Talk:Spanish Armada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Spanish Armada has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject_Spain
Portal:Spain
 Spain Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

An event mentioned in this article is a May 28 selected anniversary.

The Spanish opposed slave-smuggling to their colonies in the West Indies... Misleading: the slave-trade in Spanish ships only, right? Perhaps someone will check and edit.Wetman 08:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No there was illegal selling of slaves by English traders. Drake started his career doing that. --Josquius 13:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


"Philip's invasion plan was a simple fourchette" -- a what? Dictionaries give no relevant sense for this...


Contents

[edit] intro

the article is generally good. The introduction however should be a little longer, and briefly summarize the main myths and historical importance of the event. In its present form, the article quickly bogs the reader down in details rather than starting from its main significance. Johncmullen1960 07:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Irish dimension

I've just re-written small parts of the article (much tidying-up still needed) and given emphasis to what happened in Ireland. My interest in this area stems from a commission from a County Clare butcher/treasure-hunter, who paid me to transcribe certain documents from the State Papers Ireland, about 15 years ago, to assist him in diving on armada wrecks. I don't think my research yielded any doubloons, but it got me reading further. In my opinion, by far and away the most interesting aspect of the armada is the Irish episode, just for its human aspect. The seamanship of armada captains and crews was sometimes brilliant, and there are many stories that point up human nature during crisis. The handiest summary of the events is the excellent, but artlessly titled, "5,000 Men Dead" (1969); there is also the survival account of Francesco de Cuellar. Generally, neither Spanish (I don't read Spanish) nor English historians seem interested in these events: they're all about empire and cannon, gold and glory. Perhaps that's all a WikiProjectBattles article should concern itself with. Anyone care to comment?--shtove 00:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The new Return to Spain section should be amalgamated with the first para. of Consequences. The user who posted it gives no name.--shtove 14:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] black irish?

Did the so-called "black Irish" really descend from the retreating Spanish forces? Or is that just a NIGGA? Does anyone know? --Carl 21:49, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just a myth - a few hundred scattered survivors, if that, are not going to leave any real mark in the Irish genetic pool. The genes of individuals are quickly shuffled in succeeding generations of a given population. Furthermore recent research in genetics at Trinity College, Dublin, seems to lend ever stronger credence to the idea that there was a prehistoric shared genetic pool pre dating Romans, Anglo Saxons and Norsemen, all along the Atlantic coast, from the British isles to the Iberian penninsula - that can still be detected in present day populations inspite of migrations and invasions by other peoples from the east. That may be the true source of "the Black Irish". All this seems to suggest that Irish origin mythology does have some basis in fact.

It's also worth considering that Spanish mariners exploiting the fisheries of the north Atlantic, across to Newfoundland, used many points on the west coast of Munster as bases from probably the mid-1400's up to the mid-1600's. The debate about Iberian-Irish origin myths can only be solved by genetic investigation - but then, what would be the point of history?--shtove 00:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Armada?

The words "Spanish Armada" in English almost invariably denote the 1588 fleet; the mention of the name of the current Navy is sufficient to obviate ambiguity, I think Djnjwd 13:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The official name is Armada Española. English is not official in Spain. -- Error 23:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Spanish Armada" is a half-English half-Spanish term that would only ever be used of the 1588 fleet. Let's not go inventing problems where none exist. Stan 01:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch

Didn't the Dutch participate too in defeating the Armada? JimmyShelter 10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed you said this here, I added that anyway. Some think that more Dutch tonnage was involved then Englsh.--Josquius 13:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Losses

The 'casualties' mentioned in the 'battlebox' are contentious to say the least. Those figures (200 and 2000 men respectively) refer to the casualities suffered in the Battle of Gravelines. To summarise the great historical impact as being only that of eleven Spanish ships being sunk is very misleading. Figures should be given that are more reflective of the actual casualties suffered by the two sides in totality (i.e. English: no ships, 6,000 men; Spanish: 63 ships, 20,000 men). 172.200.85.100 12:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Me thinks the entry as a whole gives a good idea of the historical impact and context. Congratulations to you Wikipedians. Thankyou.

[edit] Numbers

I watched a documentary recently on this, and although I'm sure your more interested in the subject than myself; the documentary made clear the British had 55 ships and were at a distinct number disadvantage.

You must be talking about Battlefield Britain, recently aired on History Television. I caught a few episodes myself, but missed the Armada. Some quality programming.
That's the one; on that we can certainly agree. :"D
Unfortunately, however "clear" the documentary, the fact remains that your figures are just plain wrong: the two fleets at Gravelines enjoyed rough numerical parity (with the English actually outnumbering the Spaniards both in total ships and ships of war - though probably not in tonnage). I don't think this merits any serious investigation (of course, you're welcome to do so anyway); though some sources may continue to propagate the "underdog victory" myth to this day, my changes remain accurate enough. Credible sources will testify to this.
Well the guy was British, perhaps he was biased. :"D I'm sure your figures are accurate insofar as individual engagements are concerned, but did they fluctuate a great deal over the time the Armada was in hostile waters?
I want to ensure accurate counts over the entire engagement; not just the Battle of Gravelines.
As do I, but the battlebox isn't the place for it. It simply can't, by nature, provide a good summary of an affair as lengthy and convoluted - and involving so few military actions - as the Armada (requiring, as it would, descriptions of dead, wounded, captured, damaged in combat, sunk in combat, captured out of combat, wounded or incapacitated due to exposure, damaged by the elements, sunk by the elements, dead drowned, incapacitated due to illness, ilness deaths, etc.).
I need not do so; it should rather list lost/dead and casualities; and given my idea of how it should be used in this article, it should be called an engagement box.
Failing to draw distinctions between combat losses and other casualties is criminally misleading in a case like this. The very language of the battlebox implies armed confrontation; listing "20,000 dead" and "67 ships sunk" under a heading titled "casualties" is singularly wrong. Calling it an engagement solves nothing and remains factually incorrect.
I'm not entirely averse to working on a table in battlebox format -- under no pretension of representing an "engagement" -- that details the Armada's losses by cause and chronology, and removing the Gravelines box to Spanish_Armada#Battle_of_Gravelines. This prospect worries me somewhat still, however, because the Armada is one of those peculiar affairs in which numbers without context tend to mean precisely nothing.
Although the Spanish lost 2 ships and the English none in pre-Gravelines Channel skirmishing, for instance, the affair at that point remained an unqualified English failure. The Armada had easily shrugged-off incessant attack and harassment from English squadrons trying rather desperately to halt its progress, had maintained its formation, and had progressed up-Channel unscathed. Thankfully, "God grew tired of working miracles for the Spaniards", and the rest is history.
It would make sense to me a smaller force would be sent to engage them while upwind in the channel.
In any case, I do appreciate your taking the time to cite your objections here rather than mercilessly reverting those changes you thought inappropriate. Albrecht June 30, 2005 00:18 (UTC)
I acknowledge expertise when I see it. - RoyBoy 800 30 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)
Thank you, but you're being far too kind to an amateur.

As to soldier numbers not mattering in long range gun battles, don't be silly. They do matter because it was the British tactic to make ensure it remained long ranged. Specifying how many soldiers were aboard helps clarify why the British choose the tactics they did; and clarifies the reason and proportions of Spanish losses. - RoyBoy 800 29 June 2005 20:03 (UTC)

The only people being silly here are the ones suggesting that we clutter the battlebox with soldiers who took no part in the battle. Why not also include the British garrison at Tilbury Fort? Or the Spanish Army of Flanders?
Because they weren't in the Spanish Armada; I'm concerned with the number of people on the ships.
I'm more concerned with neutrality and practicality. Not only does it defy convention to list crew strength in a battlebox (even in an article like Lepanto, where boarding infantry was supremely influential to the outcome of the battle), it goes contrary to all logic to highlight only one element of a diverse and largely undocumented collection of fighting men, especially if it's the group that did the least actual fighting.
This is not a battle article; those conventions do not necessisarily apply.
Perhaps not, but you still need some objectively justifiable reasons to defy them. A battlebox remains a battlebox. The Braddock Expedition wasn't strictly a battle article either, yet when I wrote the battlebox, I don't recall detailing the number of army cooks present or delving into George Washington's shoe size. :)
Convention ought to be respected unless sufficient and compelling justification is given to supersede it. A whim isn't sufficient or compelling, and neither is our most esteemed anonymous user's clamour for "MAXIMUM CASUALTIES!" above. If another example will convince you, note that battleboxes generally don't even include the infinitely-more-relevant number of planes on carriers!
As stated in the article, the English used the tactics they did because their navy was built upon the principles of coastal security and trans-Atlantic raiding, not Mediterranean slugfestting. It stretches credibility to suggest that English commanders had any idea just how many troops the Spaniards had aboard their ships, and either way, the point is immaterial: the English would have fought the same way had there been 3,000 Spanish soldiers rather than 30,000.
I know that, however those Spanish soldiers were in battle.
So were an undisclosed number of English soldiers. So were uncounted sailors and militiamen. The only reason you come across the 30,000 figure so often is because most accounts (written by Englishmen) want to emphasize just how "awesome" and "overwhelming" were the Spanish forces arrayed against those dashing and victorious Anglo-Saxons. :)
I concur with your read of the situation, but the solution is obviously to list English forces to the best of our ability.
If that solution is obvious, I'm afraid it's only obvious to a select few. I think a far better solution would be to not unnecessarily burden ourselves with irrelevant research; not pioneer new battlebox standards without serious justification; and, again, not highlight the one element in a diverse and largely undocumented collection of fighting men that did the least actual fighting.
The fact remains that the men in question formed part of an invasion army that neither reached shore nor set foot upon English vessels. Their presence and fate ought, of course, to be detailed in the article. But the battlebox should par down this excess information and sum up troop dispositions with economy and clarity: "who fought whom, and what happened".
30,000 seems clear; lost, dead, casualties can be equally brief.
Casualties cannot be equally brief and accurate. The vast majority of those 30,000 did not fight, just as the vast majority of the 20,000 dead were not killed in combat.
The English fleet action at Gravelines was no improvisation, it was a doctrine. Their ships were fast; their guns well-designed and rapid-firing; their cannoneers trained and specialized. To claim that the action at Gravelines was merely a "tactic" -- that under slightly different circumstances, those same British ships, so obviously designed for speed and gunnery dueling, would have forfeited their maneuverability and long-range superiority and happily grappled alongside Spanish galleons -- is about as absurd as suggesting that Jan Sobieski's magnificent cavalry charge at Vienna was a tactical novelty, the product of some circumstantial inspiration.
I apologize if I gave the wrong impression by using the word tactic. What I'm emphasizing here is that it was a gunnery battle because the British made it so; regardless any forces on the ships were being shot at.
Strangely, I just tried emphasizing the same point: it was a gunnery battle because the British made it so; regardless of any forces on the ships being shot at.
Well not quite, point being I consider forces on ship as being part of the battle.
Unfortunately, there's zero correlation between what you consider to be part of a battle and what hundreds of existing naval articles consider to be a part of the battle.
However, even if I am to concede the issue of a battle; they were part of the Armada; and I think that takes precedence over what is to be listed in the "battle"box.
We can continue to argue to no end about how many fought or how many extra casualties they suffered, or you can accept the fact that every known precedent recommends the omission of the 30,000 noncombatant soldiers.
Also, you've failed to explain why placing the number of Spanish troops in the battlebox "clarifies the reason and proportion of Spanish losses". The casualties at Gravelines weren't hugely disproportionate, and if Spain's were higher, it was largely because English gunfire was more effective, not because the Spaniards had more men to lose!
True, but not your decision to make! It is not difficult to concede more men on a ship means higher casualties. - RoyBoy 800 30 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from: Spanish infantry participated in the battle by presenting better targets. ;)
Yup. :'D
Though I'm no expert on naval strategy or projectile warfare, it's certainly conceivable that a tightly-packed crew should suffer higher casualties from enemy cannonades. However, this alone means relatively little in its framed context. Irrespective of crew concentrations, there was essentially no possible way for Spanish salvos to inflict anywhere near as many casualties on the English at Gravelines by fault of inferior artillery, gunners, ballistics science, and naval doctrine.
So your point would be; that we needn't concern ourselves as much with English crew numbers; I concur! :'D I mean I don't get this, yes I entirely agree, but the Spanish ships were still getting pummeled! It seems logical to include the numbers of people onboard; regardless if it feeds British egos... a Spanish soldier is equally dead and/or wounded by a salvo.
Every naval battle in history has featured one side with more men aboard their ships than the other. Your argument, if universally applied (and you provide no reason why it shouldn't be) would result in polluting hundreds of battleboxes with a maddeningly-massive amount of (frankly) useless information.
No, it isn't difficult to concede the point, and it's even less difficult to see that your argument doesn't really lead anywhere useful. An inestimable number of naval combats have involved troop transports or similar asymmetries. A great deal of ships throughout history accommodated larger crews than their contemporaries simply because their design allowed/required it. What makes Gravelines so special? Or are we to carry out meticulous research and systematically revise innumerable articles in the misguided goal of clarifying "proportions of losses"? You're welcome to try, but I think you'd agree that this would be both counterproductive and unreasonable, and dangerously difficult to accomplish.
Again, we need not limit ourselves to a battle! This is about an Armada, and as such more detailed summary information is called for; not a specific battle, regardless of its significance (which will be clear from a link being included to the battle in the "armada"box. :')
In the spirit of compromise, I can consider helping you create a clear, neutral, and accurate "Armada box". But keep in mind that:
  • It would have to resemble a battlebox only in general format. Again, I'd just as soon write a battlebox for the Long March, or maybe the Titanic.
  • This would be a relatively low-priority task, on which I would work subject to time and temperament. Its purpose would be to complement and ameliorate what we have so far, not to supplant it.
If any combination of variables (accidents, design flaws, incompetence, etc.) increases a force's losses in a given engagement, these should and will be described in the article.
Yeah, I'm not asking for that; indeed I'm asking very nicely to move that engagement information to its appropriate article, and revert the Armada information.
Tactical analyses, precise causality, and army descriptions are matters best left to the article's body text. The purpose of the battlebox is to summarize what happened at the Battle of Gravelines. Cramming it with this kind of irrelevant information just seems like a way for Englishmen to flatter their military egos by artificially stacking the odds against themselves.
The purpose of the box in this article should not be to summarize the Battle of Gravelines.
The purpose of a battlebox is to summarize a battle. The "Spanish Armada" is not a battle. The "Battle of Gravelines", by some strange quirk, is. If you want to remove the battlebox and replace it with a table that refers to something else, you must do so on your own initiative and provide your own justification for the change.
There's nothing wrong with having a battlebox in this article describing the Battle of Gravelines. There's something very wrong with having a battlebox describing the Spanish Armada.

And don't make so frequent use of minor; your changing of the figures and title is hardly minor. - RoyBoy 800 29 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I don't know what you consider a "major edit", but I think I indicated the nature of my changes pretty clearly. Also, your complaint may have had better grounds if it coincided with some facts:
Changing of factual content (rather than grammar, or aesthetics) is not minor; my perception of a "major edit" is not at issue; rather what constitutes a minor edit is. I agree your changes may be appropriate for the context of the Battlebox; but this is another issue...
Forgive me if the label confused you; it wasn't my intention to deceive anyone. If you take a quick look at my contribution page, you'll probably find that the vast majority of my edits have been stylistic tweaks to battleboxes; almost exclusively "minor edits". I guess force of habit led me to associate these rote affairs with minor edits even in cases where they may be more-than-minor. But my point was that if I slipped-up it was in good faith; I noted the nature of my changes each time.
I did not intend to imply otherwise.
Guess not, but the overall tone of your comment was a bit vituperative. No harm done.
since this article is about a specific Spanish Armada, not a battle; hence the Battlebox might be used in another way. Your editorial choices might be more appropriate for a Battlebox in the article Battle of Gravelines (1558). - RoyBoy 800 30 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)
They might be more appropriate, was the Battle of Gravelines (1558) not an entirely different battle fought a generation earlier, against different opponents, and with different results. :) There exists no Battle of Gravelines (1588); all articles relating to it have been crafted to link to the Spanish Armada (nor is it really necessary that there should be two distinct articles -- the Battle of Gravelines needs to contextualize the origin and fate of the Armada; conversely, the Armada article needs to describe the action at Gravelines).
Crap, the worst part is I knew that... stopped myself from mentioning it above; and then ended up doing it anyway. A disadvantage of editing late. Anyhow; I agree about context and such, however that need not necessitate the takeover of the Armada's summary, which would include a link to the new Gravelines page; and is more appropriate in the body of the article. - RoyBoy 800 30 June 2005 23:49 (UTC)
Removing the relevant text to a separate "Battle of Gravelines" article will, at this stage, do nothing but create redundancy and a whole lot of incorrect linkage. I do agree that working on a detailed, descriptive, and complete Battle of Gravelines (1588) article could probably be a worthwhile goal. However, this should be done at our leisure and for its own merits (I may be interested in contributing myself when I get the chance to consult better sources than can generally be found on the Web) and not because there's necessarily any glaring problem with the way things are now. Albrecht July 1, 2005 20:11 (UTC)
Given that the previous state of affairs went against the spirit - if not the explicit rules - of the battlebox (Armada is not a military engagement), that its contents were best dealt with within the article, and that there is no separate Battle of Gravelines article (nor need be), I think my changes, however bold, were justified enough. Albrecht June 30, 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • I neither changed the main title nor orchestrated any sweeping changes to the integrity of the article. Instead, I made a few necessary adjustments to what could only nominally be called a "battlebox" (detailing neither a battle, nor a campaign, nor a war, but a long process of attrition and casualty to exposure and illness -- why not write battlebox for Mao's Long March?). This is no different than titling the Braddock Expedition's battlebox "Battle of the Monongahela".
  • If you compare my casualty figures to the ones in the article, you'll find that I didn't really introduce any new information: 500 English dead or wounded is cognate to "in the low hundreds from the battle itself"; 1,400 Spanish dead or wounded easily reflects "the Spaniards suffered nearly 2,000 casualties from the battle as well as illness and exposure"; 3 ships sunk and 1 captured is similarly accurate (I may change it back to "11 ships lost or damaged" once I find the number of English ships damaged). Albrecht June 30, 2005 00:18 (UTC)

Are you guys finished?

[edit] Largest Armada?

It was the largest fleet up until its time

I hate to be so nitt-picky, but would that be an accurate statement? I got to say, I have heard something like, "assemble the largest fleet the world has ever seen," an innumeral amount of times in naval history from the Trojan War to the War of American Independence. I know this is pretty trivia and unimportant, but was the fleet of 130 warships really the biggest fleet until that time? Like, for example, the Mongol fleet during the invasion of Japan was said to be numbered around 300-800 warships. The Zheng He Fleets also consisted around 300.

Or did I completely misinterpret the statement? 24630 July 31, 2006 16:04 (UTC)

I believe there were far larger fleets put to sea by the Chinese and Japanese in the preceding centuries, but don't quote me ...--Shtove 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some examples on wiki:
Persian Wars Persian Fleet: 1,207 warships
Mongol invasion of Japan Mongol Fleet: 300 large vessels and 400-500 smaller vessels
Roman Civil War (Battle of Actium) Octavian Fleet: 260 ; Anthony Fleet: 280
Zheng He Ming Fleet: 317 ships
--24630 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Shtove 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Definetely, an statement product of british folklore. Apart the numbers given by other people, it is know that the Spanish Armada was formed by 133 ships, and the English navy prepared to avoid the invasion was formed by 226 ships. (Historia de España contada para escépticos, by Juan Eslava Galán) Calculín
I don't see that figure of 226 in the article, though the list of ships seems to support it. Perhaps you should add it to the last para. of the Background section?--Shtove 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Plan error?

I think whoever placed this line in the "Battle Plan" may have misunderstood the rather heated exchanges between Philip II and the admiral, Santa Cruz(Alvaro de Bazan)

Both Parma and the famous Spanish admiral, Marquis of Santa Cruz of Mudela (Alvaro de Bazan - who died before he could take charge), protested that what was needed was a larger fleet to carry troops directly from Spain, but Philip, under military and financial pressure, decided to press ahead with the bold plan.

The hot exchanges apparently concerned delays and difficulties getting the armada together, but they may also involve disputes in the overall plan. It would also be instructive to see what the Parma thought. I've replaced the above line with the following, which I'm certain is accurate:

Heated disputes between the Spanish admiral, Marquis of Santa Cruz of Mudela (Alvaro de Bazan - who died before he could take charge),and Philip II over organisation, delays and details marred preperations.

If the original line is correct, re-introduce it or something else that is. 15-9-05


[edit] Battle of Gravelines

The rendezvous can't have been IN the North Sea? Also, this account leaves it unclear that it was the battle itself that prevented Medina Sidonia linking up with Parma. And doesn't the point about ill-fitting Spanish cannon shot belong in another place?--shtove 21:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Consequences

If Fastifex is going to describe Phillip II as fanatical, then he ought to describe Elizabeth as zealous: the usefulness of such adjectives in this context was exhausted a long time ago - NPOV is lacking. The bit about potatoes in Ireland is just a fiction - it probably was the Spanish who introduced the plant, but in the course of normal trading links from the 1560's onward. Lepanto occurred in 1572, so the relevance to this article will have to be explained; most deforestation (including that of Ireland) was down to the pipe-staves industry and the production of charcoal for smelting.The changes should be reverted.--shtove 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to fumigate the first paragraph of this section to remove the sarcastic sectarianism - how'm I doing? Anyone interested?--shtove 20:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Much more diplomatic. :-) But it wasn't sectarian: most sects are alike when they turn nasty. cf. England under Edward VI. And they can be expected to turn nasty when power/money is under threat. (RJP 09:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] The Vatican

In the Causes section at the top of the article the word Vatican is used. Is it historically correct to use this term, i.e was "The Vatican" referred to as such at the time of the Armada? If not, would "Papacy" be a better word?Arcturus 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] os or ns dates?

Which are used? is it consistent throughout the article? we should be using ns! SpookyMulder 11:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall the article, this aspect is rather a muddle. It was because I could not face sorting the dates out that I left the French version and wandered off elsewhere. Nobody has taken that up, so perhaps I'll get back to it when you have done the groundwork. Good Luck! :-) (RJP 14:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Number of Cannons

I assume the numbers by the ships in the list at the bottom refers to number of cannons? It's probably obvious to some of you but might not be to others. So maybe that should be said somewhere?

[edit] Tugboats and trawlers

Para 3 of the Consequences section states that the vessels were about the size of modern tugboats and trawlers. But the largest galleons had displacements of 1100 tons, so doesn't the description underplay the bulk of these vessel?--shtove 01:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The number of ships asked by Alvaro de Bazán

These are the number of ships and soldiers requested by Alvaro de Bazán to Felipe II, which he thought were necessary for the "Enterprise of England" (La Empresa de Inglaterra):

-150 galleons and warships

-6 galleasses and 40 galleys

-320 small ships of many different types (50-80 tons)

-40 frigates

-A total of 556 ships!

Plus 200 landing boats. Without these the total displacement of the Army would be around 111.000 tons, with 30.342 sailors, including 9.800 rowers for the galleys and galleasses, and 63.890 soldiers and 1.600 horses.

With such a figures you can have an idea of the Spanish naval power at the time.

Rru 11-March-2006

Remember that this was an invasion force and most of the Spanish ships were used to carry supplies, not to fight the enemy


[edit] List of ships

This should be hived off into a sub-article.--shtove 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the article is over the recommended maximum length. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Self-Reference

I don't have anything to do with the article, so I don't want to make any premature changes, but the "Points of View" section has a problem with self-referencing, and needs to be edited, if not removed. Elcocinero 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the historical info is already set out in preceding sections. Have deleted.--Shtove 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] None ... was/were sunk

What's WP policy on this singular/plural use?--Shtove 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The statistics are wrong

it says for the spanish

Casualties 500 dead or wounded 600 dead, 397 captured 3 merchant ships sunk 1 merchant ship captured


can anyone see how wrong this is? this is totally absurd! it was mor elike 10,000 spanish deaths, not 600!!

I think those numbers are for the actual battles - Gravelines etc. The 10,000 or so comes from losses in storms and from disease. There was a debate about including them. About the same number was lost by the English in the following year in the English Armada.--Shtove 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

there were 10,000 English deaths the following year? i havent heard that befor

Please log in. Thousands of English sailors died in the aftermath of the Spanish Armada, and thousands more (including soldiers) died during the English Armada in 1589 - relatively few of these deaths were down to battle casualties, just as with the Spanish in 1588. The numbers are unclear owing to the poor state of English record-keeping; Spanish records for their own men are more comprehensive. Spanish losses in 1588 are largely covered in Spanish Armada in Ireland. If you want to dispute the numbers cited in this article, then go back through the talk pages, where editors more involved than I have sorted it out already, and raise your concerns there. Gracias.--Shtove 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The mother of what??

So the Spanish Armada was called The mother of all Armada?? I think Saddam Hussein wasn't alive in the XVII century, so I delete that. --85.48.111.143 16:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ships involved

I have moved here to the talk page the complete list of the ships involved. This is IMHO non-encyclopedic content. Eithe rput it on your own website and list an external link, or make a new article for people who reallyare interested in that. One can imagine that if we included lists in all wikipedia articles, it would make for an encyclopedia which is difficult to read Johncmullen1960 07:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ships involved

[edit] England and the Netherlands

Ark (flag, Lord High Admiral Charles Howard)
Elizabeth Bonaventure
Rainbow (Lord Henry Seymour)
Golden Lion (Thomas Howard)
White Bear (Alexander Gibson)
Vanguard (William Winter)
Revenge (Francis Drake)
Elizabeth (Robert Southwell)
Victory (Rear Admiral Sir John Hawkins)
Antelope (Henry Palmer)
Triumph (Martin Frobisher)
Dreadnought (George Beeston)
Mary Rose (Edward Fenton)
Nonpareil (Thomas Fenner)
Hope (Robert Crosse)
Galley Bonavolia
Swiftsure (Edward Fenner)
Swallow (Richard Hawkins)
Foresight
Aid
Bull
Tiger
Tramontana
Scout
Achates
Charles
Moon
Advice
Merlin
Spy (pinnace)
Sun (pinnace)
Cygnet
Brigandine
George (hoy)
34 merchant ships
30 ships and barks
33 ships and barks
20 coasters
23 coasters
23 coasters
Disdain (included in above)
Margaret and John (included in above)
30 Dutch cromsters blockading the Flemish coast
Fireships expended 7 August: (included in above)
Bark Talbot
Hope
Thomas
Bark Bond
Bear Yonge
Elizabeth
Angel
"Cure's Ship"

[edit] Spain and Portugal

[edit] Portuguese

São Martinho 48 (section flag, Duke of Medina Sidonia)
São João 50 (section vice-flag)
São Marcos 33 (Don Diogo Pimental or Penafiel) — Aground c. 8 August near Ostend
São Felipe 40 (Don Francisco de Toledo) — Aground 8 August between Nieupoort and Ostend, captured by Dutch 9 August
San Luis 38
San Mateo 34 — Aground 8 August between Nieupoort and Ostend, captured by Dutch 9 August
Santiago 24
Galeon de Florencia 52 (or San Francesco ex-Levantine, Niccolo Bartoli)
San Crístobal 20
San Bernardo 21
Augusta 13
Julia 14

[edit] Biscayan

Santa Ana 30 (section flag, Juan Martínez de Recalde)
El Gran Grin 28 (section vice-flag) — Aground c. 24 September, Clare Island
Santiago 25
La Concepcion de Zubelzu 16
La Concepcion de Juan del Cano 18
La Magdalena 18
San Juan 21
La María Juan 24 — Sunk 8 August north of Gravelines
La Manuela 12
Santa María de Montemayor 18
María de Aguirre 6
Isabela 10
Patache de Miguel de Suso 6
San Esteban 6

[edit] Castillian

San Crístobal 36 (section flag, Diego Flores de Valdés)
San Juan Bautista 24 (section vice-flag)
San Pedro 24
San Juan 24
Santiago el Mayor 24
San Felipe y Santiago 24
La Asuncion 24
Nuestra Señora del Barrio 24
San Medel y Celedon 24
Santa Ana 24
Nuestra Señora de Begoña 24
La Trinidad 24
Santa Catalina 24
San Juan Bautista 24
Nuestra Señora del Rosario 24
San Antonio de Padua 12

[edit] Andalusian

Nuestra Señora del Rosario 46 (section flag, Don Pedro de Valdés) — Collided with Santa Catalina c. 31 July, captured by Revenge 1 August
San Francisco 21 (section vice-flag)
San Juan Bautista 31
San Juan de Gargarin 16
La Concepcion 20
Duquesa Santa Ana 23 (hulk) — Wrecked 29 September, Ireland
Santa Catalina 23 — Collided with Nuestra Señora del Rosario c. 31 July
La Trinidad 13
Santa María de Juncal 20
San Bartolome 27
Espiritu Santo

[edit] Guipúzcoan

Santa Ana 47 (section flag, Miguel de Oquendo)
Santa María de la Rosa 26 (section vice-flag) — Damaged 8 August, wrecked 16 September, Blaskett Sound, Ireland
San Salvador 25 — Damaged by explosion and captured c. 31 July
San Esteban 26 — Wrecked 20 September, Ireland
Santa Marta 20
Santa Bárbara 12
San Buenaventura 21
La María San Juan 12
Santa Cruz 18
Doncella 16 — Sank at Santander after returning to Spain
Asuncion 9
San Bernabe 9
Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe 1
La Madalena 1

[edit] Levant

La Regazona 30 (section flag, Martín de Bertandona)
La Lavia 25 (section vice-flag)
La Rata Santa María Encoronada 35 (Leiva)
San Juan de Sicilia 26 (formerly Brod Martolosi) — Blew up (possibly sabotage from English agent) 5 November Tobermory Bay, Scotland
La Trinidad Valencera 42 — aground 8 August
La Anunciada 24 (formerly Presveta Anuncijata) — Scuttled 19 September at Shannon River mouth
San Nicolas Prodaneli 26 (formerly Sveti Nikola)
La Juliana 32
Santa María de Vison 18
La Trinidad de Scala 22

[edit] Hulks

El Gran Grifón 38 (section flag, Juan Gómez de Medina) — Aground 8 August
San Salvador 24 (section vice-flag)
Perro Marino 7
Falcon Blanco Mayor 16
Castillo Negro 27
Barca de Amburg 23 — sank
Casa de Paz Grande 26
San Pedro Mayor 29
El Sanson 18
San Pedro Menor 18
Barca de Danzig 26
Falcon Blanco Mediano 16 (Don Luis de Cordoba?) — Wrecked c. 25 September
San Andres 14
Casa de Paz Chica 15
Ciervo Volante 18
Paloma Blanca 12
La Ventura 4
Santa Bárbara 10
Santiago 19
David 7
El Gato 9
San Gabriel 4
Esayas 4

[edit] Neapolitan galleasses

San Lorenzo 50 (Don Hugo de Moncado) — Aground, captured 8 August, distracting the English fleet
Zúñiga 50
Girona 50 — Wrecked in Ulster
Napolitana ("Patrona"

22 pataches and zabras (Don Antonio Hurtado de Medoza)
4 galleys of 5 guns each (Diego de Medrano)
vessels under Parma

[edit] The meaning of the event

I have a problem with the article as it stands. In British history the battle is always presented as the symbolic end of Spanish domination of the seas and the beginning of English domination.

Either this is true, and the article should point it out, or it is not true, in which case the dominant myth should be stated and disproved, and also the probable 'grain of truth' should be pointed out. I am not an expert on this - can anyone help ?Johncmullen1960 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a mess. In historical terms it's fairly plain: the battle was a significant victory for the English during the Anglo-Spanish War 1584-1604, in that it forestalled an invasion from the Netherlands. I think the article also plainly states that the Spanish regrouped and improved their navy, and that security for the trans-Atlantic treasure fleets was increased. Vintage propaganda, to the effect that the 1588 battle marked the beginning of Spanish decline and the rise of English power at sea, is hokum - the war ended in a peace treaty, the early Stuart navy had very little funding, and treasure shipments to Spain enjoyed a steady increase from 1590 in to the early 17thC. The statement of this propaganda in the article would have to be sourced in the first place before we set out the case against it.--Shtove 11:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be that no reputable historian subscribes to the "big defeat for Spain" line anymore--I don't know. But if even a smallish minority still argues that, then we ought to include their views here without dismissing them--in at least a section of the article. We ought to be able to follow NPOV on a 400-year-old conflict of little contemporary significance. Nareek 03:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It was a big defeat for Spain, but not the strategic one that old-fashioned English historians insisted it was. There is no historian today who asserts the Speech at Tilbury version of the event (although TV drama still bangs on in this simplistic way), and there is more emphasis now on the use of the memory of the event to puff up Elizabeth's reputation in the 1610s, when radical protestants were becoming dissatisfied with Stuart rule. Anyway, I've just rejigged various parts of the article.--Shtove 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And rejigged again.--Shtove 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consequences

Now that there is the Anglo-Spanish War 1585 article provides the wider perspective, the "consequences" section in this article should be largely removed and readers directed to the above mentioned war article. Provocateur 07:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mexican immigration

How is Mexican immigration relevant to the Spanish Armada? there's a little quip there at the end of a paragraph. Funny, but...The Jackal God 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed.--Shtove 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Rather than becoming part of the Spanish Empire, England became the core of the British Empire. Unlike the Spanish Empire, this was managed in such a way that much of it produced wealth for a reasonably wide section of its population rather than simply stripping existing wealth from the empire for show and mounting wars in Europe. This is not a claim that someone set out to achieve this end. Rather, it is what happened. Thus, the assessment that the outcome of the Armada event was significant is justified. The place in which the contrast between the two legacies can now most sharply be seen is along the Rio Grande. (RJP 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC))
Those are some pretty broad brush-strokes. The immediate consequence of the Armada was the peace treaty of 1604, which allowed England greater leeway in the North Atlantic. What flowed from there in North America is too remote for this article.--Shtove 11:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The immediate consequence was that England did not fall back under Spanish control. 1604 was sixteen years later. Certainly, the information which I have inserted does not go into great detail. It was not intended to but it indicates a broader field of understanding to balance the blinkered view shown to date in the article. Without this, the 1588 event is just another isolated flurry, over and done with. What is needed is the development of an understanding of the significance of the outcome and the reasons for it. The dates of treaties are the punctuation of this process not its substance. Without a broad view of where events fit into social and political evolution, the study of History is a dull and useless occupation. Erasure may suit the writers' pov but it is selling the reader short. My intention was that the additions should indicate to an acute reader where ideas should be filled out so that the more obtuse reader could see what was happening in 1588. (RJP 10:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

The problem is that your conception of Anglo-Spanish "social and political evolution," far from revealing a "broader understanding," is basically a rehash of discredited Victorian psuedo-history. For decades, sneering British imperialists pointed to Latin America as justification for their God-given 'civilising mission.' One could plunge into all the ink that's been spilled exposing their distortions, omissions, and freakish prejudices. Somehow, I doubt that you've done so. The idea that Philip seriously desired to impose his rule in England and had the means to carry out his design is a fantasy that makes for a nice swashbuckling film, but what does it have to do with the reality of the time? Not much.
In brief, your ideas hold little credence outside the hundred-and-fifty-year volumes of people like John Lothrop Motley. And the myth that those 'contemptible, selfish, cowardly, ignorant, faithless and cruel' Spaniards "stripped existing wealth from the empire for show" while the industrious, noble, generous, magnanimous English "produced wealth for a reasonably wide section of its population" is one that I doubt even Ferguson would approach with a ten-foot trident. A century of British (and American) economic manipulation and domination had a far greater impact on the development of the Latin American republics than their colonial period under Spain. Albrecht 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, historians' writings go in fashions but that does not mean that the assertions of one fashion are wholly true nor those of another wholly false.
I fear you are letting your complexes show. I do not believe most of the things you attribute to me.
If Philip did not wish to regain control of England why did he gamble so many lives and spend so much money, effort and prestige on looking as though he did? To try to pretend that he didn't mean it anyway is quite ridiculous.
My aim was to draw attention to the narrowness of the view expressed in the paragraph "The battle is greatly misunderstood, as many myths have surrounded it.[1] English writers have insisted it was a pivotal moment in European history, which is to ignore the fact that it marked the beginning of an increase in Spanish naval supremacy, rather than a long decline." This completely ignores the obvious importance of the outcome for the future of European - and World history. (RJP 12:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
But what bearing does this have on the USA? The victory prevented the deposition of Elizabeth, and led to a peace treaty. End of story.
Maybe if the English hadn't buggered up the return match in the English Armada of 1589, and had broken the naval power of the Phillip and shattered the administration of the empire, you might be able to talk about a pivotal victory. But the fact is Spain increased its power, until the French and the Dutch cracked its military supremacy in the 1630s-40s. By then, it was a different ballgame, different rules.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be included, but from what I can gather it's just far too remote from these events to have 'obvious importance'.
And Phillip never had, nor sought to have, control of England. It was all about succession and alliance, and the winner was James VI of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots.
Still, WP operates on the basis of verifiability and reliable sources - you're free to insert text by those criteria.--Shtove 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He and his wife, Mary I cooperated in deciding which course England would take and in how it was governed. She died without producing an heir so he lost his influence. He and the Pope wanted to regain that control so they cooperated in the Armada scheme. It failed; so that their way of doing things was not adopted in England. Instead, England went on to become the core of the British Empire of which North America was part. The inheritors of part of that empire are the citizens of the USA. The contrast in wealth as between the USA and Mexico (formerly part of the Spanish Empire) draws attention to the effects of the different forms of management adopted by the British and Spanish Empires respectively. The one (whether intentionally or not) encouraged the production of wealth: the other in the earlier years at least, stripped out already existing wealth and carried it off to another continent. The prosperity of the USA, indeed its existence, was enabled by the outcome of the Armada project. Hence, the outcome of the Armada expedition is significant on a much broader scale than merely counting a few ships. They could be payed for from the South American gold but that source inevitably dried up in time.

This is not to claim that this outcome was a good or a bad thing. It was a significant thing. (RJP 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Mary was rightful queen of England by descent, and Phillip spent hardly any time in the country. Your idea of control seems simplistic to me - read up on the disputes between Phillip and the various popes in his time, and you'll see that even catholic states were genuinely sovereign and independent of papal authority.
True, true and true but to a large extent, she did as he said. Furthermore he hoped to gain control through their son; in which he was disappointed. Sixtus may not have liked Philip but he supported him financially in the Armada enterprise, also by excommunicating Elizabeth. (RJP)
Talking about which 'course England would take', and 'their way of doing things' is also simplistic in terms of empire: what do those phrases mean? The Mayflower is a good story which flows from the peace of 1604 and the persecution in England of religious minorities, but it was the 18thC wars between France and England that really set the scene for the USA.
The course which independent England did take. The Mayflower episode is a clear example of a mechanism by which the difference between the empires developed. In the one, independent-minded people were induced to go to the Americas: in the other, conformity was to a much greater extent, enforced on both emigrants and indigenes. The eighteenth century wars would not have enabled the expansion of the British North American empire if the seventeenth century British colonies had not been there, populated by the likes of the descendents of the Mayflower emigrants and ready for expansion - still less if England had remained under Spanish control to this time. (RJP)
As I said before, in my view the conclusions you seem to want to draw are too remote. But if you've got a verifiable and reliable source that states those conclusions you're free to add them in. I wonder if you'll get a modern, professional historian to state as much. And I'd suggest that all such comments (including the existing one in the intro) be removed to the conclusion section.--Shtove 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The writings of historians reveal as much of the attitudes of their own times as they do of earlier ones. When the present fashion passes, we shall get another slant on history.
The significant outcome of the Armada expedition was that England remained independent of Spanish and Papal control. The rest of what I have said is merely evidence of the extent of the significance of this outcome. Neither is the outcome, of the continuance of England's independence, remote from the event. It happened immediately and well before Philip had his new ships built. It is the effect of the outcome which is still felt today. (RJP 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
I think you're being unfair on Mary - she reigned in her own right, in English interests. At the same time she was not in a position to cross the new landowners by reverting the transfer of church lands under H8 - so, more at the beck and call of the domestic lobby than of the Spanish court or vatican.
Elizabethan colonisation of North America was a complete cock-up, before and after the Armada. It was only under James I that a competent effort was made, and that came well after the peace with Spain. This is why I suggested you flesh out the idea in Anglo-Spanish War (1585) - it was a long war, of which the defeat of the Armada was just a part.
The Mayflower episode is not a case of encouragement - more a case of persecution. In 1580, there might have been an English catholic colony in North America, but the colonists were refused permission to leave England until they paid their recusancy fines, and the Spanish discouraged it anyway. It's true - look at Humphrey Gilbert.
Who wished what is unimportant in discerning the significance of an outcome. Plenty of Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Dissenters and those with ideas of their own invention, went to North America and did not have their multifarious ideas squeezed out of them by the heavy hand of the government. It was this mix of people which came up with ideas, enterprises and inventions which developed a broadly-spread wealth. Again, I emphasize that I am not claiming that the means or outcome were good or bad: just significant in their effects on the world of 2007. Also, the likelihood is that much of North America would otherwise, have been colonized from Florida and California by Spain, had England been returned or if you prefer, placed under Spanish control. One has to assume that policy in those colonies would have been much like that in the rest of Spanish America and that it would have produced much the same effect in North America, in the modern world. Perhaps, Louisiana would have been a different place, who knows? The fact remains, it is not now different from the way it is, as it certainly would have been, had England been ruled by Philip II and his successors, from 1588. (RJP 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
I agree with you on 'who wished what'. But the English colonisation of America was actively down to James I, at a time when he was organising the Plantation of Ulster. Phillip II never sought to rule England as he did Portugal, since he had no claim to the throne. Had the Armada been successful, a catholic monarch would have taken the throne, and English colonisation of NE America might have been tolerated by the Spanish. Who knows? Maybe the interior of the continent would have come up against European civilisation even earlier. The tolerance of the USA's founding fathers for diversity in religion goes hand in hand with their espousal of democracy - both of which were anathema to those who sent and those who defeated the Armada. It really has nothing to do with 1588.--Shtove 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"both of which were anathema to those who sent and those who defeated the Armada" This irrelevant. It is what happened that matters, not what people wanted to happen.
"the English colonisation of America was actively down to James I," "a catholic monarch would have taken the throne" - quite.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJP (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

On remoteness, maybe have a look at articles on early colonisation of north American and see what approach is taken there to the Armada and the Anglo-Spanish war.
And the thing about historians today is that they're professional - not that that's a guarantee of objectivity in any given case. But the system they rely on is well researched and tested and unlikely to fall prey to 'local shop for local people' sentiments.--Shtove 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Professional or amateur, the important thing is that they should be competent. (RJP)
Why not flesh it out in Anglo-Spanish War (1585)? There was a lot more to this conflict than the Armada.--Shtove 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Forces...

I have in a booklet given to me by my History teacher (Private School) that England had 54 battleships and around 140 merchant ships were converted into battleships not the numbers which are stated here in the text (34 warships and 163 converted merchant ships) --Celticfan383


I HATE THE SPANISH ARMADA IT MAD ME HAVE TO DO AN ESSAY

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/Talk%7ESpanish_Armada_c344.html"