Talk:British invasions of the River Plate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argentina counted as a belligerent?[edit]

Canada is counted as a belligerent on the war of 1812 page, so then shouldn't Argentina also on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.61 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, it shan't: His/Her Majesty's subjects cannot afford to be seen losing against such uncivilized peoples without the aid of any European Power, let alone if they lost twice. It would be against all Rigth & Reason. By Jingo, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.93.182 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

This is English Wikipedia. In English this is known as the River Plate, and British historical documents always refer to this as the River Plate. Please move this page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portable (talk • contribs)

Please see Talk:Río de la Plata/name Mariano(t/c) 07:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know; but it is telling that the recent BBC story on the invasions calls it the River Plate. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion in a global context[edit]

It is surely important that the invasion is seen as part of the Napoleonic Wars. This was a truly global war and involved simultaneous battles everywhere. Describing the invasion as no more than British imperialism deprives the reader of the opportunity to explore the way that global trade and ideological movements were making themselves felt even on the river Plate. The "imperial expansion" description is not only mistaking an effect for a cause but reads like petty nationalism - nationalist movements define themselves against amorphous ogres rather than the reality of global socioeconomics.

You are mixing things up. By the time of the British invasions the Fourth Coalition was in game, and the distraction plan on the West Indies against the Third Coalition was set in Central America. What's more, Napoleon never had any activity in South America, so what would be the purpose of the British invasions in the context of the Napoleonic Wars?
The laces between Spain and its colonies were already weakened for the King was overthroned by Napoleon (what would give path to the independences of those countries in the Southern Cone).
The economic implications of the British invasion can't be blindly ignored. Britain had an expansionist movement during that time, as was the attempt to regain control of the United States in the War of 1812.
The position of the South American colonies was not that of Spain as history shows; see for instance May Revolution.
Mariano(t/c) 10:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely that the French were not heavily involved in South America. Their Spanish allies were already in power. The Spanish King was overthrown by Napoleon in 1808, after the period considered in this article.
All of the forces arranged against Napoleon were suffering from a trade embargo. As you say "The economic implications of the British invasion can't be blindly ignored" and these economic implications were directly related to the allied status of the Spanish. Spain was operating the embargo against Britain through its colonies. It was of paramount importance for Britain that the French and Spanish colonies be prised away from their rulers. As part of this Britain equipped and financed liberation movements as well as direct attacks. As a trading empire the British were as happy that South America should be non-aligned and prepared to trade as part of the British Empire.
On the subject of the War of 1812, this was largely about American expansionism and also related to the Napoleonic trade embargos. The May Revolution was also directly related to the Napoleonic Wars and the change in Spanish allied status. Please see the links.
The Napoleonic War was continuous for Britain, even when the various coalitions against Napoleon collapsed. Remember, France and England are divided by 22 miles of sea and Napoleon had threatened to invade England on several occasions. The Napoleonic wars were two countries locked in death combat, fighting each other for territory, influence and resources on a global scale.
Pointing out, in a very brief note, that the Spanish were an ally of the French at that time provides the reader with an avenue for further investigation. Why were these European superpowers fighting? What was at stake? Was the confict commercial or political? Who gained from this commerce...... Leaving the text as "British expansionism" shuts down the enquiry making events seem like simple conflicts between "good" and "evil", obscuring the socioeconomic checkerboard of history.
Presenting your country´s imperialism as "kind" and "trading" and "ideological" is petty nationalism. During the last five centuries England-Britain, Spain and other europeans contruies have tried to seize america´s wealth by all kinds of means. Brittish invasions of the River Plate was a greedy attempt to conquest a new colony and open new markets, in this case taking advantage of the critical situation of Spain at that time, caught in between Britain (at sea) and France (on land). Trying to present this episode (and many others from european contries over the centuries) other way is petty nationalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.3.109 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "River Plate"[edit]

The title should be River Plate, instead of Rio de la Plata.

You might think so; I could not possibly comment. See Talk:Río de la Plata/name. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish naval supremacy[edit]

I thought Spanish naval supremacy ended a long time before Trafalgar? Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but it was still good enough to keep the links with its colonies open. The word "supremacy" is used badly (in my view) to indicate this. But some are insistent!
Which does not mean that British naval supremacy started before it. Check this article, or this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.34.242 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of No Assistance[edit]

In a time when only a small percentage of people owned muskets (they were expensive items made by craftsmen) the timely shipment of thousands of muskets from Spain made the difference to the success or otherwise of the militia. So one cannot say that there was no help from "the metropolis" (Spain) - without it the British would have surely succeeded. However, one can say "minimal aid".

In any case, it's what all sources say. Do you have some author that backs this proposal, or is it just your own interpretation?
Notice that when it is mentioned that there was "no aid from Spain" the key words are "from Spain". There was aid by other cities in the viceroyalty. During the first invasion the bulk of the forces of Buenos Aires were dispached to Buenos Aires because Sobremonte thought the attack would be there, so they were there for Liniers to command them. If Sobremonte had keep the armies in Buenos Aires, the British could not have taken it, or at least faced a stronger resistance than they did. For the second one, part of the preparation was a general request for aid to all possible sources. Liniers, French, even told of his triumph to the French king Napoleon, in order to get aid from France. MBelgrano (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that after a number of calls for help a shipload of muskets was sent by the Spanish government. If this is not the case then we need these questions to be answered: Was a shipload of muskets recieved? If so, from where? Most importantly, who ordered that they be sent?

The part you have read talks about events before either invasion. By that point, an attack was a possibility, but just that. As explained, those things were dispached to Montevideo in a tactical mistake. When historians consider that there was no help, they talk about both the period of British rule in Buenos Aires and the attempts to gather a resistance, and the period before the second imminent invasion. MBelgrano (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arms were sent in response to repeated requests that warned of a likely British attack and therefore it is false to say that no aid was sent. The argument you give is nothing but a mass of tendentious excuses for redefining help as non help. As for historians coming from a nationalistic point of view, their motives for repeating the founding myth are obvious but the logic employed is still plainly false: the fact is that requests for aid in case of a British invasion were made and a shipload of weapons was indeed sent. It doesn't matter if it occured before, during or after: aid was given. QED.

And if we come to consider it, we may point as well that every men, weapon and building was in there by Spanish help. Or, even better, that the viceroyalties couldn't be considered a different thing than Spain because they were part of it. But it would be simply our own discussions. "Excuses" or not, what I explained is the viewpoint held by all historians who dealed with this topic, regardless or their school of thought. Even memories and autobiographies of the peoples who took part in it consider it this way. If such a prominent historian consensus is "wrong", you can surely mention some historians that acknowledge this viewpoint and reject it as wrong. Can you? MBelgrano (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a specific request made due to a percieved specific threat and the resulting specific response to that request. We are not talking about the entire preceeding colonial history of the region - which merely is obfuscation of the issue with yet more bad logic. I'll never accept that white is black just because some "authority" says it is. The simple fact is the account as it stands contradicts the claim that no aid was sent - however adequate or inadequate that aid may have been.

This should have occurred to me earlier. There is a solution: If instead of saying in the introduction "without aid from the metropolis", which is falsified later in the article by the shipment of arms, and instead we put "without the help of military reinforcements from the metropolis" - which is true - then we can all be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.29.6 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not try to explain things in a didactic way anymore. If you insist in that the lack of aid is a "myth", cite sources that say so. MBelgrano (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This disagreement comes down to the different meanings of the word "military" in English and Spanish. In Spanish "military" can only mean soldiers and so "military aid" is to send soldiers to help and in English it can mean the same thing but it also can mean sending supplies, like guns, gunpowder, food, tents, and whatever can help a military without sending soldiers.

NPOV[edit]

Describing British discussions about the region as "British pretensions" is not a neutral statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.61.27 (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criollo are not Creole[edit]

There is a constant confusion here between criollo (a social rank) and creole, who had nothing to do with the River Plate region.

NPOV Check[edit]

"British pretensions" is a POV title. "Anglo-Spanish rivalry" was suggested as an alternative but simply dismissed. The context of a century of ANglo-spanish wars and the Napoleonic Wars was also reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.27.128 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed text to restore balance is:

The discussion will be held at User talk:86.4.27.128#Argentina, as this topic was raised by this user at several pages at once. Cambalachero (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it will not, it should be held here.

Discussion of NPOV in British invasions of the Río de la Plata[edit]

The article has a section called "British pretensions". I think this may be a problem with the author using "pretension" as "advancing a claim" when it is a sophisticated word that has a clear shading towards a rather slimy "wrongful claim", it is a "weasel word". In this section it describes episodes of British planning extracted from a century of history without any indication that the 18th century was full of conflict between Britain and Spain. The section needs, at the minimum, a change of name and a qualifying sentence to provide balance. My suggestion is to replace the title of the section "British pretensions" with "Anglo Spanish Rivalry" and add the sentence given below:

Anglo Spanish Rivalry

The immediate cause of the Invasions of the River Plate was that Spain was allied to France from 1803 to 1808 during the global conflict known as the Napoleonic Wars in which Napoleon Bonaparte attempted to conquer Europe and gain global ascendancy. The hostility between the British and the Spanish in the 18th century was the result of the six Anglo-Spanish Wars from 1702 to 1783, most of which lasted for several years.

Alternatively I would recommend cutting the section altogether because it contributes little to an understanding of why the British invaded then withdrew and never came back despite having a huge navy and army after defeating Napoleon.

Please do not reply with "you are an idiot, you do not understand". My whole point is that any reader coming to this page could not possibly understand given the information provided. Without further explanation it looks like a POV is being put across. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'm tired of this, so I won't try to explain things anymore. If you do not understand why Britain did not insist on the attacks despite of their military strength, I won't explain it to you. The section cites a reputed historian in a work about the British Invasions, with the exact tone provided here. Cite another reputed historian for any changes you propose, or the discussion will end here. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that there are historians who do not have a neutral point of view but this is Wikipedia where we are supposed to strive for it. The wording "British pretensions" is a POV in itself. we do not need to quote historians at each other to know this. The lack of any global context in the section is simply bad structure and results in a parochial POV. The lack of any comment about Free Trade in the section is also a shame, as you yourself must know.86.4.27.128 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provide your reasons to consider Félix Luna a biased author, or the discussion will not continue. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he used "British pretensions" as the heading for a section this suggests he did not understand the subtleties of English or was biassed. Perhaps it is a linguistic mistake. The discussion of the section heading is not about historical facts but about a word that is laden with spite. Any native english speaker would pick this up - there is a comment on this page by someone else who noticed this. The content of the section is not disputed, the objection is that this content does not include the wider context. The POV in the section is purely South American, the fact that there were global conflicts involving Britain and Spain is a crucial insight. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to understand your misgivings about my suggested edit. I have removed "pretentions" which is a pretentious title and changed it to "British interest in the region". I have removed the second mention of Napoleon and simply noted that there were six major Anglo-Spanish wars that alos excited British interest in the region - I have included a link so that the interested reader can explore this aspect of world history. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho! Pretensión is indeed Spanish for "Claim". It does not quite mean a simple claim in English so this apparent POV was largely linguistic. 86.4.27.128 but now: Argcontrib (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV and Luna[edit]

There are some minor POV looking statements in the article. I wonder of over-reliance on the work of Luna might be at the root of this? Certainly it does seem some sections verge on single-sourced. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(Note: I am fairly ignorant of the subject matter, and had not read the previous section when I wrote the above.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Spanish (?) Soldiers Inflation[edit]

I do see some inflation in the number of Spanish soldiers, also account for the population in general who fought against the British??186.62.144.66 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific, and supply reliable sources to demonstate it? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 May 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British invasions of the Río de la Plata → British invasions of the River Plate – Reason: English-language name 186.7.245.4 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – In the context of these events, the river is uniformly referred to as the "River Plate", which is the standard British term for it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. WCMemail 18:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the English language Wikipedia, so the English-language names for things should be used except for where foreign language names are more common Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

St Helena Reinforcements[edit]

The official records of the time [National Archives|The National Archives (United Kingdom)] record WO 1/161 states only 300 troops were added to the force. This was due to the Ocean Transport being lost in a storm on the 21 April (later arrived safely). Reinforements were sent from England but arrived after the main force had been taken Prisoner of War. Rincewind 68 (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Amaru[edit]

was Tupac Amaru not defeated 20 years earlier in 1782? this would mean the regular army not being deployed to defend aginst him in 1806 and the first British invasion? Rincewind 68 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur[edit]

The fourth paragraph of the the Fist Invasion section starts with this sentence:

The wealthy members of society were not pleased with the British arrival.

Then follows quote number 14:

"The lack of identification with the Spanish government in Buenos Aires began to express itself on the friendly welcome extended to the enemy by ladies who, smiling, gave them welcome. Moreover, the 1 July, Sarratea Martin -father-in-law of Liniers- and his brother-in-law Leon Altolaguirre offered a reception to the British leaders, attended by Santiago de Liniers and his wife's brother-in-law Lázaro de Rivera."

Notice the non sequitur?

--Abulmiskafur (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British invasions of the River Plate. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British invasions of the River Plate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2/71st Foot never left Scotland.[edit]

Both colours belong to the 1/71st Foot, the 1st battalion of the regiment: King's Colour and Battalion's Colour. The 2nd battalion was a depot based in Scotland, not a fighting unit. BRITISH INFANTRY BATTALIONS CARRIED 2 COLOURS IN THE FIELD. And the original Battalion's Colour was buff, not white. The 71st's regimental facings (collar, handcuffs, lapels) were buff, not white. When the regimental facings were white or black, the white or black Battalion's Colour always included a broad red Saint George's Cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vid. 71st (Highland) Regiment of Foot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_invasions_of_the_River_Plate&oldid=1217869784"