Talk:Spanish Armada

Dutch wiki-article

I just read both the english and dutch articles of the Spanish Armada, and my conclusion is that the dutch article provides a thorough, much better cover of the armada then the english article - i suggest future editors use the dutch article to improve this one. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

We need a map of Western Europe at that time showing which lands were occupied by Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.177.222 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? not much reason for that since the other habsburg lands have nothing to do with the armada. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Bias

As noted above, saying that the Spanishy retained any sort of Atlantic military dominance into the 19th century (which, I am aware, includes the whole century and the decisive Battle of Trafalgar, which really marks the end of French dominance rather than Spanish--that was already long gone) is absurd. Even the middle 17th century saw a substantial decline in the Spanish position. Part of the problem with the viewpoint of this article is evidenced by this: "Two further wars between England and Spain were waged in the 17th century, but it was only during the Napoleonic Wars that the British navy established its mastery at sea at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805." Don't assume that the Spanish and the English were the only dominant seafaring nations in the time period--one could easily argue for Dutch supremacy during the early 17th century (the Dutch repeatedly and consistently defeated the Spanish at sea during this time period). The French were also very powerful in the 17th century, which is one of the reasons that the Spanish were forced to align themselves with the Dutch during the Anglo-Dutch Wars. By the end of the Thirty Years War, only a fool could argue that the Spanish retained the level of dominance then held by the French or the English.

In this and many other instances in this article ("centuries of British literature perpetuated many myths about the event," "which was in contrast to the assistance given by the Spanish government to its surviving men," etc.), one can easily see pro-Spanish (and anti-British) bias that has little historical relevance. These claims also tend to come without citation‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , which is not the least bit proper for the number of controversial elements they contain. Clicking through several other articles related to the Anglo-Spanish War, this seems to be rather systematic of the Wikipedia coverage of the issue (inappropriate value judgments and a dearth of citations). I wish I had enough free time to address the problem, and I hope someone else is able to do so. Akulaalfa 22:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's fair enough. The lack of citation needs fixing - and it can be fixed, because there's nothing inaccurate in the facts. Citation of opinion is more difficult. Is the article pro-Spanish/anti-"British"? I don't think so, and countering the Anglo propaganda on this campaign is not a bad thing. But simply recounting facts is a better thing. If you want to get in to it, we can start with the intro, which I think is balanced.--Shtove 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly when the British took the sea control, but what I'm really sure, as Spanish, is that Spanish power had already been lost in the 18th century. The War of the Spanish Succession supposed the loss of the European lands and the British won some privileges in terms of trading with America, which were very useful for them. But even before, as many people had said, within the 30 years war, Spain had lost most of its power.

The 19th century's Spain was much more weak than ever. I think you should modify that, not the fact that british became powerful after Trafalgar, but what you say of spanish power, which was absoluty lost a long time ago.

I´m not signing because I´m not registered at the english version, I hope my English is good enough for being understood and want to say thar you have made a very good job. I have had a surprise not seeing the patriotism I expected from englishmen hehe, I´m afraid Spanish articles fail in that some times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.97.198.35 (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim being advanced on this page is that the popular idea of "British naval dominance," contrary to the conclusions drawn from the Armada campaign, had no historical reality before the 19th century. Why would it follow, as you've obviously inferred, that Spain necessarily maintained or consolidated any measure of naval power until that time? In fact, the article has always explicitly acknowledged that Spanish naval might vanished when the Dutch repeatedly drove a stake through the Spanish Navy in the 17th century, making your tirade above a little misplaced. Notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing about real or perceived biases, do you have any evidence that the claims you cited above are in error? Or maybe you came to this page expecting something else? Albrecht 22:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The anti-English bias in the article is noticeable. The problem is that the would-be revisionists (however sincere), in their anxiety to do down the English, are themselves guilty of overcorrection, amounting to distortion. However I do think it's mostly unintentional. The problem is the vague terminology, specifically what it is that actually constitutes 'naval dominance'. The solution is to use more precise language. This will lengthen the article, but it will also clear up a lot of confusion which is contributing to the unnecessary re-edits. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Spanish and French could derive satisfaction from the fact that they had a lot of men-of-war and merchantmen, and carried on an extensive maritime commerce, and major naval battles were few and rarely ‘decisive’, but the English perception of their superiority derives from the fact that their navy, on a tactical level largely because of its gunnery, could usually feel confident of victory in major encounters. Occasional exceptions don't disprove the rule. In the Second Anglo-Dutch War, for example, the English fleet was divided by having to counter simultaneous threats from both the French and the Dutch. The English battle fleet and naval shipbuilding programme for the seventeenth century as a whole was marginally larger than the Dutch, and its ships were larger and more heavily armed. So the perception is based on a long tradition of relative success, and should not be dismissed as a false one, simply because its meaning has the potential to be misinterpreted by casual readers. Lachrie 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(While not acquainted with the historiography,) I would hardly find Lewis, MacCaffrey, et al guilty of "revisionism." In fact, in the last quarter century, the revisionists, (i.e. Wernham) have been those defending Elizabeth's foreign policy! I think reasonable editors can disagree over how much of the British maritime ethos was a Victorian invention and how much of it had a material basis prior to the Revolutionary Wars (statistically, the English/British do come off worse in the majority of naval battles prior to the end of the Family Compact)—but that's neither here nor there, and the simplest solution might be to remove the offending material entirely (or else phrase it in a fashion that satisfies everyone, which, honestly, shouldn't be as difficult as we're making it here). All this article sought to correct was the notion—repeated far more often than you seem prepared to admit—that England came to rule the waves as a direct consequence of the Armada. And frankly (while this does not excuse inaccuracies), looking at popular depictions of the Armada, or even those in the historical literature, I think Hispano-over-correction is last thing we need to worry about. Albrecht 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don’t think the article's presentational strategy accurately reflects the historiography that it’s purportedly based on, because, given the need for concision in a short encyclopaedia article, the reprioritisation produces an effect of overstatement. The logic for the censoriousness is as questionable as for any pre-emptive war. I don't think the negativity can be rationalised away by a convenient appeal to the existence of some hypothetical prejudice on the part of an imagined British public, as the effect of overcorrection in such a space can be equally misleading. My own perception is that the claims usually made in modern popular history about the victory actually tend to be fairly modest, so the prejudice itself may well be a rhetorical invention. Attacks on popular depictions would be better dealt with in separate articles specifically relating to those (such as film criticism), and by adding a separate section to this article on the historiography, with full citations, so that such criticisms can actually be tested. Even the defence that the English came off worse ‘statistically’ before the Family Compact can’t be accepted at face value, but obviously requires decomposition, because in military history, as elsewhere, an aggregate measure is precisely the kind of over-generalisation that lends itself to manipulation, and for the sake of the argument, even if after prolonged hair-splitting it were found to be true, it doesn’t follow that such a conclusion would have had any historical valence. Lachrie 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I´m the spanish boy who wrote that before. I´m afraid I haven´t understood your post very well but I think I have got the idea. You are right, I have probably misunderstood the article, but this: "Two further wars between England and Spain were waged in the 17th century, but it was only during the Napoleonic Wars that the British navy established its mastery at sea at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805." what was made me confused. It stars talking about "wars between England and Spain" and then "but it was only during the Napoleonic Wars that the British navy established its mastery". And I got the idea that it was still refering to the Spanish. As if some kind of Spanish-British war had taken 2 more centuries (at least that´s what I got). I was just saying that Spain had lost all kind of dominance a long time ago, so there was no point on that. But you´re right and the article says clear some times before. And about the other thingsI´m not going to lie you, I was expecting something like that or like many other films and stuff that ridicule Spanish. But I don´t understand your question "do you have any evidence that the claims you cited above are in error?", I haven´t say anything about errors (another possibility is that I don´t get what has annoyed you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.97.198.37 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article's weak and inaccurate treatment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in a few throwaway lines obviously leaves a lot to be desired. The importance of the Battle of the Downs as a turning point is here being exaggerated, presumably through the influence of Dutch sea-lion nationalism, and the statement that it was only after Trafalgar that ‘the British navy established its mastery at sea’ is also dubious, and should probably be removed. Perhaps Trafalgar could be considered a marker for the unchallenged dominance of the high seas in wartime by the British, because it was the last great wartime encounter between the fleets, and paved the way for the Pax Britannica and the Victorian world order. But Trafalgar was only the last in a long line of major victories won by the British Navy over French fleets in repeated wars. Each time, including after Trafalgar, the French demonstrated a capacity for recovery, without being able to challenge the British Navy as a whole on anything approaching equal terms. Doing that in the second half of the eighteenth century had required the co-ordination of the other leading maritime states in anti-British coalitions; by the turn of the nineteenth century even that was not enough to threaten seriously British preponderance. Trafalgar saw off the immediate invasion threat but it didn’t alter the long-term geo-strategic balance, which at sea had long been tipped in favour of the British. Lachrie 03:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The 18th century stuff shouldn't really be there. I think it crept in because early versions banged on about Gloriana and the inevitable rise of the British navy, and needed to be balanced (or crushed!). But the later battles with the Dutch are appropriate in the consequences section.--Shtove (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) By the mid 17th century Spain lost sea dominance (Battles of Gravelines and Downs against the Dutch) at a time when England was a loyal Spanish ally and Gondomar successfully kept England as Spain´s subordinate, according to 1604 London Treaty. The 1656 Anglo-Spanish war definively confirmed the lost of spanish dominance and mainly thanks to Robert Blake marked the remodelling of England maritime policy from state sponsored piracy to a proper war navy (awesome Cadiz and Tenerife raids, compare to disastrous Drake landings in Coruña, San Juan, Cadiz). Along the late 17th and 18th century there was a British slow raising but in any case Britain established and uncontested supremacy until the Napoleonic wars and the catastrophic Spanish policy of Charles IV and his Prime Minister Godoy: For more information just check out wikipedia for American Indepence War, Spanish War Succesion, Jenkins Ear War, Toulon Battle, Cabo Spartel Battle, La Habana Battle, Blas de Lezo and of course, the Brittish victories you are all very aware of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.0.132 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutly right the last comment. After he 1588 the English didn´t even have proper control of the English Channel and the North See (see Dunkirkers). When did England establish its first permmanent overseas settlement other than Ireland?. As late as the American revolutionary war of 1776-83 the Royal Navy was the most powerful sea force in the world but in any case was "dominant" as it couldnt prevent the lost of Minorca, Florida an Nassau and only a lucky storm could prevent the Armada of 1779 from defeating the Royal Navy and landing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.39.50 (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

'Tactical draw' ?!?!?!

How is this considered a 'tactical draw'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.24.39 (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Or why were the English languishing in worried wait in their disease ravaged ships at the end of it all? Had the late Bazan or some other leader of genuine initiativeled the Armada the outcome would very likely have been different. Having thrown their all at the Armada and still failed to stop it regrouping I'm sure a leader like Bazan would have quickly realised the enemy was running low on shot - he would not have fallen for their bluffing as they pursued the Armada up the coast. Bazan, being the man of action he was, would have ordered the Armada for one more great effort - I have no doubt - and have turned back south - straight at the English, who had little left to throw at them - and finished them off (remember the Armada still had a lot of shot and powder left). Then he'd have been able to transport the troops. But Bazan was dead, the faithful but unimaginative and uninspiring Sidona was in charge. Having survived the worst the enemy could throw at him he threw away his chance at fame instead of infamy. The fault was ultimately Philip's choice, of course - always meddling too much, and seeking an obedient servant rather than trusting in a proven, independent minded man. The Armada defeat was not at all dishonourable - but rather a wasted opportunity. Then God afflicted the Spanish sailors with storms and the English with a deadly epidemic. Provocateur (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of things: Medina Sidonia was absolutely unexperienced in sea warfare and very aware of it. He tried to refuse the Armada comand but Philip II wasn´t the kind of guy you can argue with. He stuck to the plain the best he could considering the circunstances, always atending his experienced subordinates advice. This is not a "what if" game however it is clear that if there were someone capable of changing the plan once it had begun and take advantage of the circunstances that person was Alvaro de Bazan, with his inmense charisma and the aura of "winner of Lepanto". Probably (the "what if" again) that would have happen much earlier, in Plymouth

It´s hard to consideer the Spanish Armada a tactical draw considering the huge impact it had in later propaganda but spanish losses in ships were easily replaced as most of the seaworthy galleons made it back to Spain with little damage. Those galleons and others built shortly afterwards with the 1588 experience were virtually invincible. To resume: Spain lost a few thousand men becaue of drowings and England lost a few thousand men because of disentery. Spain lost as well about fifty merchant vessels reffited for troops transport. The 1589 English Armada defeat made the Spanish Armada irrelevant for the final result of the 1585-1604 war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.0.132 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Battlebox: of Gravelines?

Is that title on the battlebox like that on purpose, since the article is about the Spanish Armada? Or did you miss the "Battle" part? I suppose it is the former? Pedroshin (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tidied up

I restored the intro - someone put the second half in to the main body (probably thinking it was too long), but that's confusing. If it is too long, then pare it down.

The rest of the changes are just for style and logic. I hid a couple of comments and references, but they're probably better off as footnotes (forgotten how to do that for now).

The Consequences section has swung too far - there's no mention of the outcome of the war or of the remaining battles. And no mention of the retooling of the Spanish navy in the 1590s. As far as I recall, these were all dealt with in the article a few months ago. Battle of the Downs is fine. Napoleon stuff to remote.

Any objections - please send me a message. Thx.--Shtove (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Aim of the Armada

Hi there ;) Just a note on the opening with "The aim was to suppress English support for the United Provinces — part of the Spanish Netherlands — and to cut off attacks against Spanish possessions in the New World and the Atlantic treasure fleets. The expedition was supported by Pope Sixtus V, with the promise of a subsidy should it make land." I'm no expert on the Armada, but I thought the Spanish ships were spearheading an invasion by land of England, and that was its main aim... Maybe this should be mentioned (if true, of course). Cheers! :) Dr Benway (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah.--Shtove (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to The guardian the defeat of the spanish Amarda was due to an alliance with Turkey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/01/artsandhumanities.arts

Does anyone want to include this information??

For four centuries, Sir Francis Drake has symbolised English nonchalance and cunning in the face of danger. First, according to the legend drummed into every pupil, he insisted on finishing his game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe as the Spanish Armada approached in July 1588. Then he despatched the enemy ships with little more than a few burning rowing boats and a favourable breeze.

But yesterday, it was claimed that Elizabeth's protestant throne was saved by a less celebrated ally: the Turkish navy.

Jerry Brotton, a lecturer at Royal Holloway College, London, told the Guardian Hay literary festival that a hitherto unnoticed letter from Elizabeth's security chief and spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, to her ambassador in Istanbul showed that it was Turkish naval manoeuvres rather than Drake's swashbuckling which delivered the fatal blow to the Spanish invasion plans.

The letter, which ordered the ambassador, William Harborne, to incite the Turks to harry the Spanish navy, was written in the mid-1580s and has been buried in archives ever since because it did not apparently relate to any major historical event.

But Mr Brotton told the fes tival: "Walsingham's plan was ultimately successful. Ottoman fleet movements in the eastern Mediterranean fatally split Philip II's armada _ So alongside all the stories we're told at school about why the Spanish Armada failed to conquer Britain and destroy Protestantism, we should add another reason: the Anglo-Ottoman alliance brokered by Elizabeth, Walsingham [and others]."

In his letter to Harborne, Walsingham wrote: "Her Majesty being, upon the success of the said King of Spain's affairs in the Low Countries, now fully resolved to oppose herself against his proceedings in defence of that distressed nation, whereof it is not otherwise likely but hot wars between him and us, wills me again to require you effectually to use all your endeavour and industry in that behalf."

Walsingham hoped that Islamic forces might keep the Spanish forces "thoroughly occupied" by "some incursions from the coast of Africa", or by attacking his Italian territories from the sea.

The Spanish fleet was eventually defeated on July 30 1588 as it awaited the rest of the invasion force off Calais. At the battle of Gravelines, the English navy used fireships before closing in on the confused Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.19.98 (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

One newspaper article written four centuries after the event hardly represents a convincing source. This section should be removed unless better eveidence can be found. 78.145.196.134 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but a recently uncovered letter from the Queen that indicates another player in the event is GOOD EVidence, putting it back in 78.86.144.241 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are my opinions about British Historians

I copied this opinion from a seperate discusion where I expressed my views about the Battle of Cartegena: British Military History Writers and Their Patterns

"Having read for many years the views of Anglocentric blogs and history books, I have come observe some common patterns and tendancies. Here are a few of my observations:

1. Britsh historians have a repeated tendancy to blame either weather or disease whenever their military is defeated and almost never give credit to their enemy for skillful combat and weaponry.

2. Gloss over military defeats and elaborate in microscopic detail their victories such that one military victory may fool the casual reader into thinking that England won the war when they actually lost.

3. While not denying British military defeats, too many UK historians will almost never elaborate or even admit such events ever happened.

4. Outright lying about history. For example, I was taught as a child that in the aftermath of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, England was in control of the seas. I now know that such claims are preposterous and unfounded.

5. British historians almost never admit that Britain was capable to committing war crimes or other misdeeds against humanity attributed to war, yet that are more than capable of accusing other nations of doing just that, especially if they were once their enemies.

Why is it that London has a "Portobello Road" to commemorate the capture of Porto Bello in modern day Panama? Porto Bello was quickly re-captured by a local Spanish Viceroy a short time afterward Admiral Vernon siezed it. I can go on and on about many other examples like this, but you all get my point. --Charles A 14:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)"

First of all, this article quite fairly re-addresses the extreme Anglocentric presentation of history myself and most others have been subjected to. The Spanish Navy did indeed maintain dominance of the seas in the aftermath of the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585-1604. And as I earlier noted, in my blog about the article on Francisco Goméz de Sandoval y Rojas, Duke of Lerma, King James I signed a peace treaty favorable to Spain because England could ill afford to continue it's fruitless war with Spain. That war essentualy prevented England from establishing settlements in North America and other areas to start empire buiding.

Here is one quote and my rebuttal that I take issue with from this blog.

"I don't know exactly when the British took the sea control, but what I'm really sure, as Spanish, is that Spanish power had already been lost in the 18th century. The War of the Spanish Succession supposed the loss of the European lands and the British won some privileges in terms of trading with America, which were very useful for them. But even before, as many people had said, within the 30 years war, Spain had lost most of its power."

This assertion is not true. While the Spanish Empire had a small decline in the latter part of the 1600s, it did reform and recover with a vengance during the 1st half of the 1700's. The results are that the Dutch were eventually expelled from Brazil, the British were soundly defeated during the War of Jenkin's Ear(1739-1748), and Spain continued to retain the Lion's share of Caribbean islands. Moreover, Britian's Royal Navy could do little in preventing the re-assertion of Spanish power in Italy when they transported large armies, by ship, to the Italian boot during the War of the Austrian Succession(1740-1748) where they would eventually go on to defeat the Austrians. --Charles A 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To further elaborate, the trading privilege the writer of the above blog is discussing is the Asiento. That privilege entitled British Merchants to sell slaves to Spain's American colonies and permitted the inspection of British ships by Spanish naval authorities such that other goods may not be illegaly sold to the colonists. Eventually British merchants tried to smuggle goods that were considered contraband by Spanish authorities. That then led to a harsh Spanish Coast Guard crackdown and an eventual declaration of War against Spain in what was known as the War of Jenkin's Ear in 1739. It was in that war that Spain was victorious in most the naval and land battles. All Britain could claim was a small victory in the Battle of the Bloody Marsh in the state of Georgia(USA) and Porto Bello which was eventually recaptured by the Spanish. The most decisive event was the Battle of Cartegena(1741) in which a brilliant Spanish Admiral, Blas de Lezo. resoundly defeated British Admiral Edward Vernon. Its worth noting that Vernon's fleet dwarfed the Spanish Armada of 1588. Such was the scale of the British defeat in that battle that Britain never seriously attempted any more seaborne land invasions against Spain's Central and South American territories during the 1700s because they knew that such an adventures would end in folly. --Charles A 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

1. Britsh historians have a repeated tendancy to blame either weather or disease whenever their military is defeated and almost never give credit to their enemy for skillful combat and weaponry.

2. Gloss over military defeats and elaborate in microscopic detail their victories such that one military victory may fool the casual reader into thinking that England won the war when they actually lost.

3. While not denying British military defeats, too many UK historians will almost never elaborate or even admit such events ever happened.

4. Outright lying about history. For example, I was taught as a child that in the aftermath of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, England was in control of the seas. I now know that such claims are preposterous and unfounded.

5. British historians almost never admit that Britain was capable to committing war crimes or other misdeeds against humanity attributed to war, yet that are more than capable of accusing other nations of doing just that, especially if they were once their enemies.

Absolute drivel. Have you even read a British history book from the last 30 years? Fricasso (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes Indeed. I was raised up in the American school system. And our school system is taught history not much differently than the UK's. I was taught how England "dominated the seas after the defeat of the Armada of 1588". Every time I read about the naval warfare of the 1st Anglo Spanish war its almost always colored by Anglo jingoism thus greatly distorting historical fact. List below are a few Anglo-centric generated myths"

"Invincible Armada": This term was never used by King Philip or anyone of the Spanish admirals. Its just a term of ridicule used by British historians to mock the Spanish. That term has no place in any serious treatise of any history.

"England ruled the high seas in the aftermath of the 1588 victory": After the failed English naval counter attack of 1589, the Spanish navy quickly regained control of the seas. Precious metal shipments almost tripled, Drake suffered a disasterous defeat in the Caribbean, and the Spanish maintained an iron grip on it's colonies.

--216.36.26.207 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

These are straw men. Please quote historians directly and then it will be possible to reply constructively. I agree with your view of the armada but not with your view of historians. I've read several books on the armada from the last three decades, and I find the treatment thorough and balanced. The days of Neale, Rowse, and co are long gone. It's conceivable, of course, that some school teachers or children's history books are behind the times; but that's not really an issue for Wikipedia. qp10qp (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Though I cannot remember the elemenarty school history book's author, the situation does not change. Basically the fable states that Philip sent an "Invincible Armada" and England ruled the sea after it's victory. Naturally, some serious historian in Oxford or Cambridge probably knows better, but the school age public is still taught the same fable to this very day. The proppganda was also taught to me in my college history class some 25 years ago. The unfortunate thing is that my history professor was good in most areas, except for the fairy tale story he passed on to myself and the other students.

Listed below ia an example of that fabled story, click on the following links:

http://www.essortment.com/all/defeatofspanis_rklo.htm

That website states the following:

"Spain's loss{Armada Defeat}, both in ships and in men, was enormous, and Spain's status as a world power was destroyed. Following the defeat of the Armada, the English and Dutch began in earnest to establish their own empires in the New World. Although Spain continued to fight expensive territorial and religious wars in Europe for several decades afterward, the defeat of the Spanish Armada decidedly marked the beginning of Spain's decline as an actor on the world stage."

--Charles A 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL what a pile of anglophilic sh*t lol, the ones who ended spanish naval dominance were the Dutch not the english (who had no empire at that time)

English Bias & the Armada Myth

Charles A's comment above is enlightening. There is a bias in many British (and American) history books as regards to English military actions, power and domination. They usually minimize English defeats and exaggerate the influence of disease or weather in explaining the outcome. On the other hand they glorify British victories, describing them to the last detail, and claiming an overwhelming repercussion on regional or world balance of power in favour of Britain. Somehow, 17th century pro-British propaganda has survived until today.

Children are taught in school that the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 led to the "undisputed English domination of the seas" in the following centuries, which is untrue. In fact it was the Spanish Navy which continued to dominate the seas until the 17th century in Europe, and until the 18th century in America. This myth about the Spanish Armada also ignores that England led a similar campaign against Spain (similar in size, men and power) in what is known as the English Armada or Norris-Drake Expedition of 1589 which also ended in defeat.

Those who rely solely on English-language texts, can be misled when reading history. Such texts usually exaggerate the victories of Britain and ignore or minimize the victories of other powers. Apart from the Spanish Armada myth, English history books dedicate pages and pages to the Battle of Trafalgar in which a British fleet of 27 vessles defeated a joint French-Spanish fleet of 33, giving it great "strategic" and geopolitical importance. But somehow they fail to explain the Battle of Cartagena de Indias in the same terms, a much larger battle between England and Spain half a century earlier, in which a massive British fleet was defeated off the coast of Cartagena, in present-day Colombia.

This action is arguably the largest naval campaign in British history until the Battle of Normandy in 1945. A British fleet of 186 ships arrived in Cartagena in March 1741 in a massive campaign comprising 23,600 men (larger than the Spanish Armada both in men and ships). The aim was to capture this major Spanish Caribbean port to disrupt Spain's lucrative gold and silver trade. After two months of almost continuous canonfire between British ships and the Spanish fortifications, and several chaotic attacks by land, the British withdrew in severe defeat, having lost 18,000 men and 50 ships. Something like this deserves the interpretation that it reinforced Spain's "domination" of the Caribbean, and "weakened" English naval power altogether. However, the Battle of Cartagena de Indias is hardly mentioned in English-language books, or given very little consideration. Such lack of proportion between English victories (the Battle of Trafalgar for example) and Spanish ones (the Battle of Cartagena de Indias) demonstrates an English bias in much world history. 213.4.20.100 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why is the most well known and widely studied battle in English history a defeat? 91.109.154.177 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cartagena isn't talked about much for the very sensible reason that it made no difference to the status quo, which by the eighteenth century favoured British naval power anyway. In 1762 a similarly massive British expedition seized Santiago and Western Cuba from Spain, but that great British victory is forgotten by British historians too, for the same reason as Cartagena is forgotten: it made no lasting difference to the balance of power in the world, and probably never could have, even if it had gone the other way. The problem here isn't so much with British historiography as with Spanish nationalism, falsely emphasising for reasons of pride events where nothing changed, over those where something did. The English victory over the Spanish Armada is at least significant because it kept Elizabeth on the throne, and the Church of England free from the Inquisition. Without it the Counter-Reformation might have overrun all Europe, with possibly fatal consequences for free institutions. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are logically self contradictory. First of all, you state that Vernon's defeat at Cartagena did not change the status quo. That is true. But you go on to point out that a Spanish Armada victory would have removed Queen Elizabeth. Did the 1588 armada defeat change the status quo(not)? You state the ramifications of defeat for the English, but fail to be objective by not admitting the similar ramifications had Spain lost it's lucrative colony. Spain would have been forced to cede injurious trade concessions to English merchants at great cost to the Spanish economy and the colonists would probably have been forced to endure many years of British rule as second class citizens such as was the case for the French Canadians after the French lost it's North American Empire. --Charles A 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

The Battle of Hastings is widely studied (in the UK) because it reshaped your country, to the extent that the Normans controlled and, lastly, were assimilated by the islanders. It is not an exercise of "historical frankness". And, besides, it had no consecuences outside the islands and Normandy (while the Normans conquered part of present France and southern Italy also). Traditionally, british historiography has blatantly abused history, just like historians of other countries have done. But, for some reason, their point of view is mostly extinct nowadays, while some historically inaccurate events regarding english "defeats and victories" (the latter, overly) persist and resist a revisionism which is usually based on facts and not in folklore.

To begin with, you state "In 1762 a similarly massive British expedition seized Santiago and Western Cuba from Spain, but that great British victory is forgotten by British historians too, for the same reason as Cartagena is forgotten: it made no lasting difference to the balance of power in the world".

Why is it that that the very insignificant victory of Admiral Vernon's capture of Porto Bello is not forgotton. Remember London has a roundabout called "Porto Bello". Why UK historians key in on this rather minor event is beyond me, given that Porto Bello was quickly re-captured by the local Spanish viceroy and gave England little or then some ransom money and treasure. --Charles A 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

It made a difference to the balance of power, since -quoting the wikipedia article- "Havana and Manila were given back to Spain in the Treaty of Paris (1763) but Spain ceded Florida to Great Britain in return and Spain received the Louisiana territory from France as a payment for intervening in the war on the side of french and as a "reward" for losing Florida". I am sure you acknowledge that the territorial cessions are bigger than the british mainland itself.

On the other hand, while the british expedition against Cuba was a clear victory, I am not sure if you could affirm it was a "great victory" taking in account that british forces were superior 3 to 1 in manpower, and so were the casualties they held. The victories in Havana and Manila were a logical consecuence. Not a "somehow forgotten Plataea Battle".

Last, but not least, I do not understand what you say about: "The problem here isn't so much with British historiography as with Spanish nationalism, falsely emphasising for reasons of pride events where nothing changed, over those where something did. The English victory over the Spanish Armada is at least significant because it kept Elizabeth on the throne, and the Church of England free from the Inquisition. Without it the Counter-Reformation might have overrun all Europe, with possibly fatal consequences for free institutions".

Spanish nationalism? Great victories long forgotten? Inquisition? Free institutions? Aw, come on! If that's the kind of history you'd like to read, you don't need an encyclopedia. Go get some pamphlets.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.40.195 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Charles A , for example as a child I was always thought that the defeat of the spanish armada was a blow to spanish military power from which it never recovered and that England became master of the seas and that Spain never again had full control of the Americas...well this just couldn't be more than just a pile of anglophilic shit , the real truth is that Spain was STRONGER than Britain until the early 1700's and it was a real match for Britain until the Napoleoic invasion of Spain .

Yes, there is an armada myth, which itself is a historical phenomenon, but this article doesn't subscribe to it. All the books on the armada that I have read make the inconclusiveness of the event clear and do not exaggerate the English success; they also show that the armada's failure was not a turning point in the war and that, if any thing, the Spanish had the upperhand at sea in the 90s. The war ended with financial exhaustion on both sides. Please also don't forget that some of the best books in English on the subject are by historians with a Spanish background (for example, Armada, by M. J. Rodríguez-Salgado, and The Spanish Armada, by Felipe Fernández-Armesto). This hardly speaks of an unwillingness in England to view the armada in a rounded way. It's a shame if anyone has been taught a biased account in school; but there's no need for it, given the scholarship available. The great escape from national peril, of course, remains deeply entrenched in the folk memory, as it should. This isn't to say that this article can't be improved, but it seems to me written along the right lines. qp10qp (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You fail to mention that M. J. Rodríguez-Salgado took much criticism from the Brit press as revisionist nonsense when he published that book. The basic account of the 1st Anglo-Spanish War is still largely understood in the UK and the rest of the English speaking world from a very fairy tale point of view devoid of true reality and balance. --Charles A 19:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was unaware of the reviews. The book has been accepted in scholarly circles, that's all I know. British scholarly presses are not interested in whitewashing. Scholarship on the armada has become so detailed, anyway, that a pretty clear picture of what happened has emerged. qp10qp (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How about looking at it like this, it might not have led to the immediate decline of Spain's Empire but it certainly reverberated around the world. Some people may like to downplay it and some may like to push it above its station but the fact is a second rate power beat the most powerful country in the World. It was an embarrasment for Spain in the same way that Britains setbacks in the Boer War were an embarassment to Britain. I have read in a British text book that the Boer wars were the beginning of the end for the British Empire which is nothing but drivel, nevertheless this is how these things are seen. Let me make another comparison that you may not agree with, Spain still had the biggest navy and Empire well into the 1700s but so did Britain until into the 1950s, this didnt make it the greatest power in the world and it hadnt been for a while. Of course the defeat of the Spanish armada didnt instantly mean Spain's empire collapsed, it means that from that point on powers that had before been second rate in comparison (such as England) would begin to try and compete, it seemed that Spain was stoppable. Arguably Spain had peaked and would now go into a very gentle, at first not noticeable, decline (It didnt try and absorb any decent sized European countries anymore anyway!). It would still however be the dominant power for another 100 years.Willski72 (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You "sound" sincere, but you are trying to still propagate the same fairy tail I was taught in high school and college. Your Anglo centric historical establishment always trys to point out that the 1588 Armada defeat was the beginning of the decline for the Spanish Empire while ignoring the remaining 16 years of warfare where the Spanish naval and ground forces got the upper hand. The reality is that England did not control the seas in wake of 1588, otherwise the Spanish Navy would not have been able to almost triple it's precious metal shipments from the new world. This feat was accomplished, despite a concerted effort by England's Navy and her privateers to capture that wealth. Moreover, though Spain did not conquer any new European lands, she did hold on to what she had and the Spanish Road from Spanish Italy to the Spanish Netherlands was still intact. England on the other hand had no appreciable mainland European lands and virtually no empire despite her efforts to seize Spanish Caribbean territory which ended in Spanish victories. The Treaty of London basically favored Spain in that it stopped English aid to the Dutch rebels and halted privateering attempts. It is no small wondor that there were no successful English colonies on anywhere near along the lines of the Spanish examples in the Americas until after the 1st Anglo Spanish war from 1585 to 1604. --Charles A 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

The biggest navy ever seen with a huge army that the most powerful man in the world says will crush a pathetic little island that dares to annoy him is destroyed. Neither side achieved their objectives thus stalemate, and the Treaty of London which both sides could claim as victory to their people but was really more of a draw. This from a second rate power against the greatest power in the world. England was less powerful than France at this time. What happened in 1588 was an embarassing failure for the Spanish from which their PRESTIGE never recovered. It also led to Britain taking foreign expansion more seriously (rather than just for defense and pirating). Though this would not have a real effect until Oliver Cromwell turned it into the most powerful navy in Europe (it went downhill again after he died).--Willski72 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your statement about Spanish prestige never recovering is very debatable. Recall that no part of the Spanish Empire was lost and English support for Dutch rebels ceased, resulting in continued Spanish presence in The Netherlands. Which was a point of contention for the English that they were forced to accept. Thus, the only place where Spanish prestige never recovers (of course) is English language history books where the writers almost always hide Spanish victories and greatly exaggerate English victories. As far as your point of a 2nd rate power pitted up against 1st rate power is something I find rather pointless. England was too large for Spain to conquer and such comparisons don't prove anything. Recall that a superpower (USA)could not subdue Third World North Vietnam despite dropping more bombs on it than Germany received during WWII.--Scipio-62 05:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Indeed and look how the world laughed at America after Vietnam (who failed to invade Vietnam but could claim victory in that they prevented Communism from spreading further-the same sort of Spanish excuse for winning), just like how the world laughed at Britain in the Boer War, the USSR in Afghanistan etc. The whole purpose of the Armada was to invade England, that was what the large army was for. So to say that England was too large to invade is basically ridiculing the whole point of the Spanish Armada and ridiculing Spain for coming up with such an idea. Spain's war objectives were to take England (bring it under the Spanish crown), this they failed to do. The English objectives were to defend England, this they did. Basically the biggest power in the world sends a large force to invade England and are confident of success. They gather a huge show of strengh to crush England by invasion but are defeated decisively at sea. Big embarassement, especially after they had crowed about how powerful their armada was, to suggest otherwise is to bury your head in the sand. When a disaster like that occurrs it is not easy to recover your prestige without spectacular successes (mediocre successes will not do if you are number 1 and wish to stay there). I am not suggesting that thanks to the defeat of the Spanish Armada the Spanish Empire suddenly found itself on the brink of collapse because that is nonsense. But it had certainly peaked in terms of power and influence in the world and, as historians are wont to do, they like to link it to an event to show where things began to wrong, what better for a historian than this disastrous blunder.--Willski72 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First, please don't put words in my mouth because I am not ridiculing the Spanish attempt to invade England. It was just a failed enterprise and that is that. It seems to me that you are just trying to pin embarrassment on the Spanish to satisfy some desire of yours. Recall that the term "Invincible Armada" was an term coined by less than professional English historians as a way to take a cheap shot at the Spanish. And if you want to discuss "embarrassments", why is it that school children in any English speaking country never hear about British debacles that were greater than or equal in magnitude than the 1588 Armada like the Drake Norreys expedition of 1589 or the naval battle of Cartagena of 1739? Its a historical fact that the English fleet in the Battle of Cartagena in 1739 dwarfed the Armada of 1588 in tonnage, personnel, and losses. Yet no books of those events are ever written, except as passing references. It will be a cold day in hell when N.A.M. Rodger devotes a whole book to that episode. The reason for silence, of course, is embarrassment. Moreover, could you please prove your statement that the Spanish Empire was on "the brink of collapse"? The main body of the Spanish Empire lasted in the 1800s and the Spanish empire was never brought to it's knees by the British as you are trying to suggest.--Scipio-62 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

How was the Battle of Gravelines not a tactical victory for the English?

Second, what was the Dutch contribution? It seems rather disproportionate to give them "half" the victory without any reference in the article's section to what they actually did. John Smith's (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Did not the Spanish Armada also take losses because of their inaccuracy of mapping and positioning their vessels? A documentary on the Battle of the Spanish Armada also convinced me that the Spanish lost numbers and sustained heavy casualties because of their heavy shot, that could not reach their intended firepoint! The Documentary seemed to be reliable enough, but on this web page, there seems to be no history of either details... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.121.44 (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this campaign ended witha real war?

considering the casualties, the campaign looks more like a royal trip, probably Phillip needed british weather for his old lungs and avoided any conflict, while british were overwhelmingly out numbering his fleet he must be crazy to plan an invasion(ermm yes we know Hitler was planning against similar situation, but he never inteded to invade did he?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.205.249 (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. The Spanish campaign attempted to land a 30,000-strong army (tercios) from the Spanish Netherlands. In total, the force would have reached about 50,000 men, a huge army in that time. 62.15.140.66 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and imagining they landed in England (which also included Wales) they would have steamrolled through the then not-so-strong English army, the Spanish were the best in land at that time, nobody was a match for the feared Tercios--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And whilst we're imagining, why not imagine the whole Spannish army turned to giant flying insect robots that blew up London from the sky with their laser eyes. Or we could imagine that they managed to land, but the English were waiting for them with force of 10,000 Challenger 2 tanks that had been sent back in time from the present day. Or you could not bother, because none of those things actually happened.

It's Modern Spanish, not Old Spanish

The article incorrectly stated that Grande y Felicísima Armada is Old Spanish. Generally, Old Spanish applies only to the period before 1492. This event and take are from a century later. This most certainly is Modern Spanish. Interlingua 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Meanings

This section is superfluous and should be deleted, because in English the term 'Spanish Armada' is never used to describe modern military forces, while any jocular use by sports journalists to describe tennis players isn't noteworthy. It's a cliche which only reflects the fact there aren't many collective nouns in English with a Spanish theme. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dutch contribution overstated

Contemporaries complained that the Dutch didn't show up, and considering that it was English action and contrary winds rather than the Dutch blockade (which was in fact scattered by the weather) that prevented the rendezvous of the Spanish forces, the Dutch contribution to victory is here vastly overstated, making the article inaccurate. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Spanish Armada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• The majority of this article is uncited, giving no clue as to the source of the information.

• There are two requests for citation, one dating back to February 2008.

• Other meanings should be dealt with by a hat at the top of the article.

• Dates are not presented consistently: "On July 17 negotiations were abandoned"; "On 28 May 1588 the Armada set sail from Lisbon". Pick either the international or the American format and stick to it throughout the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I have reverted [1] this edit. There are a multitude of claims and conclusions in them, and they need to be sourced before being readded. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

some edits had not need to be cited like Habsburg Spain instead of Spain for combatant list, england wasnt fighting the SE, it was fighting hab. spain (overseas empires are not former states)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[2]--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A link to a whole book is not a proper reference. You have added two paragraphs of material, and the page you linked to in the book certainly does not make these claims. You need to provide references for each claim, along with the page number where it was found. Also, use the "ref" tag, not square brackets. FYI: if you simply revert again without doing this, I shall make a report on the admin page again that you have returned from your block and are continuing you reversion behaviour and not following policy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ps "effects" is superfluous if it follows "consequences". The words are synonymous (see any thesaurus [3]). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sister-in-law"

Elizabeth is described as the sister-in law of Philip. Actually, she was the illegitimate half-sister of Mary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was she illegitimate? She was certainly the half-sister of Mary.Willski72 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate these articles?

Shouldn't "Spanish Armada" and "Battle of Gravelines" be separate articles? -- LightSpectra (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia thinking, not dictionary thinking. A complete and coherent account is encyclopedic.

Tilbury speech

This section lapses into an Old Style/New style convention that's at odds with the more streamlined convention of the rest of the article. Old Style or New style should be noted in a footnote at first occurence, and adhered to. --Wetman (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

timetable

I'm not sure I can understand the time table of the battle. If the Armada reached the tip of Cornwall on July 19, how come it got to Portland only by July 31, 10 days later? Why did it take so long? Thanks for the explanation! Zkip (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)