I may be wrong, but my understanding of your posts is that S.Smith prepared and organised the calabrian revolt. Did I misread you ?

From what I know so far, Calabrians revolted of their own initiative, and were organised and equipped by the Sicilian court.

In June, 1806, Sir Sidney was provided a commission by the Sicilian court to be "Viceroy of Calabria" and thus in command of all Calabrian forces on land and sea. It was through the services of Sir Sidney that the Sicilian court initially organized and equipped the Calabrians. There is simply no question about this being the truth. However, there is also no question that the French had their hands full with Calabria, with or without the help of the Sicilian court and Sir Sidney.

It's all but completely overlooked in most histories that Sir Sidney, for the very short time he was there, did a heck of a job. As soon as General Stuart landed (by Sir Sidney's navy) in Calabria he (Stuart) issued a proclamation to the Calabrians to rise up against the French and assured them of British support. The result is that shortly after the victory of Maida, all of Calabria, including all coastal strong points were in the hands of the British/Sicilian and insurgent forces. Another point is that Sir Sidney took Capri and was key in supplying Gaeta with men, supplies and heavy guns. Sir Sidney was a man of action and act he did.

The Maida expedition was a local success, but without result, since british were too weak, and Calabrians too unorganised, to resist the French
counter-attack by Massena in a segmented country.

The result was the complete evacuation of the Calabria by French forces. Later, after the British withdrew, retaking the Calabria was still an extremely difficult and expensive task. Maida was a key strategic victory for England, in that it forestalled any French attempt on Sicily for over a year. For the English, the only important military issue was procession of Sicily. As far as the English generals thought, the French could attack and terrorize Calabria as much as they wanted as long as it didn't threaten Sicily. As Napoleon told Joseph, (I'm paraphrasing here) Gaeta is nothing, Calabria is nothing, Sicily is everything! And, N. knew what he was writing about. Read the communications between Joseph and N.

http://rh19.revues.org/1010 paragraph 21

Les pertes humaines essuyées par l’ensemble de l’armée française dans le royaume de Naples durant la seule année 1806 peuvent être estimées à 10 000 hommes sur une effectif total d’une quarantaine de milliers, dont la plupart ont péri en Calabre 62. Une fois encore, l’Italie du sud aura été le « tombeau des Français ».

The losses suffered by the entire French army in the kingdom of Naples in 1806 alone can be estimated at 10,000 out of a total of about 40,000, most of whom perished in Calabria. Once again, southern Italy was the "tomb of the French".

It was the tomb of the French even after the British army pulled back to Sicily and abandoned the Calabrian insurgents. Had they taken up Sir Sidney's plan to further arm, organize, and supply English professional support (as he so successfully did at Acre) multiples more French soldiers would have met their death there.

I have read "Victoires, conquêtes et désastres", multiple Massena's
biographies, "Mémoires du générl Desvernois", "Mémoires du general Griois",
and also "Manhès roi des Calabres" "Séjour d'un officier français en Calabre"
"Un paradis habité par des diables Calabre 1806-1807", "La Calabria nella
lotta anglofrancese in età napoleonica: la battaglia di Maida ", "Cronache
della Calabria in Guerra 1806-1811", and one recently published book on
calabrian insurrection, in French.

All l see here is the French military side of things. Which is fine but my entire point has been that the written history of Naples 1806/1807 has been absent some pertinent facts about the operations of Sir Sidney. I would go to speculate that there are either no or few mentions of Sir Sidney in any of your texts. Which is the habit of French historians of the era. It's the "infamous" Sir Sidney, the man who had the nerve to defeat Napoleon in person at Acre. Hated by Napoleon. Hated by modern fans of Napoleon. Written out of history by French (and other) historians.

Naples 1806 is so complicated. There are many views to consider: British Army, British Navy, Sicilian, Neapolitan, Calabrian, French, Ferdinand's court, English administration of Sicily, and the London ministers; it was a dying Pitt that sent Sir Sidney to Naples, it was the new Foreign Secretary Fox who reset English policy that his brother the general then implemented in Sicily; shutting down Sir Sidney in the process.

Some essential texts are: Mackesy's "The War in the Mediterranean, 1803–1810"; "The Most Monstrous of Wars" Finley; "Counterpoint to Trafalgar" Flayhart; the dispatches of Nelson (using Calabria as a meat grinder for the French army was his idea and Sir Sidney was operating under his instructions); the history of Sir Sidney is essential (the old texts are fine, the best modern text is "Beware of Heroes" Shankland); background reading on Pitt is important.

You are right, I should be much more specific, but I don't have my library at hand by now, my readings are mostly old, and I don't discuss the facts you
formulate, but the conclusions you draw from them : yes, S.Smith took part in Maida expedition, with one local success (Maida) and no strategic result. And
no, Massena having proved that calabrian insurrection could not resist French troops, there was no point to keep on sending british troops in this dead-end
- unfortunately for Calabrians.

I think I have already addressed most of your issues here, In the above text.

A rather factual approach of calabrian insurgency can be find on internet (see
link, in French). http://rh19.revues.org/1010

This was a great read. Nicely written. It's flawed as a general history, being mostly a one-sided view. There are a number of errors and odd omissions. The emphasis on the Battle of Paola October 26 1806 is a bit strange. Without digging into this articles footnotes, I can find no reference to this battle, so, I'm at a lost to evaluate it. But, the really odd thing is the complete absence of any mention of the Battle of Mileto May 28, 1807. It was Mileto that decided things for the Sicilian court, they would never mount another significant organized military operation.

So, it is great reading and very informative about a much neglected subject but this article is far from definitive. It really only covers a narrow view and wholly neglects other views.