The Spanish Armada

Jul 2019
850
New Jersey
Martin: Other than a morale booster, how did burning 3 tiny villages of zero significance influence the course of the war? It definitely can’t compare with Drake sailing into Cadiz and burning the Spanish fleet while at anchor (1587).
 
Feb 2017
256
Devon, UK
1574957742682.png

I'm not familiar with this letter, at least not in facsimile, and once again you provide no source, except to say it's from a 'Cornish nobleman'. Who wrote it and when?

And from what I can make out it's certainly not a plea from anyone to become a province of Spain just a brief overview of the main towns, ports, approximate population etc
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Abraham95

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,541
Londinium
Are you tallking the letter I put in this forum is a fake news? I was sending a answer to JohninCornwall... but as you are in this issue too... I will say to you

the goal never was the kingdom of England but to stop English attack and English supported to rebels in Low Countries...HISTORICAL REALITY.... was the raid in Cornwall... and 0 casualties... Historial Reallity is the letter sent by Cornish Noble man to Catholic King... as Every people from USA can prove because Original letter is in Library of Congress...

Funny ... as you I was just starting to tiree of these little pirates who continually are opening 1588 thread .. when they neither won the war nor were they able to defeat Real Armada in naval actions. nor threw the Spanish troops from Flanders (or anywhere).

Regards
I'm well aware that you believe the historical reality of the Spanish Armada was something other than the invasion and occupation of England, ensuring the papist's return. You and I have discussed the aims and outcomes of the Spanish Armada before. I know how fruitless any discussion is with you where the outcome of the event being discussed is a Spanish defeat, as per 1588.

So long as you can save face and continue to thump your chest, I guess you can get some comfort.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,817
Spain
I will do a general answer because if I write one to one I should to write lot of messages...

Everything is wrong.... first the title of this thread.... pure English propaganda.. nothing more.... each six months.... why not talk about war... why not about 1589.... it is funny... it is equivalent to talk about Tobruk or Dunkirk but not about El-Alameyn or Normandie...1588 is inside a WAR....and although I will not deny the undoubted success of the Leninist Marxist method of manipulation of reality ... as I have said many times in this forum ... those manipulation and intoxication techniques ... do not work with me.

I have read so many idiocy in this section that I see perfectly how propaganda methods work in English school books.

1st: Dear Albert Eintein.... Wake up from your dream... 1588 and English in West Indies are not matched.... not dear... they arrive ONLY... and ONLY when they made peace (requested by them)....that´s is the reason because they only had succeded AFTER PEACE.... it was not an accident but causality.. sorry because your dream was Errol Flyn destroyed Spanish Empire... he conquered Carolinas from Spain (and Cuba and New Grenada) and stablished British Emnpire... sorry but not.... save in a Errol Flynn´s movie! it is what happens... Reality is not a movie...

They arrived when they obtained Peace (never in war). So 1588 is not matched dear with the first English colonies in West Indies... but 1604... and the Peace... Peace, I repeat again... Requested by England.

Dear Pike,
Don Filipo conquered Mousehole for Espana!
No, Don Filipo didn´t conquer mosuehole or Penzace for Spain.. he conquered Phillipines....15.000 kms way and not for Spain but for the Christendom although Spain and Christendom mean the same.... something impossible for any English (and British) till.... 19th Century? and Don Filipo just did it when he was fighting the World! And he defended their dominions and when he died... he lost NOTHING... he had amplified the inheritance that his father the Cesar Charles had given him.. That´s the reason because you can see his coat of arms in Mombassa, Ormutz, Luxembourg, France, Philippines or Chili today... but I can´t see Pirate Queen´s coat of arm in any place! save in England... of course...

Oh my dear Pike...

REY PLANETA or to make it more pleasing to your ears... PLANET KING... doesn´t belong to Flash Gordon.... it is a title in Spanish Crown... It is truth...never used (Kings didn´t like as Victoria didn´t like Empress of India)... only it was used by Philip IV (and not very much)... Spanish Kings always used the title of REY CATÓLICO (CATHOLIC KING) that means UNIVESAL KING in Latin language... it was a title granted by the Pope from December 19th, 1496 to Elisabeth and Ferdinand. Every king... from them to Alfonso XIII used the title.. today because REDS... you know socialist, comunist, anarchist and that kind of scum... the title although in force ... is not used to not disturb that garbage.

Why Pope granted them with the titles of Catholic and Planet? Easy... as to chek which kingdom had dominions in each continent on Earth.... and not, not my dear Pike... it was not Lithuania.... not even Estonia!

So your jokes are great... however... although I can do many jokes about history, society, and people.... I won´t do it...there are still classes!

Dear Abraham,

Martin: Other than a morale booster, how did burning 3 tiny villages of zero significance influence the course of the war? It definitely can’t compare with Drake sailing into Cadiz and burning the Spanish fleet while at anchor (1587).
Morale booster? Who is tallking about morale booster? After English army and fleet destroyed in Corunna and Lisboa? Who talked about morale booster?

We were talking about what had happened if Spanish Army landed!.... somebody here wrote English Army would have destroyed Spanish one.. I said not... Cornwall raid was an example about what would have happened...likely because never happened the invasion ...It was an example about the poor training, low morale and zero combat capability of the English militias ... a lot of age men and teenagers... tried to defeat the best infantry of the world ...Geoffrey Parker wrote about that... and there are writings from 1588 (The Great Panic year) and the "chance" English Militias against Tercios!
I wrote about Cornwall only as example... 200 Marines vs 500 militiamen: 0 casualties... So... that it means 1 to 2,5....Original plan (Don Álvaro de Bazán´s plan) invasion Force: 100.000 soldiers that means 250.000 English soldiers.... Don Philipo the Second´s plan (30.000 men) that means 75.000 English soldiers...and not enough to beat the Spanish invasion force...

That was proved by Cornwall... the unfortunate state of the backbone of the English army ... its militias.

Dear Baldtastic,

Not defeat... manipulation...is It funny in this Anglo Forum talking about 1588... I can´t see any post about 1589... why not dear Baldastic... It is funny here... people educated in English Books (English language books).... write about the 1588 disaster... the end of Spanish Power..... how England annihilated Spain... funny.... The same people speaks how England annihilated German Fleet in Jutland! Jutland was a German Victory.... What lost UK? No much... but as Spain in 1588.... England won nothing.... Spanish Empire was stronger in 1604 than in 1585.... facts..
Spanish Army will continue in Low Countries.. by Maastrich, Duisburg, Breda, Ostende, Antwerpen, Brussels, Luxembourg, Lens, Dunkerk, Charleroi... for generations!..

What DOMINION was lost by Spain in 1588? or 1604? What won England? Maybe these friends.. so passionated when is talking about their motherland and programmed by the English School books... illustrate to me how the Pirate Queen ended Spanish rule in Flanders ... and in the Rhine ... the poisoned Burgundian heritage ...England attacked and Spain defended... What did England achieve attacking Spain? Nothing.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,541
Londinium
Dear Baldtastic,

Not defeat... manipulation...is It funny in this Anglo Forum talking about 1588... I can´t see any post about 1589... why not dear Baldastic.
Because you've not yet started one? You're free to do so, so consider doing so rather than complaining there isn't one.

I see no evidence that this "Anglo Forum" has denied the Cadiz raid.

.. It is funny here... people educated in English Books (English language books).... write about the 1588 disaster... the end of Spanish Power..... how England annihilated Spain... funny.... The same people speaks how England annihilated German Fleet in Jutland! Jutland was a German Victory.... What lost UK? No much... but as Spain in 1588.... England won nothing.... Spanish Empire was stronger in 1604 than in 1585.... facts..
Spanish Army will continue in Low Countries.. by Maastrich, Duisburg, Breda, Ostende, Antwerpen, Brussels, Luxembourg, Lens, Dunkerk, Charleroi... for generations!..

What DOMINION was lost by Spain in 1588? or 1604? What won England? Maybe these friends.. so passionated when is talking about their motherland and programmed by the English School books... illustrate to me how the Pirate Queen ended Spanish rule in Flanders ... and in the Rhine ... the poisoned Burgundian heritage ...England attacked and Spain defended... What did England achieve attacking Spain? Nothing.
The English were defending in 1588 against the Spanish attack - or has even this been twisted by yourself as well?

The defeat of the Armada was a victory in naval warfare.

The real victory was not becoming just another part of the global conquering Spanish Empire you so admire yet fail to associate with the Spanish aims in sending such a fleet, with troops, to England.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,817
Spain
Dear Baldtastic,

Because you've not yet started one? You're free to do so, so consider doing so rather than complaining there isn't one.
And why me? How may post about 1588 in this forum? Where´s the reason? Why not talk about Spanish - English War? Maybe because it was not very good for England? Why only about 1588 and not 1589....is there any rational cause or just an attempt (so characteristic of English propaganda) to magnify victories and hide defeats ...

To talk ONLY 1588 is manipulation.... it is as to talk about First Manassas (Bull run) as symbol of the Seccesion War... or as to talk about Campaign in France in 1940 as the symbol of WW2 and never talk about Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, Kursk, Salerno, Normandie etc etc...

We can compare 1588 and 1589 and to count who had more casualties and lost ships.... like a football match....

You know, I know and everybody knows why to talk about 1588 as isolate fact and never as a set inside a War.... because you, me and this forum know.. England didn´t achieve the victory.... that´s the only reason why to talk about 1588 (and never and never about 1589)...

Why is more important Spanish ships sunk in Scottish coast than English ships sunk in Galician coastline? Why more important 1588 than 1589? because you prefer 8 than 9...

Not.. reason it is only in historical manipulation... only that explain the reason because here NOBODY want to talk about the War (1585 - 1604) or about 1589 English Armada.

From a jingoist English writer, Robert Hutchinson:


The 19-year Anglo-Spanish war ended in 1604 as Elizabeth’s successor, James VI and I, wanted to end the cripplingly expensive hostilities. The Treaty of London granted much of what Philip II demanded if England had been forced to sue for peace in 1588.
England ended its support of the Dutch rebellion in the Spanish Netherlands and renounced her privateers’ attacks on Spanish shipping. On Spain’s part, the treaty acknowledged that official hopes of restoring Catholicism to England were over for ever



And English myths about 1588

1st: 1588 was a decisive victory for the English that marked England’s triumph in its war with Spain.. Reality: Spain defeated England in most of the land and naval battles

2nd: 1588 is the begining of "British" Naval hegemony. Reality: Spanish Naval and military hegemony continued and when it was lost during 17th Century was not against England. Spanish Naval power was inhereted by Netherland (around 1620) and land power by France (around 1660)... England didn´t finish with the Spanish Power in the Indies... never. British Naval Hegemony begun in 18th Century and it is clear from 19th Century to 1918 (not matched at all with 1588 events)

3rd: Spain lost the Power in 1588 while England became the greater power in the world. REality: Spanish Armada in Sea and Spanish Army in land continued being the strongest power in Europe till late 17th century. England no way a rival power to Spain in 17th Century...

4th: Spain was a poor country lived many bankrupcies whilst England were rich, effective and an example for the universe. Reality: English were nearly £3,000,000 in debt and had sold offices and crown lands to avoid slipping further, and Spain’s Philip II had declared several bankruptcies in parallel. In addition to the exorbitant expenses in the conflict against Spain, the English were dragged into a draining, costly, inconclusive guerrilla war against Ireland from 1594-1603 led by an Irish lord named Hugh O’Neill, the Earl of Tyrone. Late Elizabethan England also suffered crop failures, famines, and plagues that engendered severe poverty in much of the country.Most importantly, the continuation of the war with Spain drained English financial resources and hindered trade, leaving a severe financial burden for the Stuart kings of the early 1600s. This debt, in conjunction with the Stuarts’ profligacy, would contribute to the crisis between monarch and Parliament which caused the English Civil War of the mid-1600s, a particularly bitter and bloody conflict that would split the nation. As for Spain, the nation was eventually crippled in the late 1600s by internal corruption, failures in its monarchical system— marked by feeble rulers with a propensity to play favorites and indulge prodigally in festivities— and severe inflation caused in part by its precious metals shipments from the New World
However, in a military sense, Spanish infantry continued being the best infantry int he world in 17th century.. and when its hegemony concluded .. it was replaced by France .. not by Great Britain.

Sorry for the Jingoist in this forum... but Tercios will be in Brussels, Milano and France till 18th Century! (not till 1588).

5th: British empire born in 1588. Reality: False. 1589 disaster prevented expeditions to North America—probably contributing to the failure of the Roanoke Colony in what is now Virginia in the United States, which had been attempted in the 1580s but from which there were no survivors. When the Treaty of London in 1604 officially ceased hostilities between Spain and England (the treaty having been signed by England’s King James I, who had succeeded Elizabeth in 1603), England lacked a permanent settlement in the Americas

I write this... as tribute to the Albert Einstein wrote in this thread how 1588 was decisive by USA! Oh my God! Not even a little bird from British islands...was in Americas when England requested Peace in 1604!... USA and 1588 are not matched at all...
I will repeat again. England will have a colony in North America AFTER and not DURING the war with Spain.

6th: Philip II wanted England would have been a Spanish colony. Reality: False. Only a Catholic Kingdom or it was not possible only England let us in peace.

Regards
 
Feb 2011
1,143
Scotland
I will do a general answer because if I write one to one I should to write lot of messages...

Everything is wrong.... first the title of this thread.... pure English propaganda.. nothing more.... each six months.... why not talk about war... why not about 1589.... it is funny... it is equivalent to talk about Tobruk or Dunkirk but not about El-Alameyn or Normandie...1588 is inside a WAR....and although I will not deny the undoubted success of the Leninist Marxist method of manipulation of reality ... as I have said many times in this forum ... those manipulation and intoxication techniques ... do not work with me.
The title of the thread is simply 'The Spanish Armada'. I shouldn't have thought that prejudicial in itself. As has already been suggested more than once, there is nothing to prevent you from putting up a thread and framing it exactly as you wish to see; I am sure many of us will enjoy participating. That way you can examine the war from the angles you desire. Nobody is trying to put any particular angle; a history forum is often quite different from a 'popular view' and many or most participants will not carry popular misconceptions nor desire to impart 'propaganda'. Despite your suggestions, such misconceptions are by no means universal.

Re 1588 in particular. It is by no means unusual to examine a campaign on its own, though part of a larger conflict. In the examples you give, World War II is often discussed by reference to individual campaigns. So might one look at the American Civil War for instance; for 1862 for example, you could examine the 7 days' battles, Shiloh, 2nd Bull Run, Jackson's Shenandoah campaign or Antietam- and there are others. It's perfectly valid to examine one of these rather than all. 1588 may be a campaign which is understandably not your favourite, but it did witness the largest naval battle of the war and the most serious attempt at regime change in England. It is considered, along with 1805 and 1940, a key event where invasion was threatened. That is not to ignore the larger context of the war as a whole, but 1588 is important in itself.

1589 has been considered on this forum before in the following threads-
Spanish Armada of 1588 and The English Armada 1589
effects of the Spanish Armada wins

And there may be others.

REY PLANETA or to make it more pleasing to your ears... PLANET KING... doesn´t belong to Flash Gordon.... it is a title in Spanish Crown... It is truth...never used (Kings didn´t like as Victoria didn´t like Empress of India)... only it was used by Philip IV (and not very much)... Spanish Kings always used the title of REY CATÓLICO (CATHOLIC KING) that means UNIVESAL KING in Latin language....
Actually Rey Planeta sounds far more elegant, no doubt especially to a 16th century ear. Unfortunately to a 21st Century English speaker's ear, it comes across comically as associated with Flash Gordon or even Toy Story. That's not intentional disrespect to a Royal Title- it's just cultural. Spanish does sound more elegant.

Morale booster? Who is tallking about morale booster? After English army and fleet destroyed in Corunna and Lisboa? Who talked about morale booster?

We were talking about what had happened if Spanish Army landed!.... somebody here wrote English Army would have destroyed Spanish one.. I said not... Cornwall raid was an example about what would have happened...likely because never happened the invasion ...It was an example about the poor training, low morale and zero combat capability of the English militias ... a lot of age men and teenagers... tried to defeat the best infantry of the world ...Geoffrey Parker wrote about that... and there are writings from 1588 (The Great Panic year) and the "chance" English Militias against Tercios!
I wrote about Cornwall only as example... 200 Marines vs 500 militiamen: 0 casualties... So... that it means 1 to 2,5....Original plan (Don Álvaro de Bazán´s plan) invasion Force: 100.000 soldiers that means 250.000 English soldiers.... Don Philipo the Second´s plan (30.000 men) that means 75.000 English soldiers...and not enough to beat the Spanish invasion force...

That was proved by Cornwall... the unfortunate state of the backbone of the English army ... its militias.
What would have happened had an army of invasion landed is an interesting topic- need to distinguish which year is suggested though. In the event, no army landed. The Mousehole raid was the only time Spanish troops landed in England throughout the war. Militarily, it was inconsequential. However, it may be that the second or third armadas in 1596/7 were targeted at Cornwall as a result, with a view to holding a base for negotiating purposes. Neither took place due to adverse weather.

The military confrontation at Mousehole is entirely unreliable as a guide to calculating the outcome of other, notional invasions. It is not a 'bean-counting' exercise. You have to take into account the makeup of the forces, morale and equipment, the tactical situation and terrain, amongst others.
You were quite correct in remarking on the remarkable degree of agreement between the two accounts, Spanish and English given the timing and viewpoints of the accounts.
At Mousehole, 500 questionably-armed militia lacking artillery advanced to attack 200 professionally trained and equipped marines emplaced on the beach. They were then subject to enfilade fire from fast-moving galleys bearing another 200 troops. The militia were unable to reply to the gunnery and the galleys could easily have disembarked the additional 200 men on the flanks or rear of the militia had they advanced further. The result would have been devastating, and the precipitate retreat- and consequential light casualties- was entirely sensible in the circumstances. The troops never came to grips and the lack of Spanish casualties suggests that they never got close. Militia can defeat professional troops, but they require special tactical situations to do so, such as Teutoberg Wald in 9CE.

The Cornish militia in 1595 was not at all representative of English armies. It was probably poorly equipped and of varying efficiency, morale and content. It seems most likely to me that the dozen or so men who stuck with the commander were the only men with previous military experiences. They had been fighting in the Netherlands since 1585. If you want an example of an English army in combat with a Spanish army, try Knodsenburg in 1591, where Francis Vere with an English component of an Anglo-Dutch force under Maurice of Orange defeated Parma by way of an ambush not dissimilar to that contemplated by the Spanish at Mousehole in 1595. Forces were about 8,000 Dutch/English and 7,000 Spanish.

Alternatively the battle of Puentes de Burgos in 1589 saw 8,000 English defeat a similar number of Spanish.

I'm NOT saying that this proves 'English troops were better'. No doubt you can adduce battles where the Spanish came out on top. But it does indicate that there was no major disparity between the forces - indeed, the image you suggest of Dutch/English forces skulking in cities while the Spanish lord it over the countryside is not the case. Through the 1590s the Dutch/English under Maurice and Vere were frequently on the attack, retaking lost strongpoints.


It is funny here... people educated in English Books (English language books).... write about the 1588 disaster... the end of Spanish Power..... how England annihilated Spain... funny.... The same people speaks how England annihilated German Fleet in Jutland! Jutland was a German Victory.... What lost UK? No much... but as Spain in 1588.... England won nothing.... Spanish Empire was stronger in 1604 than in 1585.... facts..
Spanish Army will continue in Low Countries.. by Maastrich, Duisburg, Breda, Ostende, Antwerpen, Brussels, Luxembourg, Lens, Dunkerk, Charleroi... for generations!..

What DOMINION was lost by Spain in 1588? or 1604? What won England? Maybe these friends.. so passionated when is talking about their motherland and programmed by the English School books... illustrate to me how the Pirate Queen ended Spanish rule in Flanders ... and in the Rhine ... the poisoned Burgundian heritage ...England attacked and Spain defended... What did England achieve attacking Spain? Nothing.
Jutland is a prime example of why 'beancounting' is an entirely unreliable method for assessing the outcome of a battle.
However if you going to use it you must be consistent. The Armada of 1588 certainly lost more ships in battle with the English fleet and on your own basis of assessment, it must be considered a defeat for that reason alone.

Spain was the superpower during the war- the Rey Planeta with access to the riches of the New World against the monarch of a part of one island fairly close to Spain. Rather than asking what Spain lost, perhaps it might be more pertinent to ask what territory England lost? None. Nor was Spain able to make headway in the Netherlands or France. The result was the status quo ante bellum. I don't see anybody here suggesting that England 'annihilated' Spain.
In modern terms, that is about equivalent to the USA going all-out into attacking Cuba or Mexico, failing to make any progress by land or by sea then suggesting that they actually won as they lost no part of the USA.
 
Feb 2011
1,143
Scotland
Don't recall that battle. Can you provide more information?
Not a great deal of detail. It is referred to in Military Wiki English Armada
and also here in this illuminating article on the English Armada by N A M Rodger attached.
Details of Sir John Norris' life are here witha brief reference to the battle John Norris (soldier) - Wikipedia
and reference made also in 'The Spanish Armadas' by Winston Graham.
 

Attachments

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,164
Portugal
Thanks! Got it now! I confess that your plural in bridges and in “Burgos” confused me. Burgos is a Spanish town, and I wasn’t seeing some English presence there in 1589.

There was an encounter in the bridge of “O Burgo”, literally bridge of “the town”/“the neighbourhood” in Galician/Portuguese, “El Burgo” or “del Burgo” in Castilian, a couple of kilometres of La Coruña (it is known as a “Roman” bridge in the Camino), after the English disembark there (the Wiki linked article and N. A. M. Rodger, p.94, also have the name incorrect/confusing in the plural, and I saw now that seems common in some historiography in English, but I was not used to it), but the events are better known, at least in the books that I read about the subject, as “Attack to La Coruña” (4-19 May).

Surely quite different today, I believe this is the Roman bridge:

BRIDGE PONTE DE O BURGO IN CAMBRE A CORUÑA