Talk:Gettysburg Campaign: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
(→‎Puzzled as to why this is being renamed a campaign: Article does already cover entire operation)
imported>Richard Jensen
(historians usually use "Gettysburg campaign" not "battle of Gettysburg"))
Line 10: Line 10:


: Well, the battle did result from Lee's invasion of the North, which did have a grand strategic goal - to show that the North could not protect its citizens, and to help with international recognition (IIRC). So I think the whole thing (the march North, the consolidation of the Confederate army units at Gettysburg, etc) could be termed a 'campaign', but you're right, I wouldn't use that term for the three days of fighting there alone. (Although <s>perhaps it's intended to eventually have</s> I see the article does already cover the manoeuvering beforehand, too.) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:14, 15 June 2008 (CDT)
: Well, the battle did result from Lee's invasion of the North, which did have a grand strategic goal - to show that the North could not protect its citizens, and to help with international recognition (IIRC). So I think the whole thing (the march North, the consolidation of the Confederate army units at Gettysburg, etc) could be termed a 'campaign', but you're right, I wouldn't use that term for the three days of fighting there alone. (Although <s>perhaps it's intended to eventually have</s> I see the article does already cover the manoeuvering beforehand, too.) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:14, 15 June 2008 (CDT)
::The article is about a month-long campaign.  I agree with Noel that the three days of July 1-3 are incomprehensible except in the context of a campaign, including Lee's strategy ahead of time and, especially, the failed followup on the part of Meade. Apart from Luvas, all the chief historians (Coddington, Brown, Nofi, Woodworth, McPherson, Wertz, ) avoid "battle" in their titles and prefer instead the '''Gettysburg Campaign''' and we are following their lead. See especially James M. McPherson, "To Conquer a Peace? Lee's Goals in the Gettysburg Campaign." ''Civil War Times'' 2007 46(2): 26-33.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:05, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 12:05, 15 June 2008

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The Gettysburg Campaign was a decisive defeat for the Confederacy in the American Civil War in June-July 1863; Gen. Robert E. Lee was the loser, Gen. George Meade of the Union Army the winner. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Military and History [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  American Civil War
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Puzzled as to why this is being renamed a campaign

While I disagreed with the convention of "Foo, Battle of", I fail to see how the Gettysburg Whatever can be considered a campaign rather than a battle. Neither side planned a major engagement at Gettysburg, which would take it into the level of operational art at which campaigns are fought.

The article speaks of a battle, lasting three days, but does not describe a specific operational-level objective that would make it a campaign, as were Vicksburg and Sherman's operations in Georgia. Technically, the Battle was a meeting engagement, with much tactical improvisation.

I believe this article would be more properly entitled "Battle of Gettysburg". Howard C. Berkowitz 11:09, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Well, the battle did result from Lee's invasion of the North, which did have a grand strategic goal - to show that the North could not protect its citizens, and to help with international recognition (IIRC). So I think the whole thing (the march North, the consolidation of the Confederate army units at Gettysburg, etc) could be termed a 'campaign', but you're right, I wouldn't use that term for the three days of fighting there alone. (Although perhaps it's intended to eventually have I see the article does already cover the manoeuvering beforehand, too.) J. Noel Chiappa 11:14, 15 June 2008 (CDT)
The article is about a month-long campaign. I agree with Noel that the three days of July 1-3 are incomprehensible except in the context of a campaign, including Lee's strategy ahead of time and, especially, the failed followup on the part of Meade. Apart from Luvas, all the chief historians (Coddington, Brown, Nofi, Woodworth, McPherson, Wertz, ) avoid "battle" in their titles and prefer instead the Gettysburg Campaign and we are following their lead. See especially James M. McPherson, "To Conquer a Peace? Lee's Goals in the Gettysburg Campaign." Civil War Times 2007 46(2): 26-33.Richard Jensen 12:05, 15 June 2008 (CDT)