According to the wikipedia article the British lost the siege of Cartagena despite having a numerical advantage of 7-8 to 1.

After the defeat King George II forbade anyone to talk about it in the British empire. Is this downplaying of history true? Why isn't it widely known?

Battle of Cartagena de Indias

After the news of defeat of the British Armada reached London all the medals were ordered to be removed from circulation, and king George II forbade to talk or write about the defeat.

  • 2
    It may well be that the forbidding of King George succeeded. – c4sh Dec 10 '11 at 1:10

From reading your link over, it appears that the War of Austrian Succession (and its Americas equivalent of King George's war) started quite soon thereafter. I suspect the general military land actions were considered way more important than a single Naval battle (dominated mostly by Yellow Fever) fought out in the middle of nowhere that mostly just preserved the status quo.

The overall conflict this was a part of appears to be known as The War of Jenkins' Ear. If nothing else, I think the name gives you an idea of how important the conflict was considered.

| improve this answer | |
  • -1 Cartagena at colonial time is the middle of nowhere for you? – Joze May 5 '12 at 12:02
  • @Joze - From the point of view of a European? Heck yeah. It is 5000 miles away from Europe! – T.E.D. May 6 '12 at 0:44
  • 1
    "the name gives you an idea of how important the conflict was considered" - this argument works against you, since the name ("The War of Jenkins' Ear") was coined 100 years after the conflict ended. – kubanczyk Dec 12 '12 at 3:12
  • @kubanczyk if that is the best name they can come up with in 100 years, it probably wasn't considered very important. – Ryathal Dec 12 '12 at 18:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.