This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 19 January 2009 (→Result). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:31, 19 January 2009 by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk | contribs) (→Result)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Military history: British / European Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Structure: criterion met.svg)
Template:FAOL Are historians agreed as to whether or not his ear actually was cut off by the Spanish? --Dante Alighieri 07:38 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The spanish forces in Catagena de indias were 3.600 men (3000 spanish and 600 indian archers)men and not 6.000.
Is it Jenkins's Jenkins' or Jenkin's? It appears to be in there 3 times. I know they're all the same thing, but shouldn't an effort be made to regularize usage, &c?
According to Apostrophe it would be Jenkins's --207.177.67.214 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It seems very odd to see the 's' missing at the end. Alpheus 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge?
Merge the two - absolutely merge. Bubba73 (talk), 03:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree. The two Jenkins ear war articles should be merged - and their sardonic tones should be maintained. A strange war with a strange name. A real oddity of history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Provocateur (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006
- The only difference in the title is the type of apostrophe. Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. Obviously two articles on the same subject. Make War of Jenkins’ Ear a REDIRECT to War of Jenkins' Ear --Grstain | Talk 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't read them carefully. Is there any material in one that needs to go into the other? Bubba73 (talk), 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge Anagnorisis 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then someone needs to do it. I don't think that I'm knowledgeable enough about the history of the war to do it. I'm only in it because a couple of the battles of it took place near here. Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I did the merge of what was in the two articles. I also added a number of places where we citations, particularly to suppose motivations attributed to various parties' actions.Lisamh 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Just read the article and the phrase "in 1738 Jenkins exhibited his pickled ear to the House of Commons, whipping up war fever against Spain" is totally brilliant. War over an ear. Lol. LordHarris 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Dont merge: I suggest to read the article: ""Guerra de la oreja de Jenkins"" in Misplaced Pages in Spanish
Declaration of War
States that Walpole declared war. But the Prime Minister has no such power, only the monarch. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- That was George II, and as the wiki article on him notes, "As king, he exercised little control over policy in his early reign, the government instead being controlled by Great Britain's first de facto Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole."... The situation was a lot like now, I think. One talks about Tony Blair, not Elizabeth II, invading Iraq, for example.
Furius (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Map
The map on this page needs to be changed. It isn't in English. --User:Wikipedian1234 February 18th, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Result
I don't understand why is said the result of the war was indecisive. In my opinion, England was clearly defeated. I think it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.21.115 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Its all about spin. Our educational historical establishment has a need, for whatever reason, to be Anglocentric. Thus, English language history books will usually put a false spin any Anglo Spanish or French wars in such a way as to make the Brits appear to be the victors, even when they were actually defeated in war. That is why English language texts will omit all the Spanish victories in the War of Jenkin's Ear and only publish battles like the temporary capture of Porto Bello or the victory in the Battle of The Boody Marsh in the state of Georgia. You are right, however. The War of Jenkin's Ear was quite clearly a Spanish victory. That war not only preserved the American portion of Spain's empire, but it also forced the British to abide by the Asiento treaty and not engage in any illegal trade with the Spanish colonies. The Spanish Coast Guard and Navy continued to ruthlessly supress illegal trade and piracy from British merchants.--Charles A 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)
The main object of the British launching this war was the conquest of the Spanish main and therefore winning control of the resouces and markets of the Spanish empire. For the British it was an emphatic defeat - the sideshow in Georgia notwithstanding. British histories also minimise or are silent on their defeat in South America (1807) and given that the leader of that defence was an officer of a Spanish army (and the said officer was a Frenchman at that - mon dieu!), along with the volunteer militias, it has to be counted as another British defeat to the the Spanish (Dear Lord! we can't have that, can we). Provocateur (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing I dispise the most is the myth of "Brittania rules the wave" nonsense. Its all too often promoted by our historical establishment like the History Channel and the like. Its based on high nonsense. It is a fact that Britain had the world's largest navy for a period of about 200 years(1750?-1940s. But it hardly meant thar Britain ruled the waves. If Britain truly ruled the waves there would be no Spanish, French, or Dutch empires. A nation that truly ruled the waves should be able to permanently choke of the sea lanes from competing European empires, and such never happened. Britain actually had a couple of it's large wartime convoys intercepted and seized by Spanish and French navies during the American Revolutionary War, thus crippling Britain's war effort. Where was the Royal Navy back then? I can objectively argue that they(RN) were not really ruling the waves. Thats why I refer to it as spin. The only period where one may argue that "Brittania rules the waves is in the 1800s. But that was only because there was no major international war in the 1800 except for the Napoleonic.--Charles A 13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)
Hombre, calmate. Provocateur (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Ex Notatia Victoria!--Charles A 10:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)
Oh please. The main British objective of the conflict (crush the Spanish, strip them of their colonies) WAS an absolute failure. However, the Spanish objective was to, at the very least, seize Honduras, Georgia, and the British Carribean. In this, they too failed. In short, neither side accomplished their objectives, hence a draw. And keep in mind that this WAS part of the War of Austrian Succession, which could hardly be construed as a Spanish victory.
In short, both sides achieved their defensive goals of stopping all enemy encroachments on their colonies, but both stides still failed to drive the other from the region. That is by its very definition a draw. We can argue about who inflicted more damage between the two for centuries, but the fact remains that it was strategically a draw. That is what happens when neither side can eek out a clear victory. See Verdun and the Somme. 76.199.106.4 (talk)
I do not agree. First of all, it was Britain that started that war with the rather explicit aim of either monopolizing the American markets of Spain or at best capturing them. Neither goal was ever achieved. If we were to apply that same silly logic to the War of 1812, one could argue that it too was a draw. But Britain failed to re-capture it's former colony and the USA maintained it's independence. I personally consider the War of 1812 to be a US victory tried and true. Yes, Spain did try to push it's momentum against Britain's North American colonies that ended in failure, but again I state. Spain did not initiate the war, Britain did. And Britain had nothing to show for that war other than naval defeats in the Caribbean and in the Mediterranean seas. That is why young children in the English speaking world are rarely ever taught about that historic but important episode.--Charles A 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)
- Nope, 1812 was a British victory because the Americans started the war under some silly pretext in order to seize Canada while the British were distracted by napoleon. They utterly failed in this task, so that makes it a clear US defeat and British victory, even if there weren't territorial changes. Under the same reason, Jenkins Ear is a complete British defeat. The British parliament pushed for a war under the statement that Spain was weak and that Britain should cripple her even further in order to guarantee that Spain should not recover the status she had under the Habsburgs (the reason behind is very much like why Germany pressed for war against Russia in WW1). Britain's aims were to snatch as much Spanish colonies as they could (i.e. Cuba, Florida and New Granada). They failed in all tasks, and with huge casualties. We are talking about 23000 men defeated at cartagena by a local force of 3500. That alone should be counted as one of the bigegst British defeats in History (it certainly was the biggest defeat in the History of the Royal navy when it happened). If Spain directed incursions of 100 men or less against Georgia and then withdraw is completely irrelevant. Spain did not begin that war. Britain did. Britain lost much more casualties than Spain. Britain had territorial ambitions. Spain didn't. Britain did not win an inch of territory in the end, so it failed. Spain did not give economic clauses either. Britain did, by renouncing to the "Asiento" in 1750. It's a British defeat.--Menah the Great (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Presumably the Second World War was a "defeat" too? Losing a battle is not losing a war. The info box has been updated with the correct term. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Its easy for a Bulldog to declare victory when it has 2 Superpowers (USA+USSR) doing most of the fighting for them.--Charles A 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)
This was a (massive) British defeat, please don't try to twist history as much proud of a brit you are, you lost (at least that's what Wadpole and his gov. thought when they came down) get over it. In this way the Spanish Armada was not a defeat because they didn't lose an inch of territory and neither England, so it was "as you possessed" and not a english victory? make sense please--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's ridiculous that when England don't win a war, some people claim that the result of the conflict was Indecisive. The British clearly failed in its objectives and Spain retained control of Central America for several decades. The English version of Misplaced Pages is the only one where the result of the conflict is indecisive. Someone should change it, please.--83.37.221.184 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- And what of Spanish defeats in Georgia, and the fact that the war got subsumed into the War of Austrian Succession? Can you provide a source that states that it was a Spanish victory, or indeed an English defeat? If not, it's ] on your part. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
That's the british POV (they are "always" the winners), i think we (to balance it out) should write (like in the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585 result as : treaty of (whatever treaty it is) favorable to Spain), since people dont want english or spanish victory, lets balance it.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Categories: