Talk:Platine War

Argentine and Uruguayan strength in the infobox

I see that there has been some editing with conflicting figures here.

• First: the infobox is restating statements which are already in the body of the article. If there are varying statistics, they need to be placed in the body of the article—placing them only in the infobox makes the article self-contradictory.
• Second: the numbers in the article are already backed by good references. Differing statistics need to come from acceptable references, and be backed by proper citation(s) to those solid reference(s).
• Third: as there are already references cited for the existing numbers, it is bad form to simply blank or alter cited information. If there are equally good sources backing a different number, it may be added to (not substituted for) the existing statistic. The relevant passage may need to be amended to explain any discrepancy or variation between reliable sources—please explain.

If you have information which would change a referenced statement, it is always a good idea to go through WP:V and WP:RS to review Wikipedia's policy. References must be provided. • Astynax ^talk 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Brazil vs. Argentina... or vs. the Federalist Party?

After much thinking, I started wondering myself if it is correct to have in the infox Brazil vs. Argentina. Brazil was careful never to declare war on any country, but on their leaders. This happened in 1851, in 1864 and in 1865. A reader who knows too little about South American history will believe that Argentina "lost" to Brazil. The same will happen with Uruguayan War: anyone who read it will believe that Brazil defeated Uruguay. And that is quite misleading.

For example, in 1851, Imperial Brazil was allied to Mitre and Sarmiento, both leading the Argentine Unitarian Party, and also to the Uruguayan Colorado Party. Well, in the Uruguayan War Brazil was again allied to Mitre, leading the Argentine Unitarian Party, and to the Uruguayan Colorado Party. The same in the War of the Triple Alliance.

In fact, in all three wars, the enemy was always the same: the Argentine Federalist Party and the Uruguayan Blanco Party. What differed one war from the other was that in 1851 Paraguay was an ally and in 1865, an enemy. It is known that Federalists and Blancos fought in the Paraguayan army.

Thus, I was wondering if we could chang the infobox and the lead text to read that the enemy was the Federalist Party (then ruling Argentina) and not Argentina. In all, the Unitarians under Mitre and Sarmiento would hardly consider that Argentina was a defeated nation in 1852, since they won all three wars. So, can I make the change? --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of reading "was fought between the Argentine Confederation and an alliance consisting of the Empire of Brazil, Uruguay and the Argentine provinces of Entre Ríos and Corrientes." it would read "was fought between the Argentine Federalist Party (then-ruling the Argentine Confederation) and the Uruguayan Blanco Party and an alliance consisting of the Empire of Brazil, the Uruguayan Colorado Party (then-ruling Uruguay), the Argentine Unitarian Party and the Argentine provinces of Entre Ríos and Corrientes." --Lecen (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Allied forces were led in Argetina by a prominent Federal leader, Justo José de Urquiza, not by the Unitarians adscribed to the invasion. So, it was not a fight along party lines. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The article does not says that Unitarians were leading, but that Mitre and Sarmiento were leading the Unitarian force which were part of the Allied Army. Anyway, could you focus on my questions, please? --Lecen (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Knowing the immediate previous history of civil wars along party alignments across boundaries in the platine region would make anyone think that, in this case, the alignment was the same. You can count as evidence, for example, on the Unitarians exiles that were present in the army. But this case was not limited to be as one of the countless attempts on the part of the Unitarians to gain a foothold on the Argentine territory and fight the Federation. It was not the case, indeed, because of Urquiza and other Federalist forces, which not only took arms against Rosas, but in fact they were the ones who convened and commanded the whole attack on Rosas on Argentine territory (Urquiza, the same who fought in Uruguay against the Colorados on request by Rosas). Moreover, you can appreciate the relevance of the Federalist command against Rosas in that, after the defeat of Rosas at Caseros, command over Buenos Aires and the Confederation was taken by Urquiza himself, and that his political project was the 1853 Federalist constitution. On the other hand, the Mitrista political project first had to resort to the Autonomy of Buenos Aires Province, then the took over of the Confederation was only after he defeated Urquiza at Pavón... in 1861. Conclusion: In Argentina, it was not a war on the Federalist party. The war was mainly between the Confederation and two Provinces which had reclaimed full sovereignty (backed by foreign powers and political exiles), and whose project was, along the Federalist Party conception, to establish a constitutional federation in Argentina. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The war can hardly be themed a conflict between the Argentine Confederation and two rebel provinces. From the moment the Confederate government declared war on Brazil, it became an international conflict. In fact, it was an international conflict since at least 1839, when it supported with troops a civil war in Uruguay. No wonder that the allied forces were divided in two armies: one composed entirely of Brazilians under Caxias that was supposed to invade near Buenos Aires, conquer it and then march nothwest to face Rosas'army. The other army was headed by Urquiza and had Argentines, Brazilians and Uruguayans. Since I'm seeing that you are one of the advocatees of the idea that this was nothing more than a war between Argentines and the other countries involved were at best, supporters, I won't argue anymore. Thank you for your reply. --Lecen (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Urquiza's forces and the Uruguayans numbered 15,000 men, while the Brazilian Army under Caxias numbered 16,200. Urquiza as the commander-in-chief of one allied army (in fact, merely symbolic) was no more than a gentle diplomatic action from the Brazilian government. The same happened in the War of the Triple Alliance, when despite the Argentine forces numbering only 4,000 men and Brazilians 50,000, the command-in-chied was headed by Mitre, and not a Brazilian. It amazes me how some Argentine editors in Wikipedia try at all cost to change history. Even the mention of the Platine War was completely erased by MBelgrano in Argentina article. No wonder that the Argentina Wikiproject is uncapable of nominating, and even less passing, an article to Featured status. --Lecen (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm providing the Argentine POV, needed to balance the Brazilian one. In Argentine literature, the Platine War does not exist as such, it is a foreign concept. So, yes, in Argentina this conflict is understood as part of the Civil War. I'm sure you can benefit from taking into account other relevant views to this subject.

I'm commenting on this article, nonetheless, because I recognize the importance of globalizing the article (i.e., to consider other approaches to the subject, as the one you propose). So, even from what you've just written, and from your conception of the conflict, your original question is already answered: since the Argentine Confederation declared war on the Empire of Brazil, it was a Brazil-Argentina war. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know that your recent edits are making the article more difficult to follow? Notice that the other sections, devoted to the other nations which were part of the war, do not mention internal politics, but it does give only a general view of the post war situation. You are now adding information about Argentine politics that are quite hard to a casual reader to follow, even more because you are mentioning people and facts who did not appear anywhere earlier in the text. I removed all the complicated information regarding Rosas for that same reason. --Lecen (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of valid refferences

I re-added some removed refferences, that were apparently removed to endorse a POV. Lyra reference clearly backs the article (and was ignored by the last user). Also, although Golin is not available on the internet, it is still a well known work about the subject and a valid refference with a valid ISBN. -187.38.116.145 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Platine War be merged into Battle of Caseros, as the bibliography in English mentions only the battle, and not a stand-alone and self-contained "war" as this article tries to describe. Google books gives just 50 results for "Platine War", and only 2 results for "War against Oribe and Rosas" (1 of them a wikipedia mirror). But that few results do not mean it's an obscure topic: there are 10.800 results for "battle of Caseros". It is self-evident that this "war" only exists in Brazilian historiography. How else can it be that a "war" fought by Argentina does not even have a local name? For all bibliography outside Brazil, it's Caseros, a battle with causes, preparations and consequences, but just that, a battle. Cambalachero (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I once made a review of this article with the username "MBelgrano", my account has been renamed since then, as pointed at my user page Cambalachero (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: an entire war can not be resumed by a battle. In fact, it was not composed of a single battle, there were others, such as the Passage of the Tonelero, the Battle of Alvarez Field, the Battle of Marques Bridge, etc... And from the moment the Argentine Confederation declared war on the Empire of Brazil on 18 August 1851... well... it became an international war. It would make no sense to remove this article, which, by the way, it's a Good one (the French version also is a Good Article). --Lecen (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

All that ammounts to original research. Rather than discussing the reasons themselves, discuss bibliography. Yes, Caseros did not took place in thin air, it was part of a bigger conflict, but not this conflict, not according to bibliography in English. That's why 10.800 books talk about Caseros without making mention of the "platine war", and even less the alternative name. Even more: 10.800 mention the battle of Caseros without a single mention of the Duke of Caxias, the Brazilian general. 9.810 mention Caseros without mentioning the Brazilian king Pedro II. 7.520 mention Caseros and not Brazil. All contrasting with the basic 50 results for "Platine war". Which all means that, regardless of historical details, the Argentine perspective (that Caseros was a conflict between Rosas and Urquiza, and not between Argentina and Brazil) is the global perspective as well.

By the way, this is not a deletion request, but a merging request. The contents of this article would not be lost, they would be moved to battle of Caseros. Of course that it would make no sense to "remove" (meaning, delete) this article, but that is not the request. Cambalachero (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Lecen. Whether the article is correctly titled may be a matter for discussion, but it seems quite wrong to subsume a protracted conflict under a single battle. older ≠ wiser 13:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Lecen. Since the Argentine Confederation declared war on the Empire of Brazil, it became, indeed, an international war involving more than one battle. These are facts, and can not be considered original research. Felipe Menegaz 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly the definition of original research: original interpretation of given facts, not backed up by sources, or only by a small minority. Thousands of books talk about the battle of caseros without considering the duke of caxias, pedro II or even Brazil worth a footnote. This is not the first nor the last case of a country aiding a faction of another in a civil war, it may be for the small Brazilian military history, but not from a worldwide perspective. See for instance the Spanish Civil War, with both sides filles of foreign help. Would you say it was not a civil war, or that there was a civil war contemporary to an international war between Spain and Nazi Germany? Cambalachero (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish Civil War was a proxy war between Nazi German and the Soviet Union. The Platine War was a declared war between the Argentine Confederation and the Empire of Brazil. Brazil paid and supplied Urquiza's troops since it saw much better leaving Argentines killing Argentines than waisting time sending more Brazilians. And "small Brazilian military history"? Because there are people who are far more proud of their military history that comprised solely of killing themselves for decades, of having stood neutral at World War II while supporting Nazi German and of having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it. So much to be proud of. --Lecen (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agree that the proposed merger is not the best solution, there is a problem with the current title: namely, that it almost never (never that I can find, anyway) is used this way in English historiography. References to the "Platine War" are frequently to other wars in the same vicinity, such as the Cisplatine War. I can find one reference to the "war of the River Plate" in 1852, but one references does not a term of art make. Maybe this war (or subset of a larger war) does not have a name, in which case we must refrain from naming it (or perhaps from having a separate article on it, although that does not seem necessary yet). Srnec (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on Google Books results, I believe that this article should be renamed to "Guerra Grande", and be somehow merged with the Uruguayan Civil War article. English historiography (as far as the GB results show) favor the Spanish version of events and not the Brazilian POV of the situation.

The following results control for English language-only results...

• Results for "Guerra Grande" and "Brazil": 1720 results.
• Results for "Guerra Grande" and "Uruguay": 3,100 results.
• Results for "Guerra Grande" and "Argentina": 1690 resuls.
• Results for "Platine War": 50 results.

Based on this search, this article really needs to be renamed and fixed to follow English historiography. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)