Conclusion
The Spanish suffered only 30 dead and 40 injured, while the British lost 250 dead and 128 wounded. The journey back to England was difficult, as Nelson had lost many men and sails.
Gutiérrez lent Nelson two Spanish schooners to help the shot-torn British on their way back. The Spanish general also allowed the British to leave with their arms and war honours. These acts of chivalry led to a courteous exchange of letters between Nelson and Gutiérrez. Nevertheless, Nelson would later remark that Tenerife had been the most horrible Hell he had ever endured—and not only for the loss of his arm. Nelson's letter offering a cheese as a gratitude token is actually on display at the new Spanish Army Museum in Toledo.
Nelson agreed to report news of the attack back to the Peninsula; the frigate Emeral approached Cádiz in late July carrying reports of Gutiérrez's victory. Jervis had expected the Union Jack to be flying over Santa Cruz and was furious when he learned about the fiasco: The Admiral apparently saw no difference between well-defended Spanish port cities such as Cádiz or Santa Cruz and the Spanish ships his squadron had beaten in February. Haughtiness and a lack of proper material and human resources for an invasion had drawn the British fleet to a painful defeat and the British never again tried to capture Santa Cruz. Nelson, however, met with a hero's welcome back in England.
Read more about this topic: Battle Of Santa Cruz De Tenerife (1797)
Famous quotes containing the word conclusion:
“No one can write a best seller by trying to. He must write with complete sincerity; the clichés that make you laugh, the hackneyed characters, the well-worn situations, the commonplace story that excites your derision, seem neither hackneyed, well worn nor commonplace to him.... The conclusion is obvious: you cannot write anything that will convince unless you are yourself convinced. The best seller sells because he writes with his heart’s blood.”
—W. Somerset Maugham (1874–1966)
“We must not leap to the fatalistic conclusion that we are stuck with the conceptual scheme that we grew up in. We can change it, bit by bit, plank by plank, though meanwhile there is nothing to carry us along but the evolving conceptual scheme itself. The philosopher’s task was well compared by Neurath to that of a mariner who must rebuild his ship on the open sea.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)