Talk:Battle of Gettysburg order of battle: Confederate

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

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 not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Fitzhugh Lee

Not my usual area of interest, but the above-named gentleman is a red link on his death date page (April 28) and seems to be mentioned at least once - maybe three times?? - in the cavalry listing of this article. Maybe some war (or genealogy) expert can sort them out? Robin Patterson 23:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are 3 Lee's in the Confederate OB page: Robert E Lee, Fitzhugh Lee [R.E.L.'s nephew], and WHF "Rooney" Lee [R.E.L.'s son], the latter 2 cavalry generals.

big_hal 15:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jones' Brigade

Hal,

Please note that the 35th Battalion, Virginia Cavalry of Grumble Jones' brigade was indeed present at Gettysburg, attached temporarily to Jubal Early's division. They had joined the division at Greencastle, PA during the march northward, and served as scouts and a cavalry screen during Early's expedition to the Susquehanna River. During Gettysburg, they operated on the flanks, as well as occasional forays on the battlefield proper. They were present on the Day 1 field. See Frank Myers' classic book, The Comanches, for details.

Scott Mingus

I created this page from the ORs and also Eicher's work. The latter lists the 35th Btn as not there. If you would like to edit the table in the appropriate place (not sure where they were attached in Early's div), go ahead. Hal Jespersen 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest the regimental history of the 35th written by John Divine. It has been said that a prior skirmish between one of the 35th's members and a member of Union Company from Loudoun Cnty VA were actually the first to engage in the Battle. I don't know if anyone is aware but many of the members of the 35th in B co were from Loudoun Cnty and thier rivals were Union Cavalrymen called "Loudoun Rangers". The 35th has a rather colorful history, I think my favorite story is at the Battle of Brandy Station where they overran a New Jersey Battery of Artillery to supporr the 7th and 9th Virginia Battalions. Companies from the 35th were also present during other events in the Gettysburg campaign. The Battles in Hanover Junction, and the Bridge Burning in Wrightsville (York County)/Columbia (Lancaster County) actually saw the watermark of the Confederacy stretch further north then what was first thought. (From a 35th Virginia Cavalry re-enactor in absentia 35th Battlion Virginia Cavalry Co A) User:BlueTemplar13 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as DAB. --dashiellx (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strength missing

Nice to have an OOB, but it doesnt helps much when the strength of the units is missing. --109.91.78.75 (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left out the strength of the units on purpose, because the order of battle is too cluttered otherwise. Furthermore should Battle Orders not show the strength, but mainly reflect the organization of the armies. --Kitt1987 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]