More successful British military ventures before Iberia

Well, Walcheren was actually after the Peninsular war started. And it was so badly flawed as a plan I cannot see it working, whoever had to execute it.

The main problem with the operation is that the British establishment in the Napoleonic Wars had a Low Countries obsession as severe as the Norway obsession shared by Churchill and Hitler during WW2.

In all honesty I cannot see Walcheren being successful under any circumstances.

Whitelocke's expedition to South America was a classic cock up in the British style. A better commander would probably have pulled it off

EDIT: These operations were genuine sideshows, their overall effect in teh war would be minimal; and they wouldn't get any benefits anyway. South America would be returned in 1808 assuming Napoleon still enteres Spain; and Walcheren/Antwerp would become part of the Netherlands in 1814 anyway
 
Last edited:
Well, Walcheren was actually after the Peninsular war started. And it was so badly flawed as a plan I cannot see it working, whoever had to execute it.

The main problem with the operation is that the British establishment in the Napoleonic Wars had a Low Countries obsession as severe as the Norway obsession shared by Churchill and Hitler during WW2.

In all honesty I cannot see Walcheren being successful under any circumstances.

Whitelocke's expedition to South America was a classic cock up in the British style. A better commander would probably have pulled it off

EDIT: These operations were genuine sideshows, their overall effect in teh war would be minimal; and they wouldn't get any benefits anyway. South America would be returned in 1808 assuming Napoleon still enteres Spain; and Walcheren/Antwerp would become part of the Netherlands in 1814 anyway

You're right in terms of Walcheren/Antwerp. In terms of South America, though, at least the River Plate area (Buenos Aires, Montevideo, etc.) would become British afterwards. For the British, it would be rather important - first and foremost because of vast trading opportunities, but also because it would be on the way to (though not from) India for sailing ships, given the prevailing wind patterns over the Atlantic.
 
You're right in terms of Walcheren/Antwerp. In terms of South America, though, at least the River Plate area (Buenos Aires, Montevideo, etc.) would become British afterwards. For the British, it would be rather important - first and foremost because of vast trading opportunities, but also because it would be on the way to (though not from) India for sailing ships, given the prevailing wind patterns over the Atlantic.

Had the British used diplomacy in Argentina (offering local government and access to the most profitable trading Empire on earth) akin to Minorca the previous century, Britain might have defacto taken over without a fight. Instead, they announced they were conquering it and promptly initiated a mass middle and lower class resistance.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
A single ship mission could have rolled up much of South America, as long as they accepted these were not possessions, just protectorates with friendly interests. A few sacks of gold hidden in the beams to grease the wheels of diplomacy...
 
Reading some Post

Reading some Post is amazing how here there are a tend to underestimate the local patriotism of Hispanic settlers, assuming that the Anglophilia and the attitudes of a small commercial elite was representative of the feelings of the rest of the population. As an example I think it would be almost impossible for someone to take over and will post that because the 13 colonies would rebel against their Metropolis one could assume that a lack of English patriotism ... before it happened that fact or to judge their willingness to resist foreign aggression before it happened that rebellion or the supposed lack of patriotism was an explanatory factor of this rebellion.
 
Buenos Aires

I consider that the example of Buenos Aires is not quite correct: the British attack on the Rio de la Plata, in fact while the latter attack failed because of a bad driving in the conquest of a capital city in a house to house fight against its inhabitants active resistance and the British Commanders underestimation of the local patriotism and the ferocity of the resistance of the self-summoned local militias and professional Spanish soldiers of the garrison, despite the recent examples in the ''Banda Oriental'', Spanish name for the Eastern Band of the Uruguay River, specifically in the cities of Montevideo and Maldonado.

Despite the British defeat in Bs.As, the Spaniards could not challenge the British dominance that the fleet had assured them that the domain in the River of the Plate and the Atlantic coasts, which could have retained their dominance of the Eastern Band and Montevideo It also located in that city was the headquarters of the Spanish naval station of the South Atlantic because was the best Atlantic port in South America).

Particularly if the British Commander in his capitulation in Bs.As., had not agreed that particular condition of capitulation and could have to access the others the Spanish requirement to sign the capitulation and have pledged to withdraw all British forces on both sides of the Rio of the Plate and not only to the forces under his direct command were those who had been defeated.

What he might have alleged to refuse to accede to this demand the last minute decision to evacuate the conquered territory few months ago, was a decision that was beyond its competence and should be taken in London.
 
Last edited:
Had the British used diplomacy in Argentina (offering local government and access to the most profitable trading Empire on earth) akin to Minorca the previous century, Britain might have defacto taken over without a fight. Instead, they announced they were conquering it and promptly initiated a mass middle and lower class resistance.

I'm just wondering what you mean by the British using diplomacy in Minorca in the 1700s - do you mean during the 1708 capture of Minorca, the 1756 Battle of Minorca (or the related Siege of Fort St. Philip that year), the 1781 invasion of Minorca, or the 1798 capture of Minorca?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, there is, which given the historical

Reading some Post is amazing how here there are a tend to underestimate the local patriotism of Hispanic settlers, assuming that the Anglophilia and the attitudes of a small commercial elite was representative of the feelings of the rest of the population. As an example I think it would be almost impossible for someone to take over and will post that because the 13 colonies would rebel against their Metropolis one could assume that a lack of English patriotism ... before it happened that fact or to judge their willingness to resist foreign aggression before it happened that rebellion or the supposed lack of patriotism was an explanatory factor of this rebellion.

Yeah, there is, which given the historical record of total victory of the Latin Americans over European imperialists, whether Spanish, Portuguese, French, or British, is pretty appalling.

Best,
 
Yeah, there is, which given the historical record of total victory of the Latin Americans over European imperialists, whether Spanish, Portuguese, French, or British, is pretty appalling.

Best,

It is, therefore, noteworthy that within the Americas the British managed to take over Trinidad and Belize from the Spanish (though both were not so thickly settled by the Spaniards) and the Americans took over Puerto Rico from the Spanish as well as a chunk of thinly-settled territory (California to Texas) from the Mexicans.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
But the differences are pretty self-evident, as well;

It is, therefore, noteworthy that within the Americas the British managed to take over Trinidad and Belize from the Spanish (though both were not so thickly settled by the Spaniards) and the Americans took over Puerto Rico from the Spanish as well as a chunk of thinly-settled territory (California to Texas) from the Mexicans.



But the differences are pretty self-evident, as well; two islands lost in maritime conflicts, a largely jungled sliver of coastline contested by Guatemala, and (as you say) what amounted to a (mostly) "unsettled" borderlands-type region, in contrast to (and I quote):
  • "the River Plate area (Buenos Aires, Montevideo, etc.)", and;
  • "much of South America,"
Both of which stand in pretty stark contrast to the historical evidence of the first three quarters of thre Nineteenth Century, including Buenos Aires in 1806-07.

La_Reconquista_de_Buenos_Aires.jpg


Best,
 
Last edited:
I am questioning the non-existence ...

Yeah, there is, which given the historical record of total victory of the Latin Americans over European imperialists, whether Spanish, Portuguese, French, or British, is pretty appalling.Best,


It is, therefore, noteworthy that within the Americas the British managed to take over Trinidad and Belize from the Spanish (though both were not so thickly settled by the Spaniards) and the Americans took over Puerto Rico from the Spanish as well as a chunk of thinly-settled territory (California to Texas) from the Mexicans.






What I am questioning is the underestimation and the claims about the non-existence of such patriotism, during the period immediately preceding the Revolutionary period.

First as the events described in my second post in this thread so testify

the will of the colonists to fight against foreign aggression is clear not only to be attacked directly and Bs. As. and the City of Cartagena de Indias but also organizing the counteroffensive against the invaders and won the event as its title : ''Muy Fiel y Reconquistadora'','very faithful and reconquer', this title was given by the Spanish Crown to the Saint Felipe y Santiago City of Montevideo.

In addition to failing to professional military defense against superior numbers, he is having fought the most of their forces and no hope of reinforcements from Spain, is no evidence against the existence of that patriotism.

*Finally, without going into lengthy explanations on the triggers of the Latin American revolutionary process, which was indeed a complex process, which originated in all regions evenly in its genesis and its development in the various regions of Latin American.

Revolution that to achieve success or even to come into existence, in most nations must have future imported by force of arms from the regions where they originated and survived the
*revolutionary foci.
As it evidenced by the campaigns of the general Belgrano, San Martin and Bolivar

Moreover, given the shortage of professional military forces of the Spanish Crown in America in relation to local inhabitants it would have been impossible to succeed in fighting the revolutionary forces for so long without the active participation in the loyalist forces of American fighters pray various ethnic and social backgrounds.

What if there was a primacy in many cases the local sentiment and also that as students of the revolutionary and North American Civil War will recognize, the autonomists feelings and loyalty to their homeland, colony or state, is in some cases , much stronger than loyalty to the Crown or a particular political and administrative organization to which until then belonged His loyalty was in several villages and within some historical protagonists duty when deciding the membership of a particular side in a Revolutionary uprising or civil conflict.

In conclusion the existence of a triumphant Revolution failed or is not symptomatic of the degree of local patriotism or lack thereof.

Not to mention and start another dicussion , that the national sentiment that currently observed in many Latin American Recent Nations, not born of 'spontaneous generation,' 'but it evolved and was stimulated from the autonomist sentiments, besides being aware and carefully built by the various elites with theirs intellectuals through the education of the people, the creation or recreation and dissemination of national symbols on which to base his nationalist rhetoric during the process of construction and consolidation of the new nations.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Agree...the Latin American patriots were just as capable

What I am questioning is the underestimation and the claims about the non-existence of such patriotism, during the period immediately preceding the Revolutionary period.

First as the events described in my second post in this thread so testify

the will of the colonists to fight against foreign aggression is clear not only to be attacked directly and Bs. As. and the City of Cartagena de Indias but also organizing the counteroffensive against the invaders and won the event as its title ' Reconquistadora'' 'very Faithful and Montevideo.

In addition to failing to professional military defense against superior numbers, he is having fought the most of their forces and no hope of reinforcements from Spain, is no evidence against the existence of that patriotism.

*Finally, without going into lengthy explanations on the triggers of the Latin American revolutionary process, which was indeed a complex process, which originated in all regions evenly in its genesis and its development in the various regions of Latin American.

Revolution that to achieve success or even to come into existence, in most nations must have future imported by force of arms from the regions where they originated and survived the
*revolutionary foci.
As it evidenced by the campaigns of the general Belgrano, San Martin and Bolivar

Moreover, given the shortage of professional military forces of the Spanish Crown in America in relation to local inhabitants it would have been impossible to succeed in fighting the revolutionary forces for so long without the active participation in the loyalist forces of American fighters pray various ethnic and social backgrounds.

What if there was a primacy in many cases the local sentiment and also that as students of the revolutionary and North American Civil War will recognize, the autonomists feelings and loyalty to their homeland, colony or state, is in some cases , much stronger than loyalty to the Crown or a particular political and administrative organization to which until then belonged His loyalty was in several villages and within some historical protagonists duty when deciding the membership of a particular side in a Revolutionary uprising or civil conflict.

In conclusion the existence of a triumphant Revolution failed or is not symptomatic of the degree of local patriotism or lack thereof.

Not to mention and start another debate that national sentiment that currently observed in many Latin American Recent Nations, not born of 'spontaneous generation,' 'but it evolved and was stimulated from the autonomist sentiments, besides being aware and carefully Built carefully by the various elites with intellectuals through the education of the people, the creation or recreation and dissemination of national symbols on which to base his nationalist rhetoric during the process of construction and consolidation of the new nations.

Agree...the Latin American patriots were just as capable of defeating European imperialist in the Nineteenth Century as anyone else in the Western Hemisphere, as was demonstrated on battlefields from Buenos Aires to Puebla.

Best,
 
Reading some Post is amazing how here there are a tend to underestimate the local patriotism of Hispanic settlers, assuming that the Anglophilia and the attitudes of a small commercial elite was representative of the feelings of the rest of the population. As an example I think it would be almost impossible for someone to take over and will post that because the 13 colonies would rebel against their Metropolis one could assume that a lack of English patriotism ... before it happened that fact or to judge their willingness to resist foreign aggression before it happened that rebellion or the supposed lack of patriotism was an explanatory factor of this rebellion.

The locals in New France, including Quebec City, were just as dedicated to fighting the British in 1759 after the British capture of Quebec City as the locals in Buenos Aires were in 1806 and 1807 to fighting the British.
 
Maybe I was not too clear to express

Maybe I was not too clear to express or insufficiently precise in my statements ... :(

The locals in New France, including Quebec City, were just as dedicated to fighting the British in 1759 after the British capture of Quebec City as the locals in Buenos Aires were in 1806 and 1807 to fighting the British.

I am not denying the British victories, nor the patriotism of other people in similar events but I express to those victories, specifically in the Latin American case, they were due to the superior military prowess in battle or a military victory based on circuntancial superiority of human and material resources part of British forces and mastery of the seas by its Fleet. :mad:

... Does not determine by itself the inferiority of the defeated nor his lack of patriotism to the motherland, when the locals showed their will to resist, and when they are besieged by fighting in the walls of the city, where exist
and / or street by street against the invaders. :(

Nor is counterargument, that these same settlers later, by varying the 'Historical circumstances' Revolutionaries staged uprisings, as several examples in other nations and peoples to prove it.
 
Top