Muwatallis II (talk | contribs) repeated information. It is already in the body of the article. |
Caminoderoma (talk | contribs) Do not make it invisible moving to Footnotes. Footnotes is for searched. Third opinion say put the nationality of these people in the body of the article. Tag: Undo |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
== Opposing forces == |
== Opposing forces == |
||
[[Image:Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.jpg|thumb|160px|Vice Admiral [[Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald|Thomas Cochrane]] participated in the attack on the head of his naval forces.]] |
[[Image:Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.jpg|thumb|160px|Vice Admiral [[Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald|Thomas Cochrane]] participated in the attack on the head of his naval forces.]] |
||
=== Nationality of the forces involved === |
|||
As for the nationality of the forces involved in the capture of the ''Esmeralda'': |
|||
* The British historians, W. Edmundson <ref>(Edmundson 2009; page 74)</ref>, according to the exhaustive list made by Fletcher Hillman (1900), indicates that the majority are British. Brian Vale does not indicate figures, but in the narration of the action points out the presence of British and Chileans.<ref>(Brian Vale 2008; page 113)</ref> Before say that two-thirds of seamen of Squadron were British or North American. <ref>(Brian Vale 2008;page 25)</ref> |
|||
* The Chilean historian Carlos Lopéz Urrutia <ref>(López Urrutia 2008; page 148)</ref>, according to the National Archive, points out that of the 92 and 99 of ''O'Higgins'' and ''Lautaro'', half were Chilean and the other foreigners, and of the 49 that were in the ''Independencia'', 15 were Chilean and the the rest of main force were foreigners. Of the 32 officers, only 5 were Chilean and the all rest were foreigners. |
|||
* The Spanish historian Pérez Turrado <ref>(Pérez Turrado 1996; page 168)</ref>, referring to the version of the defenders of ''Esmeralda'', indicates that all the participants of the Cochrane's Squadron were British and North American. |
|||
=== Chilean Navy === |
=== Chilean Navy === |
||
For the Cochrane attack it gathered 240 men; of whom 160 were chosen sailors and 80 were marines.<ref name="BarrosArana99">Barros Arana, 1894, XIII: page 99.</ref> Of these 92 were from ''O'Higgins'', 99 from ''Lautaro'' and 49 from ''Independencia''.<ref name="LópezUrrutia148">López Urrutia, 2008: page 148.</ref> Regarding the nationality of the members of the Chilean Navy participating in the action. (see note{{refn|group=Notes|As for the nationality of the forces involved in the capture of the ''Esmeralda''; the Chilean historian Carlos Lopéz Urrutia (López Urrutia 2008; page 148), according to the National Archive, points out that of the 92 and 99 of ''O'Higgins'' and ''Lautaro'', half were Chilean and the other foreigners, and of the 49 that were in the ''Independencia'', 15 were Chilean and the the rest were foreigners. Of the 32 officers, 5 were Chilean and the rest were foreigners. The Spanish historian Pérez Turrado (Pérez Turrado 1996; page 168), referring to the realistic version, indicates that all the participants were English and American. The historian W. Edmundson (Edmundson 2009; page 74), according to a list made by Fletcher Hillman (1900), indicates that the majority are British. The British historian Brian Vale (Brian Vale 2008; page 113) does not indicate figures, but in the narration of the action points out the presence of Chileans and British.}}) |
For the Cochrane attack it gathered 240 men; of whom 160 were chosen sailors and 80 were marines.<ref name="BarrosArana99">Barros Arana, 1894, XIII: page 99.</ref> Of these 92 were from ''O'Higgins'', 99 from ''Lautaro'' and 49 from ''Independencia''.<ref name="LópezUrrutia148">López Urrutia, 2008: page 148.</ref> Regarding the nationality of the members of the Chilean Navy participating in the action. (see note{{refn|group=Notes|As for the nationality of the forces involved in the capture of the ''Esmeralda''; the Chilean historian Carlos Lopéz Urrutia (López Urrutia 2008; page 148), according to the National Archive, points out that of the 92 and 99 of ''O'Higgins'' and ''Lautaro'', half were Chilean and the other foreigners, and of the 49 that were in the ''Independencia'', 15 were Chilean and the the rest were foreigners. Of the 32 officers, 5 were Chilean and the rest were foreigners. The Spanish historian Pérez Turrado (Pérez Turrado 1996; page 168), referring to the realistic version, indicates that all the participants were English and American. The historian W. Edmundson (Edmundson 2009; page 74), according to a list made by Fletcher Hillman (1900), indicates that the majority are British. The British historian Brian Vale (Brian Vale 2008; page 113) does not indicate figures, but in the narration of the action points out the presence of Chileans and British.}}) |
Revision as of 20:54, 12 July 2018
Capture of the Esmeralda | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of Peruvian War of Independence | |||||||
Capture of the Esmeralda in the bay of Callao, L, Colet, Club Naval, Valparaíso. | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Republic of Chile | Spanish Monarchy | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Thomas Cochrane (WIA) |
Antonio Vacaro Juan Francisco Sánchez Luis Coig (POW-WIA) | ||||||
Strength | |||||||
240 sailors & marines 14 boats of the ships |
harbor batteries 1 frigate 2 brigs 1 pailebot 14 gunboats some armed merchants | ||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||
11 killed & 22 wounded |
1 frigate captured 3 gunboats captured various killed, wounded & prisoners |
The capture of the Esmeralda was a naval action waged on the night of 5 and 6 November 1820. This military act consisted in a movement carried out by a division of sailors and marines of the First Chilean Navy Squadron, commanded by Thomas Cochrane, who entered with several boats to the bay of Callao and captured the frigate, flagship of the Spanish Navy,[1] which was protected by a strong military disposition formed by a floating chain, armed ships, gunboats and the harbor batteries.
Both Chilean[2] and Spanish[3] historiography consider that with this military action the importance or naval influence of the Spanish Navy in the Pacific completely disappeared. The British historian Brian Vale follows the same line of opinion by pointing out that with this naval action the Spanish Navy indisputably lost control of the sea.[4]
The Chilean historian Diego Barros Arana pointed out in his book written in 1894 that this fact has been mentioned in numerous books, citing some, to the point that he considers it as the battle of the Spanish American wars of independence that has been told in a greater number of times.[5] The Spanish historian Cesáreo Fernández Duro likens this action to the capture of the Hermione, in Puerto Cabello, in 1799, but stating that he exceeds it in daring.[6]
Background
On 20 August 1820, the Liberating Expedition commanded by General José de San Martín sailed from Valparaíso to Peru. This force was escorted by the Chilean Navy[Notes 1] under the command of Vice Admiral Cochrane.
Since the beginning of the campaign, San Martín and Cochrane had differences as to how they should the carry military operations in Peru.[8] The first wanted to avoid combat, win over the population and press with indirect actions to Lima.[8] The second wanted to give a decisive blow to the royalists by attacking the capital, thus satisfying the army and the navy.[8] Finally the thought of the first prevailed.
The expeditionary force arrived on 7 September in Paracas, near Pisco.[9] In the place, San Martin established his headquarters to put pressure on the royalists.[8] Viceroy Juaquin de la Pezuela entered into negotiations with San Martin, based on the new peninsular political situation with the proclamation of the Spanish Constitution of 1812.[8] However, the negotiations that took place between the end of September and the beginning of October did not prosper.[10]
At the beginning of October, San Martin sends a division of the army to the Peruvian highlands to revolt the territory, giving the command of the force to the General Juan Antonio Álvarez de Arenales.
On 9 October 1820, there was the lifting of the garrison of Guayaquil, which culminated in the proclamation of the independence of the place. This fact had material and moral consequences in favor of the revolutionary cause in Peru.[11]
On 26 October, the expeditionary force left Pisco with the fleet to go north, arriving on 29 in front of Callao.[12] The next day San Martin left for Ancón to carry out military operations on land, while Cochrane stayed in front of the port to establish a rigorous blockade with some of his ships[13] and also occupied the island of San Lorenzo.[14]
Blockade of Callao
Since the arrival of the liberation expedition to the Peruvian coasts in September, the Spanish Navy had not carried out any action of medium efficiency to repel or at least harass the revolutionaries, giving them expeditious control of the sea.[15] This was due to the invariable defensive policy of the Viceroy Pezuela and the inability of the Commanding General of Navy Antonio Vacaro.[15][16]
The Spanish fleet, based in Callao, was mainly formed by the frigates Prueba, Venganza and Esmeralda, and also had several other militarily armed ships.[11] The first two frigates, commanded by Captain José Villegas, sailed from the port to the south on 10 October with the sole purpose of embark troops,[17][18] leaving the third frigate and the other ships under the defenses of the place.[15] Vacaro made this third naval unit the flagship of the squadron under his command.[1]
That was the situation of the Spanish fleet at the time when Cochrane had established the blockade of Callao on 30 October, having at its disposal the frigates O'Higgins and Lautaro, and the corvette Independencia.[19]
The Cochrane plan
The blockade of Callao was maintained without any difficulty by the Chilean fleet, since the fleet was refused to fight and remained on the defensive. However, this situation of total inactivity bothered Cochrane due to his adventurous nature.[19]
To break the monotony of the blockade, Cochrane planned to strike a blow to the Spanish fleet stationed in the port, which essentially consisted of making a surprise attack during the night to seize the Esmeralda.[19][20][18] As a complement to his plan, he intended to capture or burn down the other Spanish ships that were in the port.[21][20]
In those days, Cochrane began preparations for the attack he planned to lead personally, appointing the crew and officers who would participate.[22][23] On 1 November, he gave instructions to his subordinates[24] and in the following three days he performed exercises with the crew.[25] On the night of 4 November, he made a reconnaissance of the bay and an essay for the attack he planned to carry out on the night of the next day.[22]
Opposing forces
Nationality of the forces involved
As for the nationality of the forces involved in the capture of the Esmeralda:
- The British historians, W. Edmundson [26], according to the exhaustive list made by Fletcher Hillman (1900), indicates that the majority are British. Brian Vale does not indicate figures, but in the narration of the action points out the presence of British and Chileans.[27] Before say that two-thirds of seamen of Squadron were British or North American. [28]
- The Chilean historian Carlos Lopéz Urrutia [29], according to the National Archive, points out that of the 92 and 99 of O'Higgins and Lautaro, half were Chilean and the other foreigners, and of the 49 that were in the Independencia, 15 were Chilean and the the rest of main force were foreigners. Of the 32 officers, only 5 were Chilean and the all rest were foreigners.
- The Spanish historian Pérez Turrado [30], referring to the version of the defenders of Esmeralda, indicates that all the participants of the Cochrane's Squadron were British and North American.
For the Cochrane attack it gathered 240 men; of whom 160 were chosen sailors and 80 were marines.[22] Of these 92 were from O'Higgins, 99 from Lautaro and 49 from Independencia.[25] Regarding the nationality of the members of the Chilean Navy participating in the action. (see note[Notes 2])
The crews embarked in 14 boats[22] with oars of the mentioned ships and they were divided in two groups:[25]
- The first group, formed by the boats of the O'Higgins, commanded by Captain Thomas Crosbie.
- The second group, formed by the boats of the Lautaro and the Independencia, commanded by Captain Martin Guise.
In the first group, Cochrane joined to direct the attack.[25]
The Chilean forces were armed with pistols, but also with boarding axes, daggers or machetes, and short pikes that would be essential for success.[20] His clothes would be a white jacket with a blue ribbon on his arm to recognize himself.[20] Cochrane also used a key for his forces to recognize himself, it was the words "Glory" and "Victory".[20]
The oars of the boats were wrapped in canvas to not produce the slightest noise when moving in the water.[20]
The Spanish Navy stationed in Callao, under the Command of Vacaro, consists mainly of:[31][32]
On the frigate, in addition to the sailors, were on board a couple of troops of the Real Carlos battalion and army gunners.[35]
To these were added 14 gunboats[31][39] and merchant ships armed militarily.[31]
In addition to the naval squadron, there are the land batteries of the port in charge of Brigadier Juan Francisco Sánchez,[22] which consisted of:[39]
- Batteries of the fortresses of Real Felipe, San Rafael and San Miguel.
- Batteries of the Arsenal and San Juaquín.
The defensive formation of the realists consisted of a floating trench formed by trunks linked by chains that barely left an opening for the entry or exit of the ships of the roadstead.[31] This floating chain was guarded by the 14 gunboats, and behind this chain were anchored the Esmeralda, Maipú (these two at the northern end of the roadstead) Pezuela and Aránzazu, forming these ships the head of the line,[32] and to their rear the armed merchants.[31] All this defensive disposition of the squadron was also protected by the batteries of the port.[39] It was an imposing defensive disposition.[39]
Battle
On the afternoon of 5 November, Cochrane ordered to the Lautaro and Independencia to leave the port to the high seas, leaving the O'Higgins near the island of San Lorenzo, and on one of its hidden sides the boats with their crew destined for the attack.[20] With this movement he succeeded in deceiving the royalists, making the surveillance of the port drowsy.[20]
After 10 o'clock at night, the boats separated from the O'Higgins, initiating the approach movement towards the entrance of the floating chain that protected the Spanish ships. The boats advanced in two parallel columns according to the groups that formed Crosbie and Guise.
The Chilean force sailed to reach the coast at the height of the battery of San Juaquín, which defended the northern end of the port, then entered between the fortress of San Miguel and the anchorage of neutral ships to hide their advance. The anchorage of the neutral ships was very close to the opening of the floating chain. When passing through that place, they ran into the frigates USS Macedonian and HMS Hyperion, which were the closest to the entrance of the realistic defense. The Americans, seeing them, wished them good luck in the attack they were going to make, while the British, very imprudent, began to demand the "who lives" of each of the Chilean boats, which fortunately were not heard by the realists in the port. All this silent approach movement carried out so far had lasted two hours.
At midnight, the boats arrived at the entrance of the floating chain where a gunboat was on guard, which they surprised and captured immediately. Once overcome this obstacle, the boats approached the sides of the Esmeralda in a matter of minutes and they addressed it simultaneously at different points. The group of Crosbie, at whose head was Cochrane, attacked the side to starboard, while the group of Guise made it to port. In those moments, Coig was in the camera talking with other officers and much of the crew was asleep, except the guards.
The sleepy crew, newly aware of the surprise attack, went to take up arms to counterattack, but as Cochrane pointed out; "the Chilean machetes did not give them much time to organize and recover their spirit". But in spite of the surprise, they gave some resistance in the attacked points, generating a fight with sharp weapons and firearms. However, the impetus of the Chilean attack was irresistible and those who were not killed soon had to leave those places as in the quarterdeck, the quarters of the frigate and the poop.
The royalists were pushed to the forecastle, and there they offered brave resistance until the forces of Crosbie and Guise united and attacked the position resolutely. Some of the Chilean forces, who according to the instructions, had occupied the ladders and climbed to the top in the first moments of the boarding, contributed with their shots from the height with the victory. Occupying the bow, Guise cleaned the lower deck of the troops that were firing upwards through the hatches. Finally, the realistic crew that survived surrendered after a quarter of an hour of fighting.
Coig delivered his ship and was taken prisoner, as well as the injured Captain Melitón Pérez del Camino, who was on board for having the post of line boss. During the fight, Cochrane received a blow at the beginning and in the final stage a shot that pierced his thigh, which is why he had to sit on the deck and try to direct the attack as best he could.
It should be noted that the shots fired during the fight in the Esmeralda, as well as the presence of some fugitives of the frigate who threw themselves into the sea to save themselves, alerted of the other ships, gunboats and batteries of the port.
Aftermath
Footnotes
- ^ The escort was provided by the squadron and comprised the frigate O'Higgins (flagship), ship of the line San Martín, frigate Lautaro, corvette Independencia, the brigs Galvarino, Pueyrredón and Araucano, and schooner Moctezuma.[7]
- ^ As for the nationality of the forces involved in the capture of the Esmeralda; the Chilean historian Carlos Lopéz Urrutia (López Urrutia 2008; page 148), according to the National Archive, points out that of the 92 and 99 of O'Higgins and Lautaro, half were Chilean and the other foreigners, and of the 49 that were in the Independencia, 15 were Chilean and the the rest were foreigners. Of the 32 officers, 5 were Chilean and the rest were foreigners. The Spanish historian Pérez Turrado (Pérez Turrado 1996; page 168), referring to the realistic version, indicates that all the participants were English and American. The historian W. Edmundson (Edmundson 2009; page 74), according to a list made by Fletcher Hillman (1900), indicates that the majority are British. The British historian Brian Vale (Brian Vale 2008; page 113) does not indicate figures, but in the narration of the action points out the presence of Chileans and British.
References
- ^ a b Fernández Duro, 1903: page 295.
- ^ Vázquez de Acuña, 2003: page 164.
- ^ Fernández Duro, 1903: page 297.
- ^ Brian Vale, 2008: pages 115 and 116.
- ^ Barros Arana, 1894, XIII: page 104 (Appointment number 51).
- ^ a b Fernández Duro, 1903: page 299.
- ^ López Urrutia, 2008: page 143.
- ^ a b c d e Vázquez de Acuña, 2003: page 159.
- ^ López Urrutia, 2008: page 144.
- ^ Vázquez de Acuña, 2003: page 160.
- ^ a b Barros Arana, 1894, XIII: page 98.
- ^ Barros Arana, 1894, XIII: pages 87 and 88.
- ^ Barros Arana, 1894, XIII: page 89.
- ^ Fernández Duro, 1903: page 296.
- ^ a b c Vázquez de Acuña, 2003: page 161.
- ^ Fernández Duro, 1903: pages 294 and 295.
- ^ Sotelo, 2015, chapter 9: page 372.
- ^ a b Brian Vale, 2008: page 111.
- ^ a b c López Urrutia, 2008: page 147.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Barros Arana, 1894, XIII: page 100.
- ^ López Urrutia, 2008: pages 149 and 150.
- ^ a b c d e Barros Arana, 1894, XIII: page 99.
- ^ Brian Vale, 2008: page 112.
- ^ López Urrutia, 2008: page 149.
- ^ a b c d López Urrutia, 2008: page 148.
- ^ (Edmundson 2009; page 74)
- ^ (Brian Vale 2008; page 113)
- ^ (Brian Vale 2008;page 25)
- ^ (López Urrutia 2008; page 148)
- ^ (Pérez Turrado 1996; page 168)
- ^ a b c d e Sotelo, 2015, chapter 9: page 373.
- ^ a b Fernández Duro, 1903: pages 297 and 298.
- ^ Sotelo, 2015, annexed 2: page 415.
- ^ a b Vázquez de Acuña, 2003: page 162.
- ^ Sotelo, 2015, chapter 9: page 374.
- ^ Sotelo, 2015, annexed 2: page 419.
- ^ a b Sotelo, 2015, annexed 2: page 421.
- ^ a b Sotelo, 2015, annexed 2: page 434.
- ^ a b c d Fernández Duro, 1903: page 298.
Bibliography
- Barros Arana, Diego (1894). Historia General de Chile, Tomo XIII (in spanish). Santiago, Chile: Imprenta Cervantes.
- Fernández Duro, Cesáreo (1903). Armada Española desde la unión de los reinos de Castilla y Aragón, Tomo IX (in spanish). Madrid, España: Impresores de la Casa Real.
- Vale, Brian (2008). Cochrane in the Pacific: Fortune and Freedom in Spanish America. London, United Kingdom: I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-84511-446-6
- López Urrutia, Carlos (2008). Historia de la Marina de Chile, segunda edición (in spanish). Santiago, Chile: Impresor Lulu. ISBN 978-0-6151-8574-3
- Vázquez de Acuña, Isidoro (2003). Estertores Navales Realistas (in spanish). Anales del Instituto de Chile, Santiago.
- Ortiz Sotelo, Jorge (2015). La Real Armada en el Pacífico Sur, Capitulo 9 y Anexo 2 (in spanish). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas. ISBN 978-607-8348-61-9