Talk:Spanish schooner Virgen de Covadonga

About the Covadonga article

Hi Melromero, look, the version of the Covadonga defeating the Independencia appears mainly (and only) in Chilean sources, your affirmation "all sources" is incorrect, because the facts are simple and clear: The Covadonga tried to escape, the Independencia unable score a hit with her artillery try to ram the schooner according to the orders dictated by the Peruvian Supreme Director of the War, MArianio Ignacio Prado, and the frigate collide with a rock, without intervention of the Covadonga, in fact some newspapers of that time called Condell "El Heroe de la Casualidad" (A Lucky Hero...) and the reports of More, Grau and the memories of Andres A. Caceres, and inclusive Chilean NAvy website affirms that was luck and not the power of the schooner who sealed the fate of the Peruvian frigate... (Besides, the mentioned website affirms than the Independencia surrenders, and that is also false, the frigate never low his colours, the flag was derribed by shots of the Chilean naval fusiliers, but this was soon rised again by an young sailor named Federico Navarrete).

Wikipedia is not a place of absurd nationalism, the Covadonga never have a chance to defeat the Independencia, it was luck, not power, who gave the victory to the Chilean Navy. Greetings and i hope you understand, if you speak spanish we can continued this talk in that language --Cloudaoc (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The point is not well taken. I agree that this is not a place for nationalisms. The fact that I'm Chilean does not mean that I'm defending a moot point. The fact is that if you take the time to read the Peruvian (and some Bolivian) historiographers, you'll find that the concensus is that the Independencia was "lured" into the shallow waters where it eventually struck bottom and sunk. More (I did his article, by the way, since I'm an admirer of him), is not a reliable witness in the matter. His report was drawn to excuse himself mostly. Grau was not present and had to rely on More's word for his report. Caceres was not even there, but in Arica. I think you should check Basadre's version, or better still there was a series of articles published in book form by the Naval Circle of Peru in the 80's that are based on previously unpublished testimonies from survivors (I own quite a few, but since I'm far away from my sources right now, I'm only quoting you from memory...) The sources seem to agree that Condell had one of the former Iquique "practicos" on board (the "practico" as you may well know, was the man in charge of acquainting himself with the underwater seabed near a major port, in order to navigate the ships that came in and out in order to prevent their getting stuck in unknown waters). If that is true (no two source agrees on the name of the "practico", which seems odd...), then the destruction of the Independencia was not a "lucky moment".

When I refer to all sources, I refer mostly to all "credible" sources, specially primary sources, or Peruvian or Bolivian historiographers (like Querejazu, who has written what for me is the best account of the war.) I don't take into account any website or (sad to say) most Chilean accounts, since they are notoriously unreliable. Mel Romero (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer, but your sources are incorrect and in some cases, incomplete, Caceres it was there, as part of the Iquique garrison, an his division set his encampment near Punta Gruesa, an he was one of many eyewitnesses ,about the Bolivan sources i don't know how good this could be about this specific battle in the war (they don't act in the Naval Campaign), I know the Basadre version, and is true than Condell know very well the waters near Iquique, but the "practico" aboard the Covadonga was an English man named "Stanley", a former "practico" in Iquique (and as you, I'm only quoting my sources from memory), and the Peruvians also know the dangers of the coast of Iquique, but the orders of Prado was clear: If the artillery fail, use the ram. Condell don't try to "lure" More, he just took the best decision he can made under that circumstances: Escape to the South at full speed and very close to the coast, using the advantage of the reduced drought of his schooner.

There is no consensus in the sources, in fact this is one of the most controversial actions in the war, but the text of the article says: "the Covadonga defeated the immensely superior Independencia..." and that is false, the ship is lost, yes, the encounter in Iquique result in a pyrric victory for the Peruvian Navy, yes; Condell was the man of the Day in that moment, yes, but the affirmation about the "lure" is just an conjecture, not a fact; is just one-sided interpretation of the facts. And why is necessary to say: "immensely"? I m only trying to tell facts as it happen, i m not judging or interpreting the facts.

And the facts are: The Covadonga try to escape, the Independencia use its ram (as ordered the Supreme Director) as her artillery was useless and collided with the rock, then the Covadonga return and attack the frigate until the Huascar appears in the horizon, an then, escapes...

That´s all... I hope you understand, and seek new sources, i have in my collection the reports of the battle (both sides), i have the memories of Caceres, the series "Historia Maritima del Peru" is a great and accurated source, and some friends who are historians and have much more information and sources than I. I hope do you agree to put a true neutral point-of-view in this important article. Greetings --Cloudaoc (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see... using your own words "And the facts are: The Covadonga try to escape, the Independencia use its ram (as ordered the Supreme Director) as her artillery was useless and collided with the rock, then the Covadonga return and attack the frigate until the Huascar appears in the horizon, an then, escapes..." The questions inmediately spring to mind: why was the Independencia artillery so useless (the ship has just come out of dry dock, and had been completely renovated at great cost) that it could not take on a smaller, poorly armed ship? How was that it could not overtake the slower ship? (remember that one of the reasons that Covadonga didn't follow the Chilean Navy to the north was the fact that it was so slow). Many other questions all point that somehow the Covadonga managed to render the Independencia's superior power useless, forcing More to take on risks that in the end caused the destruction of his ship. You yourself provide the name of the "practico", and of course, the orders from Prado (who was definitely not a sailor) could not have forced a seasoned sailor like More into blind obedience to the point of risking the life of his crew and his ship when his naval experience adviced otherwise. That all sounds like one side did things better than the other. If you want to take out the adjectives, that's fine by me, but you really cannot change the facts. It would be like saying that the sinking of the Esmeralda was a Chilean victory because it's destruction raised the troop's morale. We need to be objective here. Mel Romero (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, about the artillery of the Independencia, this was useless because the poor training of the crew, not because the artillery itself was useless (in fact, the stern gun of the Independencia dismount after the first shoot, and the bow gun cannot be reloaded because it was unarmored and the precise shots of the Chilean naval fusiliers prevent it); thats why Prado ordered the use of the ram, an that orders was a product of a meeting between the senior officers of the Peruvian Navy and the General Prado in Arica (in the Aduana building, to be precisely) a few day before the battle, in that meeting the Admiral Montero (with Grau, More, and others) approve the use of the ram, but was More who committed the mistake to use it so near the coast and in uncharted waters (not all the rocks was been identified by that time), and your analogy about the Esmeralda is a fallacy, More committed a huge mistake, why he took that decision in that moment is the really big and unanswerable question...

But this is not about the decision of More, is about the facts of the battle, and you my friend are not being so neutral as you affirm in first place, please don't get angry, i`m not tryng to change the facts, the result of the battle is correct: A decisive Chilean Victory (for the so called Naval Battle of Punta Gruesa), i cannot deny that, is the pure truth... But affirm than Condell managed to "lure" More to a improvised trap in Punta Gruesa is just a supposition, a conjecture, not a fact. I hope you noticed than I´m well informed about the battle in particular and the war in general, mainly the naval campaign. I suggest to you check again your sources and get new ones, the Bolivian historian than you previously mentioned is not know in Peru, and i seriously doubt about the accuraccy of his research, specially in the points related to the Naval Campaign. Sorry, but the article "as is". with the affirmation of the victory of the Covadonga is not neutral and not acceptable, because is based in a mere supposition.

The battle was a Chilean victory, yes; but a victory of the Covadonga, no, that`s false; it was a victory product of luck and the bad desicion of More, but we are not judging More or the facts, we are tryng just to explain the facts as happen, not as we want. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have some valid points, but I'm still not convinced that your approach is the correct one. If More only "followed orders" why was he court-martialled and convicted then? I could go on and on, but as you say, the point is to remain objective (and not get angry...) As for Querejazu, you should really read him, he's by far the best historian of the period (specially on the causes, both direct or diplomatic, of the war and its aftermath). Much better (surprisingly) than Peruvian or Chilean researchers. It's a shame that's he so poorly known outside Bolivia, and in fact one (if not the only one) who actually reasearched also in the European primary sources (which are more objective and offer a much more varied vision of the principal participants.) I'm also well informed about the period, but sadly my sources are on the other side of the globe so cannot trust anything more than my memory, that's why I don't discuss the events more in detail (memory is a poor and notoriously vague ally.) I don't agree with either the supposition that one side won "because of luck" or the other lost "because of misfortune". That's a poor service to truth. Maybe we can agree on a middle ground? Mel Romero (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i`m not trying to justify More or defend him, he was judged for the lost of the ship, as was common in that time and also today, remember, he lost the second ironclad of the Peruvian Navy in the chase of a minor prey, and (again) that isn't the point, if More was judged or not is not relevant for the article, and I´m suprised how easy you discard a source just by nationality, and more, you affirm than the Bolivian and inclusive the European sources are the best because them was "neutral"... ¿Are you sure? I have an article of an old English newspaper who claim the right of Chile to conquer the territory of Peru and Bolivia, because both countries are barbaric and primitive, and so on... ¿Neutrality you say? The support of the European Powers to Chile in the war is proved and evident, because they seek only one thing: The salpeter need for their guns and agriculture. About the Bolivian historian, i´ll going to search some of his works, but i cannot discard a source as easy you do (and with a so weak arguments) just for nationality, every source is valuable, because we can cross the information and obtain the truth (or get close as we can) from them. I can see how easy you discarded many important Peruvian sources because their are Peruvian, or Chilean sources because they are Chilean. That`s not correct, and is your point-of-view, not the neutral point-of-view what we need for this article and for Wikipedia in general.

And about the article itself, i never mention in any part of the article the word "luck" because is not relevant, we need only the facts, and about the argument of "luck", you can call it "chance" or whatever you want, but is a factor always present in History, you cannot discard it because YOU consider irrelevant or absurd, the article is not a transcription of your interpretation of the facts, and again, Condell never set a trap for the Independencia, he know the waters very well but also More, Condell just took the best decision he can made, escape at full speed very close to the coast, he don't foresee the events to come and his causes, as the lack of preparation of the Peruvian gunners, the orders of Prado, the uncharted rock, and finally the decision of More: Ram the schooner so close to the coast, and as you know, the Peruvian crew was continuously testing the depth of the sea during the battle, More just have incomplete information of the scenario, and he choose wrong, and as all the facts than I mentioned before, for Condell was impossible to influence any of them. Remember than Condell think (as all the Chilean Fleet) than the entire Peruvian Navy was in the Callao harbor, he didn't expect an attack so soon, ¿how could he set a trap with so little time and information?. That´s why the theory of the "lure" is false, because is based on many unsustainable suppositions. A trap is the mine who sink the Covadonga in 1884, who was planned and tested with success, but not the sinking of the Independencia, as you can see. I agree to reach a middle-point to this issue, and as you see, i'll added a infobox for the article, i`m not trying to change History, i just trying to make this source the most neutral and balanced as possible. I´working in an article about the steamer frigate Apurimac, one of the ships of Abtao, and any help was always welcome. Greetings --Cloudaoc (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

About the name of the article

I`ll been thinking for a while about the name of the article, because the title implies than the schooner was always Chilean, a more neutral name (without mention of nationality) could more balanced (and neutral), like: "schooner Virjen de Covadonga". ¿Any comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudaoc (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the spelling be corrected to Virgen de Covadonga? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.35.249 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)