Talk:Armada of 1779

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792) American Revolutionary War task force

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)