Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:01, 28 August 2022

Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot verify that these events actually happened, and find it strange that a failed action in which several ships were lost is absent from Royal Navy accounts or from any references concerning Admiral Drury. I checked the Lamb reference and the pages referenced did not even relate to 1808, much less any action like this. I've brought Laska666's conduct up at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Vietnam. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd one. A Google books search throws up several books from reputable publishers containing the story. They all seem to go back to Maybon (1906) "Les Anglais à Macao en 1802 et 1808" p314, which in turn takes it from Histoire générale du IVe siècle à nos jours, v. 10 Les monarchies constitutionnelles (1815-1847) (1898) p992. Maybon also cites the Guo Chao Rou Yuan Ji (國朝柔遠記) describing three kinds of English ships, which seems to have been garbled in later references as saying only three ships reached Macau. Kanguole 12:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although Maybon gives a reference to Histoire générale, he attributes the account to Cordier. The Histoire générale gives among its sources on Annam (p1008) Henri Cordier, Le Consulat de France á Hué sous la Restauration, Paris, 1884. So that seems to be the origin. Neither Maybon nor Histoire générale have the 6 or 7 ships bit, though, just a mention of burning. Kanguole 20:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fleet described here is probably the 1808 expedition led by Drury to occupy Macao - it is mentioned very briefly in Battle of the Tiger's Mouth. The contemporary sources on this expedition do not mention any fighting en route, however (ref). There is a detailed modern paper here which jumps straight to the fleet arriving at Macao without mentioning any unusual events en route. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of poking around turns up this paper (1988) from the same authors as the cited Paths to Conflagration - "In 1808, 10 vessels of war, which were sent against Macao by Lord Minto, Governor General of India, disengaged themselves from the expeditionary fleet and sailed towards Tonkin to intimidate the Hue Court. Vietnamese junks forced their retreat and 6 or 7 vessels were destroyed by fire. The survivors who arrived in Macao, were piteously hunted down by Chinese troops sent from Canton.".

In the paper, this is cited to the Crawfurd Papers - but explicitly "the preface of Henri Berland in the French edition", rather than the text itself, and I wonder if that preface ultimately comes from the same French sources that @Kanguole mentions. The same material is covered in Paths to Conflagration (1998) with slightly different wording and no specific source given. I cannot find mention of it in any contemporary British sources, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any Royal Navy losses in the area in Royal Navy Loss List complete database. If it happened I wonder if the vessels were East Indiamen? Nthep (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense - though there doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the various Indian papers digitised on BNA. It might also be a bit of an inflation for six boats being lost, which might be more likely to go unrecorded... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the "piteously hunted down by Chinese troops sent from Canton" part is completely wrong: Drury's Macao expedition was a debacle, and he was confronted by Chinese troops, but he withdrew without bloodshed, reporting only one injured sailor. Kanguole 08:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mikaberidze, p. 488, mentions the conflict: "the Vietnamese fought back, destroying several of Drury's ships". Srnec (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec Thanks - that has (as far as I can work out from Google Books) a footnote pointing to Morse's Chronicles of the East India Company III:87. This is here and while it does talk about the Macao expedition, it doesn't seem to discuss any raids on the Vietnamese coast en route. A bit of a mystery still! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mikaberidze's citations for this paragraph are:
Christopher Goscha, Vietnam: A New History (New York: Basic Books, 2016), 41–46;

David Joel Steinberg, ed., In Search of Southeast Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), 128;

Maybon, "Les Anglais à Macao" 313–15;

Alastair Lamb, The Mandarin Road to Old Hué: Narratives of Anglo-Vietnamese Diplomacy from the 17th Century to the Eve of the French Conquest (London: Chatto & Windus, 1970), 175, 189–95.
Of these, only Maybon seems to mention Drury. Kanguole 21:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanguole Amazing, thankyou! Finding the endnotes was tricky in preview mode :-) I had had a look at Steinberg and was working out if I could get Goscha in the library tomorrow, but if you've been able to check them all then that's great. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is mentioned in passing on p. 45 of Hia Sieh's Si-chung Ki-shï, translated by Edward Harper Parker.

Chronicles of the East India Company III:71 says that Thomas Manning went to Annam in February 1808 in the company of Jean-Marie Dayot as an envoy of the Company. I have no idea if this is related in any way to Drury's diversion. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This mention in the Zhōngxī Jìshì (中西紀事) of Xia Xie (夏燮; 1800–1875) is indeed very brief – "the English Admiral Drury returned defeated from Annam, and [...] renewed his designs on Macao" – but it is a distinct source from Maybon/Cordier. Kanguole 08:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obscure, certainly, but not a hoax. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete Commendable research above digging out these sources. If I interpret this correctly, most sources only give a passing mention that circle back to the one Maybon source. Other sources dealing with Drury's Macao expedition often omit this incident all together. This may have happened but does not seem to be enough to pass WP:EVENT or just WP:GNG. Happy to be set right if I'm misunderstanding here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – If the article is not ready for article mainspace, it can always be improved in draftspace. Suasufzeb (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Anglo-Vietnamese_conflict_(1808) this certainly seems to have happened. Alexander Mikaberidze cited in the article is a reliable source. He has this to say on the conflict: "By 1808 the British were concerned that Napoleon might exploit Franco-Vietnamese ties to establish himself in southeast Asia where he might help the Nguyen ruler build a navy that could threaten British trade in the South China Sea. Drury's mission was to prevent this from happening. Arriving in the Gulf of Tonkin, Drury tried to sail up the Red River to strike against the Vietnamese navy and force Gia Long to compromise. Yet the Vietnamese fought back, destroying several of Drury's ships and forcing the main body of the British squadron to sail on to Macao. After this setback the British made no further attempt to intervene in Vietnam until 1822". Mikaberidze cites Papers regarding the combined Naval and Military Expedition sent from India to Macao in September 1808 to forestall a possible French occupation which the National Archives website says is held by the British Library under ref number IOR/F/4/307/7025, though only available in person, if someone wanted to check that - Dumelow (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mikaberidze cites IOR/F/4/307/7025 in two places:
- n. 57, at the end of a paragraph about British thinking on a possible French threat to Macao, and
- n. 62, attached to a sentence about British views of how the Chinese might react to their occupation of Macao.
That is, not regarding the Annam venture, the above account of which is embedded in a long paragraph filled with historical context, to which he attaches n. 63 (citing Goscha, Steinberg, Maybon and Lamb, as above). Kanguole 08:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that is really interesting. So it seems plausible Drury (et al)'s report didn't mention it either? In which case it seems very likely Mikaberidze's sole source for this was Meybon. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: Wakeman, Frederic (10 March 2009). Telling Chinese History: A Selection of Essays. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25606-4. page 363 says: "Lord Minto sent an English squadron into East Asian waters under the command of Vice Admiral Drury, whose first mission was to try to force the Gia Long emperor of Annam to open Hanoi to English trade. He failed to do so after Annamese junks burned and destroyed several of Drury's ships sent up the Red River, forcing the main body of the squadron (now consisting of a ship of the line, a frigate and a sloop) to sail on to Macao. This botched military effort in Indochina did not go unoticed by the Chinese, who believed that Drury was intent upon taking Macao precisely because he had failed in Hanoi"; I am viewing in Google Preview so cannot see his endnotes. If there is an account of what vessels Drury left India with we may be able to tell what was lost from the three survivors listed here (assuming this is correct) - Dumelow (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumelow: This chapter is a reprint of a 2004 paper in East Asian History. The above passage occurs on p30, and is cited to Maybon. The number of three ships is cited to the Guo Chao Rou Yuan Ji (國朝柔遠記), apparently also via by Maybon, but in Maybon's account it is a description of three types of ship in the English navy. Maybon also translates the Rou Yuan Ji saying that Drury went for Macao in compensation for failing to seize Annam. This appears to be a Chinese misconception – other sources (including Maybon) make clear Macao was the objective from the start. Kanguole 09:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The passage of the Rou Yuan Ji is here. It says that Drury left Bengal on a mission to Annam with ten warships of three types, that he failed in Annam (no details given), and then moved to seize Macao as compensation. Kanguole 10:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obscure bit of history, but notably nonetheless. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – impact and coverage are insufficient to meet WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Several respectable sources say that William O'Bryen Drury unsuccessfully attempted a show of force at Hanoi en route to his (well-documented) occupation of Macao in 1808. However, they are all variations on the same brief account, which can be traced back to Maybon (1906) p314, quoting Henri Cordier. User:Srnec has found a terse mention in the Zhōngxī jìshì (中西紀事) by Xia Xie (夏燮; 1800–1875), translated here. No mentions of this diversion have been found in contemporary British sources (e.g. Morse's Chronicles of the East India Company), though they do cover the Macao debacle. (One would think that Drury losing two-thirds of his squadron on the way to his main objective would be relevant.) This is not a hoax, but might be a myth. Kanguole 13:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a myth, although I am inclined to think that Andrew Gray's suggestiong regarding 'boats' makes sense. In any case, shouldn't the article be kept as a basis for expanding into an article on the Macau expedition? I would happily !vote "merge", but that article isn't written yet. In the meantime, to me, it's a keep. Srnec (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Drury's Macau expedition would certainly be viable, as that is well covered. If the proposal is to change the topic to that, I'd agree. Kanguole 18:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This (arguably) adds to the idea this is a myth, as his primary objective was Maco. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully - I think "not a hoax, but might be a myth" is a far summary of the situation. Ultimately, we have a number of secondary sources that mention it (eg Mikaberidze), and a number of secondary ones that do not (eg Hariharan & Hariharan). The secondary sources that do mention it ultimately seem to trace back to a group of older Chinese sources via French translations of them; the older & contemporary sources in English have a very distinct gap where any mention of events like this would be.

One of them must be wrong, and I think I'm leaning to the side that if this happened as described, it would show up somewhere in the publicly accessible British sources - but I've drawn a blank everywhere I looked. The East India Company records do not mention it; the Navy does not record the loss of six ships; the regimental histories of the Army units involved do not mention it; the newspapers that reported on the Macao expedition at the time do not mention it; and so on. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced this isn't a myth, if 6 ships had truly been lost that would show up in British records, the fact that nothing can be found undermines the entire claim and WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that no one knows what ships were lost tells me this is either a myth or such a minor incident that it is not worth a stand-alone article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember doing this when I read Mikaberidze’s The Napoleonic War. What Mikaberidze’s pp.487-488 convey:

Drury failed to fulfill his first task. What we presently call Vietnam has been historically divided into two: the Trinh lords ruled in the north, while the Nguyen were supreme in the south... French missionary Pierre Pigneau de Behaine raised funds and organized a private venture of several French ships to sustain the Nguyen cause; French-trained military allowed Nguyen Anh to win the war and secure his power by 1802. He was the first to control the whole length of the Indochinese peninsula, and upon assuming imperial title he took the dynastic name Gia Long. The rise of the new dynasty in Vietnam coincided with the outbreak of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars in Europe. Considering the extent of French influence at the court of Gia Long, it is unsurprising that the Royal Navy targeted the French-commanded Vietnamese merchant ships. In 1803–1804, two British envoys sought to convince Gia Long to abandon his alliance with France and open his realm to British trade; both missions failed. By 1808, the British were concerned that Napoleon might exploit FrancoVietnamese ties to establish his presence in Southeast Asia, where he might help the Nguyen ruler build a navy that could threaten British trade in the South China Sea. Drury’s mission was to prevent this from happening. Arriving in the Gulf of Tonkin, Drury tried to sail up the Red River to strike against the Vietnamese navy and force Gia Long to compromise. Yet the Vietnamese fought back, destroying several of Drury’s ships and forcing the main body of the British squadron to sail on to Macao. After this setback, the British made no further attempt to intervene in Vietnam until 1822...
Drury was even more unsuccessful with his second mission. He arrived in Macao in late September 1808 and immediately informed the Portuguese governor, Bernardo Aleixo de Lemos Faria, of his intention to occupy the town in order to protect it from the French. The Portuguese demurred, and the governor, having received no instructions from Lisbon, refused to accept the sanction of the Portuguese viceroy of Goa as sufficient authority for surrendering the place. He also explained that Macao’s protection was the responsibility of the Chinese government, not Britain or the BEIC.}

I found interest in making the event described in Mikaberidze’s book relevant to the twentieth century Indochina Vietnam conflict, considering especially taking Mikaberidze’s narrative and writing down the article uncritically. Laska666 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 *'''Delete''' I'm not convinced this isn't a myth, if 6 ships had truly been lost that would show up in British records, the fact that nothing can be found undermines the entire claim and [[WP:BASIC]] is not satisfied. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 08:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' The fact that no one knows what ships were lost tells me this is either a myth or such a minor incident that it is not worth a stand-alone article. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
+I remember doing this when I read Mikaberidze’s The Napoleonic War.
+What Mikaberidze’s pp.487-488 convey:
+<ol start="2">
+<li>{{tq|Drury failed to fulfill his first task. What we presently call Vietnam has been historically divided into two: the Trinh lords ruled in the north, while the Nguyen were supreme in the south... French missionary Pierre Pigneau de Behaine raised funds and organized a private venture of several French ships to sustain the Nguyen cause; French-trained military allowed Nguyen Anh to win the war and secure his power by 1802. He was the first to control the whole length of the Indochinese peninsula, and upon assuming imperial title he took the dynastic name Gia Long. The rise of the new dynasty in Vietnam coincided with the outbreak of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars in Europe. Considering the extent of French influence at the court of Gia Long, it is unsurprising that the Royal Navy targeted the French-commanded Vietnamese merchant ships. In 1803–1804, two British envoys sought to convince Gia Long to abandon his alliance with France and open his realm to British trade; both missions failed. By 1808, the British were concerned that Napoleon might exploit FrancoVietnamese ties to establish his presence in Southeast Asia, where he might help the Nguyen ruler build a navy that could threaten British trade in the South China Sea. Drury’s mission was to prevent this from happening. Arriving in the Gulf of Tonkin, Drury tried to sail up the Red River to strike against the Vietnamese navy and force Gia Long to compromise. Yet the Vietnamese fought back, destroying several of Drury’s ships and forcing the main body of the British squadron to sail on to Macao. After this setback, the British made no further attempt to intervene in Vietnam until 1822...}}</li>
+<li>{{br}}{{tq|Drury was even more unsuccessful with his second mission. He arrived in Macao in late September 1808 and immediately informed the Portuguese governor, Bernardo Aleixo de Lemos Faria, of his intention to occupy the town in order to protect it from the French. The Portuguese demurred, and the governor, having received no instructions from Lisbon, refused to accept the sanction of the Portuguese viceroy of Goa as sufficient authority for surrendering the place. He also explained that Macao’s protection was the responsibility of the Chinese government, not Britain or the BEIC.}}}</li>
+</ol>
+I found interest in making the event described in Mikaberidze’s book relevant to the twentieth century Indochina Vietnam conflict, considering especially taking Mikaberidze’s narrative and writing down the article uncritically. [[User:Laska666|Laska666]] ([[User talk:Laska666|talk]]) 16:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)