Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Front-Insurance9577 OP t1_iy92h9z wrote

TLDR: Apparently the English wanted to take advantage that Spain joined the American Revolutionary War to try to take over some Spanish towns on Lake Nicaragua. They sent 3000 soldiers up-river, had marginal success in attacking some Spanish forts but yellow fever and diseases wiped out 2500 men.

>The campaign ended in total failure and cost the lives of more than 2,500 men, making it the costliest British disaster of the entire war.

57

KindAwareness3073 t1_iy92cqf wrote

Saved you a click: 2500 dead, most from yellow fever.

28

jamieliddellthepoet t1_iy9f4x7 wrote

Ah, but the click would have given you the titbit that the British force included Horatio Nelson!

10

KindAwareness3073 t1_iy9go1b wrote

Read it. That battle had nothing to do with the American Revolution. Britain v. Spain. Total clickbait.

Brits should have sent young Nelson to blockade Yorktown.

−18

Front-Insurance9577 OP t1_iy9h7ii wrote

I mean, it's not Clickbait, just fun tidbit that I liked that a major British loss in the American Revolution technically didn't even happen in America. And it was part of the American Revolution since Spain joined the war.

15

KindAwareness3073 t1_iy9o67f wrote

Joined the war as an ally of France who did the heavy lifting. Sideshow at most. Far more a part of Europe's endless 18th century conflicts. I still see it as clickbait, but you get an opinion.

−13

Some_Inspector3638 t1_iyaydxe wrote

A battle between two opposing belligerents in the American Revolution, that wouldn't have happened without the American Revolution, had nothing to do with the American Revolution? Being you must be fascinating.

6

TazBaz t1_iyazap3 wrote

But that’s the point, it COULD have happened without the American revolution.

It was just one main side in the war attacking an ally of the other main side somewhere else in the world entirely. Could have been during another war entirely. Nothing about the attack was really relevant to the American Revolution other than members of the two sides were involved.

1

DaveOJ12 t1_iy9ijar wrote

I don't get why people are so averse to actually reading the article.

6

KindAwareness3073 t1_iy9oj5k wrote

There are two kinds of people: those who don't read every link posted, and liars.

−7

MorrowPlotting t1_iybnpfu wrote

This was a great TIL, OP, thanks!

A lot of us learn about the American Revolution from an exclusively “13 colonies” point-of-view, when the truth is a whole lot bigger than that.

For me, it was learning about Florida history that first expanded my view on the American Revolution.

See, I thought I knew my Revolutionary War history pretty well. But I knew nothing about the BRITISH colonies of East and West Florida.

I knew nothing about these two loyalist colonies that decided not to join their fellow Americans in revolution against the King.

I knew nothing about the battles fought between Spain and Britain in Florida during the American Revolution.

I knew nothing about Spain capturing West Florida in battle during the American Revolution.

I knew nothing about Britain ceding East Florida to Spain during the peace talks ending the American Revolution. (Since Spain was one of the “winners” of the war, after all.)

And lastly, until today, I knew nothing about this British attempt to cut off Spanish forces in North America from those in South America during the American Revolution. It makes sense — by taking a small area around one lake in Nicaragua, the British hoped to disrupt Spanish operations across two continents. The American Revolution was a global conflict, after all.

Thanks again!

6