Talk:War of Jenkins' Ear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spain (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Are historians agreed as to whether or not his ear actually was cut off by the Spanish? --Dante Alighieri 07:38 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The spanish forces in Catagena de indias were 3.600 men (3000 spanish and 600 indian archers)men and not 6.000.


Is it Jenkins's Jenkins' or Jenkin's? It appears to be in there 3 times. I know they're all the same thing, but shouldn't an effort be made to regularize usage, &c?

According to Apostrophe it would be Jenkins's --207.177.67.214 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems very odd to see the 's' missing at the end. Alpheus 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

Merge the two - absolutely merge. Bubba73 (talk), 03:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The two Jenkins ear war articles should be merged - and their sardonic tones should be maintained. A strange war with a strange name. A real oddity of history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Provocateur (talkcontribs) 1 August 2006

The only difference in the title is the type of apostrophe. Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Merge. Obviously two articles on the same subject. Make War of Jenkins’ Ear a REDIRECT to War of Jenkins' Ear --Grstain | Talk 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read them carefully. Is there any material in one that needs to go into the other? Bubba73 (talk), 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Anagnorisis 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then someone needs to do it. I don't think that I'm knowledgeable enough about the history of the war to do it. I'm only in it because a couple of the battles of it took place near here. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did the merge of what was in the two articles. I also added a number of places where we citations, particularly to suppose motivations attributed to various parties' actions.Lisamh 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article and the phrase "in 1738 Jenkins exhibited his pickled ear to the House of Commons, whipping up war fever against Spain" is totally brilliant. War over an ear. Lol. LordHarris 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont merge: I suggest to read the article: ""Guerra de la oreja de Jenkins"" in Wikipedia in Spanish

Declaration of War[edit]

States that Walpole declared war. But the Prime Minister has no such power, only the monarch. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That was George II, and as the wiki article on him notes, "As king, he exercised little control over policy in his early reign, the government instead being controlled by Great Britain's first de facto Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole."... The situation was a lot like now, I think. One talks about Tony Blair, not Elizabeth II, invading Iraq, for example.

Furius (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Map[edit]

The map on this page needs to be changed. It isn't in English. --User:Wikipedian1234 February 18th, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Result[edit]

I don't understand why is said the result of the war was indecisive. In my opinion, England was clearly defeated. I think it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.21.115 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its all about spin. Our educational historical establishment has a need, for whatever reason, to be Anglocentric. Thus, English language history books will usually put a false spin any Anglo Spanish or French wars in such a way as to make the Brits appear to be the victors, even when they were actually defeated in war. That is why English language texts will omit all the Spanish victories in the War of Jenkin's Ear and only publish battles like the temporary capture of Porto Bello or the victory in the Battle of The Boody Marsh in the state of Georgia. You are right, however. The War of Jenkin's Ear was quite clearly a Spanish victory. That war not only preserved the American portion of Spain's empire, but it also forced the British to abide by the Asiento treaty and not engage in any illegal trade with the Spanish colonies. The Spanish Coast Guard and Navy continued to ruthlessly supress illegal trade and piracy from British merchants.--Charles A 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

The main object of the British launching this war was the conquest of the Spanish main and therefore winning control of the resouces and markets of the Spanish empire. For the British it was an emphatic defeat - the sideshow in Georgia notwithstanding. British histories also minimise or are silent on their defeat in South America (1807) and given that the leader of that defence was an officer of a Spanish army (and the said officer was a Frenchman at that - mon dieu!), along with the volunteer militias, it has to be counted as another British defeat to the the Spanish (Dear Lord! we can't have that, can we). Provocateur (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing I dispise the most is the myth of "Brittania rules the wave" nonsense. Its all too often promoted by our historical establishment like the History Channel and the like. Its based on high nonsense. It is a fact that Britain had the world's largest navy for a period of about 200 years(1750?-1940s. But it hardly meant thar Britain ruled the waves. If Britain truly ruled the waves there would be no Spanish, French, or Dutch empires. A nation that truly ruled the waves should be able to permanently choke of the sea lanes from competing European empires, and such never happened. Britain actually had a couple of it's large wartime convoys intercepted and seized by Spanish and French navies during the American Revolutionary War, thus crippling Britain's war effort. Where was the Royal Navy back then? I can objectively argue that they(RN) were not really ruling the waves. Thats why I refer to it as spin. The only period where one may argue that "Brittania rules the waves is in the 1800s. But that was only because there was no major international war in the 1800 except for the Napoleonic.--Charles A 13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

Hombre, calmate. Provocateur (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Ex Notatia Victoria!--Charles A 10:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)


Oh please. The main British objective of the conflict (crush the Spanish, strip them of their colonies) WAS an absolute failure. However, the Spanish objective was to, at the very least, seize Honduras, Georgia, and the British Carribean. In this, they too failed. In short, neither side accomplished their objectives, hence a draw. And keep in mind that this WAS part of the War of Austrian Succession, which could hardly be construed as a Spanish victory.

In short, both sides achieved their defensive goals of stopping all enemy encroachments on their colonies, but both stides still failed to drive the other from the region. That is by its very definition a draw. We can argue about who inflicted more damage between the two for centuries, but the fact remains that it was strategically a draw. That is what happens when neither side can eek out a clear victory. See Verdun and the Somme. 76.199.106.4 (talk)

I do not agree. First of all, it was Britain that started that war with the rather explicit aim of either monopolizing the American markets of Spain or at best capturing them. Neither goal was ever achieved. If we were to apply that same silly logic to the War of 1812, one could argue that it too was a draw. But Britain failed to re-capture it's former colony and the USA maintained it's independence. I personally consider the War of 1812 to be a US victory tried and true. Yes, Spain did try to push it's momentum against Britain's North American colonies that ended in failure, but again I state. Spain did not initiate the war, Britain did. And Britain had nothing to show for that war other than naval defeats in the Caribbean and in the Mediterranean seas. That is why young children in the English speaking world are rarely ever taught about that historic but important episode.--Charles A 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

Nope, 1812 was a British victory because the Americans started the war under some silly pretext in order to seize Canada while the British were distracted by napoleon. They utterly failed in this task, so that makes it a clear US defeat and British victory, even if there weren't territorial changes. Under the same reason, Jenkins Ear is a complete British defeat. The British parliament pushed for a war under the statement that Spain was weak and that Britain should cripple her even further in order to guarantee that Spain should not recover the status she had under the Habsburgs (the reason behind is very much like why Germany pressed for war against Russia in WW1). Britain's aims were to snatch as much Spanish colonies as they could (i.e. Cuba, Florida and New Granada). They failed in all tasks, and with huge casualties. We are talking about 23000 men defeated at cartagena by a local force of 3500. That alone should be counted as one of the bigegst British defeats in History (it certainly was the biggest defeat in the History of the Royal navy when it happened). If Spain directed incursions of 100 men or less against Georgia and then withdraw is completely irrelevant. Spain did not begin that war. Britain did. Britain lost much more casualties than Spain. Britain had territorial ambitions. Spain didn't. Britain did not win an inch of territory in the end, so it failed. Spain did not give economic clauses either. Britain did, by renouncing to the "Asiento" in 1750. It's a British defeat.--Menah the Great (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the Second World War was a "defeat" too? Losing a battle is not losing a war. The info box has been updated with the correct term. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Its easy for a Bulldog to declare victory when it has 2 Superpowers (USA+USSR) doing most of the fighting for them.--Charles A 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

This was a (massive) British defeat, please don't try to twist history as much proud of a brit you are, you lost (at least that's what Wadpole and his gov. thought when they came down) get over it. In this way the Spanish Armada was not a defeat because they didn't lose an inch of territory and neither England, so it was "as you possessed" and not a english victory? make sense please--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous that when England don't win a war, some people claim that the result of the conflict was Indecisive. The British clearly failed in its objectives and Spain retained control of Central America for several decades. The English version of Wikipedia is the only one where the result of the conflict is indecisive. Someone should change it, please.--83.37.221.184 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And what of Spanish defeats in Georgia, and the fact that the war got subsumed into the War of Austrian Succession? [1] Can you provide a source that states that it was a Spanish victory, or indeed an English defeat? If not, it's [WP:OR|Original Research]] on your part. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the british POV (they are "always" the winners), i think we (to balance it out) should write (like in the [2] Anglo-Spanish War of 1585 result as : treaty of (whatever treaty it is) favorable to Spain), since people dont want english or spanish victory, lets balance it.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are engaged in sockpuppetry here, EuroHistoryTeacher. Is it mere coincidence that this anonymous editor has been reverting the article and then you post here a couple of minutes later? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
See here [3]--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I am the one who posted that change. I apologise, I was not aware of this discussion going on in the background. I merely saw a major error in the "Result" and decided to make it right. This is no 'Sock puppet' account, I assure you.

Without having read all this discussion yet, I believe the fact this is not set as a Decisive Spanish Victory is preposterous. It was a massive victory with great repercussions in the Americas. Granted information about this war in English literature is almost non existent. Other than a few lines here and there (which are usually limited to 'catastrophic British attacks to the Spanish Americas') the defeat was such that George II ordered not a a word about it should be written in history books. But that doesn't change the facts, and the results are there to check, aren't they?

Although I see people are considering it as part of the Austrian war of succession, this was a different story. War was declared separately, cutting off Spanish trade in the Americas being the main goal. This was a massive failure, I think we agree on this.

I have read however what you wrote here "In short, both sides achieved their defensive goals of stopping all enemy encroachments on their colonies, but both stides still failed to drive the other from the region. That is by its very definition a draw." I respectfully disagree. By that definition the 'Spanish Armada' would have also been a draw, since the English failed in their intended counter-attack to capture Spanish territories. But nobody denies that was 'Decisive English Victory', right?

So.. I don't see your point, honestly. This is by all intents and purposes a decisive Spanish victory. Give them credit where credit is due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanFM (talkcontribs) 12:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm more or less done catching up with the discussion. There are some seriously biased opinions here, by both sides. I apologise again since it seems I've used the same arguments someone has used before, but I think they make perfect sense.

You mentioned you want sources. Well, off the top of my head I can mention two books (in spanish both of them, but only one of them by a Spanish author). "El dia que espana derroto a Inglaterra", by Pablo Victoria "Almirante Blas de Lezo: El Vasco que salvo al imperio espanol" by Jose M. Rodriguez They were not the best ones I've read to be honest, but the facts are there.

Any book about Blas de Lezo will give you enough details. He is, by the way, not an 'obscure folk hero'. I'm very sorry if I sound harsh, but if that's the way you describe him it seems to me you lack some knowledge about this particular war. For the reasons I mentioned before I doubt you will find many references to him in English literature. In only takes some research to find out lots of details on the Jenkin's ear war. Luckily I can speak spanish and language is not an issue for me. You may argue Spanish texts are biased, but the same could be said by English texts, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanFM (talkcontribs) 13:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

English sources for the English wikipedia. And as for bias, compare the article on the Falkland Islands here with the version on the Spanish Wikipedia. Which one has more to prove?

Moreover, like certain other contributors to this talk page, you appear to be focusing on the outcome of a single battle. As with the Spanish Armada, a single battle does necessarily decide the course of a war. The cited sources describe this as a draw in a much larger war (during a century which saw Spanish power gradually eclipsed). Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not focusing on a single batle, but on the Jenkin's ear war (started in 1739), which is not the Austrian war of succession (started in 1740). 'Jenkin's ear' declaration of war had nothing to do with the Austrian war, even though hostilities remained between both countries until the end of the later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanFM (talkcontribs) 14:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with your statement "the defeat was such that George II ordered not a word about it should be written in history books" as it seems to display such a profound challenge to accepted historical consensus about issues of censorship, democracy and royal power in eighteenth century Britain as to be verging on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources if you actually want to have it included in the article.
  • Again with your claim that after 1742 the war of Jenkins Ear and the War of the Austrian Succession remained separate wars, it does fly in the face of historical consensus in the books I've read written by British, American, Irish and Canadian writers. Up to 1742-43 it remained a distinctly separate war, before both countries abandoned major operations in the Americas and shifted their resources to Europe. The Spanish influenced by Elisabeth of Parma, directed their efforts against Austria in Italy, the British influenced by the "continentalists" such as the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Carteret and Jenkins War became submerged into this wider European conflict.
  • With regard to changing the result, I am not opposed to adding something in the "aftermath" section about some Spanish historians regarding it as a victory, if it is properly sourced, but the result in the infobox should not be changed as it is backed by numerous sources. What evidence is there that it was not a draw? What "lasting repercussions" were there in South America? Surely the war fizzled out into an inactive stalemate, the very definition of a draw. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle surely confirms this by acknowledging a status quo ante bellum arrangement. The thrust of your argument seems to be that because they did not lose any territory, the Spanish won the war.
  • As you can see in Wikipedia:Verifiability there is a section about inclusion of non-English sources, and there is a procedure to do this, but there has to be proof given that they are genuinely superior to the existing English-language sources.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there..

I can give you sources about my claim on George's II decision, but if don't accept my other sources about the course of the war you probably won't accept these either.
I agree the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle marked the end of hostilities, but you got me wrong when you said "after 1742 the war of Jenkins Ear and the War of the Austrian Succession remained separate wars". I did not mean to say that. After 1742 the Jenkins war was simply non existent, I agree with what you said the Jenkins War became submerged into this wider European conflict. But despite whatever the result of the European war the fact remains the Jenkins one was played in the Americas, not in Europe. The war had certain British goals, and they ended in defeat. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle marked the end of *both* wars, true, but you cannot deny the fact they were 2 separate wars (even if they had a common ending point). If you Jenkins war is to be considered part of the Austrian one, the starting point of the later would have to be moved to match the former. Yet that has not happened.
What "lasting repercussions" were there in South America? The Spanish retained their sea routes and colonies, and probably their empire, for over 70 years after the war. Had they not 'won' it would have been quite different. You don't think that's important enough? You seem to consider they didn't win because they not captured any extra territory, but that was not their goal. The goal was not to lose their link to the Americas.
Finally, again as references are concerned.. You have me at a clear disadvantage here. I don't think you will ever consider any foreign source to be "genuinely superior to the existing English-language sources". I can probably give you some German sources as well, would you consider those to be 'superior' to the ones written in Spanish? And does it make a difference if it's written by a Spanish author or a South American one (talking about Spanish references here)?
I really think this is a bit absurd, a quick glance to the 'casualties and losses' in the info box is more than enough to see who was the victor. And on that account by the way, I think the number should be double checked (it seems to me quite high, the British did lose plenty of troops and ships, but I don't think it was that many) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanFM (talkcontribs) 00:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do you think it was two separate wars when engagements continued to be fought in the Americas until the peace treaty was concluded in 1748? Which sources split the war in two?
  • The question about lasting repercussions was directed to you since you disagree that this was a draw.
  • I agree that the casualty estimate does seem a little high... unfortunately the page of the cited source is not visible on Googlebooks. Either way, casualties don't really mean very much to the eventual outcome - it is all relative - consider the number of Soviets killed in WW2 and the result of that war.
  • Talking of WW2; it is commonly believed to have begun in 1939, but a number of combatants were engaged in fighting for a number of years before then. The date has not been moved back. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
To AlanFM. The issue here isn't about the Spanish sources being 'inferior', but that they would not be able to be verified by those who speak no language other than English. It's just a policy of wikipedia. In the same way I would not be able to use English-language sources to make edits on the Spanish-language article. So with regard to either Spanish or German sources, there would need to be some proof that there are not sufficient English-language sources available. To quote the policy "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality".
I have to put it you that if this was as obvious a Spanish victory as you suggest, it would surely have been mentioned in at least some English-language sources. Even if George II had issued an ordering banning mention of it, and I would still be interested in your source for that, it would not prevent modern English-language historians from writing about it.
I'm not certain what you think the "goals" of the British were? I think you might be confusing the goals of the British opposition (the Tories and Patriot Whigs), who demanded that Britain attempt to annex large parts of Spanish America, with the official policy of the British governments of the era led by Walpole, Newcastle, Carteret and Pelham - who did not share these goals. Their policy in the war was directed towards asserting Britain's trading rights and upholding British control of the disputed colony of Georgia.
I'd also add that changing the result to a Spanish victory simply from studying the casualty figures would constitute original research. Wiki-Ed's comparison with the Soviets in WW2 is a pertinent one. Studying numbers alone does not tell the whole story.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

English-speaking friends, you should acknowledge that the outcome of this war was a spanish victory. The UK didn´t achieve none of its goals (occupy territories in central america, asiento contract, ...). Even more, the battle of Cartagena de Indias is one of the biggest defeats in the british history. Please, tkink about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.11.235 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-English speaking friends should acknowledge that Wikipedia core policy of Verifiability means that we work from what the sources say, not what nationalist Spanish-speaking IPs think happened. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have a civilized discussion about this issue. If we start saying "nationalist" each other we will not go anywhere. Besides this, I am not a spanish nationalist at all. After this aclaration let me ask which are the sources that say that this war was not a spanish victory. Are all of them british? Because if all or them are british, I could argue that spanish sources say exactly the opposite. In additon, there is a contradiction even in the wikipedia article. In the first paragraph, it is said that "sparked a war against the Spanish Empire, ostensibly ostensibly to encourage the Spanish not to renege on the lucrative asiento contract (permission to sell slaves in Spanish America)". well, if the main britanny's goal of the war was to encourage spain not to renege on the asentio, the war's outcome would be a spanish victory because this goal was not achieve at all because, as "treaty of Aix-la-Chappele" article says "The Asiento contract, which had been guaranteed to Great Britain in 1713 through the Treaty of Utrecht, was renewed. Spain later raised objections to the Asiento clauses, and the Treaty of Madrid, signed on 5 October 1750, stipulated that Great Britain surrendered her claims under those clauses in return for a sum of £100,000". And, please, do not insult me in your answer.

Restoration work[edit]

I reinstated the previous explanation of the result, which quite clearly applies to this war. This is supported by the provisions of the (linked) treaty of Aix la Chapelle and also by the following excerpt which someone kindly included as a reference (probably to support another point of view):
While in its altered, Continental dimension the war enabled Britain to contain threatening Bourbon expansionism in key strategic areas abroad during the period 1742–1748, overseas it failed to achieve the initially anticipated sweeping victory over Spain. Small-scale Anglo-Spanish clashes in Caribbean and Mediterranean waters produced little monetary or strategic gain, clearly indicating that naval action was not the solution to Britain's commercial grievances at this time, nor the key to much-needed political stability.(Woodfine)
For those who don't understand or who haven't bothered to read the explanation of Uti possidetis, it covers wars where battles are won and lost, but no territory is lost or gained. Britain may have failed to take any territory from Spain, but she also succeeded in keeping territories that Spain had recently lost and viewed as her own (e.g. Gibraltar). It is not a black and white issue of "SpAIN woN & BRiTain l0st!1!1!!". If Britain wasn't victorious, Spain certainly wasn't either.
I have also restored the English map, which includes some of the other theatres of war and doesn't look quite so cheap. The references have been tidied, but they still require page numbers. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We understand you may be a proud brit, but sometimes even the "invincible", "mighty" "Great" Britain loses some wars sometimes, all countries do, except that in Britain only one side of the coin is shown (the victorious side) and the other side is ignored and is prevented from being taught to the majority of the population, but not in here, not in Wikipedia, the war was a Spanish victory like it or not, sources and citations were actually shown in both English and Spanish showing Spain won, for you to have reverted those edits is senseless, unless for the result of the war you want to compromise to put a more neutral outcome i.e. Heavy British military (Cartagena) and economic (Britain gives up Asiento) losses instead of Spanish victory, do you want that? I think that's better and more neutral :-) --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Also where did you even get Gibraltar (an act of English piracy) from? The Spaniards didn't even try to conquer it during the war of Jenkins's ear.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
What I like is irrelevant. Cited sources do not agree with your POV - you've shown your colours quite blatantly - take it somewhere else. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed I've just checked out your sources.... where is the mention to the battle of cartagena de indias and the heavy massive casualties suffered? ussi possidetis? what is that a word invented by some random british author who didn't even heard of cartagena de indias in his life? don't be ridiculous, the massive british fleet failed and the spanish ruled the West indies 50 years more.Cosialscastells (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you check the sources again - the most recent one I've cited is on Googlebooks and the one you typed out corroborates the result box. Also, if you'd bothered to read the article on Uti possidetis (there, I'll link to it again), you'll see the International Court of Justice uses it; The ICJ is not British nor is it an unreliable source. The Battle of Cartagena de Indias is mentioned in the middle of the article, under the section entitled "Battle of Cartagena". That's between the Battle of Porto Bello, which the Spanish lost, and various other battles which led to no change of territory on either side. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

--Charles A 17:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)--Charles A 17:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)== the result should be changed. ==

who finally rennounced to the Asiento in the Americas? BRITAIN who launched the massive fleet attack of more than 186 ships over the Spanish coasts? BRITAIN who got defeated at the end? BRITAIN

Is always fun see how nationalistic editiors search sources of random authors who never heard about blas de lezo or the battle of cartagena the indias and how the british got humiliated and defeated at the end. The War of Jenkin's Ear was quite clearly a Spanish victory. That war not only preserved the American portion of Spain's empire, but it also forced the British to abide by the Asiento treaty and not engage in any illegal trade with the Spanish colonies. The Spanish Coast Guard and Navy continued to ruthlessly supress illegal trade and piracy from British merchants Cosialscastells (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

One battle does not make a war. Obviously your obscure folk heroes are important to you, but the end result of this series of wars (Spanish Succession, Quadruple alliance, Anglo-Spanish, Austrian Succession, Seven Years) was the development of the British Empire at the expense of the Spanish. The sources reflect that this "war" was part of something much larger, and the net result was a draw. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Can I add to the list of questions above "Who got defeated at the Battle of Bloody Marsh thereby failing to take Georgia?"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, georgia? hmm.. who rennounced to the asiento in the americas at the end? THE BRITISH not the spanish.
Is a british defeat, accept it or not, anyway im not gonna spend more time in this, the british always hide the lost wars with anglocentric propaganda. Enjoy the humiliation in the battle of Cartagena de Indias and how George II did coin commemorating the victory that never happened. Cosialscastells (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The battle of the Bloody Marsh was nothing but a sideshow. The amount of soldiers involved at that battle was in the few thousands and not the tens of thousands like at Colombia in 1739. The Spanish King also renounced the Asiento and those poor British merchents could not sell slaves anymore to the Spanish colonies. At the end of the 1800's, the Spanish Empire survived virtually intact imposing many defeats on the British, too many to keep this thread brief. Moroeover, the British did not increase their empire at the expense of the Spanish! The British Empire at that time actually shrank due in no small part due to the Spanish military and the aid that the rebelling 13 colonies received. Remember 1776. It was the birth of a new nation called the USA. Please get your facts straight before you go off on your bombasts.--Charles A 19:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

Perhaps you should take a read of the section called "Twilight of the global empire (1800–1899)" in the article on the Spanish Empire. No doubt you will want to rewrite it because, what with the indefatigable bastions of Ceuta and Melilla, the Spanish Empire has clearly "survived virtually intact...". Make sure you remember to expunge any mention of British involvement in the Battle of Trafalgar (obviously just an unfortunate series of accidents) and the dismemberment of the Spanish Empire in South America in the 1820s. You'll probably be wanting to edit the article on the British Empire too because it makes the extremely foolish claim that it was the largest Empire in history, mostly at the expense of the Spanish. I'll look forward to reading and remember, please get your sources straight before you go... Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense! The sun has also set on the British empire long ago because no country is capable of sustaining an overseas empire forever. But when Spain's South and Central American portions gained their independence, no portion of it went to the British. Recall that British attempts to conquer Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, Panama, Uruguay, Tenerife, etc, etc met with defeat after defeat. Moreover, is Trafalgar all you can point out? I'm sure you were not taught that a naval battle of about equal size between Spanish and English fleets that occurred in Toulon harbor resulting in a Spanish victory in 1744. But keep claiming that Britain's empire grew at the expense of the Spanish and I'll keep asking where?--Charles A 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't feed the troll, but if you were to look in atlas - I realise checking a source might be a lot to ask, but let's assume you did - you would see Belize in central America and the Falkland Islands off South America. Both of these are or were British. The rest of South America, for most of the 1800s, was part of what was called Britain's "informal empire" due to her influence over the area, as shown by trade and military exchanges during that period. The Chilean name some of their naval ships accordingly. Meanwhile, in North America, large swathes of what someone seems to think were Spanish lands (according to the map here: Spanish Empire) are now quite firmly English-speaking. Is Trafalgar all I can point out? In terms of large battles (not some tiny skirmish) how about this one Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1780) or again, this one:Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797). It reminds me of a joke we have about the modern Spanish Navy being equipped with glass-bottomed boats so they can views the remains of the old one. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


And look who is trolling! The Falkland Island were re-captured by the Spanish navy in 1776 despite a paper tiger threat of war from Britain. The Islands remained Spanish until Argentina gained it's independance. Britain behaved like the bully nation they were and re-conquered the Falklands from a nation with virtually no navy and no ability to resist aggression off their shores. What valor! Belize and Jamaica are but small slithers of land, the main body of Spain's American empire proved unconquerable to the British dispite their many efforts that ended in defeat. As far as your "informal empire" concept is concerned, that just a masterbated view of British history and quite honestly rubbish. The Spanish speaking contries of the Americas were never part of any British empire no matter how feebly you try to prove it. The Southwest part of the USA was conquered by the USA, not Britain, from Mexico. Morover, that joke about glass bottoms is high nonsense. The historical fact is that the British Royal Navy was never able to isolate Spain's colonies from the mother country no matter how many of the braggart UK historians try to say so. Its just fact and all you can do is rhetort back with a cheap shot joke that has no foundation in history. The Spanish navy and army were instrumental in breaking up the flower of Britain's North American Empire by defeating them on land and sea and tieing down the southern flank of the British war effort during the Revolutionary War. General Galvez defeated the British in Florida and Alabama. He also sent a fleet that captured the Bahamas. All historical facts you can't refute with your lies. --Charles A 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

This seems to be getting a bit off topic here. To Charles A: if you can find reliable sources showing that the war is considered by some historians to be a Spanish victory it should be added to the aftermath section and cited, though I must admit that I have never seen it referred to as anything other than a draw. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I see no point in trying to contest facts with someone who presents none. I also noticed he's been trolling a number of other related articles. No doubt he'll come to the attention of an admin eventually and end up getting banned for being inflamatory. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose your definition of trolling is when somene is less than anglocentric. Someone(Mr. Ferrick) made assertions like "glass bottom hulls" and the like, but I suppose thats not trolling because it only makes insulting references about the Spanish. Re-call that I did not start this off topic debate. Everything I've stated has historical fact to back it. And just because someone like NAM Rodger does not say it does not mean that everybody has to march in line. People like you have to no right to curtail free speech.--Charles A 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

I've not made any attempt to curtail free speech, and I genuinely mean what I said earlier - if you can provide reliable sources showing that this is considered by some historians to be a Spanish victory, then it ceirtainly needs to be included somewhere in the article, but these pages are for discussing improvments to the article - rather than general discussions on the decline of the Spanish Empire.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I like to discuss facts. Please tell me which of my facts are wrong? In the course of these discussions, fair minded people can all agree on the facts, but our conclusions may not always agree. You are asking me to provide a reference from an English speaking historian about a war that is rarely even mentioned and at best glossed over because it was not a proud moment in British history. Thus from that perspective, it cannot happen. I do, however, expect the right to draw my own conclusions. And in repeating myself; here is what I've already stated: The war started because Spanish colonial authorities reported back to Madrid that smuggling and contraband trade was increasing due mainly to British merchants trying to trade with Spain's colonies. The Spanish crown finally instituted a harsh crackdown to curtail that activity because London was looking the other way. BTW, I am well aware that Captain Jenkins was not the only one punished. This in turn lead to a declaration of war by Britain. It was in that war that Britain started where they had the goal of either conquering as much of Spain's colonies as possible or at best intimidating Spain into opening up the markets to British merchant by military force. In that war, Britain did not achieved any of those goals and now had the cancellation of the Asiento, thus further depriving British merchants the right to sell slaves to Spain's colonies by treaty. Britain lost more than they gained and Spain lost nothing in terms of land or lucrative colonies. I respect your right to call that war a draw. Now please respect my right to draw a much different conclusion.--Charles A 22:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

I'm still not sure what your point is, to be honest. The English-speaking world includes many countries, a number whom are extremely unlikely to push any sort of pro-British POV. For instance today I have consulted a biography about the Duke of Newcastle by Reed Browning, an American, and a history of eighteenth centry British foreign policy by Brendan Simms, an Irishman, both of whom don't offer any suggestion that this was a Spanish victory. NAM Rodger, who you disparage earlier, notes that the British failed to convert their apparent naval superiority into a "lasting victory", but this does not mean that Spain won the war. I again ask if you can provide any reliable sources to support this assertion. That's just how wikipedia works, nobody is trying to supress your views.
I agree, by the way, that the "Glass-bottomed hull" comment wasn't particularly helpful, but nor are you helping to establish your own NPOV by constant Anglophobic rants. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My points are that history is too often presented from an Anglo centric point of view. My opinions are not meant to be Anglo-phobic. I myself have never suffered any depravity from or due to the UK. But it has been my experience that history is excessively Anglo-centric. Here in the USA, it is not that we have some conspiracy. Its just that we inherited our highly inflected anglo-centric history. The inaccuracies about the Spanish navy during the colonial era are too numerous to keep this essay brief. But the constant nonsense about how inept and stupid they were is repeated ad nauseum by english speaking historians. One British historian I read even had the temerity to state that the term "Invincible Armada" was just a mocking term and never used by the Spanish crown despite his own continued use of it. Again, just because my conclusions about the War of Jenkin's Ear don't reflect the opinion of major English speaking scholars does not men I don't have a right to differ. For the record, I am not Anglo-phobic. But I do deeply resent ethnocentric inflections on naval history. I advocate telling the facts without regard to nationalism or ethnocentric spins.--Charles A 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

That's cool - but as I said before, if you want to the article to mention the concept of a Spanish victory (although I realise it was not you who made the original proposal to change the result) then you'll need to provide some sources. Even Spanish-language sources would be good enough for me, although I can't speak for other editors. I would agree to some extent that there is a degree of anglo-centricness in British and American books, but it doesn't manifest itself in a pro-British/anti-Spanish attitude - rather everything is seen through the eyes of Britain. In many of the books there are lots of references to British politics and strategy, often critical of their actions, but fairly little to what is going on in Madrid. To be fair though I've come across many British sources praising the Spanish navy. Rodger himself (can't remember which page) remarked about how they performed well during much of the eighteenth century and were wrongly maligned.

Spanish language sources are fine if one can read Spanish. The most recent book published by Congressman Pablo Victoria has not been translated into English as far as I know. From my personal experience, most of the general history taught in the high school and college circula pretty much rates Spain as 3rd rate power after the 1588 Armada with a navy that can "charitably be called inept" as one English speaking historian I read commented. Of course he was one of the kinder ones. Many other snobbish historians refered to Spanish soldiers and sailors as cowardly sleasy and cruel. There is no lack of material about attrocities the Spanish committed against Native Americans. Of course its a lot harder to find similar material written about British colonists. But more to the point, I fail to see why you continually put me on the spot by asking me to find some scholar of some renown that would agree with me. My opinions are my opinions, and I am secure enough in my self as to not need any scholar to validate my own views. I am not offended if I'm put on the spot to justify my opinion, but please don't make me repeat myself. The war of the Austrian Sucession was fought for different reasons regarding balance of power and should not be viewed as part of Jenkin's Ear. Moreover, you stated that trade between Britain and the Spanish colonies boomed after about 1750. Could you please quote some sources? Spain and Britain were almost contually at war up until the Peninsular war. Even in the Peninsular war, Spanish and British soldiers had a mistrust and dislike of each other while fighting alongside. Thus, given that very hateful and warlike atmostphere, I fail to see how trade could have flourished in anything other than contraband and smuggling activities.--Charles A 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I’m not suggesting that you need sources to hold personal opinions but that you need sources, preferably in English but sometimes in other languages under exceptional circumstances, to make changes to the article.

I respect your right to state that the war was a draw even though I don't agree. Moreover, it does not make me angry. Believe it or not, I generally liked the article and I never meant to offend you in any way. I through barbs back at some of the commentators because I thought some people were way off line repeating the same rubbish I was taught as a child.--Charles A 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for a general discussion about the decline of the Spanish Empire and the alleged bias of American schooling system. If you are confused about this, see Wikipedia:Talk page. If you are not proposing changes to the article then this discussion would appear to be drawing to a natural close. If you are then please state the changes you wish to make and the sources you intend to use as per the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to expand the article at the moment including adding more on Cartagena. Although I have to say that the reading I have done today has convinced me even more that the historical consensus of the war was a draw. I will add some stuff about the 1750 Treaty of Madrid, as it did iron out several of the issues of the war but that too seems to bolster the concept that this was a draw, as the Spanish King paid to British to relinquish the Asiento and British/American trade with Latin America boomed over the next few decades.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to quote some sources about trade legal or illegal. And please don't take my question as a refute to your statements. It just sounds not right given the almost endless warfare that occurred between Britain and Spain in the 1700s. If it is indeed true, then I would like to learn. --Charles A 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-call that the author asked me for some references, Spanish or otherwise, about the results of the War and with regard to my opinion? It turns out the the Spanish Wikipedia article on this subject, after I had it translated to me, claims that Jenkin's Ear was a Spanish victory. Whose account is more correct?--Charles A 14:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

It’s a general rule that wikipedia can’t use other wikipedia articles as sources and articles in other languages have no bearing on this one. It’s not for me to say which article is more correct although I would note that while this article is not brilliantly sourced and needs expanding, the Spanish version is entirely without cites. I’m also slightly bemused by the result given in the Spanish infoxbox which lists it as a Spanish victory while saying the status quo was maintained.

The Spanish Wiki article states the following sources:

Bibliografía [editar]
   * Encyclopædia Britannica.
   * The Navy in the War of 1739–48. Herbert William Richmond, Cambridge, 1920.
   * British Drums on the Southern Frontier. The Military Colonization of Georgia, 1733–1749. Larry E. Ivers, Chapel Hill, 1974. ISBN 080781211
   * Amphibious warfare in the eighteenth century. The British Expedition to the West Indies, 1740–1742. Richard Harding, Woodbridge, 1991. ISBN 0-86193-218-8
   * Britannia's Glories. The Walpole ministry and the 1739 War with Spain. Philip Woodfine, Woodbridge, 1998. ISBN 0-86193-230-7

I still don't see what why maintaining the status quo as a draw? I find your logic confusing. If an empire successfully defends its self and avoids having it lands conquered, that is somehow a "draw"? I have to commend you though. You at least you try to answer my questions. For example the author of that hokey account of the Elizabethan HMS Revenge still thinks Tennyson's fairy tale poem is "fact" despite my questions about his bogus sources.--Charles A 06:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

Maintaining a status quo does not necessarily imply a draw. Most English speaking historians, at least what they teach the children, consider the Anglo Spanish war of 1585-1604 to be an English victory. But from the point of view of the status quo, the result is not so clear.--Charles A 17:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know a great deal about the Elizabeathan period, but I have generally seen the 1585 war referred to as a draw in modern British sources. With regard to the sources of the Spanish-language article I was referring to in-line citations rather than sources. The books listed are all in English-language, I’d imagine were copied en masse from the bibliography of this article, and had little to do with the actual construction of the Spanish article. This kind of stuff is covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As for your other point I have answered at the bottom of the page. 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said before I wasn’t asking you to provide a sources for your own opinions. I simply stated that this was not the place to discuss your own opinions if they didn‘t relate to edits to the article. I know it might seem like I’ve been trying to frustrate you, but I have made a concerted effort to find a English-language source saying that this was a Spanish victory - I just haven’t found one yet.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not frustrated by you, dispite appearances. Moreover, I expressed my opinions for the betterment of the article. Whether you agree with me or not is your choice. I do, however, doubt you will ever find an English speaking source that agrees with me, but you did at one time ask me for a Spanish source, and I just furnished one. My purpose for this recent thread is just meant as a friendly food for thought and not meant to start some stupid flame war. But then it begs the question? Why is an English speaking source more correct than a Spanish one, or vice-e-versa?--Charles A 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
What I was trying to make clear was that wikipedia doesn't accept other wikipedia articles as sources. You can't cite another English-language wikipedia article, let alone a Spanish-language one. An English-language source isn't more correct, its just more verifiable. Its for that same reason that I couldn't make an edit to a Spanish-language article using an English source. It's not making a value judgement over which source is better.
I'd also like to make clear that I don't have strong feelings either way about this war. Had I found evidence that it was a Spanish victory, I would happily have included it in the article. I just haven't found any yet. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

“War of Conquest” theory[edit]

The problem with the Spanish victory theory is that it is based on the notion that Britain was attempting a major war of conquest against Spanish America. This doesn't hold up when the actual policy of the British ministers is considered.

If you look at the four men who most influenced and controlled British foreign policy in the period during 1739-44

  • Walpole was an 'isolationist' who opposed any war, particularly a "war for empire" in the Americas
  • The Duke of Newcastle and Lord Carteret were commited 'continentalists' (who strongly saw events on the Continent taking precedent over ventures in the Colonies)
  • King George II was also Elector of Hanover, and completly opposed any British operation that wasn't directly related to the security of Hanover and Germany in general.

Those advocating a war of conquest were the Opposition, who despised these men and their policy aims. Notable amongst them were men like William Pitt and Bedford, who saw Spanish America as wealthy and weak, and ripe for conquest. This viewpoint was particularly popular in Britain's American colonies, but their influence over foreign policy was virtually non-existent. It seems to me some of the Spanish historians, if they are asserting this as Britain's war aim, aren't making the distinction between government policy and opposition policy. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, your contention just does not add up. In other words you are to have us believe that the British did not intend to conquer the Spanish colonies even though in 1739 they sent a giant fleet of 186 ship, dwarfing the size of the 1588 Armada, and approximately 26,000 men to Cartagena. Just what the heck was Admiral Vernon up to when he attacked Colombia anyhow? --Charles A 16:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talkcontribs)

The Cartagena expedition was, according to the sources I have seen, an attempt to occupy rather than conquer Cartagena so as to be able to demand greater concessions over trading rights from Spain when it came to the peace conference, as well as disrupting the flow of Spanish trade and metal fleets rather than an attempt to conquer Colombia. If you can provide sources that differ from this then you can add it to the article.
Having studied the period in a little more detail in the months since this was last discssed it seems even the opposition such as Pitt were less keen on conquest, but rather in creating a British "Empire of the Sea" in which global trade was dominate by Britain, British trade with Spanish America permitted, and the rights of the South Sea Company upheld. There seems to have been no great desire in London to annexe large swathes of the Spanish Empire, and as I have demonstrated above the key decision makers in Britain were all Continentalists who had no interest in Imperial Expansion. It is possible that a few of the opposition might have harboured thoughts of keeping Cartagena after the peace treaty but these men had little influence on Britsh policy. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)--Charles A 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your contention, though interesting, cannot be proven in my opinion. I find your point somewhat interesting nonetheless because there are a few actual historical occurrences where this happened. Such as the Spanish capture of the Bahamas during the American Revolutionary War or the British capture of Manila during Seven Years War, both of which were given back to each respective empire after treaty negotiation. But more often than not, empires tend to hold on to territory they have conquered. Recall that Jamaica was never given back to the Spanish and Montreal was never given back to the French after each territory was captured by British forces. In my opinion such a hypothetical is hard to answer with any absolute answer. Given the fact that different leaders in the British Parliament had conflicting priorities whether they were New World or Euro oriented. Had the British succeeded in taking Cartagena, it would not have been over, because the British would have had to contend with militias from the surrounding areas. Whether such militias could have posed a serious opponent to the British marines is something I cannot answer. My point is that the British would have held on to Colombia if they could hold it without it turning into it's own version of Vietnam. What I do find compelling is that the Battle of Cartagena in 1739 was the greatest seaborne invasion up to that time and that action speaks volumes louder than any words.--Charles A 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a fairly common tactic in the eighteenth century to occupy a territory or city as a bargaining counter for exchange at the final peace talks. An example would be Britain's occupation of Louisburg and France's of Madras during the 1740s which were each returned to the other in the Peace Treaty that ended the war. Similarly France attempted several invasions of Hanover during the wars of the eighteenth century, believing that if they held it they could exchange it for territories the British had captured from them across the globe. It was a very common practice, which reaches its peak in the mid-eighteenth century. In the Seven Years War for instance Britain handed back Manila and Cuba to Spain and Martinique, Guadeloupe, Belle Île as well as returning France’s Indian territories.
As strange as it may sound, permanent conquest of enemy territory wasn't something that interested European statesman of the era as much as might seem logical - they were often more concerned with securing favourable trade agreements, influence in foreign courts and maintaining the European balance of power, about which they were obsessed (The Duke of Newcastle in particular). Britain in particular saw itself as primarily a sea-based trading power and there was still a hesitancy in the country to see Britain as a major land-based imperial power.
The force to take Cartagena was certainly large (although the greater part of its tonnage was made up of troops transports, supply ships and other auxilaries rather than warships, and that this was primrly a land-based rather tha sea based battle), but that does not indicate any intention of permanent conquest. Rather it shows how badly conceived the whole operation was. The logic of attacking Cartagena was questionable and was both politically and militarily flawed. They were hoping to repeat the success of Porto Bello with a swift, easy victory - but they took far too many troops and selected the wrong destination. When fighting in the tropics if a siege lasted more than a few weeks, disease would devastate the besieging force as happened here. Vernon knew this, but still pressed ahead with the operation - with disastrous consequences. Your idea that Cartagena might have turned into a Vietnam is an interesting one, but is also essentially speculative. Sometimes local inhabitants violently opposed an occupying power but in numerous cases they accepted them. Cuba, for instance, after its capture in 1762 - most welcomed the new free trade with the British Empire rather than the limited monopoly with Cadiz that had existed previously. Often in these circumstances money spoke louder than patriotism, and had Britain succeeded in taking Cartagena it is difficult to assess what the response of the inhabitants would be long-term.
To sum up from the books I have consulted I’m not really convinced there was any intention of launching a war of conquest in South America, at least not amongst the three main political factions in the British parliament, and inferring that there was just from the size of Vernon’s expedition would constitute Original research. Obiously if you can produce sources that demonstrate this was the intention of Walpole and Newcastle, then they can be added to the article.
User:LordCornwallis - Do any of the books you've consulted explain exactly what his objectives were? (I can see this going back and forth otherwise.) Also, purely out of interest, what books have you been looking at - you mentioned reading up on the topic recently and I feel I should probably do the same. Any books you'd recommend? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


I respect your educated opinion, but I really have my doubts. The invasion of Colombia was the equivalent of going for broke by a nation that was very angry at Spain because it was considered a thorn in it's side. Moreover, I really doubt that there was enough treasure and booty in Cartagena to pay for the enormous cost of financing the entire expedition. Though its known that the promise of treasure was used as an enticement to convince Colonial Americans to participate in the expedition. Colombia, at the time, was a great source of precious metals and would have been a very nice addition to English wealth if they could milk the mines over time.

My opinion about local militias being a match, or not, for British marines is speculative but not without historical precedence. Recall that the British also tried twice to invade and capture Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807 but were defeated. Those victories were won mostly by local people's militias and not Spanish regulars because Spain was fully embroiled in it's fight against Napoleon and could do little to protect it's own colony.(Charles A)--Scipio-62 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Jenkins' Ear[edit]

I removed a reference to Jenkins' Ear being the cause of the war. It wasn't, territorial and trading disputes were. The issue of Jenkins' Ear was just held up as an example of the popular mood in Britain at the time and it became something of a cause celebre. However the incident had in fact taken place in 1731, seven years before he appeared before parliament to testify about his mistreatment and eight before war actually broke out.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is it now?[edit]

Does anyone know where the ear is now? British Museum? Public Record Office? House of Commons Library?

Well, this is un-cited anecdote, but FWIW--when I was a child in Jacksonville, Florida, c.1958, a girl brought for show & tell or something, a human ear, which was a family heirloom.She said it was Jenkins' ear. It was brown, and a a tad shriveled; I held it in my hand. It was undoubtedly a genuine human ear; I can still recall the tiny white hairs on it. Whether it was actually Jenkins', I cannot say with any veracity.

Wow, human ear? That was some show & tell ! I just brought rocks and frogs, mostly. Gulbenk (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

King George's War[edit]

What is the relationship between this war and King George's War? It seems they're at least close enough there should be mutual references. Papercrab (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They overlap with each other (and with the War of the Austrian Succession) in an ill-defined and messy way. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it really that ill-defined? The War of Jenkins' Ear was the Anglo-Spanish war fought between 1739 and 1749. King George's War was the Anglo-French war between 1744 and 1748, as fought in the American colonies. The War of the Austrian Succession was a broader European War from 1740 to 1748, which came to incorporate the War of Jenkins' Ear and of which King George's War was a part. john k (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

British military on the mainland?[edit]

I recently found several sources in my own family that claim that one of my ancestors -- a Huguenot living in London whose grandfather had come there from France -- arrived in America as part of a British regiment involved in the War of Jenkins' Ear. There aren't many published histories of that war, and none that are recent, but it seems clear that British military activity -- by troops from Great Britain, that is -- was confined to the Caribbean. The invasion of Georgia was by Spanish forces and was met by colonial troops already resident in Georgia. The guy I'm interested in, however, almost certainly showed up first on the Chesapeake, in either Virginia or Maryland. And it's entirely possibly he was part of a "routine" military deployment, or maybe a replacement of one regiment by another. Does anyone here know whether any British units were deployed to the mainland colonies as part of the war effort, perhaps as part of contingency planning? (Assuming anyone had the time to think that far ahead.) Or can you point me to a more detailed history of units of British regulars in the war? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

I changed the title, because -- as was evident from the text of the article itself -- the name attributed to the war was detracting from an examination of the proper causes and progress of the war itself. The name is by no means contemporary -- it was not used at the time, nor for more than a hundred years afterwards, but was invented by the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle. The Jenkins incident, colorful though it was, had virtually nothing to do with the actual outbreak of war. Parliamentary discussions in 1738-1739 record a great deal about the different payments to be made to various parties as a result of the Convention, but nothing at all about Mr. Jenkins. The adoption of Carlyle's frivolous epithet leads to a great deal of discussion in the article about matters which are unrelated to the war, and which should be relegated to a footnote (if mentioned at all). With Mr. Jenkins out of the way, a good deal more might be said about the actual friction between England and Spain which led to the declaration of war by Walpole's government. RandomCritic (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I’m all in favour of WP:Bold but did you not think it might be an idea to propose this on the talk page first and marshal your arguments that Anglo-Spanish War is the common name for the conflict before making such a radical move?
I agree with you that the Jenkins incident wasn’t especially critical in the ultimate march to war, and it was not a direct cause of the war, (although I believe reports of the case in the press, along with similar cases, did inflame British public opinion – and had some bearing on the ultimate decision to declare war). If I remember right the article used to incorrectly suggest that the war was declared because of the Jenkins incident, which it no longer does.
However in spite of this – the War of Jenkins’ Ear is the name by which the conflict is known to such an extent that the Spanish refer to it by the same name. How this came about is besides the point with regard to the naming of the article.
I also find your argument a bit strange. The title of the article or the section about Jenkins doesn’t prohibit you from adding additional information about the non-Jenkins build-up to the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I was interested to read RandomCritic's assertion that it was Thomas Carlyle who popularised/invented the term War of Jenkins' Ear. If this is accurate, it would be a valuable addition to the article. I have done my own research, and have found the exact quote in History of Friedrich II vol XI, chap VI (and "Jenkins/Jenkins' Ear"scattered throughout). I have thus edited the reference in to the opening paragraph of the article, line referenced. If anyone knows of an earlier literary reference, please make a re-edit.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC))


Georgia Inaccuracy[edit]

The following statement in the Georgia subparagraph is not exactly true: "Border clashes between Florida and Georgia continued for the next few years, but there were no further offensive operations on the American mainland by either nation." Oglethorpe lead a less well know attempt to take Augustine in 1743, but this also failed. Shortly after that attempt, he sailed home to England to face some charges of a jealous subordinate, was acquitted, but never returned to the Georgia colony. The statement is therefore inaccurate. Unless there is an objection made on this discussion, I'll update that paragraph in a week or two. DanQuigley 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for not valid source Jenkins Ear War[edit]

David Casado Rabanal (Madrid, 1954). Degree at Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Information Sciences, in Political Sciences and in Sociology, is currently the press manager of the Museum of America in Madrid. He is editor of the weekly review of National Association of Finantial Advisors. Former manager of Diario del Júcar newspaper (Diario 16), and redactor in the Review of Cultural Information. He has been press manager of the Provincial government of Jaen, press manager of the Queen Sofía National Museum, and colaborator, redactor and publisher of several newspapers and reviews. He is considereed an expert in Spanish modern history, and in European naval policy during the XVIII century.

Casado Rabanal, David (2009). La Marina Ilustrada. Sueño y Ambición de la España del XVIII. Ediciones Antigona. ISBN 978-84-92531-06-6. ^ Casado Rabanal, p. 250-251:

[Guerra de la Oreja de Jenkins]...España, a cambio, se obliga a intervenir en la guerra de Sucesión de Austria (1741-1748) a la vez que avivaba su enfrentamiento contra los británicos, que dentro del marco de la mencionada "Guerra de la Oreja de Jenkins", que para España se llamó "del Asiento", ya habían saqueado la ciudad panameña de Portobelo, sitiado Cartagena de Indias y atacado otros puertos de la costa venezolana. El que resultará ser el primer gran conflicto colonial de envergadura contra los británicos terminará no obstante, con una clara victoria para las armas españolas, ya que gracias a las espléndidas fortificaciones defensivas de las plazas americanas y a la sostenida intendencia que proporciona nuestra recuperada marina mercante y de guerra, España podrá finalmente contener la ofensiva británica y resultar victoriosa en América

Translation:

[Jenkins Ear War]...Spain, in exchage, forces herself to intervene in the Austrian Sucession War (1741) at the same time that bitters her confrontation agaisnt the British, who whitin the frmae of the already discussed "Jenkins Ear War", that in Spain was known as "del Asiento", had already looted the Panamanian city of Portobelo, sieged Cartagena de Indias and attacked a number of ports in the coast of Venezuela. This, which turned to be the first great colonial conflict agaisnt the British, will end nevertheless in a clear victory for the Spanish arms, given that thanks to the splendid defensive fortresses in the american cities, and thanks to the sustained supplying provided by our renewed merchant and military navies, Spain will manage finally to hold the British offensive and to result victorious in America.

Now, please stop destroying my contribution. If you think this source is not valid, then you must explain clearly to me and to a (not-English) moderator why. Watching your log of contributions I am starting to suspect what is the real problem here, and it is not my source, I am not the biased one. Regards, Miguel.

Thanks for the translation, but obviously you're not a "moderator", whatever that's supposed to be, or you'd understand that all Wikipedias operate a policy called "verifiability". In the English-language Wikipedia that means we use (primarily) English sources; in the article we have three English sources which say one thing, and one Spanish source which says something else; we go with the weight of the three English sources. Bias would be attributing undue weight to a single source making an exceptional claim, so the real problem most assuredly lies with you and your IP meat/sockpuppets. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but you don't understand. I will explain you again: Spanish source and English sources are not contradictory, you can add 100 more sources in the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle and I can add 100 Spanish sources more in the very same Aix-La-Chapelle. Aix-La-Chapelle is the treaty that ends the Austrian Sucession War and by extension hostilities between Spain and Great Britain. Casado does not neglect at any moment Aix-La-Chapelle, nor claims anything agaisnt Aix-La-Chapelle, does not enter in contradiction with the English sources, and therefore there is nothing to discuss about the verifiability. Military result of War of Jenkins Ear, which is the topic of this article, is what he talks about. And he doesn't make any exceptional claim, what he does is to state an obvious fact that is implicit in the very same article, only looking at the number of loses of each side, and status quo ante bellum reached when British attacks were repelled, de result of the most significant battle in the conflict by a longshot, and the fact that Britain failed in all its goals in America. Please, provide a source that states that Britain won the war, that result was unconclusive or that Spain didn't win, and then your point about contradictory sources will be right. I have provided a valid source and you are reverting my contribution based on your own biased, ilogical and dogmatic point of view.

In the Falklands War article it appears status quo ante bellum and on the top of it, it appears British Victory. It is the same if in the Spanish Wikipedia an Argentine deletes British Victory and leaves status quo ante bellum and then he ads 1, 2, 3, 10 sources in the status quo ante bellum note, and says that that British victory claims are not valid and in the Spanish wikipedia because Spanish sources must prevail.

In the World War I article, there appear Treaty of Versailles, Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine, Treaty of Trianon, and Treaty of Sèvres, and all this does not prevent the words "allied victory" appearing in the section of the result. Is the same if in the German wikipedia somebody deletes allied victory and ads 20 sources to each one of the treaties, and then he claims that allied victory is not a valid claim because it enters in contradicton with all the other sources that he provides and in German wikipedia there must prevail german sources. It is ridiculous and something typical from a biggot.

But it seems that in your mind "status quo ante bellum" or "treaty of X" are reason enough to avoid typing "X victory" only when Britain is in the loser side.-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Drop the incivility, you're already on very shaky ground using sockpuppets as it is.
Sources agree that the military result of this conflict was inconclusive so that is what Wikipedia reflects: Apart from a few treasure ships, Spain didn't lose anything to Britain, but Spain didn't gain much at British expense. Britain didn't gain much at Spanish expense, but apart from a few captured French merchant ships Britain didn't lose anything to Spain either.
The difference seems to be in the historiography: Spanish popular history apparently presents this as some sort of glorious victory solely because Spain succeeded in not losing Cartagena. English language sources (try checking those cited in the article instead of lazily challenging me to provide some) look at the wider picture and do not describe this as a victory for either side. From the British perspective it was simply a "war of smash and grab raids" (Lawrence); sometimes they succeeded (Porto Bello, Manilla), sometimes they didn't (Santiago de Cuba, Cartagena) - no big deal. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was returned things to the way they were, but settled nothing. It only lasted six years before the Seven Years War, which is seen as a continuation of the War of Austrian Succession; there is no doubt about who came out on top there.
Your example of the Falklands War is poor. First it was a concerted attempt to grab territory, unlike Vernon's raids on Carribbean ports, and secondly for Argentina there were significant consequences (political upheaval, loss of military projection power, and further economic woe) when it lost every battle, unlike Britain which was stronger in 1748. The other examples don't even make sense.
All in all this is a pretty terrible article - unbalanced weighting of different sections, lack of sources especially in sections relating to Spanish successes, and the inaccuracy of some of the information presented. This needs to be dealt with.
Also, this discussion doesn't belong on my talk page - I'm moving this to the article talk page.Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, your source is contradicting the other sources by suggesting that one side came out ahead of another at the end of the war. Since it is outweighted numerically (and to a lesser extent because it is not in English) it is not included. The history of specific battles is described within the article and those sections speak for themselves; linked articles accurately describe the outcomes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what a sockpuppet is.
The intention of Spain was not gaining anything to Britain expense, but to protect its colonial posessions, which managed to do. The intention of Great Britain was to take, at least partially, and divide the Spanish colonial posessions in Central America (Batista González), they failed with huge losses in men and assets. What did the British win at the expense of Argentina in the Falklands War? Nothing, simply retaining the islands as Spain did with her colonial posessions, consequences for the enemy can be better or worse, but it doesn't affect the result of the military engagement. According your logic, the concept of pyrrhic victory would not exist, or it should even be classified as a defeat. As far as I know winning all the battles is not a must for winning the war, or maybe the allies won all the battles in the WWII? It is an utterly absurd claim. You are expressing your personal opinions and views, which are not relevant. I am providing you with a source, and you don't do the same thing. This does not appear in the Spanish popular historiography, because among other things, if 99,9% of British never heard of this war, at least 90% of Spaniards never heard about it either. Don't invent arguments based on prejudices, which in your case seems to be much more numerous than your sources. Spain didn't "succeeed in not losing Cartagena", Spain defeated the British at Cartagena. Not a big deal? A fleet of 30.000 men and more than 100 vessels was not a big deal? And supposedly, I am the biased one? So you are claiming, if I understand, but I have to be wrong, that the siege of Cartagena, was not an attempt of taking and retain Cartagena? This is indeed, a exceptional claim that would need many sources. And yes, I agree that this article must be improved, but not by you if possible, or we can expect some British victory claim one of these days-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't know what a sockpuppet is? You were a "moderator" earlier.
Falklands: - if neither side has a net gain or loss then it's inconclusive, but if one is a net loser then clearly there is a difference.
There are three (four until you deleted it) sources cited in the article against the result. I am not expressing an opinion, I'm explaining what they say - including the fact that some historians consider the attacks on the Spanish Main as "smash and grab raids". If you don't believe me read them. Or go away.
There might be a general point to be made that articles on wars should not have specifc "defeat"/"victory"/"draw" results and should point to specific articles on treaties or a section on consequences. Battles are easier to describe in this way, but winning one or two battles, as the Spanish did, did not make the war a "victory". Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't know what is that thing that you accuse me constantly to use, which is another evidence of your character. I never claimed that I was a moderator, I typed we need a moderator, which obviously you don't want, for obvious reasons.
I already explained to you my view on your multiple references to Aix-La-Chapelle, I wont go again on it, read my previous comments or go away.
Falklands: another utterly absurd claim from your side. If somebody attacks me and tries to take my wallet, and I manage to defend myself and to keep my wallet, until the attacker withdraws with the face smashed, I won. My goal, to keep my wallet on my pocket prevailed over his, to take my wallet away. It doesn't matter how serious the injuries of the attacker are.
From the Wikipedia, victory: Victory (from Latin victoria) is a term, originally applied to warfare, given to success achieved in personal combat, after military operations in general or, by extension, in any competition. Success in a military campaign is considered a strategic victory, while the success in a military engagement is a tactical victory.
From the Wikipedia, defeat: the opposite of victory. That is, unsuccess military operations in general. Unsucces in military campaign is a strategic defeat, while unsucces in a military engagement is a tactical defeat.
Spain repells British attack on overall, causes heavy losses, retains 100% of her American possesions, suffers much lesser damages than Britain. Britain fails in overall goals, heavy losess both human and material, fails to gain 1 squared meter of Spanish possesions, fails to interrupt Spanish commerce, fails to attack Panama, fails to gain free commerce in America, fails to change a bit the Spanish attitude. Status quo ante bellum. Cartagena de Indias: Spanish tactical victory, British tactical defeat. War of the Jenkins Ear: Spanish strategic victory, British strategic defeat. This is a fact, and you can't hide it with cheap philosopy about defeat/victory/draw. I am providing a valid and documented source that only states what is an obvious fact. According your contribution logs it seems that you are not so relativist when dealing with British victories.-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If you'd been wiki-stalking properly you'd have seen I asked for a third opinion several hours ago. I imagine the contribution below is a result of that (correct me if I'm wrong User:Cdtew).
Now let's look at your example. Let's change it a bit: (a) You see someone on your patch and cut their ear off, then they try to take your wallet, you successfully keep hold of your wallet and give them a bloody nose, but they kick you a few times whilst also fighting off one of your friends. (b) You all back away for a few minutes, then the guy you punched comes back and beats both of you up, takes both your wallets and keeps beating you up, on and off, for the next 75 years. That's more like what happened between 1740 and 1815. At the end of (a) we have status quo ante and by the end of (b) the other guy has won. The sources support this and that is what Wikipedia reflects. Your point of view is interesting and you might even find a few sources which vaguely support it, but nothing like as strongly as the references cited here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL at the end the biggot couldn't hold anymore and came out, this is the kind of thing that I was expecting to read from you. It took to much for my initial guess, I must confess. I don't want to go on the personal feelings, but believe me, I am honest when I say that I very much envy Captain Julio León Fandiño, what a great pleasure must have been to cut that ear off, only to to see Vernon's fleet and crew in the botton of the sea a few years later. And that commemorative medals man, LOL. Did I told you that I personally uploaded them to the Wikipedia a few years ago after one of my multiple visits to the Madrid Naval Museum? They are too good, it was a pitty that nnobody knew about them. It will stay like that here, but believe me, the Spanish wiki will be a different story. Regards-Miguel
"Story" sums it up. Anyway, you'd better paddle yourself and your POV back over to the Spanish wikipedia, I expect you'll find we're all "biggots" over here, if that is the what we are for referring to reliable sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So, Miguel, you're admitting to socking for User:Avieso, who uploaded File:"Toma" de Cartagena por Vernon.jpg and File:Medalla Lezo y Vernon.jpg, both of which are found in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias article? Sockpuppeting is the use of multiple accounts or IP's by the same editor to edit the encyclopedia. Sounds like a job for WP:SPI... Cdtew (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OH, Ok, somebody at the end explained me what is sockpuppeting, thank you. Not really, I don't do it, at least not on purpose. I uploaded the pictures from my account Avieso a few years ago, when I used it and I used to leave in Madrid, and I was frequent user. I don't use my account since years ago, I don't even remember the password. Unfortunatelly for job reasons I didn't have anymore time to use it, today is an exception this is why I have so much energy. I don't even leave in Spain since years ago, my company sent me overseas, like in the old times! My IP changes often, because I am using a wireless net from an office, each time I switch on my laptop the IP changes, it has nothing to do with some kind of sockpuppeting conspiracy (that Wiki-Ed supports), this is why also I try to sign always with my name. By the way, with my last comment I was just joking a little bit with Wiki-Ed, he seems all the time angry. My only interest is the History, and particulary the military history of Spain, therefore frequently I face Patriot Englishmen like Wiki-Ed, it also happens with Moroccans. No source that contradicts their dogmas is valid, believe me, usually I don't waste time, but today as I said I am full of energy. This is the story of our discussion. I only provide valid sources and data,and never try to impose a personal bias on my contributions, otherwise it would be to cheat myself.--Regards Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Here's my two cents (or my thoughts on the matter, for our Spanish friend). I've reviewed sources on this war in English, French, and have read translated Spanish sources. I see no need to label this war as a victory for either side, because truthfully, this conflict didn't end with any sort of finality until 1763. The brief respite Spain and Britain had from war lasted a mere 6 years, at which point the two were back at each others' throats, including the rest of the European powers. I understand Miguel's point that a complete defense is a victory in a sense, but I also encourage us to look at the non-military goals Spain and England had:

  • First, there was the prevention of English smuggling on the Spanish Main. The Spanish failed to accomplish this, as smuggling continued to occur at large rates well into the late 18th century.
  • Second, England wanted to retain the Asiento, which England did, but for what? The War of the Austrian Succession resulted in the Asiento being worthless at best, and England gave it up two years after Aix-la-Chappelle. Spain retained Cartagena, but Portobelo was destroyed.
  • Third, the English eventually won the right to trade on the Spanish Main.

All around, I think the current infobox stating "Status quo ante bellum" says it best. Really, it should also include "Treaty of Madrid", which fully resolved the issues raised on the war. I will also note that over on the Spanish Wikipedia, this article stated the War resulted in a Status Quo ante bellum as late as April 2013. Then, IP editor 213.98.71.110 added "spanish military victory" to the result box. Clearly, the article passed a rigorous featured article process on the Spanish wikipedia in September 2006 without indicating the war was a "Spanish victory" of any sort. It does mention that the war was an English "defeat" in the american theater, but that's a finer point. See that version here. I'd say if not calling it "Spanish victory" was sufficient for our companions over at es.wikipedia, then it should be good for us.

As a final note, the Spanish Wikipedia article infobox cites as its sole support for the "spanish victory" contention -- you guessed it, Casado. See here. Cdtew (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, you guessed it, I modified it in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it seems that it will remain like that there unless sources claiming the opposite are presented, since the valid source that I provided was originally writen in Spanish and everybody can check it, and nobody can say that it is not a valid source, because it is, and there was not, and probably there is not going to be controversy at all. Is there any rula that forbiddes to use the same reference in different wikipedias? I don't think so. But here, my point is that I read with a lot of interest your comments, I can agree or disagree, but it is not the key question, the key question is not what I think or what you think, is that I provide a valid source that does not enter in contradiction with the English sources. It is not that I think that it was a Spanish victory, which I do, it is that I provide a source. English sources, as Spanish sources, state that the Treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle formally ended the military engagement between Spain and Great Britain, but it was indirectly, since this treaty marks the end of the Austrian Succession War. This is not related with the military result of the engagement between Spain and Britain in America (Jenkins Ear War). The goal of Spain was not to end the British smugglering in the Caribbean, this goal was not related to the war at all from Spanish side, the goal of Spain was to defend her possessions in the Caribbean from the British attack, it was Britain that unilaterally declared war on Spain after the incident of the ear of the poor Jenkins. And the goal of Britain was simply to obtain control of key commercial cities in the Caribbean (they thought in La Habana and later in Cartagena) in order to supress the Spanish domination, hold control in the Caribbean, and freely engage in commerce with all the area. They spectacularly failed in America as a matter of fact (J E War). A different thing is what they obtained regarding other goals in other places, as a result of the end of the Austrian Sucession War. As you provided a third view I will respect that, even I don't agree. But the Spanish wikipedia will be a different story. Valid sources are not the ones that fit with what each one of us think should be the best. Regards-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the source I provide was first published in 2009, therefore it is impossible that somebody had quoted it in 2006. Unless you say that, lets say, books published after 1950 or whatever the specific date that fits better to support your point of view are not valid. -Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Miguel, you are perfectly allowed to use the same source on both EN and ES wikipedia; I was merely pointing out that, prior to your edits to both the EN and ES wikipedia, both articles were in agreement that there was no "spanish victory". Now, in an effort to conciliate, I would be willing to add British military defeat to the War of Jenkins Ear article, but leave the status quo ante bellum language therein. I think that would also accurately portray the outcome of the war. Let me know if this is something you'd find consensus with me in. Cdtew (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the point that is being missed by our sockpuppet Spanish friend is that from the British perspective this war was not restricted to the Caribbean where, admittedly, British military victories were outnumbered by defeats (as covered by linked articles on specific battles). English language sources, looking at the bigger picture, treat the war against France, Spain et al as inconclusive, which is reflected in the result box for the article on the War of Austrian Succession. The fact that the Spanish were victorious in a particular battle should be reflected, the fact that the overall war was a draw should also be reflected. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and disagree. The British had a more metropolitan view of the war, especially after 1741, being so intimately involved in the Continental war. But, on the other hand, the actual War of Jenkins' Ear, from an encyclopedic standpoint, is limited really to Anglo-Spanish conflict in the Spanish Main and Antilles, with some spillover into the Atlantic (see Voyage of the Glorioso). So, from that perspective, I think it's safe to say that Britain suffered military defeat (also, 3/4 of your land forces being destroyed due to disease and casualties during a siege being fairly significant). I don't, however, consider it a "Spanish military victory", because malaria did more to defeat the English than did Spanish force of arms; additionally, Spain lost its goal of preventing British interference in its colonies. So, that being said, I think it may be best to segregate the conflicts for encyclopedic purposes and acknowledge the British took it on the nose in this one. Also, British failures in the Caribbean caused Walpole's defeat at home... Cdtew (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Take it easy Wiki-Ed, there are worse things than being involuntary sockpuppeting, such as being voluntarely a stubborn patriot. It makes no sense to call something "War of Jenkins Ear" and then to state that actually, that entity was some kind of plasma that didn't exist, and that all the whole thing was just melt into a bigger confrontation with France and Spain. The war of Jenkins Ear can be a branch of a wider conflict, but it is a specific branch in which Britain was defeated. It has own entity, and there are books dedicated specifically to it.
Cdtew I agree with your proposal of adding British military defeat and of course to leave the status quo ante bellum, because my point, since the beginning is that they are totally different things. A treaty or a status quo is a consequence of the result of a military engagement. But in the War of the Jenkins Ear article, what is missing, is just that, the result of the military engagement itself. --Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If we're going down that route and ringfencing it within a particular theatre then we would also need to change the dates (i.e. 1739 to 1742). I'm not convinced that this is supported by sources (I haven't seen many that cover it in any great detail anyway), but Cdtew's proposal would be logical and as a compromise would save me endlessly reverting stubborn 'patriotic' Spaniards fiddling with this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There, I've implemented what I believe is a workable compromise based on the War of 1812 article's result scheme. Miguel, I hope you'll find this satisfactory, as it gives a more thorough explanation of what occurred; Wiki-Ed, I hope you also concur. As far as ringfencing, I think it ought merely be partially fenced -- by acknowledging that this is a war which later became merely a theatre (and an inactive theatre at that) of a larger conflict is the messy truth. For all intents and purposes, the war "raged" until 1748, when a treaty ended its hostilities. There being no formal truce until 1748 (as evidenced by, for instance, the 1748 Spanish invasion of Brunswick Town, in the Province of North Carolina), 1748 is a fine date on which to rest the end of the war. The "War of Jenkins' Ear" very much was exclusively an American conflict, except for instances of assaults on convoys to Europe or Asia from the Spanish Main. Cdtew (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Date George II authorized "reprisals" against Spain[edit]

The article says "on 10 July 1739 King George II authorized the Admiralty Board to seek maritime reprisals against Spain." It has no source citation for that.

The king's two orders are actually dated 15 June 1739. See Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: America and West Indies, 1739, ed. K. G. Davies [London: HMSO, 1994]): Documents 215, 215i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.236.227 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Added. If you have any more references then please let us know. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction to "Jenkins's Ear"[edit]

As discussed by Alpheus and others above, "Jenkins's" is the more correct spelling and is the one used in most reliable sources. Does anyone mind that change to the name of the page? Moonraker (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple. Different sources use different conventions. Some prefer the additional S, some don't. I haven't been able to find a contemporary source - I think that would be the best way to decide in this case. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)