Talk:Battle of San Fernando de Omoa

Military history: British / European / Spanish / Early Modern / American Revolution B‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

Honduras

	Honduras portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Honduras, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Honduras 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.HondurasWikipedia:WikiProject HondurasTemplate:WikiProject HondurasHonduras articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

For the record

Two previous versions of this article were deleted as hoaxes. This is because they were hoaxes: they described battles which did not happen, and involved military feats by individuals who did not exist. This version is better. DS (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that explains the history that I was able to see. Presumably the hoaxes were just vandalism in a poorly-watched corner of WP. Thanks! Magic♪piano 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This can be viewed as a 'tactical' British victory as Chavez, a reliable source, states that Galvez had in fact suffered early defeats at Omoa and Lake Nicaragua. Bruich (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2010 (GMT)

If you read the book further, you will notice that the author considers the defense of San Fernando de Omoa and San Juan de Nicaragua a Spanish success, claiming that Gálvez expelled the British, recovering from the initial defeats which supposed the loss of both fortresses. ElBufon (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is why Chavaz said that Galvez (later) REVERSED THE EARLY DEFEATS AT OMOA AND LAKE NICARGUA. At Omoa the British captured the fort, successfully held it and repelled a Spanish attack in that time it was there till November. Therefore tactically it was a British victory BUT NOT a strategic victory. Bruich (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (GMT)

Chávez didn't say this. According to him Gálvez forced the British to evacuate the fort, retaked it, and succesfully defended Central America. The 'early defeats' he mentions are obviously the loss of the forts, but he clearly says the military operations continued and concluded with the British defeat. ElBufon (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I mean.... 'early defeats' he mentions are obviously the loss of the forts. Exactly what more could I argue on the case. Bruich (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (GMT)

The Battle

Dalrymple's report dated Oct 21 1779 and published in the London Gazette on Dec 18 and Luttrell's letter dated Charon Oct 27 give very full descriptions of the battle and were clearly not available to Chavez or to WP contributors to this article. There are therefore a good many errors in the descriptions given under "The Battle" and in the previous paragraph. It is my intention completely to rewrite these paragraphs. Any comments before I do so? Cardenae (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cardenae, go for it. However, I have recently been making much use of the London Gazette and have come to realize that the letter writers were not always accurate. Sometimes more information, especially about casualties, came later, info that didn't make it into the Gazette. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]