Talk:Gettysburg Campaign: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (→Puzzled as to why this is being renamed a campaign: Well, the battle was part of a larger vision of Lee's) |
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (→Puzzled as to why this is being renamed a campaign: More on Lee's goals) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I believe this article would be more properly entitled "Battle of Gettysburg". [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 11:09, 15 June 2008 (CDT) | I believe this article would be more properly entitled "Battle of Gettysburg". [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|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. 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 the article 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 perhaps it's intended to eventually have the article cover the manoeuvering beforehand, too.) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:14, 15 June 2008 (CDT) |
Revision as of 11:14, 15 June 2008
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 the article cover the manoeuvering beforehand, too.) J. Noel Chiappa 11:14, 15 June 2008 (CDT)
Categories:
- Article with Definition
- Developed Articles
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Military Developed Articles
- Military Advanced Articles
- Military Nonstub Articles
- Military Internal Articles
- History Developed Articles
- History Advanced Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Military tag
- History tag
- American Civil War tag