Talk:Battle of Callao

The bombardment of Callao-Dispatches from Commodore Rodgers, May 10 1866

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D01E5D81631EF34BC4B51DFB366838D679FDE&oref=slogin

this neutral version is very similar to the peruvian version, so...who is lying? Greetings Rasdar 190.40.33.130 (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and even more, this source: Pedro de Novo y Colson (1882), Historia de la Guerra de España en el Pacífico; states tyan the casualties was quite heavy (about 2000 dead) and is not concurrent with the testimonies of Commodore Rodgers and the in-situ Peruvian press telegraph reports than I used before to improve the article content, the actual version only reflects the spanish version of the battle, and used a source written 20 years after the events which obviously don't reflect the true facts of the battle, by example, the Numancia was hitted by the Peruvian gunfire to the point than one shot silnce the fire of an entire broadside of the ironclad, injuring the Admiral Mendez and forcing the ship to turn around to use the broadside, exactly as the report of Commodore Rodgers sustain. I'm going to remove this source and its lines from the article and replace it with the text of Commodore Rodgers, which support the Peruvian account in the following days. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

At the top of the article we read... "It bombarded the port of Callao (or El Callao), but eventually withdrew without any major damage to the city.".

And at the bottom..."Peruvians suffered about 200 casualties between dead and wounded. Because of Spanish fire damages on the port were heavy."

So what was it? light, or heavy? Do 200 dead in the span of a few hours constitute light casualties?

Strategic Victory?

How can this be a peruvian strategic victory when they suffered four times the casualties (including a dead defence minister), and the city's defences were destroyed? --Bistor92 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Spanish ships routed and despite high casualties they hold their ground, damaging nearly all Spanish ships including their flagship. Thats why is an strategic victory. Miguel

They were routed after none were sunk? How do you figure that?

How does a casualty rate 400% higher than the enemy translate to a victory? I will be tagging this peruvian nationalistic drivel for what it is: non-neutral.--Bistor92 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A Peruvian strategic victory is obvious. The argument that a 400% casualty rate difference indicates that this is no longer a strategic victory ignores the other key issues of this battle.

Spanish forces were not able to inflict the destruction of 1.) the town, 2.) occupying forces or 3.) defenses. Had the Spanish destroyed any of these three it might have meant only a tactical victory for the Peruvian forces.

A Peruvian strategic victory occurred because their forces were able to keep control of the town, their forces were remained in tact, their defenses were not destroyed and the town was not destroyed.

There is nothing nationalistic in stating that this battle was an important strategic victory for Peru.

Please also note that I am not Peruvian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroigwg (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leroigwg on this one. First of all, the casualties were not 400% in the Peruvian side. There was a difference of basically 40 men...that's not 400%. As a matter of fact, for the defenders to have lost such a minor ammount of troops in comparisson to the heavy firepower of the Spanish (whom, thinking the Peruvians as bad for war, lost 43 men and many more ended up wounded). Since the battle itself had no clear visual result, the technical victory was a strategic Peruvian victory because it shattered the military morale of the Spanish fleet, it was a major blow of shame against the Spanish back in Europe, and because it united four nations from South America and completely raised the spirits of the allied side. Claiming this battle to be a "Stalemate" or "Inconclusive" without taking into account the other things would be completely irrational.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And how do you know that? Did you asked Spain what was her morale? Claming "Peruvian Strategic Victory" is the irrational thing, to me. --80.174.3.7 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Madrid place

Are the Callao plaza and Madrid Metro station named after this battle?

Yes. And Mendez Nuñez street, too. He was made a hero for that battle (even if most of people didn't understand it alright). --80.103.138.14 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reconquer what?

Spanish fleet's goal was not reconquer independent Peru., but more than that, an intent of "saving face" after two defeats against "lesser" enemies. Peruvian people usually see it that way, but Spanish fleet never had that intention. Of course, they were not a true "Scientific Expedition", but maybe a "Show-off Expedition". Anyway, I'm gonna rewrite the "reconquer" parragraph. --80.103.138.14 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

For such a one-sided claim, you need a citation. Currently, the article contains both ideas, but it really needs quite a lot of sources.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

British reactions

The spectacle of the battle apparently moved British and American witnesses off the coast to shouting, "Viva Peru!" (highly unusual given the zeitgeist). This seems like an interesting enough fact to fit into the article if anyone knows more about it. Albrecht 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing unusual about wanting the weakness of a commercial and imperial rival.

--Bistor92 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Spain in 1866 rivaled no one. Albrecht 03:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Spain's fleet in 1866 was the fourth most powerful in the world, after England, France and the US, and was in an expansive "mood". Mel Romero 03:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

hey little vandalizer...

Bistor92 stop vandalising this page, please dont lose your wikipedia account in silly behaviours.. Miguel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Before giving lessons on wikipedia policy, you might want to learn how to sign, Miguel.--Bistor92 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sign? For what? You already know my name, and is not a lesson is an advertisement. Stop Vandalising, Okay??? Miguel

El Bufon stop putting inconclusive as the battle result because the battle was anything but indecisive. you keep editing the article in favour of Spain and keep eliminating sourced material that describes the battle from a point of view that is not from an Spanish author. such attitude can only be seen as nationalistic vandalism because you are only putting your version of the events denying obvious results such as the evacuation of the Chincha islands or the Spanish retreat. you haven't even discussed your changes at all or say why did you removed sourced material. So either explain yourself or stop editing this page all togetherDarian55 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also care to explain what did the spanish get from the battle to claim victory? was it the annexation of the Chincha Islands, the destruction of ANY building of Callao, or even the recognition of the peruvian war of independence debt(which the spanish claimed and never got)? the results are extremely clear Darian55 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article has the capability to be an FA, but it simply needs more sources.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

About the Battle of Callao

Greetings, i'll see your modifications to the Battle of Callao article, and yes, both sides claimed victory, but that's irrelevant, the facts are thane the Spanish fleet was unable to achieve its objetives, which was the destruction of the Callao defence forts, therefore, the Peruvian forces obtain a decisive and strategical victory. About the 3 heavely damage frigate, that's absolutely true, the Villa de Madrid was hit and lost its boilers, the Berenguela was pierced side-by-side and the Almansa received a hit in one of tis powder rooms which ignites causing several deaths... Without mentioning all the impacts in the Numancia, which lost an entire broadside in the battle... But you say: "Its absolutely FALSE"... I'm ot a lyer, and I'm very responsable about every single word than I put on Wikipedia, free of any nationalism and fanatism. I'm going to revert your correctios. --Cloudaoc (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Before correcting, you should ask: what did want the Spanish fleet? what wanted Peru? Did the Spanish bombarded until they wanted? Yes. Did the Peruvian guns sink any Spanish ship? No. Did Spain "re-conquer" Peru? No. 1+1 = 2. --80.174.3.7 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes lets analyze this. What were the Spanish fleet's objectives in the battle of Callao? presumably to cause severe damage to the port infrastructure as it did at the undefended port of Valparaiso. What were Peru's aims? Obviously to stop the Spanish from damaging Callao, the Country's main port. Did the Spanish fleet bombarded all they wanted ( that is what i think you meant to say) No, It was the Spanish fleet which ceased fire first (with severe damage to their firing capabilities) , leaving peruvian batteries still operational (although they had a major advantage in guns) Finally and more importantly, the fact that not a single part of the peruvian merchant fleet or port infrastructure where touched by the battle is clear prove that the peruvian defense was SUCCESSFUL and that atleast counts as a tactical victory. Moreover the consequences of the battle for the Spanish fleet(even if you consider the results as " inconclusive") were clear, they hastily evacuated the chincha islands and retreated from South America. The only thing that stops this from being a Decisive strategic victory for Peru is the fact that Spanish seems unable to accept the contundent evidence of their defeat and clasify this battle as " inconclusive". Thing most laughable seeing that this was the last action of the Spanish fleet which failed to attend combat on the next day against the remainding defenses of Callao or even continue their " punitive actions" against guayaquil (Ecuador) which was also at war with Spain.

Darian55 (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinions, but I pray you not to remove referenced content if you cannot provide reliable sources to do it. My edits are based in published works much more reliable than articles from websites whose sources are not mentioned or remain unclear. These published works agree that the Spanish fleet put out of action almost all the Peruvian batteries. Do not edit the article to include dubious facts, please. ElBufon (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

the fact is sir, that this are not MY opinions, im putting facts you insist in hiding. i did not remove any part which said that a sizeable part of the port's defenses where damaged but you keep deleting those that say the spanish fleet got hit too. Secondly you are citing books by spanish authors that have strong one sided opinions, 2000 casualties? where did they got this information, from the stories of the fleet's sailors who could have not possibly counted the dead as they never set foot on Callao?

then again you cannot possibly deny that: a) The spanish fleet retreated from south amerca b) callao civil infrastructure remained intact c)Peru recovered the chincha islands. Nevertheless you keep taking them from the results even when i tolerated the " inconclusive" results you insist in putting in.

So please tell me sir, if the spanish fleet was in such a great condition when it retreated and most of the peruvian batteries where silenced, why did it not proceed to destroy the port, merchant fleet, or even the small navy Peru managed to include in the defense? why did it retreated leaving Callao mostly intact or without taking " punitive actions against Bolivia's Antofagasta or Ecuador's Guayaquil? cheers Darian55 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Colson was opposed to the war and very critical of the Spanish strategy and even of Méndez Núñez, so accuse him of not being neutral is a nonsense. He also estimated 2,000 Peruvian casualties based on data published by the press of that country. About your claims of retreat, I respond that Méndez Núñez didn't do what you say simply because after two intense bombardments his squadron was lack of grenades and gunpowder. The only ammunition he disposed in large amounts were cannonballs. Obviously there was no Spanish base in South America where resupply of them... In addition the Spanish fleet didn't retreated from South American waters, as you say, since the Spanish frigates Blanca, Resolución, Villa de Madrid, Almansa, Concepción and Navas de Tolosa remained in Buenos Aires and Montevideo, thus forcing Chile and Perú to remain vigilant. Finally I ask you again if you can you provide sources more reliable than websites which claim that "the May 2 combat supposed the definitive independence for Perú". ElBufon (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath

Rewrote or edited what I could, but the final paragraph needs a complete rewrite : The comodore (sic) was hired, but he wasn't, and the last sentence tries to say three things at once and list the entire Atlantic fleet?? How exactly does one outshine himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.78 (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Callao. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508142302/http://www.antiquephotographics.com:80/Format%20Types/dosdemayo.htm to http://www.antiquephotographics.com/Format%20Types/dosdemayo.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marina.mil.pe/historia/efemerides/dosdemayo.htm

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) 14:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dos de mayo

I guess that probably the Spanish officers called troops to emulate the Dos de Mayo heroic deeds in Madrid. Did they reference it? --Error (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)