Talk:Battle of Camden

United States: South Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

vandalism

An anon has altered the casualty numbers today, but without a source for new or old, I can't tell if it's vandalism or a correction. Stan 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle section

I think most of the information in the Battle section - everything from the sentence about Greene - is out of place in this article, since it's not actually about the battle. At the very least it should be moved into the aftermath section, but I don't think it should be in here at all -- Hirudo 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Someone has vandalized part of the beginnings of this article, (ie: "The threatening situation on the moon alarmed the retards"), however I don't know what was there originally so I cannot fix it. Help?Meh. 05:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this written by a descendant of Gates?

Gate's abandonment of his command by fleeing the battle at its pinnacle is legendary, and more importantly, historically documented beyond any doubt. He fled the battle faster and farther than any American commander before or since, even given the advances of technology and transportation. Horatio Gates is viewed historically by the British as their best weapon against the Colonials, given his success in discrediting Arnold and targeting and almost removing Washington.

It takes a very, very loyal descendant to Gates to not include this perspective in the article. Such descendants can only hope readers do not admire the full extent of Gates' treachery and incompetence as documented best in PBS' documentary on the Revolution Liberty! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even within wikipedia, a more accurate assessment of Gates' performance is described as "Gates's principal accomplishment in the unsuccessful campaign was to cover 170 miles (270 km) in three days on horseback, heading north in retreat." Horatio_Gates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camden (1781)

The 1781 engagement under Greene was also notable, and somebody should write about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De Kalb shot eleven times?

The Wikipedia article on De Kalb states that he received three musket wounds, while this one states eleven. Whichever is correct (and surviving three days with eleven musket wounds seems rather less likely), the two articles should perhaps be made to at least agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.175.183 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]