Talk:Gran Colombia–Peru War
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I found very extrange that this article just talks about Peruvian victories,when the war wass won by the Greater Colombia.I suggest to correct this,or put the neutrality disputed tag--Andres rojas22 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the war was won by Peru Vivaperucarajo 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You're obviusly not very informed,but you're nick says it all--Andres rojas22 16:22, 3 May 2007 (UT NO the war was won by Gran Colombia and the Margin of the limit was the past ex ecuadorian line which was disputed by peru; claiming Ecuador was no longer Gran Colombia and therefore attacked,
- Can I interject? Well I will, only to state that "greater" is not the same as "great", perhaps then as winning is not the same as losing? Anyway, we are now in peace and merry-"-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Darian: That's far away from truth. After Sucre's victory at Tarqui, La Mar was overthrown in a coup almost on the spot and the only way Peruvian stopped the Colombian army from recovering Guayaquil was suing for peace. I also removed the hyperbolic claims of a Peruvian "blockade" of Colombian ports in the pacific as, until this day, Colombian doesnt have a military port in that ocean. (Or, more bizarre, a blockade of such a long coast exercised by a single ship). Finally, "Gran Colombia" is a compromise term used to differentiate pre-1830 Colombia with Venezuela and Ecuador from the current State of Colombia, the official name of the country at the time of was Republic of Colombia. Please reply with facts instead of undo the current version of the page 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Joshua
fair enough lets state facts, your claim of a Colombian/Gran Colombian military victory is based on Sucre's victory at "Portete de Tarqui" a battle which only involved the Peruvian vanguard and ended with an organized retreat of the involved divisions after the Hussar of Junin arrived to the battlefield and managed to cripple the Colombian cavalry and even killing its commanding officer in the noteworthy lance duel. La Mar was able to retreat with the core of the Peruvian army and hence still had the ability to protect Peruvian earlier gains, thus his refusal to evacuate Guayaquil and Colombian territory.
also your belief that the Colombian army was in a state able to take Guayaquil back even after Tarqui is mislead, Guayaquil was held by Peru for several month after that battle and was only given back after Gamarra's political ambition led to the coup-de-etat against President La Mar and subsequent peace talks, in which the Colombian army made no further advance into occupied territory(or touched Peruvian territory in the entire course of the war for that matter).You cant claim a Colombian military victory.Colombia did not take its occupied territory by force it did so by diplomacy
now about the naval campaign, there is no possible way you can claim a Colombian military victory at all, the capture of Colombia's largest port in the pacific(Guayaquil) by the Peruvian Navy ensured Peruvian supremacy in the Pacific through the entire war which by the way was comprised of more than 1 warship.
Finally its imperative you state what Colombia hoped to achieve by declaring war, i assume it was to take punitive actions against Peru for eliminating Colombian presence in Bolivia(1828 invasion) the fact that Colombia was forced to fight a defensive war, was unable to regains its influence over Bolivia or force Peru to cede Jaen and Maynas(disputed territory claimed by Bolivar to be Colombian) clearly puts Colombian aims for the war as a failure, i could be bolder and say that Peru won the war because at no time Peru was invaded while already having achieved its goal (retreat of Colombian troops of Bolivia) however i think a stalemate its a fairly neutral result because neither side accomplished a clear victory over the other, the war was just halted. i proceed to change the result area of the article until you can absolutely prove a colombian military victory Darian55 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Darius, thanks for your reply, however I strongly oppose that you are always reverting to your version without justifying all your points. I think than the change of name of Great Colombia to Colombia is a no-brainier and still you stick to your unmodified version. Now, about your arguments:
We can both agree that there was a Peruvian invasion of Colombia and after the clashes at Saraguro and Tarqui, the Colombians emerged victorious. Your attempts of downgrading Sucre's victory are groundless: Several battles throughout history only involve parts of the engaging armies (You think that Robert Clive actually defeated 50000 at the Battle of Plassey?) and La Mar effectively sued for peace after the defeat. The Treaty of Giron that was signed after the battle was a clearly imposition of a victorious army against another, only to be followed by the Treaty of Guayaquil that had the same points. That is a Colombian military victory for any unbiased historian.
After the failed invasion La Mar claims that he needs Congress authorisation to return Guayaquil and ignores the Treaty of Giron. Enraged for the ignoring of the treaty, Bolivar himself heads to Buijo with an army and La Mar is deposed in a coup, with the new government quickly returning Guayaquil. That again is the act of a victorious army against another. This goes way beyond a military stalemate.
As for the naval component of the war, I find preposterous calling a "Naval Campaign" there was only a 1 vs 1 naval skirmish (Even the also Peruvian-biased article of Battle of Punta Malpelo has a small line clarifying that the second Colombian vessel did not took part of the fighting) And then a LAND invasion of Guayaquil. Colombia, an Atlantic-oriented country, didnt had any naval ports in the Pacific and that stage and even now, 2011 only manages to operate a single port in the whole coast, Buenaventura. Claiming an entire blockade of the pacific is a chauvinist assertion as Colombia did not had any ports to begin with, besides Guayaquil itself.
In the end, albeit recovering Guayaquil, Bolivar decides retreating from Bolivia and thus I agree that, in the diplomatic side of the war, Peru can claim a stalemate, and I added that line to the article, but denying the Colombian victory in the military component of the war is insane. The IPs of people modifying are peruvian, and I guess some of them are running on patriotism instead of wanting a fair version of this article 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Joshua
Hi Joshua, to be fair, you were the first to modify the result area without justification. the stalemate part had been there for months. About the name Colombia i apologize i thought i had changed it from Gran Colombia to Colombia. Right, now about Sucre's victory im not downgrading it, i am telling it as it was, thing Sucre missed to do when he stated in the battle memorial that he had beaten an 8000 strong Peruvian army, false claim that angered the Peruvian government to the point of almost resuming hostilities. Of course i know battles not always involve all components of the opposing armies, what i am saying is the battle was not decisive, the advance of the Colombian army after Tarqui was minimal. As i already stated Guayaquil stayed under Peruvian occupation for months, what were the Colombians doing in that time, waiting patiently for the Peruvians to evacuate occupied territory, loosing all momentum in the process? don't be naive either the Colombian army was in no state to recover Guayaquil by force or Sucre was an incompetent general(which of course he wasn't) if you want to learn what the repercussions are of a crushing defeat in enemy territory i recommend you read about the battle of Ingavi, that was a decisive victory.
Are you being serious about the treaty of Giron? a treaty which you yourself stated, La Mar didn't even bother to fulfill. neither the treaty of Giron or Guayaquil made the Colombians gain ANYTHING at all, only the recovery of Guayaquil a city which was theirs to begin with, impressive military results for a war which was supposed to be offensive. again if you want to learn how a victorious army treats the defeated foe try reading the treaty of Versailles.
I'm sorry if i press this issue but I find amusing that you consider a war that was fought entirely on Colombian territory a military success(even though the aim of the war was to punish Peru and annex the territories of Jaen and Maynas). By the way no unbiased historian has EVER claimed that Colombia won the war, the results are simple " status quo ante bellum"
the naval campaign was made of the battles of Punta de Malpelo, Cruces and Siege of Guayaquil. With the end result of the surrender of the main Colombian port in the region and destruction or capture of all Colombian military vessels in the region(including the pair that where involved in Malpelo), so to be brief yes there was a naval campaign. and it seems you need to be reminded that Guayaquil was one of the most important ports in the southern pacific at the time(still is)
Finally Bolivar didn't decided to retreat from Bolivia,Sucre and his forces where expelled from Bolivia by force, event that enraged Bolivar and started the Gran Colombian-Peru war to start with. Peru achieved its overall objective of eliminating the threat that was a Colombian led Bolivia, again i must ask you, and hope you answer before editing the article again, which of the aims that led Bolivar to declare war against Peru was achieved by the end of the war? Bolivia never again had a Colombian ruler and Peru still owns Jaen and Maynas, what a massive victory for Colombian arms, if you can't still agree to a stalemate/inconclusive result i must agree that some people are driven by blind nationalism.Darian55 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)