Talk:British intervention in Spanish American independence

Not neutral

I have placed the non-neutral poster because the editors have reinterpreted the references to justify the "British intervention in favor of the revolutionaries". (WP:OR)

In the article, the implications of the formal declaration of neutrality made by the British government have not received due importance.

The changing attitudes that the United Kingdom has had during the war, sometimes harmful for Spain and sometimes damaging to the revolutionaries, have not received due importance in the article. Only the biased idea of ​​a sustained or coherent "British support" for the latter, which is not in accordance with reality, is presented.

The article does not clarify that the trafficking of military material carried out by private companies favored both revolutionaries and realists, nor does it clarify the motivations of these arms vendors that were purely commercial.

The article does not clarify the background of the presence of British mercenaries during the war, which in reality has nothing to do with the support of the British government to the revolutionaries. --Muwatallis II (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This has already been proven as discussed in other talk pages such as here. There is enough clarification to support the fact that Britain (via South American revolutionary agents) recruited troops and sent arms through covert means. Castlereagh and Canning wanted to use the pervasiveness of British trade, prestige and by example to win the general confidence of the Revolutionaries. At the same time Britain remained officially neutral towards Spain which in itself was set to prevent the re-emergence of French dominance. The article makes these points and is further discussed in this book Britain and the Independence of Latin America, 1812-1830: Select Documents from the Foreign Office Archives, Volume 1 by Charles Kingsley Webster and also Simon Bolivar (Simon Bolivar): A Life by John Lynch. Whether they sent arms to the Royalists is another matter, and so far inconclusive. The recruitment of British troops was even protested by the Spanish government a number of times. The British Legions had their own flag and their own British or Irish officers. The same can be said for Cochrane and his fleet that served Chile.

On the other hand the article title is perhaps slightly misleading since there was no official intervention by Britain. Perhaps the article could be renamed British Contribution to the South American Wars of Independence or Britain and the Spanish American Wars of Independence. I will leave the neutrality tag up to see if others will input further suggestions. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I highlight the lack of neutrality of this article for the following reasons:

• The title is clearly misleading, since there was no military or diplomatic intervention by the British government. The United Kingdom formally denied the revolutionary representatives the help they requested, regardless of sympathy for the cause. But he declared himself neutral.
• The mercenaries who fought in the revolutionary armies were not sponsored by the United Kingdom, they fought on their own.
• British merchants sold weapons on both sides. At this point I have already added references and I will add more soon.

In general, the article aims to make the reader believe that there really was a "British intervention", when in reality the subject is much more complicated. --Muwatallis II (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muwatallis, There is no doubt that Britain from the outset wanted South America to be freed from the yolk of Spain, whilst at the same time performing a balancing act with Spain in Europe to keep the balance of power in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars. That is what the article is about which is sourced, cited & even quoted. Britain did this by covert activities - recruiting, supplies and mercenaries etc. We know all this as the article says so. That is a fact. Also you included detail about supplies of arms to the Royalists; but we knew that anyway from previous discussions we've had. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute; this is dejav vu? It has already been discussed, almost this time last year! Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

So I quote what I wrote last year & reiterate at the same time: "On the other hand the article title is perhaps slightly misleading since there was no official intervention by Britain. Perhaps the article could be renamed British Contribution to the South American Wars of Independence or Britain and the Spanish American Wars of Independence. I will leave the neutrality tag up to see if others will input further suggestions." Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Eastfarthingan. I'm glad you remember what happened a while ago, and at that time you indicated the following: "I also see that using wepeaons and arms seem to be your big case in argument. However there is no evidence that I can find that the British sold arms & munitions to Spain or the Royalists during that period, if so, where is your source for proof?"1

I have now added in the article references that clearly state that British weapons were also sold to realists during the war, privileged by Spain's formal alliance with the United Kingdom. This issue cannot be ignored in any way, it must be taken into account when trying to claim an alleged "British support for revolutionaries." It is true that the United Kingdom had an equilibrium policy, but made no financial or military effort in support of the revolutionaries. The recruitment of mercenaries and supplies was carried out by diplomatic agents of the revolutionary governments, who through private contracts managed to bring personnel and weapons, paid for by them. The British government simply tolerated what those agents did, as they had the need to get rid of the unemployed military for economic reasons. Although when Spain claimed, the United Kingdom began to prohibit from 1817 the recruitment of its citizens, until reaching much stricter prohibitions as it was in 1819. The article requires many clarifications, since "British support" is not what you indicate. --Muwatallis II (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The article has many clarifications and is well sourced as I have already stated. It is almost like you are calling the authors of the those sources as liars as well as using your own opinions. You're using a small point in order try and change the articles stance - remember arms being sold to Royalists in May 1815 reflects the point at which Spain and Britain were still allies during the 7th coalition. I stand by what I said, arms to Royalists after that point was very few and far between if any at all. I noticed the source mentions most of the arms going to Royalist Mexico (not South America) which borders the USA which Britain had recently fought a war against and were allies with the Spanish in that conflict. Britain did not get involved in the fights in Mexico. In fact this recent paragraph which was added should be in the background rather than the main body since Britain only started covertly supporting the revolutionaries from late 1815 onwards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that the not neutral tag at top of the page stayed up there for nearly a month last year and not once was it challenged after the article was expanded. I'll be happy to leave it there in the same process and also be happy to change the articles title once decided. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt the authors, but the interpretation you give. The weapons that were sold to the royalists were not to fight against the French, but against the Spanish-American revolutionaries, British ships from India or the British West Indies brought good quantities of weapons to Mexico to supply the royalists in their war. Not only the realists of Mexico. Soon I will expand the information. Although, in any case, his excuse is not valid because the war in Mexico is also part of the Spanish-American emancipation wars. His other excuse, quite ridiculous by the way, that the support has been minor or greater is irrelevant. The central point is that British weapons also served in the realistic army of America. Soon I will detail all these details, as well as the realization of the recruitment of mercenaries of what is practically not mentioned in the article, making it appear that the United Kingdom sponsored them. --Muwatallis II (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You seemed to be obsessed with just weapons sales, is that all you have to give? This really isn't going to solve the issue especially since a multitude of factors of British covert support to the revolutionaries (see article for full details as it is too much to list on here). The details of the mercenaries are mentioned in the article are correct - there is nothing wrong nor is there any discombobulation that you speak of. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

So thoughts on changing the title? I request that it should be named either British Contribution to the South American Wars of Independence or Britain and the Spanish American Wars of Independence. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for reply, but while I'm here - please note British support that is relevant to the article was from AFTER the Napoleonic wars NOT before during the alliance with Spain against Napoleon. This is late 1815 - 1819; therefore the sentences in question belong in the background not in the main body. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

1815 to 1819 are dates invented by the creator of this article. If by 1817 the British government had already dictated the first measures prohibiting foreign recruitment, reinforced with another in 1818 and the toughest in 1819. In addition, arms trafficking continued for the royalists and independents at that time. You are manipulating the references to your liking. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I also remind you that the wars of independence in Latin America begin in 1810 and end in 1833. Therefore, they must be in the arms trafficking section during the war. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the references state clearly that British arms sold to Royalists were during the alliance with Spain which is before 1815, (the example given was during the 7th Coalition - May 1815). As I've explained to you countless times before your only basis is the supply of arms of which you are trying to contradict the article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is from 1815-19, ie Britain's covert support after the Napoleonic wars which is what it is about. The article has been sourced and cited and yet you still try and argue a case against it. Perhaps you should argue with the folks that write history books rather than on this article's talk page? What's more you are the only one contesting it, and worse still is that you are repeating yourself over and over again. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The arms trade extended to both sides even after 1815. That is not all, it is also the manipulation that has been done with the issue of mercenaries, who were not sponsored by the United Kingdom, yet in this article you want to pretend contrary. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Why the obsession with arms? Is that all you have? You are saying that historians are manipulating the facts? Perhaps you don't understand the words covert? private enterprise? Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's leave the POV tag up there just to keep you happy. After a week if nothing I'll get it taken down. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

What happens is that you "cover half of the sun." There is no doubt that British merchants sold weapons to independents, no one has denied it. The problem is that you try to ignore the fact that they also sold weapons to the royalists during the war. Furthermore, he still cannot understand that the United Kingdom did not finance or send anything to the independents, the mercenaries acted alone. Historians also say that, but you try to omit that reality blatantly, by presenting a half truth. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a big difference however, and it is all plain to see, you have said this, historians have not. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

All I have pointed out are references from historians. You cover your eyes in front of that reality to keep your point biased. --Muwatallis II (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You have only pointed out references from historians which state that Britain supplied the Spanish Royalists with arms before 1815 - that is it. You seem to think it is a saving grace from which to troll this article with. Your obssession with arms sales is laughable - it's not even within the timelime of the article as I have already mentioned (during Napoleonic wars). You can't even use a source that backs up your opinion on other 'issues' that you claim. You seem to have a major issue with historians that have been cited but you are too scared to use their names. You keep repeating yourself & make no attempt at backing it up. Need I go on Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems he doesn't understand what he reads. In the article it clearly says "In May 1815, for example, two British frigates...". It is just an example, not a delimitation of the period of arms sales to the royalists. After this, I can assume two things, or I don't want to accept reality or you have difficulty reading, which is worse. The issue of weapons is not an obsession, it is an important point and you want to skip it. I have added references and will put more, do not despair. --Muwatallis II (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The importance of arms sales are insignifcant compared to the rest of the information given (sourced and quoted) in the main body. Even so you can't seem to quote an example from a source that refers to a time after the 7th Coaltion and that is relevant to the article's timeline? Eastfarthingan (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This issue of some weapons that a single British ship sold in a port of Mexico, buy by a local governor, in ignorance of viceroy of New Spain (unaware also by the government of Spain or the United Kingdom too) was discussed roughly on Wikipedia in Spanish, without authorizing any change in the same article. So I invite Mutawallis to continue there with new arguments because here no give nothing new. The ship arrive to out port of San Blas, in the north Pacific, from India, far from everything.

On the other hand, curiously, what the article tried to say is that the Mexican insurgents had almost NO foreign weapons or ships, but conversely there was massively military support in the South American countries. That allowed the recreation of patriot regular armies and national fleets out of nowhere by well trained advisors and officers, veterans of Napoleonic wars and War of 1812, while in Mexico conversely there was no such transformation, there was only massive guerrilla warfare in Mexico. That is the big big difference that highlights the mention of foreign weapons in that article, creation of regular army in South America versus guerrilla in México.

This reinforces the encyclopedic utility of this article to explain and clarify the nature of that war of independence between South America and Mexico, the multiple diplomatic interests of many European powers and the United States, and not only the complex bilateral relations of Spain and the United Kingdom. But also between Spanish liberals and absolutists governments.--Caminoderoma1 (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC). comment it's mine --Caminoderoma (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Another who does not understand what he reads. It was not a single ship, it is just an example, because something in the article says "FOR EXAMPLE". It was not the only weapons purchase made by the royalists. Check the references. The royalists also received weapons of British origin and that is what they try to omit shamelessly. --Muwatallis II (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you not understand that weapons of Pezuela are bought in the United States?. On the other hand, the sale of 4.000 rifles in Mexico does not change anything.--Caminoderoma (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Por dicha razón decidió comprarlas en los Estados Unidos" (translation: For that reason he decided to buy them in the United States) Luqui-Lagleyze, Julio Mario (2006). Por el rey, la fe y la patria: el Ejército Realista del Perú en la independencia sudamericana, 1810-1825 (in Spanish). Ministerio de Defensa, Secretaría General Técnica. p. 258.--Caminoderoma (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Learn to understand the references. Pezuela acquired British weapons in the United States. Besides that he made contracts to buy weapons from British merchants. --Muwatallis II (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Then read the reference= in United States by prohibition to buy in United Kingdom--Caminoderoma (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the references affirm. Then he doesn't say that. --Muwatallis II (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have that book in my hand. It is seen that you have not read it so you do not put everything that puts that entire page.--Caminoderoma (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Por dicha razón se decidió comprarlas en los Estados Unidos. Las armas venidas desde..." That's what you say, you don't fool anyone. --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I see clear: you do not read this book. I have this book in my hand, I repeat, and it is not what you write. --Caminoderoma (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You are altering the information to your liking. --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry, you change the sense or put incomplete information.--Caminoderoma (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Muwatallis II you dont understand, this is during the period before the intervention May 1815 & guess what, the Battle of Waterloo was fought the following month! Why you can't you see sense? Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Por esa misma fecha, Pezuela, el virrey del Perú, llevó a cabo una contratación con la fragata inglesa ballenera Apost, para comprar algunas armas.". As is, there is nothing altered or incomplete. It is you who tries to twist the information to give it another meaning. --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You not put the complete information: The expedition is for the privateer José Arismedi (letter of marque) and could not be carried out (without explaining why). What is the relevance of this Spanish privateer?--Caminoderoma (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan. The war of independence in Latin America is from 1810 to 1833. Do you understand that?. --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Nor do you understand that what happened in May 1815 is just an example! It is not a deadline. --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You two try to omit information, and not just on the issue of the arms trade. Also in the matter of mercenaries and the official British policy that damaged the revolutionaries during the war. They try to give the United Kingdom a belligerence that it never had. Those who intervened were only private who acted without the sponsorship of their government. --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Omit what? It's clear that Royalist bought in United States because prohibition of United Kingdom. If you think that British policy damaged the revolutionaries you should discuss here before making any edition.--Caminoderoma (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The UK ban was for both parties. Private merchants were those who sold arms and did so in the Caribbean and in the United States camouflaged through export and re-export. For that reason Pezuela also managed to acquire British weapons as the references point out. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. British law ban the kingdoms but not the insurgency.--Caminoderoma (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The United Kingdom declared itself formally neutral on both. Private merchants, on the other hand, made deals with both. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Muwatallis II - the article is between 1815 (late that is after the Napoleonic wars) to 1819 in regards fo British intervention, what part of that dont you understand? Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan. The war of independence in Latin America begins in 1810, therefore, the British attitude towards war must cover the entire period that the war lasted. 1815 is nothing more than a biased date. I see you don't want to understand. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No Spain and UK were in an alliance that ended in 1815 after Napoleonic wars. Britain was free to concentrate on the polrics of Europe and covertly end Spanish rule in South America. Anything before will go into the background section as you have been told countless times. Your aggressive reverts are now an edit war and you have been warned. You keep making pointless additions about pontless arms sales which are now becoming totally irrelevant to the article. Perhaps you should create a separate article about this and leave this one alone? Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The alliance did not end in 1815. Don't lie. The United Kingdom continued to take care of its alliance with Spain by accessing the protests of this country in 1817, 1818 and finally in 1819. For someone who seeks to maintain a truth halfway, it is not surprising that the information he does not like seems irrelevant. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You are now vandalizing this article with your own opinions and placing irrelevant sentences that don't belong in this artcile. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The information I have placed is duly referenced. If we have reached this point it is because of the intolerance that you demonstrate to information that you do not like. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet you keep vandalizing the article and taking out parts of sentences that have been cited to suit your own agenda and opinions just to satisfy your claim of pointless weapons sales that took place before the relevant section. Your edit warring is proof of this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

They are in the corresponding section. Again, the war does not begin in 1815 and the British attitude toward conflict does not begin in 1815. You make accusations but your attitude contributes to ruining the article by omitting the contribution of others. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No. The war began on 1810 but the British intervention years later when the references say. The British alliance with Spain change after the restoration of Ferdinand's absolutism by Napoleon alliance, Treaty of Valençay. --Caminoderoma (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The alliance did not change, the United Kingdom and Spain followed together with other European monarchies to maintain order in Europe. So much so, that the Spanish protests against the British government avoided any revolutionary attempt at formal military recognition or support, as well as prohibitions in 1817, 1818 and 1819 to nullify the recruitment of mercenaries. Stop deleting referenced information. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The restoration of Ferdinand's absolutism by Napoleon's Treaty of Valençay change the alliance between Spain and United Kingdom.

The recognition of the insurgents is explained in the article. You yourself recognize that you know that the ban on selling to insurgents came in 1819.

Muwatallis you put irrelevant information but you must to put all the complete citation in Spanish and their translation in English, because I see that you systematically change or omit information changing the sense of information in Spanish. You omit systematically that the Realists could not buy in the United Kingdom, and therefore bought in the United States, or that the weapons were purchased for Mexico.

--Caminoderoma (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Muwatallis your vandalism and inclusions are not relevant to the mian body of the article. The length of them now makes them totally irrelevant to the article. In addtion you are manipulating sources where British weapons are not technically bought from the British but from the United States. That is how ridiculous your inclusions are now getting! Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan. Now you get technical. Let me also tell you that technically the British weapons that revolutionaries buy are not from the British government, but from private merchants. Even so, he wants to maintain the nonsense of the British government's support. I also remind you that British weapons also flow through the United States for sale on both sides. In any case, reference is also made to how the royalists acquired weapons from British merchants, so there is no doubt. The information is not irrelevant, at least for objective people. --Muwatallis II (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying that the British made weapons that aren't even in British hands are somehow relevant to this article? British government's support is referenced - so what is your problem? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Muwatallis - sadly the pointless paragraph has now been removed as it went on a tandem that is now completely irrelevant to this article. It ruins the flow and dosent support anything in regards to what is being said - example you mentioned British made weapons in the hands of the US? Really, It is becoming a joke. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You also keep vandalising the lede please stop - it is referenced and sourced - I quote. "Her naval strength was a decisive factor in the successful revolts of the Spanish American colonies". International law in the Western Hemisphere - Page 90 by Michael W. Gordon

Please don't vandalise again. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok Eastfarthingan. Restore what you say, but do not arbitrarily delete my contributions that are also duly referenced. Soon we will discuss the whole thing. --Muwatallis II (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

After looking at the sources you added you have totally manipulated them - sales from the United States has nothing to do with this article even if they are British made. what relevance is that? Also you again make a point about arms sales with regards to Pezuela - it tuns out to be before 1815, yet again. Why do you keep doing this? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The United States was one of the circuits of British commerce in the re-export of British weapons to Latin America. This is how the clandestine arms trade worked. See "War, demobilization and memory: the legacy of war in the era of the Atlantic revolutions." Pezuela assumed the viceregal government in 1816, that is, after 1815, or am I wrong?. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it - The US wasn't part of Britain so I don't see what you argument is? Britain wasn't involved in re exporting then once payment was made. Just seen that the aforementioned frigate Apost is in fact just a whaling ship. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brown Bess Carbine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Brown Bess Carbine.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)