Talk:British occupation of Manila

Untitled

The British government authorised the expedition against the Spanish in the Philippines, a British Army general and British Navy Rear-Admiral led the expedition, and for the short period of rule the Philippines was governed by Britain through a British appointed governor. The British East India Company was paid by the British government to assist the expedition and to assist Britain hold the colony. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not come into existence until 1801. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference

Thanks User:Wtmitchell for adding the correct book reference. It was dropped out in the initial copy of the article from the History of the Philippines, and the user initially doing the copy did not bother restoring it. Gubernatoria (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Manila occupation

British occupation was confined to Manila and the neighboring towns around it. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the academic sources British rule also extended into other provinces of the Philippines as per article, eg., Zaide, Gregorio F (1984), Philippine History and Government, National Bookstore, Manila. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I see the following in Zaide, Sonia M. (1994), The Philippines: A Unique Nation, All-Nations Publishing Co., p. 176, ISBN 9716420714, ISBN 9789716420715:

The Company civil government was able to govern Manila and Cavite which were conquered by British arms, but not the other provinces of Luzon, Visayas, Mindinao and Sulu. Outside of Manila and Cavite, Don Simon de Anda, the fighting member of the Manila Audiencia were able to preserve Spanish sovereignty.

and on pp. 192-193:

Rebellion of Diego Silang (1762-63, The most serious of the revolts during the British occupation was the Ilocos rebellion of 1762-63 under Diego Silang, one of the greatest heroes of Ilocandia. A man of remarkable ability and intelligence, Silang was weell-known in Manila and the Ilocos because he had been a trusted mail carrier between manila and Vigan for many years. After the capture of Manila by British arms on October 5, 1762, he requested the Spanish authorities of Vigan to abolish the hated tribute and to organize the Ilocos troops to fight the British, since Spain could no longer defend the colony. For this action the alcalde mayor (Don Antonio Zabala) considered him an agitator and imprisoned him, but his friends and followers worked successfully for his early release.

Enraged by his brief imprisonment, Silang roused his people to action. Upoon Spanish refusal of his demands, Silang unfurled his flag of rebellion on December 14, 1762. With the support of the patriotic Ilocanos, he expelled the alcalde-mayor and other hated Spaniards from Vigan, and proclaimed the aboliion of the excessive tribute and forced labor. He made Vigan the capital of his independent government, and spread his revolutionary movement to Pangasinan and Cagayan.

Silang proved to be n able military leader. He successfully defended Vigan from Spanish reprisals and virtually became the uncrowned king of Ilocandia.

The success of Silang reached the ears of the British in manila. Needing his help against Don Simon de Andea, who was the soul of Spanish resistance against England, the British sent him several gifts. A letter of the British authorities, dated May 6, 1763, solicited his allegiance in the fight against the Spaniards. Fearing Anda who was massing forces to attack him, Silang accepted the British offer of friendship and protection.

Ths Spanish authorities and the friars were alarmed at Silang's growing power. Since they could not destroy him by force of arms, they decided to have him assassinated, offering a large monetary reward and Spain's gratitude to whoever would accomplish the awful deed. Miguel Vicos, Spanish mestizo and Silang's friend, volunteered to be the assassin. With the help of Pedro Becbec, he visited Silang in his house at Vigan on May 28, 1763, and shot him in the back. Thus died Silang, the guiding war of independence.

and in Fish, Shirley (2003), When Britain Ruled The Philippines 1762-1764, 1stBooks, pp. 149–150, ISBN 1410710696, ISBN 9781410710697:

But the small force was not large enough to effectively extend Britain's influence to the regions beyond the capital and port city. In fact, the British soldiers remaining in both Manila and Cavite, were barely able to defend the two major cities. Only a few villages located just outside Manila and Cavite had been siezed, and the British were not able to expand beyond these two captured areas to the provinces or other islands because they lacked soldiers and weapons.

A preliminary attempt was made, however, to set the stage for the establishment of trade settlements in Mindinao and the Sulu Islands. With this in mind and to foster friendlier ties with the Muslims, Drake signed a treaty on 2 February 1763 with Sultan Alimud Din I. The sultan had become a prisoner of the Spaniards prior to the arrival of the British fleet. The treaty provided the Sultanate of Jolo in the Sulu Islands and the East India Company with a mutually binding agreement to assist each other defensively.

In addition, the treaty contained the following points. The sultan and his successors would provide the East India Company with land upon which they could establish an utpos consisting of factories and forts. The East India Company would acknowledge the sultan's sovereignty and show respect for the Muslim culture and Islamic religion. Muslims would allow the British to conduct free trade with the Sultanate of Jolo. And if the sultanate was attacked, the British were expected to come to their assistance. Conversely, the sultanate stated that they would provide soldiers to the British, if they continued to occupy manila and were attacked by an enemy.

Archbishop Rojo objected to the treaty as he claimed that it was counter to the surrender agreement signed by the Spaniards and the British . It was the archbishop's contention that the Spaniards had already signed an agreement of their own with the sultan prior to the arrival of the British. In that treaty, the Muslims had agreed to turn over to the Spanish colonial government the islands of Palawan and Basilan, as well as the northern section of Borneo. Nevertheless, the British were intent on establishing trade settlements in Mindinao and in the Sulu Islands.

Agoncillo, Teodoro C. (1990) [1960], History of the Filipino People (8th edition ed.), Quezon City: Garotech Publishing, pp. 110–111 {{citation}}: |edition= has extra text (help), ISBN 971-8711-06-6 says:

Diego Silang, like Palaris, was a principalía, who vehemently opposed the común (annual tribute of one real fuerte), drafting of polistas, and other unscrupulous practices of the new alcalde mayor. Antonio Zabala, a career mailtary man who abused the indulto de comercio. Silang headed the revolt in December 1762, accompanied by the different cabos representing the two Ilocos, Abra, and Cagayan. Engendered by the manifesto of the English India Company and Provisional Government of May 1763 which guaranteed "... to treat the natives with the utmost humanity, leaving them in quiet Posession of their Properties, and in the Free Exercise of their Religion, to free them from all Taxes and opressions," Silang formally joined forces with the British. As a recompense As a recompense, Governor Dawsonne Drake conferred on him the pompous titles of "Don Diego Siland," Maestro de Compo General y Teniente de Justicia Mayor, together with the official sanction of recognizing him the rightful head of the Ilocos government. The British Manila Council assured him of man and firepower. Bishop Bernardo Ustariz, meanwhile, proclaimed himself as the provincial head and issued an interdict in the latter part of May 1763, and he excommunicated Silang. Fearing Silang's threat to Spanish lives and properties, the bishop engineered his liquidation in Bantay (Ilocos Sur), even blessing the Spanish mestizo assassin, Miguel Vicos, an ex-silanista, who had taken confession and communion before executing the cowardly scheme. With Vicos was his friend and ex-confidant of Silang, Pedro Buecbuec (Becbec) of Abra. The killer nervously fired a musket through Silang's back in the afternoon of May 1763, Silang dying in his wife's arms. As if this was not enough, several principales of Santa (Ilocos Sur), in the belief that he was still alive sadistically stabbed the already dead body of Silang. Buecbuec was aptly rewarded by the grateful Spaniards with an appointment as justicia mayor of Abra, while Vicos sought refuge in Cagayan for fear of vendetta from Silang's kin. With the death of Silang, alcalde mayor Manuel Arza y Urrutia of Cagayan initiated the hot pursuit of the remaining rebels led by his widow, Maria Josefa Gabriela de Silang, and his uncle; Nicolos Cariño. Eventually, Mrs. Silang, "the first woman to lead a revolt in the Philippines," Sebastian Andaya and Miguel Flores, with about ninety loyal silanistas were hanged along the Ilocos Sur coastline, from Candon to Bantay, with Gabriela Silang compelled to watch trhe slow death of each of her faithful soldiers. She was herself executed in last, in Vigan, on September 20, 1763.

I haven't seen the source you cite (Zaide, Gregorio F, Philippine History and Government, National Bookstore, Manila, 1984) and haven't seen the (Tracy 1995) source, but the sources I've quoted above don't speak of parts of the Philippines other than Manila, Cavite, and a few nearby villiages being controlled by the British, nor do they describe Silang as "the British appointed governor of Ilocos Sur". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

British occupation of Manila

The correct title for this article should be "British occupation of Manila".

"British occupation of the Philippines" is simply false and is misleading readers into thinking that the British forces occupied the whole archipelago.

The surrender of Archbishop Rojo was never recognized by the Royal Audience of Manila, neither by the Council of the Indies, nor by the Spanish Crown. No one would argue that all those institutions obviously had more authority over these questions that the Archbishop.

If no one can produce arguments on the contrary I will proceed to change the title.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why is it vandalism to mention in the introduction that the occupation of Manila was part of an unsuccessful attempt to conquer the PHilippines? Why is it vandalism to mention that the Spanish army reformed or regrouped (many of the combatants had participated in the unsuccessful initial defence of Manila)? These facts are pertinent to the occupation which was part of a much larger military operation. The British tried to take control of the Philippines or the Spanish East Indies to secure Manila as a trading base, and failed - they ended up with troop desertions and blockaded inside of Manila and bitterly divided among themselves. It was a British defeat. It was a failed conquest. Pure and simple and it is highly relevant, not vandalism, to mention this in a few clear, straightforward terms in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.250.70 (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the occupation of Manila not about a supposed invasion of the Philippines. Sources in the article state the objective was to take Manila, hold it to ransom and use the place as an entrepôt for trade in the region. What you say is totally different of which is also unsourced. If you say this then the opinion should also be that the Spanish and their Filipinos allies were equally unsuccessful in retaking Manila before peace came. Shire Lord (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure Mr Shire, when they ventured out of Manila, it was just to take in the scenery. Of course they wanted Manila for its famed trade, but they had to conquer the Philippines to keep it safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.250.70 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not according to this:
Fish, Shirley (2003), When Britain Ruled The Philippines 1762-1764, 1st Books, pp. 149–150, ISBN 9781410710697:

But the small force was not large enough to effectively extend Britain's influence to the regions beyond the capital and port city. In fact, the British soldiers remaining in both Manila and Cavite, were barely able to defend the two major cities. Only a few villages located just outside Manila and Cavite had been seized, and the British were not able to expand beyond these two captured areas to the provinces or other islands because they lacked soldiers and weapons.

Shire Lord (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses. It worked in India. Back certain Indian rulers against othercs, provide a smallish British force of pros to give them a hard edge, and presto, you're the boss! Hell, it even worked for the Spanish in the Americas and the Philippines where they never had more than some hundreds. btw, the British force was circa 10 000 at Manila, and thousands on the ground. By the standards of colonial armies of the day it was a big, powerful force. They had just not counted on somebody like Anda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.250.70 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually - 'the total force was of 6,839 regulars, sailors and marines - of these only 2,000 were soldiers. The rest were sailors in the 14 ship fleet.' (Tracy, Nicholas. Manila Ransomed p 17) Shire Lord (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well it is smaller than I thought, I'd thought double that, and let's not forget the sailors would help defend Manila while there, while the redcoats advanced against a volunteer army armed mostly with bows, spears, swords and knives, but that's beside the point. They we're counting on a Rojo and got an Anda who denied them the local allies they were counting on. They miscalculated. Still a defeat.

Well I'll leave that to your imagination. I'm using reliable sources instead. Shire Lord (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Captain Thomas Backhouse reported to the Secretary of War in London that "the enemy is in full possession of the country" . Pretty clear cut assessment of their situation by somebody on the spot, ie, hopeless, lost. Manila was a huge prize for its trade; if they thought they could have kept it, they would have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.142.82 (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was the capture of Manila that was the objective, not the conquest of the entire archipelago - this has already been explained. Manila was never retaken by force even when the garrison (small that it was) was outnumbered. Shire Lord (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British occupation of Manila. 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/20141020114527/http://malacanang.gov.ph/the-british-conquest-of-manila/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/the-british-conquest-of-manila/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020114527/http://malacanang.gov.ph/the-british-conquest-of-manila/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/the-british-conquest-of-manila/

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) 05:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Attack of Manilla, October 1762.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• British Colonization of Manila.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)