Talk:British invasions of the Río de la Plata

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: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	British military history task force

	This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine history. If you would like to participate, you can improve British invasions of the Río de la Plata, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Naming

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 In English this is known as the River Plate, and British historical documents always refer to this as the River Plate.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)

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)

[edit] Invasion in a global context

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)

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)