Talk:Spanish Armada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox

How was the Battle of Gravelines not a tactical victory for the English?

Second, what was the Dutch contribution? It seems rather disproportionate to give them "half" the victory without any reference in the article's section to what they actually did. John Smith's (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The dutch contribution was preventing the spanish from picking up another 30,000 soldiers. (look at the 5th line of the 6th paragraph of History in this article) אק (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Did not the Spanish Armada also take losses because of their inaccuracy of mapping and positioning their vessels? A documentary on the Battle of the Spanish Armada also convinced me that the Spanish lost numbers and sustained heavy casualties because of their heavy shot, that could not reach their intended firepoint! The Documentary seemed to be reliable enough, but on this web page, there seems to be no history of either details... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.121.44 (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this campaign ended witha real war?

considering the casualties, the campaign looks more like a royal trip, probably Phillip needed british weather for his old lungs and avoided any conflict, while british were overwhelmingly out numbering his fleet he must be crazy to plan an invasion(ermm yes we know Hitler was planning against similar situation, but he never inteded to invade did he?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.205.249 (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. The Spanish campaign attempted to land a 30,000-strong army (tercios) from the Spanish Netherlands. In total, the force would have reached about 50,000 men, a huge army in that time. 62.15.140.66 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and imagining they landed in England (which also included Wales) they would have steamrolled through the then not-so-strong English army, the Spanish were the best in land at that time, nobody was a match for the feared Tercios--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And whilst we're imagining, why not imagine the whole Spannish army turned to giant flying insect robots that blew up London from the sky with their laser eyes. Or we could imagine that they managed to land, but the English were waiting for them with force of 10,000 Challenger 2 tanks that had been sent back in time from the present day. Or you could not bother, because none of those things actually happened.

It's Modern Spanish, not Old Spanish

The article incorrectly stated that Grande y Felicísima Armada is Old Spanish. Generally, Old Spanish applies only to the period before 1492. This event and take are from a century later. This most certainly is Modern Spanish. Interlingua 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Meanings

This section is superfluous and should be deleted, because in English the term 'Spanish Armada' is never used to describe modern military forces, while any jocular use by sports journalists to describe tennis players isn't noteworthy. It's a cliche which only reflects the fact there aren't many collective nouns in English with a Spanish theme. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dutch contribution overstated

Contemporaries complained that the Dutch didn't show up, and considering that it was English action and contrary winds rather than the Dutch blockade (which was in fact scattered by the weather) that prevented the rendezvous of the Spanish forces, the Dutch contribution to victory is here vastly overstated, making the article inaccurate. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Spanish Armada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• The majority of this article is uncited, giving no clue as to the source of the information.

• There are two requests for citation, one dating back to February 2008.

• Other meanings should be dealt with by a hat at the top of the article.

• Dates are not presented consistently: "On July 17 negotiations were abandoned"; "On 28 May 1588 the Armada set sail from Lisbon". Pick either the international or the American format and stick to it throughout the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I have reverted [1] this edit. There are a multitude of claims and conclusions in them, and they need to be sourced before being readded. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

some edits had not need to be cited like Habsburg Spain instead of Spain for combatant list, england wasnt fighting the SE, it was fighting hab. spain (overseas empires are not former states)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[2]--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A link to a whole book is not a proper reference. You have added two paragraphs of material, and the page you linked to in the book certainly does not make these claims. You need to provide references for each claim, along with the page number where it was found. Also, use the "ref" tag, not square brackets. FYI: if you simply revert again without doing this, I shall make a report on the admin page again that you have returned from your block and are continuing you reversion behaviour and not following policy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ps "effects" is superfluous if it follows "consequences". The words are synonymous (see any thesaurus [3]). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sister-in-law"

Elizabeth is described as the sister-in law of Philip. Actually, she was the illegitimate half-sister of Mary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was she illegitimate? She was certainly the half-sister of Mary.Willski72 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate these articles?

Shouldn't "Spanish Armada" and "Battle of Gravelines" be separate articles? -- LightSpectra (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia thinking, not dictionary thinking. A complete and coherent account is encyclopedic.

Tilbury speech

This section lapses into an Old Style/New style convention that's at odds with the more streamlined convention of the rest of the article. Old Style or New style should be noted in a footnote at first occurence, and adhered to. --Wetman (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

timetable

I'm not sure I can understand the time table of the battle. If the Armada reached the tip of Cornwall on July 19, how come it got to Portland only by July 31, 10 days later? Why did it take so long? Thanks for the explanation! Zkip (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How many Spanish ships?

The battlebox says 22 galleons + 108 armed merchant vessels = 130 ships. On the other hand, the "planned invasion of England" section says

The fleet was composed of 151 ships... It contained 28 purpose-built warships: 20 galleons, 4 galleys and 4 galleasses. The remainder of the heavy vessels consisted mostly of armed carracks and hulks; there were also 34 light ships present.

So, is it 130 or 151?

Top.Squark (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish council of war

According to the article

The Spanish convened a council of war, where it was proposed to ride into the harbour on the tide and incapacitate the defending ships at anchor and from there to attack England; but Medina Sidonia declined to act, because this had been explicitly forbidden by Philip...

What exactly was forbidden by Philip and why?

Top.Squark (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The mission was to meet up with Spanish land forces in the Spanish occupied Netherlands and transport them to England. Trying to enter an English port defended by shore batteries would probably have been a costly engagement.--Charles (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish couldn't reload?

According to the article

During all the engagements, the Spanish heavy guns could not be run in for reloading because of the quantities of supplies stowed between decks...

How did the supplies interfere with reloading? Was there not enough room within the ship to bring the ammunition to the cannons?

Top.Squark (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

These were muzzle loaded canon which had to be rolled back far enough to get to the front of them with ramrods etc. Breach loading had not been invented.--Charles (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Involvement of France?

According to the article

The galleass San Lorenzo ran aground at Calais and was taken by Howard after murderous fighting between the crew, the galley slaves, the English and the French who ultimately took possession of the wreck.

What were the French doing there? On what side were they?

Top.Squark (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The French were there because Calais is in France and they wanted to make money out a valuable wreck. Plunder and prize money was a great motivation in warfare then.--Charles (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Strategically indecisive?

An article on the general subject of the Spanish armada can't simply be about the battle of Gravelines but must cover the failed invasion as a whole. Using Gravelines as a pretext for labelling the armada campaign "strategically indecisive" in the info box at the top of the page is absurd and misleading. It looks like a sleight of hand resting on a fallacy of equivocation. Unless we can have a better justification than what's been offered, it will have to come out. 59.101.143.212 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well put. The failure of the Armada's mission to land an army on English soil is what matters. How can we know that the huge financial cost of this failure, together with effects on moral of the various combatants, was not strategically important?--Charles (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice the Infobox specifically states Battle of Gravelines, not Spanish Armada (the fact that the Atlantic storm casualties are included in the Infobox does not say much for your notion of a Hispanophilic conspiracy working to dissimulate Spain's historical defeats.) Apart from that, I'm not really sure what you're complaining about: Unlike the English expedition against Spain, the Armada and Parma's army were never militarily defeated, either at sea or on the English coast. Or did Drake and Hawkins command the Atlantic storms? While you do—beneath the hyperbolic indignation—make a valid point, namely that Gravelines was more like a tactically indecisive engagement and a strategic victory (if one considers that Parma's embarkation was ever a practical operation), it's unclear how all the repercussions could or should be summarized in an Infobox. Finally, considering that generations of scholarship and historical pedagogy assimilated the Armada, Trafalgar, and Errol Flynn into a sort of trans-historical, Providential mega-battle that rolled back the Evil Empire and annihilated the Spanish Navy for all time, your concerns can't help but sound a little disingenuous. Albrecht (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Settle down Albrecht, the only hyperbolic indignation around here seems to be in your own post. We need to find some better facts and figures if possible.--Charles (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Exhorting me to "settle down" is a bit curious, unless you happen to see a little Albrecht icon shaking its fist at you on your computer screen. I don't. And while I may be puzzled by claims of Spanish bias, in matters of indignation I doubt I could match the anon editor's conspiracy theory accusing previous contributors of "misleading" readers with "fallacy," "equivocation," and "sleights of hand." Albrecht (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bogus disambiguation

The expression “Spanish armada” is never used to describe the modern Spanish navy, yet a bogus disambiguation appeared at both the top and bottom of the article. There’s no such English usage. “Spanish armada” is purely a historical term, not remotely ambiguous. Why pretend otherwise? We're not here to make up usages that don't exist and can't be verified. The claim is spurious and completely inauthentic. Why are we burdening a long article with fluff?

As for the item of tennis slang, it's just an unimaginative journalistic cliché. It's simply a case that in English no other remotely appropriate noun is really associated with the adjective "Spanish", other than "armada". But elevating it to an encyclopaedia is dubious. 59.101.143.212 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

In the "Planned invasion of England session" we have

The fleet was composed of... 8,000 sailors and 18,000 soldiers... In the Spanish Netherlands 30,000 soldiers awaited the arrival of the armada... All told, 55,000 men were to have been mustered, a huge army for that time.

In the "Return to Spain" section we have

Following the gales it is reckoned that 5,000 men died, whether by drowning and starvation or by slaughter at the hands of English forces after they were driven ashore in Ireland; only half of the Spanish Armada fleet returned back home to Spain... In the end, 67 ships and around 10,000 men survived.

5000 men died and 10000 men survived, so there were 15000 men initially, much less than the 55000 mentioned before. Also, according to the battlebox 20000 Spanish died in the storms alone, way more than 5000!

Top.Squark (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect these figures do not add up because they are vague estimates drawn from different sources. The powerful Spanish empire of that time probably could raise those sort of numbers quite easily, including the use of mercenaries. Keeping them fed and supplied might have been more difficult. The 20,000 losses to storms does sound high.--Charles (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is no excuse for the article to be inconsistent. If there is no consensus on the question of which source is more reliable, either the figures from different sources or the range of possible numbers should be specified at each point. Top.Squark (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

M62902 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC) To be fair: 8+18+30= 56 (which is not too dissimilar to 55).

Ooops! You're right. Such a small discrepancy can be due to rounding error since all numbers are rounded to thousands. Top.Squark (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also (and forgive me if my understanding is incorrect) but the 30,000 men with the Duke of Parma were not actually collected by The Armada - therefore we should not consider these 30,000 when trying to come up with estimates for the numbers of seagoing men who rounded Scotland and suffered on the voyage down the Atlantic coast. M62902 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe you're right, but still 15000 is not the same as 8000 + 18000 = 26000 Top.Squark (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

English Victory

Please leave the result in the infobox as simply an "English Victory" - the complex nature of the war/s makes it impossible to summarise the many sides of the significance of this particular event -leave that to the body of the article and even to the Anglo-Spanish war article. No simple phrase can sum up things here. So just leave it an uncontentious "English victory", instead of endless arguments over "tatical" "strategic", etc. The point is that whatever its goals and whatever the consequences, this particular fleet (the Armada) failed to achieve them - so it was an English victory, however it was achieved. The complexities should be left to the body of the relevant articles. Simplistic statements are less than useful, as well as cause unnecessary heat. Adios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.79.38 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is just what I was thinking too.--Charles (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical Distortions

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armada_Invencible#Tergiversaciones_hist.C3.B3ricas --81.202.28.76 (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections/Links

I will be making additions to this article somewhat in the way of links so that this piece is the focal point of Spanish armada campaign. A campaignbox template will be set up with the following actions/events Fireship attack at Calais, the battle of Gravelines itself and the Spanish armada in Ireland. This will make a better understanding of what happened along with the fact that the Gravelines battle was only part of the Armada campaign. Hope this helps I expect to see little or no protestations. Bruich (talk) 18:44, 01 August 2010 (GMT):

The English Mercurie. I would urge the author to delete the reference to "The English Mercurie" Nr 50 of 1588, and to verify any information in his text that may be derived from that "newspaper". The "English Mercurie" was a blatant forgery, produced as a joke by two Englishmen in the late 18th century. There were no serial newspaoers in England in 1588. The paper was first brought to the attention of the public in the "Gentleman's Magazine" by a Mr Chalmers, who claimed to possess three printed issues and four manuscript issues. The British Museum in 1839 pointed to the fact that the "Mercurie" was a fake, with errors relating to typography, spelling and factual content. The paper used actually carried the watermark of King George III, who reigned more than two centuries after the Armada. Copies of the 18th century forgery and late reprints on thin paper are often offered for sale, sometimes at outrageous prices. This tale is perhaps worth noting in the article so that people do not continue to be misled by the hoax. Graham Dukes, Oslo (mngdukes@gmail.com) September 29th 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.26.102 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth 1 and Catholicism

Elizabeth was probably christened a Catholic by her Catholic father Henry VIII. Despite a long search over several years no bigraphy that I located, as an undergraduate, ever mentioned that Elizabeth converted to being a Protestant.

Did she recognise that polictically and militarily, in England at least, the Protestants were going to win and tacitly ignored her original baptism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth was the head of the Church of England, meaning that, no matter what she was at any point in her life, and I believe she was never a catholic, she was quite obviously a protestant queen. Your research is looking for an event which never needed to occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.65.229 (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Her father split from the catholic church in order to marry her mother, so why do you assume that she was christened a catholic? Hardly relevant on this page anyway.--Charles (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry was no longer straightforwardly Catholic by 1533 when Elizabeth was born: he was in the middle of separating from the Roman Church, partly under the influence of Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth's mother. The research of Norman Jones (most easily found in C Haigh ed.,Elizabeth I (1984)) has largely resolved the debate about Elizabeth's Protestantism at the start of her reign. Elizabeth wanted to return to the situation in 1552, the most Protestant period of Edward's reign. She compromised to some extent because of opposition from the Catholic bishops and peers. I don't think any historian would doubt her Protestantism. Philip II launched the Armada partly because of her aid to Dutch Protestants. DrJMT (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Return to Spain

I noticed that a reference to Sidonia at the end of this section had been lost in the last few weeks' edits, so I've reinstated this. However, SparkNotes is hardly WP:RS, so perhaps someone can provide a better reference? -- TerryE (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Decisive as Pearl Harbor

It was undeniably a big blow but not decisive, or if it was how was it that another two invasion fleets (96 and 97) were sent? (The weather or perhaps God Himself, had other ideas, however). The word decisive is massively over-used in this encyclopedia. For a comparison, see WWII in the Pacific: Pearl Harbor was a big blow but not decisive; Midway was decisive. As for historians, when matters are foggy, you can always find some to back up your claim.Provocateur (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction? - Planned Invasion section

A contradiction box was added here, but the issue is not identified. I suspect that the issue is the different numbers for the ships in the Spanish fleet. This was noted in previous archived comments, but was not resolved, at least from my reading. In order to allow removal of the Contradiction box, I am therefore re-stating what I think is the issue. Background section = 22+108 = 130 ships Article List of Ships in Spanish Armada = 130 ships Planned Invasion of England section = 151 ships in first para, 130 in third para. So is the reference to 151 ships setting sail from Lisbon correct, which implies 21 dropped out by England? Or is it actually 130 ships that left Lisbon? Gierszep (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

the help of stratigraphy

taking all comments into account, i have noticed that any uncertainess over the sinking if ships near ireland could easily be resolved with the help of stratigraphy, and would also provide clear relics of the storm. this could then lead to further increases of knoledge on the subject of the spanish armada.

by annie age 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.8.234 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Very possibly Annie but we are are not into original research. We can only report what existing secondary sources say. Thanks for your contribution.--Charles (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you think stratigraphy will help? I don't think the wrecks are that old, yet...Xyl 54 (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Panorama

I notice the article has aquired a panorama; I've moved it down, as it was too obtrusive parked in the middle of the History section. I've also converted it to a normal image file.
The caption there (and on the image) said "At least two catalan flags hoisted on two Armada ships against what it has been said officially in the spanish records" which seems prety dubious, so I've brought it here for discussion.
I presume it refers to the red-striped flag on the foreground ship; is there any evidence this flag represents Catalonia? The figure referred to as Elizabeth I has the same flag, as does the ship ahead of the galleass, together with the flag of St George; so I'd hazard a guess the flag in question represents England. And the List of ships of the Spanish Armada doesn't mention a Catalan squadron. Does anybody know any more about this? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Xyl54..First of all... there is a main difference between the Queen's flag (5 red stripes on white) & the catalan flag (4 red stripes on yellow)...

If you read thouroughtly this you will learn why it may exist St.George cross and the catalan flag on the same ship

“ Lord Howard in Ark Royal versus the Duke of Medina Sidonia in San Martin

Both ships share the red cross on a white background, the symbol of crusader and St George

”

Well! here is the point! St.George's cross has never been a Castilian sign.. but.. a Catalan sign!... Philip V has banned it in the Nueva Planta decrees.

Flags explanation... besides.. look how different is the Crow's nest of the ship with the Tudor flag, from the two ships I've pointed as catalan

St.George cross in Lepanto

St.George cross with Jaume I

I have a bunch of books prior to 1969 that in the list of armada ships do not mention La Girona (can it be more catalan?), of course after the wreck was found they couldn't deny it.. but saying the name came from his owner, someone undocumented called Girón

Mixture of St.George cross with catalan flags...England won..the ship that's sinking half top-left.. must be spanish.. look at the flag&aft-castle&crow's nest...

--Mcapdevila (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Manuel; first of all, your edits posting of the picture here, and on Commons, look like you are trying to make a point, and are contrary to WP policy on maintaining a neutral point of view.

As far as this article is concerned it was the armada of the King of Spain and "was composed of 151 ships, 8,000 sailors and 18,000 soldiers, and bore 1,500 brass guns and 1,000 iron guns"; where they came from, and where their crews were born, is not an issue for this article, though it might be relevant at the "List of Ships" article. If you have a reliable English language source that describes a Catalan squadron in the Armada, or lists some specifically Catalan ships, then you should suggest it’s addition on the talkpage there.

The issue for this article is whether it is improved by the addition of a panoramic view of Senyeres’ painting, which I’d say is borderline. I’ve made some improvements to the arrangement and positioning of it, but what it does not need is a caption seeking to make some point about Catalan nationalism. Do you see? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Gravelines coast with no cliffs.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcapdevila (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just a sample of the tipical Cornwall coastline with cliffs

Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcapdevila (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(I've moved these down, per Talk page guidelines; contributions should be in chronological order. Second image converted to File, and signed using "unsigned" template. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC))

What are you trying to say here, exactly? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

---

So now the caption reads
"A painting of Nicholas Hilliard (who fought in the battle), showing the "Invincible Armada" sailing off the "cliffs" of the coast of Cornwall (mistaken by some authors, for the Gravelines coast, wich has no "cliffs" at all). At least two Spanish flags hoisted on two Armada ships, one in the center of the picture. (Not to be confused with that of Elizabeth I watching from ashore)."
which is pretty pointy.
It is also Original Research; what is the source for any of the statements made? The only neutral thing that can be said out of this is that it is a painting by Nicholas Hilliard, and that it depicts the Armada.
So I suggest the caption "“The Armada” by Nicholas Hilliard". OK? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all catalan references so please stop talking about INH whatsoever..

I have no references for Plymouth (although obvious) but I inserted the refs. for "red+and+yellow+spanish+ensign" do you want more? Relating to the "borderline" you stated.. I will add that "Una, grande y libre ended in 1978..thanks for your impartiality (when you said it was an english flag you were not impartial at all..)--Mcapdevila (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop edit warring over this, and come to an agreement.

And thank you for the reference, but you are missing the point.

You've stated that this is “the "Invincible Armada" sailing off the "cliffs" of the coast of Cornwall” and that some authors “mistakenly” say these are the Gravelines coast; however plausible your reasoning, it is Original Research unless you can back it up. This (at the BBC website) calls it “The Battle of Gravelines” as does your reference which states “it must be the battle of Gravelines” (p129).

You also say this is “a painting of Nicholas Hilliard” (which I’d accepted), though your ref says this “cannot be supported” (p126); you also say that he “fought in the battle”; where is your evidence of that?

Also, your comments in the article, about my query over the English flag, is editing to make a point; those comments should have been made here. And I've no idea what your comment about 1978 is supposed to mean, but my comment about the image being "borderline" is colloquial; it means I felt the value of the image to the article is marginal, particularly if it is going to be a cause of conlict; if that is the case we can probably do without it.

As for the rest of your caption, the image is supposed to illustrate the subject; I fail to see the importance of pointing out that two of the Spanish ships are flying Spanish flags or that Elizabeth I is standing by an English flag.

Your reference (p123) states the painting is “Elizabeth I and the Spanish Armada” and is attributed to the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries; my ref says it is “The Battle of Gravelines” by Nicholas Hilliard; which caption do you want to use? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I couldn't express with more concise words the reference I've contributed with the superb work carried out by Karen Hearn. I've modified the last reference with my original reference of page 129 that explains much better the "Gravelines" choice for the title.--Mcapdevila (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, your reference is better, there; it takes the reader to the description, without having to comb the article for it. Are you happy with the caption as it stands, now? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've said your caption is brilliant, but you didn't know how to differentiate a Catalan flag from an english flag in those paintings (as all my colleagues at INH.cat do but the other way round). I know a little about it for I've been studying the Armada since 1971. I arrived at Cowes as a Baron Yachting Instruments service engineer in 1971, and one of my coleagues shouted at me "Hi wog.. how is your fleet since the last time we sunked it? Here came my interest about it.. I've been sailing along all the southern coast with my good friend Rodney Pattisson so I know most of it--85.50.90.36 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)..Sorry..my IP..

Therefore one day I will make an article to teach people how to differenciate them, this is the goal of wikipedia isn't it? at least that was my conversation with Jimmy Wales last year at Gdansk "creating a WYSIWYG interface to allow retired professionals (lawyers, architects, etc...) editing good articles on their speciality to teach other people their knowledge".. he agreed with me and said that a WYSIWYG editor is planned for 2012.--Mcapdevila (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction? - Return to Spain section

A contradiction box was added here also. I do not see a contradiction here. Can we assume it has been addressed and this Contradiction box deleted? Gierszep (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

They were added on 21 August 2010, and the editor raised it here. Best have another look at it before taking them out. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Think I've figured it out. It's badly phrased, but the key phrase in the numbers not adding up seems to be "following the gales." Essentially, if I have the problem paragraphs parsed properly (was gonna say "correctly," but the alliteration was too good to resist), the article says that approx. 5000 men died in addition to those killed during the storms. - Jorgath (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's clear the 5000 died during the return voyage. The original complaint was incompetent because it took into account the 30,000 soldiers who never got near the Armada. I've removed the contradiction box - if you disagree, I think you should put it into the battle box.--Shtove (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You've removed the contradiction box in the "Return to Spain" section – should the one in the "Planned invasion of England session" also be removed, or does that need further clarification?

Ζετα ζ (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Felicisima

english translation for Felicisima should be "Most happy", not "Most fortunate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.15.254 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Armada

The Change made on 06:58, 31 January 2013‎, was because i felt that there was not enough information about the background of the history to the Spansih Armada. Santa Cruz may not have followed his plan that he proposed to Philip II because of expense and the fact that he was in his old age, but i believe it is key information in the background that readers should know. Had this plan been possible things may have been different as far as the war on Europe was concerned. I also cited my sources as well. Is there a reason that what i have added is not interesting or helpful information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.20 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth's religion

Henry VIII was baptised and remained a Catholic. He had his eldest daughter Mary baptised as a Catholic and she remained an ardent such for the rest of her life.

So wouldn't Elizabeth have also been baptised a Catholic. I've read several popular biographies of Elizabeth I and none mention her faith, so did she ever convert to being a Protestant?

If Philip was also a devout Catholic it would both horrify him and the Pope that a baptised Catholic queen of England was favouring the protestant cause. AT Kunene (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. The thing is, unlike Mary, Elizabeth was not the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, but rather of Anne Boleyn. According to the Wikipedia article on her, she was a Protestant, but supported the inclusion of some aspects of Catholic practice - in short, she was the founder of Anglican/Episcopal Christianity, not a Lutheran or a Calvinist. I've found no evidence she was baptized Catholic, and I'm not sure she could be - Henry was excommunicated before she was born, and in the eyes of the Catholics she was of illegitimate birth. But yes, it probably horrified Phillip and the Pope that a reigning queen was favoring Protestantism in general, regardless of her baptism. - Jorgath (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Galleons"

The 20 purpose-built galleons mentioned in the text contradict the number of 22 placed in the Infobox ("correct" number we think), and in a sense the historical sources (of what is known about this and those vessels that we really know(?!)). Since many of them (the galleons) already existed before the expedition and some with more than 8 years old (See those 3 known big Portuguese galleons, among others, Portuguese and from the Crown of Castile). So this logic of twenty purpose-built galleons included improvements (strengthening the defensive structure of its forecastles and sterncastles in some cases as an exemple) made ​​on some existing ships at the time? --LuzoGraal (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction of Dates?

In the first paragraph, last sentence it mentions it was also known as the Counter Armada of 1589, but in the infobox it says that it is in 1588? Correct if I'm wrong but it might need to be corrected. Drizzcool (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish Armada was indeed in 1588; that sentence references the Counter-Armada, also known as the English Armada or Drake-Norris Expedition, which was a year later in 1589. Tom (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I notice there has been a lot of vandalism lately in this article, which of course requires constant reverting. May I suggest semi-protecting this article (since most of the vandalism comes from anonymous users)? King Philip V of Spain (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this article needs semi-protecting urgently, as the vandalism continues... King Philip V of Spain (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur this is getting beyond a joke! ChrisWet (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is vandalism behind the tone of the Philip II page reading like it was written by a favorite uncle? It's hard to pick fact out from the apologies & defensiveness. I can go elsewhere for opinion, really don't like it on Wiki. Couldn't find anyplace there to remark upon it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookishmoments (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Portugal as seperate

Hello Cristiano
I recently undid your edit and asked you to refer to this talk page. Following your reasoning, it should not be 'Spanish-Portuguese' but 'Castilian-Portuguese', because Spain aside from Portugal was not one kingdom. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Dutch victory

As I recall, the Dutch also fought at the Battle of Gravelines and helped disperse the Armada. While the English navy may have done most of the fighting in the battle, and especially during the harrying actions in the English Channel, I believe it is a mistake to discount the Dutch contribution by calling this simply an "English victory". The Dutch didn't just happen to show up in the right place at the right time and render assistance, the Dutch were being supported by the English army and naval forces at the time in their fight against the Spanish who were occupying the Netherlands. Saying the battle was an English victory despite the fact that Dutch ships fought, and Dutch sailors and soldiers likely died or were wounded in the battle is analogous to calling the Normandy beach landings a solely Anglo-American victory, despite the fact Canadian soldiers took one of the five beaches. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

Do you have any evidence that Dutch vessels fought in the battle of Gravelines? They may have been in the general area and captured a couple of stranded ships but were not exchanging broadsides as far as I know.--Charles (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there some established criteria which states how much involvement a nation's forces must partake in an engagement to be acknowledged in the infobox result? Look at the Battle of Salamanca. The Spanish forces took very little part in the battle, as they were positioned to block the French escape routes, and only suffered 6 casualties, and yet the infobox reads; "Decisive Allied victory", not "Decisive Anglo-Portuguese victory". Even if the Dutch didn't "exchange broadsides" - which is an unusual criteria provided by which the battle is thus classified as an English victory, not an Anglo-Dutch victory - with the Armada's warships, that is an irrelevant technicality, the fact is, they still took part in the battles and skirmishes to defeat the Armada, no matter how small, even if it was just capturing a "couple of stranded ships". They obviously took some part in the battle or they would not be listed in the infobox as a co-belligerent of the English, nor would 30 of their ships be listed in the strength section. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC))

According to Britishbattles.com, who cites the following references: The Voyage of the Armada by David Howarth, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada by Garrett Mattingley and Full Fathom Five: Wrecks of the Spanish Armada by Colin Martin in their article on the Spanish Armada, "Unknown numbers of Dutch vessels harassed and attacked the Armada and hemmed the Duke of Parma's forces into their harbour of Dunkirk". Keeping Parma's forces from partaking in the battle was no small favour, as was harassing the Armada. Though Gravelines was the battle which broke the Armada's chances of invading England, the Armada was by no means decisively defeated by combat. The battle was a strategic victory, not a tactical one - it forced the Armada into circumnavigating the British Isles which is what really defeated the Armada - starvation, disease and harsh weather. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC))

I agree with RockDrummerQ. It's interesting to see the Dutch Republic back in the infobox (I added it several months ago but it was removed because "Although the Dutch were allies of the English in this war, they did not participate in this battle", which is untrue, but I let it slide as I didn't really have the time to argue otherwise. I do find it interesting that the Republic appears to be listed as a "subordinate" of England, which is of course not the case. Tom (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting perspective there, I never noticed that thing about the Dutch Republic seeming to be subordinate to the English. The Dutch not participating in the battle is just incredulity at best and nationalist ignorance at worst. The squadron of 30 Dutch flyboats kept the Duke of Parma's forces hemmed in at their port, which was no small favour seen as it was Parma's forces that were poised to invade England, not the soldiers on the Armada, and the Armada's ships required a deep water port to anchor in and take on the soldiers, which they could not do at say, a beach. Medina Sidona refused to release the Armada's lighter ships to attack the Dutch blockading force, as he believed it would leave the Armada vulnerable to the English racing galleons (a piece of information in the article itself and sourced), thus keeping the troops in the Netherlands. Dutch warships also harassed the Armada through its voyage - as sourced by the references on the britishbattles page, so to say they took little part in the event is pretty ignorant at best. Some argue that the Dutch didn't participate at Gravelines - so what? If Gravelines is the only noteworthy engagement of the Armada's voyage, then most of the article when it comes to the engagements of the Armada's voyage is totally pointless. To those who disagree with Thomas' position and my own, my case is not that the Dutch made a decisive contribution - though their blockade of Parma's forces was no small thing, but even so - my case is that they made a contribution period, and such contributions should be recognised. Calling it solely an English victory is ignorant to the contributions made by the Dutch, whether large or small. If this is the precedent that is going to be set by not including the Dutch, then we must go through every single military article on Wikipedia in which multiple nations were involved on one side, assess who made the most decisive contributions, and call the victory just their own. I argued against "American victory" being used for the American Revolutionary War for the same reasons, because it ignored French, Spanish and Dutch involvement, the same philosophy applies here. As I said, if the case is going to be that the Dutch didn't partake in a decisive factor, then the Normandy Landings should only be a British-American victory and The Battle of Salamanca is only an Anglo-Portuguese victory. The Battle of Britain suffers from this same problem, despite the fact that Czechs, Poles, Kiwis, Australians, Canadians and even some Americans fought with the RAF, the battle is listed as a British only victory. Granted those pilots fought as part of the RAF rather than their own air forces, but even so. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

Yes and Nelson's fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar included sailors from many countries including France.--Charles (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad analogy to use on my part about the Battle of Britain. It is a bit sketchy as it included "incorporated air forces" into the RAF. Obviously it would qualify as an allied victory if it were the forces of other nations partaking in the battle rather than an incorporated unit. Nelson's sailors at Trafalgar certainly qualify for the latter, as an incorporated force, as the sailors were not sent there on their own ships by a government to fight. This is not the case with the Dutch contributions in the Spanish Armada, however. This is RockDrummerQ by the way, just on a university computer, so I have not signed in. (161.112.232.102 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Hello guys
Just to let you know, Thomas Antonius, I was the one who previously removed the Dutch Republic from the infobox. I am really sorry for doing that and trying to keep the 'English victory' in the box. It turns out I was really badly informed. Of course now I won't object if 'Anglo-Dutch victory' is decided upon, and I won't remove the Dutch from the infobox again. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the basic problem here is that the infobox does not match the article. The box is about an engagement on one day while the article is about a whole campaign and this is causing confusion. Infoboxes can become a mass of disconnected facts lacking in context and nuance which waste space that could be used for a better prose lead. The box should go. Per Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Infoboxes there is no requirement for an article to have an infobox at all and my preference would be to let the lead section speak for itself in covering the campaign, including of course the Dutch contribution.--Charles (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox needs to go, it just needs to be re-worked slightly so it encompasses all the skirmishes before and after the Battle of Gravelines. Take the New Orleans infobox for example. That includes details for the engagements that took place prior to the actual battle itself, as they were all related. The same should be done here. As there were several skirmishes prior to the Battle of Gravelines, they could be all incorporated as one. For example, on the Anglo-Dutch side, you could have something that details losses taken during the skirmishes, losses taken at Gravelines, and losses to disease. Obviously they would need to be sourced, or just listed as "unknown" until a source is found? That way it encompasses the whole of the Armada's voyage, which the Dutch certainly did play a solid contribution - keeping Parma's forces blockaded and harassing the Armada's ships. (161.112.232.102 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

The Dutch boats were blockading the Duke of Parma's army and its barges into Calais, which was important and useful. They were not however engaging with the actual Armada at any point as far as I can see. That is covered in the body of the article and could be included in the lead. Trying to turn the Battle of Gravelines, a discreet one day event, into an Anglo-Dutch action would be misrepresenting the sources. If there is to be an infobox at all it should cover the whole article.--Charles (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be the better option. Turn the infobox into one that covers the whole campaign against the Armada instead of the single battle. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Do we have a consensus here regarding the infobox, then? Edit it so it better reflects the entire campaign, rather than just the Battle of Gravelines? Naturally we will need to do a great deal of legwork to gather sources for casualties in the skirmishes and so forth, but it could be done. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC))

Decisive Spanish defeat?

I fails to understand why the result of the battle is presented as a Spanish defeat rather than an English victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.10 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Dutch were also fighting the Spanish and in the end the stormy weather inflicted greater losses on the Armada than English ships.--Charles (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it be called an Anglo-Dutch victory? The manner of the deaths isn't really the important factor here. For example: you'll find on the wiki pages dedicated to Napoleon's invasion of Russia or the Mongol invasions of Japan, that each outcome is described as "decisive Japanese/Russian victories", when like the Spanish armada, most of the losses can be attributed to adverse weather conditions. You can probably find more examples. 95.150.127.141 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That would give undue weight to the Dutch contribution which did not include fighting the actual Armada. This article is about the Armada that sailed from Spain, not the wider European conflict.--Charles (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Then call it an Anglo victory.. As I previously mentioned, other similar articles present the outcome as "XXX decisive victory". I don't see why this should be any different.95.150.127.141 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The main task of the Armada was to equip and escort an army from the Netherlands to England, not to engage the English fleet. So far as the Dutch prevented contact between the army and the Armada their contribution was significant.Shtove (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As you say the mission was to escort an army to England and support it. That is why the outcome was Spanish failure and defeat rather than any decisive military victory by its opponents. Why do some people insist on having over simplistic labels for complex situations? Let readers decide for themselves.--Charles (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You're purposely avoiding my main point now. And have done so twice. If these articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan (and there's probably more out there, those were just two that instantly came to mind) describe the outcomes as Russian/Japanese decisive victories, why should this article be any different? All 3 were largely decided by the weather. The parallels between the Mongol invasion and Spanish armada are particularly striking. 95.150.127.141 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Numbers game!

Hi,

The intro states that a third of the Armada was lost (ref # 10), while the article states that "only half of the Spanish Armada fleet returned home to Spain" (ref # 31). If the Armada was 130 ships strong, 67 returned home, and 43.3 ships were lost, the remaining 20 or so ships sailed for ... Bermuda, perhaps?

T 85.166.162.202 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Rodgers states that when the Armada entered the Channel "the actual strength...was probably 127 ships of all sorts and sizes" and that "all those ships which were able to keep up the duke brought home to Spain: sixty seven in all". It is unclear (to me) whether there were additional stragglers who arrived separate from the main body; and if so, how many. It may well have been unclear to the Spanish as well. The intro does not state (as of 28.5.14) "that a third of the Armada was lost", but that "over a third failed to return" - possibly a recent change, possibly in response to your point. It is now (reasonably) internally consistent and consistent with the sources I have access to. Anyone know any different? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-Armada

In my opinion, the Counter-Armada and it's effects are dramatically underplayed in this article, considering that it is, possibly, as relevant as the Spanish Armada. PD: Sorry about my English.--John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Same war, different campaign. It has its own article.Shtove (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And in my opinion, the counter armada, was seriously affected in diferents battles like La Coruña and Lisboa, where it was defeated. Also Drake come back at england with the army seriuslly damaged. references http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invencible_Inglesa

All covered in the eng.wikipedia Counter Armada article linked in the text.Shtove (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Realms involved

I have noted a particular interest on including Naples as a belligerent on the Spanish-Portuguese side. While I think it is a legitimate claim, I think that it is better to leave the Iberian Union as the sole combatant. There is no need to put every one of its realms on the infobox. Besides ships from Naples, Castile and Portugal, ships from the Crown of Aragon and other Italian realms were involved, plus hired ships from foreign countries. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Result

Despite sources confirming it was a Spanish defeat which meant they got the shit kicked out of theam

(rather than English or Dutch victory), the result is being reverted to indecisive. Only one source mentioned by Richard Holmes & Martin Marix Evans in Battlefield: Decisive Conflicts' in History mentions this despite said title of source. Shire Lord 20:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We should not confuse the wider strategic situation with the outcome of this operation. Nor should we base the text on a single source. The mission was a failure. Many ships and men were lost. That is defeat. Whether it was decisive is another matter and can just as well be left out.Charles (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As has happened before the outcome of the Battle of Gravelines is being confused with the overall mission of the fleet. I would suggest "mission failure" is probably the most accurate outcome if we must reduce a complex situation to a couple of words. Alternatively we could leave the result blank as is recommended by Milhist wikiproject where outcomes are disputed.Charles (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. Operational or invasion failure would seem apt; citations for indecisive (militarily or strategically) refers to the outcome of the Gravelines or Calais actions rather than the whole campaign (the route via the North sea, as well as landfall on Ireland) - or for the wider strategic situation of the whole war. Shire Lord 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

By now, I've restored the well cited outcome of the military actions in the infobox. Generally, I don't like overladen infoboxes, but if the propaganda issue is highlighted, why not also the military indecisiveness? A suitable solution for me would be to left a single line of result in the infobox and move the additional info to the lead section. Weymar Horren (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It would have to be in the body of the article before it could be mentioned in the lede. Charles (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the military indecisiveness of the individual actions these should be in the main article. I would also say that the propaganda victory as mentioned by Weymer should also be in the aftermath as well as the lede. Perhaps leave a single line in result. Shire Lord 19:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's incredible how every single result contradict each other. Aozyk (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation vandalism

As present the Disambiguation section reads "This article is about the Spanish fleet this sas a dumbass mistake by ths spanisg like why the **** would you do this? that sailed against England in 1588. For the Armada Española, the modern navy of Spain, see Spanish Navy."

I've attempted to edit it out but cannot find it in the edit section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.175.37 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Forgetting something?

Is there some reason we're eshewing mention of the Protestant Wind in an article on the Armada? Not to say that G-d was actually behind it any more than He was anxious to forestall the Mongol invasion of Japan, but the phrase and the legend are certainly noteworthy. We've got a link to an entire article on some medallions struck in its honor without any proper treatment here. — LlywelynII 22:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• The wind is important to the campaign; it's description as Protestant is important to the propaganda that came after the campaign.-Shtove (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

CALENDARS

The article is confused about calendars. It starts by stating that the armada left Corunna in August, and later has it off Gravelines on the 28th July! Surely it would be better to use consistent dating, either Gregorian (Spanish, and only 4 years old), or Julian (English). Considering that the English won, it would seem appropriate to use Julian dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Consistent dates

Please can someone edit the dates so they all refer to the same calendar? Or rename the Armada to Tardis. The article starts out with the Armada setting sail in August, and then having several adventures in July. The mixing of Julian and Gregorian dates in a timeline of events is decidedly confusing, even to people that can see the problem. 93.155.220.123 (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Armada Invencible

Spanish Wikipedia states in its sister article Armada Invencible, that the name, now widely used in the Spanish language for the historic event, was originally known as the Empresa de Inglaterra de 1588 (1588 Enterprise of England). Such use of the sarcastic term 'invincible' by English historians caught on in Spain and the Americas and is currently in use in reference to the event. However, not one single mention of the term Armada Invencible is made throughout the article, not even in the Etymplogy section or as trivia. That is somewhat surprising, given the fact a search with the terms 'Armada Invencible' redirects to Spanish Armada. Shouldn't a mention be made? Izmir2 Let's talk 19:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The term probably comes from how the English refered to it, rather than what the Spanish officially called it. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Sutton

A few days ago I came across The Percy Anecdotes. Could it be true?

https://books.google.nl/books?id=aQQPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=Elisabeth+Bank+Genua+Venedig+Armada&source=bl&ots=UN_qwMa89N&sig=824OrO5rHd0P5eFH15gViLrD9Ws&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPlf_74tbXAhXkC8AKHf0hCPsQ6AEIRDAG#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thomas_Sutton seems to have been involved.

Regards, Taksen (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting snippet and plausible, but the old encyclopedia sources linked in his wiki biog don't mention it, and this source is not reliable.Shtove (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spanish Armada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228130758/http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf to http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170211155914/https://www.scottishhistory.org/articles/spanish-gold-in-tobermory-bay.htm to https://www.scottishhistory.org/articles/spanish-gold-in-tobermory-bay.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Northern Hemishphere?

User Pmccawley has added "Northern hemisphere" to the phrase "In the early summer" which is clearly redundant for an event taking place in Europe. Whether you are Nouthern Hemishphere or Southern you know that early summer means days are more than 12 hours daylight, a degree of warmth, butg not midsummer heat. does anybody else think that a Kiwi is going to look at the phrase early summer and think this happened in October/November? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely leave out Northern hemisphere it is irrelevant for the reader, but it might better to say just July 1588? Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this item for discussion. I appreciate this approach. However, the main point I wish to make is that as a Wikipedia contributor from the southern hemisphere, the various references (here, and in many other places on Wikipedia) to periods such as "spring" and "autumn" are almost always with reference to northern hemisphere seasons. Contributors in the northern hemisphere may not even notice this tendency because it is so natural to you to refer to northern "spring" and "autumn" periods. However, these strange references are very noticeable to those of us below the equator. I will give just one example (among many): the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank hold main meetings every year around April and September -- but instead of referring to these meetings as the "April" and "September" meetings, the meetings are almost always referred to as the "Autumn" and "Spring" meetings. But there is no need for this sort of thing. It is surely easy enough to just refer to the months (or the relevant monthly periods as in "late April") that the meetings are held in. There is no need for northern hemisphere references in periods of the year on Wikipedia. Pmccawley (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If your concern is with those global activities, then you should be taking it up with their respective pages. I don't believe any of our readers will expect the timeline of any event to be anything other than local time. For example on the Ned Kelley article we say "The gang descended on Glenrowan about 8 am on Sunday 27 June 1880..." and we know that our American and European reders will know that it was eight o'clock in whatever local time zone applies, no one thinks "Oh 8 am here, that would have been early evening in Austrailia", Our readers are not that stupid. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

in reply to Eastfarthingan, If the reader wants to know the actual dates, they are in the infobox, and spread throughoutg the article quite liberally. Use of early summmer here is an indicator that the seasons are taken into account in the planning of such enormous undertakings. Phillip expects that by setting off at this time of year he will have optimal conditions on arrival in the channel - long hours of daylight, and not thick snow on the ground. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we have now discussed this enough? We don't agree, and I think the reference to "summer" needs some sort of qualification, but perhaps we should move onto to other things? Let it be as you wish. I should perhaps just add that the suggestion that this matter be taken up on various respective pages does not really seem to be a way of resolving the issue. The problem is that there does not seem to be agreement as to how to handle references to time-specific events on Wikipedia. Some people think (as I do) that it is often best to refer to the local time that an event occurred. But others seem to insist that international time (UTC) be used even when (as I see it) the use of UTC is inappropriate. It is hardly possible to take up the issue on hundreds of different Wikipedia pages. However I have now tried to suggest a change that I see as an improvement and it has caused controversy. I don't think the current text is appropriate but perhaps we should move on? Thank you for taking the trouble to discuss this issue. I appreciate your generous approach. Pmccawley (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking for actual dates but the months of summer, I actually said July with no specific date in mind. As for definition of Northern Hemisphere summer - no. reference to summer needs some sort of qualification, this is 1588 so the only concern here is the European summer at least. It makes it sound like the Spanish armada was heading down into the Cape of Good Hope as well! Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was mainly addressing the comments from User talk:IdreamofJeanie. I would prefer to use, as you suggest, "July 1988" but our colleague User talk:IdreamofJeanie seems to disagree. Thanks for your response. Pmccawley (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To be fair it does state when the Armada set out, and that was in actual fact July 1588. 'Early summer' makes it sound like the armada took two months to set out when they set out all out once. a Spanish fleet of 130 ships that sailed from A Coruña in July 1588, under the command of the Duke of Medina Sidonia - sounds perfect to me. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree with this. I think this is a good compromise. Pmccawley (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the wording; it was actually May 28. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11

09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. All things considered, this seems the best outcome. Pmccawley (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Martin Frobisher's ship?

In the section 'First Actions' it says that Frobisher had the ship 'Aid' If you go to the page for Sir Martin Frobisher it says he commanded the 'Triumph' against the Armada. I've always understood it to have been the 'Triumph' Where did the ship 'Aid' come from?Dean1954 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Pop culture

Simple listings of pop culture references without any kind of source to support them are not very interesting. References in sports, fiction (i.e. 'alternate history') or some obscure poem also lack significance or relevance to the events. The general requirement for inclusion of anything has always been for at least a proper reliable source (and then some editorial judgement). As eloquently described, "Media coverage of a topic is generally encyclopedic information, helps establish the topic's notability, and helps readers understand the subject's influence on the public (and often vice versa). Unfortunately, these sections are frequently just lists of appearances and mentions, many of them unencyclopedically trivial:"

The whole section should be rewritten based on the suggestions at the page linked from Template:In popular culture. The golfers being nicknamed 'the Spanish Armada' is an example of the cultural impact of the events, but it`s only a trivial mention (one sentence) so I have removed it since this would require a proper secondary source describing it (otherwise it's just my own guess) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Technological revolution?

The article suffers under the common misconception that the English navy somehow - out of the blue - invented the tactics and ship types (e.g. "low charged" ships, that were smaller and more manoeuvrable than the gallion or "mainships" of the Spanish navy and carried fewer but heavier guns, intended to decide the battle by use of artillery and not manpower). These ship types and tactics had been developed a good time before in the Baltics, primarily by Denmark-Norway and to a certain extend Sweden. The Nordic "Seven years war" (1563-1570) featured three large scale navy engagements that proved the inefficiency of the large "mainships" (say, 2000+ metric tons displacement) and the surprising efficiency of a new ship types very similar to the later English "low charged" ships (500-1000 tons metric displacement) (in contemporary danish sources they are called "middle ships") that used artillery as their primary weapon, just like the English did in 1588. These developments by navies as large as the English navy was of course not unknown to the british admirality that had a close working relationship with, especially, their Danish-Norwegian counter part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.54.26 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Urca squadron was primarily commandeered Baltic freighters, descendants of the cog, and rather unseaworthy en masse. They were intended as troop carriers for the Flemish army.

The most significant technological change was the standardisation of English cannons: they mostly took the same size ball, so they could be easily resupplied, whereas the Spanish had only the ball which came with the gun, and when that was exhausted, the gun was useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.88.73 (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Decisive spanish defeat?

The sources added are simple quotes from 2 or 3 authors who say it was decisive. That is not really a reliable source.

It can not be said that it was a decisive victory because it did not mean a definitive blow to the Spanish Armada or the loss of the war by Spain. A year later (1589) England began attacks in the north of Spain and the English Navy was almost completely destroyed, and this allowed the Spanish Empire to remain in a hegemonic position for a decade.

For all these reasons the Battle of 1588 was not decisive for the war. It was a defeat for Spain, but it did not mark a before and after in the Spanish Anglo War. I think the word "decisive" should be deleted because it was not decisive for the war.

In addition, the article enters into contradiction. He says that militarily it was indecisive, but then he affirms that it was a decisive defeat. That Spain failed to propagate Catholicism in England and that it could not invade England does not mean that it was a decisive defeat, in fact when signing peace the Treaty was more favorable to the countries of Tordesillas than to England, and limited Protestantism much in the world for decades. If militarily it was not decisive then the battle itself was not decisive. I could understand that it was religiously or politically important, but not decisive.

And interestingly, the battle of 1589 that allowed for a long time a hegemonic position for Spain (said in the article itself with sources) has no such adjective "Decisive" when it was.

What I think is that either 2 battles (1588 and 1589) are considered decisive or none of them decisive. It is impossible to consider the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 as decisive and not the almost total defeat and destruction of the English Navy in Spain in 1589. JamesOredan (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Both expeditions were decisively defeated - there's a wikipedia article on the English Armada. Shtove (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If you go to the article of the English Armada does not put it "Decisive defeat" when it really was. JamesOredan (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That may be an issue for that article, but not for this one. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The defeat was financial. From a starting point of sudden income from Latin American gold, we need to look at its usage. The key, to me, is in the decline in income from the start of Phillip Ii's reign: you see the first stress in the execution of Hoornes and Egmont in 1568 after apparently succeeding in the alchemical manufacture of 40 000 moutons d'or - the recepipt for its delivery's in the French Regional Archives in Lille. That then triggers Phillip's reorientation of the Escorial as the Third Temple of Solomon, with a very alchemical orientation - see Rene Taylor, Magia y Arquitecture, Siruela edition - the English translation lacks the annexes showing the link to alquimia in Brussels.

The failing Mayan gold, augmented by English attacks on the Argosies, was clearly having an impact. The remaining resource went into the Armada from around 1578, but many of the ships were commandeered. Those had to be released, and what was left was further damaged by the 1589 fight.

At that point, you see a geo-economic effect happening. English forests in temperate zones grow far faster than the subtropical Spanish species, so Phineas Pett was able to rapidly restore the English navy, with devastating effect on Spanish hopes. I was actually raised in Petts Wood, the last vestige of the minor forest stretching south from Deptford, cleared in this project. A aingle ship of the period takes around 4000 trees, or upwards of a square mile of woodland: construction soon moved to the South Coast, drawing on the resources of the New Forest with shipyards at Beaulieu and Hamble, west and East of the Solent, but almost opposite each other, saving on hauling. This was the start of Nelson's Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.88.73 (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Background

This is excessively Anglo-oriented. Phillip was driven by the English privateers attacks on his gold fleets returning from the fast-depleting Mexican Mayan empire, as well as the family issue which took on religious overtones. Phillip and Mary were second cousins, Mary's mother Catherine of Aragon being the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, Phillip's father Charles V their grandson. The Tudors, on the other hand, were seen as somewhat upstart Welsh farmers. A lot of this stems from the shake-out of the European power structure in the Council of Constance 1414-18. My OR is becoming accepted, building on Bernard Guenée's biography of the Convenor of the Council Pierre d'Ailly, in Between Church and State, in which he points out that d'Ailly had been advised by his erstwhile pupil, friend and successor as Chief Theologian to build his case for reform after the collapse of feudalism as a result of the Black Death and waves of plague which followed, to build an academic case based on the thinking of Jan van Ruusbroec. Professor Guenée doesn't follow it through, but this is exactly what d'Ailly did, accidentally triggering the Renaissance in the process. I came into this backwards, chasing Rome's thinking in the creation of the Devotio Moderna, and especially commissioned by the Belgian Supreme Court to get to the bottom of the foundation of the modern ArchiAssociation of the Eucharist, which had just collapsed on top of us: start digging and don't stop were my orders. With the foundress' signed testimony that she inherited the vocation with her first Convent, established by Pope Eugenius IV in the mid 1430s, I looked hard at him, and spotted the geographic links between the Convent, her own holding in Watermael, Ruusbroek's Groenendael, and other sites (all connected by the same tunnel system) were matched by the proposed academic case, conformant to the academic norm of the day. I'd found what Guenée had hypothesised, a theological capstone (Ruusbroek's Spiritual Tabernacle), elaborated in the musical/arithmetical facets by Dufay's L'Homme Armé mass, itself an exegesis of his Ecclesie Militate motet written for Eugenius' coronation, and in the geometric/cosmological facets by Jan van Eyck's Fountain of Life and Mystic Lamb: this is agreed by Till Holger Borchert, the leading expert on van Eyck, who agrees more research into his diplomatic career is needed. I'm currently researching more on the rise of the Devotio Moderna, on the edge of the Warburg Institute. Most critically, Professor Guenée identifies them as adolescent pages in d'Ailly's retinue at Constance. There was organisation behind it: Gerardus Groot had picked up Ruusbroek's work in his final days and moved it into the Windeshein school, of which Eugenius was one of the first pupils. He would soon be followed by Luther and Erasmus, at the heart of the Devotio Moderna. In plain terms, they were attempting to invert the power base, placing the Pope over the Conciliar kings, ending French dominion in the Avignon exile, which had caused schism, which is what engaged d'Ailly in the first place. Nor were the Tudors absent: d'Ailly's congratulations to Henry V after Agincourt (1415) removed the French as his opponents in the Council (1414-18) are phrased in a sense of mutual understanding forcing me to look on Henry's guerilla tactics faced with a far more numerous French army as a constant come-on, sucking the French into his preconceived killing ground, with retreat to his ships waiting off the coast as an escape route. The key is Henry's failure to capitalise on his victory by taking Paris: his objectives weren't those supposed. Therefore, with Henry VIII the first of the 5 Conciliar Kings to recognise the new Imperial Papacy, guided hy Erasmus' friends, we can see Henry as part of d'Ailly's New Devotion as a path rooted within Roman Theology diverging from Petrine Roman Orthodoxy, but still adherent to it thanks to Catherine of Aragon. Calling it Protestantism's achronological, the term only dates fromn 1529, in the reaction to the Diet of Speyer. Henry's Great Matter dates from 1523, and was hung up by Charles V's control over the Pope. What we have is a continuation of the original schism, clear in the kick-back Eugenius suffered, between factions of Roman Catholicism. Zwingli's schism (1519) is still heresy, soon to become Calvinism, but Huss had actually been burned at the stake by d'Ailly, for trying to jump the gun, I think. The Low Countries have Erasmus in Leuven/Louvain, a pole is forming underneath Charles V, despite his Flemish identity. Indeed, Catherine was close to Erasmus, guided by John Fisher, who hosted him and paid with his life for defending her. To blame the schism on Protestantism is therefore revisionism. It puts the cart before the horse. The events of the 1530s are what causes the actual split, leaving Mary on the Sanish side and Elizabeth on the English, and the era of blood which follows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.88.73 (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

OR aside, have you any reliably sourced suggestions for the article? Bjenks (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

change ships to ships Maverick R. S. (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:OVERLINK everyday words that all people with a basic understanding of English can follow, unless specifically relevant to the article, are generally not linked — IVORK _Talk 02:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Turkish contribution

The recent inclusion by User:Uruman33 of the Ottoman Empire as an ally to Spain was originally discussed here in 2008. Then, as now, the cited source was John Ezard's report of the opinion of a college lecturer published in The Guardian in June 2004. Since this detail requires more detailed elaboration and verification I would ask for some prior discussion on this page before amending the article further. Bjenks (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is support, Ottoman forces did not take part in the campaign itself. Better to mention in background - perhaps in a short paragraph and later in Aftermath? The use of them in the infobox is slightly misleading. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth's occasional arrangements with Morocco are worth explaining, but not Spain's wider military engagements with the Ottomans. Shouldn't be in the infobox. Relevant section (to the English Armada too) in another article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Moroccan_alliance#Anglo%E2%80%93Spanish_War Shtove 17:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur with that. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've made changes per this discussion. The Ottoman plan is described as unsuccessful in the article on Walsingham. Since the Ezard piece is deficient in that respect, I simply note that there is no evidence that the plan had any effect. That can easily be changed if acceptable verification emerges. Bjenks (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You must also remember the repercussions of Lepanto in 1571, the Venetian forces being financed by Spain, creating a construction base seen in the ship listings of the Armada. The Franco-Ottoman Alliance was cardinal in the recovery of the North African Muslim lands, and ultimately the French repossession thereof after WW1. I'd venture to suggest that the evidence doesn't really support it as a significant influence, therefore, given the longstanding FrancoSpanish animosity in the Papal Concilium, which goes back to at least the Black Death, and arguably into the Visigoth period of the late mediaeval, a thousand years before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.88.73 (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There was never an Ottoman-Spanish alliance.JoãoMolina99 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sidonia was not unexperienced

BBC history podcast suggests that Sidonia was in fact experienced in commanding a navy 46.114.4.155 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)