effects of the Spanish Armada wins

Jul 2011
6,209
They didn't actually land anyone except for a few in single ships in random places accidently who were killed or taken prisoner. The Spanish needed to control the Channel and be able to land like 10,000 men in one place and then send over more men and supplies. A larger initial force would have been worse if it got scattered like the actual one.
 
Dec 2014
6,482
Spain
Or - those who did make landfall got stripped and murdered by those nasty villagers
Well, dear John... it was not the case when Don Juan de Águila and Don Carlos de Amésquita landed in England... Cornwall, 1595
According with a modern English page...English Army outnumbered Spanish army (Thousands vs 200 infantes de Marina (Royal Marines) but the "nasty villagers" consisted English army broke in panic.. when the Spaniards attacked...The local army reacted with panic, not strength. As a result, only Francis Godolphin, Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall and a band of 12 men remained to defend the land

Spanish casualties: 0 KIA O WIA
English casualties: thousands deserted, 1 Galleon and 3 ships sunk, Penzance and 3 villages taken....

So, dear John....100.000 men´s Army commanded by Santa Cruz and Parma.... too much for "nasty villagers".. for sure.
 
Dec 2014
6,482
Spain
They didn't actually land anyone except for a few in single ships in random places accidently who were killed or taken prisoner. The Spanish needed to control the Channel and be able to land like 10,000 men in one place and then send over more men and supplies. A larger initial force would have been worse if it got scattered like the actual one.
Sure... not "scatterd like the actual one" in Kensay... where Spaniards lost not even one skirmish..... also "actual one"... right?
 
Jul 2011
6,209
Maybe there were too many soldiers in the Armada rather than too few. The Spanish navy needed to first defeat the English navy for the plan to work. I don't understand how the Armada managed to land no one as planned at Ramsgate. Instead of landing a short distance across the Channel the whole Armada took a disasterous cruise around the British Isles. A larger force would have made it more difficult to win at sea and could have just meant more ship wreck casualties.
 
Dec 2014
6,482
Spain
Cornwall operation.. or a Commando raid late 16th Century:
Maybe there were too many soldiers in the Armada rather than too few. The Spanish navy needed to first defeat the English navy for the plan to work. I don't understand how the Armada managed to land no one as planned at Ramsgate. Instead of landing a short distance across the Channel the whole Armada took a disasterous cruise around the British Isles. A larger force would have made it more difficult to win at sea and could have just meant more ship wreck casualties.

No, Betgo.. it wa not a quesiton about numbers.. it was a question bad luck.... Santa Cruz died... february 1588... if Santa Cruz lives... he would have conquered England... and he didn´t want half-measures.... he wanted the Conquest... And yes... he would have conquered England... as Pizarro conquered El Piru...not in vain... Spanish Tercios fought in England and Scotland... (Tercio de Don Julián Romero).... So.... 100.000 spanish soldiers in England.... simply... a word...untouchable. (
 
Jul 2011
6,209
The Armada's planned landing site at Ramsgate is less than 30 kilometers from Canterbury Cathedral and a little over 100 kilometers from London. Probably the plan was to quickly take Canterbury and then march on London. I assume this was the seat or whatever you call it of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ranking Anglican clergyman. An earlier Archbishop of Canterbury St. Thomas a Becket was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral for defending the rights of the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury was the senior clergyman in medieval times. There was a cardinal for a short time before the break with Rome.

The Spanish conducting a Latin mass in Canterbury Cathedral would have shocked many English and making another Archbishop of Canterbury martyr would not have been a good idea.

The Spanish probably landed in Cornwall partly because the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion started there, so the Spanish thought it had many Catholics. The change from the Latin mass under Edward VI was offensive in Cornwall because Cornish was the main language there. The rebels asked for a return to the religious practices under Henry VIII. They wanted their festivals, pilgrimages and so on. They did not ask for the restoration of Roman Catholicism. The strongly Catholic areas, however, were mostly in the north and west of England, where it would not be as practical to land.
 
Dec 2014
6,482
Spain
The Armada's planned landing site at Ramsgate is less than 30 kilometers from Canterbury Cathedral and a little over 100 kilometers from London. Probably the plan was to quickly take Canterbury and then march on London. I assume this was the seat or whatever you call it of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ranking Anglican clergyman. An earlier Archbishop of Canterbury St. Thomas a Becket was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral for defending the rights of the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury was the senior clergyman in medieval times. There was a cardinal for a short time before the break with Rome.

The Spanish conducting a Latin mass in Canterbury Cathedral would have shocked many English and making another Archbishop of Canterbury martyr would not have been a good idea.

The Spanish probably landed in Cornwall partly because the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion started there, so the Spanish thought it had many Catholics. The change from the Latin mass under Edward VI was offensive in Cornwall because Cornish was the main language there. The rebels asked for a return to the religious practices under Henry VIII. They wanted their festivals, pilgrimages and so on. They did not ask for the restoration of Roman Catholicism. The strongly Catholic areas, however, were mostly in the north and west of England, where it would not be as practical to land.
I agree with you Betgo... Santa Cruz plan was direct attack from Spain to first English Coast.... So I guess 80.000 men landing in Cornwall. London is further aways... but once you have landed... you can go forward in different directions. The Army had the supplies for 9 month-campaign... around 100.000 rations a day.. so around 27 millions rations were ready.

Santa Cruz thought conquest England in 9 months. In november, Spanish Army should have been in Scotland´s border. If the king of Scotland was reasonable... he would be king of Scoltand as allied. If he was not "reasonable".. next campaign.. it would have been the Conquest of Scotland.

But every thing changed on February 9th, 1588
 
Jul 2011
6,209
.. And yes... he would have conquered England... as Pizarro conquered El Piru...not in vain... Spanish Tercios fought in England and Scotland... (Tercio de Don Julián Romero).... So.... 100.000 spanish soldiers in England.... simply... a word...untouchable. (
This is part of the problem with the Spanish approach with the Armada. They didn't have to contend with the Aztec or Inca navy or artillery. Portugal and Spain were the first with overseas empire, and it was relatively easy for Europeans to overwhelm native defences. It wasn't so easy to conquer in Europe. Spain had a chance to conquer England, but it was in no way a sure thing.

Spanish forces landed in Cornwall and County Cork. If those forces had been reinforced, maybe Spain could have taken territory on either island. Sending a small force and reinforcing it would have been more practical than sending an Armada.
 
Jul 2015
5,209
Netherlands
How not... Mr Willempie ... I wrote SANTA CRUZ.... planned the direct invasion from Spain to England... shipping the forces in Spain... 100.000 men and 700 ships... I wrote in this forum the forces... I can write here the original records written by SANTA CRUZ.... how was the plan... Are you saying Santa Cruz´s plan was not a direct attack to England? Because remember... everything I write I can proved it... and you know...

100.000 men shipping in Spain... straight on England...But unfortunately.. Santa Cruz died in 1588 and Santa Cruz plan was rejected by Philip sooner.
Well you are making 2 assumptions:
  1. That Philips would have listened. I seriously doubt that. Philips was a micromanager avant la lettre (legend has it he even corrected spelling mistakes in reports). He was very much into the whole operation and spend a lot of time on it.
  2. While it is a much better idea to ship the army directly, there are good reasons they didn't. The main reason is that you have to get those troops from somewhere, pay them and supply them, while Parma on the other hand was at the ready. That would be to the detriment of the other theatres of war. Low countries were still in turmoil, France was (as always) being nasty, Portugal couldn't be entirely relied on, the Turks were rebuilding their galleys etc. Plus of course you are very vulnerable when shipping troops. I don't know the plan of Santa Cruz, but I do know that the main problems William 3 had were a plan once in England, but mainly to get the passage. That is why the entire fleet was involved and that was just for a crossing.
 

Similar History Discussions