Talk:Spanish Armada/Archive 1

• Archive 1
• 2

The Spanish opposed slave-smuggling to their colonies in the West Indies... Misleading: the slave-trade in Spanish ships only, right? Perhaps someone will check and edit.Wetman 08:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No there was illegal selling of slaves by English traders. Drake started his career doing that. --Josquius 13:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Philip's invasion plan was a simple fourchette" -- a what? Dictionaries give no relevant sense for this...

intro

the article is generally good. The introduction however should be a little longer, and briefly summarize the main myths and historical importance of the event. In its present form, the article quickly bogs the reader down in details rather than starting from its main significance. Johncmullen1960 07:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish dimension

I've just re-written small parts of the article (much tidying-up still needed) and given emphasis to what happened in Ireland. My interest in this area stems from a commission from a County Clare butcher/treasure-hunter, who paid me to transcribe certain documents from the State Papers Ireland, about 15 years ago, to assist him in diving on armada wrecks. I don't think my research yielded any doubloons, but it got me reading further. In my opinion, by far and away the most interesting aspect of the armada is the Irish episode, just for its human aspect. The seamanship of armada captains and crews was sometimes brilliant, and there are many stories that point up human nature during crisis. The handiest summary of the events is the excellent, but artlessly titled, "5,000 Men Dead" (1969); there is also the survival account of Francesco de Cuellar. Generally, neither Spanish (I don't read Spanish) nor English historians seem interested in these events: they're all about empire and cannon, gold and glory. Perhaps that's all a WikiProjectBattles article should concern itself with. Anyone care to comment?--shtove 00:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The new Return to Spain section should be amalgamated with the first para. of Consequences. The user who posted it gives no name.--shtove 14:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

black irish?

Did the so-called "black Irish" really descend from the retreating Spanish forces? Or is that just a myth? Does anyone know? --Carl 21:49, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just a myth - a few hundred scattered survivors, if that, are not going to leave any real mark in the Irish genetic pool. The genes of individuals are quickly shuffled in succeeding generations of a given population. Furthermore recent research in genetics at Trinity College, Dublin, seems to lend ever stronger credence to the idea that there was a prehistoric shared genetic pool pre dating Romans, Anglo Saxons and Norsemen, all along the Atlantic coast, from the British isles to the Iberian penninsula - that can still be detected in present day populations inspite of migrations and invasions by other peoples from the east. That may be the true source of "the Black Irish". All this seems to suggest that Irish origin mythology does have some basis in fact.

It's also worth considering that Spanish mariners exploiting the fisheries of the north Atlantic, across to Newfoundland, used many points on the west coast of Munster as bases from probably the mid-1400's up to the mid-1600's. The debate about Iberian-Irish origin myths can only be solved by genetic investigation - but then, what would be the point of history?--shtove 00:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Armada?

The Spanish Armada is the official way to refer to today's Spanish Navy, so you can't title this article this way. You have to choose a more specific title. 80.58.0.107 07:35, 6 October 2004

The words "Spanish Armada" in English almost invariably denote the 1588 fleet; the mention of the name of the current Navy is sufficient to obviate ambiguity, I think Djnjwd 13:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The official name is Armada Española. English is not official in Spain. -- Error 23:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Spanish Armada" is a half-English half-Spanish term that would only ever be used of the 1588 fleet. Let's not go inventing problems where none exist. Stan 01:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dutch

Didn't the Dutch participate too in defeating the Armada? JimmyShelter 10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed you said this here, I added that anyway. Some think that more Dutch tonnage was involved then Englsh.--Josquius 13:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When i was a kid dutch history was extremely proud of its role in this event. (on a side note dunkirk raiders were infamous for their cruelty , they used to nail dutch sailors to the deck before sinking their ships.) As i understood it, the dutch strategy in these days, and it may have lasted 200 years or so, was to send in huge amounts of small ships heavily armed for the occasion. Really small ships, 10-18 mtr perhaps. It had a lot to do with it being a struggle of the people using their own ships, as they didnt have legal militairy representation (a big fleet). The whole era is actually refered to in that sense in dutch collective memory, it's called Geuzentijd, Geuzen era, and geuzen are pirates using small ships.(so i think the numbers of ships might be to low in the discussion but the actual tonnage of dutch ships wouldn't have been very impressive, a tenth of the armade if the statement that they were 10 times bigger every time, holds.77.248.56.242 13:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Losses

The 'casualties' mentioned in the 'battlebox' are contentious to say the least. Those figures (200 and 2000 men respectively) refer to the casualities suffered in the Battle of Gravelines. To summarise the great historical impact as being only that of eleven Spanish ships being sunk is very misleading. Figures should be given that are more reflective of the actual casualties suffered by the two sides in totality (i.e. English: no ships, 6,000 men; Spanish: 63 ships, 20,000 men). 172.200.85.100 12:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Me thinks the entry as a whole gives a good idea of the historical impact and context. Congratulations to you Wikipedians. Thankyou.

Numbers

I watched a documentary recently on this, and although I'm sure your more interested in the subject than myself; the documentary made clear the British had 55 ships and were at a distinct number disadvantage.

You must be talking about Battlefield Britain, recently aired on History Television. I caught a few episodes myself, but missed the Armada. Some quality programming.

That's the one; on that we can certainly agree. :"D

Unfortunately, however "clear" the documentary, the fact remains that your figures are just plain wrong: the two fleets at Gravelines enjoyed rough numerical parity (with the English actually outnumbering the Spaniards both in total ships and ships of war - though probably not in tonnage). I don't think this merits any serious investigation (of course, you're welcome to do so anyway); though some sources may continue to propagate the "underdog victory" myth to this day, my changes remain accurate enough. Credible sources will testify to this.

Well the guy was British, perhaps he was biased. :"D I'm sure your figures are accurate insofar as individual engagements are concerned, but did they fluctuate a great deal over the time the Armada was in hostile waters?

I want to ensure accurate counts over the entire engagement; not just the Battle of Gravelines.

As do I, but the battlebox isn't the place for it. It simply can't, by nature, provide a good summary of an affair as lengthy and convoluted - and involving so few military actions - as the Armada (requiring, as it would, descriptions of dead, wounded, captured, damaged in combat, sunk in combat, captured out of combat, wounded or incapacitated due to exposure, damaged by the elements, sunk by the elements, dead drowned, incapacitated due to illness, ilness deaths, etc.).

I need not do so; it should rather list lost/dead and casualities; and given my idea of how it should be used in this article, it should be called an engagement box.

Failing to draw distinctions between combat losses and other casualties is criminally misleading in a case like this. The very language of the battlebox implies armed confrontation; listing "20,000 dead" and "67 ships sunk" under a heading titled "casualties" is singularly wrong. Calling it an engagement solves nothing and remains factually incorrect.

I'm not entirely averse to working on a table in battlebox format -- under no pretension of representing an "engagement" -- that details the Armada's losses by cause and chronology, and removing the Gravelines box to Spanish_Armada#Battle_of_Gravelines. This prospect worries me somewhat still, however, because the Armada is one of those peculiar affairs in which numbers without context tend to mean precisely nothing.

Although the Spanish lost 2 ships and the English none in pre-Gravelines Channel skirmishing, for instance, the affair at that point remained an unqualified English failure. The Armada had easily shrugged-off incessant attack and harassment from English squadrons trying rather desperately to halt its progress, had maintained its formation, and had progressed up-Channel unscathed. Thankfully, "God grew tired of working miracles for the Spaniards", and the rest is history.

It would make sense to me a smaller force would be sent to engage them while upwind in the channel.

In any case, I do appreciate your taking the time to cite your objections here rather than mercilessly reverting those changes you thought inappropriate. Albrecht June 30, 2005 00:18 (UTC)

I acknowledge expertise when I see it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 30 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Thank you, but you're being far too kind to an amateur.

As to soldier numbers not mattering in long range gun battles, don't be silly. They do matter because it was the British tactic to make ensure it remained long ranged. Specifying how many soldiers were aboard helps clarify why the British choose the tactics they did; and clarifies the reason and proportions of Spanish losses. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 29 June 2005 20:03 (UTC)

The only people being silly here are the ones suggesting that we clutter the battlebox with soldiers who took no part in the battle. Why not also include the British garrison at Tilbury Fort? Or the Spanish Army of Flanders?

Because they weren't in the Spanish Armada; I'm concerned with the number of people on the ships.

I'm more concerned with neutrality and practicality. Not only does it defy convention to list crew strength in a battlebox (even in an article like Lepanto, where boarding infantry was supremely influential to the outcome of the battle), it goes contrary to all logic to highlight only one element of a diverse and largely undocumented collection of fighting men, especially if it's the group that did the least actual fighting.

This is not a battle article; those conventions do not necessisarily apply.

Perhaps not, but you still need some objectively justifiable reasons to defy them. A battlebox remains a battlebox. The Braddock Expedition wasn't strictly a battle article either, yet when I wrote the battlebox, I don't recall detailing the number of army cooks present or delving into George Washington's shoe size. :)

Convention ought to be respected unless sufficient and compelling justification is given to supersede it. A whim isn't sufficient or compelling, and neither is our most esteemed anonymous user's clamour for "MAXIMUM CASUALTIES!" above. If another example will convince you, note that battleboxes generally don't even include the infinitely-more-relevant number of planes on carriers!

As stated in the article, the English used the tactics they did because their navy was built upon the principles of coastal security and trans-Atlantic raiding, not Mediterranean slugfestting. It stretches credibility to suggest that English commanders had any idea just how many troops the Spaniards had aboard their ships, and either way, the point is immaterial: the English would have fought the same way had there been 3,000 Spanish soldiers rather than 30,000.

I know that, however those Spanish soldiers were in battle.

So were an undisclosed number of English soldiers. So were uncounted sailors and militiamen. The only reason you come across the 30,000 figure so often is because most accounts (written by Englishmen) want to emphasize just how "awesome" and "overwhelming" were the Spanish forces arrayed against those dashing and victorious Anglo-Saxons. :)

I concur with your read of the situation, but the solution is obviously to list English forces to the best of our ability.

If that solution is obvious, I'm afraid it's only obvious to a select few. I think a far better solution would be to not unnecessarily burden ourselves with irrelevant research; not pioneer new battlebox standards without serious justification; and, again, not highlight the one element in a diverse and largely undocumented collection of fighting men that did the least actual fighting.

The fact remains that the men in question formed part of an invasion army that neither reached shore nor set foot upon English vessels. Their presence and fate ought, of course, to be detailed in the article. But the battlebox should par down this excess information and sum up troop dispositions with economy and clarity: "who fought whom, and what happened".

30,000 seems clear; lost, dead, casualties can be equally brief.

Casualties cannot be equally brief and accurate. The vast majority of those 30,000 did not fight, just as the vast majority of the 20,000 dead were not killed in combat.

The English fleet action at Gravelines was no improvisation, it was a doctrine. Their ships were fast; their guns well-designed and rapid-firing; their cannoneers trained and specialized. To claim that the action at Gravelines was merely a "tactic" -- that under slightly different circumstances, those same British ships, so obviously designed for speed and gunnery dueling, would have forfeited their maneuverability and long-range superiority and happily grappled alongside Spanish galleons -- is about as absurd as suggesting that Jan Sobieski's magnificent cavalry charge at Vienna was a tactical novelty, the product of some circumstantial inspiration.

I apologize if I gave the wrong impression by using the word tactic. What I'm emphasizing here is that it was a gunnery battle because the British made it so; regardless any forces on the ships were being shot at.

Strangely, I just tried emphasizing the same point: it was a gunnery battle because the British made it so; regardless of any forces on the ships being shot at.

Well not quite, point being I consider forces on ship as being part of the battle.

Unfortunately, there's zero correlation between what you consider to be part of a battle and what hundreds of existing naval articles consider to be a part of the battle.

However, even if I am to concede the issue of a battle; they were part of the Armada; and I think that takes precedence over what is to be listed in the "battle"box.

We can continue to argue to no end about how many fought or how many extra casualties they suffered, or you can accept the fact that every known precedent recommends the omission of the 30,000 noncombatant soldiers.

Also, you've failed to explain why placing the number of Spanish troops in the battlebox "clarifies the reason and proportion of Spanish losses". The casualties at Gravelines weren't hugely disproportionate, and if Spain's were higher, it was largely because English gunfire was more effective, not because the Spaniards had more men to lose!

True, but not your decision to make! It is not difficult to concede more men on a ship means higher casualties. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 30 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from: Spanish infantry participated in the battle by presenting better targets. ;)

Yup. :'D

Though I'm no expert on naval strategy or projectile warfare, it's certainly conceivable that a tightly-packed crew should suffer higher casualties from enemy cannonades. However, this alone means relatively little in its framed context. Irrespective of crew concentrations, there was essentially no possible way for Spanish salvos to inflict anywhere near as many casualties on the English at Gravelines by fault of inferior artillery, gunners, ballistics science, and naval doctrine.

So your point would be; that we needn't concern ourselves as much with English crew numbers; I concur! :'D I mean I don't get this, yes I entirely agree, but the Spanish ships were still getting pummeled! It seems logical to include the numbers of people onboard; regardless if it feeds British egos... a Spanish soldier is equally dead and/or wounded by a salvo.

Every naval battle in history has featured one side with more men aboard their ships than the other. Your argument, if universally applied (and you provide no reason why it shouldn't be) would result in polluting hundreds of battleboxes with a maddeningly-massive amount of (frankly) useless information.

No, it isn't difficult to concede the point, and it's even less difficult to see that your argument doesn't really lead anywhere useful. An inestimable number of naval combats have involved troop transports or similar asymmetries. A great deal of ships throughout history accommodated larger crews than their contemporaries simply because their design allowed/required it. What makes Gravelines so special? Or are we to carry out meticulous research and systematically revise innumerable articles in the misguided goal of clarifying "proportions of losses"? You're welcome to try, but I think you'd agree that this would be both counterproductive and unreasonable, and dangerously difficult to accomplish.

Again, we need not limit ourselves to a battle! This is about an Armada, and as such more detailed summary information is called for; not a specific battle, regardless of its significance (which will be clear from a link being included to the battle in the "armada"box. :')

In the spirit of compromise, I can consider helping you create a clear, neutral, and accurate "Armada box". But keep in mind that:

• It would have to resemble a battlebox only in general format. Again, I'd just as soon write a battlebox for the Long March, or maybe the Titanic.
• This would be a relatively low-priority task, on which I would work subject to time and temperament. Its purpose would be to complement and ameliorate what we have so far, not to supplant it.

If any combination of variables (accidents, design flaws, incompetence, etc.) increases a force's losses in a given engagement, these should and will be described in the article.

Yeah, I'm not asking for that; indeed I'm asking very nicely to move that engagement information to its appropriate article, and revert the Armada information.

Tactical analyses, precise causality, and army descriptions are matters best left to the article's body text. The purpose of the battlebox is to summarize what happened at the Battle of Gravelines. Cramming it with this kind of irrelevant information just seems like a way for Englishmen to flatter their military egos by artificially stacking the odds against themselves.

The purpose of the box in this article should not be to summarize the Battle of Gravelines.

The purpose of a battlebox is to summarize a battle. The "Spanish Armada" is not a battle. The "Battle of Gravelines", by some strange quirk, is. If you want to remove the battlebox and replace it with a table that refers to something else, you must do so on your own initiative and provide your own justification for the change.

There's nothing wrong with having a battlebox in this article describing the Battle of Gravelines. There's something very wrong with having a battlebox describing the Spanish Armada.

And don't make so frequent use of minor; your changing of the figures and title is hardly minor. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 29 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I don't know what you consider a "major edit", but I think I indicated the nature of my changes pretty clearly. Also, your complaint may have had better grounds if it coincided with some facts:

Changing of factual content (rather than grammar, or aesthetics) is not minor; my perception of a "major edit" is not at issue; rather what constitutes a minor edit is. I agree your changes may be appropriate for the context of the Battlebox; but this is another issue...

Forgive me if the label confused you; it wasn't my intention to deceive anyone. If you take a quick look at my contribution page, you'll probably find that the vast majority of my edits have been stylistic tweaks to battleboxes; almost exclusively "minor edits". I guess force of habit led me to associate these rote affairs with minor edits even in cases where they may be more-than-minor. But my point was that if I slipped-up it was in good faith; I noted the nature of my changes each time.

I did not intend to imply otherwise.

Guess not, but the overall tone of your comment was a bit vituperative. No harm done.

since this article is about a specific Spanish Armada, not a battle; hence the Battlebox might be used in another way. Your editorial choices might be more appropriate for a Battlebox in the article Battle of Gravelines (1558). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 30 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)

They might be more appropriate, was the Battle of Gravelines (1558) not an entirely different battle fought a generation earlier, against different opponents, and with different results. :) There exists no Battle of Gravelines (1588); all articles relating to it have been crafted to link to the Spanish Armada (nor is it really necessary that there should be two distinct articles -- the Battle of Gravelines needs to contextualize the origin and fate of the Armada; conversely, the Armada article needs to describe the action at Gravelines).

Crap, the worst part is I knew that... stopped myself from mentioning it above; and then ended up doing it anyway. A disadvantage of editing late. Anyhow; I agree about context and such, however that need not necessitate the takeover of the Armada's summary, which would include a link to the new Gravelines page; and is more appropriate in the body of the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 30 June 2005 23:49 (UTC)

Removing the relevant text to a separate "Battle of Gravelines" article will, at this stage, do nothing but create redundancy and a whole lot of incorrect linkage. I do agree that working on a detailed, descriptive, and complete Battle of Gravelines (1588) article could probably be a worthwhile goal. However, this should be done at our leisure and for its own merits (I may be interested in contributing myself when I get the chance to consult better sources than can generally be found on the Web) and not because there's necessarily any glaring problem with the way things are now. Albrecht July 1, 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Given that the previous state of affairs went against the spirit - if not the explicit rules - of the battlebox (Armada is not a military engagement), that its contents were best dealt with within the article, and that there is no separate Battle of Gravelines article (nor need be), I think my changes, however bold, were justified enough. Albrecht June 30, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

• I neither changed the main title nor orchestrated any sweeping changes to the integrity of the article. Instead, I made a few necessary adjustments to what could only nominally be called a "battlebox" (detailing neither a battle, nor a campaign, nor a war, but a long process of attrition and casualty to exposure and illness -- why not write battlebox for Mao's Long March?). This is no different than titling the Braddock Expedition's battlebox "Battle of the Monongahela".
• If you compare my casualty figures to the ones in the article, you'll find that I didn't really introduce any new information: 500 English dead or wounded is cognate to "in the low hundreds from the battle itself"; 1,400 Spanish dead or wounded easily reflects "the Spaniards suffered nearly 2,000 casualties from the battle as well as illness and exposure"; 3 ships sunk and 1 captured is similarly accurate (I may change it back to "11 ships lost or damaged" once I find the number of English ships damaged). Albrecht June 30, 2005 00:18 (UTC)

Are you guys finished?

---

Largest Armada?

It was the largest fleet up until its time

I hate to be so nitt-picky, but would that be an accurate statement? I got to say, I have heard something like, "assemble the largest fleet the world has ever seen," an innumeral amount of times in naval history from the Trojan War to the War of American Independence. I know this is pretty trivia and unimportant, but was the fleet of 130 warships really the biggest fleet until that time? Like, for example, the Mongol fleet during the invasion of Japan was said to be numbered around 300-800 warships. The Zheng He Fleets also consisted around 300.

Or did I completely misinterpret the statement? 24630 July 31, 2006 16:04 (UTC)

I believe there were far larger fleets put to sea by the Chinese and Japanese in the preceding centuries, but don't quote me ...--Shtove 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some examples on wiki:
Persian Wars Persian Fleet: 1,207 warships
Mongol invasion of Japan Mongol Fleet: 300 large vessels and 400-500 smaller vessels
Roman Civil War (Battle of Actium) Octavian Fleet: 260 ; Anthony Fleet: 280
Zheng He Ming Fleet: 317 ships
--24630 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Shtove 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Definetely, an statement product of british folklore. Apart the numbers given by other people, it is know that the Spanish Armada was formed by 133 ships, and the English navy prepared to avoid the invasion was formed by 226 ships. (Historia de España contada para escépticos, by Juan Eslava Galán) Calculín

I don't see that figure of 226 in the article, though the list of ships seems to support it. Perhaps you should add it to the last para. of the Background section?--Shtove 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle Plan error?

I think whoever placed this line in the "Battle Plan" may have misunderstood the rather heated exchanges between Philip II and the admiral, Santa Cruz(Alvaro de Bazan)

Both Parma and the famous Spanish admiral, Marquis of Santa Cruz of Mudela (Alvaro de Bazan - who died before he could take charge), protested that what was needed was a larger fleet to carry troops directly from Spain, but Philip, under military and financial pressure, decided to press ahead with the bold plan.

The hot exchanges apparently concerned delays and difficulties getting the armada together, but they may also involve disputes in the overall plan. It would also be instructive to see what the Parma thought. I've replaced the above line with the following, which I'm certain is accurate:

Heated disputes between the Spanish admiral, Marquis of Santa Cruz of Mudela (Alvaro de Bazan - who died before he could take charge),and Philip II over organisation, delays and details marred preperations.

If the original line is correct, re-introduce it or something else that is. 15-9-05

Battle of Gravelines

The rendezvous can't have been IN the North Sea? Also, this account leaves it unclear that it was the battle itself that prevented Medina Sidonia linking up with Parma. And doesn't the point about ill-fitting Spanish cannon shot belong in another place?--shtove 21:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Consequences

If Fastifex is going to describe Phillip II as fanatical, then he ought to describe Elizabeth as zealous: the usefulness of such adjectives in this context was exhausted a long time ago - NPOV is lacking. The bit about potatoes in Ireland is just a fiction - it probably was the Spanish who introduced the plant, but in the course of normal trading links from the 1560's onward. Lepanto occurred in 1572, so the relevance to this article will have to be explained; most deforestation (including that of Ireland) was down to the pipe-staves industry and the production of charcoal for smelting.The changes should be reverted.--shtove 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to fumigate the first paragraph of this section to remove the sarcastic sectarianism - how'm I doing? Anyone interested?--shtove 20:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Much more diplomatic. :-) But it wasn't sectarian: most sects are alike when they turn nasty. cf. England under Edward VI. And they can be expected to turn nasty when power/money is under threat. (RJP 09:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

The Vatican

In the Causes section at the top of the article the word Vatican is used. Is it historically correct to use this term, i.e was "The Vatican" referred to as such at the time of the Armada? If not, would "Papacy" be a better word?Arcturus 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

os or ns dates?

Which are used? is it consistent throughout the article? we should be using ns! SpookyMulder 11:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall the article, this aspect is rather a muddle. It was because I could not face sorting the dates out that I left the French version and wandered off elsewhere. Nobody has taken that up, so perhaps I'll get back to it when you have done the groundwork. Good Luck! :-) (RJP 14:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

Number of Cannons

I assume the numbers by the ships in the list at the bottom refers to number of cannons? It's probably obvious to some of you but might not be to others. So maybe that should be said somewhere?

Tugboats and trawlers

Para 3 of the Consequences section states that the vessels were about the size of modern tugboats and trawlers. But the largest galleons had displacements of 1100 tons, so doesn't the description underplay the bulk of these vessel?--shtove 01:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of ships asked by Alvaro de Bazán

These are the number of ships and soldiers requested by Alvaro de Bazán to Felipe II, which he thought were necessary for the "Enterprise of England" (La Empresa de Inglaterra):

-150 galleons and warships

-6 galleasses and 40 galleys

-320 small ships of many different types (50-80 tons)

-40 frigates

-A total of 556 ships!

Plus 200 landing boats. Without these the total displacement of the Army would be around 111.000 tons, with 30.342 sailors, including 9.800 rowers for the galleys and galleasses, and 63.890 soldiers and 1.600 horses.

With such a figures you can have an idea of the Spanish naval power at the time.

Rru 11-March-2006

Remember that this was an invasion force and most of the Spanish ships were used to carry supplies, not to fight the enemy

List of ships

This should be hived off into a sub-article.--shtove 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the article is over the recommended maximum length. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-Reference

I don't have anything to do with the article, so I don't want to make any premature changes, but the "Points of View" section has a problem with self-referencing, and needs to be edited, if not removed. Elcocinero 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the historical info is already set out in preceding sections. Have deleted.--Shtove 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

None ... was/were sunk

What's WP policy on this singular/plural use?--Shtove 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The statistics are wrong

it says for the spanish

Casualties 500 dead or wounded 600 dead, 397 captured 3 merchant ships sunk 1 merchant ship captured

can anyone see how wrong this is? this is totally absurd! it was mor elike 10,000 spanish deaths, not 600!!

I think those numbers are for the actual battles - Gravelines etc. The 10,000 or so comes from losses in storms and from disease. There was a debate about including them. About the same number was lost by the English in the following year in the English Armada.--Shtove 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

there were 10,000 English deaths the following year? i havent heard that befor

Please log in. Thousands of English sailors died in the aftermath of the Spanish Armada, and thousands more (including soldiers) died during the English Armada in 1589 - relatively few of these deaths were down to battle casualties, just as with the Spanish in 1588. The numbers are unclear owing to the poor state of English record-keeping; Spanish records for their own men are more comprehensive. Spanish losses in 1588 are largely covered in Spanish Armada in Ireland. If you want to dispute the numbers cited in this article, then go back through the talk pages, where editors more involved than I have sorted it out already, and raise your concerns there. Gracias.--Shtove 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The mother of what??

So the Spanish Armada was called The mother of all Armada?? I think Saddam Hussein wasn't alive in the XVII century, so I delete that. --85.48.111.143 16:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ships involved

I have moved here to the talk page the complete list of the ships involved. This is IMHO non-encyclopedic content. Eithe rput it on your own website and list an external link, or make a new article for people who reallyare interested in that. One can imagine that if we included lists in all wikipedia articles, it would make for an encyclopedia which is difficult to read Johncmullen1960 07:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ships involved

England and the Netherlands

Ark (flag, Lord High Admiral Charles Howard)
Elizabeth Bonaventure
Rainbow (Lord Henry Seymour)
Golden Lion (Thomas Howard)
White Bear (Alexander Gibson)
Vanguard (William Winter)
Revenge (Francis Drake)
Elizabeth (Robert Southwell)
Victory (Rear Admiral Sir John Hawkins)
Antelope (Henry Palmer)
Triumph (Martin Frobisher)
Dreadnought (George Beeston)
Mary Rose (Edward Fenton)
Nonpareil (Thomas Fenner)
Hope (Robert Crosse)
Galley Bonavolia
Swiftsure (Edward Fenner)
Swallow (Richard Hawkins)
Foresight
Aid
Bull
Tiger
Tramontana
Scout
Achates
Charles
Moon
Advice
Merlin
Spy (pinnace)
Sun (pinnace)
Cygnet
Brigandine
George (hoy)
34 merchant ships
30 ships and barks
33 ships and barks
20 coasters
23 coasters
23 coasters
Disdain (included in above)
Margaret and John (included in above)
30 Dutch cromsters blockading the Flemish coast
Fireships expended 7 August: (included in above)
Bark Talbot
Hope
Thomas
Bark Bond
Bear Yonge
Elizabeth
Angel
"Cure's Ship"

Spain and Portugal

Portuguese

São Martinho 48 (section flag, Duke of Medina Sidonia)
São João 50 (section vice-flag)
São Marcos 33 (Don Diogo Pimental or Penafiel) — Aground c. 8 August near Ostend
São Felipe 40 (Don Francisco de Toledo) — Aground 8 August between Nieupoort and Ostend, captured by Dutch 9 August
San Luis 38
San Mateo 34 — Aground 8 August between Nieupoort and Ostend, captured by Dutch 9 August
Santiago 24
Galeon de Florencia 52 (or San Francesco ex-Levantine, Niccolo Bartoli)
San Crístobal 20
San Bernardo 21
Augusta 13
Julia 14

Biscayan

Santa Ana 30 (section flag, Juan Martínez de Recalde)
El Gran Grin 28 (section vice-flag) — Aground c. 24 September, Clare Island
Santiago 25
La Concepcion de Zubelzu 16
La Concepcion de Juan del Cano 18
La Magdalena 18
San Juan 21
La María Juan 24 — Sunk 8 August north of Gravelines
La Manuela 12
Santa María de Montemayor 18
María de Aguirre 6
Isabela 10
Patache de Miguel de Suso 6
San Esteban 6

Castillian

San Crístobal 36 (section flag, Diego Flores de Valdés)
San Juan Bautista 24 (section vice-flag)
San Pedro 24
San Juan 24
Santiago el Mayor 24
San Felipe y Santiago 24
La Asuncion 24
Nuestra Señora del Barrio 24
San Medel y Celedon 24
Santa Ana 24
Nuestra Señora de Begoña 24
La Trinidad 24
Santa Catalina 24
San Juan Bautista 24
Nuestra Señora del Rosario 24
San Antonio de Padua 12

Andalusian

Nuestra Señora del Rosario 46 (section flag, Don Pedro de Valdés) — Collided with Santa Catalina c. 31 July, captured by Revenge 1 August
San Francisco 21 (section vice-flag)
San Juan Bautista 31
San Juan de Gargarin 16
La Concepcion 20
Duquesa Santa Ana 23 (hulk) — Wrecked 29 September, Ireland
Santa Catalina 23 — Collided with Nuestra Señora del Rosario c. 31 July
La Trinidad 13
Santa María de Juncal 20
San Bartolome 27
Espiritu Santo

Guipúzcoan

Santa Ana 47 (section flag, Miguel de Oquendo)
Santa María de la Rosa 26 (section vice-flag) — Damaged 8 August, wrecked 16 September, Blaskett Sound, Ireland
San Salvador 25 — Damaged by explosion and captured c. 31 July
San Esteban 26 — Wrecked 20 September, Ireland
Santa Marta 20
Santa Bárbara 12
San Buenaventura 21
La María San Juan 12
Santa Cruz 18
Doncella 16 — Sank at Santander after returning to Spain
Asuncion 9
San Bernabe 9
Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe 1
La Madalena 1

Levant

La Regazona 30 (section flag, Martín de Bertandona)
La Lavia 25 (section vice-flag)
La Rata Santa María Encoronada 35 (Leiva)
San Juan de Sicilia 26 (formerly Brod Martolosi) — Blew up (possibly sabotage from English agent) 5 November Tobermory Bay, Scotland
La Trinidad Valencera 42 — aground 8 August
La Anunciada 24 (formerly Presveta Anuncijata) — Scuttled 19 September at Shannon River mouth
San Nicolas Prodaneli 26 (formerly Sveti Nikola)
La Juliana 32
Santa María de Vison 18
La Trinidad de Scala 22

Hulks

El Gran Grifón 38 (section flag, Juan Gómez de Medina) — Aground 8 August
San Salvador 24 (section vice-flag)
Perro Marino 7
Falcon Blanco Mayor 16
Castillo Negro 27
Barca de Amburg 23 — sank
Casa de Paz Grande 26
San Pedro Mayor 29
El Sanson 18
San Pedro Menor 18
Barca de Danzig 26
Falcon Blanco Mediano 16 (Don Luis de Cordoba?) — Wrecked c. 25 September
San Andres 14
Casa de Paz Chica 15
Ciervo Volante 18
Paloma Blanca 12
La Ventura 4
Santa Bárbara 10
Santiago 19
David 7
El Gato 9
San Gabriel 4
Esayas 4

Neapolitan galleasses

San Lorenzo 50 (Don Hugo de Moncado) — Aground, captured 8 August, distracting the English fleet
Zúñiga 50
Girona 50 — Wrecked in Ulster
Napolitana ("Patrona"

22 pataches and zabras (Don Antonio Hurtado de Medoza)
4 galleys of 5 guns each (Diego de Medrano)
vessels under Parma

The meaning of the event

I have a problem with the article as it stands. In British history the battle is always presented as the symbolic end of Spanish domination of the seas and the beginning of English domination.

Either this is true, and the article should point it out, or it is not true, in which case the dominant myth should be stated and disproved, and also the probable 'grain of truth' should be pointed out. I am not an expert on this - can anyone help ?Johncmullen1960 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a mess. In historical terms it's fairly plain: the battle was a significant victory for the English during the Anglo-Spanish War 1584-1604, in that it forestalled an invasion from the Netherlands. I think the article also plainly states that the Spanish regrouped and improved their navy, and that security for the trans-Atlantic treasure fleets was increased. Vintage propaganda, to the effect that the 1588 battle marked the beginning of Spanish decline and the rise of English power at sea, is hokum - the war ended in a peace treaty, the early Stuart navy had very little funding, and treasure shipments to Spain enjoyed a steady increase from 1590 in to the early 17thC. The statement of this propaganda in the article would have to be sourced in the first place before we set out the case against it.--Shtove 11:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be that no reputable historian subscribes to the "big defeat for Spain" line anymore--I don't know. But if even a smallish minority still argues that, then we ought to include their views here without dismissing them--in at least a section of the article. We ought to be able to follow NPOV on a 400-year-old conflict of little contemporary significance. Nareek 03:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a big defeat for Spain, but not the strategic one that old-fashioned English historians insisted it was. There is no historian today who asserts the Speech at Tilbury version of the event (although TV drama still bangs on in this simplistic way), and there is more emphasis now on the use of the memory of the event to puff up Elizabeth's reputation in the 1610s, when radical protestants were becoming dissatisfied with Stuart rule. Anyway, I've just rejigged various parts of the article.--Shtove 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And rejigged again.--Shtove 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Consequences

Now that there is the Anglo-Spanish War 1585 article provides the wider perspective, the "consequences" section in this article should be largely removed and readers directed to the above mentioned war article. Provocateur 07:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mexican immigration

How is Mexican immigration relevant to the Spanish Armada? there's a little quip there at the end of a paragraph. Funny, but...The Jackal God 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed.--Shtove 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than becoming part of the Spanish Empire, England became the core of the British Empire. Unlike the Spanish Empire, this was managed in such a way that much of it produced wealth for a reasonably wide section of its population rather than simply stripping existing wealth from the empire for show and mounting wars in Europe. This is not a claim that someone set out to achieve this end. Rather, it is what happened. Thus, the assessment that the outcome of the Armada event was significant is justified. The place in which the contrast between the two legacies can now most sharply be seen is along the Rio Grande. (RJP 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Those are some pretty broad brush-strokes. The immediate consequence of the Armada was the peace treaty of 1604, which allowed England greater leeway in the North Atlantic. What flowed from there in North America is too remote for this article.--Shtove 11:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The immediate consequence was that England did not fall back under Spanish control. 1604 was sixteen years later. Certainly, the information which I have inserted does not go into great detail. It was not intended to but it indicates a broader field of understanding to balance the blinkered view shown to date in the article. Without this, the 1588 event is just another isolated flurry, over and done with. What is needed is the development of an understanding of the significance of the outcome and the reasons for it. The dates of treaties are the punctuation of this process not its substance. Without a broad view of where events fit into social and political evolution, the study of History is a dull and useless occupation. Erasure may suit the writers' pov but it is selling the reader short. My intention was that the additions should indicate to an acute reader where ideas should be filled out so that the more obtuse reader could see what was happening in 1588. (RJP 10:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

The problem is that your conception of Anglo-Spanish "social and political evolution," far from revealing a "broader understanding," is basically a rehash of discredited Victorian psuedo-history. For decades, sneering British imperialists pointed to Latin America as justification for their God-given 'civilising mission.' One could plunge into all the ink that's been spilled exposing their distortions, omissions, and freakish prejudices. Somehow, I doubt that you've done so. The idea that Philip seriously desired to impose his rule in England and had the means to carry out his design is a fantasy that makes for a nice swashbuckling film, but what does it have to do with the reality of the time? Not much.

In brief, your ideas hold little credence outside the hundred-and-fifty-year volumes of people like John Lothrop Motley. And the myth that those 'contemptible, selfish, cowardly, ignorant, faithless and cruel' Spaniards "stripped existing wealth from the empire for show" while the industrious, noble, generous, magnanimous English "produced wealth for a reasonably wide section of its population" is one that I doubt even Ferguson would approach with a ten-foot trident. A century of British (and American) economic manipulation and domination had a far greater impact on the development of the Latin American republics than their colonial period under Spain. Albrecht 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, historians' writings go in fashions but that does not mean that the assertions of one fashion are wholly true nor those of another wholly false.

I fear you are letting your complexes show. I do not believe most of the things you attribute to me.

If Philip did not wish to regain control of England why did he gamble so many lives and spend so much money, effort and prestige on looking as though he did? To try to pretend that he didn't mean it anyway is quite ridiculous.

My aim was to draw attention to the narrowness of the view expressed in the paragraph "The battle is greatly misunderstood, as many myths have surrounded it.[1] English writers have insisted it was a pivotal moment in European history, which is to ignore the fact that it marked the beginning of an increase in Spanish naval supremacy, rather than a long decline." This completely ignores the obvious importance of the outcome for the future of European - and World history. (RJP 12:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

But what bearing does this have on the USA? The victory prevented the deposition of Elizabeth, and led to a peace treaty. End of story.

Maybe if the English hadn't buggered up the return match in the English Armada of 1589, and had broken the naval power of the Phillip and shattered the administration of the empire, you might be able to talk about a pivotal victory. But the fact is Spain increased its power, until the French and the Dutch cracked its military supremacy in the 1630s-40s. By then, it was a different ballgame, different rules.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be included, but from what I can gather it's just far too remote from these events to have 'obvious importance'.

And Phillip never had, nor sought to have, control of England. It was all about succession and alliance, and the winner was James VI of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots.

Still, WP operates on the basis of verifiability and reliable sources - you're free to insert text by those criteria.--Shtove 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He and his wife, Mary I cooperated in deciding which course England would take and in how it was governed. She died without producing an heir so he lost his influence. He and the Pope wanted to regain that control so they cooperated in the Armada scheme. It failed; so that their way of doing things was not adopted in England. Instead, England went on to become the core of the British Empire of which North America was part. The inheritors of part of that empire are the citizens of the USA. The contrast in wealth as between the USA and Mexico (formerly part of the Spanish Empire) draws attention to the effects of the different forms of management adopted by the British and Spanish Empires respectively. The one (whether intentionally or not) encouraged the production of wealth: the other in the earlier years at least, stripped out already existing wealth and carried it off to another continent. The prosperity of the USA, indeed its existence, was enabled by the outcome of the Armada project. Hence, the outcome of the Armada expedition is significant on a much broader scale than merely counting a few ships. They could be payed for from the South American gold but that source inevitably dried up in time.

This is not to claim that this outcome was a good or a bad thing. It was a significant thing. (RJP 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Mary was rightful queen of England by descent, and Phillip spent hardly any time in the country. Your idea of control seems simplistic to me - read up on the disputes between Phillip and the various popes in his time, and you'll see that even catholic states were genuinely sovereign and independent of papal authority.

True, true and true but to a large extent, she did as he said. Furthermore he hoped to gain control through their son; in which he was disappointed. Sixtus may not have liked Philip but he supported him financially in the Armada enterprise, also by excommunicating Elizabeth. (RJP)

Talking about which 'course England would take', and 'their way of doing things' is also simplistic in terms of empire: what do those phrases mean? The Mayflower is a good story which flows from the peace of 1604 and the persecution in England of religious minorities, but it was the 18thC wars between France and England that really set the scene for the USA.

The course which independent England did take. The Mayflower episode is a clear example of a mechanism by which the difference between the empires developed. In the one, independent-minded people were induced to go to the Americas: in the other, conformity was to a much greater extent, enforced on both emigrants and indigenes. The eighteenth century wars would not have enabled the expansion of the British North American empire if the seventeenth century British colonies had not been there, populated by the likes of the descendents of the Mayflower emigrants and ready for expansion - still less if England had remained under Spanish control to this time. (RJP)

As I said before, in my view the conclusions you seem to want to draw are too remote. But if you've got a verifiable and reliable source that states those conclusions you're free to add them in. I wonder if you'll get a modern, professional historian to state as much. And I'd suggest that all such comments (including the existing one in the intro) be removed to the conclusion section.--Shtove 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The writings of historians reveal as much of the attitudes of their own times as they do of earlier ones. When the present fashion passes, we shall get another slant on history.

The significant outcome of the Armada expedition was that England remained independent of Spanish and Papal control. The rest of what I have said is merely evidence of the extent of the significance of this outcome. Neither is the outcome, of the continuance of England's independence, remote from the event. It happened immediately and well before Philip had his new ships built. It is the effect of the outcome which is still felt today. (RJP 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I think you're being unfair on Mary - she reigned in her own right, in English interests. At the same time she was not in a position to cross the new landowners by reverting the transfer of church lands under H8 - so, more at the beck and call of the domestic lobby than of the Spanish court or vatican.

Elizabethan colonisation of North America was a complete cock-up, before and after the Armada. It was only under James I that a competent effort was made, and that came well after the peace with Spain. This is why I suggested you flesh out the idea in Anglo-Spanish War (1585) - it was a long war, of which the defeat of the Armada was just a part.

The Mayflower episode is not a case of encouragement - more a case of persecution. In 1580, there might have been an English catholic colony in North America, but the colonists were refused permission to leave England until they paid their recusancy fines, and the Spanish discouraged it anyway. It's true - look at Humphrey Gilbert.

Who wished what is unimportant in discerning the significance of an outcome. Plenty of Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Dissenters and those with ideas of their own invention, went to North America and did not have their multifarious ideas squeezed out of them by the heavy hand of the government. It was this mix of people which came up with ideas, enterprises and inventions which developed a broadly-spread wealth. Again, I emphasize that I am not claiming that the means or outcome were good or bad: just significant in their effects on the world of 2007. Also, the likelihood is that much of North America would otherwise, have been colonized from Florida and California by Spain, had England been returned or if you prefer, placed under Spanish control. One has to assume that policy in those colonies would have been much like that in the rest of Spanish America and that it would have produced much the same effect in North America, in the modern world. Perhaps, Louisiana would have been a different place, who knows? The fact remains, it is not now different from the way it is, as it certainly would have been, had England been ruled by Philip II and his successors, from 1588. (RJP 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I agree with you on 'who wished what'. But the English colonisation of America was actively down to James I, at a time when he was organising the Plantation of Ulster. Phillip II never sought to rule England as he did Portugal, since he had no claim to the throne. Had the Armada been successful, a catholic monarch would have taken the throne, and English colonisation of NE America might have been tolerated by the Spanish. Who knows? Maybe the interior of the continent would have come up against European civilisation even earlier. The tolerance of the USA's founding fathers for diversity in religion goes hand in hand with their espousal of democracy - both of which were anathema to those who sent and those who defeated the Armada. It really has nothing to do with 1588.--Shtove 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"both of which were anathema to those who sent and those who defeated the Armada" This irrelevant. It is what happened that matters, not what people wanted to happen.

"the English colonisation of America was actively down to James I," "a catholic monarch would have taken the throne" - quite.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJP (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

On remoteness, maybe have a look at articles on early colonisation of north American and see what approach is taken there to the Armada and the Anglo-Spanish war.

And the thing about historians today is that they're professional - not that that's a guarantee of objectivity in any given case. But the system they rely on is well researched and tested and unlikely to fall prey to 'local shop for local people' sentiments.--Shtove 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Professional or amateur, the important thing is that they should be competent. (RJP)

Why not flesh it out in Anglo-Spanish War (1585)? There was a lot more to this conflict than the Armada.--Shtove 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

English Forces...

I have in a booklet given to me by my History teacher (Private School) that England had 54 battleships and around 140 merchant ships were converted into battleships not the numbers which are stated here in the text (34 warships and 163 converted merchant ships) --Celticfan383

Dalmatian sailors

I have read that, while the officers on the Armada were Spanish, many of the lower ranks were Slavs from the Dalmatian coast, from the countries we now call Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Montenegro. Is this true? JackofOz 13:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates

I've noticed that the date of the encounter at Gravelines varies depending on the source by up to one week. What is the reason behind this? How did the contributors to this article decide on the dates that are used in this article? Sancho 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• This source gives a timeline that doesn't place the Graveline encounter until August 8. [1]
• The sources in the article San Salvador (Guipúzcoan squadron) put the Armada near Plymouth on July 31 and August 1.

This article needs a fact check and an improved timeline. Sancho 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. However, a nice improvement to this article would be a graphical timeline linked with the current map. Maybe I'll make one this next week. Sancho 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of "British & "English"

I have noticed while reading through the main document and the discussion page that there has been an ongoing alternate usage between British and English, sometimes in the same sentence. There was no British Navy at this point which was formed from the later amalgamation of the English and Scottish Navies and in general there was no "Britain" as how we think of it and in this case the term English is applicable to the defending fleet. Ironically quite a few documents I have read on Wiki concerning WW1 & WW2 refer to the the English navy, army, airforce etc which is completely wrong and the term here should be British as they are amalgamated forces comprising personel from all the British home nations (and in many cases from further afield). From working for an American bank for a number of years I know there is a big problem with understanding the difference and it was generally accepted that England meant Britain and vice versa. Mind you in Venezuala "Scotland" is referred to as the Northern English Wildlands!

Venezuelans are wise. And not very good at rugby.--Shtove 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"19th century" a misprint?

"modern scholarship presents it as the beginning of an increase in Spanish naval supremacy, which started to be reversed arguably during the Thirty Years War and most likely in the early part of the 19th century.[5]"

Surely this is a misprint -- I'm no historian at all, but this seems to be saying that Spanish "naval supremacy" *started* to be reversed just before World War I. That just doesn't make any sense. They were supreme on the seas for the intervening 250-300 years?

rc

The first part of the 19th century means the early 1800s, not the early 1900s. Sancho 02:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. You should sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. The software will automatically turn them into a proper signature when you save the page. Sancho 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Spain?

The kingdom of Spain didn`t exist yet is like you put also in the article the United Kingdom. It should be kingdom of Castilia and Crown of Aragon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolg (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of England was more precisely the Kingdom of England and Wales, but that gets complicated. Kingdom of Spain is realistic shorthand. If United Kingdom is anywhere in the article it should not be.--Charles (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I told you again the king Philip II was king of Castilla, king of Aragon, count of Barcelona... He wasn't king of Spain. I change it for Hasburg empire that is more realistic.

Numbers Confusion

In one part of the article, it reads:

The fleet was composed of around 130 ships

While in another part of the article, it reads:

The Spanish fleet outnumbered the English both in absolute numbers, with over 200 ships to 130 ships

What's happened here? It seems to me that someone has confused Spanish numbers with English; the English infact outnumbered the Spanish; the Armada had 130 vessels, while the English mobilised up to 200 in the channel. Change required perhaps? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

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)

actually 6000 Italians ,6000 Walloons, 6000 Burgundians,9000 were requested by the Duke of Parma and he received most of these levies he requested.Also most of the Spanish soldiers were brought from the forts of North Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.155.112 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2010 (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, 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)

How is it considered either a tactical draw or not a decisive success? Whether the armada's army would have failed if it had landed in England or not is questionable. There is the idea that the armada was over before it began; the guns and ammunition being of the wrong caliber, the Spanish tactic of boarding as opposed to the English tactic of gunnery and seamanship, the tight Spanish formation allowing no agility, the inexperienced Spanish commander Sidona, the failure of Parma to contribute to the Armada, Phillips misconception about English Catholics supporting the invasion and the question of whether the 30,000 or so soldiers intended for the invasion could really overcome the supposed 200,000 troops being mobilised by the English and the Armada's ability to operate in the face of a strong and undefeated English and Dutch fleet. Nevertheless, this could be compared to the Battle of Britain, there is the theory that even if the RAF was defeated, the German invasion barges would not have been able to cross the channel in the face of a strong and undefeated Royal Navy, yet nontheless it was considered a decisive success because it prevented any invasion of the British Isles, and strengthened Britain's resolve to win the war; if Germany had invaded and even if they had been repelled, they would have dealt a lot of damage before they did.

Conversley, the Battle of Gravelines which defeated the Spanish Armada sealed England's reputation as a sea faring power, it showed that the Spanish were not invincible and omnipotent as previously thought due to the Spanish being at the zenith of their power, it also strengthened the Protestant resolve around Europe as the war was seen by some as a religious crusader war, Catholics vs Protestants. It also established England's role as an emerging naval superpower, as domination at sea following the Spanish Armada was never seriously checked, unless you consider the Dutch Wars and the Raid on the Medway (even though it did not weaken the English empire at the time) until the Battle of the Chesapeake Bay in 1781. So, this is why the defeat of the armada is still considered decisive, it had huge political ramifications, if not higher than the military ones even if the Armada's success was questionable. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

For the record, the article hasn't called it a "tactical draw" for a while. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2009 (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)

"Invincible Armada": Actually, the first documented used of "invincible" connected with the Spanish navy comes from February 1588, in the print of a sermon by Richard Bancroft, which he held at St. Paul's Cross in London (A sermon preached at Paules Crosse the 9. of Februarie being the first Sunday in the Parleament, Anno. 1588. by Richard Bancroft D. of Divinitie,.... , Imprinted at London : By E. B[ollifant] for Gregorie Seton 1588; STC (2nd ed.) / 1347). He refers to a prophecy that was reported out of Portugal and foreshadows the events of the summer. "Invincible" was also used by Lord Burghley in his influential anti-Spanish propaganda tract (The copie of a letter sent out of England to Don Bernardin Mendoza... Imprinted at London : By I. Vautrollier for Richard Field, 1588; STC 15413). I have not yet found that prophecy.

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

You misunderstand me i did not say that it was on the brink of collapse i said, and i quote, "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". Please read carefully. As for Cartagena in 1739 i myself know of it however the education system in Britain seems to stop at Oliver Cromwell and skip straight through to the Industrial Revolution (a fact that annoys me intensely). There is no reason for me to want to embarass Spain, it was the first real large colonial Empire and had many advantages for England (ie going to war with France). The plan of the Drake Norrey expedition was not to invade Spain and overthrow its monarchy and it therefore did not hold as much importance as the Spanish Armada, although i am happy to admit that it was an embarassment for England. But then Trafalgar pretty much makes up for Cartagena (French AND Spanish fleets). The Spanish Empire was not brought to its knees by Britain, you are looking too deeply into my words, in fact Britain saved the Spanish Empire (Napoleonic Wars, Iberian Campaign). How many Spanish books are their on the Spanish Armada (other than ones making excuses), im sure Spain tries to downplay its own embarassments just as much as Britain does.--Willski72 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The true objective of Drake and Norreys Expedition was the destruction of Spain's Atlantic Navy and trying to break apart Portugal from Spain. This Spanish victory was turning point in the first Anglo Spanish war in that in that it ensured that the Spanish Empire on the Atlantic and beyond was saved. No Spanish Atlantic Navy could have meant no Spanish empire beyond the Atlantic with ramifications that would have reverberated with giant changes to this very day. As far as historical embarrassments are concerned, it is all in the eye of the historian. Its my belief that the outcome is much more important. As to your point about Britain saving the Spanish Empire, I don't agree. Britain sent and expeditionary to the Iberian peninsula to combat Napoleon. I am not trying to denigrate the actions of Wellington, because they did fight credibly, but the Spanish did most of the fighting and those nasty things that were exchanged between the two "allies" are due to the ethnic dislikes for each other. Britain's goal, indeed, was not to save the Spanish Empire, but to fight Napoleon. Its a fact that Britain tried twice to conquer the River Plate section of South America in 1806 and 1807, but failed due to the vigorous defense by local people's militias. These British invasions of Spanish overseas territories were unsuccessfully attempted while they were sending Wellington and his army to Iberia to fight Napoleon. Such actions are not hallmarks of saving the Spanish Empire by the "charitable" British. I personally don't know if the Spanish downplay the Armada of 1588 because I have never been there and I'm not fluent in Spanish. I just know that the 1st Anglo Spanish War is much much more than the Armada episode of 1588 and its a shame that war is almost never elaborated throughout it's nineteen year history beyond that one sea battle.--Scipio-62 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

I agree fully that the whole war is basically wrapped up as one sea battle and that that is a shame, but at the same time how many battles of the Napoleonic Wars does the average person know. I know quite a few (naval and land) but then again it is my interest. The average person in Britain might get Waterloo and Trafalgar. If you said Salamanca or Austerlitz or Cape St Vincent or Nile they would look at you with blank faces. Of course the Iberian peninsular was started by the British to primarily help defend Portugal (which is one of Britain's longest lasting allies), and this was then extended to Spain. It has to be admitted that the Spanish did do a lot in fighting France but without British help fighting Napoleon they would not have won, this was mainly because of a lack of discipline etc in the Spanish army (not navy) by this time. Therefore it fell mainly to large bands of guerrillas and Spanish troops combined/drilled by/with British troops. The Portuguese army by 1810 was almost purely British trained. To change the subject back to Drake and Norrey's expedition, even if it had been successful England did not yet have the resources to follow up the advantage they would have gained. Some Caribbean islands may have fallen to England, Holland and perphaps even France but Spain's Empire was too vast and Englands navy too small to make a huge amount of difference as Spain would have been pumping out ships as fast as possible and militias would have been raised in Empire territory. (though this is all purely speculation of course!)--Willski72 (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to take this discussion on tangents about histories beyond the 1st Anglo Spanish War too much. My point is that history should be presented in a balanced manner and not micro focused on one battle so as to give the false impression the the favored country (England) is always the good guy that always wins. Examples, as you stated, like Waterloo and Trafalgar only prove my point. It is a historical fact that the 1st Anglo Spanish war was not the lopsided English victory as I was so falsely taught as a child. Nor do I agree with your assertion that the defeat of the 1588 Armada was the beginning of the decline for the Spanish Empire given that England failed in it's objective to dislodge the Spanish military from The Netherlands and Belgium. Moreover, though you write that England did not have the resources to conquer any part of the Spanish Empire, it was not from lack of trying. It appears to me that the English had conquest on their mind given that privateering/pirating increasingly proved to be fruitless endeavors due to the armed escort system the Spanish employed. And many expeditions were sent to the Caribbean not the least of which was Drake's Last.--Scipio-62 04:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Only afterwards (thus the notability). It led England to see that to compete it couldnt just take money from Spanish ships it should take land as well. Before this raiding Spanish ships was a way of England getting easy money and at the same time was a way of helping the Netherlands. After 1588 attention started to be paid to creating an Empire, that would eventually, through Cromwell and Pitt and others become the largest colonial empire ever seen and would surpass Spain. This whole direction in history was set off by the Armada (and by the war in general), as England saw that this was necessary to survive against enemies that had vast overseas territories already. Any attempts at empire before this were small scale and seen more as gambles than as important policy. So in truth most of the lasting importance of the Armada was in what it would lead England to do in the future and the embarrassing feeling it was for Spain. Because to the world at large in 1589 the Drake, Norrey expedition SHOULD have failed because it was the second rate power attacking the biggest power in the world. In the same way that the Armada should have succeeded. Lets make a modern example. The US sends its fleet with an army on to invade Spain and Spain destroys their navy in the sea. This shouldnt happen. Then in retaliation Spain sends its Navy over to the US to destroy its Atlantic fleet but is defeated, this should happen! This argument is silly though because i agree with you on the main point here that it is a shame that people just think of the Spanish Armada and not of the rest of the war. But i may be a cynic however i believe that if you taught most children the war they'd forget most of it within a month or two, they'd probably remember the name but thats about it, unless they were historically minded children that is.--Willski72 (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, comparing Spain of 1588 to the USA is not a valid comparison. The USA is a Super Power. Spain never had that kind of power, and neither did England. The closest thing to a Super Power prior to the USA and the USSR was the Roman Empire. Spain was a Great regional power indeed, but not a Super Power that could project its power anywhere in the world. The Americas were ripe for Spanish conquest due to more advanced military technology the Spanish possessed. Whereas in Europe, Spain could only dominate small nations like the Low Countries or the fractured portions of the Italian peninsula and Germany. The only significance of the 1588 Armada battle is proof of my point. It was just a battle in a nineteen year war. The reason it is all we (laymen) hear of is that battle is because it was a victory for England, meaning English historical bias, and it kept foreign solders off their soil, save a few seaborne raids by Spanish marines. For example, when I read generic history books about The War of Jenkin's, only battles like the Bloody Marsh and Porto Bello are mentioned. Why? For the same reason that on the 1588 Armada battle is only mentioned. After the Colonial era was over and Spain lost most of her American empire, England wisely concentrated her colonial efforts on Africa and parts of Asia because almost all her conquest attempts in Central and South America ended in failure, even when without Spanish colonial protection.--Scipio-62 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

In truth i dont have time to argue back again so i'll be as brief as possible. The only reason Spain and Britain werent classed as superpowers is because of technology restrictions. In both cases for a long time their nearest rivals were no were near them in terms of power and wealth, the raw reasons why the US is the only superpower now, (though China may catch up). Of course there is going to be English bias in English history books, its the same with every country and always has been, generally the older it is the worse it is in that respect. In South America the people had modern guns and were reasonably well trained, that meant more men and money being used/spent than the British Empire was willing to use/spend. The British spent only a fraction of their budget on the army in comparison to most countries and if Britain had spent as much, it could have taken anything that technology allowed it to reach. The US to Spain is a valid comparison but perphaps not Spain to England, perphaps China should be England, making it more as it was.--Willski72 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Superpower status?

Arguments over what constitutes a Super Power are moot. Its a modern term that applies to the 20th century context of two coalitions led by the two world powers, facing each other off, etc. As for those who deprecate the Spanish and British empires of the past, consider the USAs troubles in backward countries like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Consider the comparison with Spanish imperial forces fighting the Dutch, French, English and Ottomans simultaneously - all relatively advanced for the times. Move on a couple of centuries, we see British imperial power approaching its zenith, not only fighting American revolutionary armies, but also the French, Spanish and Dutch, simultaneously. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it? 203.221.79.38 (talk)