 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 13, 2021 and August 13, 2022. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
- This article was originally based on material from [1], which is licensed under the GFDL. CIreland ( talk) 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This page and others make reference to a military action known as “to spike guns,” for which no definition exists in Wikipedia. Clearly it implies some sort of damage to or destruction of artillery, but perhaps someone with knowledge of 17th-18th century warfare could provide a proper definition of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.159.79 ( talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- From Wiktionary: To hammer an iron spike into the touch hole so as to render a gun unusable. The topic is briefly discussed at Touch hole. Drutt ( talk) 17:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Cavalry kept spikes in their saddlebags for this purpose. 72.173.169.25 ( talk) 15:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I changed the name to reflect the fact that there were several british expeditions to cuba througout history. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
User:ChristiaandeWet, reverting cited force and casualty numbers is not productive. If you have a reliable source with different numbers, tell us what it is, please. (Oh, and you should beware WP:3RR. You're already over that line.) Magic ♪piano 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the recent edits on the British casualties. The four thousand-odd men added to the numbers given by Marley died either in battle or of disease between 7 June and 18 October, two months after the battle had concluded. As only 560 men were killed by enemy fire, presumably the 2,764 casualties cited in Marley's book include those caused by tropical diseases during the battle. (1) -- Sir Ignel ( talk) 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't Siege of Havana be a better title? This was basically a siege action with a handful of skirmishes thrown in. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree that this should be named as a siege rather than a battle. ChristiaandeWet ( talk) 18:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In the aftermath section, the article states that "The loss of Havana and Western Cuba was a serious blow to Spain. Not only were the financial losses considerable, the loss in prestige was even greater. This defeat, together with the conquest of Manila by the British one and a half months later, meant the loss of both the capitals of the Spanish West Indies and the Spanish East Indies." Whereas La Havana was certainly an important city and port for the Spanish Empire in the New World, it was far from being the capital of the Empire. First of all, it was the head of a Gobernacion, which was in turn dependent of the district of the Audiencia in Santo Domingo -which itself was not even the seat of a viceroy-. Thus, La Havana constituted a third-level seat of government. The capitals of the Spanish empire in the XVIIIth century were Mexico city, Lima and Bogotá, which where also the seats of the viceroys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppius ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- It says 'Capital of the Spanish West Indies'; not capital of the empire.
Eastfarthingan (
talk) 21:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. It says "...both the capitals of the Spanish West Indies..." the definite article gives the impression that Manila and la La Havana were the capitals, something that is far from reality. As I mentioned, Manila is not under discussion here. Nevertheless, La Havana was certainly a neuralgic point of the Spanish Empire and the seat of a third-order administrative division, but not a capital. This situation was bound to change during the XIXth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppius ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've placed a new version stating that Havana according to offical Royal Spanish designation was a 'Key to the New World and Rampart of the West Indies'. As for Manila that is cited now.
- It says 'Capital of the Spanish West Indies'; not capital of the empire.
Eastfarthingan (
talk) 21:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hope this helps. ✌ Eastfarthingan ( talk) 11:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
When the article was created on second February 2008, it contained the following passage on the fate of the Spanish squadron.
"Furthermore, they had seized 20% of the ships of the line of the Spanish Navy, namely the Aquilón (74), Conquistador (74), Reina (70), San Antonio (64), Tigre (70), San Jenaro (60), África (70), América (60), Infante (74) and Soberano (74), together with 3 frigates, 9 smaller vessels and some armed vessels belonging to trading companies (Compañía de La Habana and Compañía de Caracas). Furthermore, two new almost completed ships of the line were seized in the dockyards: the San Carlos (80) and the Santiago (60 or 80)."
This was subsequently amended to "...9 smaller vessels including the Marte (18) commanded by Domingo de Bonechea and some armed vessels...", but without in-line citations.
Of the sources that seem relevant, J.S Cobbett, (1907). "England in the Seven Years' War," (p. 282) mentions nine ships of the line surrendered, together with three sunk and ship of 78 guns belonging to one of the Havana Company,(Compañía de La Habana and Compañía de Caracas) and two almost completed ships of the line. There were also six royal frigates and despatch vessels. W.L Clowes, (1898) "The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Time to the Present, Vol. III," (p. 282) lists 9 royal ships of the line surrendered the Neptuno (70) Asia (64) Europa (60) all sunk at the harbour mouth and the two new almost completed ships of the line being burnt. He also mentions two small frigates and two 18-gun sloops captured outside the harbour, one of which was the Marte and the other was not based in Havana.
The two main differences from the original version is that África (70) is not mentioned in Clowes who states that the partly completed ships were burned. Sscoulsdon ( talk) 16:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- When going over the article a few times I noticed it had been copied word for word from here www.kronoskaf.com Capture_of_Havana. Eastfarthingan ( talk) 16:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I've seen the Kronoskaf article, which mentions that it was abridged and adapted from three rather ancient sources (Clowes, Corbett and Fortescue), without citing any page numbers. However, I was able to access all three of these online and, although the lists of military units and one or two other details are consistent with Fortescue, it considerably misrepresents Clowes and Corbett, and also contains material not in any of the three. nor in Greenwood, which it mentions as another source. I couldn't access the final source (Sanchez-Galarraga, "Luis de Velasco - Siege of Havana, 1762") but it seems unlikely that much additional material relating to the British army or navy comes from an article on Velasco. Sscoulsdon ( talk) 06:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2021)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2022)
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles
- C-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- C-Class Caribbean articles
- Low-importance Caribbean articles
- C-Class Cuba articles
- Low-importance Cuba articles
- WikiProject Cuba articles
- WikiProject Caribbean articles using Cuba parameter
- WikiProject Caribbean articles