Talk:Latin American wars of independence

Argentina

In the "Argentina" section, this sentence can be read: "the Spanish colonial government of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, present-day Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, became greatly weakened. "

The way it is worded, it misleads the reader into believing that present-day Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay were all part of Rio de la Plata Viceroyalty. Peru was never part of this Viceroyalty. Quite the opposite, it was the oldest Spanish Viceroyalty in South America, and it was the other way around: the Rio de la Plata (and all its territories) had been originally part of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Later on, they were separated and turned into new Viceroyalties. By the time of the wars of Independence, the Upper Peru, as it was always called (present day Bolivia), was largely disputed between the Viceroyalty of Peru and the Viceroyalty of El Rio de la Plata. That sentence should be rephrased or corrected, since it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Top

I don't know much about this....I can track down stuff, but really we need someone who knows this history better than I. Any volunteers? :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Many errors likely persist, by the way -- mostly I preserved the factual assertions of the user who created the article, even though I find some of them suspect, and some are clearly badly explained. Hack and slash as much as you need to in order to fix it. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brazil shouldn't be here

I think Brazil shouldn't be in this article but in a separate one. Brazil didn't have a "war" like the other american countries to be independent. The son of the portuguese king declared the independence. And yes, the first "brazilian emperor" was born in Portugal. Then, (for the people that studied brazilian history) he went back to Portugal to fight because he wanted to be the portuguese king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.103.199 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Name

I think the name of this page is much too ambiguous. Besides, it would make more sense to speak of the Latin American Wars of Independence, as Central American and Caribean (Haitit) colonies fought for their independence in the period 1808-1826 as well. And, while we are at it, other sources speak of the Wars of Liberation... Renke 12:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bolivar-San Martín

San Martín is also known as "El Libertador", and both campaigns were enormous; I think its some form of POV to talk of BOLIVAR and refer to San Martín as someone active in the south.

The distinct Northern and Southern theatres of campaign mean that I vote against merging this page into "Bolivar's War". Joffan 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote NO

Exactly, San Martín and Bolívar was equals in contribution to the Independence of South American Countries, San Martín in the South and Bolívar in the North. This article is correct as it is.

Merge

Bolivar's War article should be merged into this article. No sense to have 2 articles; this one is more comprehensive. Thanks Hmains 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I would recommend a merge into South American wars of independence. Both articles would benefit from some substantial improvements, but the title of this article better represents the scope of that time period and the large number of participants (from american and european countries). Bolívar's campaigns are definitely worth an article on their own merit, but he was certainly not the only noteworthy participant in those events.

I for one, am going to put my fingers with my vote and begin to improve this article. Perhaps with the help of some additional volunteers, we could make this one a bit more comprehensive, and the clear winner in the battle to subjugate Bolívar's War into this article. :-p Srice13 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed: use of the term "nativism"

I just read this article for the first time and was frankly stunned to see the word "nativism" in the intro being used in a truly bizarre context. Surely there isn't another whole meaning for the word, separate & distinct from its standard usage? The article on nativism certainly gives no suggestion of such a thing.

I very strongly suspect that the word was inserted as an act of vandalism - but I couldn't deduce what the orginal word may have been (perhaps "nationalism"??), and I just don't have time to go through the entire edit history, one by one, hoping to find out what happened. So it would be really nice if someone who's familiar with the history of the article would look into this and make whatever correction is called for. Cgingold 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No for Merging

The subject of South Americans war of independece is composed of diferent campaings,people,countries,idelogies so it is unfair to just tagged it all like the same.The American Revolutionary War has around 55 kilobytes while independence of latin america(a much more bigger area that the USA of XVIII century and less cohesive movement) is compossed of mainly stubs and unreferenced articles.Rather than merging it should be expanded the different articles about each country independence.--Andres rojas22 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

YES FOR MERGING

This article is entirely and completely useless and it is embarrasing that it even exists in Wikipedia, which is more often than not a very reliable and respectable source of true and clear information. Respectfully, I think Andres rojas22 is wrong in the reasons he provides against the merging of the articles. None of the reasons he states(the ideological differences between San Martín and Bolívar, the small size of the original Independence War article, and the different components of the Wars of Independence) are at all valid.

The point is that the term "Bolivar's War" makes the different aspects, theatres and components of the South American Wars of Independence possessive to Simón Bolívar alone. It is, I think, unnecessary to remind any person who has even the most cursory knowledge of Latin American History, that Simón Bolívar was not the only leader in this movement, indeed he wasn't even the original one. In Venezuela that title is held by Manuel Gual, Pedro España or Francisco de Miranda who all led the calls for independence before Bolívar was anywhere in the political landscape. Indeed, Simón Bolívar wasn't even one of the signatories of the Act of Independence of July 5. He was the most important leader of the posterior conflicts which achieved independence but not the creator of something called "Bolívar's War".

Further, the name is insulting to people like José Félix Ribas, Antonio José de Sucre, Francisco de Miranda, José Antonio Páez, Santiago Mariño, Francisco Rodriguez del Toro and many, many others who provided leadership and sometimes gave their lives to fight for the independence of the Viceroyalties of New Granada (present day Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador) and Perú (Bolivia and Perú), which were the countries in which the fight led by Bolívar took place.

I would suggest first merging this article with the South American Wars of Independence article, and then, if needed, taking the relevant information on each country (again, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuardor, Perú and Bolivia) to each country's article on its own War of Independence. Please stop insulting the memory of the very many men and women who died and fought for independence by allocating every and all credit to a single, albeit enormously important, man. It is not only morally wrong, but enormously historically and informationally erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agammemnon (talk • contribs)

I'm very aware that Bolivar din't liberate these countries by himself and who those men were,and i dont think it's insulting at all the term Bolivar's war,but for a better explanation i'll do a brief recounting of the independance of Northern South America:the first calls for revolution were heard in america in the end of the XVIII century(Jose Leonardo Chirinos in Venezuela,comuneros uprising in New Granada,Túpac Amaru revolt in Perú..)but they were succesfully represed by the crown becaused they usually lacked the suport of the mantuanos who feared a social revolution like happened in Haiti.When the french invaded Spain the mantuanos saw an oportunity to gain political independence(i point the fact that the mantuanos wanted a political independence so they could maintain their power and the status quo,but were against a social change for the same reason)this movements wich saw the independence declarations in the different countries wass soon also in a big crisis because many people of the lower class saw whit suspicion the mantuanos plans and they dint support them or even join the royalist army to figth the insurrection,probably the most brutal example wass Jose Tomas Boves in Venezuela who making use of the hatred of the lower classes for the mantuanos,succesfully disbanded the first venezuelan republic.Soon the independence movements under the mantuanos fell short of energy(some aristocrats pledged the king for amnesty,some even joined the royalist) the colonial administration wass restablished in Quito and Perú,leaving just in New Granada and Venezuela small bands fighting whit little succes,pluss the divisions of the patriotic lines and the expedition of Morillo almost ended the patriot's cause.

It is in this context,the failure of the separetaly indepence move that Bolivar makes his crucial move and is the justification for the name Bolivar's war.Bolivar's saw the futility of the regional divisions and thaugh that to succed it would be necesary to unite the independance movement's,give it a continental esence.He invaded New Granada(this is way after the campaña admirable)and in a series of battles the venezuelan-grenadin forces defeated the spanish.After the stablishment of the Great Colombia,the Colombian army continued campaining in Venezuela,Quito and Perú therefore actually liberating these republics.

Therefore,you see, the name Bolivar's wars does not mean that Bolivar liberated this countries alone but refers to the time when under Bolivars direction(remember that he wass the only president of the Great Colombia,just being replaced by Santander his vicepresident when he campaigned)the movements of northern south america efectivly joined forces in a continental and consolidated movement and broke whit the situation of aislation and local war that didnt brought results--Andres rojas22 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When did this happen?

In spring 1820, Bolívar's republican forces took....

When did this happen? Equatorial countries have tropical seasons, not temperate-zone seasons, so this seasonal reference is inappropriate here. If possible, substitute this with a date or a month. --B.d.mills 07:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I reorganized the article to make it more symmetrical, and removed information that I felt was unnecessary to include here (it makes no sense to include biographies of the major leaders of the war, when all you have to do is click on the links of their names to get one that's as in-depth as is necessary). The article still needs more information though, specifically a brief summary of each of the major campaigns in southern South America. And of course, it needs citations.

I might still add a military conflict box so links to the articles about all the various leaders can be mentioned at least somewhere on the page. However, since this is a summary of a collection of wars, rather than an article about a single war itself, I'm not sure that it's really appropriate.--Antodav2007 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing is necessary - Brazil independence

The text says: "After the wars of independence, virtually all of South America was free from European control. Brazil, a Portuguese colony, gained its independence peacefully in 1825"

It's wrong. Although Portugal recognized the independence of Brazil only in 1825, it was a de facto Empire since 1822, even in terms of actual recognition by Portugal. I mean: the Emperor D. Pedro I was the King of Portugal's son, and one of the aspects that guaranteed the peaceful transition to an independent country was that the new Emperor had kind of agreed with his father that there was no way but declare the independence. In 1824, Brazil already had a Constitution. So, I think it's more logical to say Brazil gained its independence in 1822. 189.13.43.21 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Revolutionary leaders

It is known that the main leaders of these revolutions were Simon Bolivar and José de San Martín. But it should be pointed that in some countries there were leaders that started every revolution, and lead their people to help the tow main leaders, they should be pointed also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MbeckS (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Constant name changing

Can we choose one and stick to it? Personally I think Latin American wars of independence is the better title. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin American Wars of Independence

It makes much more sense to rename the article to "Latin American Wars of Independence." It would include nations such as Brazil and Haiti into the article, which is the major difference between the names. What is the point of having an article exclude these two nations if the topics are extremely similar?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Wasn't it named that way before? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but User:Resvoluci apparently thinks there is a major difference between both topics. His point makes no sense at all, though. Why should Brazil and Haiti, two countries, be excluded from a topic that could easily include them by changing one simple word? It's pointless to make separate articles for something that should be simply stated in one.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He's wrong. These revolutions were a continuation of the American and French revolutions. And the trigger for both the Spanish and Portuguese colonies was Napoleon's occupation of Spain and Portugal, even though their paths to independence were different. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

...a continuation of the American and French revolutions?. It is big big mistake.--Resvoluci (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but where was this move discussed? You cannot unilaterally move an article like this, especially when two editors immediately question it. Please move it back now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You change the name without discuss. Yes. But if you want to change the name to merged this article to Latin American revolutions. Do it, but then I must to create another article to write about the Hispanic American war of independece.--Resvoluci (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I restored the original name, prior to your move. Fine, if you want to create a new article, but please restore this one to its original name. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Then feel free to change it. Bye--Resvoluci (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I have nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latin_American_revolutions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New map

I believe a new map should be used to represent all latin american countries (like the title says Latin American wars of independence)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The change has been done. If someone wants to create an animated version—like the one for the Hispanic America that used to be here—that would be great. I don't have those kinds of skills.TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

2012 Merger proposal

I oppose the merger of this article with Spanish American wars of independence because doing so would dilute the analysis that's presented in the latter. The Spanish American process is quite unique from what happened in Haiti and Brazil. That does not mean that there aren't commonalities, nor that they cannot be discussed together, but I would argue that they should not only be discussed together. This article (Latin American wars of independence) needs lot of work. That much is true. It's currently a list of what happened in the various nations, which is not very helpful. Hopefully someone will take a crack at fixing it—maybe I might try it, but I can't promise that (time commitments). But merging them just to improve this article would ruin the analytical framework of the other article. Looking forward to hear from others. TriniMuñoz (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this article is precisely that the conflicts in Spanish America, Haiti and Brazil are unique and specific, each one with its own set of causes, development and consequences, and without much interaction between each other. They were contemporary, but that's it. Even the classic pattern of the weak colony in the Americas and the powerful European metropoli (shared by the Spanish ones, Haiti and the United States) is changed by the Brazilian case. The "Latin American wars of independence" is really an umbrella term, like the Atlantic Revolutions, not the name of a real military conflict.

I proposed a merge because, as there's nothing yet here about Haiti or Brazil, then we should just save whatever is here worth saving into the other article, and then turn this into a DAB like "Atlantic Revolutions", or redirect, or some other option. Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with you Cambalachero. Both "wars of independence" articles are the result of an old edit war over the title, so out of deference to those involved—I came on board and reedited "Spanish American wars of independence" after the dust had settled—but I think the absence of a unifying historical analysis is evident in the article's mishmash nature, something which has continually plagued this article. I think that salvaging what can be salvaged into the other articles and turning this into a DAB is a good idea. I would wait a while (a month?) and then "act boldly."TriniMuñoz (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird Formatting

Content aside, i can't help but notice that a large part of the article (World Reaction onward) is split into columns, for seemingly no reason. I've tried to edit it and can't see what's wrong, so it might just be my computer. Either way, I figured I should bring it to the attention of someone with more editing skills than me. 50.168.255.140 (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Haiti

This article needs some serious work and its maintanance tags should be addressed foremost. Pertaining to Haiti however, whether this is common knowledge or not, it was the first Latin American country to win its independence and had aided Bolivar to lead his liberations for his vision of Gran Granada. To simply include "Caribbean" revolution, "slave revolt" or whatever of the sort is ridiculous (no other country in the Caribbean had a revolution that is comparable, besides arguably the Cuban Revolution that started over a hundred years later) and shows its one-sided view of what was achieved, a view that has helped alienate Haiti from the first Pan-Latin conference in which Bolivar helped exclude and sanction Haiti in its early stages of independence. By now, we should be well-aware of Haiti's inclusion as the evidence is everywhere. (Please easily find and draw your own conclusions; its overwhelming). Please ascend further to make this a great article. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is a clusterf*ck!

This article is a mess. There's miss information, dates are wrong, most sections don't even have references and those that do are either outdated or unreachable. Entire sections are plagued by misspellings and most paragraphs are unreadable due to poor grammar. To top it off, most of (the useful info) it is just copypasted from other articles.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin American wars of independence. 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/19981201035842/http://www.ddg.com/LIS/aurelia/ecuhis.htm to http://www.ddg.com/LIS/aurelia/ecuhis.htm

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) 23:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)