on Christmas", which lists the entire strength of the Continental Army before the attack as around 8,000, or 6,000 effectives. This is confirmed by his work cited, "The Battles of Trenton and Princeton" (and cites Lord Stirling as mentioning the figure of 6,000 men) and may be the key to the discrepancy. If the entire force (Cadwalader's, Dickinson's, and the main army with Washington could only muster 6,000 effectives, and Cadwalader and Ewing were unable to cross, then maybe there were only 2,400 who actually got into action; the 5,400 listed may well be just paper strength. Winterbadger (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)