Talk:Spanish treasure fleet

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 15 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goatmanatee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why Curaçao and Jamaica?

(Discussion moved here from User talk:Gdr):

I wonder why the "Dutch captured Curaçao in 1634 and the English Jamaica in 1652" is singled out when the Dutch had had bases in the Caribean since 1620 and the British since 1612? Rmhermen 13:01, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

No reason, except that they were significant events that came to mind. Please rephrase or replace with earlier significant events. Gdr 13:07, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Contradiction with another Wikipedia Page

HMS Indefatigable (1784):

"In October 1804, Indefatigable, with three other frigates (Medusa, Lively and Amphion with Moore as the senior officer, intercepted a Spanish treasure fleet of four frigates carrying bullion from the Caribbean back to Spain."

Spanish treasure fleet:

"In the 1780s Spain opened its colonies to free trade. The last treasure fleet sailed in 1790."

Clearly both can't be true. MichaelSH 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed weird. I could imagine though that regular (e.g. yearly) colonial mining profit fleets (implied by the treasure fleet article) ended by 1790; while the occasional trade transport of gold in a convoy to Spain may have continued. But some clarification is indeed necessary, anyone got a decent source to resolve this? Arnoutf 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to continue another article relating to this on the 1715 fleet and the recovery by a number of salvagors including Kip Wagner, Real Eight Company. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Ray_Osborne

See also Graham Moore, which shows a painting of it. There is an account of it, quoting Moore's logs, at [1]. Regarding the fictionalization in the Hornblower series, in The Hornblower Companion, 1964, Forester says: that the incident really happened, though "on the previous occasion, some years earlier, when the flota was intercepted, the captors shared millions." This suggests that it had happened once before during the Napoleonic Wars, i.e., since 1790. Laura1822 03:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"In 1790, the Casa de Contratación was abolished." I think that's the clue - that the great regular trade convoys, organised by the Casa, were no more -

We need somebody with some detailed knowledge to sort out this article. For instance, free trade between all the ports of the Spanish empire began at least as early as 1765 - with individual packet ships sailing quite independently of the treaure fleet. The War of Jenkins Ear article states that the siezure of Portebello in 1740 caused a fundamental change in the operations of the treasure fleet - exactly what does that article mean? Finally, the convoys that operated after 1790 - and so appear to contradict this article - were they in fact just specialised ad-hoc convoys for the transport of bullion rather than the general purpose fleets that this article speaks of or were they somehow a continuation of these fleets but in a much reduced manner after the Casa de Contratacion was abolished? 58.84.86.18

The Flota system article should be merged into this article.58.84.104.109 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Detail

Does a full list of these convoys exist? Drutt (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about two hundred years of the system being in place, from my point of view it would make no sense to have such list in Wikipedia both for practical reasons and as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Darius (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, Arctic convoys of World War II has a list of nearly a hundred separate convoys over a period of just 5 years. Drutt (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Image

not "a treasure fleet being loaded with riches"

original

The image currently used at the top of the page is not a depiction of a Spanish treasure fleet. It's a crop from a 1593 engraving showing shipping in Lisbon. It was reinserted with the argument that Portugal and Spain were both part of the Habsburg empire at the relevant time so it made no difference [2]. While it's true that the two countries were in a personal union around 1600, my understanding is that their systems of colonial exploitation and their trade routes were still separate, and I have found no indication that Portuguese ships were taking part in the same system of large-scale convoys characteristic of the Spaniards. The "treasure fleets" are a very specific thing; not every form of shipping between the Habsburg possessions and the New World is part of it.

In addition, this image doesn't show a "fleet being loaded with riches" in any case. It's in a European port, so treasures wouldn't be loaded but, if anything, unloaded. But there's actually no loading or unloading being shown in the picture at all (except for what appear to be some barrels of provisions). It's not even a fleet. It's just a harbour busy with individual ship movements; according to the narrative in the book which this was meant to illustrate, one individual ship is about to depart for Brazil.

In short: no Spanish, no fleet, no loading, no riches. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard to argue with that.--Wetman (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Even if Lisbon was under Hasburg rule, the main ports where unloadig operations took place were Cadiz and Seville.--Darius (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to tell all involved that this picture has found a new home at Portuguese_Empire#Southeast_Asia_and_the_spice_trade. Cheers ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading the pic to the right article. Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Units Inconsistent

The section "The flow of Spanish treasure" seems inconsistent in its units of measure. The text seems to use one set of units, and the table following the text seems to use another. That makes it hard to figure out. The table should include a heading or note identifying the units. It is also unclear if the table refers only to specific years, or to centuries or intervals, or what. MaxwellPerkins (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Page title requested move to Flota de Indias

The title Spanish treasure fleet is not the accurate name for what the article discusses. Flota de Indias should be the title of the page. The Flota de Indias was the official title of this fleet according to the Spanish records whereas Spanish treasure fleet is a vague reference to any Spanish fleet theoretically sailing anywhere on the ocean at that time (from Manilla, South America, etc). The Flota de Indias (referred to in this page) consisted of two sub fleets, the Flota de Indias: Flota de Tierra Firme (En. Indies Fleet: Tierra Firme) which was charged with trade between Spain and her colonies in Northern South America and the Flota de Indias: Flota de Nueva Espana which was charged with trade between Spain and her colonies in present day Mexico and the Spanish main. Other Spanish treasure fleets existed at this time that sailed out of Manilla and ports in South America, Africa and Asia. - Clark Sui (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 03 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Spanish treasure fleet → Flota de Indias – Accuracy. Relevant Talk Page Refers. – - Clark Sui (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved from RMTR speedy move requests

• Oppose RMTR speedy move this is clearly not uncontroversial. -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@ClarkSui:

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support some better title, but no the proposed one. Going only by the WP:RM listing I assumed that this page must refer to the Manila route that we cover at Manila Galleons. The page title is far too ambiguous. However, I don't support moving to a Spanish-language title unless there's absolutely no alternative in English. What's the most common English language name for treasure shipments along this route? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Well, I'd love to support this, but the community support seem to be that we can't have a good title not in english,as per Quebec.

~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not the case, the emerging consensus there is that Quebec was the name used by most English Language sources not that French names can't be used. This move would need to be on its own merits. Please note that no one is suggesting that we need to move Trois-Rivières to Three Rivers because unlike Quebec that French name is used more in English language sources.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose without further evidence of English usage in reliable sources per WP:OFFICIALNAMES. —  AjaxSmack  01:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support To assist this discussion, please see the link here [3] which directs to a historical listing of all the fleets of the Flota de Indias between 1580 and 1688 (published in 1690). Most typically the convoys are referred to as Armadas or Flotas (Fleets). Both Armadas and Flotas sailed under the two routes of the Flota de Indias. Further, I do not believe that any of the English language names listed in the article, (Spanish treasure fleet, silver fleet, plate fleet, West Indies Fleet) which probably derive from common English usage at the time to refer to these fleets by the English navy and privateers or pirates (a fascinating topic in and of itself), are accurate enough to convey the actual meaning of the article referenced. A direct translation from Spanish might be most accurately done as Fleet of the Indies which would be an invention entirely. These fleets sailed under the authority of the Council of the Indies (which also had authority over the Philippines). They were not the only fleets underway under the authority of the Council of the Indies, much less the global Spanish trade network which was unique in its implementation of this large scale convoy system. I have also found one English (A New Voyage Round the World by William Dampier) source that does refer to the the flota on page 185 as such though it is by no means an official government document [4].- Clark Sui (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE The above is the nominator of the move -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose fails WP:JARGON, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:UCN and WP:UE ; We do not use non-English titles when English-language usage is available. We do not use official names because they are official. We use English-language common names. -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. Fails WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UCN, and WP:UE. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spanish treasure fleet. 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/20150801034717/http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article29437363.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article29437363.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150816004056/http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/12/battle-over-shipwreck-photos-brews-in-n-c.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/12/battle-over-shipwreck-photos-brews-in-n-c.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) 01:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't San José be mentioned in section Losses?

While reading up on the Spanish galleon San José I found it was sunk while being part of one of these treasure-fleets, in 1708 in a battle known as Wager's Action. This loss however, is not mentioned in this lemma in the section "losses" at all. Now, I'm not very much of a history buff, and not sure myself how to insert this in this section correctly. But perhaps someone more knowledgeable could add it in. 213.127.116.131 (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)