Talk:Armada of 1779

I haven't been able to check much of this new article against primary sources, and there are some discrepancies between the secondary sources, notably over dates (though only by a couple of days). If anybody with better knowledge spots something.... David Trochos (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to semi-revert the revision by Albrecht; the Bourbon fleets did indeed do better than the Royal Navy in the American War of Independence- but how many of their successes were joint naval operations? The recapture of Minorca, yes. The siege of Pensacola was more of a land operation, though obviously the French naval presence would have helped if the British fleet could have reached Pensacola before Galvez' artillery did its damage. As for the infobox statement about the 1779 operation being "a costly waste of time"- I'm sorry, but that's what it was, both financially and in terms of human losses. It was absolutely not "indecisive"; the invasion did not take place, the Royal Navy's Channel fleet was neither brought to battle nor contained for a significant amount of time, let alone defeated- John Paul Jones's little squadron achieved more-or-less as much against the Royal Navy as the entire combined fleet. No aims of the joint French-Spanish mission were achieved, and, to paraphrase Nietzsche, what did not destroy Britain made it stronger- not just in terms of immediate defence improvements, but also helping to force the longer-term Naval reforms which created Nelson's navy. My original closing sentence to the article was even more outrageous, linking the cost of this failed expedition to the financial collapse of the French government in the 1780s, and (by way of public support for hard-up veterans) to the French Revolution. David Trochos (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Costly waste of time." Forgetting the phrase's abrasive and condescending language, I'll note that we're not in the business of assigning value judgments to military campaigns (or non-campaigns, as the case may be). I'm not convinced this article even warrants a battle Infobox, considering that it doesn't describe any action to speak of, but in any case, let's stick to the conventional appellations in force elsewhere. Was either fleet sunk? Did either side win a victory? Was battle even met? If not, "indecisive" is the simplest and most neutral descriptor we have, and (barring your distorted use of the word) it's perfectly accurate in this context. If historians have used the phrase "costly waste of time," then cite them and place it in the narrative, not the Infobox. Albrecht (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're calling a "battle Infobox" is properly referred to as a "Military Conflict infobox" and its stated purpose is "to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars)". The Armada of 1779 was most definitely a campaign. Neither side won a victory, but the French/Spanish side did suffer a defeat, by weather, sickness, and disorganisation- as evidenced by the fact that they did not attempt another invasion of Britain during the conflict. However, I will rummage at lunchtime and add a reference to the most detailed explanation of this that I can find (along with a note in the main text about d'Orvilliers). David Trochos (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a ref to the relevant section at the end of the main text; Selig's work isn't flawless, but overall, chapter 5 provides a handy summary of the French contribution to the Revolution, and 5.3 does have the advantage of quoting figures from Fonteneau's essay, "La période française..." which aren't otherwise freely available online. David Trochos (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"

The 1779 Armada was not "militarily indecisive"- although there was almost no military action, the military consequences of what did (and did not) happen were very significant. Also, the word "retreat" is being used too freely: the Franco-Spanish fleet had to engage the British fleet on its own terms, or fail, and the British carefully denied them this engagement. Equally though, the invaders did not really retreat- they simply cut their losses and went home. David Trochos (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The major concrete consequence of this campaign—which the article studiously avoids discussing—was that in seizing control of the Channel from the Royal Navy, the Bourbons devasted British trade with the Continent, which proved every bit as financially ruinous as the Armada's operational cost. For the rest the Anglophile editors seem to be invoking the old trick of the "invasion spectre": take an operation with very little chance of success (compare the 1692 "invasion," which was never considered practicable by anyone but the powdered sycophants at Versailles), explain that it failed, and hammer out a medal. Albrecht (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasoning is flawed there. What devastated British trade with the Continent was the very participation of France and Spain as enemies which happened to have both navies and ports which could be used by privateers (and their own Channel trade with other nations, which Britain disrupted at risk of making yet more enemies).David Trochos (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

French retention of Portsmouth

The lede mentions that the French planned to retain Portsmouth after peace was concluded. Unless I've missed it, that information isn't covered in the body of the article and isn't cited. Does anyone have a citation for it? It seems counterintuitive—while the strategic value of a base on the English south coast is understandable, Portsmouth isn't really defensible from mainland attack, unlike, say, Gibraltar. It'd seem more likely to me for the French and Spanish to use it as a bargaining chip to be exchanged for pretty much whatever the heck they wanted in a peace settlement—Gibraltar, Minorca, Newfoundland, cessions in India. Binabik80 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armada of 1779. 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/20090821105336/http://www.whitecliffscountry.org.uk/visitor_information/heritage_factsheets/the_western_heights.aspx to http://www.whitecliffscountry.org.uk/visitor_information/heritage_factsheets/the_western_heights.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/teammanley/Solent/GilickerHistory.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)