Talk:English Armada

[Untitled]

Very glad the short, bare entry I started here has suddenly been filled out with details. About time this story was told to the general public.

Isn't it nice to watch your chicks gain feathers! I found that Library of Congress site and pillaged it. It was an embarassing episode, otherwise it would have been "The Lisbon Venture" or something, and every British schoolchild would have known the names of all the ships... My questions are, was the aborted third action to be at the Azores or Cadiz? And did they skip the main fitting-out harbor, Santander, entirely? --Wetman 19:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou Wetman - you've breathed life into the entry! You may notice a few "perhaps" in the entry I made - here I was making an "educated guess" - given the context of the times. I'll leave them as a challange for others to enter more precise info - the Wikipedia game you wrote about. I'm no historian - but reviving this story will be a major kick up lazy historians behinds for treating this event as merely a "failed expedition", or that Anglo-Spanish war as just a bit of biffo with no long term consequences. Cheers, Riv

Got that redlink: Sir John Norreys, who deserves a richer bio than I cobbled together. (Anyone?) The next major Anglo-Spanish episode was The Spanish Match, currently a very poor stub for quite a good story... (Anyone?)... --Wetman 07:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I kept most of the original material, but had to cut the whole thing and past it back in because of saving difficulties. I've cited a reference book and given more details and a structure that's easier to follow.--shtove 09:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Details left out

First of all, great article. Interesting subject and good information but there seems to be a detail missing

In the first section about the objectives of the expedtion there is a sentence that reads "A critical contradiction lay between the separate plans, each of which was ambitious in its own right." What is the critical contradiction?

¿Vigo?

The "armada" not return directly to Plymuth.

It necessary don't forget the dishonourable episode of the destruction of the defenseless city of Vigo, which Drake delivered her soldiers in order that they were ven her revenge. Four days of cruelty, plunder and barbarism while Norris and Darke were looking for another side. This brutal episode supposed five hundred more dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.143.196 (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like something tht should be included - to give a rounded picture of the expedition. Any references? There's only the briefest mention ("Vigo was attacked by Sir Francis Drake in .. 1589") in Encyc Brit ("Vigo" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 28 (11th ed.). 1911. p. 62.); and the article itself ("In 1585 and 1589, during an unsuccessful attack by the English counter-Armada, Francis Drake raided the city and temporarily occupied it, burning many buildings") gives no detail. - SquisherDa (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Confusion concerning consequences

The "comparative neglect" of the English navy I was referring to was after the peace - not during Elizabeth's reign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.91.203 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

English Armada?

Why is this called the English Armada? Did they use that name themselves, or ever refer to the Royal Navy as such? If not, then this article is mistitled and should be changed. 76.253.126.50 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish victory

This victory was hardly decisive to the war. The war rolled on for msny years after so "Decisive" in the infobox hardly describes the results of this battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.79.38 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  fixed : see edit summary -- SquisherDa (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Armada vs. English Armada

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that there has been an attempt by politically motivated revisionists to equate the two "armadas" to England's disadvantage. In reality England and Spain were in no way comparable at the time. Spain was an immensely wealthy global superpower whilst England was a minor and impoverished second-tier European state. The "Spanish Armada" was a concerted attempt to conquer and subjugate England using the full range of military and naval resources; the English Armada was an opportunistic attempt to cause damage and gain plunder. If defeat and victory are determined by whether or not a nation achieves its objectives, the Spanish Armada must be termed a "decisive Spanish defeat", and the English Armada a "costly and rather pointless victory". The question of casualties is open to debate. In reality most naval expeditions of the era resulted in a substantial loss of life over and above the death toll of everyday existence. It is questionable whether the English "battle casualties" of the Drake Norris expedition differed much from the Spanish. - Unsigned contribution by 185.108.92.22 14:46, 30 October 2017.

In 1589 England took advantage of Spain's military weakness due to the defeat in 1588, and sent a fleet of very similar size to the Spanish fleet last year to invade northern Spain, but it was completely devastated and England's plans failed, and it also allowed Spain to recover and remain the world's leading power for decades.

The defeat of the English Navy was a decisive victory for the Spaniards, denying the reality is dangerous and is the reason why many Anglo-Saxons are unaware of the history of theirs as well as that of other nations (mainly of historical enemies), in fact it is usual to read The British claiming the Spanish Empire died and was defeated by the British Empire in 1588. JamesOredan (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"11.000 killed"

Really? Sounds awfully like Spanish figures to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.172.36 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Armada: 20 000 dead? Sounds awfully like English figures to me.

The fate of the Spainish ships in their Armada is not known for sure. The Spanish Crown/Government never released these historic details. Derbris and bodies found in Ireland points to much of the SPanish Armada being damaged or wrecked in a severe storm west of the Outer Hebridies. They may have been attempting an invasion of England via Catholic strongholds in Scotland or Ireland. No Spanish ships were sunk by hostilities. During the English Armada most of the remaining war galleons had been repaired, unknown to the English fleet. Once the English fleet was equipped with large numbers of cast steel cannons (100yrs later) they quickly became the dominant navy. They were much quicker and cheaper to produce than the conventional bronze cannons found on the Continent.220.244.74.80 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What happened one hundred years later is irrelevant. As for the Spanish (and English) statistics, these would have to be extracted from various old archives and much has been lost from those days. They're not locked away in a vault. More is now known because of such research.

Unsigned contributions by 49.199.101.45, 01:00-01:11, 6-Oct_2018

Decisiveness

This was not an "utter" (1589) defeat for the English any more than the Spanish Armada's defeat was a "decisive" (1588) defeat for the Spanish. If either of these statements were true, the war would have ended a lot earlier than 1604. -- Unsigned contribution by Provocateur at 23:24, 17 February 2012

  fixed : see above

"armed merchantmen" = armed merchant ships

For the sanity of the lay reader in the 21st century, would somebody stop referring to merchant ships as merchantmen throughout this article? 89.101.41.216 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources use merchantman/men, so that satisfies the wikipedia criterion on reliability. Otherwise, what's the problem? Any fule knows what it means, even a lay reader in the nth century. Shtove (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"What's the problem?" - not entirely an easy question to answer: cos maybe, per MOS:JARGON, 89.101.41.216 has a point. A lot of readers will be unfamiliar with the sea and its odder phrasal quaintnesses. (And given tht ships are notoriously she, the relevant "merchantman" would obviously be the shipowner, right? The ship herself would be a merchantwoman, right? Or merchantlass; or merchantmermaid, abbrev. merchmaid no doubt.) But whatever the logic of it, the term merchantman is established and for me at least there's no convincing alternative phrase. We should start a parliamentary petition for "armed merchmaid", obviously (or for "boaty McFightship"); meanwhile I've settled for wikilinking armed merchantman. - SquisherDa (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the logic is unclear, but it remains idiomatic, with a quick dictionary search online citing two uses in 2019. Shtove 23:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes . . I wondered at first if the term was perhaps largely restricted to Early Modern historiography: but the linked article reminded me of its use re WW2, so I think it probably doesn't have to be regarded as jargon tht we need to avoid. - SquisherDa (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Galleys

The article describes the Spanish galleys as more-or-less operating freely. The phrasing of the present version ("The [20-gun galleys] Princesa and .. Diana managed to avoid capture and slip past the English fleet repeatedly to resupply the defenders") seems to me to hint fairly strongly tht English incompetence was involved in this. But galleys were still the primary form of warship, on the Mediterranean coast at least - Lepanto was in the recent past - and very much the appropriate vessel for inshore operations. For a couple of well-armed galleys to operate freely around a windbound fleet of ocean-going deep-draught sailing vessels in an unfamiliar anchorage is, putting it mildly, unsurprising.

Going beyond that, I'm faintly surprised tht the defenders didn't use their supreme maneuverability to select English ships one at a time, and rake them with cannon fire through the stern and sink them (or at least disable the crew). Maybe the galleys' limited freeboard would make this tactic less straightforward than I'm thinking. Or were the defenders thinking rather defensively? and/or not thinking very far ahead (eg to the possibility of the wind shifting, enabling the English fleet to maneuver?) Or perhaps command was distracted by the otherwise unsuccessful English shore operations?

What do references say?

- SquisherDa (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Major revision and expansion.

This article was woefully lacking in details, sources and references. It’s been substantially revised; too much to go over it line by line. The biggest issue with this event is the limited bibliography available which, in turn, is why this episode has all but vanished from history.

Looking over the previous talking points, please permit me to give my two cents.

Comparing the Spanish Armada of 1588 to the English Armada is not unlike comparing the Edsel to the Sebring-Vanguard in the sense that both were failures but neither were “defeated”. The English were victorious over the Spanish Armada in that they prevented the Spanish military expedition from achieving any of its objectives. However, it didn’t bring about the end of the war and the Armada escaped with a vital success to its credit: though no invasion had been launched, its feasibility had been demonstrated and though England was unbeaten, her vulnerability was assured. Furthermore, the Spanish fleet sailed away from the final battle retaining its ability to effectively wage war.

The Iberian Union was victorious over the English Armada in that they prevented the English from achieving any of their objectives. However, it didn’t bring about the end of the war and the joint stock expedition succeeded in landing troops which humbled Spain and exposed their vulnerability.

The Spanish made numerous errors which resulted in the failure of their expedition.  Likewise the English made numerous errors contributing to the failure of their expedition.

Despite the similarities, there are notable differences. For instance

• The Spanish Armada was a Catholic State funded military action dispatched against a heretical monarch only after Phillip II – having endured robbery, insult and aggressions for some thirty years – had exhausted all diplomatic and conciliatory means to arrive at a peaceful “modus vivendi”.  Whereas the English Armada was an economic venture cloaked as a revenge mission.
• The Spanish Armada’s failure wasn’t covered up or glossed over by Spain, on the contrary, it caused Philip II to embark on a shipbuilding campaign and by summer of 1590, he had some 100 vessels ready for service. He also hadn’t given up on the plan to invade England. Meanwhile in England, an epic propaganda campaign went full tilt to exploit the “defeat” of the “invincible” armada; a label reportedly first spoken by Walsingham yet first written by William Camden in his Annals (1630, 3^rd book, p. 128). In contrast, the failure of the English Armada was rightfully celebrated as a victory but not shamefully exploited by the Spanish. Meanwhile, the English tried to downplay the severity of the failure as a means of damage control then spent the next four centuries denying it ever happened. They also never planned, let alone attempted, another “expedition” to Spain or Portugal.
• The English knew about the Spanish Armada and its strategy, and prepared a successful repulsion fleet. The small village of Coruña was essentially defenseless and completely surprised by the English Armada yet, despite being outnumbered nearly 10:1, kept the English from capturing the citadel.
• The Spaniards who returned home from their expedition had medical facilities waiting to care for them. The English who returned home were all but banished.

As for the numbers of participants and casualties, both in ships and men, since the Spanish Armada was a State endeavor and Philip II directed everything throughout his empire, upon which the sun didn’t set, from his chambers via written reports, all aspects of the enterprise were meticulously documented. Hence, researchers, notably José Luis Casado Soto, have compiled accurate information in this area. In contrast, since the English Armada was a mostly commercial venture looking to make profit, documents other than official State papers must be scrutinized with suspicion especially when they conflict with the latter, which is what Wernham attempted to do.

This article being called “English Armada” for the Drake Norris Expedition (what the English called it) is no more mistitled than “Spanish Armada” for the Enterprise of England (what the Spanish called it). Pha13753 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see the article has been expanded with the addition of new material. This does need some serious editing - what's concerning is the figures have been over inflated despite what the source says eg. Duro never says the English lose 70 plus ships, which is a bit of a concern. However, that part has now been rectified. So too has the last sentence which is eye opening as the editor says above 'since the English Armada was a mostly commercial venture looking to make profit'. At what point does any peer reviewed historian says this was an operation of conquest to take over the Spanish or Portuguese empires. England was not a colonial power nor even European power. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have some other disagreements with the editor above. The claim that Philip II was provoked is a strange one, given that Geoffrey Parker in his biography of the Spanish monarch noted that the ‘robbery, insult and aggressions’ described were the direct response to Philip II’s complicity in the Ridolfi and Throckmorton conspiracies of 1571 and 1583 to overthrow Elizabeth I. (Sir Francis Drake’s first piratical voyage was in 1572). Even the senior Spanish general, the Duke of Alba, felt the English actions were justified in response to Philip II’s aggressive actions. Also the claim that after the failure of the English Armada of 1589, the English never attempted another expedition to Spain is an odd one given that in 1596 the English successfully sacked Cadiz. Unless the editor meant they never again attempted to disrupt the Iberian Union of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns, which is true. Locksley42 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The final paragraph of Aftermath refers to the 1596 expedition. I believe the article was revised with some indignation (justified in parts, with proper citation) by a Spanish editor, and maybe his selections have made the whole uneven. Shtove (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with above. The English even conducted naval expeditions to Spain's coast even towards the end of the war - e.g. Battle of Sesimbra Bay in 1602. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As others have noted, neither the "Spanish Armada" of 1588 nor the "English Armada" of 1589 proved decisive in changing the course of history. In reality the English were able to capture Cadiz in 1596 (and successfully destroy dozens of ships), and Spain was able to launch two further Armadas in 1596 and 1597 and an invasion of Ireland in 1601, all of which were catastrophic failures on the scale of the ill-fated Drake-Norris Expedition. The disaster of 1596 was arguable the most costly of all, and certainly proved ruinous enough to change Spanish policy, albeit that it was almost entirely the result of bad planning and bad weather. The Spanish Armada of 1588 stands out because it was the only occasion on which the two main battle fleets came to blows, and because it marked the moment at which the English began to conceive of themselves as a maritime nation. It is also fair to say that it was perceived at the time as a "David versus Goliath" moment, and certainly altered European perceptions of England's chances of survival. Needless to say, Spain would continue to dominate Europe for a further century, and it would take until the 1790's before Britain could truly claim to "rule the waves". The other Armadas have all been largely forgotten, of course, because they had no lasting geopolitical consequence.

Regazona

In two consequent paragraphs it's called first carrack and then galleon. Looks like inconsistency. Or were those two different ships? 195.216.205.133 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)