effects of the Spanish Armada wins

Aug 2018
182
America
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
I know but that is irrelevant to the fact that by the 1580s, the success of the revolt became one of the goals of the English. In this they succeeded.

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.
And I only mentioned one distant result, never said it was the only one and never said it was the main one. The others were immediate results. Again, Spain failed to dislodge Elizabeth, failed to dislodge Protestantism, failed to resubjugate England and failed in defeating the Dutch revolt that was supported by the English. In this, the English were just as successful as the American colonists who also achieved all their major goals of getting full political independence and economic autonomy from Britain.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,638
Spain
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.
Dear Willempie,

I agree with you.... it is not possible to say better... what others guys are just doing it is named retrospective projection and it's ridiculous ... as scientific as astrology

By the same reason.. China won the Opium Wars... (ontly we compare UK 2019 and China 2019 and who is the "boss" in Asia...) and we can to think Spain won the Cuban War in 1898... we can compare US Inversion in Cuba when Cuba was a Spanish province.. for example in 1895... and today... 2019... and the Spanish inversions in 1900 and in 2019....

It is not possible to say better than you.... only a "provocateur"... can write the nonsense he writes....

+1.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,293
The terms of the treaty ending that war are interesting. England agreed to stop privateering raids and stop support for Dutch rebels. Spain agreed to stop helping English Catholics and not to invade England or Ireland. So Spain was able to end the problems it had with England at the beginning of the war, while England got some acceptance and security. The treaty was celebrated as a victory in Spain at the time. I can't see how it was a clear victory for either side.

Spain didn't dominate England under Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. They were quasi-allies mainly against France. Similarly Scotland and France had the Auld Alliance against England.

There was a revolt against Mary's marriage to Philip. If they had had children, the Spanish and English monarch would have been the same person. This would likely have made joined Spain and England on less equal terms than England and Scotland or Aragon and Castile similarly joined. Mary really wanted to get the protestants after what happened to her mother etc. However, it would have been a much better plan to marry some English nobleman or less prominent foreign prince. There are tons of Catholic ones of both. If she married someone of lower status, she would have retained more power as Queen.

Phillip II really screwed up chances for a Catholic England earlier than the Armada. He left England when he became King of Spain. Then there was no way for Mary to have an heir, which probably wouldn't happen anyway. He also didn't ensure a Catholic succession otherwise. I don't know about killing Elizabeth, but neither Philip nor Mary did anything effective to keep England Catholic.
 
Likes: benzev

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,313
Netherlands
I know but that is irrelevant to the fact that by the 1580s, the success of the revolt became one of the goals of the English. In this they succeeded.
It is a bit more complicated. I'm not sure that was Lizzy's goal or that she had any goals with regards to the Dutch. To me it seems that the support she gave was more of a good deal than anything else. She would send support (money or troops) only when she was sufficiently rewarded. Basically when she send the duke of Leicester she committed, but after that year it was back to flip-flopping.
And I only mentioned one distant result, never said it was the only one and never said it was the main one. The others were immediate results. Again, Spain failed to dislodge Elizabeth, failed to dislodge Protestantism, failed to resubjugate England and failed in defeating the Dutch revolt that was supported by the English. In this, the English were just as successful as the American colonists who also achieved all their major goals of getting full political independence and economic autonomy from Britain.
Well to me it seems that both sides got away with stuff they wanted. And btw England was never subjugated by Spain.
 
Aug 2018
182
America
It is a bit more complicated. I'm not sure that was Lizzy's goal or that she had any goals with regards to the Dutch. To me it seems that the support she gave was more of a good deal than anything else. She would send support (money or troops) only when she was sufficiently rewarded. Basically when she send the duke of Leicester she committed, but after that year it was back to flip-flopping.
In other words, she did support them, even if when it was convenient to her.

Well to me it seems that both sides got away with stuff they wanted. And btw England was never subjugated by Spain.
Except Spain clearly got away with far less. And England was indeed very much subjugated by Spain first by Catherine of Aragon and later again by Mary I. Certainly England was never annexed outright, but the dynastic union made England a de facto province of Spain whose affairs were controlled by it. The whole point of converting to Protestantism was breaking off said Spanish domination over England.
 
Likes: betgo

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,638
Spain
It is a bit more complicated. I'm not sure that was Lizzy's goal or that she had any goals with regards to the Dutch. To me it seems that the support she gave was more of a good deal than anything else. She would send support (money or troops) only when she was sufficiently rewarded. Basically when she send the duke of Leicester she committed, but after that year it was back to flip-flopping.

Well to me it seems that both sides got away with stuff they wanted. And btw England was never subjugated by Spain.

If you explain us who were the War aims for Spain... because Spain didn´t attack England... it was Engladn who attacked... and if you are right.... England was never "subjugated" by Spain.... Spian was never "subjugated" by England....or do you know when England conquered Spain?

If Spain failed in 1588.... England failed in 1589....it is not nice theory... but hard reality...and the most important: England was the aggressor and Spain the attacked one. Sot.. to back to Status Quo.... it is clear who was the winner. Not by KO... only by points.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,638
Spain
Did the defensive naval victory of England in 1588 permit the victory of Henry IV,king of France,against Spain in Fontaine Francaise (Burgondy,1595) battle whose conclusion was the treaty of Vervins ?
Well.. if you think the defensive land victory of Spain in 1808 permit the victory of Archduke Charles in Essling.. or if you think the Spanish deffensive victory in 1589 permit the victory against France in Valenciennes in 1656.... Ok

Do you think I'm an idiot and I don't realize when you ask manipulative questions?

So.. yes, the Spanish victory in San Marcial in 1813 against Soult.. allowed the Crushing German Victory against FRance in 1940.... 42 days.. and Bye Bye France...(not even Irak in 2003)..



Yes. the Spanish Victory in San Marcial is as matched to the German Victory in 1940... as 1588 with Vervins... by the way.. Can you write here the Spanish Dominions conquered by France in Vervins? Oh wait... not Dominions at all...
 

Similar History Discussions