h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: GUANO, RUBBER, OIL AND RAILWAYS - A87795724
Author: tucuxii - U13714114

Hopefully this entry will amuse and inform and give a flavour of the often tradgic sometimes comic opera history of South America
If people enjoy it Part 2 will deal with the Rubber Wars when things got really crazy and Part 3 with the Chaco Wars when rival oil companies sponsored a bloodbath

This is three things a good read, informative and very interesting.

You just have to do parts 2 and 3 Brilliant

A very good article!

I'd be tempted to include brief explanations what some of the terms you've used are – for instance Armstrong gun. Something like 'The Armstrong gun was the first practicable breech-loading rifled gun, developed by Sir William Armstrong in 1855. These guns had a faster rate of fire and were more accurate than earlier muzzle-loading guns.' (The battle took place in 1879 so I assume it was the original version of the guns - the earliest ones made in the 1850s and 60s lost accuracy following frequent use.)

As for Rams – yes, ramming ships became briefly an accepted tactic following the American Civil War when the Merrimac rammed the USS Cumberland. Ramming was also used at the Battle of Lissa, in July 1866, when the Austrian Admiral Tegetthoff managed to ram and sink the Italian ironclad Re D'Italia. Perhaps the most famous ship equipped with a ram (other than the Merrimac) is the Thunderchild, which in HG Wells' 'War of the Worlds' successfully sank a Martian fighting machine.
Gatling gun – early machine gun.

I sill think you should dip your toes into the world of GuideML (I'm sure you said you would, when we discussed your Woodland article), but to be honest, it is the content that matters most, not the amount of knowledge you have of GuideML.
This article has excellent content and kept me gripped all the way through.

<BB<

Thanks Bob and BB

I will add some brief footmotes on some of the terms used

Suggested changes made

Hi tucuxii

Just a few comment to start;

This would be easier to read if you just type the footnotes in the text for now. Without full Guide ML (it would also save the Sub-Editor a bunch of cuts and pastes) like;

... the Altiplano (1 - Altiplano - the high altitude plateau of the Andes), highland valleys...

This would let us read the full text without having to scroll down and then searching to find our place



One point of Confusion;

>...brought about a period of cooperation between the three nations which had had a difficult relationship, as when Chile and Bolivia had rebelled against Spain Peru had remained loyal, and in the 1830s Chile had fought Bolivia and Peru to prevent them forming a federation. The new arrangement worked well,...

There is something missing here, if both Chile and Bolivia had revolted against Spain while Peru remained loyal. It is puzzling why Bolivia and Peru, seeming enemies would join forces against Chile.

Just as an aside, did the area of Bolivia have a name before the revolution? It seems clear it was named for Simon Bolivar, or am I wrong?


I would like to see a short section about each of the navies, and maybe a separate section on Cochrane

The Chilean Navy
As the two Ironclads, Cochrane and Blancho Encalada, are sister-ships a short explanation would be helpful. The 'Central Battery Ironclad' appears to have radial projection on each side of her centreline, allowing the main gun a wide range of fire. There are several other guns aboard, as most seem to only have one gun of each size I assume the could easily be shifted from side to side? I don't know if that is an important point here. Do you have a count of the other ships?in the Chilean Navy? We do learn about Esmeralda and the Covodonga, are their others, or at least numbers that could be mentioned?

The Bolivian Navy
>By contrast Bolivia had no navy, given the vital importance...

As you tell us about Chile fighting a war with both Bolivia and Peru in the 1830's, it would seem she had a navy then. Just a sentence or two about what happened to it might be in order, or other explanation.

The Peruvian Navy

>Against this Peru fielded the broadside ironclad (3 - Broadside Ironclad - an earlier design of ironclad with the guns evenly spaced along the sides like earlier wooden warships) Independencia – a less heavily armoured ship of an older design than the Chilean ironclads, and the monitor Huascar – a small ironclad armed with two massive turret mounted Armstrong guns(4 - Armstrong gun - An early breach loading rifled gun more powerful, accurate and faster firing than the smooth bore muzzle loading guns that preceded it) and an armoured ram. These ironclads were....

I would hardly rate the Huascar http://www.cityofart.net/bship/pachoca.html as a Monitor, her deck is far too high above the waterline and the raised forecastle and quarter deck certainly put her above this class. When you talk about Prat and his sailors leaping onto her deck, the actual ship gives a far different picture. Just because her guns were mounted in a turret does not make her a 'monitor' Do we know what size the Armstrong guns were, I found a site http://historicalfirearms.tumblr.com/post/43264118681/ordnance-of-the-week-the-armstrong-gun-in
I suspect they were 12 pounders.

The Huascar website also states;

In addition to Huáscar and Independencia, the Peruvians fielded two ex-Civil War monitors originally built for the U.S. Navy, Canonicus class single turret gunboats Oneota and Catawba (renamed Manco Cápac and Atahualpa). After she had changed sides much later, Huáscar ended up in a gunnery duel with the former at Arica.

My quote is directly from the site so please use this only as basis of your own research

I did enjoy the irony of the ship that stayed and fought bravely was sunk, and the one that ran away got to see her peruser sunk.

I will try to add a bit more later, please take this in the spirit in which it is offered, I would not put in this much effort to be negative in any way.



F S

Thanks I'll give all that some thought

As regards the two coastal monitors I did not mention them as given they were not sea worthy I felt they qualified as part of the coastal defenses rather than ships.

I have moved the footnotes into the text and added some new headings.

I hope I have clarified the situation regarding early conflicts between the three countries - Peru supported Spain during the Wars of Independence and the War of Confederation occured after independence

I have described the Huascar as a turret ram which I think is a more accurate description, and stated Peru had two seagoing ironclads to deal with the issue of the two coastal monitors.

During the colonal period northern Bolivia was adminstered as part of Peru, and southern Bolivia was called Sucre (after the adminstrative capital)

I'd consider adding a footnote to explain that the Huáscar was a turret ship designed and built in Britain by Captain Cowper Coles, an early proponent of turret ships who had first developed the turret-ship idea during the Crimean War. Unlike his later HMS Captain design (which sank in 1870 in one of the greatest Royal Navy's peacetime disasters), the Huáscar is still afloat.

Technically Florida Sailor is correct - the term for the type of vessel is 'turret ship'. These were first proposed by Captain Cowper Coles during the Crimean War as a development of the floating batteries used there and in a case of 'Steam Time Theory' in action (in which more than one person invents the same thing independently, such as happened when several people invented the steam engine around the same time) also developed by Ericsson, who designed the USS Monitor during the American Civil War. The USS Monitor was by far the most famous early turret ship, and 'monitor' is used to describe vessels that resembled it - ie, low-lying turret ships, with little above the waterline other than the turret(s), but not every turret ship from this period is a monitor.

<BB<

I have added a short section on the Huascar under the heading The Floating Shrine

Just a few comments;

There are still a few places in your commentary in the 'War at Sea' Section where you have references to the 'Huascar ' as a 'Monitor' these should all be changed to 'turret ship'

As the 'Esmeralda' and 'Covadonga' were also only harbour defence vessels, I really believe that
a brief mention of the Monitors 'Manco Cápac' and 'Atahualpa' would be appropriate, especially when we learn that the 'Manco Cápac' is recorded as having engages the 'Huascar ' after her capture by Chile. I an not suggesting that this engagement needs to be included. I think the inclusion of the 'Monitor' type ironclads not only paints a a clearer picture of the status of the Peruvian Navy, but also gives a good chance to explain the differences between a 'Monitor' and a large 'Turret Ship'


F S

i have removed the references to Huascar as a "monitor", included the coastal monitors in the section on the rival fleets and the engagement between Huascar and Manco Capac in the section on the land war (while removing it from the floating shrine section.

I hope this is enough for you both as the article is really supposed to be on South American history rather than a treatese on 19th Century naval warfare.

The article is definitely a well-written and enjoyable read about South American history – with the added bonus of a thrilling sea-battle in the middle of it . I must confess that I'm very interested in this period of naval history as, within 5 miles of my home town, six forts designed to defend against ironclads were built around this time, armed with similar weapons.

I confess that I my comments could be construed as being in the blurry area between 'wishing to be technically correct' and 'quibbling over minor details'. Yet throughout I stand by my original comment: 'This article has excellent content and kept me gripped all the way through.'

I very much look forward to what you will write next.

<BB<

Thanks BB

Those forts wouldn't be Gladstone's Follies in the Solent would they?

You know where I live

I was actually thinking of the forts built to defend Sandown Bay, but yes, the sea forts in the Solent were built around the same time for much the same reasons.

<BB<

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Well done, tucuxii


lil x

Yes - very well done. I look forward to seeing this on the front page.

<BB<

Thanks