Talk:Second Barbary War
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 October 2005
- 2 Warbox
- 3 Morocco
- 4 Plagiarized?
- 5 Bainbridge - hero of the First Barbary War?
- 6 "Victory" in the first War?
- 7 Decisive American victory and de facto British and Dutch victory
- 8 Bombardment of Algiers
- 9 Merge of Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War
- 10 Merge complete?
- 11 Location of Decatur's Squadron
- 12 How exactly was it a bluff?
- That's a crock. This page was never created by that project, and it's not under any particular clique's protection. Where did this come from? What's the value in this tag? --ESP 17:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Was Morocco involved in this war? They were involved in the first one, but are left out of this article entirely. Were they no longer a Barbary State? Scott Ritchie 2 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)
While looking at this page and a section in Italic textAlgeria: a country studyItalic text (LOC, 1994), the last paragraph is lifted entirely from it. No credit in the article, either. What gives?
Bainbridge - hero of the First Barbary War?
William Bainbridge is called, here, one of the "heroes of the first barbary war"
In what way is being captured by a vastly inferior enemy, having not fired a shot in self-defense, having not even been HIT by enemy fire...in what way is all that deserving of the title "Hero"
William Bainbridge, who was a brutal captain (demeaning and punishing his common and able seamen freely) and who had been disgraced by both the French and the lord of Tripoli, deserves to be called an inept bungling fool who spent the better part of the First Barbary War in polite house arrest in Tripoli.
IMNSHO, of course...
Revisiting my comment: I should note that Captain Bainbridge DID have some spectacular successes in the War of 1812 (namely, NOT being captured by the British and taking at least one British man-o-war in direct action)... my objection here is in the phrasing which implies that his actions in the FIRST Barbary War made him "hero-material"
It's clear to me that a significant portion of the article itself is vastly flawed anyway in the area of historical accuracy, not counting POV. However, the characterization of Decatur as a hero of the First Barbary War is deserved, and on that count it would be truly difficult to contest. I do intend to make some needed alterations within the article to eliminate the inaccurate course of the conflict it presents. Auror
"Victory" in the first War?
How did signing a treaty and paying a $60,000 ransom (alot of money then) a victory?MPA 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- The United States won most of the naval battles, inflicted the heaviest casualties and conquered enemy territory, thus cleary the strategic initiative was held by the US at the end of the war. Finally, they refused to pay tribute and from then onwards, the United States made it clear that tribute would not be paid. The $60,000 was explicitly explained as not tribute but ransom - and the US government at the time made it clear. Therefore, it was a vitory in military terms and the end results. Tourskin 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Decisive American victory and de facto British and Dutch victory
This article seems very biased re: "Decisive American victory and de facto British and Dutch victory".
The American role appears to have been confined to a surprise attack on the Algerian forces, the extraction of 10 of their countrymen and the payment of what looks to have been a bribe.
The Dutch and the British on the other hand took on the task of liberating all slaves & had a decisive victory over the forces of the Dey (and due to their direct action - took many casualties).
I appreciate this 'war' is of importance to the US - one of the first out of area actions it took, but the nations role should not be overplayed to the detriment of it's then allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Bombardment of Algiers
Is not the Bombardment of Algiers a seperate conflict from the Second Barbary War? The United States was no longer at war with Algiers after the treaty signed in 1815.XavierGreen (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it is - but it's a constant battle to keep the events seperate - every few days it seems like someone adds the British / Dutch action as part of the this war!188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Merge of Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War
Someone has previously suggested a WP:MERGE of Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War into this article, Second Barbary War. Clicking on the Discuss link leads here, but I find no discussion of the topic to date. So I'll start the discussion section.N2e (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
SUPPORT the merge
- SUPPPORT — With no sources for any of the (few) claims made in the Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War article, I support the merge. If Decatur's Squadron is notable, it could be mentioned here if there are any verifiable, reliable secondary source citations for the facts and the notability. N2e (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
OPPOSE the merge
So I put some time into integrating this into a decent article and Tahert14 reverts that without explanation? I see he is doing this kind of editing everywhere.. why is he still able to do that? --DeVerm (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
Location of Decatur's Squadron
In the section entitled "United States' response," it is said that Decatur's squadron was at New York, and left May 20, 1815. In the very next section, "Negotiations," it is said that his squadron left Gibraltar. It is not explained why the squadron went to Gibraltar, when they went there, or when they left. Indeed, it is the first instance of "Gibraltar" in the article. Could this be cleared up a little bit? It is very confusing. – 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just realized that the wording implies that the squadron was on its way to Algiers. However, I still think it vague and wanting explicitness. – 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
How exactly was it a bluff?
I mean seriously, it's not like he couldn't come back with even more ships and ammunition... Granted, that would take weeks that they could try to fortify. It's kind of hard to defend against bombardment, regardless of your attempts at entoughening. Only a fool would want to deal with escalation and it would take an even bigger fool to think that he wouldn't. 2601:1:9280:155:214:85FF:FE15:4B0D (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)