![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
oth Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay lost, mind you. User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says "[...] and decided to join a confederation with Argentina." That isn't really precise, as the Banda Oriental -Uruguay- was already considered part of Argentina, being part of the United Provinces of the River Plate: by that time there was no notion of Uruguay as an independent country but as part of a confederation of provinces that had Argentina as an informal name, officialized when the Banda Uruguay had already been separated.
The congress that met in La Florida in 1825 only reaffirmed for legal and symbolic purposes that the Banda Oriental was part of the Provincias Unidas, but no one except Brazil would have questioned that before the war; being against Rosas wasn't a reason for not being part of the Provincias Unidas, as many provinces were governed by Unitarian caudillos opposed to him. If Uruguay is now an independent country, and with this I'm not questioning its independence, it is thanks to British commercial interests, and when Argentines say that "Uruguay es una provincia argentina" it's not -on most cases- because of some sort of nazism or expansionism, but because of recognizing in some way the Banda Oriental as one more of the provinces that, by their own will, form the Argentine Nation. -- 200.85.112.116 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Same as in the Portuguese language wikipedia, Carlos Frederico Lecor was missing as one of the Brazilian leaders in the conflict. He was Commander in Chief of the "Army of the South" both in the begining of the conflict (11.Mar.1826 to 26.Nov.1826) and at the end (22.Jan.1828 till after the end of the war). Despite most critics picturing him as an undecisive leader, he was in fact the commanding general and knew how to mobilize the gaĂșchos of Rio Grande do Sul, who were very happy with his appointment in 1828. Jorge6207 ( talk) 10:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
ArgentinaâBrazil War â
Cisplatine War â First and most important of all, this international conflict was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". Someone created that. I repeat: this conflict was/is not called anywhere "Argentina-Brazil War". Second, there was no Argentina back then, but the
United Provinces of South America. The war is called in Brazil "Guerra da Cisplatina" and in Argentina "Guerra del Brasil". I looked in Google books and found out that there is no "Brazilian War" (Guerra del Brasil in English, here:
[1]) but there were plenty of results for "Cisplatine War" (See:
[2]). Since this is the English-written Wikipedia, I believe the name used for the conflict should be the English-version widely used. Examples:
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28],
[29],
[30],
[31],
[32],
[33],
[34],
[35] etc, etc, etc... Regards to all,
Lecen (
talk) 19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: When you use google (or google books) to check the usage of terms with more than one word, you must write them between apostrophes to seek the usage of both words used toguether, and not just entries where both words simply appear. "Brazilian War" goes from 551.000 (without apostrophes) to 2.370 (with apostrophes); but "Cisplatine War" falls from 4.350 to just 343. In any case, I support the current name, to avoid giving undue weight to either the Argentine or the Brazilian usage. MBelgrano ( talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Support as "Cisplatine War" seems to be "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" ( WP:COMMONNAME), and there are certainly enough such sources. Kanguole 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment The translation of "Guerra del Brasil" as "Brazilian War", and thus the search for such term, was a translation attempted by Lecen. "War of Brazil" gives 296 results. Not much, but 343 aren't either. In any case, that confirms that it's a obscure topic in English literature, as both the Spanish and Portuguese names are reflected in translation. And, as pointed, English reliable sources do not take priority when their coverage is so weak and obscure in comparison with the local usage. Note that there are even some results for "Uruguayan War of Independence" MBelgrano ( talk) 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Support. I'm sure we've been through this before recently. Perhaps it just feels like it. The most common English name, I continue to believe, is the Cisplatine War. Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Support Makes sense to change since the nation of Argentina didn't even exsist during this time period. Spongie555 ( talk) 07:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The mere denomination "Cisplatine" is Brazilian bias, no way to denny this. BTW, the Argentine Republic (named as such by the 1826 Consittution) waged the war. So yes, it was a Brazil-Argentina war. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 17:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Support the move to "Cisplatine War". Three reasons: (1) The case for the use of the term "Cisplatine War" in English-language historical literature is stronger. (2) The name itself seems logical and more accurate. From what I have read, "Argentina" may or may not have have been an organized state before the end of hostilities, but it was clearly the "United Provinces" that entered into the war with Brazil. (3) As the war was instrumental in the formation of Uruguay, the term "Argentine-Brazil War" is exclusionary and mildly misleading. I would recommend throwing in a sentence or two about references to the term "Argentine-Brazil War". Boneyard90 ( talk) 23:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Regardless of the name of Argentina, if we are going to take in consideration the actual names of the regions at the time of the conflict then "Cisplatine" shouldn't be used either. As this article already states, the 33 Orientals declared independence from Brazil and joined back the country they used to be a part of during the Congress of Florida. So, at the time of the conflict, it wasn't the "Cisplatine province" anymore. Even more, the war was fought precisely because they did not want to be the "Cisplatine province". Naming the war like this hurts the Uruguayan feelings. For a closer example, ask any native of the Faklands islands what would they think if we proposed to move "Faklands Islands" or "Faklands War" into names using "Malvinas". Of course, they talk in English so their usage would prevail anyway, but if they (or this wikipedia) had some other language, we wouldn't be acting any different. MBelgrano ( talk) 11:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As it is described at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, the "result" entry of the infobox should be a very short sentence of two or three words, such as "X victory", or perhaps an equally short consequence, such as "X victory. Independence of X". If the result is something so complex that can't be properly described in such a short way (such as here, where neither of the countries in war achieved what they were fighting for, nor the result is a direct consequence of the outcomes of the battles), then the infobox should link to a section in the article where such complexity is fully described. The "See Aftermath" text is a better option than an 8 lines explanation in the infobox MBelgrano ( talk) 12:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It does not appear to me like this was a military victory for Brazil, they didn't win a single land battle (lost the battles of Sarandi and Rincon in Uruguay) and the United Provinces went as far as successfully invading (Battles of Ituzaingo, Ombu, and Bacaycay) Rio Grande do Sud in southern Brazil with nearly 10,000 men no less; that sounds like quite a feat. Why isn't the Battle of Juncal mentioned in the article? I thought it was pretty significant. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.227.47 ( talk) 05:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) --In military book you can find this kind of war as "Pyrrhic war". The winner lost as much or more than the looser. United Provinces won the land and sea battles, but the high cost of the victory, and the trade crisis in Buenos Aires, the main port of the provinces, help the Empire wining in the diplomatic area were they get the sing of a peace treaty. In general the Provinces crisis was also because of the multifront wars. In the north against the spaniard crown, internally between the provinces and in the east against the Brazilian Empire. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.183.127.107 ( talk) 02:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Brazil won the Naval war. This was very critical. Juncal had no importance, since the Brazilian Navy was much larger than the 3rd division of smaller ships which the Argentine managed to beat. "To a navy which consisted of 69 warships and 22 packets and transports, manned by 10600 officers and men, the loss of [...] its smallest armed vessels made little difference to the ultimate balance of power" (Brian Vale, A War Betwixt Englishmen Brazil Against Argentin on the River Plate 1825-1830, Brian Vale, I. B. Tauris, page 137, chapter 14). The Battle of Santiago, on the other hand, was crutial, since the 2 best ships of Argentina were sunk. The other one (the 25 de Mayo) had already been sunk at Lara Quilmes. Brian Vale again summed it up well: "[...] Juncal had done little to push the Empire in the direction of peace. Now at Monte Santiago, two of Argentina's precious brigs-of-war had been destroyed and the cream of its Navy roundly defeated. The Brazilian Navy's overwhelming superiority at sea had been reasserted in a way which neither William Brown's audacity or Ramsay's newly purchased frigates could seriously challenge". See this link too: http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-026.htm .
On land, Brazil did "win" battles (Las Cañas, Padre Filiberto, etc). The line between "victory" and indecisive result is a blurry one anyway (so much so that Ombu and Vacacaà are considered skirmishes without decisive result; at Ituzaingó, Brazil retreated, it did not capitulate, the Army was kept basically intact, not to mention the troops in Colónia and Montevideo, which were supported by our Navy, and thus difficult to be expelled; see this link: http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-025.htm ).
In short: after Argentina joined the war effort, the Brazilian Navy had a series of battles, with the Argentine fighting with great valour, but in the end, losing their best ships at Lara Quilmes (June 1826) and Monte Santiago (April 1827), they lost their Navy, for all practical purposes. In 1828, it was already felt. Argentina began to lose basically all of the Naval encounters (due to their smaller ships, etc) and so with the battles at land. Rivera entered Misiones against the orders he had (Este trabajoso acuerdo enhebrado entre Ponsonby y Lavalleja vĂa TrĂĄpani y Fraser estuvo a punto de quebrarse por los planes de Fructuoso Rivera, un oriental que estaba distanciado de Lavalleja y deseaba combatir al Brasil con apoyo de los caudillos de las Provincias Unidas. Entre abril y mayo de 1828 la conquista de las Misiones (que habĂan estado en manos de las fuerzas imperiales) por parte de Rivera comprometiĂł la suspensiĂłn de hostilidades acordada entre las Provincias Unidas y Brasil, mientras se realizaban las tratativas de paz. Dispuesto a apoyar las gestiones de Ponsonby, Lavalleja enviĂł fuerzas al mando de Manuel Oribe para impedir la invasiĂłn de Rivera al territorio brasileño (5) http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-033.htm ), and his incursion into basically empty Misiones acted against peace (which was longed by the United Provinces), not in favour of it. Ajuricaba ( talk) 12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Cisplatine War â Argentine-Brazilian War â There are 3.160 google book results for "Argentine-Brazilian War" and only 802 for "Cisplatine War". Plus, the new name may be better for readers: any reader can recognize Argentina and Brazil, and understand that this was a war between both (actually, they were the United Provinces of the RĂo de la Plata and the Empire of Brazil back then, predesesor states of modern Argentina and Brazil, but nobody is that technical). On the other hand, "Cisplatina" was a former province of the Empire of Brazil, and hardly anyone beyond history experts will recognize that name beforehand.
Note, by the way, that I'm not requesting to undo the former move request, this is a new one. The old one was from "Argentina-Brazil War" (names of countries, not demonyms), which had just 98 results, and I'm not asking for it. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: I had the username "MBelgrano" back then, my account has been renamed since then, as pointed at my user page Cambalachero ( talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The name proposed is misleading. There was no Argentina in 1825, but the United Provinces of the RĂo de la Plata. What's next? The United States of America in 1658? And let's not forget that there was an actual "Argentine-Brazilian War": the Platine War, which occurred in 1851, more than 20 years after the Cisplatine War, between the Empire of Brazil and the Argentine Confederation. Lecen ( talk) 01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The name "Cisplatine War" is neutral, since it relates to a defunct state, not two countries. Beside, there was no Argentina back then. Rafael Cruz ( talk) 02:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I said that the new name would be more harmful than helpful. -- 201.27.179.95 ( talk) 02:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - Per Google Books results, it seems historical analysis of the sources gives vast preference to the term "Argentine-Brazilian War"; however, 21st century books give some more support (by very little) to the term "Cisplatine War". Added that there is the Platine War (albeit, in Spanish-world historiography it is considered part of the "Guerra Grande" or Uruguayan Civil War in English), which could also be considered an "Argentine-Brazilian War". The problem with "Cisplatine War" is that it is obviously a Brazilian take on the matter, which would be like trying to impose the term "Brazilian War" (the Spanish name) for the English article. Given that I have no strong opinion on this subject, I render a neutral vote. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 03:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. But I might support if an en dash (â) were proposed instead of a hyphen (-). See the well-established guideline WP:DASH, at WP:MOS. Noetica Tea? 03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Comment (Regarding Civility) - A bit of a civility between users here would go a long way. Per Wiki Etiquette. I see thought out points being mentioned and while the less exemplifying points are a bit vague they should not be rudely abashed by claims of sock-puppetry or intentional disruption (no matter how ambiguously these claims are stated). Assume good faith Judicatus ( talk) 08:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. As per Lecen. The use of ArgentineâBrazilian War could be ambiguous with respect to the Cisplatine War and the Platine War. Both terms are widely used in history books of English literature, but according to a quick search on Google Scholar, Cisplatine War out-tops ArgentineâBrazilian War. Nevertheless, both terms are duly exposed in the article's lead and, therefore, I see no reason to rename it. Not to mention the consensus achieved just about a year and a half ago (December 2010) to rename the article to Cisplatine War. Felipe Menegaz 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Google Scholar prefers 'Cisplatine War' (58 hits) over 'Argentine-Brazilian War' (20 hits). Some of the Google Books hits are for 'First Argentine-Brazilian War' or 'Argentine-Brazilian War of 1825' (or '1826' or '(1826-1828)' ), which highlights the precision problem with the proposed title already raised by others. LaTeeDa ( talk) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. for all the reasons advanced in favor of the move to the current title. I've encountered no change in the sources over the past year. âą Astynax talk 08:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Please use this section to discuss any concerns with the aforementioned professional.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 03:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Daniel Stowell cites as a reference for his statement the following: "Ron Seckinger, The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 59-73." The book "Balancing Evils Judiciously" focuses on Zeph Kingsley, but throughout the book Stowell explains on events mentioned in the Kingsley writings. One of these is the war between Brazil and what Kingsley calls "the Free Republic of Buenos Ayres" (i.e., the Cisplatine War). This is the full text of Stowell's statement:
Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries.|Daniel Stowell [1]}}
Daniel Stowell is not a military historian, nor is he specialised in the history of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The quote you claim would have come from this book, "Balancing Evils Judiciously", http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Balancing_Evils_Judiciously.html?id=fQTaGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y, which is not about the subject at all: "For the first time, all the proslavery -- but also pro-black -- writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (1765-1843) appear together in one volume. Kingsley was a slave trader and the owner of a large plantation near Jacksonville in what was then Spanish East Florida. He married one of his slaves and had children with several others. Daniel Stowell carefully assembles all of Kingsley's writings on race and slavery to illuminate the evolution of his thought. The intriguing hybrid text of the four editions of the treatise clearly identifies both subtle and substantial differences among the editions. Other extensively annotated documents show how Kingsley's interracial family and his experiences in various slaveholding societies in the Caribbean and South America influenced his thinking on race, class, and slavery".
This is clearly not about the topic Cisplatine War at all. He was no expert, and his quote is clearly misleading.
Contrary to what the quote would imply, throughout the conflict:
In short, the quote you so much want to post is a biased portrayal of the conflict, a misleading one, not coming from a specialist. And it makes it look like the United Provinces won the conflict, which they did not, if they had Uruguay would have been annexed. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 12:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In any case, the quote should be reformulated into text appropiate for a wikipedia article, and then cite the historian as a reference. Using a quote as a replacement of such text is not a good editing style, and should be fixed whenever possible. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not a good summary of the events at all, and it is misleading as a big-text quote. Stowell is no expert or authority on the subject, and the course of events was much more complex than his words imply. I wouldn't mind Cambalachero or some other user turning the quote into an appropriate short text, with a reference to Stowell. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to what the poster MarshalN20 is claiming, I am a responsible poster, and I stand for neutrality and impartiality as much as possible. Don't distort what I said MarshalN20. I did not say Stowell is a good source. He is not. It does not come from someone expert on the subject, nor from a military historian, he never wrote about the Cisplatine War (the book is not specifically about the conflict).
As a proof of my willingness to compromise, I agreed on posting it as suggested by Cambalachero, i.e, not as a big-quote text, which is entirely misleading. And I am not basing it on "original research", as falsely claimed by MarshalN20, I based it on facts. If the Brazilian army was weak, so was the Argentine army. If the Brazilian army did not have control of events, neither did the United Provinces army. They did not expel Brazilian troops stationed in Uruguay nor did they put an end to the blockade: on the contrary, by the end of the conflict the United Provinces lacked a fleet.
MarshalN20 posted this from Stowell: "Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait". As one can see, Kingsley gave apparently a positive portrait of Brazil during that conflict. One can see Kingsley had a positive portrait. As mentioned Stowell is not an expert on the subject, posting his opinion as a big-text quote is misleading, so much so that Lecen has agreed with me on it.
A final note, I'm not a nationalist. I just don't want anti-Brazilian sentiment to distort what happened. My comment in the page of MarshalN20 relates to the fact that from what his editing suggests, if the United Provinces had paraded in the capital of Brazil like Brazilian troops did in Buenos Aires, he would not hesitate in posting a pic of it. I've never cared to post a depiction of the Brazilian troops in Buenos Aires during the Platine War, because I'm not a nationalist. And this is what I was trying to show to him. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Stop misrepresenting myself. I am not a nationalist. What I pointed out is that Stowell is not an expert on the subject he never wrote a book on it, and there are many other opinions besides his. Whatever he thinks of the conflict is in no way a final judgment on it contrary to what MarshalN20 is trying to make it to be.
Look for the history of the conflict, at the end the United Provinces did not have a fleet like they did at the beginning, and the blockade was still in place. The Brazilian performance was not a "disaster" as Stowell claimed it to be. Kingsley, quoted by MarshalN20, even showed a positive appreciation of Brazil. There are many other opinions, you just have to read the literature on the conflict, as I said, the literature on the conflict, not some book which is not even about the conflict in itself. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
No, what matters is that Stowell is not: an expert on the subject nor has written a book on it, his area is not the history of Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. His quote is a misleading simplification of the subject. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
"But in its major test of the 1820s-the Banda Oriental dispute-British policy proved less than efficacious. Great Britain failed to prevent the outbreak of war, suffered severe commercial losses due to the Brazilian blockade of the Plata, and could not mediate a settlement until both sides had come to realize that a military solution was not feasible'." p. 26, you can access it here: http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/hist/South%20American%20Power%20Politics%20during%20the%201820s.pdf
As you can see, the situation was more complex. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
"En sĂntesis, ninguno de los beligerantes podĂa decidir la guerra a su favor. Esto se reflejaba en las declaraciones del enviado Ponsonby al ministro Canning, que hacĂan una radiografĂa de la crĂtica situaciĂłn financiera y militar atravesada por ambos beligerantes".
"In short, none of the countries could decide the war. This was reflected in the words of Ponsonby to Canning, in which he made a critical assessment of the military and financial situation faced by both sides".
As you can see, it is biased to say that only the Brazilian side had problems. So did the United Provinces. So much so that if Brazil did not expel the fighters from the Banda Oriental, neither did the United Provinces: as I said both Colonia and Montevideo remained under the control of Brazil. And by the end of the conflict only Brazil had a fleet so to say, the United Provinces relied on the activities of corsairs after the battle of Monte Santiago. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 23:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no objections to pointing out that Brazil had problems. The events of the war speak for themselves IMO, Brazil clearly had problems. I just don't agree with the Stowell quote; if it is to be used, then it should be put into the format of a text, that would be the best. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
References
The term "Argentine-Brazilian War" has a large number of reliable sources that use it. Please see [75], with 2,490 results. Most sources tend to attach the date of the conflict next to the name, and others simply use the term "First" prior to the war's name (which is what I have also done in the article). This name is also much closer to the Spanish name of "Guerra del Brasil" (Brazilian War). Lastly, the term "Guerra del Cisplatina" is an invented Spanish term, and should not be used in the article. All the best.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cisplatine War. 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:
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).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The Banda Oriental was not a province, state or administrative unit, it was the name of a territory located in present-day Uruguay. In 1813, Artigas de facto created the Oriental Province and on March 7, 1814, the Supreme Director of the United Provinces formally created the Eastern Intendance Government of the RĂo de la Plata, which was later given the name of Oriental Province in itself article from the Banda Oriental shows it ULIFOX 3XX ( talk) 04:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
oth Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay lost, mind you. User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says "[...] and decided to join a confederation with Argentina." That isn't really precise, as the Banda Oriental -Uruguay- was already considered part of Argentina, being part of the United Provinces of the River Plate: by that time there was no notion of Uruguay as an independent country but as part of a confederation of provinces that had Argentina as an informal name, officialized when the Banda Uruguay had already been separated.
The congress that met in La Florida in 1825 only reaffirmed for legal and symbolic purposes that the Banda Oriental was part of the Provincias Unidas, but no one except Brazil would have questioned that before the war; being against Rosas wasn't a reason for not being part of the Provincias Unidas, as many provinces were governed by Unitarian caudillos opposed to him. If Uruguay is now an independent country, and with this I'm not questioning its independence, it is thanks to British commercial interests, and when Argentines say that "Uruguay es una provincia argentina" it's not -on most cases- because of some sort of nazism or expansionism, but because of recognizing in some way the Banda Oriental as one more of the provinces that, by their own will, form the Argentine Nation. -- 200.85.112.116 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Same as in the Portuguese language wikipedia, Carlos Frederico Lecor was missing as one of the Brazilian leaders in the conflict. He was Commander in Chief of the "Army of the South" both in the begining of the conflict (11.Mar.1826 to 26.Nov.1826) and at the end (22.Jan.1828 till after the end of the war). Despite most critics picturing him as an undecisive leader, he was in fact the commanding general and knew how to mobilize the gaĂșchos of Rio Grande do Sul, who were very happy with his appointment in 1828. Jorge6207 ( talk) 10:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
ArgentinaâBrazil War â
Cisplatine War â First and most important of all, this international conflict was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". Someone created that. I repeat: this conflict was/is not called anywhere "Argentina-Brazil War". Second, there was no Argentina back then, but the
United Provinces of South America. The war is called in Brazil "Guerra da Cisplatina" and in Argentina "Guerra del Brasil". I looked in Google books and found out that there is no "Brazilian War" (Guerra del Brasil in English, here:
[1]) but there were plenty of results for "Cisplatine War" (See:
[2]). Since this is the English-written Wikipedia, I believe the name used for the conflict should be the English-version widely used. Examples:
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28],
[29],
[30],
[31],
[32],
[33],
[34],
[35] etc, etc, etc... Regards to all,
Lecen (
talk) 19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: When you use google (or google books) to check the usage of terms with more than one word, you must write them between apostrophes to seek the usage of both words used toguether, and not just entries where both words simply appear. "Brazilian War" goes from 551.000 (without apostrophes) to 2.370 (with apostrophes); but "Cisplatine War" falls from 4.350 to just 343. In any case, I support the current name, to avoid giving undue weight to either the Argentine or the Brazilian usage. MBelgrano ( talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Support as "Cisplatine War" seems to be "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" ( WP:COMMONNAME), and there are certainly enough such sources. Kanguole 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment The translation of "Guerra del Brasil" as "Brazilian War", and thus the search for such term, was a translation attempted by Lecen. "War of Brazil" gives 296 results. Not much, but 343 aren't either. In any case, that confirms that it's a obscure topic in English literature, as both the Spanish and Portuguese names are reflected in translation. And, as pointed, English reliable sources do not take priority when their coverage is so weak and obscure in comparison with the local usage. Note that there are even some results for "Uruguayan War of Independence" MBelgrano ( talk) 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Support. I'm sure we've been through this before recently. Perhaps it just feels like it. The most common English name, I continue to believe, is the Cisplatine War. Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Support Makes sense to change since the nation of Argentina didn't even exsist during this time period. Spongie555 ( talk) 07:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The mere denomination "Cisplatine" is Brazilian bias, no way to denny this. BTW, the Argentine Republic (named as such by the 1826 Consittution) waged the war. So yes, it was a Brazil-Argentina war. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 17:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Support the move to "Cisplatine War". Three reasons: (1) The case for the use of the term "Cisplatine War" in English-language historical literature is stronger. (2) The name itself seems logical and more accurate. From what I have read, "Argentina" may or may not have have been an organized state before the end of hostilities, but it was clearly the "United Provinces" that entered into the war with Brazil. (3) As the war was instrumental in the formation of Uruguay, the term "Argentine-Brazil War" is exclusionary and mildly misleading. I would recommend throwing in a sentence or two about references to the term "Argentine-Brazil War". Boneyard90 ( talk) 23:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Regardless of the name of Argentina, if we are going to take in consideration the actual names of the regions at the time of the conflict then "Cisplatine" shouldn't be used either. As this article already states, the 33 Orientals declared independence from Brazil and joined back the country they used to be a part of during the Congress of Florida. So, at the time of the conflict, it wasn't the "Cisplatine province" anymore. Even more, the war was fought precisely because they did not want to be the "Cisplatine province". Naming the war like this hurts the Uruguayan feelings. For a closer example, ask any native of the Faklands islands what would they think if we proposed to move "Faklands Islands" or "Faklands War" into names using "Malvinas". Of course, they talk in English so their usage would prevail anyway, but if they (or this wikipedia) had some other language, we wouldn't be acting any different. MBelgrano ( talk) 11:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As it is described at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, the "result" entry of the infobox should be a very short sentence of two or three words, such as "X victory", or perhaps an equally short consequence, such as "X victory. Independence of X". If the result is something so complex that can't be properly described in such a short way (such as here, where neither of the countries in war achieved what they were fighting for, nor the result is a direct consequence of the outcomes of the battles), then the infobox should link to a section in the article where such complexity is fully described. The "See Aftermath" text is a better option than an 8 lines explanation in the infobox MBelgrano ( talk) 12:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It does not appear to me like this was a military victory for Brazil, they didn't win a single land battle (lost the battles of Sarandi and Rincon in Uruguay) and the United Provinces went as far as successfully invading (Battles of Ituzaingo, Ombu, and Bacaycay) Rio Grande do Sud in southern Brazil with nearly 10,000 men no less; that sounds like quite a feat. Why isn't the Battle of Juncal mentioned in the article? I thought it was pretty significant. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.227.47 ( talk) 05:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) --In military book you can find this kind of war as "Pyrrhic war". The winner lost as much or more than the looser. United Provinces won the land and sea battles, but the high cost of the victory, and the trade crisis in Buenos Aires, the main port of the provinces, help the Empire wining in the diplomatic area were they get the sing of a peace treaty. In general the Provinces crisis was also because of the multifront wars. In the north against the spaniard crown, internally between the provinces and in the east against the Brazilian Empire. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.183.127.107 ( talk) 02:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Brazil won the Naval war. This was very critical. Juncal had no importance, since the Brazilian Navy was much larger than the 3rd division of smaller ships which the Argentine managed to beat. "To a navy which consisted of 69 warships and 22 packets and transports, manned by 10600 officers and men, the loss of [...] its smallest armed vessels made little difference to the ultimate balance of power" (Brian Vale, A War Betwixt Englishmen Brazil Against Argentin on the River Plate 1825-1830, Brian Vale, I. B. Tauris, page 137, chapter 14). The Battle of Santiago, on the other hand, was crutial, since the 2 best ships of Argentina were sunk. The other one (the 25 de Mayo) had already been sunk at Lara Quilmes. Brian Vale again summed it up well: "[...] Juncal had done little to push the Empire in the direction of peace. Now at Monte Santiago, two of Argentina's precious brigs-of-war had been destroyed and the cream of its Navy roundly defeated. The Brazilian Navy's overwhelming superiority at sea had been reasserted in a way which neither William Brown's audacity or Ramsay's newly purchased frigates could seriously challenge". See this link too: http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-026.htm .
On land, Brazil did "win" battles (Las Cañas, Padre Filiberto, etc). The line between "victory" and indecisive result is a blurry one anyway (so much so that Ombu and Vacacaà are considered skirmishes without decisive result; at Ituzaingó, Brazil retreated, it did not capitulate, the Army was kept basically intact, not to mention the troops in Colónia and Montevideo, which were supported by our Navy, and thus difficult to be expelled; see this link: http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-025.htm ).
In short: after Argentina joined the war effort, the Brazilian Navy had a series of battles, with the Argentine fighting with great valour, but in the end, losing their best ships at Lara Quilmes (June 1826) and Monte Santiago (April 1827), they lost their Navy, for all practical purposes. In 1828, it was already felt. Argentina began to lose basically all of the Naval encounters (due to their smaller ships, etc) and so with the battles at land. Rivera entered Misiones against the orders he had (Este trabajoso acuerdo enhebrado entre Ponsonby y Lavalleja vĂa TrĂĄpani y Fraser estuvo a punto de quebrarse por los planes de Fructuoso Rivera, un oriental que estaba distanciado de Lavalleja y deseaba combatir al Brasil con apoyo de los caudillos de las Provincias Unidas. Entre abril y mayo de 1828 la conquista de las Misiones (que habĂan estado en manos de las fuerzas imperiales) por parte de Rivera comprometiĂł la suspensiĂłn de hostilidades acordada entre las Provincias Unidas y Brasil, mientras se realizaban las tratativas de paz. Dispuesto a apoyar las gestiones de Ponsonby, Lavalleja enviĂł fuerzas al mando de Manuel Oribe para impedir la invasiĂłn de Rivera al territorio brasileño (5) http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-033.htm ), and his incursion into basically empty Misiones acted against peace (which was longed by the United Provinces), not in favour of it. Ajuricaba ( talk) 12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Cisplatine War â Argentine-Brazilian War â There are 3.160 google book results for "Argentine-Brazilian War" and only 802 for "Cisplatine War". Plus, the new name may be better for readers: any reader can recognize Argentina and Brazil, and understand that this was a war between both (actually, they were the United Provinces of the RĂo de la Plata and the Empire of Brazil back then, predesesor states of modern Argentina and Brazil, but nobody is that technical). On the other hand, "Cisplatina" was a former province of the Empire of Brazil, and hardly anyone beyond history experts will recognize that name beforehand.
Note, by the way, that I'm not requesting to undo the former move request, this is a new one. The old one was from "Argentina-Brazil War" (names of countries, not demonyms), which had just 98 results, and I'm not asking for it. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: I had the username "MBelgrano" back then, my account has been renamed since then, as pointed at my user page Cambalachero ( talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The name proposed is misleading. There was no Argentina in 1825, but the United Provinces of the RĂo de la Plata. What's next? The United States of America in 1658? And let's not forget that there was an actual "Argentine-Brazilian War": the Platine War, which occurred in 1851, more than 20 years after the Cisplatine War, between the Empire of Brazil and the Argentine Confederation. Lecen ( talk) 01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The name "Cisplatine War" is neutral, since it relates to a defunct state, not two countries. Beside, there was no Argentina back then. Rafael Cruz ( talk) 02:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I said that the new name would be more harmful than helpful. -- 201.27.179.95 ( talk) 02:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - Per Google Books results, it seems historical analysis of the sources gives vast preference to the term "Argentine-Brazilian War"; however, 21st century books give some more support (by very little) to the term "Cisplatine War". Added that there is the Platine War (albeit, in Spanish-world historiography it is considered part of the "Guerra Grande" or Uruguayan Civil War in English), which could also be considered an "Argentine-Brazilian War". The problem with "Cisplatine War" is that it is obviously a Brazilian take on the matter, which would be like trying to impose the term "Brazilian War" (the Spanish name) for the English article. Given that I have no strong opinion on this subject, I render a neutral vote. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 03:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. But I might support if an en dash (â) were proposed instead of a hyphen (-). See the well-established guideline WP:DASH, at WP:MOS. Noetica Tea? 03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Comment (Regarding Civility) - A bit of a civility between users here would go a long way. Per Wiki Etiquette. I see thought out points being mentioned and while the less exemplifying points are a bit vague they should not be rudely abashed by claims of sock-puppetry or intentional disruption (no matter how ambiguously these claims are stated). Assume good faith Judicatus ( talk) 08:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. As per Lecen. The use of ArgentineâBrazilian War could be ambiguous with respect to the Cisplatine War and the Platine War. Both terms are widely used in history books of English literature, but according to a quick search on Google Scholar, Cisplatine War out-tops ArgentineâBrazilian War. Nevertheless, both terms are duly exposed in the article's lead and, therefore, I see no reason to rename it. Not to mention the consensus achieved just about a year and a half ago (December 2010) to rename the article to Cisplatine War. Felipe Menegaz 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Google Scholar prefers 'Cisplatine War' (58 hits) over 'Argentine-Brazilian War' (20 hits). Some of the Google Books hits are for 'First Argentine-Brazilian War' or 'Argentine-Brazilian War of 1825' (or '1826' or '(1826-1828)' ), which highlights the precision problem with the proposed title already raised by others. LaTeeDa ( talk) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. for all the reasons advanced in favor of the move to the current title. I've encountered no change in the sources over the past year. âą Astynax talk 08:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Please use this section to discuss any concerns with the aforementioned professional.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 03:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Daniel Stowell cites as a reference for his statement the following: "Ron Seckinger, The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 59-73." The book "Balancing Evils Judiciously" focuses on Zeph Kingsley, but throughout the book Stowell explains on events mentioned in the Kingsley writings. One of these is the war between Brazil and what Kingsley calls "the Free Republic of Buenos Ayres" (i.e., the Cisplatine War). This is the full text of Stowell's statement:
Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries.|Daniel Stowell [1]}}
Daniel Stowell is not a military historian, nor is he specialised in the history of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The quote you claim would have come from this book, "Balancing Evils Judiciously", http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Balancing_Evils_Judiciously.html?id=fQTaGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y, which is not about the subject at all: "For the first time, all the proslavery -- but also pro-black -- writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (1765-1843) appear together in one volume. Kingsley was a slave trader and the owner of a large plantation near Jacksonville in what was then Spanish East Florida. He married one of his slaves and had children with several others. Daniel Stowell carefully assembles all of Kingsley's writings on race and slavery to illuminate the evolution of his thought. The intriguing hybrid text of the four editions of the treatise clearly identifies both subtle and substantial differences among the editions. Other extensively annotated documents show how Kingsley's interracial family and his experiences in various slaveholding societies in the Caribbean and South America influenced his thinking on race, class, and slavery".
This is clearly not about the topic Cisplatine War at all. He was no expert, and his quote is clearly misleading.
Contrary to what the quote would imply, throughout the conflict:
In short, the quote you so much want to post is a biased portrayal of the conflict, a misleading one, not coming from a specialist. And it makes it look like the United Provinces won the conflict, which they did not, if they had Uruguay would have been annexed. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 12:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In any case, the quote should be reformulated into text appropiate for a wikipedia article, and then cite the historian as a reference. Using a quote as a replacement of such text is not a good editing style, and should be fixed whenever possible. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not a good summary of the events at all, and it is misleading as a big-text quote. Stowell is no expert or authority on the subject, and the course of events was much more complex than his words imply. I wouldn't mind Cambalachero or some other user turning the quote into an appropriate short text, with a reference to Stowell. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to what the poster MarshalN20 is claiming, I am a responsible poster, and I stand for neutrality and impartiality as much as possible. Don't distort what I said MarshalN20. I did not say Stowell is a good source. He is not. It does not come from someone expert on the subject, nor from a military historian, he never wrote about the Cisplatine War (the book is not specifically about the conflict).
As a proof of my willingness to compromise, I agreed on posting it as suggested by Cambalachero, i.e, not as a big-quote text, which is entirely misleading. And I am not basing it on "original research", as falsely claimed by MarshalN20, I based it on facts. If the Brazilian army was weak, so was the Argentine army. If the Brazilian army did not have control of events, neither did the United Provinces army. They did not expel Brazilian troops stationed in Uruguay nor did they put an end to the blockade: on the contrary, by the end of the conflict the United Provinces lacked a fleet.
MarshalN20 posted this from Stowell: "Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait". As one can see, Kingsley gave apparently a positive portrait of Brazil during that conflict. One can see Kingsley had a positive portrait. As mentioned Stowell is not an expert on the subject, posting his opinion as a big-text quote is misleading, so much so that Lecen has agreed with me on it.
A final note, I'm not a nationalist. I just don't want anti-Brazilian sentiment to distort what happened. My comment in the page of MarshalN20 relates to the fact that from what his editing suggests, if the United Provinces had paraded in the capital of Brazil like Brazilian troops did in Buenos Aires, he would not hesitate in posting a pic of it. I've never cared to post a depiction of the Brazilian troops in Buenos Aires during the Platine War, because I'm not a nationalist. And this is what I was trying to show to him. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Stop misrepresenting myself. I am not a nationalist. What I pointed out is that Stowell is not an expert on the subject he never wrote a book on it, and there are many other opinions besides his. Whatever he thinks of the conflict is in no way a final judgment on it contrary to what MarshalN20 is trying to make it to be.
Look for the history of the conflict, at the end the United Provinces did not have a fleet like they did at the beginning, and the blockade was still in place. The Brazilian performance was not a "disaster" as Stowell claimed it to be. Kingsley, quoted by MarshalN20, even showed a positive appreciation of Brazil. There are many other opinions, you just have to read the literature on the conflict, as I said, the literature on the conflict, not some book which is not even about the conflict in itself. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
No, what matters is that Stowell is not: an expert on the subject nor has written a book on it, his area is not the history of Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. His quote is a misleading simplification of the subject. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
"But in its major test of the 1820s-the Banda Oriental dispute-British policy proved less than efficacious. Great Britain failed to prevent the outbreak of war, suffered severe commercial losses due to the Brazilian blockade of the Plata, and could not mediate a settlement until both sides had come to realize that a military solution was not feasible'." p. 26, you can access it here: http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/hist/South%20American%20Power%20Politics%20during%20the%201820s.pdf
As you can see, the situation was more complex. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
"En sĂntesis, ninguno de los beligerantes podĂa decidir la guerra a su favor. Esto se reflejaba en las declaraciones del enviado Ponsonby al ministro Canning, que hacĂan una radiografĂa de la crĂtica situaciĂłn financiera y militar atravesada por ambos beligerantes".
"In short, none of the countries could decide the war. This was reflected in the words of Ponsonby to Canning, in which he made a critical assessment of the military and financial situation faced by both sides".
As you can see, it is biased to say that only the Brazilian side had problems. So did the United Provinces. So much so that if Brazil did not expel the fighters from the Banda Oriental, neither did the United Provinces: as I said both Colonia and Montevideo remained under the control of Brazil. And by the end of the conflict only Brazil had a fleet so to say, the United Provinces relied on the activities of corsairs after the battle of Monte Santiago. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 23:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no objections to pointing out that Brazil had problems. The events of the war speak for themselves IMO, Brazil clearly had problems. I just don't agree with the Stowell quote; if it is to be used, then it should be put into the format of a text, that would be the best. 187.36.81.70 ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
References
The term "Argentine-Brazilian War" has a large number of reliable sources that use it. Please see [75], with 2,490 results. Most sources tend to attach the date of the conflict next to the name, and others simply use the term "First" prior to the war's name (which is what I have also done in the article). This name is also much closer to the Spanish name of "Guerra del Brasil" (Brazilian War). Lastly, the term "Guerra del Cisplatina" is an invented Spanish term, and should not be used in the article. All the best.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cisplatine War. 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:
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).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The Banda Oriental was not a province, state or administrative unit, it was the name of a territory located in present-day Uruguay. In 1813, Artigas de facto created the Oriental Province and on March 7, 1814, the Supreme Director of the United Provinces formally created the Eastern Intendance Government of the RĂo de la Plata, which was later given the name of Oriental Province in itself article from the Banda Oriental shows it ULIFOX 3XX ( talk) 04:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)