Talk:British occupation of Manila

Untitled
The British government authorised the expedition against the Spanish in the Philippines, a British Army general and British Navy Rear-Admiral led the expedition, and for the short period of rule the Philippines was governed by Britain through a British appointed governor. The British East India Company was paid by the British government to assist the expedition and to assist Britain hold the colony. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not come into existence until 1801. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference
Thanks User:Wtmitchell for adding the correct book reference. It was dropped out in the initial copy of the article from the History of the Philippines, and the user initially doing the copy did not bother restoring it. Gubernatoria (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Manila occupation
British occupation was confined to Manila and the neighboring towns around it. --Scorpion prinz (Talk 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the academic sources British rule also extended into other provinces of the Philippines as per article, eg., Zaide, Gregorio F (1984), Philippine History and Government, National Bookstore, Manila. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, but I see the following in, ISBN 9716420714, ISBN 9789716420715:


 * and on pp. 192-193:


 * and in, ISBN 1410710696, ISBN 9781410710697:


 * , ISBN 971-8711-06-6 says:


 * I haven't seen the source you cite (Zaide, Gregorio F, Philippine History and Government, National Bookstore, Manila, 1984) and haven't seen the (Tracy 1995) source, but the sources I've quoted above don't speak of parts of the Philippines other than Manila, Cavite, and a few nearby villiages being controlled by the British, nor do they describe Silang as "the British appointed governor of Ilocos Sur". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

British occupation of Manila
The correct title for this article should be "British occupation of Manila".

"British occupation of the Philippines" is simply false and is misleading readers into thinking that the British forces occupied the whole archipelago.

The surrender of Archbishop Rojo was never recognized by the Royal Audience of Manila, neither by the Council of the Indies, nor by the Spanish Crown. No one would argue that all those institutions obviously had more authority over these questions that the Archbishop.

If no one can produce arguments on the contrary I will proceed to change the title.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Why is it vandalism to mention in the introduction that the occupation of Manila was part of an unsuccessful attempt to conquer the PHilippines? Why is it vandalism to mention that the Spanish army reformed or regrouped (many of the combatants had participated in the unsuccessful initial defence of Manila)? These facts are pertinent to the occupation which was part of a much larger military operation. The British tried to take control of the Philippines or the Spanish East Indies to secure Manila as a trading base, and failed - they ended up with troop desertions and blockaded inside of Manila and bitterly divided among themselves. It was a British defeat. It was a failed conquest. Pure and simple and it is highly relevant, not vandalism, to mention this in a few clear, straightforward terms in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.250.70 (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Shire Lord (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is about the occupation of Manila not about a supposed invasion of the Philippines. Sources in the article state the objective was to take Manila, hold it to ransom and use the place as an entrepôt for trade in the region. What you say is totally different of which is also unsourced. If you say this then the opinion should also be that the Spanish and their Filipinos allies were equally unsuccessful in retaking Manila before peace came. Shire Lord (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure Mr Shire, when they ventured out of Manila, it was just to take in the scenery. Of course they wanted Manila for its famed trade, but they had to conquer the Philippines to keep it safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.250.70 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not according to this: Fish, Shirley (2003), When Britain Ruled The Philippines 1762-1764, 1st Books, pp. 149–150, ISBN 9781410710697: "But the small force was not large enough to effectively extend Britain's influence to the regions beyond the capital and port city. In fact, the British soldiers remaining in both Manila and Cavite, were barely able to defend the two major cities. Only a few villages located just outside Manila and Cavite had been seized, and the British were not able to expand beyond these two captured areas to the provinces or other islands because they lacked soldiers and weapons."
 * Excuses, excuses. It worked in India. Back certain Indian rulers against othercs, provide a smallish British force of pros to give them a hard edge, and presto, you're the boss! Hell, it even worked for the Spanish in the Americas and the Philippines where they never had more than some hundreds. btw, the British force was circa 10 000 at Manila, and thousands on the ground. By the standards of colonial armies of the day it was a big, powerful force. They had just not counted on somebody like Anda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.250.70 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually - 'the total force was of 6,839 regulars, sailors and marines - of these only 2,000 were soldiers. The rest were sailors in the 14 ship fleet.' (Tracy, Nicholas. Manila Ransomed p 17) Shire Lord (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it is smaller than I thought, I'd thought double that, and let's not forget the sailors would help defend Manila while there, while the redcoats advanced against a volunteer army armed mostly with bows, spears, swords and knives, but that's beside the point. They we're counting on a Rojo and got an Anda who denied them the local allies they were counting on. They miscalculated. Still a defeat.
 * Well I'll leave that to your imagination. I'm using reliable sources instead. Shire Lord (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Captain Thomas Backhouse reported to the Secretary of War in London that "the enemy is in full possession of the country" . Pretty clear cut assessment of their situation by somebody on the spot, ie, hopeless, lost. Manila was a huge prize for its trade; if they thought they could have kept it, they would have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.142.82 (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it was the capture of Manila that was the objective, not the conquest of the entire archipelago - this has already been explained. Manila was never retaken by force even when the garrison (small that it was) was outnumbered. Shire Lord (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British occupation of Manila. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020114527/http://malacanang.gov.ph/the-british-conquest-of-manila/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/the-british-conquest-of-manila/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020114527/http://malacanang.gov.ph/the-british-conquest-of-manila/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/the-british-conquest-of-manila/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Attack of Manilla, October 1762.png

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * British Colonization of Manila.jpg