# Talk:Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1780)

"coppered ships": presumably copper-bottomed?? Presumably not, "full of policemen", but will somebody please elucidate or define? orthogonal 18:44, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Copper plates all over below the waterline, protects against ship worms and keeps speed up by preventing weed growth. One of these days I hope to get around to writing wooden ship construction that explains all this. Stan 23:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I've changed "coppered" to "copper-bottomed"; I hope this meets with your aproval. orthogonal 01:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Either way is fine. Stan 04:26, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
the usual term is "coppered".

The article Juan de Lángara claims the Spanish had "11, mostly smaller ships-of-the-line" and the British "21 battleships and 11 frigates". (Other accounts give other numbers.) What were these ships?
Spanish: Santo Domingo (exploded), Fénix, 80 (flagship, captured, renamed Gibraltar), Monarca, 70 (captured), San Julian (captured, but sank two days later), Princesa, 74 (captured), Diligente, 68 (captured), Guispuscoano, 64 (captured, renamed Prince William), ...?
British: Sandwich, 98 (flagship), Invincible, 74, Defence, 74, Bedford, Resolution, 74, Edgar, 74, Bienfaisant, 64, Prince George, 98, Monarch, 74, ...?
Sources: [1] Gdr 18:46, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Prince George, as well? [2] Shimgray 17:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fénix (the Spanish flagship) and Monarca are listed as captured [3] here. [4] mentions Santo Domingo as blowing up, and also mentions the Prince William - it isn't clear if this was part of the fleet or not, though. [5] suggests the Monarch may have been present, but is unclear.
Monarch confirmed by [6]. [7] is a useful source for launch dates and number of guns. Gdr 18:46, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Must have been confusing, with the Monarch and the Monarca kicking around after the battle... It looks like the Prince William, on further reading, was sent back as a prize, so not her. As the fleet was that being sent to the West Indies (about which plenty is written), perhaps it would be useful to see what ships were present in that squadron a few months later? Shimgray 19:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not an uncommon experience... at Trafalgar there were three Neptunes... Gdr 21:40, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
The San Julian is mentioned here, which adds another ship to the Spanish list. Shimgray 23:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And [8] suggests Montagu may have been present? It's unclear and an assumption, though. And I think at this point I've dredged out everything I can without a real reference... Shimgray 23:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[9] suggests several ships. Colledge, Ships of the Royal Navy confirms Monarca, Diligente, Fénix and gives Guispuscoano as the original name of Prince William. Gdr 23:30, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
check the Battleships throughout history page ->spanish
I thought I would clarify things by adding a full list to the page. The only uncertainty is that British accounts mostly say that two of the captured ships, San Julian and San Eugenio, were lost, but Spanish records say that they continued in service -- implying that they were recaptured. JimmyTheOne Oct05

The article and infobox both mention this, but if this battle really did have anything to do with America it needs to be explained. The same is true for several other articles covering British naval battles of this period - just because Britain was fighting the American War of Independence at the time doesn't automatically make every battle part of it. Riedquat (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree.  What on earth does this have to do with the American Revolution other than taking place at the same time (big deal!)? I'm editing it to erase any evidence linking it to the American Revolution to mitigate confusion.65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This battle was NOT a part of the American Revolution and had nothing to do with it, period, whatsoever.  Pleas stop including it as a part of the American Revolution series of articles.  Do not undo my changes, and stop altogether or you will be warned for vandalism.65.215.94.13 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the reference to it being part of the war. To take the first source I could find - David Syrett's The Royal Navy in European Waters in the American Revolutionary War - includes the battle in several of its chapters. What is your source that says it is not part of this war? And if so, what war is it part of?
You don't need a reference to say something is NOT something else.   Stop reverting reference to American Rev. War or you'll be warned and banned.65.215.94.13 (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
To examine another war in the eighteenth century - the War of the Spanish Succession was fought in several European countries, and in colones around the globe - much of which had little to do with the Spanish Crisis that started it. Similarly after 1778 a number of countries joined the American War of Independence who had only a limited connection to America - and very little interest in its independence. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
An even more extreme example of the name of a war having little to do with where it was actually fought (or over what) is the War of the Polish Succession, most of which was fought in Italy, without the involvement of any Polish forces (and there was exactly one significant action in Poland itself).  To say this battle "has nothing to do with" the American Revolution is beside the point.  It's part of the war that has been given the name "American Revolutionary War" or "American War of Independence".  If you don't like that, talk to the people who give names to wars, and publish books using those names.  If you disagree that it is part of the so-named war, you should provide evidence rather than bluster and threats to support your argument (like, what war is it part of, and who says so?). Magic♪piano 15:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As long as our anonymous IP editor refuses to talk beyond his edit comments, editors reverting him/her/it should place warnings of increasing severity on the talk pages of the offending IPs (see {{Uw-vandalism1}} through {{Uw-vandalism4}}).  (When the level 4 warning is given, the IP should be reported to WP:AN3.  While he's not technically violating WP:3RR, this should be sufficient to throttle the behavior.) Magic♪piano 12:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not 'vandalism' just because one wikipedian see it one way over another's.  Once and for all, this battle has NOTHING to do with the American Revolution; please stop changing words in the article to even attempt to link it.  This battle is NEVER taught in schools as being part of the rev. nor is it even considered to be a part of this anywhere else but Wikipedia.Tatumstevens2 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's vandalism if all you are doing is edit warring and not discussing the issue.  I note that there has been no substantive response by anyone to the comments LordCornwallis and I made above.  Perhaps you would like to address them (since your argument that the battle has nothing to do with the American Revolution is beside the point, as I note above)?
To address your argument that this battle is not taught in school: I don't recall being taught about the Battle of St. Louis or the Battle of Klock's Field in school.  Does that mean they have nothing to do with the revolution, or shouldn't be mentioned as such? Magic♪piano 15:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not vandalism if my points are more valid than another user's.  Additionally, 'he said/she said' is not how to play the game here- you say my edits are vandalism; I say yours are.  Your examples are also weak in that they are inextricably part of the Revolution and are rightfully taught as such.  Having been born and raised about 10 minutes from Klock's Field, I'm very familiar with the event and the plaque designation indicating such a link between that British attack on US soil during the Revolution, far from the case of the Battle of St. Vincent faught in another continent with a belligerent not even involved in the Revolution.Tatumstevens2 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a question of "I said, you said", it's a question of reliable sources.  This is why your assertion (presented without any supporting evidence whatsoever) isn't worth much.  (In fact, it's worth just as much as my intentionally lame assertion that because I didn't learn about the Battle of Klock's Field, it must not have been part of the war.)  Sources (one listed above, but reasonable searches of Google Books should turn up additional examples) mention this action in connection to the American Revolutionary War.  Your argument is not with me per se, it is with the sources that claim the connection.  We can get specific and dissect particular sources if you want to do that.
The Battle of St. Louis was fought between nominally British and Spanish forces (most of the British force were Indians) on Spanish territory -- i.e. "with a belligerent not even involved" in the war, and on soil not then American.  What is it about its location or other features that privileges its inclusion in the canon of the revolution over this action?
The page at the NMM describing the painting at the top of the article explicitly says the battle is part of the War of American Independence.  May I suggest you take this argument up with their curators? Or present some evidence here that someone other than you doesn't think it's part of said war?
To follow up on your reasoning: should I remove Siege of Capua (1734) (and in fact much of the military activity normally classified as part of that war) from the War of the Polish Succession?  It was fought between two belligerents that sent practically* no troops into Poland, and not on Polish soil.  (* A small French force was in fact landed at the Siege of Danzig, but it was wiped out fairly quickly and played no significant role in the proceedings.  No Austrian troops crossed into Poland; the Austrians did not want to be seen as aggressors there for diplomatic reasons.) Magic♪piano 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Here are some target sources; feel free to attack them:
From the first page of http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22American+Revolution%22+rodney+langara&btnG=Search+Books

a 19th century history
modern reference
another modern reference
Markham/Mahan specifically arguing that control over ocean waters was important to the British war effort against America
Jared Sparks, John Adams writing about the incidents with Spain
1805 American history of the revolution
a modern rev war naval history
Searches involving other possible designations for the war this battle might be a part of:

This search returned 3 results
This search returned none
Ball's in your court. Magic♪piano 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1780). 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/20070927003243/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title%3DS9770 to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title%3DS9770
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In the introduction paragraph there was "about 20 ships of the line", however in the second paragraph of the background section, there is a sourced comment saying there was specifically 19. I don't have access to the source to double check it's correct, but should the intro be edited to make the number consistent throughout the article? Give me a shout if I've got the wrong idea here :) --IrnBruFan7 (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)