Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias/Archive 2

Blas de Lezo's dagger (†)

Blas de lezo died from disease. Is it right to mark him as killed in action? I think not, though this should be mentioned in the article. Refer to the Spanish encyclopedia article for Blas de Lezo:

El héroe falleció en dicha ciudad al contraer la peste, enfermedad generada en la ciudad por los cuerpos insepultos ocasionados por los sucesivos combates.

This can be roughly translated as "The hero perished in said city upon contracting the plague, a sickness brought to the city by the unburied corpses a result of the quick succession of combat."

Also, the English article for him should be corrected. It claims "Blas de Lezo was mortally wounded in the siege of Cartagena, the defense of which was his greatest victory."

Sáez Abad in his book 'La Guerra del Asiento o de la Oreja de Jenkins' says that Blas de Lezo died on September 7th, as a consequence of the wounds suffered during the battle. Batista González, in his book 'España Estratégica. Guerra y Diplomacia en la Historia de España' says that Blas de Lezo died a few months after the British retreat because of the wounds suffered during the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.130.16 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

--208.102.210.163 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he should be remarked as killed because of the Battle, since he perished as a direct consequence of the Battle, there were so many bodies and such a painful situation in the city because of the combats that he contracted the plague and died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.180.241 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cartegena/Cartegena de Indias

It seems to me looking through a number of books that this name is never used in English-language sources, it is always referred to as the "Battle/Siege of Cartagena", without the "de Indias" attached. It might be worth moving it to the apprently more common name, although it does currently provide a useful disambiguation from the Battle of Cartagena.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the current title is misleading.Tttom1 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of defenders

the spanish never had 4000 soldiers, they had 3,600.. including marines, (they sink all of their ships in cartagena's bay), the sources that the author provided did not indicate the number of spanish troops. (marines included) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.83.66 (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Which author and source are you referring to - the Francis Russel Hart, Admirals of the Caribbean (1921) book? I'm inclined to agree that the numbers on this article are rather sketchy - but I'd ask you to refrain from calling me a vandal. Your first edit did not explain why you had removed a section of text.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sáez Abad in his book 'La Guerra del Asiento o de la Oreja de Jenkins', based on Spanish and British sources talks about 2.700 defenders on land positions, if we add the reduced crew of Lezo´s ships (many sailors had been assigned to land positions) we reach the number of 4.000 as much. The number of defenders would be between 3.500-4.000, including 600 indian archers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.130.16 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hart gives 4,000 - based on Spanish sources, he lists Spanish manuscripts sources on p.195, including de Lezos.Tttom1 (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cartagena Tourist Board, in its 'Truth is stranger than fiction' account (footnote 22 in the article) puts the number of defenders closer to 6000, while elsewhere it's sometimes cited as 6500). I think it depends on an accurate count of the sailors, often they are noted simply as the 'crews of the six ships' rather than included in the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

John Pembroke

John Pembroke is cited here for English casualties, with James A. Michener's Carribean novel cited as the source. However it appears that John Pembroke is an entirely fictitious person. He isn't among the historical personages listed in the chapter description at the start of the book. Michener then states: 'All other characters are fictional'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.8.10 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would appear that the casualties are vastly exaggerated. In one of the sources it says & I quote: "So great were the losses to the troops through disease and battle that not over one third of the land troops appear to have returned with the fleet to Jamaica." A user then goes on to explain & again I quote: This would indicate considerably more than 8,000 dead. Well the land troops (marines and regulars) totalled around 11-12,000 men. A third of that is 3-4,000 men. There is a difference between land and seas forces (seaman, sailors, merchantman etc). I think a review of the casualties needs to made. In another source, 'History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery' By Francis Duncan it states that so reduced was this force in two years by disaster and disease, that not a tenth part returned to England. This is regards to the whole campaign of the time in the Caribbean and this would include the attempt on Santiago De Cuba later in August which was reduced again by disease. 18,000 out of 31,000 is far too great that Vernon would never have attempted a strike on Cuba. As for Pembroke, John (1741). True Account of Admiral Vernon’s conduit of Cartagena note the word conduit!! This guy is definitely fiction. Will look for better sources to sort this out. Bruichladdich1 talk, 22:48, 21 July 2010 (GMT):

One third of 12,000 land troops returned to Jamaica - that means 8,000 did not. There were casualties and deaths from disease on the fleet as well. The fleet and the army are reinforced after Havana by 3,000 infantry and 4 more warships - of that increased total then "not a tenth part returned to England" - 90%! In The navy in the war of 1739-48 volume 1, Wentworth states he has only 3500 of 8000 on Apr 14; by the time they're at Havana end of Oct. 1500 of the force is out of action, by Nov. 2260 are down with fever.The Command of the Ocean p.238 gives Wentworth only 2,000 men in Nov. Tttom1 (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is for the whole campaign which includes the attempt at Santiago De Cuba! What your saying is that Cartegena seems to go on for the rest of the year. It didn't. The source you mention and I quote so reduced was this force in two years by disaster and disease, that not a tenth part returned to England. Yes 2 years Cartegena lasted from March till May. 12,000 soldiers? There at least 8,000 and no more. Marley in Wars of the Americas; A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present states that there were a maximum of 8,000 regulars and by the end of the battle in May only 3,500 are left out of the original 8,000. Beatson his memoirs state the same thing. The fleet men did not suffer as badly as the regulars as they were more acclimatised but they still suffered nonetheless. Another source says that the seaman suffered another 2,000 dead from disease alone (another 300-400 are casulties) so much so that many boats had to be scuttled for lack of crews or to make up crews..7,500 wounded?! I like to see where that came from? There is no way even armed with machine guns that casualties can be afflicted by just 6,000 men do you not agree? Like I said the casualties as well the list of disease are in the time of the Cartegena campaign NOT as whole of War of Jenkins Ear. I have seen a few sources which state that the entire return of casualty and disease numbered 6-7000 men which would seem more likely. This being the actual casualty return from the Battle of Cartegena de Inidas itself (March to May). 18,000 (8-11,000 dead and 7,500 wounded) is the result of a fictional novel and is more likely the amount in total from the time they left England to the time they went back either to Jamaica or England by the time Vernon had finished blundering. (By this time 1742!) Bruichladdich1 talk, 22:06, 23 July 2010 (GMT)

Well my theory is correct it seems as the page on Sebastián de Eslava it says that 6,000 British dead to 1,000 Spaniards proving that the losses on the wiki page are grossly exaggerated even on both sides! The battle page is giving wiki a bad name. Will correct this very soon. Bruich talk, 22:06, 23 July 2010 (GMT)

The sources used for the high casualties are reputable sources- other than then Michener fictional account (it should be removed) which in itself corresponds with non-fictional sources. You cannot self-reference to another wikipedia article - especially one that gives NO SOURCE AT ALL for its claims. There are over 12,000 soldiers (Beatson in Memoirs actually gives 12,000 total land forces at Cartagena, see p.26) in 2 years: 2000 regulars in 2 regts., 3600 (Hart p.139) american colonial infantry, 6000 freshly raised british 'marines' at Cartagena and the later reinforcement of 3,000 infantry from England. Marley is of course mistaken as to 8,000 regulars (perhaps he includes the marines as regs - which they are not) as only 2 regts of regulars are present - the 15th and 24th initially. 7500 wounded includes those suffering from Yellow Fever - which killed most of the troops & seamen. Hart in Admirals p.151, a defender of Vernon no less, gives the 2/3 casualty rate at Cartagena. Once again, the math for the land troops at Cartagena is: 2000 regular infantry and 6000 newly raised marines from England = 8,000 plus from the American colonies 3600 american colonial troops for a total of 11,600 and some 500 others artillery, etc.. After Havana an additional 3000 infantry are sent making the total land forces overall 14-15,000 - although most are, by the time of reinforcement, casualties. Duncan, Francis. History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, London, 1879, Vol.1, p.123,"...so reduced was this force in two years by disaster and disease, that not a tenth part returned to England...'thus ended in shame, disappointment, and loss, the most important, most expensive, and best concerted expedition that Great Britain was ever engaged in'...". So for the whole expedition, after reinforcement and 2 years of campaigning 90% of the 14,000 are lost to combat and disease - 12,600 dead wounded sick from the land forces alone leaving a possible 2-3000. This number corresponds with The Command of the Ocean p.238 which gives Wentworth only 2,000 men in Nov. Beyond your legitimate objection to the fictional Pembroke quote, which has been deleted and reverted a couple of times, I can't see that you can argue against this math which is well referenced by legitimate accepted sources. I suggest that beyond removing the Pembroke quote you do not change the article to fit your unsubstantiated theory - see: WP:OR / WP:SYN for wiki standards on this. To clarify for Cartagena only, on Apr 14, Wentworth states he only has 3500 out of his original 8,000 British land troops - over 60% casualties; all sources agree that the American colonial troops suffered even more. Fortesque states that after the fleet returned to Jamaica in May, the Americans were now reduced from 3600 to 1300 - 65% casualties and the British were now at 1400 or over 80% casualties, or a total of some 9,300 casualties for the land forces. You are giving 2400 sailors casualties with at least 2000 dead from disease. That's 11,700 without navy sailors or merchant sailors sick from various diseases. Tttom1 (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets just put into perspective what you have said - 11,700 are casualties and through disease? If you say 11,700 then the whole of the force that Wentworth commanded would have been wiped out or incapacitated?! It doesn't make any sense. Also if these loses were so bad then how was Vernon and Wentworth able to mount any kind of attack on Santiago de Cuba with only a few reinforcements?! Yes they are reputable sources but then again you are using the assumption that the Cartegena campaign was over 2 years. It wasn't; the campaign lasted from March to May (March to April for the land forces since they went back to Port Royal at the end of April). You mention After Havana... correct me if I'm wrong but Havana is in Cuba not Columbia right? Havana (or Santiago de Cuba) happened AFTER the Cartegena campaign and had nothing to do with it. That expedition was a completely different operation. Perhaps then you have the ref for the casualty rate for the whole of Jenkins Ear war? The fact is that during the Cartegena battle Vernon and Wentworth sent out with 12,000 soldiers, marines, American colonials and freed blacks plus around 15,000 sailors and merchant seamen a total of 27,000 men (there were no more reinforcements before or after the disengagement by land forces in late April and by naval forces in May).. I have corrected this in the info box as the ref to Beatson is wrong. Beatson says in Naval and military memoirs of Great Britain, from 1727 to 1783, Volume 1 pg 108-9 Out of the 8,000 men that landed (The Mancroft Essays, say that only 6,000 landed) by 2 April and by the time they embarked 25th April the troops were by sickness and loss reduced to three thousand five hundred and sixty-nine men ; and many of these so feeble and worn out with fatigue, as scarcely to be fit for the ordinary duty. In the above number is included, one thousand and one hundred and forty American soldiers, six hundred of whom were only employed as working parties. The General's request was, that the army should be made five thousand effective men. This then he would mean regulars (3,000), marines (2,000), American colonials (2,500) and freed blacks (500) and any sailors merchant seamen that landed in support (no more than 100). Remember many Marines (at least 4,000) would have had to stay on the ships of the line (of which there were 29 plus) for their protection. If you want to go beyond that for more proof of the losses then in June Beatson states the army was now reduced to something no more than three thousand men (Naval and military memoirs of Great Britain, from 1727 to 1783, Volume 1 pg 111). The amount of casualties by military action is quite easy to ascertain the heaviest without a doubt was on the failed assault on Fort Lazaar out of 1,500 engaged for the assault 643 were casualties - History of the British army - Fortescue page 71 & Naval and military memoirs of Great Britain 1727-83 volume 1 page 106. This was the heaviest engagement and where most of the casualties from action came from. The other was the sinking of a vessel Galicia in which 6 sailors killed or drowned with another 56 wounded. The rest of the casualties in other engagements mention only minor losses by action. So it is safe to say that by the time the force arrives in Jamaica the losses are as follows 4,500 out of the army of 8,000 that landed (more than half I'm sure you will agree) which includes the 645 casualties of Lazaar assault and then the rest to disease either dead or sick. The navy; merchant seamen, marines and sailors suffered a lot less to disease as they were more acclimatised to the conditions but their losses were still high at 2,000 (many of them marines) casualties sick or dead. So I can now say that there was between 6-7,000 killed, wounded captured and missing to military action, sick and dead to disease from March to April. Quite easy really when sources are read correctly. Bruich talk, 16:38, 24 July 2010 (GMT)

I repeat: "To clarify for Cartagena only, on Apr 14, Wentworth states he only has 3500 out of his original 8,000 British land troops - over 60% casualties; all sources agree that the American colonial troops suffered even more. Fortesque states that after the fleet returned to Jamaica in May, the Americans were now reduced from 3600 to 1300 - 65% casualties and the British were now at 1400 or over 80% casualties, or a total of some 9,300 casualties for the land forces. You are giving 2400 sailors casualties with at least 2000 dead from disease. That's 11,700 without navy sailors or merchant sailors sick from various diseases." Please stop obfuscating, I made clear the differences of casualties to land forces v overall and was specific as to time and place. Land forces, according to Beatson -clearly stated in the appendix p.26, and others, is shown are beginning at least 12,000 - casualties are from all causes including disease & combat to all members of the expedition sailors, soldiers, merchant seamen. If the land force arrived at Jamaica is 4,500 (2700 according to Fortesque) the land force casualties are 7,500 (9,300 according to Fortesque). Hart in Admirals p.151, gives the 2/3 casualty rate at Cartagena - and I quote "So great were the losses to the troops through disease and battle that not over one third of the land troops appear to have returned to Jamaica."; both Beatson and Hart put the land troops at 12,000, that makes the losses to the land troops alone by these sources at least 8,000 this closely agrees with Wentworth saying he only has 3500 British. Its not possible, therefore, that casualties overall were anything like 6,000. As shown in the refs the personnel total for the warships alone is 15,398 (Beatson pp. 25-26). It does NOT include the crews of 135 transports which must be some 4000-5000. I have clarified the info box to reflect this. Tttom1 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

On a different note, the so-called Pembroke account by Michener I suspect, but do not know for certain, may be drawn from Tobias Smollett's A Compendium of Authentic and Entertaining Voyages a very rare book I have not read (available thru Amazon for a mere $1,045.00) which contains Smollett's eyewitness account of the expedition against Cartagena. It would be interesting to compare the two.Tttom1 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You are getting mixed up by the total numbers of land forces that were sent with the expedition. and what actually landed! 8,000 men disembarked by the 2nd April. This includes the American colonial troops. Again you are saying that 9600(?!) were casualties that's more than was actually landed! Out of the 8,000 men that landed (Marly pg 258)(The Mancroft Essays, say that only 6,000 landed). Reed Browning The War of the Austrian Succession says the attacking force was 7,000. By 2 April and by the time they embarked 25th April, Beatson states, the troops were by sickness and loss reduced to three thousand five hundred and sixty-nine men ; and many of these so feeble and worn out with fatigue, as scarcely to be fit for the ordinary duty. In the above number is included, one thousand and one hundred and forty American soldiers, six hundred of whom were only employed as working parties. The General's request was, that the army should be made five thousand effective men. (Naval and military memoirs of Great Britain, from 1727 to 1783, Volume 1 pg 108-9) The proof is there.. he includes the American losses as INCLUSIVE with the British. So lets go over this again 8,000 landed and were meant for land or combat use ok.. ? In military terms you can't land 12,000 men and leave the ships just with sailors it is not militarily possible to do that certainly not during this time. "So great were the losses to the troops through disease and battle that not over one third of the land troops appear to have returned to Jamaica." Yes out of 8,000 troops that landed there were less than 3,000 in June which goes to the quotes which I have mentioned and also 2/3 casualty rate as quoted in other source. Bruich talk, 18:52, 24 July 2010 (GMT)

No, I am not mixed up - you are. Beatson, Hart, Duncan, Lord Mahon, Hume & others give a total of 12,000 land forces beginning the expedition. Hart in Admirals p.151, gives the 2/3 casualty rate following the retreat to Jamaica from Cartagena - and I quote "So great were the losses to the troops through disease and battle that not over one third of the land troops appear to have returned to Jamaica." He and Beatson et al are speaking of ALL the land forces, all 12,000 - not just land troops that landed, after all troops were embarked and disembarked numerous times, some died on land, others on ship, but altogether only 4,000 of 12,000 land troops got back to Jamaica after leaving Cartagena and furthermore, those that did not return were not wounded, they were not sick, they were not prisoners, they were not deserters, they were not vacationing - they were dead - 8,000 dead land troops. So there you have the rock- solid and sourced low estimate for the dead of Cartagena - at least 2/3 of the 12,000 land troops, or 8,000 dead - which does not include any sick or wounded land troops ( a couple thousand are mentioned in the sources as stated above) or any sick or wounded of the 15,398 Royal Navy crew members of which a couple thousand died and many ill and does not include any of the crews of the 135 transport - of which there must have been a few thousand to begin with and probably suffered serious casualties as well. Add in your source that gives 2,000 dead sailors and we can source 10,000 dead.Tttom1 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

probably suffered serious casualties as well? where is your proof? Your guessing towards the end of your last comment. At least we are sticking to the April - May campaign but I see you reverted a source I removed that says the Battle of Cartegena lasted 2 years!? That is the reason why I removed it. The sources I have stated back up rock solid sources that I have mentioned; Marly, Browning, Mancroft.. The Mancroft Essays, 1923, pp. 236-242 of the six thousand that had been landed more than half were either dead or dying. Also Beatson says the troops were by sickness and loss reduced to 3,564 ; and many of these so feeble and worn ... In the above number is included, 1,140 American soldiers, 600 of whom were only employed as working parties. Fortescue states also that by April 5th The operation so far cost 130 men killed or wounded another 250 perished from sickness and 650 were in the hospital. He then says that by from Tuesday the 18th to the night of April 21st the troops had dwindled from 6,600 to only 3,200 effective men. Here is another source The Navy In the War of 1739-48 vol. I pg, 123 the General represented that he had now only 3,500 men left out of the 8,000 with whom the attempt had begun. So this obviously is what Beatson, Hart, Duncan, Lord Mahon, Hume mean. All these men are talking of the 'army'. You are assuming that the land troops is the full load of 12,000. Most of the marines were never landed and it goes to show this with the sources I have provided. How about the wounded? 7,500? what a joke.. That meeds a source in itself. 1,500 guns lost? Also 50 ships lost? Where are the sources for that? I know some that might be of help but are hard to find just like you mentioned with Tobias Smollett's A Compendium of Authentic and Entertaining Voyages the others would be Yellow Jack and the worm: British naval administration in the West Indies, 1739-1748 by Duncan Crewe and also Amphibious Warfare in the Eighteenth Century: The British. Expedition to the West Indies, 1740-1742. by Richard Harding Bruich talk, 00:26, 25 July 2010 (GMT)

I am not assuming that land troops total 12,000 - I am stating what all those historians said the land forces were. Lord Cathcart, in overall command, and then Wentworth was in command of the land forces, shown to be 12,000 in numerous sources including the Marines (Cathcart was ordered by the govt to send 600 of his marines to the Men of War ships before the fleet left home waters- but the others remained under his command). Even if only 8,000 or 6,000 of the of the 12,000 ever landed and were the same (and they didn't stay the same as many were replacements for casualties and there were several landings), some 3000 to 4000 had to be of the 6,000 Marines as there were only 2000 regular infantry to begin with and most of the Americans were kept on ship as they were too sick and ill-disciplined from the start (Fortesque p.62 &64). Hart means just what he says only 1/3 of the 12,000 land forces survived Cartagena - about 4,000. Coxe, William. Memoirs of the kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon, Volume 3, London 1815, p.24 states that Havana is attacked by "...3,000 men, the discouraged and exhausted remnant of the troops which had been repulsed at Cartagena", or 1000 fewer than reached Jamaica in April. Some of Reed Browning's force statement can't be taken at face value, for example he says that the "assault on the outlying fortress cost Britain fully half its attacking force of 7,000" (p.60)- this is just a flat out mistake on his part because no other source says anything like this. The note doesn't say the Battle of Cartagena lasted 2 yrs it gave peripheral information about the overall campaign which doesn't need to be in the body of the article, but is pertinent information about the extent of the disaster, I also added refs from Coxe to that note that support Hart and Duncan. I have answered your arguments with the sources needed. Some unreffed numbers pre-exist my editing and are from the spanish language sources, some seen in the external links section, but I have no reason to doubt them as they fall within most accounts. Do you really think with epidemics of Yellow Fever, Malaria, Scurvy, Dysentery afflicting the expedition its unreasonable to say 'serious casualties' on the talk page in the face of sources that give a 66% - 90% death rate to the expedition overall? The point of my previous comment, is that 8,000 dead from the land force can be sourced as can 10,000 dead if you will produce your source that gives 2,000 dead sailors. As all campaigns of this time have numerous casualties that are not dead yet, some attempt must be made to estimate the sick & wounded and source them. Tttom1 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Pembroke quote as its ref note doesn't give any clear indication of its publication as fact and not fiction from Michener's Caribbean and a tagged unsourced statement. Added numerous additional sources to support statements on casualties. Have added content into aftermath including well-sourced statements on the casualties - especially the shocking number of dead -of the campaign as a whole.Tttom1 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that John Pembroke did exist as it appears in this Spanish article, El desastre del ataque británico a Cartagena de Indias (Colombia), en 1741. Well you heard it first from a Spaniard and I was right! I quote, ás abajo, en esta página transcribimos del libro de John Pembroke, las cifras son exageradas y falsas, pero no era Pembroke un pobre, un borracho, o un acomplejado, sinó un miembro del Parlamento Británico, su familia fué más tarde muy amiga de Pit. to Translate Further down in this page we quote from the book of John Pembroke, the numbers are exaggerated and untrue And I unquote. Bruich talk, 16:32, 27 July 2010 (GMT)

Have a reasonably reliable source to say that British expedition lost 6 ships through lack of crews. So will put that in infobox with no hesitation [User:Bruichladdich1|Bruich]] talk, 16:32, 27 July 2010 (GMT)

I think that article attributes Pembroke to Michener's Caribbean which still leaves it in the realm of fiction so far. Of interest is this source from that article: "Narración de la defensa de Cartagena de Indias contra el ataque de los británicos en 1741", publicado por Cristóbal Bermúdez Plata en Sevilla (1912) a Spanish account. Do you have the source you mentioned for Naval casualties?Tttom1 (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it is saying that the number ie 18,000 is exaggerated. That source I can't find it as part of an article in a magazine that historian Dan Snow is writing a book about Cartegena De Indias. The reason why I posted on here in the first place. He has written some good stuff like on the Royal Navy (it was turned into a tv series and he mentioned Cartegena and was visualized) and the Quebec campaign. I can't seem to find it I'm sure it said 2500 seaman were dead or sick but it as in relation to the fact that the naval personal were more acclimatised to the condition's in that climate than the soldiers were. Dan Snow had this to say about Don Blas "If we imagine the perfect military hero, one of the leading candidates would be Don Blas de Lezo. In fact, if it belonged to the English-speaking world, numerous films and books would have him immortalized. " It should be good (but it won't be out soon) and will hopefully give us more of an up to date understanding of what happened. Bruich talk, 17:47, 27 July 2010 (GMT)

18,000 dead for Cartagena is exaggerated, but not 18,000 casualties. Most accounts have the Navy as sickly from the start and hint the navy casualties are well up there. The army casualties are well sourced, but the lack of hard numbers for the navy, given the effort Vernon makes afterwards to shift all blame on the army, are suspicious to say the least. One source I just read said the navy suffered less casualties "in proportion to their numbers than the army" - I read that as suggesting Navy casualties are higher in absolute numbers but a lower in percentage of navy personnel since the overall number of sailors is much higher than soldiers, possibly even 2 to 1, if merchant seamen of the transports are included. Coxe's 20,000 dead overall certainly suggests that, but some navy-specific numbers would be preferable.Tttom1 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a non-Michener source for a John Pembroke (and obviously a modern write-up citing Michener, British or Spanish, hardly counts) he is very clearly a fictional character. I have the book 'Carribean' and John lives a long fictional life. It's fascinating that he should have made the jump from fiction to supposedly factual historical accounts. In the book Michener has Pembroke write a pamphlet on the expedition as a vehicle for describing it. It is written to look like a contemporary account, which is probably why it has been mistaken for one. But besides Michener's own disclaimer adding Pembroke to the list of fictional characters, Pembroke's account also uses the term 'General Yellow Fever', a recurring 'figure' in the novel - and he has Pembroke make a rather startling comment: that the British departed without fighting a 'major battle'. Michener (now deceased) always researched his novels well, but slipped up a bit here. I imagine he'd be mortified to discover this little erroneous sliver of his superb work made the jump into actual 'history'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pembroke quote has been deleted and the book has been added to the 'additional reading' section with other well-known historical novels on this subject. All have some interesting and probably reliable information, unfortunately none of it is attributed in the books and therefore shouldn't be used as references.Tttom1 (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

British objectives

There are no sources for the claim that the British intended to conquer the entire Spanish American Empire. How do we know if this is remotely true? Indeed the entire article reads like it was written by a 14 year old. Very poor standard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.155.24 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your commentary is absolutely naive and the only poor standar here. Cartagena de Indias was a strategical enclave in the control of american colonies. In my opinion the entire article is solid, is good documented and quite exhaustive. Other thing is there are some people don't like read what the article makes clear (some humiliating facts of naval british history that they would prefer not to be shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.81.92 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference: Douglas Ford, Admiral Vernon and the Navy: A Memoir and Vindication, London, MCMVII, p.124, "Destroy their settlements in America, and Spain falls. My opinion is that a strong squadron be sent to the West Indies, to distress the enemy in their very vitals, to destroy their mines, to seize their treasures, to take their ships, to ruin their settlements. Let them be attacked in as many places as possible at the same time...If once Porto-Bello and Cartagena were taken, then all will be lost to them." Vernon at the Admiralty meeting.Tttom1 (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(talk) The same can be said about the Spanish trying to Brush the siege of Gibraltar under the carpet, a much greater victory than Cartegena, considering that over half of the British in the siege died of disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.225.157 (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference

The reference, "N. A. M. Rodger, The Command of the Ocean, 2004, page 236", given for this paragraph doesn't actually support the statements in the paragraph: "The despatch of the large fleet and troop contingent was primarily for political reasons as the government wished to gain credit for Vernon's hoped for future successes by supplying him with an overwhelming force. Vernon, himself, was not convinced that a large-scale attack on a heavily fortified city would be successful as his smaller Portobello assault had been, fearing particularly a prolonged siege would lead to heavy attrition from disease. However, he could not refuse the orders to attack a major port when he had such a large force at his command."

It says that while Vernon shared Wager ideas on small squadrons strategy but it in no way suggests that the large fleet and motives are such as stated. In fact, it says: "The government (Walpole) was unable to resist the public clamor for a major expedition to the Carribean." p. 237. This and many other sources point to Vernon as an active member of the opposition to Walpole and pushed for expansion of the war in the Carribean as see in the Admiralty meeting reference: Douglas Ford, Admiral Vernon and the Navy: A Memoir and Vindication, London, MCMVII, p.124, "Destroy their settlements in America, and Spain falls. My opinion is that a strong squadron be sent to the West Indies, to distress the enemy in their very vitals, to destroy their mines, to seize their treasures, to take their ships, to ruin their settlements. Let them be attacked in as many places as possible at the same time...If once Porto-Bello and Cartagena were taken, then all will be lost to them." Vernon at the Admiralty meeting.

I think, this paragraph needs a rewrite to reflect more of what sources say. For example, as Vernon's small squadron tactic had already failed to take Cartagena previously, he could hardly be arguing a second small expedition.Tttom1 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote this para to reflect what is actually written in Command.Tttom1 (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)