Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias

British ship losses

While some Spanish sources state 6 British ships of the line sunk or burnt, it cannot be confirmed through english language sources. Examining Beatson's list of losses shows no SoL sunk. Other Spanish sources give: "6 navíos de tres puentes. 13 navíos de dos puentes. 4 fragatas. 27 transportes." a total of fifty with 6 three deckers and 13 two-deckers, or 19 ships of the line and 4 frigates and 27 transports - it does not say they were all sunk. The number, 19, on the SoLs correspond to other sources for damaged and disabled ships- the HMS Tilbury which burns later in 1742 shouldn't be included in these losses. Also I think the statement 6 ships sunk which is sourced to a web site should be deleted even though its kind of sourced pending a clearer, confirming source.Tttom1 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am just going through the list of ships from websites like 3decks and the list of which vessels took part in particular Beatson's Naval memoirs. I believe many were damaged such as HMS Boyne and Hampton Court but so far no ships of the line appear to be lost. This may take a while as I will go through as many frigates as I can too. The source I deleted mentions at least 15 ships of the line lost which I think seems to be somewhat exaggerated. Bruich (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (GMT)

See Beatson V.3 p.83. I see no SoL lost, however, the number of 18 or 19 SoL for damaged and disabled seems reasonable based on accounts. I think the 1500 guns is just an extrapolation that assumes the 3rd and 4th rates are sunk (which would give a total of some 1200 cannon) not just damaged and that all those cannons are lost - although that is just my opinion, see: Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".Tttom1 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading Rodger's Command, I accept the Spanish sources to the extent that there may have been 6 ships of the line lost and as many as 19 damaged. Rodger explains (particularly on pp.220 and 606) that naval practices "intended to mislead... such as the British 'rebuild' system of the first half of the eighteenth century... had the effect of padding the lists with fictitious ships.". 'Great rebuilds', as explained, leave room for replacing lost ships during a period, 1696 to 1745, when Parliament voted no money for shipbulding.Tttom1 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The only navy ship lost during the Cartagena campaign was the prize ship Galicia, Blas de Lezo's former flagship. Several ships were damaged, especially Shrewsbury and Prince Frederick, but none were lost. Spanish sources were likely citing the burning of transport ships that Vernon abandoned for lack of crew members before he withdrew from Cartagena. NCHist (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Where is the part of STRENGTH with the number of forces (spaniards 3000, english 27000-32000), like in other battle articles of wikipedia? Is a mistake or rather an embarrasing data for the author of this article (I suppose english)?

Its in the article's infobox. And articles do not have single editors, they are written by multiple authors (whose nationality is irrelevant). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.13.0 (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria:

In general, a well researched article on which a lot of effort has gone. Most of the changes required are cosmetic, but the number of them make them important to fix. I've listed them below.

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

The text needs a little work in places. I've captured most of the ones I spotted below:

Background:

• "the Annual Ship" - you'll need to explain what this is, or wiki-link.
  • done
• "The commercial class in Britain" - classes?
• "claimed that the Spanish coast guard" - "claimed" suggests it might not have happened. If so, probably worth explaining; if not, I'd change "claimed" for "said", or a neutral term like that.
  • the story of Jenkin's ear has lost nothing in the retelling - then and now.
• "spoke for offensive action both" - "spoke in favour of"?
• "where ships could be refit. " - refit is probably grammatically ok, but reads oddly - how about "refitted"?
• "The despatch of the large fleet and troop contingent had been demanded by the public, led by the Duke of Newcastle[30] in Parliament" - as written, suggests that the public in parliament had made the demands, which wouldn't be quite accurate! Suggest you break up the sentence a bit to clarify this.
• "would be successful" - "would be as successful"... or... "would be successful in the same way that..."
• "thereby acquire Spain's American empire" - do you really mean the whole of Spain's empire? (i.e. including South America etc.)
  • seems preposterous now, but yes - the feeling then in England was that Spain was a hollow shell easily beatable.
• "and thought Havana too well defended" - this is dangling at the end of the sentence - you'll need to tie it into the first bit.

Battle:

• "The Battle of Cartagena pitted a British invasion force of at least 27,400 military personnel, 12,000[38] of which were infantry including: two British regular regiments, the 15th Foot and 24th Foot, 6,000 newly raised marines[39] in 186 ships[40] including: 29[41] Ships of the Line;[42] 22 frigates, 2 hospital ships, various fire ships and bomb ketches armed with a total of some 2,000 cannon; 80 troop transports and 50 merchant ships. Included, but arriving from the North American colonies sailing on another 40 transports were some 3,600 American colonial troops in four battalions designated as the 43rd Regiment of Foot, command by Colonel Gooch.[43]" - I found this hard to follow. I'd suggest separating the list of infantry from the ships more clearly. I wasn't what the "included" meant in the second sentence.
  • done
• "Opposed was a force" Opposing them?
• "combatants" - I couldn't work out who these were.
• "fighting from six Ships of the Line and massive fortifications " - I'm not sure you can fight from a fortification.
• "daring and spectacular as any naval officer of his day" - language felt a bit overblown here.
  • Kind of like Nelson to the Spanish, and lost an eye arm & leg to Nelson's eye & arm.Supported by Habron ref.
• "The expedition was very slow getting started from England." - "very slow in leaving England" would be more accurate, since the winds stopped them leaving initially.
• "but not as destructive to operations" - "disruptive"
• " Boca Chica channel" - first time this is mentioned, so you'll need to explain what it is.
• " to approach it from sea" - "from the sea".
• "the 6 Spanish line ships" - "six", vice "6"
  • done
• "the whole of the land forces: the two regular regiments, the six regiments of marines[57] but of the Americans only 300 were allowed ashore" - if 3,300 Americans were left on the ships, the whole of the land forces hadn't gone ashore. "most of the land forces"?
  • done
• "died from the diseases of " - you could lose "from the disease of", as you've already explained earlier that these are diseases, and they're wikilinked
• "ill-considered, badly planned... specious excuses..." These are harsh terms, so I'm assuming that the reference at the end backs them up in a similar way.
• " walls unbreached during a night attack" - this fits awkwardly in the sentence, and I wasn't sure quite what you meant here.
• "would attempt to carry the parapets" - attempt to storm? take? "carry" isn't quite right in this context.
• "who had volunteered, lured by promises of land[73] and mountains of gold," - I'm not sure this bit fits well here - perhaps it would work better when you first mention the American forces earlier in the article?
• "forbade to talk or write" "forbade" is archaic, and you need to say who he forbid to talk or write about it.

Aftermath:

• "Following the news of the disaster Robert Walpole's government soon collapsed and Spain retained control over its very lucrative colonies, and over a strategic port in the Caribbean that helped secure the defense of the Spanish Main" - the sentence needs breaking up; Spain maintained control of its colonies before the news arrived in England!
  • done
• "It caused George II of Great Britain, who had been acting as mediator between Frederick the Great of Prussia and Maria Theresa supporting Austria over Prussian seizure of Silesia in December of 1740, to withdraw its guarantees of armed support for the Pragmatic Sanction. " - confusingly long. "its guarantees" - "his guarantees"?
  • done
• "was now taking shape" - suggest "occurred"
  • now began (originally it was 'was now inevitable'.
• "The staggering losses suffered by the British compromised all the subsequent actions by Vernon and Wentworth in the Caribbean and most ended in acrimonious failure" - again, I'd check that the sources support terms like "staggering" and "acrimonious".
  • Article has numerous refs supporting casualty rates, e.g. Fortescue: "Of the regiments that had sailed from St. Helen's under Cathcart in all the pride and confidence of strength, nine in every ten had perished." 90% dead qualifies as 'staggering'. Rodgers ref sums up Vernon: "... his (Vernon's) ruthless exploitation of the army, his unscrupulous skill at claiming credit for every success and blaming the soldiers for every failure, eventually destroyed any possibility of harmonious combined operations." Vernon's carping, criticism and goading are well known and can be expanded and ref'd. Wentworth argued but made no public complaint until much later. The governor of Jamaica drew swords with one of Vernon's admirals, so - acrimonious is fair.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead:

• You mention the size of Cartagena, but this isn't in the main body of the article.
• The word "massive" probably isn't needed in the lead, and is a "word to watch".

2.Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

There's a good range of sources cited, but there's some considerable work to be done on tidying up the bibliography and citations:

Sources:

• I would question whether http://www.globalsecurity.org is a reliable source in this context; given the other volumes mentioned, I'd be inclined to replace it with a more regular academic source.
  • added a supporting source

In the references and bibliography:

• Weblinks (e.g. Don Blas de Lezo y Olavarrieta un Ejemplo Del Espíritu Militar Español) will all need expansion. You'll typically need the name of the author(s); title of the article within quotation marks; name of the website; date of publication; page number(s) (if applicable); the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown).
• You'll need to be consistent about the use of shortened citations (sometimes you shorten them, other times you repeat all the details each time). You can do either, but you'll need to be consistent within the article.
• In the bibliography, be consistent about whether you end the name with a full stop, or a comma. Similar for where you place the year, and how you end the title of the book/article. You'll need to be consistent about how you end each biblio reference - a full top, or no full stop?
• Check Fortescue or Fortesque (you use both)
  • done
• "Letter from Governor Montiano, July 6, 1740, Collections of the Georgia Historical Society. (Vol. VII. – Part I) Published by Georgia Historical Society, Savannah, Ga." - not in the bibliography.
• Hume, David. The History of England, London, 1825 missing from bibliography.
• Smollett, Tobias George and Hume, David. History of England, Vol. II, London, 1848 missing from bibliography.
• Geggus David. Medical History, 1979, 23:38-58., Yellow Fever in the 1790s: The British Army in occupied Saint Domingue, missing from bibliography.
• Harbon, John D..Trafalgar and the Spanish navy, Conway Maritime Press, 2004 missing from bibliography. Check if "Harbon" or "Harbron".
• Coxe, William. Memoirs of the kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon, Volume 3, London 1815 missing from bibliography
• Tindal, N. The continuation of Mr. Rapin's History of England, Vol. VII, London, MDCCLIX is missing from the bibliopgrahy. MDCCLIX needs to be put in Latin numerals to fit with your style in the rest of the article.
• Le Fevre, Peter; Harding, Richard, ed..Precursors of Nelson: British admirals of the eighteenth century, is missing from the bibliography.
• Pares, Richard. War and Trade in the West Indies, Routledge, 1963, missing from the bibliography
• Ibañez, I.R.. Mobilizing Resources for war: the intelligence systems during the War of Jenkin's Ear, is missing from the bibliography.
• The Cambridge Naval and Military Series, The navy in the war of 1739–48, vol 1, p.101, is lacking an author.
• James Pritchard, Anatomy of a Naval Disaster: The 1746 French Expedition to North America. Montreal and Kingston, is missing from the bibliography.
• Clark, Walter. The State Records of North Carolina, Vol.XI, pp. 42–45 is missing from the bibliography and lacks a publishing location or date.
• Marshall, P.J. and Low, A.M..The Oxford history of the British Empire: The eighteenth century, Oxford, 2001 is missing from the bibliography.
• Fortesque, J.W.. A History of the British Army, MacMillan, London, 1899, Vol. II breaks with the formatting of the other entries by having both publisher and location - you'll need to stay consistent with your article style.
• The London Gazette, Number 8015, "... the two Regiments of Harrison and Wentworth, and the six Regiments Marines landed without opposition." is missing from the bibliography and lacks author, publishing location and date.
  • London Gazette shows no author, editor - names a printer. Location is unmentioned, presumably, London.
• Knowles, Charles.An Account of the expedition to Carthagena, London, 1743, p.45 is missing from the bibliography.
• The Mancroft Essays,1923, pp.236–242 - needs author, publishing location and needs to be in the bibliography.
• Pares, Richard. War and Trade in the West Indies, Routledge, 1963 is missing from the bibliography.
• Conway, Stephens. War, state, and society in mid-eighteenth-century Britain and Ireland, Oxford, 2006, is missing from the bibliography.
• Ford, Dougla. Admiral Vernon and the Navy: A Memoir and Vindication London, MCMVII,. Check spelling of "Dougla", and expand to Latin numerals.
• The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle, London, Vol. XI, 1741. is in the bibliography, but the citation needs to include the full details in the same way as your other citations do. It needs an editor or author as well.
• Marley, David. Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present, ABC-CLIO (1998). ISBN 0-874-36837-5. is in the biblio, but I can't spot the citation using him.
• Offen Lee, "Gooch's American Regiment, 1740-1742, America's First Marines", Fortis Press, ISBN 978-0-9777884-1-5 - similarly not cited.
• Quintero Saravia, Gonzalo M. (2002) Don Blas de Lezo: defensor de Cartagena de Indias Editorial Planeta Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia, ISBN 958-42-0326-6, in Spanish. Similarly not cited.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

(c) it contains no original research.

• " Letter from Governor Montiano, July 6, 1740, Collections of the Georgia Historical Society. (Vol. VII. – Part I) Published by Georgia Historical Society, Savannah, Ga." - Are you quoting from just the primary source here (which would be OR) or did the GHS publication make the same observation? If the latter, you'll want to give the page reference where the secondary comment is made.
  • don't think this qualifies as OR as it is only an 'interesting footnote' and does not determine estimate given.
• Knowles, Charles.An Account of the expedition to Carthagena, London, 1743, p.45. - given the date and title, this feels rather like primary research and OR, unless it can be backed by a suitable secondary source.
  • ref contains secondary support - Fortescue.
• The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle, London, Vol. XI, 1741. - similarly, is there a secondary source which backs this up?
  • again, Fortescue. There are others, cited earlier, which do much the same.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• The one major gap is the description of Cartagena itself. There's a little bit of description of it in the middle of the article, but I wasn't really sure how big it was (in terms of people or size) or what sort of town or city it was. A couple of sentences around where you describe the channels might help answer this.
  • done
• A minor point, which wouldn't stop me passing this at GA, is that you could mention the weapons used by the typical soldiers (e.g. muskets). It would only need a passing line, but would mean that a (very) casual reader would know what they fought with in the battle.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Pass.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• The article feels broadly neutral.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• File:Sebastián de Eslava.jpg. The copyright tags would be fine, but there's no indication on the description page of the date the picture was created, which makes the "artist plus 75 years" and "US PD" tags hard to argue for. You'll need to give the date of the creation of the piece for these to apply. (e.g. if you could say it was an 18th century painting for example, that would be ok)
• File:Edward-vernon-1.jpg. Ditto.
• File:Medalla Lezo y Vernon.jpg. and File:"Toma" de Cartagena por Vernon.jpg. If these had been created by the Crown, we'd have to change the copyright tag (although they'd still be usable), but I think these were privately coined, so that shouldn't be a problem. Let me know if you think they were made by the Crown.
  • I don't think they were made by the crown. There are numerous variants.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• "Sir Robert Walpole, Prime Minister of Great Britain from the studio of Jean-Baptiste van Loo, 1740." - missing comma after "Britain"
• "A map of the trading part of the West Indies created 1741 in honour of Vernon shows Boca Chica, Cartagena – 2nd from the bottom left" - I found the little picture rather hard to read. I've uploaded a snipped version with just Cartagena on it in case you fancy it; it's at File:Cartagena in the 18th century.png. If you want to keep the original, that's fine, but I'd advise "A map of part of the West Indies..." to avoid the archaic "trading part" in the caption.
• It's not vital for the GA criteria, but many of the captions aren't complete sentences, so won't need full stops at the end.

You should just fail it now. I'm not going ot be able to work on it for a while. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK - if you get the chance to come back to it, I'd be very happy to re-review; drop me a line on my talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the concerns above as best I could and would appreciate a re-review. Thanks.Tttom1 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Order of Battle

I think that an "Order of Battle", like this: Order of Battle at the Battle of the Nile would be helpful in the article. Should you wish, I would happily make one up if you could provide me with a good source as a guide. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll re-review over the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I originally reviewed this article back in March. Since then, the various issues identified have been dealt with (retrospectively added on by Ttom1 to the original review page, so I won't repeat them here). I'm happy to pass it now second around. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Some comments

First of all, I congratulate the author. You have done a good research work. However, there are some points that should be taken in consideration given the GA condition of the page, some aspects little accurate that must be revised. The most important of them is the role of Blas de Lezo in the defense of the city. According to a modern Spanish source (1), Lezo (and the battle in general) had been greately mystified by the Spanish nineteenth naval history. This book signals some interesting poits regarding to the development of the battle.

Firstly, it' said that there was a deep enmity between Lezo the viceroy Eslava attributable to the arrogant character of Admiral, and that Lezo's defensive plan consisted of abandoning the outer defenses and of sinking all the ships at the mouth of the bay while a second plan, designed by a Swiss-born military engineer, Carlos Des Naux (Eslava's second in command), consisted of defending each fort to wear down the British. The authors state that Eslava agreed with Des Naux, and the second plan was executed. The major point which I want to discuss is Lezo's performance in the engagement. It appears, as is said by Marchena and Kuethe, that the key man, the true leader, was Carlos Des Naux, who commanded the defense of Bocachica and San Felipe castles, while Lezo's actions proved highly controversial, from sinking his whole squadron without fire a single shot, to the limited support that he provided to Des Naux. In any case, he was never present at the frontline. Surprisingly, Des Naux isn't mentioned even once in the body of the article .

Other point to discuss were two of the sources used for the article. There is a PDF, Don Blas de Lezo y Olavarrieta un Ejemplo Del Espíritu Militar Español, coming from an Argentine patriotic website, and a book, El día que España derrotó a Inglaterra : de cómo Blas de Lezo, tuerto, manco y cojo, venció en Cartagena de Indias a la otra "Armada Invencible", which is a novel rather than a serious essay. Not reliable sources, If I'm not mistaken. Moreover, the casualties of the battle seems to have been exaggerated. At Robert Beatson Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain, from 1727 to 1783 (2) is noted that no warship of the expeditionary force was lost during the engagement. And, according to Spanish sources, the number was but 6 ships (no name or class is given). The number of deaths appears also a bit exaggerated. A Spanish modern source (3) states that Eslava, in concordance with British medical accounts, put the British casualties in 4.000 deaths. 9,500 or 10.000 men may be a possible number for the overall losses of the British campaign. As for the Spanish losses, besides Lezo's squadron, 12 other vessels were scuttled in vain, according to Keuthe and Marchena.

There's also a taxative sentence in the latter book that should be noted in the article: "The loss of Cartagena to the British would have been more economically affordable than its defense".--Sir Ignel (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As the primary editor I thank you for your kind words. There was a mention of Des Naux as a commander previously, but it was unsourced and added nothing specific beyond his name but I will enter him as commandant of Boca Chica. De Lezo's role is well attested and supported in numerous sources in both English and Spanish, so I don't think a single new work is sufficient to overturn that view. The casualties suffered by the British and Americans is also very well sourced. The difficulty on clearly determining British naval losses has been discussed previously, while the land forces have numerous documentations, the loss of naval manpower and ships is conspicuous in its near total absence. For example, while we know, as fact, that 2 British infantry regiments and 600 of the new British marines are transferred to the control of the navy to make up typhus losses of the crews, there's no naval source that states losses of 2600 sailors directly. Similarly, and in addition, we know that nearly 2500 of the Americans of the 43rd foot were also dispersed among the line ships to provide more replacement in crew losses - at least 5,100 sailors replaced altogether by the time the fleet is at Cartagena. The silence of British sources on naval losses extends to the ships as well as noted above and Spanish claims are not unreasonable in light of that and what Rodger says. Eslava cannot be considered a reliable source on British manpower losses - he's just estimating something he couldn't know the particulars of - he might know ship losses as those he could plainly see. As to the spanish source you mention as a novel, El día que España derrotó a Inglaterra : de cómo Blas de Lezo, tuerto, manco y cojo, venció en Cartagena de Indias a la otra "Armada Invencible, spanish language editors added this, I am unfamiliar with this book and cannot vouch for it, but it is only used as a reference within a footnote. If it is indeed a novel, it should be moved out of bibliography into additional reading with the english language novels - it should be noted that reliable historians cite statements from both Smollet's and Hall's novels. The other, Don Blas de Lezo y Olavarrieta un Ejemplo Del Espíritu Militar Español, appears in several places on the web and is reasonably sourced and so I accept it. I can't say I even understand the taxative sentence out of context.Tttom1 (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But there's not a single view. Besides Soldados del rey: el Ejército Borbónico en América colonial en vísperas de la independencia, whe have several more modern Spanish sources which emphasize the differences between Lezo and Des Naux (or Desnaux, depending on the source) and widely mention the role of the engineer in the defense over Lezo's one: España estratégica: guerra y diplomacia en la historia de España, Historia de las fortificaciones de Cartagena de Indias and La institución militar en Cartagena de Indias en el siglo XVIII, for example. As I've said, there had been much exaggeration around Lezo's figure and the battle in general, mostly by the Spanish naval historiography of the nineteenth century, if we trust in Kuethe and Marchena. Regardless of the limited role of Lezo as opposed to Des Naux, the myth consists in presenting Eslava as a bumbling and corrupt man and Lezo as a tough hero. It was, in appearance, a resumption of the controversy that arose in the Spanish court after the battle between the marine clique led by Zenón de Somodevilla, 1st Marquis of Ensenada (a very influential clan) and the land army clique. After the battle Lezo was going to be submitted to a court martial for his "mismanagement" of resources, and following his death, Ensenada led a campaign to clean his memory. Given the lack of important colonial victories obtained by the Bourbon Spain, the nineteenth-century Spanish naval historiography chosed to focus on the "positive part" of Cartagena and bury what they disliked (the confrontation between Lezo and Eslava-Des Naux, the abuse of the officers to the soldiers, which led to a mutiny in the garrison in 1745). Given the existence of extensive material supporting Des Naux main role, I don't see why keeping old and tendencious visions of the battle. As for the PDF, it's claimed to be supported by an extensive bibliography, but the article gives for good, without more, facts whose existence isn't proved, as the alleged capture of the Stanhope, and completely invents a lot of data. Pablo Victoria's book is an attempt to offer a fictionalized view of the battle in which, [surprise!], Eslava appears as an incompetent, Lezo as a military genious, and Des Naux as a fanatical willing of sacrifice his men. For the British naval losses, I think you're doing original research. The Spanish source which claims higher losses is a journal wrote, if I'm not mistaken, by one of Cartagena's high officials during the siege, Diario de lo ocurrido en Cartagena de Indias desde el 13 de marzo hasta el 21 de mayo de 1741. Se relata la batalla de Cartagena de Indias, which claims 9 ships, of whom two third-rates and a 70-gun ship. According to all the British sources that I've consulted, the only ship actually lost was the Galicia prize. I think the best is put these two versions in the infobox, but considering the fact that the Spanish couln't put names to the ships whose loss they claimed.--Sir Ignel (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The view of De Lezo is supported by modern english language sources including Harbron and Rodgers (Rodger N.A.M.. The Command of the Ocean, 2004, p. 238. Also: Harbron, John D..Trafalgar and the Spanish navy, Conway Maritime Press, 2004, ISBN 08700216953, pp.108 - 113.). The dispute between Lezo and Eslava is mentioned and no particular negative view of Eslava is put forward in this article. The same can be said about Vernon and Wentworth - Vernon still has people supporting his myth. Isn't Lezos dead in '45 and therefore Eslava responsible for any mutiny? Regarding OR on British naval losses, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As Rodger points out, the Admiralty and Naval Boards deliberately falsified lists and records of ships and deceived Parliament during this period, so some spanish sources are accepted in lieu of British silence. Other editors determined the version used of 6 line ships lost which is stated in some spanish articles. It would be acceptable, to me, to be more vague and cover the naval losses with the general statement I use in the lede "50 ships lost, badly damaged or abandoned" which doesn't make the claim of 6 line ships as in the info box. That editor provided a source and linked to it and I am loathe to remove it since it is in some spanish sources.Tttom1 (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Duro, Cesáreo Fernández. Armada española desde la unión de los reinos de Castilla y de León, Est. tipográfico Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, Madrid, 1902, Vol. VI, p. 250."...tuvieron que incendiar seis navios y otros 17 quedaron con necesidad de grandes reparos para poder servir...".(6 burnt, 17 severely damaged). Eslava's account mentions 5 burnt. refs added to article.Tttom1 (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Images in article

Minor housekeeping thought, but I think the article tries to pack in a few too many images toward the end. Have you considered just making a "Gallery" section (WP:Gallery) and throwing the images there? (A little weird for a battle article rather than art article, but not unprecedented.) Alternatively, maybe combine the two British medal images into one composite image, and remove the picture of Philip V (who isn't directly referenced in the text)? (Only problem with this is having an epicly long caption for describing the two medals...) SnowFire (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

An extremely biased and untrustworthy entry

This article needs a thorough overhaul as it reads like a hapless piece of propaganda. It quotes novels as sources and its tone is evidently bombastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanningar (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Cartagena de Indias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820040319/http://cvc.cervantes.es:80/actcult/ciudades/cartagena_indias/fichas/vernon.htm to http://cvc.cervantes.es/actcult/ciudades/cartagena_indias/fichas/vernon.htm#inicio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010601/http://www.letrasdelmar.com/fichanoticia.php?idn=118 to http://www.letrasdelmar.com/fichanoticia.php?idn=118

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

doesn't add up

"The battle pitted a British invasion force of 124 ships[50] including: 29 ships of the line,[51][52] 22 frigates, 2 hospital ships, various fire ships and bomb ships armed with a total of some 2,000 cannon, 80 troop transports and 50 merchant ships. "

29+22+2+80+50=183 not 124

so which one is it? 124 or 183? or something else, since the "some" 80 and 50 may be approximates?

88.168.175.234 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Date format

Wondering why AnomieBOT changed the format from dmy to mdy. I added the dmy template simply because the Infobox date was already in dmy format. ?? Carlotm (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure? No idea why, but the diff suggests it simply added a date to the tag. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to all. My eyes (or my bias) betrayed me unexpectedly.Carlotm (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Corrections

Under Spanish Leaders, Jose Campuzano Polanco is the correct name.

Under British Strength, the British had 9,700 soldiers and marines. The navy ships had complements of close to 17,000 men but the army provided about 3,000 men to fill vacancies among the crews. The British fleet consisted of 29 ships of the line (two more would follow later), 12 frigates, 7 fireships, 2 bomb ketches and 2 hospital ships. About 120 transport ships sailed with Vernon.

Under Spanish strength, the Cartagena garrison and regular regiments mustered less than 2,000 soldiers. They were augmented by another 2,200 sailors from the 6 galleons in Blas de Lezo's fleet.

Under British losses, the numbers quoted are based on the entire campaign in the West Indies. Many of the deaths occurred in Cuba and later. British fatalities at Cartagena and immediately following while the army recovered in Jamaica amount to 3,400, according to muster records. Losses among the navy crews likely add another 2,500 deaths during the Cartagena portion of the campaign. NCHist (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography

The Bibliography has two gaping omissions: Vernon, Edward. The Vernon Papers. Ed. B. McL. Ranft. Navy Records Society, 1958 and Harding, Richard. Amphibious Warfare in the Eighteenth Century: The British Expedition to the West Indies 1740-1742. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Royal Historical Society & Boydell Press, 1991. The Vernon Papers compiles most of Admiral Vernon's correspondence during the campaign. Harding's book provides the most in depth analysis of the leadership squabbles between Vernon and Wentworth. NCHist (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that means neither source has been used in constructing the article. The bibliography (and indeed the sourcing for most articles in this war) is rather weak - many Spanish sources and/or dated sources and/or primary sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)