effects of the Spanish Armada wins

Feb 2017
210
Devon, UK
Well, Fleet not sailed in mid chanel but by the English side... they have two options: To land forces in Ramsgate and going to mouth of Thames or they can go to wight island if not landing the troops. About the Castles... I guess they would have been atacked by fleet whilst the army marched on London. About to be harried or not.... nobody knows.... I doubt...few years later, Captain Don Juan de Águila landed in Cornwall.. he beat easily English detachments and militamen.. he took Mousehole, Paul, Newlyn and Penzance. He captured two forts embarked the cannons and he backed to Spanish soil (Flanders)...in any moment, the stronger English detachments attacked them or harrased.. and they were 400 men (only 200 landed)... not 100.000 (Santa Cruz´s plan).. not even 30.000 (Philip II).. but only 400. They beat English militiamen in the battle of Penzance.

In Valladolid, King and the generals drew the following conclusions:

1st: The English defenses were only strong in the Channel and based on navy.
2nd: The landing was not impeded in any moment... although the landing force was so weak.
3rd: English Army was not rival for the Spanish one. English militiamen (despite its enormous numerical superiority) panicked when the Royal Marines (infantes de Marina del Tercio de la Armada del Mar Océano) attacked.

So... ok.. you can think Walmer and Deal castles were impossible to fall into Spanish hands ... (as it never happened.. we can´t know)... for me.. it is sure they would have been taken....if Haarlem, Breda, Ostende, Antwerpen... all of them large fortified systems.. were taken by Tercios against Dutchmen (specialized in siege warfare).... two little English Castles are not going to stop a 30.000 Sp. Invasion force.



With London in Philip´s hands... it is time to crown a new King.. a Catholic king... likely James VI king of Scotland (Simancas archives proves it was the first option for Philip II)... not in vain... his mother was killed, murdered, ... by Protestant English! by Elisabeth I...not killed by Spaniards.. not by Philip II.

So nor you nor me know the answer because we don´t know James´thought... James had always been a pro-spanish king... in Scotland and later. And the relations and letters between Philipi II and James VI is a fact (not a theory). I don´t know (you either) if James would have accepted or not to be King under Spanish army protection. What I know and I can prove it is Philip II wanted to crown James as a King of England. And if he would have say not...I think, Philip would have chosen a Spanish Habsburg. (but it is my theory not a fact).

It must be borne in mind that the essence of Spanish occupation was only temporary (from 10 to 30 years) until the English kings were able to govern without Spanish military support. We don´t know if James VI would have accepted or not.. because the army was not landed.



You are righ Mr Evans.. I agree with you. I won´t believe what continues...There are two war propaganda that are second to none: Soviet and British.
The main difference is that the Soviets never believed their own propaganda... but British yes!.. so...1588 was a kind of Spanish Midway battle...a disaster... Spain lost the Naval and land Hegemony...the Empire, the dinasty...as Napoleon or Hitler... Philip II lost everything...



Yes, Santa Cruz was as incompentece as Nelson.....British War propaganda.

That´s the reason because today (2019) research and historian are cleaning to split facts and propaganda.. nor Drake, Nor Hawkins had more experiences (or competence) than Recalde or Oquendo




The conquest of England was possible..only it was necessary Santa Cruz´s command in Sea and Farnesio´s one in land and following the Santa Cruz´s plan: 700 ships and 100.000 soldiers (35.000 Sp.) Not from Flanders to England but from Spain to England. That´s the original plan.

Hubris.. British hubris was to invade Spain in 1589....

Mathematics: 1588 Spanish Expedition to England: 35 ships lost and 10.000 dead. English casualties: 8 ships burnt and 8.000 dead
1589 English Expedition to Spain: 58 ships lost and 15.000 dead. Spanish casualties: 300 dead.

Sorry, about the ships burnt in Gravelines.... it counts as casualties by Wikipedias (in English, French, Spanish etc). Not me.

Regards


If my post had been read properly it would have been noted that I conceded that it might have been possible to take London (had all gone well). Unlikely, but possible, to take and hold England, even less likely and probably not possible.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the Mount's Bay Raid. That's what it was, a raid on civilian targets not an invasion, the 'two forts' were artillery blockhouses which housed out of date cannon and no powder. The damage was to civilian housing and merchantmen. It was destructive of property but other than a skirmish with hastily assembled militiamen there were no real military engagements and the Spanish made a point of avoiding St Michael's Mount, which had a small garrison and artillery (but no powder). They certainly didn't try to get into the more heavily defended ports of Fowey or Falmouth.

Which brings me to the way 'Invasion' is being used and understood. The Armada of 1588 (and to a lesser extent the two subsequent failures in 1596 and 1597) was an attempt to land, conquer, occupy and effect regime change, in other words, a full blown invasion. English incursions into Spanish ports were not invasions but raids (as was Moun'ts Bay above) with short term military objectives and the opportunity for a bit of opportunistic plunder. Nobody's pretending they were tea parties, or always successful but neither were they about getting rid of Philip or doing anything other than frustrating further attempts by Philip at getting rid of Elizabeth.

And finally.Believe me or not, I don't care, but what you perceive as English propaganda has always maintained that a major factor in the defeat of the Armada was the weather, it may have been characterised as Providence but then the English wouldn't be the first to give thanks for a Divine Wind (and it worked three times!). Even Elizabeth's Armada Portrait Armada Portrait - Wikipedia shows the weather doing its worst, not so much as a cannon shot in sight.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,482
Spain
If my post had been read properly it would have been noted that I conceded that it might have been possible to take London (had all gone well). Unlikely, but possible, to take and hold England, even less likely and probably not possible.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the Mount's Bay Raid. That's what it was, a raid on civilian targets not an invasion, the 'two forts' were artillery blockhouses which housed out of date cannon and no powder. The damage was to civilian housing and merchantmen. It was destructive of property but other than a skirmish with hastily assembled militiamen there were no real military engagements and the Spanish made a point of avoiding St Michael's Mount, which had a small garrison and artillery (but no powder). They certainly didn't try to get into the more heavily defended ports of Fowey or Falmouth.

Which brings me to the way 'Invasion' is being used and understood. The Armada of 1588 (and to a lesser extent the two subsequent failures in 1596 and 1597) was an attempt to land, conquer, occupy and effect regime change, in other words, a full blown invasion. English incursions into Spanish ports were not invasions but raids (as was Moun'ts Bay above) with short term military objectives and the opportunity for a bit of opportunistic plunder. Nobody's pretending they were tea parties, or always successful but neither were they about getting rid of Philip or doing anything other than frustrating further attempts by Philip at getting rid of Elizabeth.

And finally.Believe me or not, I don't care, but what you perceive as English propaganda has always maintained that a mI cajor factor in the defeat of the Armada was the weather, it may have been characterised as Providence but then the English wouldn't be the first to give thanks for a Divine Wind (and it worked three times!). Even Elizabeth's Armada Portrait Armada Portrait - Wikipedia shows the weather doing its worst, not so much as a cannon shot in sight.
Dear Mr Evans,

Ok you are right you said it was possible but not probably to take London.... I can´t see anything special in London.... Spanish Army was in Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Tenotichtlan....So, I can´t see more difficulties in London than in Low Countries channles, Mexican lake or French champagne...Philiberto of Savoy beat French Army in Saint Quentin and open the way to Paris...I can´t see why Farnesio was not going to open the way to London...
Sincerely I can´t see not even one chance to English Army in a openfield battle... as I can´t see a Spanish Navy victory over British Fleet in 1914... for example...

Yes, you are right... Cornwall was a raid (as Drake in Cadis, for example)... but the 1589 Counter-Armada was an invasion with three goals:

1st: To destroy Spanish navy survived 1588 Expediton
2nd: To conquest Portugal
3rd: To conquest Açores islands...

I can understand your noble patriotism.. but to think (as you think) English army would have annihilated the Spanish one in a great battle something as Waterloo, Sedan, Stalingrad...it is only in your patriotic faith. Either the 100,000 men projected by Santa Cruz´s plan or the 30,000 by Philips II´s one, if they landed... England is lost.

In the face of the finest Army in Europe, Elisabeth I´s preparations were hopelessly inadequate. Preparations were "desperately behind-hand all over".
The strategy was poor, the command structure weak, the English officers divided amongst themselves on the strategy to be pursued. The troops at Dover (most of them raw recruits) began to desert in considerable number when Armada came in sight off Calais. In any case, there were only, 4.000 men in all, a ludicrously inadequate force.


The Duke of Parma´s invading army would have been facing “untrained troops without clear orders, backed up by only a handful of inadequately fortified towns”. On top of all this, the defensive forces were concentrated in Essex, and not the real intended target, Kent.

Just a pathological optimist can really believe London would have resisted the attack or English Army would have beat the invanding forces....
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,209
My father had to memorize in elementary school "In 1588, Sir Francis Drake defeated the Spanish Armada, thus making England supreme on the seas". He didn't defeat the Armada in battle, and England was in no way supreme on the seas at that time. You see the propaganda influence on what was taught in the US, so I somewhat see why Martin is so strong about these issues.

If the Spanish landed, they had a decent shot of taking London. Nothing is certain though, and often the stronger invader has lost or had a difficult time.

In terms of England being Catholic, most people did not want to change religious practices. However, some were sold on some reforms. The Latin mass was harder to understand in countries that did not speak a similar language. England and Sweden each had one cardinal at the time of the Reformation, and there was support for breaking from what was considered the corrupt Roman Church.

Many were OK with either Roman Catholicism or high church Anglicanism. Many also didn't care and would go along with whatever they were doing in church under the current monarch. Only extreme Catholics would likely support a Spanish invasion. There were fanatical Catholics, just like there were Puritans who threw rocks at stained glass windows.
 
Feb 2017
210
Devon, UK
I raise perfectly practical questions and express scepticism as to whether the result of a successful landing by Spain in 1588 would be a foregone conclusion, and I'm a 'pathological optimist' blinded by patriotism and propaganda?

Meanwhile, Philip managed to send not one but three failed armadas, bankrupt himself and achieve precisely none of his aims, in spite of the hypothetical invincibility of his army. The only armada soldiers he ever managed to land on mainland Britain camped on a beach for a couple of days and then left. Anybody else that turned up in England was a corpse or a prisoner.

At least the Counter Armada reached it's destination, attempted to raise a rebellion, put men ashore and fight on foreign soil, albeit unsuccessfully. In that respect it did better than Philip ever did and it was still an unmitigated disaster and treated as such by the English.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,209
Spanish style tends to be grandiose and English style understated. English would not use words like invincible so much.

The Spanish might have done better sending their Armada to invade Ireland. There they would have had the support of most of the population. Once they got control of Ireland, they could menace England from their. That would have been a less ambitious and more practical plan.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,541
Portugal
Spanish style tends to be grandiose and English style understated. English would not use words like invincible so much.
If I am not mistaken the terms "Invencible Armada” were given by the English. In Spain the 1588 Armada was called “La felicissima armada” ('the most fortunate fleet'), even if with all the storms and the defeat it was not a fortunate name.
 
Likes: martin76

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,209
When Spain intervened in support of Irish rebels in Ulster around 1600, it was not able to prevent the rebellion from being crushed. Much of the Ulster aristocracy fled to the continent, and British settlers were brought into Ulster. Perhaps Spain could have sent a larger force there. However, with Spain unable to hold on in Ireland, it seems that it is not so clear it could have conquered England, which had a larger and mostly hostile population.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,482
Spain
Spanish style tends to be grandiose and English style understated. English would not use words like invincible so much.

The Spanish might have done better sending their Armada to invade Ireland. There they would have had the support of most of the population. Once they got control of Ireland, they could menace England from their. That would have been a less ambitious and more practical plan.
No dear Betgo.... this a demostration. an evidence how the English Propaganda has intoxicated each mind...it was never existed any ARMADA INVENCIBLE... an English intoxication....as I said the other day... Soviet and British are masters in Intoxication, missinformation and Propaganda...

The name was REAL Y FELICÍSIMA ARMADA (Royal and very Happy Navy) because their goal was to restablish Catholicism in England..as you can see.. not matched at all with "Invencible Armada"... that grandiose stily is typical from British mind... HMS Invincible... and everybody know what happens with those names on the Seas!

Spain never (not in 1492 nor in 2019) used that kind of names... but names of Saint People (Santa María, Santísima Trindad, San Juan etc) or name of people....places etc....never names as "conqueror", "invincible", etc etc..typical English names (not Spanish).

So, my dear Betgo.. today you have learned... not existed any Armada Invencible (English Intoxication) but Real y Felicísima Armada.

Regards,
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,482
Spain
About style... you can promise you don´t know how is the Spanish mind.. and less 15th - 19th Century mind.....you can read Victor Hugo...or Nietsche....or Dutch sources (or English or French or Ottomans)... it was named the Spanish Gravity...the austerity....Tercios never shouting... they never charged shouting.. for them... only a coward shouts...A man who is afraid of what he is doing and needs to be encouraged ...Tercios attacked and charged in silent...

This is one you say it was "Grandiose Style".. the most powerfull man in the word wears in Black.... pure austerity...




We can see hundreds and hundreds portraits 15th-17 Centuries...

English sytle



Spanish Style late 16th Century/17th Century
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,482
Spain
Spanish style tends to be grandiose and English style understated. English would not use words like invincible so much.

The Spanish might have done better sending their Armada to invade Ireland. There they would have had the support of most of the population. Once they got control of Ireland, they could menace England from their. That would have been a less ambitious and more practical plan.

It was thought to take Ireland... but King denied because the goal was to restablish the Catholicism in England... not in Ireland.. after England became Catholic.. Ireland would have been free as Philip as King of Ireland.
 

Similar History Discussions