Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias/Archive 1

References

I have tagged this article as unreferenced because it has no references or external links of any kind. The information itself seems to be biased towards the Spanish point of view. The numbers would seem to be overstated as well. This source [1] which is in itself very biased gives the number at 15,000 British troops. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view this article needs a thorough copyedit. Woodym555 21:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The references that have recently been added need to be expanded upon for them to be considered valid and verifiable. They need a valid cite template, the list of which can be found at Wikipedia:Citation templates, specifically it needs the Template:Cite book added. Most people use "Example 2" but at the very least it needs a valid ISBN. This helps other editors to track this book and verify the reference.

Most of the article can be challenged and can be seen as being contentious. As such it needs inline citations as per theguidelines. I have added fact tags where i think citations are needed. I have placed them on figures and statements that could easily be challenged. Thanks Woodym555 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army pp112-113 editor David Chandler.

Tony Hayter: Chapter 6 - The Army and the first British Empire 1714 -1783: "Of the 10,000 British soldiers of the expedition only 2,600 were still alive in October 1742 [when Vernon left the Carribean]. . . 600 died in action; disease had killed the rest. Of the 4,163 Americans only 1,463 survived."

This seems to concur that there were ~15,000 British in total.

N.A.M Roger states Vernon had 10 ships. He was reinforced by Rear Admiral Ogle with 25 ships. When Vernon left he left Ogle as c-i-c with 19 ships. Raymond Palmer 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RN content

The article below, entitled Battle of Cartagena is a copy of the discussion pertaining to the Battle of Cartagena de Indias and its repercussions. For the full edit history of this discussion use this link:[2] For a discussion on how to incorporate the Battle of Cartagena into Royal Navy pages see the Royal Navy talk page. Thankyou Woodym555 20:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cartagena

Following the indication of the user "Woody" I would like to suggest the inclusion of the Battle of Cartagena de Indias in the History section (somewhere between the 4th and 5th paragraphs) as it represents the largest naval enterprise in the history of the Royal Navy, and one of the largest of all times (in terms of tonnage of ships). Due to the sheer size of the fleet, the negative outcome also makes it the largest defeat of the British navy in its history. In my opinion, a mention of this battle is clearly necessary.

Regarding sources, the main article Battle of Cartagena de Indias quotes Tobias Smollet in a book by Jorge Orlando Melo published in Bogota (Colombia) in 1989. I have also included the book Breve Historia de Cartagena by Eduardo Lemaitre (published in Medellin) in that Reference section.

Regarding numbers, Lemaitre's book specifically mentions 186 British ships and 23,600 men (including 4,000 American colonials led by George Washington's half-brother Lawrence Washington) making it the largest military action in maritime history (in terms of tonnage) after the Battle of Normandy and the Battle of Leyte Gulf, both in 1944. To give a few examples, the large Spanish Armada of 1588 sailed with 123 ships (130 according to some sources) and the "English Armada" or Norris-Drake Expedition of 1589 was composed of 146 ships. All other naval battles in history were either smaller in number, or included ships of smaller tonnage such as galleys (biremes, triremes etc), galleases or longships. The British fleet in the Battle of Trafalgar (1805) for example, was made up of only 27 ships (versus the joint French-Spanish fleet of 33 vessels).

The references are still sketchy and are not properly formatted as per Wikipedia:Citation templates, specifically it needs the Template:Cite book added. Most of the article can be challenged and can be seen as being contentious. As such it needs inline citations as per theguidelines. The information itself still seems to be heavily biased towards the Spanish point of view. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view that article needs a thorough copyedit and a fundamental rewrite. That in istelf does not disqualify it from inclusion here but the lack of verifiable references does. Information cannot be added without adequate references. The numbers need to be referenced and quoted exactly from the references listed. A cursory search on Google came up with this source [3] which is in itself very biased which gave the number at 15,000 British troops.

Until that article, and the information that you want to put here, is fully referenced and quoted form verifiable sources i can't see how the information can be put in here without the addition of {{Fact}} tags and subsequent deletions. Any other opinions welcome. Woodym555 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have now created an account in order to participate in Wikipedia more effectively. I am surprised about your comments, specially those regarding the credibility of the references for the Battle of Cartagena. First, I am not an expert in quoting, but that does not mean a certain source is inexistent or its contents false. Here is (I hope) the appropriate quotation form:

{{cite book |last=Lemaitre |first=Eduardo |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=''Breve Historia de Cartagena |year=1998 |publisher= Editorial Colina|location=Medellin |isbn= }}

Second, if you contend the existence of this book how can I prove that it really exist? What makes a reference "verifiable""? Must I scan the book or the relevant pages and send them to the editors by mail? (You can find the book cited in the Amazon.comwebsite for example:[4]) If the contents of a book are challenged, how can citations be made? By citing the actual pages? (The Battle of Cartegena appears on page 62 of my copy of the book, in the chapter called Los Ingleses contra Cartagena meaning "The English against Cartagena").

Third, exactly what makes you think that the "information itself still seems to be heavily biased towards the Spanish point of view"? To begin with, Lemaitre is a well-respected Colombian historian and the book, though written from a Colombian point of view, is a thorough and rigorous review of the history of Cartagena, citing works from over 50 authors in its Bibliography. If you need I can scan the Bibliography and send it as well.

Fourth, the reference you cite [5] which gives the number of 15,000 British troops probably refers to the sailors, pawns and black slaves which add up to 15,600 men, according to Lemaitre's book. Apart from this force, there was another 8,000 infantry. I will quote the passage (page 62) in the original Spanish, and translate it below:

"El Jefe de esta expedición era el Almirante Sir Edward Vernon, quien traía abordo de aquella formidable flota un cuerpo de 8,000 soldados de tropas escogidas, 12,600 marinos, 2,000 peones y 1,000 negros esclavos, todo lo cual daba un imponente resultado de 23,600 combatientes"

Translation: "The Commander (chief) of this expedition was Admiral Sir Edward Vernon, who brought onboard that formidable fleet a force of 8,000 soldiers of selected troops, 12,600 sailors, 2,000 pawns and 1,000 black slaves, all of which adds up to an impressive 23,600 combatants"

I am open to comments regarding Wikipedia formating, and indeed interested in learning more about the appropriate codes and formulas in this free and universal encyclopedia. What I find hard to do, is to prove the existence of a particular reference or source, or to convince editors that because it is in another language does not mean it is biased. JCRB

The history section here has been cut back, and is now just meant to be a brief summary. Few few individual actions are covered here now, so I'd recommend that you move the entire discussion to the Talk:History of the Royal Navy page, and focus on getting the battle metioned in more detail there. To be honest, this may be a major event to those in Cartegena (and rightfully so!), but on the whole scale of RN actions, it's relativley minor. This is somewhat like Canadians who claim to have won the War of 1812 because they repelled an American invasion, but ignore the fact that the War involved much more than just an minor invasion of Canada. - BillCJ 23:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Great!!!!! I do love this point of view. Considering it like this we can assure that the Spanish Armada episode was not an English victory as they only manage to repell an invasion. The same with the Battle of England of 1940. And the whole Vietnam War was a tecnical draw, just like the Napoleonic invassion of Russia. By the way, its curious how King George II was so unpleased with Vernon "tecnical draw" in Cartagena.... I know this is just the discussion page, but its not promising to see how little neutral are some wikipedists

I apologise if i was bit heavy handed but the meaning of my comments has been lost. That quotation form is correct but is there no ISBN? This helps other editors to track it down. I want to make clear that i have never disputed the existence of the book, merely the facts that are contained within it. In WP:CITE it states "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Citations can be made, and are meant to be made, by quoting pages and if needs be quoting the paragraph verbatim in the footnotes. You may want to read Wikipedia:Harvard referencing for instructions on how to do so.

I maintain that the current article is biased towards the point of view of the Spanish/Columbian. Why did England attempt to invade, what did Vernon do?, how many cannon did he fire, What were his motivations. It cannot just be the heroic tale of Blas de Lezo. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is neutral, the argument of both sides should be addressed. The siege of Cartagena also needs to talk about the English Army and its role in the events.

I would also have to agree with BillCJ and his comments. The history section is now a summary as per WP:SUMMARY and as such does not list every battle let alone describe them in detail. This battle was an attempted siege that was rebuffed by a strong resistance force. It was an attempt at colonization and it failed as did many other attempts. The Battle of Trafalgar was about preserving British Sovereigntu over the seas. This is only dealt with by a small sentence. As such i do not see any lengthy coverage of this minor battle being viable in this article. Woodym555 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both for your comments. Bill, I understand that the history section is meant to be a brief summary and I agree with that. But such an important, large-scale action as the Battle of Cartagena deserves a mention. We can argue why this action was so important and its consequences, but the sheer size of the fleet involved should be more than enough. You suggest that this action might have been important for the people of Cartagena "but on the whole scale of RN actions, it's relativley minor". If you think the largest naval enterprise in the history of the RN is relatively minor, then what do you think is relatively major? Vernon's fleet was made up of 186 ships and 23,600 men, much more than both the Spanish Armada of 1588 and the English Armada of 1589.

Moving on to Woody's comments, I am more than happy to discuss the background of the Battle of Cartagena and even to include it in the article, but I understand the idea is to make a small mention only, as the history section is meant to be a summary. Here is a brief explanation anyway:

The Battle or Siege of Cartagena is part of a larger Anglo-Spanish conflict called the War of Jenkin's Ear. Cartagena de Indias at the time was a major Spanish trading port of the Caribbean (together with Porto Bello, Veracruz and Havana) and was a major stopover for the Spanish Treasure Fleets carrying precious metals back to Spain via Havana. The objective of the Vernon expedition was to sieze control of this strategic port and disrupt the galleon routes which carried gold, silver and other goods to the Spanish mainland. The success of this enterprise would have not only caused a major economic damage to Spain, but would have interrupted her control of the Caribbean, and become a threat for her American colonies. Instead, a series of strategic failures, coordination problems and diseases on the British side, and the large fortifications and able leadership (Blas de Lezo and Sebastian de Eslava) on the Spanish side, ended in a big defeat for the assailants. Woody correctly says that the Battle of Trafalgar "was about preserving British Sovereignty over the seas". Well, the Battle of Cartagena was about preserving Spanish sovereignty over the Caribbean and with it over her entire American empire.

You are more than welcome to ask for more details on this military action, as there is more information in my book Breve Historia de Cartagena which I am happy to translate. You can also find information (in Spanish) about this battle in [6] which is very similar to that in my source . In fact, the statistics (numbers of ships and troops) is exactly the same as those I have quoted.

I am happy to provide any other information you request (including the evolution of the battle, step by step, the number of cannons etc) or even look for other sources of information. The question is that the Battle of Cartagena was a major, if not the largest military action in the history of the British navy (and one of the largest in world history) and therefore in my opinion deserves a mention in the History section. JCRB.

The biggest issue you have with asserting significant notability is finding more than one source. The RN hasn't been shy about it's disasters, and there have been several, so the absence of the engagement is pretty telling.

ALR 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions JCRB will be useful for the History page, i agree. My argument though is still with the importance of the subject. Yes it was a large fleet, but how much of a percentage of the fleet available at the time was it? The Spanish Armada involved most of the available ships, and for its time it was on eof the most notable battles in the history of England. We need to see it as a question of tonnage but this is still missing the point somewhat. The Spanish Armada was notable for its ramifications; it prevented the invasion of England. Trafalgar was notable for its' ramifications; it destroyed the French and Spanish Fleets and weakened the French movement as a whole. The ramifications of this siege were that Vernon sailed home empty handed. It was a failed attempt at an invasion, in terms of the history of the British Isles and its Navy how does this compare to Jutland, Trafalgar and the retreat of Dunkirk? In terms of the history of the Royal Navy it was an embarassing episode yes, but had no real ramifications for the British. In terms of the history of Cartagena it is most certainly a pivotal moment. This battle is mentioned in passing in the Spanish Naval History section and this is meant to be a glorious success.

POINT OF VIEW, PLEASE!!!!! Spaniards can argue that the "ramifications" of the Spanish Armada were just that Medina Sidonia came back to Spain "empty handed" and that´s all. On the other side the Battle of Cartagena de Indias reinforced the Spanish supremacy in the Caribean untill the american colonies became independent. It meant (apart from the regular Treasue Fleets) that the Spanish play a vital role in the lost of Florida and the total defeat of the Brittish in the southern side of the American Revolutionary war.

To be clear: Unsuccessful expeditions/invasion have no "ramifications". Should the Spanish Armada have succeded British and Spanish History would have been very different, imposible to know exactly how. Same for the Norris-Drake expedition of 1589, or the Rio de la Plata invassions of 1806. This is a encyclopedia and not a "what if" game, but we all can be sure that such big operations like the Siege of Cartagena de Indias successful or failed have had History making consecuences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.3.109 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this reference, [7] in English, backs up your claim of 23,00 men but disproves the claim of 186 ships, it states 124. Stanford University is a very well respected institution and as such i hope you will accept their findings. I still feel i have to stress that judging an event by the size of its fleet, or by pure numbers can give a misleading impression. That not withstanding the fleet lost only several hundred men in the actual battle itself. The major killer was disease leading to an eventual death toll of 8,000. I still maintain that the battle itself was a minor one in the history of the Royal Navy. Woodym555 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those last comments. First let me answer a few questions: no, my copy of Breve Historia de Caragena by Eduardo Lemaitre does not have an ISBN (I don't know why). Second, the fact that the Stanford paper cites 124 ships instead of 186 (Lemaitre's work) does not automatically confirm or refute anything. Both in my opinion can be considered "reliable", so I suggest we look for other sources.

ARL says that "the RN hasn't been shy about it's disasters". But with the Battle of Cartegena it has. When news of the defeat reached London in the summer of 1741 (revoking the previous news a few weeks earlier, of a great "victory") King George II prohibited the real news from being revealed. As a result, this event was burried in history (at least in Britain). This is exactly my point about the episode being covered in so few English-language history books. However there are many sources for it, some of which in the Stanford Paper that Woody refered to, and over 50 in the Bibliography of Breve Historia de Cartagena.

Moving on to Woody's comments, which I also appreciate, can I insist that the sheer size of the British fleet should be more than enough to justify its mentioning in the artilce. The size in absolute terms cannot be equated with any other military enterprise by the RN in its history. I really cannot see how else to put this point through. You argue that the size in relative terms perhaps was not as important. Well, I do not have an answer to that. But even if 186 ships (according to Lemaitre) or 124 (according to the Stanford Paper) were relatively less than the Spanish Armada's 130 (123 according to other sources), isn't it still a major (to say the least) naval action in the RN's history?

The Norris-Drake expedition or English Armada of 1589 was also a massive campaign, and if successful would have changed the course of history. The "ramifications" as you put it would have been huge if Norris and Drake had succeeded in occupying Lisbon. And yet this too is often ignored in many English history books. (At least, it does appear here in the Royal Navy article).

As I explained before, the ramifications of the Battle of Cartagena would have been huge if Vernon's attack had been successful: the disruption of the galleon trade routes would have meant a slash in resources to support Spain's military, specially navy. This would have meant an early decline in its political power and its influence on the world stage, meaning earlier and probably more successful independence movements in her colonies and an earlier break-up of her empire. Britain's control of Cartagena would have accelerated this process, as the Royal Navy would have used this strategic position to launch attacks on other Spanish ports and territories in the Caribbean.

Instead, the fact that Vernon was not successful had an important consequence on the geopolitical situation of the Caribbean and of the entire American continent: it prolonged Spain's naval supremacy in the Caribbean (until the 1820's) and secured its sovereignty over her American colonies another 70 to 80 years. Thanks again for your comments and the interesting discussion. JCRB

One problem even with the number of 124 is that it is double the total number of ships of all sizes under the command of both Vernon and later Ogle in the Caribbean during the war. N.A.M. Rodgers, one of the best modern historians of the Royal Navy states that Vernon and later Ogle had 15 3rd rate (72 gun) 19 4th rate (64 gun) 3 5th rate, 6 6th rate, 3 sloops and 14 "others" i.e. small cutters etc. (The Command of the Ocean, Appendix III, page 614) for a total of 60 vessels of all types. The Royal Navy of 1741 had a total of 233 ships of all types from 7 1st rates to 62 4th rates. Rodgers also says that the attack as abandoned because the fortifications of Cartagena were too strong for the quick attack that Vernon had proved so successful at Portobello. A long siege was impossible as the army started losing too many men from yellow fever. Dabbler 01:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting version of the battle, but not too convincing. First, Vernon's attack on Porto Bello cannot be compared with the Cartagena campaign, as only six ships were used on a poorly defended port, where a surprise attack proved successful. The size of Cartagena's fortifications makes the quick attack strategy a feeble hypothesis. The city had an impressive network of defense positions along the bay which was enough to repell any small or medium-sized attack, regardless of speed or surprise involved. If Vernon had a fleet of only 60 vessels, many of which were 5th rate or below, an attack on Cartagena would have been an absurd idea. Finally, if the attack was "abandoned" why was a commemorative medal minted to celebrate the apparent "victory"? The medal showed Admiral Vernon looking down upon Lezo who was kneeling down, and read: "Spanish pride humiliated by Vernon".

Vernon did come close to attacking Cartagena several times before March 1741, and indeed he "abandoned" each time due to the low chances of success. But there is no question that the confidence of taking Porto Bello made him launch a massive attack on Cartagena a few months later which resulted in the equally large defeat that we know. JCRB

N.A.M Rodger is one of the most prestigious British naval historians, your casual dismissal of him indicates that you are not convinced because you don't want to be.Perhaps you should think whether you have been blinded by propaganda from the other side. I suggest that you read some of Rodger's work before dismissing him so casually. If that is your attitude to anyone who doesn't agree with you, then it won't be worth discussing anything with you.

Rodger's understanding is that Vernon did not particularly want to attack Cartagena because he knew that, due to its massive fortifications, it would not be susceptible to the small but rapid attack that he had proved workable at Portobello. A long slow assault would mean that the troops and sailors would be exposed to the perils of yellow fever which killed more men than the enemy ever did.

However, he was also an active politician and member of the opposition party, so the government wanted to gain some credit for reinforcing him and ordering him to take Cartagena. The government sent out the expeditionary force in 25 ships to give him no excuse to avoid the attack. The army's expeditionary force lost its commander who died on the voyage to the West Indies. Vernon took overall command from the second in command but had on-going disputes with the replacement army commander who did not act as quickly as he wanted. Dabbler 11:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] The sources that i have read all state that Vernon and the Royal Navy quite easily overcame the defences in the Bay, indeed overcoming the scuttled Spanish Ships in the entrance, but they couldn't take over the castle/fortress though. If the attack was abandoned why was a commemorative medal minted?: It was minted because Vernon claimed and predicted in a letter home that he had won, he counted his proverbial chickens. Soon after the letter was sent the Siege was abandoned due to the reasons stated by Dabbler. Incidentally is that not what it should be called - The siege of Cartagena de Indias?

Onto a different point, as you state the ramifications would have been huge but for the Spanish Navy. As you yourself put with a slight sprinkling of conjecture, the Spanish Navy would have crumbled. Your hypothesis is exactly that, a hypothesis and conjecture. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This siege was a failed attempt at disrupting Spanish Trade. It did not have major ramifications for the Royal Navy and if successful, yes it would have had ramifications for Spain, for Britain it would have meant more gold.

I think it would be foolish to ignore the findings of Stanford University. This paper is produced by a well respected scholar and it cites many sources, including both British and Spanish, and it seems to me to be a cogent argument. Ignoring it because it does not backup your numbers would be foolhardy in my opinion. Woodym555 11:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See Nicholas Rodger for some background on this historian. David Underdown 11:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I suggest that we tone down the level of this discussion. The objective is to discuss events in the most neutral and academic away. First, I will look into N.A.M Rodger's works and see why his numbers about the Cartagena attack are so distant from those in other sources. In turn, if you do a little research you will find that Eduardo Lemaitre was a well-known and respected historian from Colombia (not Spain). As such, there is no reason to suspect that he favoured the "Spanish" point of view. Remember Colombia gained independence from Spain after a long struggle in the early 19th century.

Regarding my dismissal of Rodger being "casual", indeed my skepticism is justified. It so happens that most English-language history books ignore the Battle (or Siege) of Cartagena. This omission a priori seems intentional, as most sources indicate that it was a large defeat in one of the RN's largest campaigns (if not the largest) in its history. Add to this the fact that the British government specifically concealed the news of the outcome (actually burying the event in history) and you get a picture of at least doubtful reliability of English sources.

If anybody has been blinded by "propaganda" it is those who rely solely on English-language texts, which usually exaggerate the victories of Britain and ignore or minimize the victories of other powers. An example is the Spanish Armada which I have explained thoroughly. Most English texts dedicate large sections to describe this major victory of the RN (which indeed it was) in 1588, but omit or simply run past the Norris-Drake Expedition of 1589, which comprised a similar fleet (in numbers) and also attempted a direct attack on the enemy's mainland. Most English history books dedicate pages and pages to the Battle of Trafalfar in which a RN fleet of 27 vessles indeed destroyed a joint French-Spanish fleet of 33, giving it great strategic and geopolitical importance, but somehow ignore that half a century earlier a British fleet of 186 according to Lemaitre, or 124 according to the Stanford paper (or even 60 according to N.A.M Rodger) was defeated in Cartagena in a massive campaign comprising 23,600 men and two months of almost continuous canonfire which would have changed the map of the Caribbean if it had succeeded, and indeed the international balance of power. Why this lack of proportion in events covered?

Regarding the commemorative medal, indeed Vernon dispatched a messenger to Jamaica and Britain thinking he had won the battle (yes, after overcoming the defenses of the bay quite easily). But he did not "abandon" the attack. Vernon's ground forces launched a massive attack against the Fortress of San Felipe de Barajas, which was repelled thanks to a combination of factors: the size and design of the fortress (which allowed for efficient canon crossfire), the able leadership by Blas de Lezo who ordered an exit of the defending forces at the appropriate moment, the bad calculation of the attacking forces, who carried ladders which were not long enough to cross the large dike in front of the fortress, and indeed diseases. The Lemaitre book gives the figure of 800 British casualties during the attack, but a total of 8.000 in the entire campaign (according to the Stanford paper). (The remaining 7,200 casualties were not solely from tropical diseases, but also from the intense canonfire between British vessels and the Spanish fortifications for two months). Therefore, it cannot be argued that the attack was "abandoned". The point is: if the attack had been abandoned Vernon would not have sent the messenger claiming victory.

Regarding "ramifications", I do not understand the argument. Is your criteria that a certain event is "important" if its ramifications are big? Or if its ramifications had been big if the outcome was different? Reading the above I can interpret both. For example, the ramifications of the Spanish Armada were not big because the power of the Spanish Navy in fact grew after that campaign. But the ramifications "would have been big" if Spain's attack had been successful, and therefore it should be considered a major event. However, in the Cartagena attack you argue that the ramifications for the RN were not big (which is arguable) but clearly they would have been big if Vernon's attack had been successful. So what is the criteria?

Regarding the consequences being a "conjecture", indeed they are hypothetical. But they are educated hypothesis based on the knowledge of the situation in 18th century Caribbean, and specifically Spanish ports and the galleon trade routes. It does not take too much research to understand that if Britain had occupied Spain's most important port (where silver and gold were loaded) it would have chocked Spain's finances (at least temporarily) and caused a major blow to her supremacy in the Caribbean. Any historian would agree with this interpretation.

Regarding the findings of the Stanford University paper, I am not ignoring them at all. In fact my sources agree with much of the information there contained. The only data which is different, is the number of vessels in Vernon's fleet. I suggest we look for more sources to confirm or refute the Lemaitre figure of 186.

Finally, can I say that this argument is getting very long. All I am asking to the editors of the Royal Navy article is that a brief mention is made about the Battle or Siege of Cartagena in the History section. I have put forth many arguments for this, which I never imagined would have been rejected to this extent. The sheer size of this naval attack on a major Spanish gold-trading port in the Caribbean which would have disrupted not only Spain's vital galleon trade, but the balance of power in the Caribbean (and probably beyond) should be more than sufficient reasons to include a short sentence on this event. JCRB 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While i accept that this argument is long, that is not a problem as long as consensus is reached at the end of it. I would rather have a long discussion than have a short one with no real ending to it. At least we can see this has been definitive. Also i want to reiterate my earlier point that my comments can be lost in translation. It is very hard to adequately and may i say it eloquently get your point across on such a one dimensional medium. That being said i do think that you are taking this perosnally. What we are trying to ensure is that the quality and verifiability of this article is upheld. The difference in terms of the number of ships is huge and does have a huge impact. It is better to have a long discussion and get the facts straight.

if the attack had been abandoned Vernon would not have sent the messenger claiming victory. I am sorry but i still do not get your reasoning. e.g.If someone thinks victory is coming on say, the 1st of xx, he will send a messenger home, back then victories were big things, a meadl is commissioned. If say a week later on the 8th Victory with your current Fleet looks impossible, you are being ravished by disease, you stop the siege and return home. The medals are abandoned. Things change over time. It was a siege that did not succeed. Not many Britsh ships were lost in the harbour, from the sources i have read more were burned out at sea because they did not have enough men to staff them.

With regards to ramifications, what i mean was how did it affect England, Britain and the Britsh Isles? Would abandoning this siege mean that people back home would suffer hardship, short answer, no. If the Spanish Armada had gone ahead, ramifications - we might be having this discussion in Spanish. I think this obssession with size and quantifying the battle is blinding you somewhat. Battles are about more than just numbers, it is about strategy, advantage and strategic gains. It would have been great for the Navy to have won, the coffers of the Government would have been full. As it happens Vernon returned home embarassed.

With regards to references, i agree that new ones should be found to help with the debate. With regards to bias, what do you expect. Are all Spanish history books neutral, no, are all the Franch, no, are all the British, no. I don't think that there is a country in the world that does not gloss over its failures and celebrate its victories. I also don't think that we are blinded to spin on the part of the Government of the time, or of today. The lack of proportion is to boost a country's morale. There is nothing that we can do to overcome that national bias, it will always be there. You are naive if you think that the Spanish will not want to glorify and overemphasise the victory and conversely that the British will not want to downplay the failure?

Absolutely wrong the paragraph above. For very long to explain reasons, episodes such as the battle of Cartagena de Indias, the English Armada, the conquest of Florida in 1780, the battle of La Rochelle in 1371, the defeat of the Brittish invasions in the Rio de la Plata in 1806-7 and most of the spanish victories (at sea and on land, against England or any other country) are widely ignored and very little glorified by nowadays literature, cinema or educative policy. However spanish defeats such as the Spanish Armada, the battle of Santiago de Cuba, Trafalgar are very well known by the current Spanish society. In that matter Spain and England-Britain are VERY different. A square in Madrid named "Cartagena de Indias" with a statue of Blas de Lezo looks like Si-Fi to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.32.5 (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section heading

As a first go at the sentence i suggest:

In 1741, a fleet commanded by Admiral Edward Vernon attempted to conquer the Spanish stronghold of Cartagena, in modern day Columbia. The ravishes of disease, and the leadership of Blas de lezo, meant that the attack failed.

Woodym555 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good sentence. It needs a link to the article about the battle, and then we can place it in the History article. But I maintain it's not important enough for that much coverage here. I believe there is a sentence in the History article that mentions the siege with one or two words, and that could go here without any problem. The main aritlce on the battle is the proper place for all the other information involved here, including the ramifications, etc. As to the discussions' length, one might note the proportion of comments by each editor, and note than one editor's comments are significanly longer than the others. - BillCJ 17:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One other note on the discussion: there aere actually some good items and sources mentioned here, and I'd like to propose moving the entire discussion to the Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias page. It's really not relevant to this page, as History is not the focus here. - BillCJ 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Added again due to Edit Conflict) To clarify, Rodger's numbers are NOT those of the fleet sent to assault Cartagena, but the total number of Royal Navy ships of various sizes available in the West Indies during the entire war. As ship's come and go, are used for other tasks apart from supporting current operations and are lost in action or to misadventure, this must be seen as a maximum number. However, there is another possibility, the additional ships could have been civilian ships hired to transport troops and material, this could account for some of the differences in numbers. For an example in William III's invasion of England in 1688, there were 53 Dutch naval ships but an additional 400 transports carrying 60,000 men and 5,000 horses. It would be natural for the Spanish/Colombian story to maximise the number of ships even if they took no active part in the assault to enhance their victory while the British would look to keep the numbers down. Dabbler 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

After the mention of the unification of the RN circa 1707, this is the coverage of the 18th Century: The early 18th century saw the Royal Navy with more ships than other navies, although it suffered severe financial problems throughout this period. That's it! THere is no mention of ANY of the major events that Century, including the RN's participation in the American Revolution. I stand by my assertion that the Battle should not be mentioned here. - BillCJ 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As to the so-called "censorship" of data from the battle in Britain, that mey well be true of 18the century Britian, but the UK of today seems to revel in reliving every mistake and failure of the Empire. This is exaclty the type of failure they love to tout, and the fact that they don't tout it speaks volumes. - BillCJ 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (<- Somewhat tongue-in-cheek!) - BillCJ 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Yes i agree with Dabbler on that one, i did read something about troop ships with relation to the Army involvement. This link [8] is a very useful one but also has an extensive further reading and archive list, it would be good for all to read.

With regards to BillCJs earlier comments, i was thinking the same thing. A copy and paste move though would not be beneficial. As a start i have linked to this debate on that talk page. I will ask for help on the Milhist talk page with regards to moving the debate.

With regards to Billcj's latter comments, i think you are placing too much emphasis on todays "Empire Bashers". I do think that by looking at past mistakes we can avoid making them in the future, but that is not to say that we should over-analyse past events. Anyway that is slightly off topic. I do think that that section does need expanding with more information on the 18th century and the two World War sections still need cutting down. The article as a whole needs a lot of referencing and improvement and that is the idea behind the peer review found here Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy. Woodym555 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Size of the British fleet

I have removed the following wording ... (the biggest fleet in English history until the Disembarkation of Normandy two centuries later) I thought it dubious and have just found the reference I was looking for. In the Walcheren Campaign of 1809, the British expedition consisted of 264 ships with nearly 40,000 troops (Alan Schom "Napoleon Bonaparte" page 536). Dabbler 19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

comparisons

Materially speaking, and demonstrably so, Vernon's losses compare to the Armada's both in casualties and capital ships. Vernon's fleet compares in size and type with the armada and is very possibly the largest, until 1809, 68 years later, when Britains fleet was the largest in the world and could better absorb such catastrophes. 'Some historians' is discouraged by Wiki guidlines. Even english historians of the past acknowledge this disaster as notes show. Its not a violation of NPV to call a defeat a defeat nor, as it compares to the Armada, to characterise it as similarly catastrophic - especially as this happened without a typhoon such as that encountered by the Armada. When Britain later gains India and New France in the SYW, these events are considered triumphs for England and disasters for France - given the value of the Gulf and Caribbean colonies Spain's successful defense was a triumph.Tttom1 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

see Talk:Royal Navy/Archive03 for a somewhat lengthy and exhaustive discussion on this matter and also for sources. The sources currently differ as to the size, makeup and importance of the fleet. We can only discuss the fleet relative to the size of its peers at the time, there is nothing to gain from comparing it the Normandy fleet.

What Dweller was trying to put across in his edits was the fact that this article has to see it from both sides. Some words have different meanings to different people. Was it a defeat? They could have carried on, then it would have been defeat almost certainly. As it was, it was amissed oppurtunity and a retreat. One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It cannot be a victory parade for the Spanish, nor can the English side sweep aside. We have to put across the facts of the battle. Where did it occur? How many ships? How many cannon? What were the tactics used. See WP:MILHISTMOS for the guidelines on structure. It should not become a target for rampant nationalism from both sides.

From a Spanish perspective: A vastly outnumbered defensive force protected a key trading port from being conquered. They kept Spanish influence over the Caribbean.

From a British perspective: A great opportunity to build on the advances of Portobelo was lost. Many men were lost and National pride was hit. From a tactical perspective, they lost no land or influence, nor did they gain any.

Overall, the War of Jenkins Ear was a minor war and Cartagena was a minor skirmish. It is all part of the greater War of Austrain Succession. On a world scale this was a minor event. Woodym555 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the my fair analysis presented above since primary documentation backs it up and I have added more. I see no improvement to the article by obfuscating the actual results of this event in a flurry of relativism. The original spanish sources presented in the article in terms of order of battle are confirmed by primary source British Naval records, that its more than embarassment is borne out in the political results by the collapse of Walpole's gov't. I have no nationalist ax to grind here. The footnotes now cover most factual demands.Tttom1 05:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i have no problems with our latest set of additions, perhaps you could use the refname format see Wikipedia:Footnotes for more info. They are all sourced to a reliable book. (i will go and check the book though when i find the time to verify them.) My only question would be the sentence about Walpole. Directly linking the failure at Cartagena to Walpoles collapse needs a good source. Woodym555 09:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison with the Spanish Armada is not bad, for Spain it meant the loss of a lot of ships and men, but was hardly a strategic disaster for the Spanish Empire that continued for a century or more to grow and prosper. For England however, the Armada threat was existential. If Spain had defeated the English fleet, and the invasion had occurred, it would probably have succeeded and English and Spanish history would have been radically changed. Similarly, at Cartagena, the British lost a lot of ships and men but their empire continued to grow and prosper for a century or more as this was not a strategic loss. However, if Cartagena had fallen to the British attack and been held by them, then the Spanish Main would have probably have been incorporated into the rising British Empire and the history of South America could have been profoundly different. Historical views of these two events are guided by the consequences, Spanish/Colombians may see cartagena as a vital battle whereas the British , if they even consider it all, think of it as a regrettable but minor defeat. I do know the English consider the Spanish Armada to be a remarkable and important victory which preserved their independence regardless of its actual effect on the Spanish Empire. Dabbler 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Walpole's resigns in Feb 1742, the battle ended in May/June '41, Walpole had made gains in the election of Apr-June '41, the bad news may not have reached England until July/Aug and was supressed, but in 6 months he was out. This timeline is from Wiki itself.Tttom1 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks to me like a case of Wikipedia:OR. I think you are making an assumption based on a timeline but provide no historical reference. The Wikipedia article on Robert Walpole does agree that he lost power at least in part because of fears that he could not prosecute the war successfully, but it does not follow that Cartagena was the sole or even principal cause of this loss of confidence unless you can find a specific statement to that effect. Dabbler 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently searching english sources and anger at the loss versus expectation of the huge expedition seems quite high, see Hist of Eng vol ii p 380.

In my University archive i have found a letter written by an officer at the time who talks about Vernon and the battle at "Carthagena." The news came home fairly quickly and there was some sort of parliamentary enquiry into the matter. This refutes the claim that the King and then parliament tries to cover it up completely. I will write up the aftermath section soon. Your assumption about Walpole is conjecture and should be removed as an unsourced statement. Woodym555 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim of cover up, not made by me, is borne out by the effect of the realization that the happy news was premature. If you think this is a reason to judiciously delete some of that fine. There is no question as to the uproar the news made or the withdrawal of the victory medal.Tttom1 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By the by, I don't attribute the fall of walpole in the article to cartagena, I simply stated that following the news of the defeat his govt collapsed which is a statement of fact not conjecture, or OR. Its my opinion on this page that cartagena is the real reason and the corruption charge a pretext, but I never said, in the article, it is the sole or principal cause - therefore it doesn't need a specific statement to that effect - so I'd say it has to stay. As I research this its more apparent how big this event is at that time. For example, Vernon actually speaks in Parliament for the war - in a rather rude manner, according to the accounts.Tttom1 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is well known that Vernon was an Opposition politician as well as being an admiral. He is certainly known to have been a strong proponent of the war with Spain, possibly because he hoped for professional advancement. As often the case, the actual wording of a motion of "No confidence" may have had little to do with the actual reasons for people voting against the government, however, to put any comment about a link from the news of the defeat to the fall of the government you need to find some reputable source out there which says it. You may believe it, I may find it convincing but unless you can find someone else who has previously written it, it is still OR. Dabbler 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vernon and Walpole are enemies as are Vernon and Horace Walpole who bears Vernon a grudge over this. However, I think it stretches the concept of OR to prohibit the statement of events - should it not be stated Spain then retained her lucrative colonies because that's OR as well? Again, it is not said "because the fleet was defeated Walpole lost his job". I don't think it is neccessary but will fish around for an appropriate reference, since this is not a new thought by me.Tttom1 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not said explicitly, no, but you can see how a layman reader would see it is implied. By having it there you are implying that the two events are linked. Woodym555 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Have found specific references in Admiral Vernon and the Navy: A Memoir and Vindication that states the driving force of the opposition attack on Walpole that caused his resignation was about his conduct of the war and failure to support the fleet. That it occurs in the 'vindication' of Vernon speaks for itself in relation to Cartagena and is not OR.Tttom1 03:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proportion of the Royal navy manpower

I have removed the following because I dispute the logic. "consisting of one fourth of the British navy in ships and sailors." Vernon's fleet consisted not only of Royal Navy personnel manning the 15 ships of the line but also a huge amount of hired civilian transport ships. The civilian crews of the hired transports were not considered part of the naval establishment. Dabbler 15:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am restoring the statement as it is supported by previous reference to the 'Royal Navy Sailors' of the fleet. Neither reference is concerned at all with the civilians. 11,000 sailors is the complement of 30 ships of the line stated in memoires, a primary source.Tttom1 18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

a point of fact. 11,600 sailors is only the 30 ships of the line - it does not include the over 20 frigates and lower rates in the list, also manned by royal navy sailors - not cicvilians, nor 6,000 marines.see: http://books.google.com/books?id=etEHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=royal+navy+1741+vernon+fleet&source=web&ots=mTzWtNUcZa&sig=djtfDp94rZRWHLkPfBgzhhSntN8#PPA25,M1 p.26.Tttom1 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

p.27 of Memoires gives a list of crews of frigates and lesser rates that are said to have followed the fleet to cartagena - it corresponds for the most part to the list of Vernon's frigates with a couple minor differences those crews add up to a total for Vernon of a stated 15,398 Royal Navy sailors. This echoes statements in other sources of 15,000 sailors. This expedition is actually getting bigger the more its examined.Tttom1 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Dabbler 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks for the input.Tttom1 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cartagena Numbers

There has been a very long discussion on the Battle of Cartagena numbers (men, ships, cannon etc) in the Royal Navy Talk page: [9]. I hope we do not need to discuss this all over again. But there was an incosistency in the number of British casualties in the info box on "Casualties". I have changed it from 6,000 to 8,000 as the reference says "one third of the total force": one third of 26,000 is (at least) 8,000, not 6,000. JCRB 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be picky, as I put that ref in, it refers to 1/3 of the land forces. Losses are probably well over 8,000 - land and sea. The article is now extensively referenced in both Spanish and English and the 'categories' should be adjusted accordingly. It would be great if someone could get a pic of the contemporary map of Cartagena - there are a bunch on the internet, but I don't know which could be used under the rules. I plan to add to the aftermath a brief statement on the battle's influence in the Mediterreanean at that time.Tttom1 16:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Tttom. Nevertheless I do think the "Casualties" infobox should include total forces, not just land. Actually there are other sources that indicate a much larger number of casualites. John Pembroke's "Account of Admiral Vernon's Conduit of Cartegena" mentions 18,000 British casualties [10] and this figure is quoted in The Battle section (second-to-last paragraph). Also, good idea about writing a short explanation about the consequences in the Mediterranean. I also think the "Aftermath" section needs to be expanded a bit. Such a massive military compaign had important consequences for both Britain and Spain. The former lost an important number of ships and men (which reduced its naval power in the middle part of the 18th century) and failed to gain a decisive stronghold in the Caribbean. The latter prolonged its naval supremacy in the Atlantic and secured its vital sea lanes (Galleon trade) with its American colonies until the early 19th century. JCRB 11:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say WP:SOFIXIT but i would like to remind you of the need to avoid original research and making suppositions and conjectures. There is also synthesis of sources to consider because if one source says a, one source says b, you cannot say a +b = C. This article is still under development, though i have to say Tttom has done an excellent job of sourcing and writing the earlier sections, the aftermath section has not been expanded yet. I have found a text in my University archive that talks about the subsequent Parliamentary enquiry which i will cite when i have some time. Woodym555 12:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragment, I think its become a better and balanced article and well referenced compared to many other articles. No OR in the article now, statements are sourced and conclusions fall within Wiki guidelines: From original research: "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source." The passages are fully attributable to reliable published sources, "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source".

I noted a few points briefly in the aftermath section thatare referenced specifically but also reflect the views of the majority of sources in this article and therefore given due weight for a balanced view over a minority view. I see in the discussion above that there was some dispute as to the number of ships involved, from 186 to 124, I believe. Both these numbers are correct - depending on the point in the campaign a count is made. The a + b = c of this should be covered by a footnote, if neccesary. As to the casualty box, I wasn't trying to just list land casualties, but they are the ones clearly stated in sources, even in detail by the Royal Navy (which, by the way, is resoundingly silent about the Navy's losses)- I accept the 18,000 previously referenced. Again both these numbers appear correct and are not mutually exclusive.Tttom1 02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, i think the current version is free from WP:OR and is worlds away from the state in which it was found. The guidelines reminder was for JCRB if he was to beef up the aftermath section. I think the current numbers seem correct when compared to the various sources. Woodym555 09:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great, sounds like we've come to a consensus on this article, aside from tweaking. Thanks.Tttom1 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

British Military History Writers and Their Patterns

Having read for many years the views of Anglocentric blogs and history books, I have come observe some common patterns and tendancies. Here are a few of my observations:

1. Britsh historians have a repeated tendancy to blame either weather or disease whenever their military is defeated and almost never give credit to their enemy for skillful combat and weaponry.

2. Gloss over military defeats and elaborate in microscopic detail their victories such that one military victory may fool the casual reader into thinking that England won the war when they actually lost.

3. While not denying British military defeats, too many UK historians will almost never elaborate or even admit such events ever happened.

4. Outright lying about history. For example, I was taught as a child that in the aftermath of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, England was in control of the seas. I now know that such claims are preposterous and unfounded.

5. British historians almost never admit that Britain was capable to committing war crimes or other misdeeds against humanity attributed to war, yet that are more than capable of accusing other nations of doing just that, especially if they were once their enemies.

Why is it that London has a "Portobello Road" to commemorate the capture of Porto Bello in modern day Panama? Porto Bello was quickly re-captured by a local Spanish Viceroy a short time afterward Admiral Vernon siezed it. I can go on and on about many other examples like this, but you all get my point. --Charles A 14:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the article? Wikipedia is not the place for original research which is what these "comments" are. It is well-known that countries "big-up" thier victories and downplay their defeats? What do you expect them to do? Everybody has their own systematic bias instilled by their culture and their are no exceptions to that, including your own viewpoint. Woody (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect British historians and their bloggers to present history in an accurate and balanced manner. Why is that too much to be asking for? Spanish and French historians have no problem admitting that Trafalgar was a defeat for their respective navies. History should be an academic experience and not a propaganda tool for ones own sense of jingoism. --Charles A 14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

British historians accept that Cartagena was a defeat, even the Royal Navy's official history lists it as a defeat. I fail to see what exactly is your point? Can I imply that you see wikipedia editors as bloggers? Do you feel that this article is somehow biased? If so, please state this with examples. Woody (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

True, some British historians accept it as a defeat, even if just half of a sentance is devoted to it. But more to my point, examples like the episode of Cartagena is just typically glossed over into insignificance or not even mentioned by most English language history books. A recent History Channel documentary about the Spanish Armada of 1588 gave all of about 5 seconds(literally) to the failed Drake-Norreys expedition just 1 year after the 1588 sea battle. --Charles A 15:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept your point, it is a relatively valid one. Countries will make the most out of victories and defeats, it is called propaganda. All that we can do is to provide a neutral, balanced articlem and I think we do that. Do you have an issue with this article? Woody (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are the author, I do not take issue with the article. The numbers mentioned may be argued, but I think that they are reasonably accurate given variances from the references. I do however take issue with the bloggers that are attemtping to trivialize the Battle of Cartagena. --Charles A 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Nobody is the author per WP:OWN. I am one of the editors who helped to develop this article, yes. Bloggers are outside the control of Wikipedia and its editors. This talkpage is for discussing how to improve the article, given that you have no issue with the article, this conversation seems to have reached its natural conclusion. Woody (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Intersting Point about British History Writers

I must congratulate Charles A. for his accurate comment above. He has a point. Most British history books minimize English military defeats and exaggerate the importance of disease or weather in explaining the outcome. On the other hand they glorify British victories, describing them to the last detail, and claiming an exaggerated repercussion on regional or world balance of power in favour of Britain. Like Charles A. I was also taught in school that the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 led to the "undisputed English domination of the seas" in the following centuries, when in fact it was the Spanish Navy which continued to dominate the seas, arguably until the 17th century in Europe (and 18th century in America). This myth about the Spanish Armada also ignores that England led a similar campaign against Spain (similar in size, men and power) in what is known as the English Armada or Norris-Drake Expedition of 1589 which also ended in defeat. I have argued this before in this same Talk page under "Battle of Cartagena": [11] This is what I said when somebody suggested I could be biased by "propaganda":

If anybody has been blinded by "propaganda" it is those who rely solely on English-language texts, which usually exaggerate the victories of Britain and ignore or minimize the victories of other powers. An example is the Spanish Armada which I have explained thoroughly. Most English texts dedicate large sections to describe this major victory of the RN (which indeed it was) in 1588, but omit or simply run past the Norris-Drake Expedition of 1589, which comprised a similar fleet (in numbers) and also attempted a direct attack on the enemy's mainland. Most English history books dedicate pages and pages to the Battle of Trafalfar in which a RN fleet of 27 vessles indeed destroyed a joint French-Spanish fleet of 33, giving it great strategic and geopolitical importance, but somehow ignore that half a century earlier a British fleet of 186 was defeated in Cartagena in a massive campaign comprising 23,600 men and two months of almost continuous canonfire which would have changed the map of the Caribbean if it had succeeded, and indeed the international balance of power. Why this lack of proportion in events covered?

I myself had a very long discussion with the editors of the Royal Navy page to convince them that the Battle of Cartagena was a major event in the History of the RN, and it should be included in the article. Most of them had not even heard of this massive campaign (probably the largest in the history of the RN until the Battle of Normandy in WWII) and were reluctant to believe it. This does not surprise me, as most English texts omit or minimize this battle. I agree with Charles A. that history must be "an academic experience and not a propaganda tool". JCRB (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)