Talk:Royal Navy/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives
  1. up to July 2006
  2. August 2006 to November 2006
  3. December 2006 to September 2007

Contents

Devonport not Plymouth

Hi. I'm really new to WP (this would be my third edit), so I am not sure if I should just jump in and edit or bring up the issue on this discussion page first. I have two points: The Naval Base located in Plymouth is called HMNB Devonport, not Plymouth as the article suggests. Faslane Flotilla is under the Command of a Captain, not a Commodore. Should I just go ahead any make these changes, or is there a reason I am unaware of why the link is Plymouth rather than Devonport? DistractionActivity 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No issue with changing to Devonport, but try to kepe the link in place. The wording to distinguish CAPFASFLOT from COMDEVFLOT and COMPORTFLOT might get clumsy though, so try to keep the prose flowing.ALR 10:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Personnel seized by Iran

  • Iran captured fifteen British Royal Navy personnel during a "routine boarding operation" in Iraqi waters on Friday, Britain's Ministry of Defense said.
  • Iran's ambassador in London has been summoned and Britain is demanding the immediate safe release of the sailors.
  • "At approximately 1030 Iraqi time this morning, 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said in a statement.
  • "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment." [1]

Should we include this breaking news? --Uncle Ed 13:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, its not encyclopedic material, it is news. Just as we wouldn't include details of every action that took place in the Napoleonic Wars. Immediacy doesn't make for importance. Now if it later turns out to be important in the overall flow of history, then we could include it. Dabbler 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in HMS Cornwall (F99), which seems the appropriate place for it. Shimgray | talk | 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of littoral?

Is this the correct use of littoral? KP Botany 02:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what use? Where? This is a long article, so please be specific. A quote of the sentence or paragraph in queston would also be helpful. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Under the heading "The Royal Navy today". Littoral is the latest naval buzz-word that seems to have been adopted from the Americans. It means pertaining to coastal fringes, rather than the deep-water of Oceans, so in this use it is probably correct. I don't like the term myself, but that is probably because I am used to it in the biological sense rather than the geographical and it makes me think of snails and limpets! Emoscopes Talk 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
From the reading of the sentence and looking at littoral I get the idea that the author meant littoral warfare which is actually a redirect to amphibious warfare. A rewrite of the sentence in clearer English is probably the answer. GraemeLeggett 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Can one of you quote me a source on this, its use, official definition or anything, as it appears to be used exclusively in articles translated and in these submarine articles, and I can't find an English language definition other than the biological, in which case it means the submarines are travelling in less than 5ish meters of water and in grave danger when the tide goes out. Please get me a source so I can fix the redirects and change the littoral article. Thank you. KP Botany 04:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Littoral (military) also has a brief summary of the term. I'm redirecting littoral warfare there for the time being. - BillCJ 04:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Bill, not a self-reference, whatever Wikipedia is using as a reference for the term. There are dozens of articles linked to littoral which described the littoral zone, and I started changing them thinking it was poor translation, but realized it might not be. However, I cannot find a SINGLE non-Wiki source for littoral used in this manner, so I need a reference, military references are fine, but I need at least one in order to make the changes correctly and decide if I blew it with the non-controversial move from littoral to littoral zone, or if I need to add a littoral article or disambig or whatever. Thanks. KP Botany 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Check [Global Security.org on Littoral warfare]. It a thesis from the US NAvy on Littoral warfare, and may expalins in enough to get a good definition. It's long tho. It does describe littoral warfare as what used to be called brown-water operations, as opposed to blue-water (deep ocean) operation. It is a legitimate naval/military term, tho it it's probaly not all that common outside US military circles. - BillCJ 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Bill. This should be a good starting place--it's apparently going to require some off-line research, too. If it's not common outside US military circles it shouldn't, however, be used to translate coastal in articles. Yes, "brown-water operations" is familiar. KP Botany 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Text that appears twice in the article

There is a section titled 1695-1815, starting with "A permanent Naval Service did not exist until the mid 17th century", and, a few sections later, a section titled 1615-1865 starting with the same text. Gakrivas 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That section has been the subject of vandalism of late, mostly being deleted. Either the vandal has resorted to copying the text, or there was a mix-up between two editors trying to restore the text. I'll see what I can do. - BillCJ 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I think it's more messed up than I thought. There are several year conflicts in the headings, and duplicated text in several sections. Beginning to look like either sneaky vandalism or very sloppy editing. Someone familar with the text and history needs to take a look. It would take me a few hours to sort it all out, and I don't have the time right now. I'll try to check back later to see if it's been worked on if I have time. THanks. - BillCJ 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This entire section really needs a good spring-clean and moved in with the History of the Royal Navy article, in order that the main RN article can be a concise rundown of the service and link into the intricacies of its history. Unfortunately, my interest and expertise lies in more modern ships, and I don't really have the necessary knowledge or resources to tackle this myself. Emoscopes Talk 17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Tonnage

Gross Tonnage is a measure used to describe the carrying capacity of the enclosed spaces of a specific type of cargo ship; it is a volumetric measure. Indeed, the linked source does not even mention the phrase "gross tonnage", it mentions "naval tonnage". That too is not really correct, tonnage is a measure of volume, displacement is a measure of "weight". Emoscopes Talk 23:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tonnage was the measure used by the Royal Navy until the mid-19th Century. For ships of the 1850s, both Tonnage and Displacement are quoted. Nobody uses Tonnage for the present day Royal Navy surely?--Toddy1 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could put their hands on a tonnage for a single RN ship. Emoscopes Talk 13:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone's at it again. If you don't understand what tonnage is, don't use it as a measure. It may "sound" right, but it's got nothing whatsover to do with the point that is trying to be made. Emoscopes Talk 19:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories in which this article should be listed

I really don't want this to sound glib or sarcastic in any way, but why is this article not listed in some very basic categories it played a major role in? If there is a reason besides a general unwillingness to do it, I'll stop. Otherwise the RN deserves mention in much older categories of naval history as well. Anynobody 09:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oath of allegiance

The Royal Navy is established under the Royal Prerogative, hence members of the Navy (unlike the British Army and Royal Air Force) have never been required to take the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign.

Why does the one imply the other? Why should a Royal Prerogative establishment remove the need for an oath to be taken? 86.143.55.162 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer or constitutional expert but the individual regiments of the British Army were originally bands of men loyal to their commander who then served the Crown. In order to bind their loyalty closer to the Crown the men were also requiredto take an oath of loyalty to the sovereign. The Navy on the other hand was raised as a direct force employed by the Crown so their loyalty was to the Crown not to individual leaders. I don't know why the RAF chose the oath route as I doubt they were originally raised as separate squadrons. Dabbler 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Probaby because the RAF started of as part of the Army. MilborneOne 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Navy in fiction

Is this section necessary - at least within this article? There must scores, hundreds of such entries and I doubt whether listing them here adds to the value of this article. A separate article could be informative and appropriately categorised. And include "the Navy Lark"! Folks at 137 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, Folks at 137, I am of the opinion that this article is well in need of a spring-cleaning. However, I think the fiction section, as it stands, is the least of our worries (look at fiction / trivia sections in other articles!), although I don't really think that Sharpe should be in there when Hornblower, Bolitho and Aubrey are what instantly spring to mind when one thinks of fictional Royal Navy sailors from the era of the swashbuckle. Emoscopes Talk 12:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

TimeSplitters Future Perfect

perhaps some reference should be made about the fact that the Royal Navy is "included" in the video game TimeSplitters Future Perfect. -144.132.49.114 09:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not! Folks at 137 11:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please respect quotations

The whole concept of a quote, is that it is a quotation, using EXACTLY the same words as the original. I have reverted the quotation from the 1870s that refers to the cost of the Navy. The quotation refers to the Russian war. Please do not 'wrongify' it to make it Crimean war. (You cannot call it a correction if you change it from being right to being wrong.)--Toddy1 19:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that entire section should be in there - wouldn't it be better placed in History of the Royal Navy? It's excessively detailed for a single point in time, and we could easily include dozens of these... Shimgray | talk | 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Issues such as budgets, manning, pensions, how the navy is administered, size of the navy, etc. are very important. And yes, I think it would be a good thing to have a number of such sections. Though it would require work to dientangle an appropriate share of current joint budgets.--Toddy1 17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are important, but we need editorial perspective. They're really not appropriate as a massive section in the article on the Navy as a whole - it's simply too detailed, too specific, and we're not an indiscriminate collection of data... a wholesale contemporary study like this would be far better at Wikisource, and then we can easily cite any bits of it as needed. I've taken it out for the time being, but it's in the history. Shimgray | talk | 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ucker Is this the same game as Euchre?--ukexpat 14:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

History Section

I have migrated all of the text on this page and merged it with the History of the Royal Navy page. The text on this page should be a summary of the text on the subpage and as such i have prepared one in my sandbox here. It is open to editing and discussion and if no major problems are brought up with it then i will move it across onto the main page in the next few days. Thanks Woodym555 14:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now done this and have also requested a peer review with the MILHIST project. Hopefully we can get it up to A-Class soon. Woodym555 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cartagena

Following the indication of the user "Woody" I would like to suggest the inclusion of the Battle of Cartagena de Indias in the History section (somewhere between the 4th and 5th paragraphs) as it represents the largest naval enterprise in the history of the Royal Navy, and one of the largest of all times (in terms of tonnage of ships). Due to the sheer size of the fleet, the negative outcome also makes it the largest defeat of the British navy in its history. In my opinion, a mention of this battle is clearly necessary.

Regarding sources, the main article Battle of Cartagena de Indias quotes Tobias Smollet in a book by Jorge Orlando Melo published in Bogota (Colombia) in 1989. I have also included the book Breve Historia de Cartagena by Eduardo Lemaitre (published in Medellin) in that Reference section.

Regarding numbers, Lemaitre's book specifically mentions 186 British ships and 23,600 men (including 4,000 American colonials led by George Washington's half-brother Lawrence Washington) making it the largest military action in maritime history (in terms of tonnage) after the Battle of Normandy and the Battle of Leyte Gulf, both in 1944. To give a few examples, the large Spanish Armada of 1588 sailed with 123 ships (130 according to some sources) and the "English Armada" or Norris-Drake Expedition of 1589 was composed of 146 ships. All other naval battles in history were either smaller in number, or included ships of smaller tonnage such as galleys (biremes, triremes etc), galleases or longships. The British fleet in the Battle of Trafalgar (1805) for example, was made up of only 27 ships (versus the joint French-Spanish fleet of 33 vessels).

The references are still sketchy and are not properly formatted as per Wikipedia:Citation templates, specifically it needs the Template:Cite book added. Most of the article can be challenged and can be seen as being contentious. As such it needs inline citations as per theguidelines. The information itself still seems to be heavily biased towards the Spanish point of view. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view that article needs a thorough copyedit and a fundamental rewrite. That in istelf does not disqualify it from inclusion here but the lack of verifiable references does. Information cannot be added without adequate references. The numbers need to be referenced and quoted exactly from the references listed. A cursory search on Google came up with this source [2] which is in itself very biased which gave the number at 15,000 British troops.
Until that article, and the information that you want to put here, is fully referenced and quoted form verifiable sources i can't see how the information can be put in here without the addition of {{Fact}} tags and subsequent deletions. Any other opinions welcome. Woodym555 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have now created an account in order to participate in Wikipedia more effectively. I am surprised about your comments, specially those regarding the credibility of the references for the Battle of Cartagena. First, I am not an expert in quoting, but that does not mean a certain source is inexistent or its contents false. Here is (I hope) the appropriate quotation form:
{{cite book |last=Lemaitre |first=Eduardo |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=''Breve Historia de Cartagena |year=1998 |publisher= Editorial Colina|location=Medellin |isbn= }}
Second, if you contend the existence of this book how can I prove that it really exist? What makes a reference "verifiable""? Must I scan the book or the relevant pages and send them to the editors by mail? (You can find the book cited in the Amazon.comwebsite for example:[3]) If the contents of a book are challenged, how can citations be made? By citing the actual pages? (The Battle of Cartegena appears on page 62 of my copy of the book, in the chapter called Los Ingleses contra Cartagena meaning "The English against Cartagena").
Third, exactly what makes you think that the "information itself still seems to be heavily biased towards the Spanish point of view"? To begin with, Lemaitre is a well-respected Colombian historian and the book, though written from a Colombian point of view, is a thorough and rigorous review of the history of Cartagena, citing works from over 50 authors in its Bibliography. If you need I can scan the Bibliography and send it as well.
Fourth, the reference you cite [4] which gives the number of 15,000 British troops probably refers to the sailors, pawns and black slaves which add up to 15,600 men, according to Lemaitre's book. Apart from this force, there was another 8,000 infantry. I will quote the passage (page 62) in the original Spanish, and translate it below:
"El Jefe de esta expedición era el Almirante Sir Edward Vernon, quien traía abordo de aquella formidable flota un cuerpo de 8,000 soldados de tropas escogidas, 12,600 marinos, 2,000 peones y 1,000 negros esclavos, todo lo cual daba un imponente resultado de 23,600 combatientes"
Translation: "The Commander (chief) of this expedition was Admiral Sir Edward Vernon, who brought onboard that formidable fleet a force of 8,000 soldiers of selected troops, 12,600 sailors, 2,000 pawns and 1,000 black slaves, all of which adds up to an impressive 23,600 combatants"
I am open to comments regarding Wikipedia formating, and indeed interested in learning more about the appropriate codes and formulas in this free and universal encyclopedia. What I find hard to do, is to prove the existence of a particular reference or source, or to convince editors that because it is in another language does not mean it is biased. JCRB
The history section here has been cut back, and is now just meant to be a brief summary. Few few individual actions are covered here now, so I'd recommend that you move the entire discussion to the Talk:History of the Royal Navy page, and focus on getting the battle metioned in more detail there. To be honest, this may be a major event to those in Cartegena (and rightfully so!), but on the whole scale of RN actions, it's relativley minor. This is somewhat like Canadians who claim to have won the War of 1812 because they repelled an American invasion, but ignore the fact that the War involved much more than just an minor invasion of Canada. - BillCJ 23:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologise if i was bit heavy handed but the meaning of my comments has been lost. That quotation form is correct but is there no ISBN? This helps other editors to track it down. I want to make clear that i have never disputed the existence of the book, merely the facts that are contained within it. In WP:CITE it states "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Citations can be made, and are meant to be made, by quoting pages and if needs be quoting the paragraph verbatim in the footnotes. You may want to read Wikipedia:Harvard referencing for instructions on how to do so.
I maintain that the current article is biased towards the point of view of the Spanish/Columbian. Why did England attempt to invade, what did Vernon do?, how many cannon did he fire, What were his motivations. It cannot just be the heroic tale of Blas de Lezo. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is neutral, the argument of both sides should be addressed. The siege of Cartagena also needs to talk about the English Army and its role in the events.
I would also have to agree with BillCJ and his comments. The history section is now a summary as per WP:SUMMARY and as such does not list every battle let alone describe them in detail. This battle was an attempted siege that was rebuffed by a strong resistance force. It was an attempt at colonization and it failed as did many other attempts. The Battle of Trafalgar was about preserving British Sovereigntu over the seas. This is only dealt with by a small sentence. As such i do not see any lengthy coverage of this minor battle being viable in this article. Woodym555 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks both for your comments. Bill, I understand that the history section is meant to be a brief summary and I agree with that. But such an important, large-scale action as the Battle of Cartagena deserves a mention. We can argue why this action was so important and its consequences, but the sheer size of the fleet involved should be more than enough. You suggest that this action might have been important for the people of Cartagena "but on the whole scale of RN actions, it's relativley minor". If you think the largest naval enterprise in the history of the RN is relatively minor, then what do you think is relatively major? Vernon's fleet was made up of 186 ships and 23,600 men, much more than both the Spanish Armada of 1588 and the English Armada of 1589.
Moving on to Woody's comments, I am more than happy to discuss the background of the Battle of Cartagena and even to include it in the article, but I understand the idea is to make a small mention only, as the history section is meant to be a summary. Here is a brief explanation anyway:
The Battle or Siege of Cartagena is part of a larger Anglo-Spanish conflict called the War of Jenkin's Ear. Cartagena de Indias at the time was a major Spanish trading port of the Caribbean (together with Porto Bello, Veracruz and Havana) and was a major stopover for the Spanish Treasure Fleets carrying precious metals back to Spain via Havana. The objective of the Vernon expedition was to sieze control of this strategic port and disrupt the galleon routes which carried gold, silver and other goods to the Spanish mainland. The success of this enterprise would have not only caused a major economic damage to Spain, but would have interrupted her control of the Caribbean, and become a threat for her American colonies. Instead, a series of strategic failures, coordination problems and diseases on the British side, and the large fortifications and able leadership (Blas de Lezo and Sebastian de Eslava) on the Spanish side, ended in a big defeat for the assailants. Woody correctly says that the Battle of Trafalgar "was about preserving British Sovereignty over the seas". Well, the Battle of Cartagena was about preserving Spanish sovereignty over the Caribbean and with it over her entire American empire.
You are more than welcome to ask for more details on this military action, as there is more information in my book Breve Historia de Cartagena which I am happy to translate. You can also find information (in Spanish) about this battle in [5] which is very similar to that in my source . In fact, the statistics (numbers of ships and troops) is exactly the same as those I have quoted.
I am happy to provide any other information you request (including the evolution of the battle, step by step, the number of cannons etc) or even look for other sources of information. The question is that the Battle of Cartagena was a major, if not the largest military action in the history of the British navy (and one of the largest in world history) and therefore in my opinion deserves a mention in the History section. JCRB.
The biggest issue you have with asserting significant notability is finding more than one source. The RN hasn't been shy about it's disasters, and there have been several, so the absence of the engagement is pretty telling.
ALR 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions JCRB will be useful for the History page, i agree. My argument though is still with the importance of the subject. Yes it was a large fleet, but how much of a percentage of the fleet available at the time was it? The Spanish Armada involved most of the available ships, and for its time it was on eof the most notable battles in the history of England. We need to see it as a question of tonnage but this is still missing the point somewhat. The Spanish Armada was notable for its ramifications; it prevented the invasion of England. Trafalgar was notable for its' ramifications; it destroyed the French and Spanish Fleets and weakened the French movement as a whole. The ramifications of this siege were that Vernon sailed home empty handed. It was a failed attempt at an invasion, in terms of the history of the British Isles and its Navy how does this compare to Jutland, Trafalgar and the retreat of Dunkirk? In terms of the history of the Royal Navy it was an embarassing episode yes, but had no real ramifications for the British. In terms of the history of Cartagena it is most certainly a pivotal moment. This battle is mentioned in passing in the Spanish Naval History section and this is meant to be a glorious success.

I think this reference, [6] in English, backs up your claim of 23,00 men but disproves the claim of 186 ships, it states 124. Stanford University is a very well respected institution and as such i hope you will accept their findings. I still feel i have to stress that judging an event by the size of its fleet, or by pure numbers can give a misleading impression. That not withstanding the fleet lost only several hundred men in the actual battle itself. The major killer was disease leading to an eventual death toll of 8,000. I still maintain that the battle itself was a minor one in the history of the Royal Navy. Woodym555 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those last comments. First let me answer a few questions: no, my copy of Breve Historia de Caragena by Eduardo Lemaitre does not have an ISBN (I don't know why). Second, the fact that the Stanford paper cites 124 ships instead of 186 (Lemaitre's work) does not automatically confirm or refute anything. Both in my opinion can be considered "reliable", so I suggest we look for other sources.
ARL says that "the RN hasn't been shy about it's disasters". But with the Battle of Cartegena it has. When news of the defeat reached London in the summer of 1741 (revoking the previous news a few weeks earlier, of a great "victory") King George II prohibited the real news from being revealed. As a result, this event was burried in history (at least in Britain). This is exactly my point about the episode being covered in so few English-language history books. However there are many sources for it, some of which in the Stanford Paper that Woody refered to, and over 50 in the Bibliography of Breve Historia de Cartagena.
Moving on to Woody's comments, which I also appreciate, can I insist that the sheer size of the British fleet should be more than enough to justify its mentioning in the artilce. The size in absolute terms cannot be equated with any other military enterprise by the RN in its history. I really cannot see how else to put this point through. You argue that the size in relative terms perhaps was not as important. Well, I do not have an answer to that. But even if 186 ships (according to Lemaitre) or 124 (according to the Stanford Paper) were relatively less than the Spanish Armada's 130 (123 according to other sources), isn't it still a major (to say the least) naval action in the RN's history?
The Norris-Drake expedition or English Armada of 1589 was also a massive campaign, and if successful would have changed the course of history. The "ramifications" as you put it would have been huge if Norris and Drake had succeeded in occupying Lisbon. And yet this too is often ignored in many English history books. (At least, it does appear here in the Royal Navy article).
As I explained before, the ramifications of the Battle of Cartagena would have been huge if Vernon's attack had been successful: the disruption of the galleon trade routes would have meant a slash in resources to support Spain's military, specially navy. This would have meant an early decline in its political power and its influence on the world stage, meaning earlier and probably more successful independence movements in her colonies and an earlier break-up of her empire. Britain's control of Cartagena would have accelerated this process, as the Royal Navy would have used this strategic position to launch attacks on other Spanish ports and territories in the Caribbean.
Instead, the fact that Vernon was not successful had an important consequence on the geopolitical situation of the Caribbean and of the entire American continent: it prolonged Spain's naval supremacy in the Caribbean (until the 1820's) and secured its sovereignty over her American colonies another 70 to 80 years. Thanks again for your comments and the interesting discussion. JCRB
One problem even with the number of 124 is that it is double the total number of ships of all sizes under the command of both Vernon and later Ogle in the Caribbean during the war. N.A.M. Rodgers, one of the best modern historians of the Royal Navy states that Vernon and later Ogle had 15 3rd rate (72 gun) 19 4th rate (64 gun) 3 5th rate, 6 6th rate, 3 sloops and 14 "others" i.e. small cutters etc. (The Command of the Ocean, Appendix III, page 614) for a total of 60 vessels of all types. The Royal Navy of 1741 had a total of 233 ships of all types from 7 1st rates to 62 4th rates. Rodgers also says that the attack as abandoned because the fortifications of Cartagena were too strong for the quick attack that Vernon had proved so successful at Portobello. A long siege was impossible as the army started losing too many men from yellow fever. Dabbler 01:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting version of the battle, but not too convincing. First, Vernon's attack on Porto Bello cannot be compared with the Cartagena campaign, as only six ships were used on a poorly defended port, where a surprise attack proved successful. The size of Cartagena's fortifications makes the quick attack strategy a feeble hypothesis. The city had an impressive network of defense positions along the bay which was enough to repell any small or medium-sized attack, regardless of speed or surprise involved. If Vernon had a fleet of only 60 vessels, many of which were 5th rate or below, an attack on Cartagena would have been an absurd idea. Finally, if the attack was "abandoned" why was a commemorative medal minted to celebrate the apparent "victory"? The medal showed Admiral Vernon looking down upon Lezo who was kneeling down, and read: "Spanish pride humiliated by Vernon".
Vernon did come close to attacking Cartagena several times before March 1741, and indeed he "abandoned" each time due to the low chances of success. But there is no question that the confidence of taking Porto Bello made him launch a massive attack on Cartagena a few months later which resulted in the equally large defeat that we know. JCRB
N.A.M Rodger is one of the most prestigious British naval historians, your casual dismissal of him indicates that you are not convinced because you don't want to be.Perhaps you should think whether you have been blinded by propaganda from the other side. I suggest that you read some of Rodger's work before dismissing him so casually. If that is your attitude to anyone who doesn't agree with you, then it won't be worth discussing anything with you.
Rodger's understanding is that Vernon did not particularly want to attack Cartagena because he knew that, due to its massive fortifications, it would not be susceptible to the small but rapid attack that he had proved workable at Portobello. A long slow assault would mean that the troops and sailors would be exposed to the perils of yellow fever which killed more men than the enemy ever did.
However, he was also an active politician and member of the opposition party, so the government wanted to gain some credit for reinforcing him and ordering him to take Cartagena. The government sent out the expeditionary force in 25 ships to give him no excuse to avoid the attack. The army's expeditionary force lost its commander who died on the voyage to the West Indies. Vernon took overall command from the second in command but had on-going disputes with the replacement army commander who did not act as quickly as he wanted. Dabbler 11:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] The sources that i have read all state that Vernon and the Royal Navy quite easily overcame the defences in the Bay, indeed overcoming the scuttled Spanish Ships in the entrance, but they couldn't take over the castle/fortress though. If the attack was abandoned why was a commemorative medal minted?: It was minted because Vernon claimed and predicted in a letter home that he had won, he counted his proverbial chickens. Soon after the letter was sent the Siege was abandoned due to the reasons stated by Dabbler. Incidentally is that not what it should be called - The siege of Cartagena de Indias?
Onto a different point, as you state the ramifications would have been huge but for the Spanish Navy. As you yourself put with a slight sprinkling of conjecture, the Spanish Navy would have crumbled. Your hypothesis is exactly that, a hypothesis and conjecture. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This siege was a failed attempt at disrupting Spanish Trade. It did not have major ramifications for the Royal Navy and if successful, yes it would have had ramifications for Spain, for Britain it would have meant more gold.
I think it would be foolish to ignore the findings of Stanford University. This paper is produced by a well respected scholar and it cites many sources, including both British and Spanish, and it seems to me to be a cogent argument. Ignoring it because it does not backup your numbers would be foolhardy in my opinion. Woodym555 11:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See Nicholas Rodger for some background on this historian. David Underdown 11:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I suggest that we tone down the level of this discussion. The objective is to discuss events in the most neutral and academic away. First, I will look into N.A.M Rodger's works and see why his numbers about the Cartagena attack are so distant from those in other sources. In turn, if you do a little research you will find that Eduardo Lemaitre was a well-known and respected historian from Colombia (not Spain). As such, there is no reason to suspect that he favoured the "Spanish" point of view. Remember Colombia gained independence from Spain after a long struggle in the early 19th century.
Regarding my dismissal of Rodger being "casual", indeed my skepticism is justified. It so happens that most English-language history books ignore the Battle (or Siege) of Cartagena. This omission a priori seems intentional, as most sources indicate that it was a large defeat in one of the RN's largest campaigns (if not the largest) in its history. Add to this the fact that the British government specifically concealed the news of the outcome (actually burying the event in history) and you get a picture of at least doubtful reliability of English sources.
If anybody has been blinded by "propaganda" it is those who rely solely on English-language texts, which usually exaggerate the victories of Britain and ignore or minimize the victories of other powers. An example is the Spanish Armada which I have explained thoroughly. Most English texts dedicate large sections to describe this major victory of the RN (which indeed it was) in 1588, but omit or simply run past the Norris-Drake Expedition of 1589, which comprised a similar fleet (in numbers) and also attempted a direct attack on the enemy's mainland. Most English history books dedicate pages and pages to the Battle of Trafalfar in which a RN fleet of 27 vessles indeed destroyed a joint French-Spanish fleet of 33, giving it great strategic and geopolitical importance, but somehow ignore that half a century earlier a British fleet of 186 according to Lemaitre, or 124 according to the Stanford paper (or even 60 according to N.A.M Rodger) was defeated in Cartagena in a massive campaign comprising 23,600 men and two months of almost continuous canonfire which would have changed the map of the Caribbean if it had succeeded, and indeed the international balance of power. Why this lack of proportion in events covered?
Regarding the commemorative medal, indeed Vernon dispatched a messenger to Jamaica and Britain thinking he had won the battle (yes, after overcoming the defenses of the bay quite easily). But he did not "abandon" the attack. Vernon's ground forces launched a massive attack against the Fortress of San Felipe de Barajas, which was repelled thanks to a combination of factors: the size and design of the fortress (which allowed for efficient canon crossfire), the able leadership by Blas de Lezo who ordered an exit of the defending forces at the appropriate moment, the bad calculation of the attacking forces, who carried ladders which were not long enough to cross the large dike in front of the fortress, and indeed diseases. The Lemaitre book gives the figure of 800 British casualties during the attack, but a total of 8.000 in the entire campaign (according to the Stanford paper). (The remaining 7,200 casualties were not solely from tropical diseases, but also from the intense canonfire between British vessels and the Spanish fortifications for two months). Therefore, it cannot be argued that the attack was "abandoned". The point is: if the attack had been abandoned Vernon would not have sent the messenger claiming victory.
Regarding "ramifications", I do not understand the argument. Is your criteria that a certain event is "important" if its ramifications are big? Or if its ramifications had been big if the outcome was different? Reading the above I can interpret both. For example, the ramifications of the Spanish Armada were not big because the power of the Spanish Navy in fact grew after that campaign. But the ramifications "would have been big" if Spain's attack had been successful, and therefore it should be considered a major event. However, in the Cartagena attack you argue that the ramifications for the RN were not big (which is arguable) but clearly they would have been big if Vernon's attack had been successful. So what is the criteria?
Regarding the consequences being a "conjecture", indeed they are hypothetical. But they are educated hypothesis based on the knowledge of the situation in 18th century Caribbean, and specifically Spanish ports and the galleon trade routes. It does not take too much research to understand that if Britain had occupied Spain's most important port (where silver and gold were loaded) it would have chocked Spain's finances (at least temporarily) and caused a major blow to her supremacy in the Caribbean. Any historian would agree with this interpretation.
Regarding the findings of the Stanford University paper, I am not ignoring them at all. In fact my sources agree with much of the information there contained. The only data which is different, is the number of vessels in Vernon's fleet. I suggest we look for more sources to confirm or refute the Lemaitre figure of 186.
Finally, can I say that this argument is getting very long. All I am asking to the editors of the Royal Navy article is that a brief mention is made about the Battle or Siege of Cartagena in the History section. I have put forth many arguments for this, which I never imagined would have been rejected to this extent. The sheer size of this naval attack on a major Spanish gold-trading port in the Caribbean which would have disrupted not only Spain's vital galleon trade, but the balance of power in the Caribbean (and probably beyond) should be more than sufficient reasons to include a short sentence on this event. JCRB 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
While i accept that this argument is long, that is not a problem as long as consensus is reached at the end of it. I would rather have a long discussion than have a short one with no real ending to it. At least we can see this has been definitive. Also i want to reiterate my earlier point that my comments can be lost in translation. It is very hard to adequately and may i say it eloquently get your point across on such a one dimensional medium. That being said i do think that you are taking this perosnally. What we are trying to ensure is that the quality and verifiability of this article is upheld. The difference in terms of the number of ships is huge and does have a huge impact. It is better to have a long discussion and get the facts straight.
if the attack had been abandoned Vernon would not have sent the messenger claiming victory. I am sorry but i still do not get your reasoning. e.g.If someone thinks victory is coming on say, the 1st of xx, he will send a messenger home, back then victories were big things, a meadl is commissioned. If say a week later on the 8th Victory with your current Fleet looks impossible, you are being ravished by disease, you stop the siege and return home. The medals are abandoned. Things change over time. It was a siege that did not succeed. Not many Britsh ships were lost in the harbour, from the sources i have read more were burned out at sea because they did not have enough men to staff them.
With regards to ramifications, what i mean was how did it affect England, Britain and the Britsh Isles? Would abandoning this siege mean that people back home would suffer hardship, short answer, no. If the Spanish Armada had gone ahead, ramifications - we might be having this discussion in Spanish. I think this obssession with size and quantifying the battle is blinding you somewhat. Battles are about more than just numbers, it is about strategy, advantage and strategic gains. It would have been great for the Navy to have won, the coffers of the Government would have been full. As it happens Vernon returned home embarassed.
With regards to references, i agree that new ones should be found to help with the debate. With regards to bias, what do you expect. Are all Spanish history books neutral, no, are all the Franch, no, are all the British, no. I don't think that there is a country in the world that does not gloss over its failures and celebrate its victories. I also don't think that we are blinded to spin on the part of the Government of the time, or of today. The lack of proportion is to boost a country's morale. There is nothing that we can do to overcome that national bias, it will always be there. You are naive if you think that the Spanish will not want to glorify and overemphasise the victory and conversely that the British will not want to downplay the failure?

Fork

After seeking advice from the Milhist project, and as this debate was effectively debating two separate issues i think we should separate the debates. On the Battle talk page is a discussion on how to improve that article. However, if you have any constructive suggestions regarding the incorporation of a sentence in this article about the battle, then i think you should discuss it here. I think that the Arbitrary section heading title is a convenenient starting point and i have moved it below. Woodym555 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cartegena mention

As a first go at the sentence i suggest:
In 1741, a fleet commanded by Admiral Edward Vernon attempted to conquer the Spanish stronghold of Cartagena, in modern day Columbia. The ravishes of disease, and the leadership of Blas de lezo, meant that the attack failed.
Woodym555 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Good sentence. It needs a link to the article about the battle, and then we can place it in the History article. But I maintain it's not important enough for that much coverage here. I believe there is a sentence in the History article that mentions the siege with one or two words, and that could go here without any problem. The main aritlce on the battle is the proper place for all the other information involved here, including the ramifications, etc. As to the discussions' length, one might note the proportion of comments by each editor, and note than one editor's comments are significanly longer than the others. - BillCJ 17:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
One other note on the discussion: there aere actually some good items and sources mentioned here, and I'd like to propose moving the entire discussion to the Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias page. It's really not relevant to this page, as History is not the focus here. - BillCJ 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(Added again due to Edit Conflict) To clarify, Rodger's numbers are NOT those of the fleet sent to assault Cartagena, but the total number of Royal Navy ships of various sizes available in the West Indies during the entire war. As ship's come and go, are used for other tasks apart from supporting current operations and are lost in action or to misadventure, this must be seen as a maximum number. However, there is another possibility, the additional ships could have been civilian ships hired to transport troops and material, this could account for some of the differences in numbers. For an example in William III's invasion of England in 1688, there were 53 Dutch naval ships but an additional 400 transports carrying 60,000 men and 5,000 horses. It would be natural for the Spanish/Colombian story to maximise the number of ships even if they took no active part in the assault to enhance their victory while the British would look to keep the numbers down. Dabbler 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

After the mention of the unification of the RN circa 1707, this is the coverage of the 18th Century: The early 18th century saw the Royal Navy with more ships than other navies, although it suffered severe financial problems throughout this period. That's it! THere is no mention of ANY of the major events that Century, including the RN's participation in the American Revolution. I stand by my assertion that the Battle should not be mentioned here. - BillCJ 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As to the so-called "censorship" of data from the battle in Britain, that mey well be true of 18the century Britian, but the UK of today seems to revel in reliving every mistake and failure of the Empire. This is exaclty the type of failure they love to tout, and the fact that they don't tout it speaks volumes. - BillCJ 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (<- Somewhat tongue-in-cheek!) - BillCJ 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] Yes i agree with Dabbler on that one, i did read something about troop ships with relation to the Army involvement. This link [7] is a very useful one but also has an extensive further reading and archive list, it would be good for all to read.
With regards to BillCJs earlier comments, i was thinking the same thing. A copy and paste move though would not be beneficial. As a start i have linked to this debate on that talk page. I will ask for help on the Milhist talk page with regards to moving the debate.
With regards to Billcj's latter comments, i think you are placing too much emphasis on todays "Empire Bashers". I do think that by looking at past mistakes we can avoid making them in the future, but that is not to say that we should over-analyse past events. Anyway that is slightly off topic. I do think that that section does need expanding with more information on the 18th century and the two World War sections still need cutting down. The article as a whole needs a lot of referencing and improvement and that is the idea behind the peer review found here Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy. Woodym555 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree the 18th cent. section could be expanded, and the WW2 section cut back. We can put a cursory mention of the Battle in, with a link to the main article. I am for expanding the mention above fo the History of the RN page, which is the proper place for a mention. However, the "facts" asserted should be based on the final product of the battle page discussions re: number of ships, etc. - BillCJ 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks everyone for your comments. I agree that a long discussion is preferable to a short one with inaccurate data. Regarding the battle, you are right that it is not only about numbers, also about strategic gains or losses and other consequences. However, when telling the story of a navy, numbers are a major indicator of relevance. If the article is about the British Royal Navy there needs to be a mention of its largest naval action of the 18th century, and probably in its entire history.

Consequences are also important, both actual as well as "would be". For Britain the Battle of Cartagena meant a failed attempt to ocuppy her enemy's major stronghold in the Caribbean and to interrupt her vital gold and silver galleon trade. The battle also meant heavy losses: 8,000 men (many more according to other sources) and about 50 ships, which effectively reduced the RN's power on the world stage until the early 19th century, when it grew to become the most powerful navy. The "would be" consequences are much greater. Britain's occupation of Cartagena would have meant a drastic change in the naval balance of power in the Caribbean and beyond. Cartagena was not only a strategic point in the Caribbean but also Spain's major gold trading port. Its occupation would have cut Spain's vital supply of precious metals, and with it one of the main sources of funding for her military and navy. Altogether, this attack could have severly weakened Spain's control of her American colonies, and of her empire.

I agree with BillJC that the paragraph on the 18th century needs to be expanded, and it seems that it has. But it still misses the War of Jenkin's Ear and the subject of our discussion: the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, which was the major action of that war. The text currently reads: "The most important operation came in 1781 when during the Battle of the Chesapeake the British failed to lift the French blockade of Lord Cornwallis, resulting in a British surrender in the Battle of Yorktown." This was an important battle but I find it arguable that it was the "most important operation" of that century. The Battle of the Chesapeake included 24 French vessels against 19 British ships trying to lift the French blockade. The size of this operation is nowhere near the Battle of Cartagena, which included something between 124 to 186 British ships (according to differetn sources).

My suggestion for the mention of the battle is:

The most important operation came in 1741 with the Battle of Cartagena when a large fleet commanded by Admiral Edward Vernon attempted to conquer the Spanish stronghold of Cartagena, in modern day Colombia. A smaller Spanish force led by Blas de Lezo and Sebastian de Eslava was able to repel the attack due to strong fortifications, able leadership and the ravishes of disease, which caused heavy casualties on the assailants. JCRB 11:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


More on numbers

The wikipedia article on Sebastian de Eslava confirms the figure of 186 ships (51 warships and 135 transports) quoting additional references. It also mentions 28,000 men (instead of 23,600) a figure that is also quoted in this page [8] which also quantifies British casualties at 18,000. This other artilce however [9] talks about 120 ships, but also mentions "thirty thousand men" on the British side. It also says: "Failure to take Cartagena was the largest and worst defeat suffered by England at the hands of the Spanish in the eighteenth century". We will need to look for more sources to agree on numbers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JCRB 12:51, 27 July 2007 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that the numbers are necessarily that significant. I question the significance of the entire battle/siege in British history. We can all agree that it was a very large fleet, that attempted to capture Cartagena and failed despite having much larger numbers of men and ships. But in terms of the history of the Royal Navy, there have been many more significant defeats involving much fewer numbers of ships and men which had much more influence of the history of the Navy (the subject of this article) or the country. The Dutch attack on the Medway and the capture of the Royal Charles for example, which spurred the growth of professionalism and improvement in the Navy, or the defeat by the French in Chesapeake Bay which lost the war of American Independence and cost country the colonies in North America. What did Cartagena cost the Navy or Britain? a number of ships and men and some loss of prestige and dignity but no long term significant influence. It affected Spain and its South American colonies more without doubt but it was a might-have-been opportunity for the British, not a history changing event. It deserves a mention but its basic significance to Britain should not be blown out of proportion. Dabbler 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Then why do British history books give so much importance to the Spanish Armada when that too had little influence on the country's history? Britain also repelled an attack with no significant consequences for either side. The Spanish Navy article says: "The Spanish Armada's defeat in 1588 did not mark a decline in the Spanish navy but actually led to a thorough reform and recovery of its dominance". The article goes on to say: "Centuries of British literature perpetuated many myths about the event, treating it as a swing in naval dominance towards the English at the expense of the Spanish.[4] In fact, modern scholarship presents it as the beginning of an increase in Spanish naval supremacy..." The point is there needs to be a balance between the mention of both events, whose relevance in the RN's history seems similar. JCRB 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In both cases (the Armada and Cartagena) the defeat of the attacking forces probably had far more of a long-term significance for the winning side. If either had gone the other way they would have potentially changed the course of history, as they didn't work out it's far ahrder to assess thier long-term impact on the losing side. In the case of the Armada it's also entered national myth that England hasn't been invaded since 1066 (NAM Rodgeers is amongst historians who points out that this is actually far from true), and so the Armada is seen as one of the occasions where this came closest to happening. On Cartagena, having checked my copy of the Rodgers book it seems even more surprising that if it had been seen as a major failure, more wasn't done against Vernon, he had been a surprising appointment to the Caribbean command as he was an outspoken critic of the incumbent government (speaking against them in the Houses of Parliament). Here was ample cause to silence him for good after the failure of his plan, and yet it doesn't seem to have been taken (we're talking remember of a Navy which sentenced Admiral Byng to be shot by firing squad on the quarterdeck of his own flagship for failing to support Minorca adequately). David Underdown 08:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
History does not judge events by the rewards or punishments their leaders get. Vernon returned to Britain with a very bad reputation. He did not get any obviuos punishment among other reasons because the whole Cartagena disaster was concealed. Also because the RN needed commanders to counter the many naval threats Britain was exposed to. JCRB 11:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If all editors agree I will include the following mention of the battle, which is similar to my suggestion above:

The most important operation came in 1741 with the Battle of Cartagena when a large fleet commanded by Admiral Edward Vernon attempted to conquer the Spanish stronghold of Cartagena, in modern day Colombia. A smaller Spanish force led by Admiral Blas de Lezo and Viceroy Sebastian de Eslava was able to repel the attack due to strong fortifications, able leadership and the ravishes of disease, which caused heavy casualties on the assailants. JCRB 12:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly do you propose to add this in. "The most important operation" is subjective and is, at the moment, not referring to anything. Also references will of course need to be added before its introduction on the main page. I still have a feeling that it is too long for this page. I think that this text is great for the History of the Royal Navy page but a bit too long for here. I suggest:
The middle part of the century was occupied with the War of the Austrian Succession and the lesser known War of Jenkin's Ear, the decisive battle of which was at Cartagena, when a large fleet commanded by Admiral Edward Vernon failed to conquer Cartagena in modern day Columbia. The Navy also saw action in the Seven Years' War which was later described by Winston Churchill as the first world war.[1]
I propose to add this in the middle of the paragraph, just before the Battle of Chesapeake. Regarding "the most important operation" being "subjective" the article already uses this expression in:
...The most important operation came in 1781 when during the Battle of the Chesapeake the British failed to lift the French blockade of Lord Cornwallis, resulting in a British surrender in the Battle of Yorktown.
Clearly the Battle of Cartagena was more important, and indeed the most important action in the 18th century (see discussion above) as well as one of the major battles in the entire history of the Royal Navy. As for your suggestion for its mentioning, it appears to be inaccurate as the War of Jenkin's Ear included other battles and military actions. JCRB 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant that the most important operation was subjective because it was not qualified. he most important operation of what? The aformentioned statement of importance relates to the American War of Independence. I really don't think you can call it the most important operation, possibly of Jenkin's Ear, but not for the century from a Royal Navy perspective. It had no real impact other than to highlight Wentworth's incompetence. The most important operation for Cartagena, yes, but not for the Royal Navy. In the Royal Navy Day by Day, Sutton publishing, which is very comprehensive by its nature, Cartagena is mentioned in passing in Vernon's biography.
With regards to my suggestion, it was perfectly accurate. Even so, i have revised it to emphasise that it was not a single battle. My suggestion is large enough to include all the details and wikilinks neccessary for those to find out more information. Woodym555 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against the word "decisive", what did it decide? It didn't cause either side to sue for peace, it didn't end the British operations in the West Indies - the unsuccessful attack on Cuba followed it, it didn't end Vernon's career. Dabbler 19:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, what do you suggest, main? large? We can hardly say well known as it isn't. We could say largest defeat, (in terms of numbers simply because of the loss of life to yellowfever). Woodym555 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
How about this reworking of your suggestion. The middle part of the century was occupied with the War of the Austrian Succession and the lesser known War of Jenkin's Ear against Spain. In the latter war, the British deployed a very large force under Admiral Edward Vernon in the Battle of Cartagena. The major Spanish colonial port of Cartagena, in modern day Columbia, was not captured due to an able defense and the ravages of disease. The Navy also saw action in the Seven Years' War which was later described by Winston Churchill as the first world war.[2]
That suggestion sounds good, can't see much scope for controversy which is always good! Woodym555 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant "the most important operation" in terms of size of the fleet (186 ships), forces (23,600 men) as well as the implications (Britain failed to disrupt the Spanish trade routes of silver & gold, which were embarked in Cartagena, and gain a strategic position in the Caribbean in order to challenge Spain's Atlantic empire). Those numbers are referenced in the discussion above, in the article on Sebastian de Eslava and in the article Battle of Cartagena. The mention of the battle in English history books is scarce because the event was prohibited from being disclosed by the government at the time and has consequenly been practically buried in (English-language) history. It was also a major defeat, if not the largest in the history of the Royal Navy (50 ships lost and 18,000 men died - see references in the main article). It is therefore no surprise that it is hardly mentioned in Vernon's biography. Here is a revised suggestion for the paragraph, based on Woody's last version, that puts more emphasis on the size of the fleet (by the way the name of the country is Colombia, not Columbia):
''The middle part of the century was occupied with the War of the Austrian Succession and the lesser known War of Jenkin's Ear against Spain. In the latter war, the British deployed one of the largest fleets in its history under Admiral Edward Vernon in the Battle of Cartagena. The major Spanish colonial port of Cartagena, in modern day Colombia, was not captured due to an able defense and the ravages of disease. The Navy also saw action in the Seven Years' War which was later described by Winston Churchill as the first world war.[3] JCRB 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are still being questioned though and i link back to Dabbler's point about significance for the Royal Navy. It was not significant for The Royal Navy, it meant we didn't take over a small town. I think that Dabbler's rewording of my suggestion is the least controversial. It mentions the large nature of the force and it mentions the fact that it is major for the Spanish. I think this emphasis on size is misguided (not least because the history books cannot agree on its size) and i couldn't agree with including your suggestion in the article. When we can agree on the size of the force and cite using verifiable and peer-reviewed sources, then we could add it in. Woodym555 23:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is leading nowhere. References for numbers have already been quoted above. The article on Sebastian de Eslava confirms the figure of 186 (51 warships plus 135 transports) and quotes additional references. There are more references in the Battle of Cartagena article. Whether it is 186 or 120 ships it is by far the largest operation in the 18th century and one of the largest in the RN history. It was also a large defeat (a victory for the Spanish) which continued the balance of naval power in the world until the early 19th century. The emphasis on size is not misguided, it is factual. I do not see why this is being disputed. Unless you want to omit or minimize RN defeats in the article. JCRB 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No i don't want to marginalise defeats, why else would Cheaspake be in the article. What i am trying to make sure is that the information is accurate and verified. As to the Sebastian de Eslava article, i could go over there and change the article to 2000 ships, doesn't make it anymore accurate. Most of the links (by no means all) are effectively blogpages and not referenced. It says it was a large force defeated, in dabblers suggestion. i think that is the best and least controversial. It says everything it has to without going into unneccesary detail. The importance is subjective, each person will have their own views on it importance. I don't think it was one of the largest fleets in its history either. I think Dabblers suggestion should be put into the article. I also think you shouldn't insult other readers or question their integrity. So far this has been a productive debate, let us not lower the tone with personal attacks. Thanks Woodym555 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe I have changed the tone of the discussion, or insulted anybody. I am sorry if I sounded harsh. I just question the opposition to including an episode which has very often been purposely omitted from history texts. The debate has been productive upto now but it seems the very long discussion above has taken us nowhere, specially due to constant challenging of facts. First it was the actual battle that was questioned, then it was the numbers, absolute then relative to the total navy, then the ramifications for Britain or for Spain, then the hypothetical implications had the outcome been different, then the references quoted, and those quoted in other articles. Somebody said that the "information was biased towards the Spanish side" just because the number of British ships was large. Indeed it was a massive fleet, which is why the importance of the battle out of sheer size, is great. I have given references, and explained why they are hard to find in English-language texts (and given references about that too). I have limited the length of the text to be included, so that it is only a brief mention. Now I am asking a group of editors to open their eyes to an event which it seems they find hard to believe (probably because it is not in English-language books) and to include it in the best possible and accurate way. It is OK to contend information (because it helps the accuracy of Wikipedia) but not in such an excessive and continuous manner.
You say that you "don't think it was one of the largest fleets in its history either". Well, what kind of information backs that claim? I have quoted references to explain it was the second largest in history after the Battle of Normandy and explained that this excludes battles made up of rowing vessels and others of smaller tonnage. It was larger than the Spanish Armada and the Norris-Drake expedition or English Armada of the 16th century. It was much larger than the naval operations in the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War or the Battle of Chesapeake or the Battle of Trafalgar.. Still I am not asking that this is stated because there is room for doubt. I am not even asking that it is described as the "second largest in the history of the Royal Navy" which undoubtedly it was. I am simply suggesting that a safer statement is used like "one of the largest fleets in the history of the Royal Navy" which is more than accurate. Not only accurate, but actually constructive because it puts the operation in historical context by showing its relative size to other battles, smaller in size. Is this asking too much? JCRB 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I do think that this debate has turned into a politicians squabble over a couple of words. I don't think the existence of the battle has ever been contended, just the size of the fleets and its significance. From a Royal Navy (and British) perspective, you have to see (well you don't, but i hope you do) that it is not deemed important. Yes a lot of men were lost but it didn't impact on British superiority in a great way. (I accept it did impact the Spanish and maintained their superiority in this area). I agree some distortion of facts has gone on (from both sides), and we will probably never know the exact size of the fleet. As such it would be inapropriate to quantify it from a historical perspective. Fleet size and its importance will always be debated. Fleet size has little to do with anything, it is the power of the fleet, the number of guns etc. The same debate is going on at the moment about gross tonnage elsewhere in the article.
There are two opposing views here. Yours and the majority of editors. I reiterate that Dabblers suggestion:
The middle part of the century was occupied with the War of the Austrian Succession and the lesser known War of Jenkin's Ear against Spain. In the latter war, the British deployed a very large force under Admiral Edward Vernon in the Battle of Cartagena. The major Spanish colonial port of Cartagena, in modern day Columbia, was not captured due to an able defense and the ravages of disease. The Navy also saw action in the Seven Years' War which was later described by Winston Churchill as the first world war.[4]
It says that it was a large force, it is not trying to hide that. if your suggestion largest forces in history was added i fear it will have a {{dubious}} tag left on it until a verifiable source is found. (which may be ad infinitum) I agree that this must be closed, and i have made my points and suggestions, and i hope you accept the inclusion of Dabblers suggestion and bring closure to this lengthy discussion. Woodym555 19:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, the vast number of ships in the Cartagena fleet were not Royal Navy vessels, they were hired transports. Secondly as pointed out William III's invasion of England in 1688 took over 50 naval ships and 400 transports, so while large, this was not an exceptionally large fleet for the time. You have succeeded in convincing us that this is an important enough event to be included while Vernon's earlier victory with only six ships at Portobello which resulted in streets and districts of cities being named Portobello in the UK and is more significant nowadays in Britain, is not mentioned. Please be content with that for now. The full details will be available on the Battle of Cartagena page which is linked here. Dabbler 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the vast number of ships in the Cartagena campaign were not RN ships does not change anything. It was common for European navies, specially in large campaigns, to hire ships from other countries or to join forces with allied fleets in order to put together a sufficiently large number of ships. The Spanish Armada for example included Portuguese, Napolitan and Sicilian merchant ships. In the Battle of Trafalgar the British fought a joint French-Spanish fleet. The English Armada was made up of almost the same number of English as well as Dutch vessels.
I agree that the discussion has been long, but if I have to prolong it a bit further I am happy to do so in order to put forth a historical point which is true and verifiable. History in English has ignored the Battle of Cartagena since its very origins, when the British government actually banned the news from being published (back in the 18th century) because it was a humiliating defeat for Britain in a massive campaign which involved enormous resources. Succesful campaigns however, like the capture of Portobello or the Battle of Trafalgar, much smaller in size and arguably less important, have been given extraordinary propaganda (street names in London and long chapters in English history books) in order to boost national pride or what have you. But we are now in the 21st century and we have a much more neutral, independent and unbiased point of view of historical events. This is precisely the objective of the great information platform called Wikipedia: to collect and store the most accurate and neutral information as possible on any subject. Let us therefore open our minds, even if we have never heard of this battle, and try to understand that the history of the RN is not as glamourous as it is sometimes portrayed. Like any great military force, it had its ups and its downs, its times of glory and its times of shame. Let us therefore try to reflect this episode of history in the most accurate manner. JCRB 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think mine and dabblers point was one of weapons/guns. That dictated the battle, the number of guns, it is not about ships unless you list the number of guns. I am not saying that ships aren't important, i think they are but everything has to be taken into account. I cannot agree more with your last sentence. That is why it has to state a large fleet and not one of the largest in its history. It wouldn't be accurate to do so for the reasons stated all throughout this discussion. Woodym555 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a sport analogy would help here: Consider the RN as a Premier League team, and the Cartegena forrces as the top team in their league, but nowhere at the Premier level. THe Premier League team sends its second squad/back-up players, while the lower-level team sends its best players, and wins. It's an embarassing defeat for the Premier League team, but by no means humiliating. That seems to be the situation here. This does not appear to have been the best the RN had to offer, as this was not really that important a target to the British in the long run. Had they been attacking Cartegena, Spain, and lost, then it would have been a different situation. THat's also why the defeat of the SPanish Armada in 1588 is so significant, as it was a fleet trying to invade England itself, not some far-away colony. I also agree the number of guns is important, as it goes to how many of the ships were actually warchips, not just transports. - BillCJ 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the sport analogy but I don't think it's accurate. I would say it's more like 5 Premier League teams played at the same time against a single team from another league, and lost. Regarding the number of guns, the Vernon fleet had something between 2,000 and 3,000 cannon. This Spanish source [10] quotes 2,620 guns, while this New York Times article [11] mentions 3,000. This other article [12] says "over 2,000 cannon". For the sake of comparisson, the Spanish Armada had 2,500 cannon according to the Wikipedia article (1,500 brass + 1,000 iron guns).
Regarding the significance of the Spanish Armada this is probably not the best place to discuss it. But it is well-known that English-language history is full of myths on the development and consequences of this campaign. It was a huge campaign (one of the largest in the history of the Spanish Navy!) but modern scholarship has proved that it did not change the balance of (naval) power in Europe one inch. In fact as a result of its defeat, Spain improved and reorganized its navy to such an extent that it continued to dominate the seas, arguably until the middle of the 17th century. The following quote is taken from a Harvard University article on the English Armada:[13]:
..the key take-home message of the Spanish Armada is that its failure to invade in 1588 did not represent a decisive Spanish defeat, nor did it in itself pose a serious challenge to Spanish naval power or King Philip’s war aims..
“The Defeat of the English Armada and the 16th-Century Spanish Naval Resurgence,” by Wes Ulm, Harvard University personal website, URL: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ulm/history/sp_armada.htm, 2004
JCRB 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


My previous statement that Spain actually "improved and reorganized its navy to such an extent that it continued to dominate the seas, arguably until the middle of the 17th century" is actually confirmed by the follwing passage, taken from the previously mentioned article:
The strength and renown of the 19th-century British Imperial Navy can seduce and deceive us into thinking that the English somehow had a natural affinity for ruling the waves, and the Spanish Armada incident seems an all-too convenient marker for this ascendancy. Yet as we’ve seen above, the English definitely did not rule the seas in the aftermath of the Spanish Armada, in large part due to the failure of its own Armada in 1589. The Spaniards would remain the dominant sea power well into the 17th century.
“The Defeat of the English Armada and the 16th-Century Spanish Naval Resurgence,” by Wes Ulm, Harvard University.
I think such insight is useful to observe history in a more neutral and academic way. JCRB 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been several times claimed that the defeat at Cartagena was "covered up" by the government of the day. However, I have not seen any evidence of this given. Vernon was an noted member of the opposition party in Britain and it might have been in thegovernment's interest to brand him with the stigma of failure in a major operation, not protect him from the consequences. Dabbler 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what the previously quoted article [14] says:
Vernon was welcomed home a hero, and is buried in Westminster Abbey, though King George II never allowed the details of this embarrassing defeat be published.
This is also in numerous Colombian and Spanish sources. JCRB 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that article is hardly a good reference, it reads between a tabloid travel article and a work of propaganda. Do we have any serious academic work which makes that statement about the cover up? Dabbler 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is hardly a "work of propaganda". Its author is an Australian writer and journalist based in Cartagena, and the article is part of the book "An Odd Oddysey" (Trafford Publishing). But there are many other sources. For example this Spanish foundation for nautical studies called "Fundacion Letras del Mar" [15] and the book "Historia Extensa de Colombia. Gobierno del Virrey Don Sebastián Eslava 1740-1750" by Sergio Elías Ortiz, quoted in this long and detailed article on the Battle of Cartagena [16]. It says that after many anonymous pamphlets were published in England blaming Vernon for the Cartagena disaster, King George II banned the publication of any information regarding the battle. In any case, we are getting a litle off track the main discussion. JCRB 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

After a very long discussion on the Battle of Cartagena, with thanks to all the editors who have contributed to the interesting debate, and with their permission, I will include the following revised version of the mention of the battle, based on the latest suggestion by Dabbler. For the sake of consensus I have eliminated the phrase "one of the largest fleets in history". I trust this balanced mention will satisfy everybody:

''The middle part of the century was occupied with the War of the Austrian Succession and the lesser known War of Jenkin's Ear against Spain. The main action in the latter conflict was the Battle of Cartagena in which the British deployed a very large fleet under Admiral Edward Vernon against the Spanish colonial port of Cartagena, in modern day Colombia. The expedition failed to capture Cartagena due to strong fortifications, an able defense and the ravages of disease. The Navy also saw action in the Seven Years' War which was later described by Winston Churchill as the first world war.[5] JCRB 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree although this says exactly the same thing in fewer words: The middle part of the century was occupied with the War of the Austrian Succession and the lesser known War of Jenkin's Ear against Spain. In the latter war, the British deployed a very large force under Admiral Edward Vernon in the Battle of Cartagena. The major Spanish colonial port of Cartagena, in modern day Columbia, was not captured due to an able defense assisted by strong fortifications, and the ravages of disease. The Navy also saw action in the Seven Years' War which was later described by Winston Churchill as the first world war.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodym555 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 1 September 2007
Looks good to me. Kudos to everyone involved in creating this consensus decision! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer my original suggestion. The phrase "was not captured" is too casual. It does not reflect the importance and magnitude of the campaign. It sounds as if the British fleet "happened" to be navigating those waters, and "happened" to attempt an attack on Cartegena, when in fact it was one of the largest naval campaigns in its history. (Please do not ask me to explain this again). The sentence "the expedition failed" is more appropriate because it reflects the specific intention of the whole campaign, and the fact that it was not succesful.
Also, let me remind you (again) that the country is not Columbia but Colombia. JCRB 15:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for Colombia error. In my country we have a British Columbia which sounds the same and Admiral Vernon had nothing to do with it. How about this which addresses your point :

No problem about the spelling error. Both "Columbia" and "Colombia" come from the same root: Columbus (Christopher) as they are both a tribute to the discoverer, but indeed they are different. Regarding your suggestion "the British abandoned the attempt", it is definitely an understatement. Losing 18,000 men and 50 ships in the largest naval campaign in th 18th century is not exactly "abandoning the attempt". It is more like "the British attack was repelled with heavy casualties".
In case you want references for those numbers, they are from John Pembroke (a British member of Parliament) who witnessed the Cartagena disaster, taken from his book True Account of Admiral Vernon’s conduit of Cartagena, quoted in James A. Michener's Caribbean (details are in the main Battle of Cartagena article). Pembroke says:
By honest count we lost 18,000 men dead, and according to a Spanish soldier we captured, they lost at most 200. Admiral One Leg with his excellet leadership and fire killed 9,000 of our men, General Fever killed a like number [...] The poor, weak farmers from our North American colonies died four men in five. JCRB 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I must also apologise for my ignorance over Columbia and Colombia. Onto other matters: From all the sources I have seen, they say that Vernon abandoned the attempt because of the ravages of disease. I am loath to say retreat, but effectively it was. It was a lack of will to carry on and also due to disagreements with Wentworth. I agree that it was a failed attempt. Yet both statements are laced with POV, but abandoning is less so.
With regards to this: one of the largest naval campaigns in its history. (Please do not ask me to explain this again). It is not that helpful, the debate over numbers and largest in the world will always continue, and will continue to be subjective. How is large defined? Number of guns, type of ships (Ships of the line etc), Tonnage (whole different argument about gross, volume etc), number of men? It is subjective and as such the phrase could never be verified completely to the agreement of all, or even in terms of a consensus. Another source [17] says 30 ships of the line and 80 other ships. This now seems to be the norm. (around 120 ships, still have the argument over what type though.)
I support Dabblers suggestion (which i have bulleted for convenience). I would also suggest some hidden text saying something like, before editing this section please refer to the talk page for the discussion that led to its development. Thankyou Woodym555 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The battle was large-scale attack that failed, or was repelled, with heavy casualties, half of them due to disease. There is no POV in that. I will not repeat my arguments or provide any more references If you insist on dismissing the the importance of the battle with "Vernon abandoned" or "Cartagena was not captured" you go right ahead. JCRB 11:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps POV was not the right word, Weasel words is more accurate. They both indicate points of view and lean towards different viewpoints. Abandoned suggests that they weighed up their options and chose to leave. Abandoned: forsaken or deserted," "To give up by leaving or ceasing to operate or inhabit, especially as a result of danger or other impending threat:" or "To surrender one's claim to, right to, or interest in."
Failure:The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends: ". They both achieve the same thing, It was not a success. You read into the sources that the Evil English invader was repelled by the legendary and Heroic Blas de Lezo. I see that the English failed miserably at an attempt to conquer a well fortified, Spanish stronghold, that was well defended by a good leader. I see that the British suffered beacuse of arguments between the two commanders, Wentworth and Vernon. From what i gather you see this as the most important battle that the Royal Navy were involved in, throughout the 18th century. You back this up with arguments over the size and numbers of the battle. I disagree, stating that size doesn't matter and that it was of little consequence to the Royal Navy that they lost. IF they had won it would have been of great consequence, they would have been rich and would have gained a stronghold in the Caribbean. We have two opposing viewpoints about the historical significance of this battle. Dabbler's suggestion is a good compromise that includes all the relevant details and links for the interested reader. Given the Summary style of the history section it is a large concession to make. Given your recent statement, can i take this as a consensus to move the following text into the main article.

Recommended text

Do not take me literally. Indeed "abandoned" means "to give up" but carries a basic element of "intention" or "will". There is a big difference between choosing something and being forced to. Vernon's expedition left Cartagena because there was no choice. His campaign was a disaster, no matter how you measure it. He lost 75% of his entire force. You could only use the word "abandon" if it were his free will to leave or interrupt the expedition. With a loss of 18,000 men and 50 ships, it was not exactly his choice. Instead "failure" which you accurately define as "the condition or fact of not achieving the desired end" is perfectly appropriate. Vernon "did not achieve his desired end" of capturing Cartagena. I don't think either "failed" or "repelled" can be cosidered Weasel words, or imply a POV. Perhaps you prefer "repulsed". The War of Jenkin's Ear article uses this word in:

A 1742 Spanish counter-attack upon the British colony of Georgia at the Battle of Bloody Marsh was also repulsed by the British.

In any case, the constant rejection of true and verifiable data is leading nowhere. If this goes on we will need to find other editors to reach a consensus, or some other procedure. JCRB 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How i am meant to take your words, if not literally? I understand the difference between choosing and failing. Dunkirk was a monumental failure, their we were repelled, repulsed etc. Here Vernon could have carried on, it would not have got him anywhere. He could not have taken the fortress. At the same time, he was not repelled. The Spanish did not fight him out to sea. They survived the siege. He had to abandon the attempt because he was low on supplies, low on men and he was arguing with Wentworth about the correct way to attack. The shallow port meant that the ships couldn't provide an adequate barrage. I think it would be misleading to say that they were repelled. That suggests, to me anyway, that the Spanish force forced them back into the sea and chased them home. It does not reflect the few facts that we have.
With regards to references, i am yet to be provided with an adequate, verifiable source.Many of the sources that you provide are conjectural, they are essays by people who are basing their essays on the essays of other people. The Stanford lecturer cites published sources. That is a verifiable source, Mr Rodgers is a cited, published source. Many of the Spanish authors, who are published are verifiable sources. I just can't verify them because they are in Spanish. Finding someone's blog posting is not a verifiable source or a place of fact. In the Battle of Cartagena article it should read something like this: Sources differ as to the size and nature of the attacking forces. Most indicate that there were between 120 and 180 ships. These were not all armed though with many being troop carriers. One source indicates that there were 30 ships of the Line involved with the attack and 80 others carrying food and supplies.
We can't go back in time and verify it. We have to collate the sources, and all the sources differ. There is no definitive source.

Voted text

I maintain that this is a large concession to kae given the WP:SUMMARY style of the history section. By all accounts the Seven Years war and the wars with France were more important than the Battles with Spain. I think this is a good compromise and i hope you agree. Woodym555 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the term "repell" is perfectly applicable. According to this source [18] it means "cause to move back by force or influence" and it puts the example "repel the enemy". That's exactly what Blas de Lezo's forces in Cartagena did: cause Vernon and his fleet to "move back" (to Jamaica) by the "force" of his cannons.
Now, to say that Vernon "had to abandon the attempt because he was low on supplies, low on men and he was arguing with Wentworth" is a joke. Of course he was low on men: he had lost 75% of his entire force! Do you think he and Wentworth were really arguing about how to conduct the attack with 25% of their exahusted, starving and completely downhearted force? Of course not. The attack was a large failure and they were forced to retreat or "move back", thus "repelled".
Regarding numbers I cannot believe you are addressing this again. I have explained thoroughly that although the Stanford paper cites 120 ships, the majority of other sources cites 186 (both English and Spanish texts). True, this still does not prove anything, but add to that the British cover-up of the whole campaign since the 18th century (as I have explained endelessly) and you get a reasonable suspicion that that the expedition was pretty large. Here is what an English author said about finding references:
There was not much information about Blas de Lezo in English texts. I had to look in Spanish references for translations. Also there is some new info about England's disaster in Cartagena which has surfaced in recent years. Naturally, England will not publish it. They are still not up to giving this man his just dues to this day. [19].
Still, even if you don't understand Spanish, there are many sources in that language that quote the 186 figure and which seem reliable, giving details about exactly what types & numbers of ships Vernon's fleet was made up of. This one for example [20] quotes 180, and lists the following ships (translataion in parenthesis):
8 navíos de tres puentes y de 80 a 90 cañones. (8 three-masted ships with 80 to 90 cannon)
28 navíos de dos puentes y de 50 a 70 cañones. (28 two-masted ships with 50 to 70 cannon)
12 fragatas de 40 cañones. (12 frigates with 40 cannon)
2 bombardas. (2 other ships - don't know the word)
130 barcos de transporte. (130 transport ships)
Hope to have shed a little more light on this endless matter. JCRB 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
To quote: "Me thinks thou dost protest too much!" Please, this is about a one-sentence summary! I think the last one given is fine. I thinks it's time to end the endless dicsussion. Put the last text to a vote, and lets move on to something else more important, like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin! - BillCJ 02:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly i am with Bill, almost lost the will to edit over this one. I think we have become the definition of WP:LAME. I think the text now under Voted text should be voted on and this long discussion archived. It will probably be changed by a random editor in a month anyway. What we need to concentrate on now is finding references for the main navy article. Woodym555 08:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


"Me thinks though dost not accept some facts". But for the sake of bringing this endless discussion to an end, I will accept it your last suggestion, provided that the actual "Battle of Cartagena" is mentioned. Perhaps like this:
I have been Bold and added in the above text now. Can everyone now start to add more references to this article? Any disagreements with archiving this now? Thanks Woodym555 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It has been a long an arduous discussion, but I thank all for their participation and comments. We will now concetrate on expanding the main article on the Cartagena campaign. JCRB 11:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Navy today - needs revamping

Following on from the discussion on the peer review page, i think that the whole section runing from Postwar period and 21sr century needs revamping. The essay type stuff about VMF should be removed or referenced and the compostion of the fleet needs to merge into the the royal Navy today. I don't think the graphs have any real purpose. They interrupt the page at the moment and they need interpretated. I think we can just interpret the numbers instead. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the graphs or how to integrate them, then please do say. I then think that the current ships of the Navy should be discussed. Section headers such as Amphibious/escort units/submarines/other should be used with a short description linking into the other articles. I will start work tomorrow unless anyone has any objections? Thanks Woodym555 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems slightly confusing to me to start off talking about the RN in the 1990s, and then talk about the Falklands proving the need to re-orient the fleet towards more expeditionary activities, when that conflit took place in the early 80s, David Underdown 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The conflict did take place in the early 80s and it influenced the Strategic reviews and decisions of the 90s. I am going to try and reword that intro to make this clear. Could probably be cut back as well. I have also noticed it needs an other section -Patrol/MCMVs! Woodym555 19:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)