effects of the Spanish Armada wins

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,293
Now, now.
You call the invasion of William III a glorious revolution. You completely ignore the French invasions of 1216 and 1326 as not having occurred or as not being French invasions. So some bias is there albeit not government driven.
Should we call it the Dutch Conquest of 1688?

The invasion of 1326 was led by the Queen and did not include French forces. Didn't Henry VII invade from Brittany? Henry IV invaded from somewhere? Was the restoration of Charles II also a Dutch Conquest?

I just wanted to add, that while Elisabeth did support the Dutch rebellion, she only did so when she thought it wouldn't antagonize Spain too much or when sufficient compensation was offered. So whatever the real issue between England and Spain were, the low countries were merely trivial to both.
To the Spanish though it was an act of war, as was the "privateering", so it may have been a major cause of war.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,313
Netherlands
Should we call it the Dutch Conquest of 1688?
Obviously it should be the Glorious Conquest ;)
The invasion of 1326 was led by the Queen and did not include French forces. Didn't Henry VII invade from Brittany? Henry IV invaded from somewhere? Was the restoration of Charles II also a Dutch Conquest?
For 1326 it depends on whether you count Hainaut as French or not. You could also see it as an Belgian or German invasion.
Point was more that you cant really escape a certain bias and that that bias builds over time.
To the Spanish though it was an act of war, as was the "privateering", so it may have been a major cause of war.
I feel it was more an irritant than anything else, similar to the middle ages when privateering was ignore until France or England needed an excuse for war.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,293
1326 was not primarily a foreign invasion. It was a rebellion against Edward II and his favorites. Contemporary sources tell improbable stories about how blatant Edward and his favorites were about their homosexual relationships. It is hard to know at this point how much of that was true, and how much of it was motivation for the rebellion.

I agree that it is downplayed that the King of France was crowned King of England in London in 1216. He had support of rebellious barons, as did William III.

The Dutch invasion aspects of 1688 were downplayed in traditional English history. However, William encountered little resistance primarily because the aristocracy mostly preferred him to James II. It was easier to support an invading army than start of rebellion.

Martin looks at 1588 from the Spanish point of view, which is very different from the English. Both are biased and neither is right or wrong.

If the Spanish had been successful with their large force and likely support from many nobles and people, Elizabeth would probably be presented in English history as this evil bastard heretic pirate queen.

There are similar issues with historical events, such as Reconstruction in US history. Traditionally, the viewpoint of the plantation owners is presented, as in "Gone with the Wind", which laments loss of pre Civil War society, with the fancy balls and so on. Recently, people have looked at the period from the point of view of blacks looking for political rights. This is different from the traditional view, which glorified the KKK.

Another example is Richard III, who was presented by Holinshed, Thomas More, and Shakespeare, all of whom were writing under the Tudors, as the ultimate villain. Richard III was a usurper, as the younger brother of Edward IV. Henry VII was a rebel leader with a far-fetched claim to the throne.
 
Last edited:
Likes: benzev

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,638
Spain
1326

Martin looks at 1588 from the Spanish point of view, which is very different from the English. Both are biased and neither is right or wrong.

If the Spanish had been successful with their large force and likely support from many nobles and people, Elizabeth would probably be presented in English history as this evil bastard heretic pirate queen.

.
It is not possible to say better, I AGREE with you again.... Two different point of views... you can see here English list of Wars Spain took part....

List of wars involving Spain

Can you see Anglo-Spanish War (1585 - 1604). According with English Wikipedia.... war is...Indecisive (Stalemate, Draw)

And now the Spanish Version:

Lista de Guerras de España

Can you see...Guerra anglo-española (1585-1604)...According with Spanish Wikipeida...War is...Spanish Victory.

So.... who say truth? Who lies? Likey nobody... History is a tale, a fiction... save facts... the rest are inventions.... perceptions..... for the English Point of View.. for English Society... War was indecise... it is the English Society perception... Spain didn´t defeat England... so it is indecisive...

For the Spanish Point of view.... for Spanish Society... War was a Victory... so it was perceived... England was the aggresor.. England wanted to change the statuos quo.. England wanted the independence of low Countries.... and after 20 years... England accepted Status Quo previous War and not independence for Netherlands. So.. a Spanish Victory for the Spanish point of view.. as you can see in the list of war in Spanish Wikipedia..


It is proved War was not clear.... as WW2 or Franco-prussian or Peninsular War... Spanish-English war was not Black or White...maybe gray...

Yes, I agree how would have been the perception about Elizabeth if 1588 would have been possible to land...Pirate Queen!! as she is considered in Spain.

And History is not Science as mathematic... I love Mathematic... 3 x 3 = 9.... 3 double = 9 a + b = b + a.... here, in London or in Tumbuctu...however History.. save FACTS...the rest is only politics .. and politics is manipulation and propaganda ...by every side...Theories, "interpretations".. with the same scientifc base that Astrology....don´t explain history.. they used the Histroy to explain the present... present is very short... changing continuously ..

You are specialist in USA History.... if I say... battle of Antietam Creek took place September 17th, 1862 is fact and history... that is the only fact...

Who won? I read: Union Victory, Draw and Confederate victory (So... the result is not history... depend on perception when the result is not clear as in Iwo Jima)

That´s one of reason because I am not interested in theories, interpretations etc etc only fact, facts... date.. casualties, order of battle....because it is mathematical.. it is scientific...

If I say HMS Queen Mary was blown out at 16:26 pm May 31st, 1916... is History... a fact! Who won the battle of Jutland.. is not history....British jingoist will say.. a British Victory.. of course.... Pan-Germanist will answer.. a German Victory... and the hypocrites who want to please both sides will say ... it was a draw!

Regards,

Very agree with your post, dear Betgo.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
182
America
It is not possible to say better, I AGREE with you again.... Two different point of views... you can see here English list of Wars Spain took part....

List of wars involving Spain

Can you see Anglo-Spanish War (1585 - 1604). According with English Wikipedia.... war is...Indecisive (Stalemate, Draw)

And now the Spanish Version:

Lista de Guerras de España

Can you see...Guerra anglo-española (1585-1604)...According with Spanish Wikipeida...War is...Spanish Victory.

So.... who say truth? Who lies? Likey nobody... History is a tale, a fiction... save facts... the rest are inventions.... perceptions..... for the English Point of View.. for English Society... War was indecise... it is the English Society perception... Spain didn´t defeat England... so it is indecisive...

For the Spanish Point of view.... for Spanish Society... War was a Victory... so it was perceived... England was the aggresor.. England wanted to change the statuos quo.. England wanted the independence of low Countries.... and after 20 years... England accepted Status Quo previous War and not independence for Netherlands. So.. a Spanish Victory for the Spanish point of view.. as you can see in the list of war in Spanish Wikipedia..


It is proved War was not clear.... as WW2 or Franco-prussian or Peninsular War... Spanish-English war was not Black or White...maybe gray...

Yes, I agree how would have been the perception about Elizabeth if 1588 would have been possible to land...Pirate Queen!! as she is considered in Spain.

And History is not Science as mathematic... I love Mathematic... 3 x 3 = 9.... 3 double = 9 a + b = b + a.... here, in London or in Tumbuctu...however History.. save FACTS...the rest is only politics .. and politics is manipulation and propaganda ...by every side...Theories, "interpretations".. with the same scientifc base that Astrology....don´t explain history.. they used the Histroy to explain the present... present is very short... changing continuously ..

You are specialist in USA History.... if I say... battle of Antietam Creek took place September 17th, 1862 is fact and history... that is the only fact...

Who won? I read: Union Victory, Draw and Confederate victory (So... the result is not history... depend on perception when the result is not clear as in Iwo Jima)

That´s one of reason because I am not interested in theories, interpretations etc etc only fact, facts... date.. casualties, order of battle....because it is mathematical.. it is scientific...

If I say HMS Queen Mary was blown out at 16:26 pm May 31st, 1916... is History... a fact! Who won the battle of Jutland.. is not history....British jingoist will say.. a British Victory.. of course.... Pan-Germanist will answer.. a German Victory... and the hypocrites who want to please both sides will say ... it was a draw!

Regards,

Very agree with your post, dear Betgo.
I mean, the Anglo-Spanish War definitely can be count as a win for England even when being a stalemate because the smaller power achieved more of its ends than the greater power. Spain failed to subjugate England, failed to dislodge Protestantism from England and failed to resubjugate Holland as a result as well. The Spanish military naval dominance in the North Sea was also very much terminated thanks to the great victory over the Spanish Armada. All dynastic ties to England, both past and future, were also severed completely too. I hate English chauvinism, and the fact that the Dutch conquered England is an outright embarrassment that is also far greater than the inability of Spain to quell the Dutch revolt, especially when Spain still remained in possession of the Spanish Netherlands, not to mention that the Christian Spanish kingdoms successfully fought off Viking invasions while the English remained subjugated by a dynasty of Viking origin for nearly half a millennium. However, you simply can't deny that the English victory over the Spanish Armada and the subsequent Treaty of London marked a before and after for Spain. It ended Spanish expansionism for good in Asia, Africa and Europe, while also setting up a northern limit for Spanish expansionism in Atlantic North America even if Spain managed to annex California and Texas (parts of it at least) afterwards. The British Empire is really unthinkable without a victory over the Spanish Armada.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,638
Spain
It is clear who was the aggresor and who the attacked.... so when England broke the Status Quo...it was because they wanted something more... after 20 years in war.. they achieved to go back to the Status Quo previous..

for a long course of years England had been the aggressor, and that Philip had exhausted all diplomatic and conciliatory means, including even secret murder, and the subornation of treason, in England, to arrive at a peaceful modus vivendi. For thirty years he had suffered, more or less patiently, robbery, insult, and aggression in his own dominions at the hands of Elizabeth. The commerce of his country was well-nigh swept from the sea by marauders sallying from English ports or flying the English flag. His own towns, both in the Spanish colonies and in old Spain, had been sacked and burnt by English seamen without any declaration of war ; and rebellion in the ancient patrimony of his house had been, and was still, kept alive by English money and English troops.

So.. it is logic... England achieved nothing after 20 years in war... nor independence of Netherland....nor military hegemony.. nor naval dominion.. nor colonies..
 
Feb 2011
1,081
Scotland
Dear Martin,

Thank you, but nothing to apologise for though you are very kind- just a slip on the keyboard with a funny outcome! :) I remember the beetle-browed old Soviet leader!

History Channel isn't British and is quite capable of making or hosting programmes which are not necessarily accurate. I very much doubt that they form part of any sort of conspiracy or propaganda campaign by some sort of shadowy organisation dedicated to trying to do down Spain.

Apparently the treaty between Phillip and the Catholic League tipped Elizabeth into supporting the rebellion in the United Provinces. She was reluctant, because this could be construed as a desire by her to depose Phillip - not consistent with her views on 'divine right' and of course a precedent which could be used against her. However, the possibility of a successful and hostile Catholic power bloc holding deep water ports opposite the English coast tipped her into support. She offered some men and considerable subsidies in return of 'cautionary towns'. This would also have meant that England could not have negotiated other than a status quo ante for the Treaty of London. Despite that, the United provinces were by then de facto independent.

This was an age of expansion and exploration for both England and United Provinces.
 
Likes: martin76

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,313
Netherlands
I mean, the Anglo-Spanish War definitely can be count as a win for England even when being a stalemate because the smaller power achieved more of its ends than the greater power. Spain failed to subjugate England, failed to dislodge Protestantism from England and failed to resubjugate Holland as a result as well. The Spanish military naval dominance in the North Sea was also very much terminated thanks to the great victory over the Spanish Armada. All dynastic ties to England, both past and future, were also severed completely too. I hate English chauvinism, and the fact that the Dutch conquered England is an outright embarrassment that is also far greater than the inability of Spain to quell the Dutch revolt, especially when Spain still remained in possession of the Spanish Netherlands, not to mention that the Christian Spanish kingdoms successfully fought off Viking invasions while the English remained subjugated by a dynasty of Viking origin for nearly half a millennium. However, you simply can't deny that the English victory over the Spanish Armada and the subsequent Treaty of London marked a before and after for Spain. It ended Spanish expansionism for good in Asia, Africa and Europe, while also setting up a northern limit for Spanish expansionism in Atlantic North America even if Spain managed to annex California and Texas (parts of it at least) afterwards. The British Empire is really unthinkable without a victory over the Spanish Armada.
Uhm, firstly the Low Countries are out of the equation. The Dutch Republic basically started because Elisabeth kicked the Seabeggars out for fear of antagonizing Philips.
Second, while I agree that if the Armada would have been successful, the British empire wouldn't have been (or not nearly as big). That is kind of a non argument for deciding who won or lost the war. Whatever happens later (in this case more than a century) is irrelevant for deciding that.
 
Likes: martin76
Aug 2018
182
America
Uhm, firstly the Low Countries are out of the equation. The Dutch Republic basically started because Elisabeth kicked the Seabeggars out for fear of antagonizing Philips.
Elizabeth still supported them by the 1580s.

Second, while I agree that if the Armada would have been successful, the British empire wouldn't have been (or not nearly as big). That is kind of a non argument for deciding who won or lost the war. Whatever happens later (in this case more than a century) is irrelevant for deciding that.
You're ignoring the rest of the reasons I gave, including failing to subjugate or resubjugate England after basically being dominated by Spain with Catherine of Aragon and especially Mary I, as well as failing to dislodge Protestantism. My argument is that the English achieved more of their goals than the Spaniards, and this is very much a fact.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,313
Netherlands
Elizabeth still supported them by the 1580s.
Yes it was off and on. But the actual turning point of the revolt (when it turned from a relatively weak revolt to a war) was when the Sea Beggars took Den Briel, which in turn flipped (some spontaneous some with help) a whole host of cities in the Holland province. The reason they did this was because Elisabeth had refused them access to her ports (because they were pirates/privateers targeting anything that wasn't clearly labeled as Dutch or English).
A brief (very brief) explanation of the background Capture of Brielle - Wikipedia and Eighty Years' War - Wikipedia
You're ignoring the rest of the reasons I gave, including failing to subjugate or resubjugate England after basically being dominated by Spain with Catherine of Aragon and especially Mary I, as well as failing to dislodge Protestantism. My argument is that the English achieved more of their goals than the Spaniards, and this is very much a fact.
I wasn't ignoring it, I was pointing out that very distant results aren't really a criterium to decide who has won a war. It would be like saying Britain won the American war of independence, because they got way more powerful afterwards. Well that is my opinion, in any case.
 

Similar History Discussions