Jump to content

Talk:First Barbary War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

better sources for quotes

[edit]

for jeffersons quotes https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message 73.192.225.225 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a US victory.

[edit]

Examining the sources stating this is an American victory.

The fisrt source is a book by Joshua E. London, Victory in Tripoli [1]. Despite it's title, on page 229, he calls the American victory "problematic" and states Tripolitania's long-term success. The book states the following:

Although the American "victory" proved problematic and the "peace" too political, the war ended rather well for the other participant. Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli was greatly pleased with the outcome of the war. Although it had proved costly in the short term, it was an unqualified Tripolitan success in the long term.

America sought to break Yusuf, to chastise him, and even to overthrow him, yet they retreated at the first opportunity, delivering peace terms he was willing to accept. The United States sent several squadrons to the region to attack Tripoli, yet it was Yusuf who captured an American frigate-the single most valuable naval capture in the whole of Barbary history-and enslaved her entire crew without a single defensive shot being fired.

Despite years of blockade, his cruisers managed to routinely get his ships in and out of the harbor. When a peace treaty was finally negotiated, the United States paid Yusuf $60,000 for his troubles a small sum but rich with symbolism. Further, the new peace treaty made no reference to Algiers backing its fulfillment. Regionally, Yusuf Qaramanli became a symbol of Islamic fortitude. He proved that the regency of Tripoli was independent of the other Barbary powers, and he proved that Tripoli's pirate navy was a force to be reckoned with. In relative terms, Tripoli prospered. Yusuf Qaramanli continued to rule until 1834.

This sources is supported by another one, which also states Tripolitania's success.[2] (next two pages)

The second source [3] is mostly based on the statement: Americans celebrated the treaty as a victory for free trade This is wrong, the American didn't hadvefree trade due to this treaty ,and their ships were still being attacked by Barbary states.

Quoting from a book Wilson, Gary E. American Prisoners in The Barbary Nations, 1784 - 1816 [4] page 276

Although the war with Tripoli had ended, the United States continued to experience difficulty with the other Barbary nations. The pirates still harassed American merchantmen in the Mediterranean from 1805 through the War of 1812.

The US still paid tribute to the barbary states even after this war. Refer to the same book I sent from pages 290-96.

The Third source [5] doesn't mention anything regarding US victory but rather a peace treaty.

However the US didn't consider the treaty aavorable to them. Inf fact,they condemn it.

Quoting from Allen Johnson in his book Jefferson and His Colleagues; A Chronicle of the Virginia Dynasty [6] page 49-50

The treaty which Lear concluded on June 4, 1805, was an inglorious document. It purchased peace, it is true, and the release of some three hundred sad and woe-begone American sailors. But because the Pasha held three hundred prisoners and the United States only a paltry hundred, the Pasha was to receive sixty thousand dollars. Derne was to be evacuated, and no further aid was to be given to rebellious subjects. The United States was to endeavor to persuade Hamet to withdraw from the soil of Tripoli.

The Tripolitan War did not end in a blaze of glory for the United States. It had been waged in the spirit of "not a cent for tribute"; it was concluded with a thinly veiled payment for peace; and, worst of all, it did not prevent further trouble with the Barbary States.

Quoting United States Naval Medical Bulletin, Vol 17, page 267 [7]

We find it difficult to believe that better terms might not have been obtained. How far the course of the negotiator was compelled by his instructions, we have no means of saying, but the treaty was approved and ratified. While many condemned it as unwise, all, however, rejoiced that it was the means of restoring so many brave men to their country.

Quoting from a book Charles Stuart Kennedy, The American Consul.[8]

The peace with Tripoli held, despite the unhappiness of Eaton and others in the United States over the money paid, the chance for further military glory lost.

If anything, the war result should be inconclusive, and I do have sources stating that.[9] [10] [11] [12] عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This war was between the United States and Tripolitania. The objective of not having to pay tribute was achieved after their victory at the Battle of Derna. The relations between the US and the Barbary States that weren't involved in this war is obviously irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That objective of not paying tribute was not met until the Second Barbary War, besides the USA was forced to pay ransom for the captured Americans in exchange Humbler21 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden as a belligerent

[edit]

The article's source for Swedish participation (See here) does nowhere mention Sweden. Hence, for now, i removed Sweden from the lead section and added a CN to it's mention in the main section and infobox.

Additionally, i did minor research, and it seems that there were collaboration between Sweden and America involving the blockade of Tripoli, however i have yet to find a source stating Sweden was a belligerent in the Barbary War. Rather to me, they seem to be co-beligerents during the aforementioned blockade.

Af you have a source about the claimed Swedish participation in this war, please write and quote it below.

- Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of captives

[edit]

In Background and overview we read:

According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries.

A simple calculation: 1,200,000 people (p) : 3 centuries = 400,000 p/century = 4,000 p/annum = 333 p/month.

Are we to believe a constant flow of 333 captives per month in each month of the three centuries? AHert (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers don't make sense and Davis' estimate has been challenged by others. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should nonsense-numbers be mentioned in WP? AHert (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US victory

[edit]

I'm back to the topic of the outcome and now it seems to me that the outcome should be American Victory I've found many sources that call this victory an American Victory, if necessary I'll look for even more sources that call this war an American Victory, but for now I'll leave it at that[1][2][3][4][5][6] Historyk.ok (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. The war didn't stop the Barbary corsairs from attacking their ships, and still continued to pay ransom and tribute for their captives.
At the end, the US paid 60,000$ for ransom, something which America fought not to pay.
I have already made a discussion regarding this; you can go and refer to it.
All of this was achieved only in the Second Barbary war where all tribute payments were ended. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The United States won the First Barbary War thanks to President Jefferson's decisive response to Barbary piracy, the deployment of a strong squadron of warships, and effective military actions under the command of Commodore Preble, including blockades of ports and victorious battles -such as the one on August 1, 1801, when the USS Enterprise defeated the pirate ship Tripoli.
American Marines successfully defended against boarding attempts, inflicting heavy losses on the pirates. As a result, the U.S. forced Tripoli to sign a treaty ending attacks on American ships and raised its military prestige, demonstrating the ability to conduct operations far from home. Historyk.ok (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Military victories =/= winning the war.
The US still paid money, and their ships were still attacked after the war, so it's a failure. These victories didn't lead to anything. Most of these were indescive.
Also, the Barbary corsairs captured the USS Philadelphia, which was US's greatest failure and led to money payments, something the US attempted to avoid.
Please study more about this war rather than copy text mention American victories.
As i said, the total victory awa achieved in 1815.s عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) That’s a general rule, but in the case of the First Barbary War, military victories had strategic significance. American actions, especially the operation at Derne, showed that the U.S. was capable of carrying out an effective military campaign. This marked an important shift in the perception of the U.S. as a naval power.
2) True, the U.S. did pay ransom for prisoners, but these were not tribute payments in the classical sense, like the ones European countries had been paying for decades. After this war, the U.S. stopped regularly paying tributes to the Barbary States, which was the main goal of the war. The attacks didn’t cease completely, but they were significantly reduced. The final resolution came after the Second Barbary War in 1815, but that doesn’t mean the First War was meaningless.
3) Yes, you’re right that the loss of the USS "Philadelphia" was a blow, but the U.S. response was impressive. Stephen Decatur’s raid, in which he burned the "Philadelphia" in the port of Tripoli to keep it from falling into enemy hands, was called “the most daring and bold act of the age” by Admiral Nelson. That action boosted the morale and reputation of the U.S. Navy.
4) The Barbary problem was indeed ultimately resolved in 1815 after the Second War, but the First War was a key step. It showed that the U.S. would not pay tributes and was willing to fight for freedom of navigation. It marked the beginning of the end of Barbary pirate dominance.
So please, think carefully about who should really be learning more about this war me or you because I think we both know the answer by now. ;) Historyk.ok (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
1) It didn't. Yes, it showed the military prowess of the US, but still didn't resolve the conflict.
2) This is false. The US still paid tribute and ransom to Barbary states (especially to Algeria).
3) ok
4) Regardless of their resolve, the war didn't achieve anything they hoped. Only in 1815 they did. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) True, but it had great significance in the war and its outcome.
2) You're partially right, but not entirely. After the war with Tripoli, the U.S. did continue to pay ransom and tribute to other states for a few more years, but that war marked the beginning of a shift in American policy toward the Barbary States. Moreover, the U.S. government gradually increased military pressure, which ultimately led to the end of such practices in 1815. So, the war with Tripoli was the beginning of the end of that era.
3/4) Not exactly. Although the most significant effects came in 1815, the First Barbary War showed that the United States was willing to conduct military operations beyond its territory and defend its maritime interests. Historyk.ok (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for the infobox (and MOS:VICTORY) recommend the options "[...] victory", "Inconclusive", or "See [link to relevant section]". The current summary is "Peace treaty" and then lists several points, which is technically not per the guidelines but essentially refers to the section in the article about "Peace treary and legacy". So we should consider simply replacing the summary with something along the lines of "See Peace treaty section" (and I'd recommend making the section heading slightly more concise, perhaps just "Aftermath"). In the meantime, it would make no sense to put "American victory" here anyways unless the article lays this out clearly, which it doesn't. R Prazeres (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it would probably be the best idea, in principle, you could also add sources that claim that America won and those who have a different opinion on this subject in Peace Treaty and Legacy or create a separate heading dedicated to the outcome of the war Historyk.ok (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this page had a history of vandalism and edit wars regarding the results. Even if so, not everyone will agree with you. The best option is See Aftermath to avoid further conflicts. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's why I suggested creating a separate heading where it could be explained why the war was not a US victory, and I noticed that in the earlier discussion you gave many sources that presented a different point of view on the outcome of the war so I think creating a separate heading on the outcome of the war will be the best in the current presentation and I think it will also end the edit wars Historyk.ok (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. That could work. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Frazier, Paul (2024-12-26). American Foreign Policy: Examining the Facts. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-4408-7942-5.
  2. ^ Mikaberidze, Alexander, ed. (2011). Conflict and conquest in the Islamic world: a historical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. p. 195. ISBN 978-1-59884-336-1.
  3. ^ Stapleton, Timothy Joseph (2017). Encyclopedia of African colonial conflicts. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, an imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-59884-837-3.
  4. ^ Trimmer, Earl Dusty (2019-05-16). Unbreakable Hearts: A True, Heart-wrenching Story About Victory...Forfeited!. Dog Ear Publishing. p. 153. ISBN 978-1-4575-6856-5.
  5. ^ Lombardo, Jennifer (2018-07-15). Piracy: From the High Seas to the Digital Age. Greenhaven Publishing LLC. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-5345-6383-4. During the war, the United States was successful in defeating Trip-oli and raised the U.S. flag in victory on foreign soil for the first time.
  6. ^ Wood, Gordon S. (2009-10-28). Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. Oxford University Press. p. 639. ISBN 978-0-19-974109-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Barbary_War&oldid=1286972992"