Talk:Spanish Armada

Correction of Dates?

In the first paragraph, last sentence it mentions it was also known as the Counter Armada of 1589, but in the infobox it says that it is in 1588? Correct if I'm wrong but it might need to be corrected. Drizzcool (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish Armada was indeed in 1588; that sentence references the Counter-Armada, also known as the English Armada or Drake-Norris Expedition, which was a year later in 1589. Tom (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I notice there has been a lot of vandalism lately in this article, which of course requires constant reverting. May I suggest semi-protecting this article (since most of the vandalism comes from anonymous users)? King Philip V of Spain (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this article needs semi-protecting urgently, as the vandalism continues... King Philip V of Spain (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur this is getting beyond a joke! ChrisWet (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is vandalism behind the tone of the Philip II page reading like it was written by a favorite uncle? It's hard to pick fact out from the apologies & defensiveness. I can go elsewhere for opinion, really don't like it on Wiki. Couldn't find anyplace there to remark upon it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookishmoments (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Counter-Armada

In my opinion, the Counter-Armada and it's effects are dramatically underplayed in this article, considering that it is, possibly, as relevant as the Spanish Armada. PD: Sorry about my English.--John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Portugal as seperate

Hello Cristiano
I recently undid your edit and asked you to refer to this talk page. Following your reasoning, it should not be 'Spanish-Portuguese' but 'Castilian-Portuguese', because Spain aside from Portugal was not one kingdom. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Dutch victory

As I recall, the Dutch also fought at the Battle of Gravelines and helped disperse the Armada. While the English navy may have done most of the fighting in the battle, and especially during the harrying actions in the English Channel, I believe it is a mistake to discount the Dutch contribution by calling this simply an "English victory". The Dutch didn't just happen to show up in the right place at the right time and render assistance, the Dutch were being supported by the English army and naval forces at the time in their fight against the Spanish who were occupying the Netherlands. Saying the battle was an English victory despite the fact that Dutch ships fought, and Dutch sailors and soldiers likely died or were wounded in the battle is analogous to calling the Normandy beach landings a solely Anglo-American victory, despite the fact Canadian soldiers took one of the five beaches. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

Do you have any evidence that Dutch vessels fought in the battle of Gravelines? They may have been in the general area and captured a couple of stranded ships but were not exchanging broadsides as far as I know.--Charles (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there some established criteria which states how much involvement a nation's forces must partake in an engagement to be acknowledged in the infobox result? Look at the Battle of Salamanca. The Spanish forces took very little part in the battle, as they were positioned to block the French escape routes, and only suffered 6 casualties, and yet the infobox reads; "Decisive Allied victory", not "Decisive Anglo-Portuguese victory". Even if the Dutch didn't "exchange broadsides" - which is an unusual criteria provided by which the battle is thus classified as an English victory, not an Anglo-Dutch victory - with the Armada's warships, that is an irrelevant technicality, the fact is, they still took part in the battles and skirmishes to defeat the Armada, no matter how small, even if it was just capturing a "couple of stranded ships". They obviously took some part in the battle or they would not be listed in the infobox as a co-belligerent of the English, nor would 30 of their ships be listed in the strength section. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC))

According to Britishbattles.com, who cites the following references: The Voyage of the Armada by David Howarth, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada by Garrett Mattingley and Full Fathom Five: Wrecks of the Spanish Armada by Colin Martin in their article on the Spanish Armada, "Unknown numbers of Dutch vessels harassed and attacked the Armada and hemmed the Duke of Parma's forces into their harbour of Dunkirk". Keeping Parma's forces from partaking in the battle was no small favour, as was harassing the Armada. Though Gravelines was the battle which broke the Armada's chances of invading England, the Armada was by no means decisively defeated by combat. The battle was a strategic victory, not a tactical one - it forced the Armada into circumnavigating the British Isles which is what really defeated the Armada - starvation, disease and harsh weather. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC))

I agree with RockDrummerQ. It's interesting to see the Dutch Republic back in the infobox (I added it several months ago but it was removed because "Although the Dutch were allies of the English in this war, they did not participate in this battle", which is untrue, but I let it slide as I didn't really have the time to argue otherwise. I do find it interesting that the Republic appears to be listed as a "subordinate" of England, which is of course not the case. Tom (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting perspective there, I never noticed that thing about the Dutch Republic seeming to be subordinate to the English. The Dutch not participating in the battle is just incredulity at best and nationalist ignorance at worst. The squadron of 30 Dutch flyboats kept the Duke of Parma's forces hemmed in at their port, which was no small favour seen as it was Parma's forces that were poised to invade England, not the soldiers on the Armada, and the Armada's ships required a deep water port to anchor in and take on the soldiers, which they could not do at say, a beach. Medina Sidona refused to release the Armada's lighter ships to attack the Dutch blockading force, as he believed it would leave the Armada vulnerable to the English racing galleons (a piece of information in the article itself and sourced), thus keeping the troops in the Netherlands. Dutch warships also harassed the Armada through its voyage - as sourced by the references on the britishbattles page, so to say they took little part in the event is pretty ignorant at best. Some argue that the Dutch didn't participate at Gravelines - so what? If Gravelines is the only noteworthy engagement of the Armada's voyage, then most of the article when it comes to the engagements of the Armada's voyage is totally pointless. To those who disagree with Thomas' position and my own, my case is not that the Dutch made a decisive contribution - though their blockade of Parma's forces was no small thing, but even so - my case is that they made a contribution period, and such contributions should be recognised. Calling it solely an English victory is ignorant to the contributions made by the Dutch, whether large or small. If this is the precedent that is going to be set by not including the Dutch, then we must go through every single military article on Wikipedia in which multiple nations were involved on one side, assess who made the most decisive contributions, and call the victory just their own. I argued against "American victory" being used for the American Revolutionary War for the same reasons, because it ignored French, Spanish and Dutch involvement, the same philosophy applies here. As I said, if the case is going to be that the Dutch didn't partake in a decisive factor, then the Normandy Landings should only be a British-American victory and The Battle of Salamanca is only an Anglo-Portuguese victory. The Battle of Britain suffers from this same problem, despite the fact that Czechs, Poles, Kiwis, Australians, Canadians and even some Americans fought with the RAF, the battle is listed as a British only victory. Granted those pilots fought as part of the RAF rather than their own air forces, but even so. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

Yes and Nelson's fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar included sailors from many countries including France.--Charles (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad analogy to use on my part about the Battle of Britain. It is a bit sketchy as it included "incorporated air forces" into the RAF. Obviously it would qualify as an allied victory if it were the forces of other nations partaking in the battle rather than an incorporated unit. Nelson's sailors at Trafalgar certainly qualify for the latter, as an incorporated force, as the sailors were not sent there on their own ships by a government to fight. This is not the case with the Dutch contributions in the Spanish Armada, however. This is RockDrummerQ by the way, just on a university computer, so I have not signed in. (161.112.232.102 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Hello guys
Just to let you know, Thomas Antonius, I was the one who previously removed the Dutch Republic from the infobox. I am really sorry for doing that and trying to keep the 'English victory' in the box. It turns out I was really badly informed. Of course now I won't object if 'Anglo-Dutch victory' is decided upon, and I won't remove the Dutch from the infobox again. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the basic problem here is that the infobox does not match the article. The box is about an engagement on one day while the article is about a whole campaign and this is causing confusion. Infoboxes can become a mass of disconnected facts lacking in context and nuance which waste space that could be used for a better prose lead. The box should go. Per Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Infoboxes there is no requirement for an article to have an infobox at all and my preference would be to let the lead section speak for itself in covering the campaign, including of course the Dutch contribution.--Charles (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox needs to go, it just needs to be re-worked slightly so it encompasses all the skirmishes before and after the Battle of Gravelines. Take the New Orleans infobox for example. That includes details for the engagements that took place prior to the actual battle itself, as they were all related. The same should be done here. As there were several skirmishes prior to the Battle of Gravelines, they could be all incorporated as one. For example, on the Anglo-Dutch side, you could have something that details losses taken during the skirmishes, losses taken at Gravelines, and losses to disease. Obviously they would need to be sourced, or just listed as "unknown" until a source is found? That way it encompasses the whole of the Armada's voyage, which the Dutch certainly did play a solid contribution - keeping Parma's forces blockaded and harassing the Armada's ships. (161.112.232.102 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

The Dutch boats were blockading the Duke of Parma's army and its barges into Calais, which was important and useful. They were not however engaging with the actual Armada at any point as far as I can see. That is covered in the body of the article and could be included in the lead. Trying to turn the Battle of Gravelines, a discreet one day event, into an Anglo-Dutch action would be misrepresenting the sources. If there is to be an infobox at all it should cover the whole article.--Charles (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be the better option. Turn the infobox into one that covers the whole campaign against the Armada instead of the single battle. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Do we have a consensus here regarding the infobox, then? Edit it so it better reflects the entire campaign, rather than just the Battle of Gravelines? Naturally we will need to do a great deal of legwork to gather sources for casualties in the skirmishes and so forth, but it could be done. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC))

Decisive Spanish defeat?

I fails to understand why the result of the battle is presented as a Spanish defeat rather than an English victory.