Talk:Battle of Pea Ridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Arkansas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arkansas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Where's the battle?

We've got the prelude section and the aftermath but we seem to have lost the section on the actual battle. (Seems to have been removed during the Nov 10, 2004 edit by 66.210.134.5). RJFJR 17:29, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Removed by anon during a vandalism spree. All the other vandalisms where fixed, but this one was unnoticed for 4 months. Oy. Thanks for finding the missing section. I put it back. Please review. --A D Monroe III 03:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics problems?

I'm getting some odd graphical corruption on the PNG files in this article? They appear as alternating lines of dark and light sections. Almost like looking at a picture of Saturn's rings, if that helps you visualize it.

Anyone else experiencing this? --Andy J. Ivey 18:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - When I click on the PNG file, the larger thumbnail appears distorted, but the full resolution picture is correct. --Andy J. Ivey 18:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I see the same problem with this article. I have had some other problems with the thumbnail-producing code in other articles, generally affecting large images over a megabyte. For my JPEG images, I have received error messages regarding memory errors in the conversion. I got around this by storing smaller, lower resolution files in the 500K range and below. Hal Jespersen 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I too have problems with some of the illustrations rasmusdf 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the two situation maps concerning Hoffman's battery (Union)

These two maps don't represent the battle as a whole, only a small portion involving that battery. Looking at the maps I believe the first one shows part of the engagement on the left flank the first day, certainly McCulloch's division and Pike's Indians. The second one seems to show part of the battle field on the right wing the second day. All in all both maps only show a very small portion of the battlefield and are likely to be confusing. Either their caption has to be improved, or they should be removed from the article entirely.--Caranorn 21:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the two images. This will probably just be temporary as I'd like to hear other opinions on the issue. These are situational sketches accompagnying Hoffman's report (can be found here (two pages, 237 and 238)). They do not represent the entire battlefield on either day. The first day sketch must be relatively early on march 7, just showing the field in which I believe McCulloch and McIntosh fell (this definitelly is the Union left wing, or the so called battle of Leetown). The second shows the new Union left on the second day, again the battle itself extended far beyond that area. Possibly the images could be reinserted, but with a different caption, clarifying how it's just an instant and only represents the Union view (the sketch was drawn less then a week after the battle) of part of the battle.--Caranorn 13:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confederate Forces

I think the bit about Confederate Forces should be rewritten. It currently contains a number of errors. Price also had a number of newly formed Missouri regular units in his command (Little and Slack's brigades no longer belonged to the MSG), as it stands these are not included in the article. MCulloch in turn had Texas and Arkansas cavalry (4 Texan and 2 Arkansas Regiments, but also at least three battalions) but also Arkansas and Louisiana Infantry. I wonder whether it wouldn't be easiest to use the same format as for the Union forces and say there were troops from Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and the Cherokee Nation (some Chocktaw and Chickasaw of Cooper's brigade were also present near the battlefield, but I believe they took no part). Note currently the artillery (Missouri, Texas and Arkansas) is not at all named.--Caranorn 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dispute of information

hey, there is a couple times that the the number of soldiers on each side are stated and yet each time it is different. once its the confederats have 14,000 troops the next its they had 16,000 troops. which is it? Crazydjman 02:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it greatly varies according to sources. The National Park service [1] gives 16,000 Confederates and 10,500 Union.--Caranorn 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leetown, Pike and Greer

Just for explanation.

It is often assumed that Pike was next in command for McCulloch's division. In reality he and his brigade were not part of that command. Pike was the commander in the Indian Territories (I'd have to look up his official title). He arrived late for Pea Ridge (he had his reasons, notably that by treaty his units were not supposed to leave the territories, he only managed to move them after offering to pay them..., causing this delay and also why half of his command never arrived on the battlefield (they were at Camp Stephens)). Anyhow, Pike's brigade was only attached to McCulloch's division.

The next ranking officer of the division was Elkanah Greer of the 3rd Texas Cavalry. He and his command were on Little Mountain at the time of McCulloch and McIntosh's death (note I'd have to reread Shea about McIntosh, I was under the impression he was never informed of McCulloch's death as his body was only discovered after the two regiments penetrated through the Timber Belt) and Hébert's capture. Greer was among those commanders not informed of McCulloch's fate (so were Van Dorn and Price). It was only when the fighting died down that Greer decided to find out what was happening, so he went off in search of McCulloch, even then he was not immediately informed of the other commanders' demise. When this happened he did assume command and tried to reorganise the remaining forces around the Farm (you'd think I'd remember the name after I just corrected the article)... Greer was after that commander of the division until a further reorganisation of the army took place some time later. Next in command would have been Churchill (he commanded a force on the second day) and McNair who later commanded Hébert's brigade.

There were some other things too, but as should be apparent by now, my memory is failing at the oddest moments. The sources I based these changes on are Shea and the OR, though without research I cannot give exact quotes, page numbers or the like.

Oh, I almost forgot, the material about the supposed killing of prisoners by Pike's men has to be sourced, I'm pretty certain it's not in Shea's, at least not in the way it's reported in the article right now.--Caranorn (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Caranorn, I don't have an issue with your revisions, which I believe to be accurate. However, I did add a quote and citation from Shea that claimed the Cherokees murdered several wounded Iowans. I know this is a touchy issue, but I'm quoting verbatim. Djmaschek (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, found the section in the book. Though I might at one point look for the relevant entries in the OR and add a short counterpoint. Maybe we could add a controversies section at some point to explain some matters in more detail. It's unfortunate that Shea and Hess didn't write more about this issue than a single paragraph (and half of that deals with the general chaos after the cavalry charge).--Caranorn (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Caranorn, thanks for your vote of confidence and for cleaning up McCulloch. Shea & Hess was a wonderful source. Djmaschek (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. And yes, Shea/Hess was a good read though I have some issues with it (a slight nativist and pro northern slant in my opinion, but that doesn't belong into the article, certainly not against respectable sources). Unfortuntatelly the authors never answered to my email trying to clarify some points. You did a good job expanding the article.--Caranorn (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)