Talk:Siege of Malta (1798–1800)

Further comments (discussion after the transcluded GA review has closed)
Hi. Great article, but a couple of thoughts (actually 3):
 * You're saying Malta was retained by Britain, and control of the island was a factor in the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars in 1803. Ultimately it remained under British government for 164 years, gaining independence in 1964. but further down you mention the 1802 Treaty of Amiens. It was Britain who broke that treaty which resulted in the 1803 hostilities and it was only much later, precisely after the Treaty of Paris that Malta formally became British. Your statement that Malta remained under British Government for 164 years from 1800 is factually incorrect.
 * I'm not sure what you are taking issue with here - Malta was under British military government from 1801 to 1814 and subsequently under British civilian government. The statement was therefore accurate and I don't feel that the technicalities of the government of the island are under this article's purview.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Charles Cameron was appointed ‘civil commissioner’ in May 1801 by the British Crown . Ball was to return succeeding Cameron in July 1802 but not as civil commissioner, but as ‘minister plenipotentiary to the Order of St John’. The context for this was that in March 1801 peace negotiations had commenced between Britain and France and a significant term of the resulting Treaty of Amiens was the restoration of the Knights of St John to Malta. Meanwhile the King of Naples claimed rights of sovereignity under the original grant of 1530 to the knights. My issue is that from 1802 until 1814, there was no 'lawful' British government of Malta; Ball (who died in 1809) had already ordered the evacuation of Neapolitan troops in 1803. So Malta was (in a very loose sense) a "no man's land" until 1814, and it is for this reason that I objected to your statement that the government lasted 164 years starting from 1800. Osannapia (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unauthorised or not, Malta remained under British command during the period 1801 to 1964. Would you rather I used the word "control" than "government" here? Your knowledge of this particular topic greatly outstrips my own, but I am not certain that this is entirely relevant to this particular article (which is solely intended to be about the siege). --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Second thought, you say On 3 September, with his men dying of starvation and disease at the rate of more than 100 a day, Vaubois called a council of his officers at which they unanimously decided to surrender.[39] The next day, envoys were sent to the British and in the afternoon General Pigot and Captain Martin signed the agreed terms with Vaubois and Villeneuve. The Maltese were excluded from negotiations entirely, although their commander, Alexander Ball, subsequently became the first Governor of Malta.[22] The terms of the surrender were absolute:. Assuming you got the sequence right, who appointed Ball after the French surrender, and by what authority?


 * Actually, I am not sure, none of the sources describe the legal process by which Ball took charge. The sources say that Nelson ordered Ball to take command of the confused situation on shore as the Maltese leaders were on the verge of turning on one another. Ball then took command of the Maltese National Conference, presumably via some form of ballot, and successfully co-odrinated Maltese efforts for the remainder of the campaign. Notice that Ball taking command of the Maltese is discussed in above the section you've quoted. He was only made governor of the island by the British after the campaign had finished.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) There was no such thing as a "Maltese National Conference" during the Knights' government or at any time before the insurgencies against the French. There was in Malta a municipal authority called the "Universita'" which had limited powers of representation during the Knights' period. The 'National Conference' you are referring to was basically a group of 1798 insurgents who did elect Ball as their leader, calling him the Governor. One could speculate that by calling themselves the 'National Assembly' entitled them to claim a semblance of legitimacy/continuation of the old Universita', which of course it was not. (b) There is a document showing that the Neapolitan P.M. Acton appointed Ball governor of Malta in 1799, but this was technically during the time when Malta was under French dominion. Osannapia (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, I don't think the issue of whether the MNC were a legitimate political body with continuity from before the French invasion is strictly relevant here - the important fact is that they controlled the Maltese military at the time and thus has de facto power in Malta if not de jure. Again, my sources are from a British perspective and are not clear on the details of the political situation in Malta, but it is strongly suggested that Britain intially supported the Neapolitan claim to the island, but revoked this support after Ferdinand failed to supply any troops in 1798, later assuming the claim themselves. If you have sources that you think would assist the article then please suggest the changes you would make and we can discuss them.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Third thought: you say that in 1798 On Malta, the French had rapidly dismantled the institutions of the Knights of St. John, including the Roman Catholic Church. Church property was looted and seized to pay for the expedition to Egypt,[3] an act that generated considerable anger among the deeply religious Maltese population. On 2 September, this anger erupted in a popular uprising during an auction of church property, and within days thousands of Maltese irregulars had driven the French garrison into Valetta.[13] . But what happened between June and September 1798? Were the Maltese fighting an invasion or was there a short-lived government which was authorising itself to pillage? Osannapia (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The resistance ended on 12 June, as described, when the Knights of St John surrendered to the French. General Vaubois was placed in command and, under orders from Napoleon, authorised itself to pillage. --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jackyd101, I think we're in agreement here, but it does change the usual view taught in Maltese history that the French just helped themselves without any authorisation. There's room for a couple of books on the subject of Malta and its changes between 1798 and 1814. Think about it. Osannapia (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the only authorisation the French claimed was self-administered, which doesn't suggest any sort of legitimacy. It was not random looting however, but a systematic dismantling of higher Maltese society by the French occupiers. I agree that there is an interesting article to be written about the changes in Malta between these dates, but I don't think this article is the best place for it. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Osannapia, it appears that Jackyd is expanding this further, and I suspect more revisions are underway. I'm sure that he will take your comments under advisement; he is a responsible and experienced editor.


 * In the future, when you want to comment after a GA review has closed, would you make a separate section, so that your comments are distinct from the transcluded review. Thanks.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * and it would be helpful to have a location at which to contact you, such as a user/talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies to Auntieruth55. It's still a good article. Osannapia (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

References/Bibliography
I dont't see in Bibliography book used in notes: 1, 3, 4 and 5 (Cole). Can anyone help and add it? Thanks! D kuba (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I add it. D kuba (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)