Talk:Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814

Context

Seems to me that the article needs to be contextualised from the perspective of the earlier Anglo-Russian Invasion of Naples (1805-06) and the capture of Capri by Sir Sidney Smith with a British squadron in February 1806--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean contextualised? I believe that both of those operations were conducted on the western side of Italy, not from the Adriatic (please correct me if I am wrong). Perhaps I have not made it clear enough in the article, but the Adriatic was a theatre of war surprisingly isolated from the large fleets maintained by both Britain and France on the other side of the Italian peninsula. The British for example did not detach more than one ship of the line at a time to the Adriatic until 1813, while the French never sent a ship of the line into the region during the entire campaign (Rivoli was built at Venice and never joined the Toulon fleet). Those operations are interesting from a standpoint of the Mediterranean as a whole, but I don't see them as especially important in terms of the Adriatic. If you have a counterpoint to this I would be interested in hearing it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me it all started with the hapless royal family of Naples, and the Russian pretentions to various places in the Med, going back to Paul I. Had Naples been held, Corfu would have lost some of its importance in the eastern Med, but Naples fell in a matter of days after the Anglo-Russian forces withdrew, the Russian to the then still their own Ionian island base. I just thought that this may have set a better context to the rationale why the Royal Navy made the effort in the eastern Med--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you are right on the fall of Naples etc., but I think (and my sources suggest) that the Royal Navy would have become involved in the region in any case. Don't forget that the Royal Navy launched a major operation in the Dardanelles in 1807. The Adriatic and the Ionian Islands that controlled access to it contained the most eastern safe ports French raiders had in the Mediterranean during the war and the British tended to blockade and attack any French held territory no matter where it was - indeed at least two sources used in the article say as much. The British basically attacked the Adriatic (and consequently Corfu) for no greater reason than that it had French ships in it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Name

I can't actually find any mention of the Adriatic campaign except in one source. May I suggest the change of the name to Adriatic naval operations of the Napoleonic Wars. I think inclusion of naval is warranted because there were land operations which are not covered by the article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I too have only found one source referring specifically to the "Adriatic campaign", it seems clear to me that there was certainly a concerted campaign to contest control of the sea from 1807 to 1814. These operations were sometimes delayed or curtailed due to events elsewhere, but the campaign does seem to have followed a natural trajectory of early British successes followed by French reinforcement, the crisis point of 1811 and the subsequent British dominance following Lissa and the death of Dubourdieu. The land operations in the region by contrast were not anywhere near as co-ordinated - French operations in 1809 were more appendicies to the War of the Fifth Coalition than an independent campaign and the Austrian operations of 1813-1814 were only loosely co-ordinated with the British (and do feature in the article). The actions of partisans in the Tyrol and other such operations do not appear (in my sources at least) to have had a significant effect on the Adriatic campaign itself, certainly not in the way they did in Spain by linking up with the Royal Navy.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What you say is true, but for the purpose of a reference work the article title needs to fairly closely relate to the contents, and can not be generally inventive. In actual truth what you are describing is far more than a campaign given the seven years. Seasonal weather change, and need to rotate units would suggest that these were a series of operations punctuated by the changing strategic circumstances on the continent, and changes in British policy as their allies were defeated, and were resurgent again in 1809 and 1812. I think you have deal with it admirably, but there is no need to heap more onto the "shoulders" of this article than is already in it. What do you find the RN using in reference to the operations? Which station were they operating in at the time, Malta?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There certainly were increases and decreases in activity in the region over time, but the Royal Navy did maintain a constant presence in the Adriatic throughout the seven year period and in all this time the strategic aim remained constant: to deny the Adriatic to French transports and warships. French strategy in response was more fractured, and the only concerted campaign the French conducted in the region was under Dubourdieu between 1810 and 1811. The British blockade of Corfu operated mainly from Malta, the ships deployed in the Adriatic operated from Lissa with Malta used for more extensive repairs or supplies. It is not however possible to understand the situation in the Adriatic without understanding the situation on Corfu.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, which is why I'm saying that it was not a single seven-year long Adriatic campaign. The name seems to me to have meaning too specific for the general content of the article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map emphasised Corfu, which is located in the Ionian Sea, which seems to be confirmed by the section titled Invasions of the Ionian Islands--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Corfu is indeed in the Ionian Sea: Whoever controlled the Ionian Sea controlled the Adriatic and in theory whoever controlled Corfu controlled the Ionian Sea due to its power as a fortress and naval base. The Royal Navy disproved this theory, but the importance of Corfu in determining strategy in the region cannot be overstated. Thanks for you comments on the article, they have given much food for thought and I look forward to you feedback.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to suggest. You clearly want to call the article Adriatic, but given the position of Malta, Ionian can not be excluded. It seems to me that maps of both seas need to be included since not every reader will be intimately familiar with the subdivision of the Med--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Corfu instead of Malta? I don't think a map showing Malta is especially relevant to the article, it was merely the nearest British fleet base to the theatre. In any case, the article does have maps of the Ionian Sea and the Adriatic Sea demonstrating the situation in each, so I am not sure what the problem is here. The only source which used the specific term "Adriatic campaign", Gardiner, quite clearly places the operations around Corfu and the other Ionian islands as integral parts of the campaign, and this makes sense to me given the location of Corfu in relation to the Adriatic. I can see your point regarding the article's name, but I would suggest that without the need to supply and protect operations in Adriatic, Corfu would quite likely have been simply loosely blockaded by the Royal Navy instead of actively contested, as it does not otherwise present a threat to commerce.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about if you link mention of Dalmatian coast and islands to here and possibly expand that article also?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)