Talk:Great Siege of Gibraltar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Expansion

This article is disappointingly brief for such a momentous battle, which, given the numbers of men involved, was the largest engagement in the entire [American War of Independence]. I understand there was a lot more at one point, but was deleted because of violations in copywright - so I will start to try and slowly build it up. It is an often forgotten part of the War, and deserves more than the stub it currently has. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree in that there is a lot that can be written about the Great Siege. I will try to help you out expanding it wherever possible. --Gibmetal 77^talk 09:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article could be expanded. I suggest to Gibmetal, who speaks Spanish according to his user page, to take a look at the Spanish article which is already quite good, and currently being expanded also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.53.209 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Connection to American revolutionary War

It is unclear how this battle was part of the American revolution. The connection needs to be explained. Silverchemist (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean? Could you elaborate a little further, please. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Having had another look at the article I can kind of see what you mean as there wasn't a huge amount of context. I've added a little bit to the background section and will put some more in soon.

Generally the Siege is almost universally regarded as part of the American War of Independence, although it is quite often relegated to a relatively minor status in many accounts of the war which focus almost entirely on the American theatre. In fact the Siege of Gibraltar was a major part in the war because it sucked in precious Franco-Spanish resources that would otherwise have been used to invade Britain, or been sent to the Americas to capture the West Indies or Atlantic Canada. The British victory at Gibraltar was part of a sucsesfull year of 1782 for them, which allowed them to gain much more favourable terms at the Peace of Paris that ended the war, than they might otherwise have done.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Silverchemist (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Box Misleading

The other wikipedia articles about the Siege count 40.000 troops plus ships in the franco-spanish side. It is misleading to sum up the land forces (40.000) plus the fleets' crews and manpower (30.000) while still including the ships themselves in the box.

While this is crystal clear in "The Grand Assault" section, it is not taken in account in the quick reference which the box is intended to be. Thus, misleading the reader. I have not seen any other wikipedia article where the belligerant forces are referenced like this. In order to improve the understandability of this article I propose to precise the strenght of the land forces, as the other wikipedia articles about this siege already do (at least the french, dutch, norwegian and japanese). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.53.209 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on other language wikipedias don't generally have a bearing on English wikipedia. Looking at your observation, I would agree it isn't ideally presented, but I'm not sure I'd call it misleading. Looking at a similar sort of siege Cartagena, the entire number of men are listed are first, while beneath it they are broken down into Land forces/Naval forces. That may be the way to go here, ultimately. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Cornwallis. Let's improve it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cremallera (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've improved the box's content (at least, I hope so). What do you think? Cremallera (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes were reverted (as NPOV) albeit they were properly referenced. Please, discuss it here before changing it again.Cremallera (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes were reverted as POV. Applicable guideline is WP:NPOV and WP:BRD. I don't think many people have a problem, with all the proposed changes but for example you've left out all of the land based artillery on the Franco-Spanish side. On the one hand you put up the Defender's assets, whilst at the same time deprecating the Franco-Spanish assets. Some might suspect that over three years the assets available varied so simply relying on one source is not necessarily correct. Happy to discuss your proposed changes and most to my mind are acceptable but for now they've been reverted for the reasons specified above. Justin talk 09:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You've changed sourced data again!

Look: I haven't left out the land based artillery. There were almost 250 field guns on the Franco-Spanish side and almost 100 on the British side. Besides, I've separated the soldiers from the crews because, basically, the crews weren't involved in the close quarters fighting. Using the same parameters, we could also count up the crew of George Rodney's ships on the British side. Hey, they were relevant, as they brought reinforcements and fought against the Franco-Spanish fleet!

On the other hand, I've not "put up" the defenders assets, but instead affirmed that the british forces numbered 7,000 when the main assault took place. Actually you just disagree with me. It's quite easy to blame it on the POV and change referenced data, but that's not the way things work in wikipedia. In fact, the other wikipedia articles on the subject (in other languages, that is, and I haven't edited them: my norsk or japanese aren't quite good...) wouldn't be "neutral" under your point of view. Cremallera (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Which part of WP:BRD did you not actually understand? Its BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS.

Which part of most of the changes you propose are acceptable did you not understand? I am not opposing all the proposed changes, merely requesting you discuss them first.

And the article is actually about the great siege not a single engagement, the number of troops varied. You seem to be of a bent to focus upon a single engagement within that period.

So again your changes are reverted please discuss them here first and agree a consensus before proceeding, an edit war is really unacceptable. See WP:3RR. Justin talk 11:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes were discussed 3 months ago, and nobody argued against them until I made the edits. We can do 2 things:

-Refer to the troops involved in all stages of the siege (the 3 years):

A) 5500-7000 britons and corsican, up to 99 british ships (6 since the very beginning in Gibraltar commanded by admiral Duff, 21 in Rodney's fleet, 38 in Darby's fleet and 34 in Richard Howe's squadron).

B) 13000-40000 franco-spanish troops, plus up to 72 ships and 10 floating batteries (13 ships under Luis de Córdoba, 11 commanded by Lángara, and 48 under Ventura Moreno Zavala, when only the latter were present in the last assault) which weren't by any means always present.

-Or refer to the climax, represented in the battle box you are so eager to edit, and describe the whole siege in the article (not in the box).

And last, but not least. There weren't 400 franco-spanish field guns plus 200 guns of the floating batteries: the rough number of 400 guns is the sum of the 246 field guns plus the 142 cannons of the batteries=388 (not even 400). Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes were not discussed 3 months ago and you did not present the changes you wished to make before you made the edits. They were reverted and you have then chosen to ignore the attempt to intiate a discussion. I would suggest that going forward you draw a line under this and start to engage with other editors rather than adopting such a confrontational attitude.

Most of the textual changes I would agree with, such as removing the use of the emotive term enemy. However, some I would not agree to some such as removing the comments about the Franco-Spanish forces as after failing in a 3 year siege they were demoralised.

The 5500-7000 troops I am happy to contemplate but not including the British ships as they were not directly involved in lifting the siege.

I'm happy to put the range of 13000-40000 Franco-Spanish troops and to split the guns into land based and naval cannon if you insist but there I think you're being pedantic. And really you're quibbling over a rounded up number. How is that for starters? Justin talk 12:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. A garrisson besieged for more than 3 years and suffering of scurvy would also be "disheartened", but those are emotional terms completely unnecessary in an encyclopedic article.

On the other hand, we don't have the need of quibbling over a rounded number when we have references about the exact number! We've got even the names of the 10 floating batteries, the guns they carried and their exact crew if you want. Besides, we could include the map showing the artillery positions of both sides, for illustrative purposes!

And I don't think it's being pedantic. Usually there are several tactical diferences (range, power, situation, rate of fire...) between field and naval guns. The more information, the better!

Finally, the British ships were the crucial part in resisting for 3 years (and the French & Spanish ships were there to interdict the British fleets from resupplying the garrisson, as the assault was to be conducted by land and sea using small boats from the Spanish coastline), althought I wouldn't include them in the box but in the text. I suggest to use my edits just adding the ranges 5500-7000 and 13000-40000.

I tell you what, go away, come back tomorrow where we can discuss this when you're less excited. You're getting overly emotional about this and there is really no need. I've already pointed out most of the changes are acceptable. If I have time I'll make some of the easier ones myself and we can start afresh. OK? Justin talk 15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Map of the artillery positions: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Bahia_de_Algeciras_fuertes2.jpg

Floating Batteries (source: .es wikipedia)

D'Arçon's Floating Batteries:

Battery	Crew	Guns	Captain in Charge
Pastora	700	28	Buenaventura Moreno
Talla Piedra	700	28	Prince of Nassau
Paula Primera	700	26	Cayetano de Lángara
Rosario	700	26	Francisco Muñoz
San Cristobal	600	18	Federico Carlos Gravina y Nápoli
Paula Segunda	366	9	Pablo de Cózar
Santa Ana	350	10	José Goicoechea
San Juan	400	10	José Angeler
Príncipe Carlos	400	11	Antonio Basurto
Dolores	280	6	Pedro Sánchez

What do you think? Cremallera (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, here's a map showing the artillery positions of both sides: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Bahia_de_Algeciras_fuertes2.jpg

We could use it!Cremallera (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking for who the Prince of Nassau could be at this time (1782). Somebody knows? Cremallera (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The word enemy is used four times, and always refered to the French and Spanish troops. Not neutral. It could be adressed easily, don't you think? Cremallera (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have adressed it, since nobody argued against. Cremallera (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Aw! Come on! Do not revert even this. The article is almost a copypaste of this text: http://www.keepmilitarymuseum.org/gibraltar.php?&dx=1&ob=3 Written in the web page of a british military museum... And is preceded by statements like this:

-About the Battle of Plassey: "This formidable force was completely routed by the desperate bravery of the small British force, which captured the whole of the enemy's camp, baggage, guns and stores. This victory constituted one of the most complete and overwhelming achievements in military history".

-About the Great Siege of Gibraltar: "The 39th remained at Gibraltar for many years from 1756 and was one of the six splendid regiments that took part in the four year long Great Siege" (italic text mine). Hail to the Queen's Regiments but... I mean...

And they have an online shop! Great books like "British Campaign Medals 1815-1914", "British Campaign Medals 1914-2005", "British Gallantary Medals 1855-2000", "British Orders and Decorations" or "Tracing Your Army Ancestors" are available! Cremallera (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You may not have noticed but in your haste to win friends and influence people with sarcasm and inuendo and generally being an utter DICK, I'd already indicated that most of your changes I had no problem with. And btw your previous edits above clearly show you have a POV agenda on the issue. Justin talk 13:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to a greater extent than you. I usually speak about sources or the content of articles, and do not use ad hominem arguments nor I do call names (Dick?) or atribute "POV agendas" to other editors.
But let's argue about the changes... Cremallera (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Really and the resort to sarcasm and innuendo about jingoism is for what purpose exactly? And the entire purpose of referring to WP:DICK is because you were acting and continue to act like a Dick. And we discuss changes we don't argue about them. Justin talk 15:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I suggest this source http://books.google.es/books?id=fYmqX5uZH68C&pg=PA97&dq=osprey+gibraltar+1779#PPP1,M1 , as a better one than the museum's page. If someone has time, let's look at it. Cremallera (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

12,000 squadrons...?

Spanish ground forces were composed of two battalions of Royal Guards, another two of Walloon Guards, and twelve thousand artillery squadrons of cavalry, about 13,000 in all.

I don't know too much about the composition of armies in the Napoleonic era, but somehow these numbers apparently don't match up.

Could someone with more expertise than myself step in...? -- Syzygy (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a great breakdown of Spanish and French troops in Drinkwater's book which he uses a heck of a lot of information from a French officer who took part in the siege who wrote about it whilst he was in Cadiz 1784. -- Bruichladdich1 (talk) 01:05, 02 June 2010 (GMT)

This problem appears in the block of text originally added in: Revision as of 19:01, 19 December 2009 - Andy85719. Each of the battalions, would have about a 1,000 individuals at full strength. This implies a total infantry strength of 2,000 to 4,000. The phrase 'twelve thousand artillery squadrons of cavalry' is nonsensical. Artillery and cavalry are different types of units. A cavalry squadron would nominally have 500 to 1,000 individuals. Pending someone finding improved data in either De Castro y Rossy 515 or John Drinkwater's book, I have removed the problematic phrase. SBaker43 (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Useful sources added

Now that there are both Spanish, French and British sources the changes to page have been made. It is a very long siege so feel free to add bits which have not been put in. I see that there is a section missing on destruction of the forward Spanish batteries the title is there but nothing else. In addition I have added the peak strength in September for both sides even though two regiments filled the garrison with Howe's relief in October 1782. The combined French and Spanish fleet which was curiously missing have been added in; as they were as much a part of the siege as the land forces.--Bruichladdich1 (talk) 01:13, 02 June 2010 (GMT)

Speaking of adding things, there is no discussion of the allied strategy for conducting the siege. If the objective was to starve the garrison out by blockade, this is never explicitly stated as the strategy, and is only suggested about half way through the article. Magic♪piano 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the inclusion in the infobox of the Franco-Spanish fleet based in Cádiz, which was destined to avoid the passage of the British relief fleet, is wrong. These ships took part only in direct action against the defenses of Gibraltar in a few specific occasions. The reference added by Bruichladdich1 in the infobox about the Spanish naval forces, in fact, refers only to the action of September 13. In this same way, the relief fleets should be included in the infobox, as they were engaged in the Bay of Algeciras by the xebecs and gunboats of Barceló, the only Allied naval force highlighted near Gibraltar during all the siege. ElBufon (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think it is wrong as the combined Franco-Spanish fleet were the backbone of the siege and not only that conducted the blockade of Gibraltar and were always in presence of supporting the siege. If you think this is so then perhaps other sieges and blockades throughout history would have those figures taken away as well? As for the relief efforts the numbers of men and guns that were landed are counted in the infobox. The ships and the subsequent numbers of men being only to escort the convoy/relief efforts have no direct consequence on the siege itself. If the ships would have stayed and fought in the siege then the figures would be counted in the infobox. Bruichladdich1 (talk) 00:38, 03 June 2010 (GMT)

I think there is confusion between the naval forces that specifically blocked Gibraltar (Barceló) and the Cádiz fleet, based at 120 kilometers from Algeciras, which only took part in military action against Gibraltar on September 13, 1782. If this fleet is included in the infobox, the relief fleets should also be included, as they affected the outcome of the siege, or at least they fought against Barceló's forces in the Bay of Algeciras. ElBufon (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that the combined French and Spanish fleet were blockading Gibraltar right throughout it's siege. Cadiz was it's base of supply and swap over. Even after the Grand assault in September... a month later Cordova's fleet was far away from Cadiz attempting to prevent the third and final relief of Gibraltar If you want to add figures for the relief efforts of which there are 3 of them then by all means go ahead. Like I said reliefs of fortresses in other sieges throughout history should also have relief numbers included in the figures. Bruichladdich1 (talk) 23:33, 03 June 2010 (GMT)

Decisive?

An anonymous editor is claiming the siege is "decisive". Are there any sources that support this assertion? Magic♪piano 15:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

a quick glance at the casualty list shows it was a fairly decisive result. No military attempted to siege or capture Gibraltar again after this engagement(through several global wars). indeeed Gibraltar had gained such a reputation that the words 'little Gibraltar' became a nickname meaning impregnable defence. Also the 'Grand Assault' on the 13 September was the largest battle of the whole warBen200 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All good and well, but it doesn't answer my question. Magic♪piano 19:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I think it was already established that is was decisive so i dont know why it was removed. Anyway René Chartrand calls it decisive several times in his book on the siege, 'Gibraltar 1779-83: the great siege'.Ben200 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It apparently wasn't decided, since no one has come up with appropriate citable language explaining why or how it is decisive (and I don't see any previous discussion of the matter here). -Ilhador- requested citations to support the assertion, and none have been given.

It was described as 'decisive' for a long time before Ben200 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually the word "decisive" is applied to actions whose outcome has a significant impact on the conduct or direction of the war that it is a part of. Does Chartrand say this? (The conduct of the siege may have had a nontrivial impact on other outcomes in the war, but the fact that the British prevailed in the siege does not, as far as I can tell.) Magic♪piano 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It obviously did have an effect on the outcome of the war because territory could not be used by France or Spain in the negotiations of the Treaty of ParisBen200 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Good, but that doesn't made the battle decisive by itself. [added by -Ilhador-]

Magic, this touches on an issue that I've been meaning to raise with you (and WP:MILHIST more generally) for a while: the unspoken/disavowed war between "decisive" in the colloquial sense (resounding, unquestionable, marked, conclusive, significant) and a vague military-theoretical definition usually seeking to tie the result to some wider strategic or operational outcome. (I have noted elsewhere that "decisive victory" is one of those nebulous concepts or ideologemes in military science without any fixed meaning beyond those dug-up on Google Books by editors seeking to impose one particular vision or another). From our past interactions I'm sure you can guess my concern: Wikipedia's systemic bias produces a double standard in which one definition or another will reign to suit the convenience of editorial cliques. (I would be maliciously tempted to note, for instance, that very few of Marlborough's great victories would qualify as "decisive victories" under the current dogma, and I note that these particular results will remain untouched and sacrosanct for untold ages.) Albrecht (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually usually try to stay out of these sorts of infobox edit wars, I think they're tempests in teapots. I just wanted to see what sources actually have to say on the matter. (Think of me as an impartial moderator who occasionally asks probing questions.) If the article actually contained cited passages articulating why and how various historians saw the action as decisive (or not), it would go some way toward making clearer what ought to be in the infobox. Magic♪piano 23:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, with the following caveat: "decisive victory" is also a stylistic convention native to Wikipedia in the sense that military historians are under no particular obligation to use that baggage-laden adjective in their literature (I suspect that it is widely avoided precisely because of that baggage). At some point a reasonable consensus between editors becomes necessary to "translate" a set of cited passages into a Wikipedia result that fits our conventions (another example: the Battle of Gazala used to be labelled "decisive" as a reasonable approximation of a variety of cited descriptions — "calamitous defeat"; "resounding victory"; "heaviest blow to British arms during the war"; etc. When I tried to make the case for these sources I was haughtily informed by an aspiring professor of grand strategy at West Point that it could not possibly be "decisive" since the Axis did not come out the victors in WWII! La messe est dite.) Albrecht (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Added two citaions on this which state not indirectly say decisive but uses the words 'vital', 'outstanding' and 'crucial'.ChristiaandeWet (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Siege of Gibraltar. 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/20070815131821/http://www.thegibraltarmagazine.com/mozart_tribute.html to http://www.thegibraltarmagazine.com/mozart_tribute.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003243/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title%3DS9770 to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title%3DS9770

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Names of commanders need to be consistent

An edit on Feb 11 2019 changed the names of two of the commanders in the infobox, with the consequence that these names no longer match how they are referred to in the main text. So we write "de Crillon" in the text, but he appears as "Duke of Mahón" in the infobox; and we write "de Sotomayor" in the text, but he appears as "Count of Colomera" in the infobox. We should be consistent, but I am not at all sure what is the most appropriate way to refer to these gentlemen. They both have Wikipedia articles, in which they are referred to in the text or figure captions as "Crillon" (without the "de") and "Sotomajor" (also without the "de"). Perhaps the most relevant criteria here might be how they are referred to in authoritative English-language histories of the siege. Could someone check please and update the text accordingly? Jmchutchinson (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Jackson refers to de Crillon almost exclusively, he was the main source used. Sotomajor is referred to as Gen. Alvarez de Sotomayor, or more generally as Alvarez de Sotomayor. Assuming no one objects we could standardise on those two. W C M_email 18:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

To add, isn't it policy to not refer to figures by their title? W C M_email 18:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I found this guidance in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography: "A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, may become "the Earl of Leicester", "the Earl", or just "Leicester" in subsequent mentions." But your suggestions seem sound: de Crillon and Álvarez de Sotomayor. (Note the accent on Álvarez.) Thanks for responding. Jmchutchinson (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur also, but as short as possible otherwise the infobox can get cluttered by ridiculously long titles. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead as we agreed, using the full titles at the first mention in the main text, but otherwise de Crillon and Álvarez de Sotomayor. I added the first names to these in the infobox, so as to be consistent with the other entries. Also left name unchanged in title of contemporary artwork. Jmchutchinson (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)