Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias

British ship losses
While some Spanish sources state 6 British ships of the line sunk or burnt, it cannot be confirmed through english language sources. Examining Beatson's list of losses shows no SoL sunk. Other Spanish sources give: "6 navíos de tres puentes. 13 navíos de dos puentes. 4 fragatas. 27 transportes." a total of fifty with 6 three deckers and 13 two-deckers, or 19 ships of the line and 4 frigates and 27 transports - it does not say they were all sunk. The number, 19, on the SoLs correspond to other sources for damaged and disabled ships- the HMS Tilbury which burns later in 1742 shouldn't be included in these losses. Also I think the statement 6 ships sunk which is sourced to a web site should be deleted even though its kind of sourced pending a clearer, confirming source.Tttom1 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am just going through the list of ships from websites like 3decks and the list of which vessels took part in particular Beatson's Naval memoirs. I believe many were damaged such as HMS Boyne and Hampton Court but so far no ships of the line appear to be lost. This may take a while as I will go through as many frigates as I can too. The source I deleted mentions at least 15 ships of the line lost which I think seems to be somewhat exaggerated. Bruich (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (GMT)


 * See Beatson V.3 p.83. I see no SoL lost, however, the number of 18 or 19 SoL for damaged and disabled seems reasonable based on accounts. I think the 1500 guns is just an extrapolation that assumes the 3rd and 4th rates are sunk (which would give a total of some 1200 cannon) not just damaged and that all those cannons are lost - although that is just my opinion, see: Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".Tttom1 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading Rodger's Command, I accept the Spanish sources to the extent that there may have been 6 ships of the line lost and as many as 19 damaged. Rodger explains (particularly on pp.220 and 606) that naval practices "intended to mislead... such as the British 'rebuild' system of the first half of the eighteenth century... had the effect of padding the lists with fictitious ships.". 'Great rebuilds', as explained, leave room for replacing lost ships during a period, 1696 to 1745, when Parliament voted no money for shipbulding.Tttom1 (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only navy ship lost during the Cartagena campaign was the prize ship Galicia, Blas de Lezo's former flagship. Several ships were damaged, especially Shrewsbury and Prince Frederick, but none were lost. Spanish sources were likely citing the burning of transport ships that Vernon abandoned for lack of crew members before he withdrew from Cartagena. NCHist (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

'''Where is the part of STRENGTH with the number of forces (spaniards 3000, english 27000-32000), like in other battle articles of wikipedia? Is a mistake or rather an embarrasing data for the author of this article (I suppose english)?'''
 * Its in the article's infobox. And articles do not have single editors, they are written by multiple authors (whose nationality is irrelevant). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.13.0 (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Order of Battle
I think that an "Order of Battle", like this: Order of Battle at the Battle of the Nile would be helpful in the article. Should you wish, I would happily make one up if you could provide me with a good source as a guide. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Some comments
First of all, I congratulate the author. You have done a good research work. However, there are some points that should be taken in consideration given the GA condition of the page, some aspects little accurate that must be revised. The most important of them is the role of Blas de Lezo in the defense of the city. According to a modern Spanish source (1), Lezo (and the battle in general) had been greately mystified by the Spanish nineteenth naval history. This book signals some interesting poits regarding to the development of the battle.

Firstly, it' said that there was a deep enmity between Lezo the viceroy Eslava attributable to the arrogant character of Admiral, and that Lezo's defensive plan consisted of abandoning the outer defenses and of sinking all the ships at the mouth of the bay while a second plan, designed by a Swiss-born military engineer, Carlos Des Naux (Eslava's second in command), consisted of defending each fort to wear down the British. The authors state that Eslava agreed with Des Naux, and the second plan was executed. The major point which I want to discuss is Lezo's performance in the engagement. It appears, as is said by Marchena and Kuethe, that the key man, the true leader, was Carlos Des Naux, who commanded the defense of Bocachica and San Felipe castles, while Lezo's actions proved highly controversial, from sinking his whole squadron without fire a single shot, to the limited support that he provided to Des Naux. In any case, he was never present at the frontline. Surprisingly, Des Naux isn't mentioned even once in the body of the article.

Other point to discuss were two of the sources used for the article. There is a PDF, Don Blas de Lezo y Olavarrieta un Ejemplo Del Espíritu Militar Español, coming from an Argentine patriotic website, and a book, El día que España derrotó a Inglaterra : de cómo Blas de Lezo, tuerto, manco y cojo, venció en Cartagena de Indias a la otra "Armada Invencible", which is a novel rather than a serious essay. Not reliable sources, If I'm not mistaken. Moreover, the casualties of the battle seems to have been exaggerated. At Robert Beatson Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain, from 1727 to 1783 (2) is noted that no warship of the expeditionary force was lost during the engagement. And, according to Spanish sources, the number was but 6 ships (no name or class is given). The number of deaths appears also a bit exaggerated. A Spanish modern source (3) states that Eslava, in concordance with British medical accounts, put the British casualties in 4.000 deaths. 9,500 or 10.000 men may be a possible number for the overall losses of the British campaign. As for the Spanish losses, besides Lezo's squadron, 12 other vessels were scuttled in vain, according to Keuthe and Marchena.

There's also a taxative sentence in the latter book that should be noted in the article: "The loss of Cartagena to the British would have been more economically affordable than its defense".--Sir Ignel (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As the primary editor I thank you for your kind words. There was a mention of Des Naux as a commander previously, but it was unsourced and added nothing specific beyond his name but I will enter him as commandant of Boca Chica. De Lezo's role is well attested and supported in numerous sources in both English and Spanish, so I don't think a single new work is sufficient to overturn that view. The casualties suffered by the British and Americans is also very well sourced. The difficulty on clearly determining British naval losses has been discussed previously, while the land forces have numerous documentations, the loss of naval manpower and ships is conspicuous in its near total absence. For example, while we know, as fact, that 2 British infantry regiments and 600 of the new British marines are transferred to the control of the navy to make up typhus losses of the crews, there's no naval source that states losses of 2600 sailors directly. Similarly, and in addition, we know that nearly 2500 of the Americans of the 43rd foot were also dispersed among the line ships to provide more replacement in crew losses - at least 5,100 sailors replaced altogether by the time the fleet is at Cartagena. The silence of British sources on naval losses extends to the ships as well as noted above and Spanish claims are not unreasonable in light of that and what Rodger says. Eslava cannot be considered a reliable source on British manpower losses - he's just estimating something he couldn't know the particulars of - he might know ship losses as those he could plainly see. As to the spanish source you mention as a novel, El día que España derrotó a Inglaterra : de cómo Blas de Lezo, tuerto, manco y cojo, venció en Cartagena de Indias a la otra "Armada Invencible, spanish language editors added this, I am unfamiliar with this book and cannot vouch for it, but it is only used as a reference within a footnote. If it is indeed a novel, it should be moved out of bibliography into additional reading with the english language novels - it should be noted that reliable historians cite statements from both Smollet's and Hall's novels. The other, Don Blas de Lezo y Olavarrieta un Ejemplo Del Espíritu Militar Español, appears in several places on the web and is reasonably sourced and so I accept it. I can't say I even understand the taxative sentence out of context.Tttom1 (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But there's not a single view. Besides Soldados del rey: el Ejército Borbónico en América colonial en vísperas de la independencia, whe have several more modern Spanish sources which emphasize the differences between Lezo and Des Naux (or Desnaux, depending on the source) and widely mention the role of the engineer in the defense over Lezo's one: España estratégica: guerra y diplomacia en la historia de España, Historia de las fortificaciones de Cartagena de Indias and La institución militar en Cartagena de Indias en el siglo XVIII, for example. As I've said, there had been much exaggeration around Lezo's figure and the battle in general, mostly by the Spanish naval historiography of the nineteenth century, if we trust in Kuethe and Marchena. Regardless of the limited role of Lezo as opposed to Des Naux, the myth consists in presenting Eslava as a bumbling and corrupt man and Lezo as a tough hero. It was, in appearance, a resumption of the controversy that arose in the Spanish court after the battle between the marine clique led by Zenón de Somodevilla, 1st Marquis of Ensenada (a very influential clan) and the land army clique. After the battle Lezo was going to be submitted to a court martial for his "mismanagement" of resources, and following his death, Ensenada led a campaign to clean his memory. Given the lack of important colonial victories obtained by the Bourbon Spain, the nineteenth-century Spanish naval historiography chosed to focus on the "positive part" of Cartagena and bury what they disliked (the confrontation between Lezo and Eslava-Des Naux, the abuse of the officers to the soldiers, which led to a mutiny in the garrison in 1745). Given the existence of extensive material supporting Des Naux main role, I don't see why keeping old and tendencious visions of the battle. As for the PDF, it's claimed to be supported by an extensive bibliography, but the article gives for good, without more, facts whose existence isn't proved, as the alleged capture of the Stanhope, and completely invents a lot of data. Pablo Victoria's book is an attempt to offer a fictionalized view of the battle in which, [surprise!], Eslava appears as an incompetent, Lezo as a military genious, and Des Naux as a fanatical willing of sacrifice his men. For the British naval losses, I think you're doing original research. The Spanish source which claims higher losses is a journal wrote, if I'm not mistaken, by one of Cartagena's high officials during the siege, Diario de lo ocurrido en Cartagena de Indias desde el 13 de marzo hasta el 21 de mayo de 1741. Se relata la batalla de Cartagena de Indias, which claims 9 ships, of whom two third-rates and a 70-gun ship. According to all the British sources that I've consulted, the only ship actually lost was the Galicia prize. I think the best is put these two versions in the infobox, but considering the fact that the Spanish couln't put names to the ships whose loss they claimed.--Sir Ignel (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The view of De Lezo is supported by modern english language sources including Harbron and Rodgers (Rodger N.A.M.. The Command of the Ocean, 2004, p. 238. Also: Harbron, John D..Trafalgar and the Spanish navy, Conway Maritime Press, 2004, ISBN 08700216953, pp.108 - 113.). The dispute between Lezo and Eslava is mentioned and no particular negative view of Eslava is put forward in this article. The same can be said about Vernon and Wentworth - Vernon still has people supporting his myth. Isn't Lezos dead in '45 and therefore Eslava responsible for any mutiny? Regarding OR on British naval losses, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As Rodger points out, the Admiralty and Naval Boards deliberately falsified lists and records of ships and deceived Parliament during this period, so some spanish sources are accepted in lieu of British silence. Other editors determined the version used of 6 line ships lost which is stated in some spanish articles. It would be acceptable, to me, to be more vague and cover the naval losses with the general statement I use in the lede "50 ships lost, badly damaged or abandoned" which doesn't make the claim of 6 line ships as in the info box. That editor provided a source and linked to it and I am loathe to remove it since it is in some spanish sources.Tttom1 (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Duro, Cesáreo Fernández. Armada española desde la unión de los reinos de Castilla y de León, Est. tipográfico Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, Madrid, 1902, Vol. VI, p. 250."...tuvieron que incendiar seis navios y otros 17 quedaron con necesidad de grandes reparos para poder servir...".(6 burnt, 17 severely damaged). Eslava's account mentions 5 burnt. refs added to article.Tttom1 (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Images in article
Minor housekeeping thought, but I think the article tries to pack in a few too many images toward the end. Have you considered just making a "Gallery" section (WP:Gallery) and throwing the images there? (A little weird for a battle article rather than art article, but not unprecedented.) Alternatively, maybe combine the two British medal images into one composite image, and remove the picture of Philip V (who isn't directly referenced in the text)? (Only problem with this is having an epicly long caption for describing the two medals...) SnowFire (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

An extremely biased and untrustworthy entry
This article needs a thorough overhaul as it reads like a hapless piece of propaganda. It quotes novels as sources and its tone is evidently bombastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanningar (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Battle of Cartagena de Indias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820040319/http://cvc.cervantes.es:80/actcult/ciudades/cartagena_indias/fichas/vernon.htm to http://cvc.cervantes.es/actcult/ciudades/cartagena_indias/fichas/vernon.htm#inicio
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010601/http://www.letrasdelmar.com/fichanoticia.php?idn=118 to http://www.letrasdelmar.com/fichanoticia.php?idn=118

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

doesn't add up
"The battle pitted a British invasion force of 124 ships[50] including: 29 ships of the line,[51][52] 22 frigates, 2 hospital ships, various fire ships and bomb ships armed with a total of some 2,000 cannon, 80 troop transports and 50 merchant ships. "

29+22+2+80+50=183 not 124

so which one is it? 124 or 183? or something else, since the "some" 80 and 50 may be approximates?

88.168.175.234 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Date format
Wondering why AnomieBOT changed the format from dmy to mdy. I added the dmy template simply because the Infobox date was already in dmy format. ?? Carlotm (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? No idea why, but the diff suggests it simply added a date to the tag. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to all. My eyes (or my bias) betrayed me unexpectedly.Carlotm (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Corrections
Under Spanish Leaders, Jose Campuzano Polanco is the correct name.

Under British Strength, the British had 9,700 soldiers and marines. The navy ships had complements of close to 17,000 men but the army provided about 3,000 men to fill vacancies among the crews. The British fleet consisted of 29 ships of the line (two more would follow later), 12 frigates, 7 fireships, 2 bomb ketches and 2 hospital ships. About 120 transport ships sailed with Vernon.

Under Spanish strength, the Cartagena garrison and regular regiments mustered less than 2,000 soldiers. They were augmented by another 2,200 sailors from the 6 galleons in Blas de Lezo's fleet.

Under British losses, the numbers quoted are based on the entire campaign in the West Indies. Many of the deaths occurred in Cuba and later. British fatalities at Cartagena and immediately following while the army recovered in Jamaica amount to 3,400, according to muster records. Losses among the navy crews likely add another 2,500 deaths during the Cartagena portion of the campaign. NCHist (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)