Talk:Spanish Armada/Archive 1

message: The Spanish opposed slave-smuggling to their colonies in the West Indies... Misleading: the slave-trade in Spanish ships only, right? Perhaps someone will check and edit.Wetman 08:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No there was illegal selling of slaves by English traders. Drake started his career doing that. --Josquius 13:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The Spanish Armada is the official way to refer to today's Spanish Navy, so you can't title this article this way. You have to choose a more specific title. 80.58.0.107 07:35, 6 October 2004
The words "Spanish Armada" in English almost invariably denote the 1588 fleet; the mention of the name of the current Navy is sufficient to obviate ambiguity, I think Djnjwd 13:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name is Armada Española. English is not official in Spain. -- Error 23:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: "Spanish Armada" is a half-English half-Spanish term that would only ever be used of the 1588 fleet. Let's not go inventing problems where none exist. Stan 01:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Armada? 

message: Didn't the Dutch participate too in defeating the Armada? JimmyShelter 10:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed you said this here, I added that anyway. Some think that more Dutch tonnage was involved then Englsh.--Josquius 13:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch 

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

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

message: If Fastifex is going to describe Phillip II as fanatical, then he ought to describe Elizabeth as zealous: the usefulness of such adjectives in this context was exhausted a long time ago - NPOV is lacking. The bit about potatoes in Ireland is just a fiction - it probably was the Spanish who introduced the plant, but in the course of normal trading links from the 1560's onward. Lepanto occurred in 1572, so the relevance to this article will have to be explained; most deforestation (including that of Ireland) was down to the pipe-staves industry and the production of charcoal for smelting.The changes should be reverted.--shtove 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much more diplomatic. :-) But it wasn't sectarian: most sects are alike when they turn nasty. cf. England under Edward VI. And they can be expected to turn nasty when power/money is under threat. (RJP 09:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences 

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

message: Which are used? is it consistent throughout the article? we should be using ns!
SpookyMulder 11:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall the article, this aspect is rather a muddle. It was because I could not face sorting the dates out that I left the French version and wandered off elsewhere. Nobody has taken that up, so perhaps I'll get back to it when you have done the groundwork. Good Luck! :-) (RJP 14:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  os or ns dates? 

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

message: This should be hived off into a sub-article.--shtove 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because the article is over the recommended maximum length. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of ships 

message: I don't have anything to do with the article, so I don't want to make any premature changes, but the "Points of View" section has a problem with self-referencing, and needs to be edited, if not removed. Elcocinero 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, the historical info is already set out in preceding sections. Have deleted.--Shtove 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Reference 

message: What's WP policy on this singular/plural use?--Shtove 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  None ... was/were sunk 

message: it says for the spanish
Casualties 
500 dead or wounded 600 dead,
397 captured
3 merchant ships sunk
1 merchant ship captured 
can anyone see how wrong this is? this is totally absurd! it was mor elike 10,000 spanish deaths, not 600!!
:I think those numbers are for the actual battles - Gravelines etc. The 10,000 or so comes from losses in storms and from disease. There was a debate about including them. About the same number was lost by the English in the following year in the English Armada.--Shtove 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please log in. Thousands of English sailors died in the aftermath of the Spanish Armada, and thousands more (including soldiers) died during the English Armada in 1589 - relatively few of these deaths were down to battle casualties, just as with the Spanish in 1588. The numbers are unclear owing to the poor state of English record-keeping; Spanish records for their own men are more comprehensive. Spanish losses in 1588 are largely covered in Spanish Armada in Ireland. If you want to dispute the numbers cited in this article, then go back through the talk pages, where editors more involved than I have sorted it out already, and raise your concerns there. Gracias.--Shtove 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The statistics are wrong 

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

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

message: I have a problem with the article as it stands. In British history the battle is always presented as the symbolic end of Spanish domination of the seas and the beginning of English domination. 
Either this is true, and the article should point it out, or it is not true, in which case the dominant myth should be stated and disproved, and also the probable 'grain of truth' should be pointed out. 
I am not an expert on this - can anyone help ?Johncmullen1960 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a bit of a mess. In historical terms it's fairly plain: the battle was a significant victory for the English during the Anglo-Spanish War 1584-1604, in that it forestalled an invasion from the Netherlands. I think the article also plainly states that the Spanish regrouped and improved their navy, and that security for the trans-Atlantic treasure fleets was increased. Vintage propaganda, to the effect that the 1588 battle marked the beginning of Spanish decline and the rise of English power at sea, is hokum - the war ended in a peace treaty, the early Stuart navy had very little funding, and treasure shipments to Spain enjoyed a steady increase from 1590 in to the early 17thC. The statement of this propaganda in the article would have to be sourced in the first place before we set out the case against it.--Shtove 11:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be that no reputable historian subscribes to the "big defeat for Spain" line anymore--I don't know.  But if even a smallish minority still argues that, then we ought to include their views here without dismissing them--in at least a section of the article. We ought to be able to follow NPOV on a 400-year-old conflict of little contemporary significance. Nareek 03:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a big defeat for Spain, but not the strategic one that old-fashioned English historians insisted it was. There is no historian today who asserts the Speech at Tilbury version of the event (although TV drama still bangs on in this simplistic way), and there is more emphasis now on the use of the memory of the event to puff up Elizabeth's reputation in the 1610s, when radical protestants were becoming dissatisfied with Stuart rule. Anyway, I've just rejigged various parts of the article.--Shtove 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And rejigged again.--Shtove 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of the event 

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

message: I have read that, while the officers on the Armada were Spanish, many of the lower ranks were Slavs from the Dalmatian coast, from the countries we now call Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Montenegro.  Is this true?  JackofOz 13:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalmatian sailors 

message: I've noticed that the date of the encounter at Gravelines varies depending on the source by up to one week. What is the reason behind this? How did the contributors to this article decide on the dates that are used in this article? Sancho 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. However, a nice improvement to this article would be a graphical timeline linked with the current map. Maybe I'll make one this next week. Sancho 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: I have noticed while reading through the main document and the discussion page that there has been an ongoing alternate usage between British and English, sometimes in the same sentence. There was no British Navy at this point which was formed from the later amalgamation of the English and Scottish Navies and in general there was no "Britain" as how we think of it and in this case the term English is applicable to the defending fleet. Ironically quite a few documents I have read on Wiki concerning WW1 & WW2 refer to the the English navy, army, airforce etc which is completely wrong and the term here should be British as they are amalgamated forces comprising personel from all the British home nations (and in many cases from further afield). From working for an American bank for a number of years I know there is a big problem with understanding the difference and it was generally accepted that England meant Britain and vice versa. Mind you in Venezuala "Scotland" is referred to as the Northern English Wildlands!
:Venezuelans are wise. And not very good at rugby.--Shtove 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "British & "English" 

message: "modern scholarship presents it as the beginning of an increase in Spanish naval supremacy, which started to be reversed arguably during the Thirty Years War and most likely in the early part of the 19th century.[5]"
Surely this is a misprint -- I'm no historian at all, but this seems to be saying that Spanish "naval supremacy" *started* to be reversed just before World War I.  That just doesn't make any sense.  They were supreme on the seas for the intervening 250-300 years?  
rc
:The first part of the 19th century means the early 1800s, not the early 1900s. Sancho 02:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. You should sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. The software will automatically turn them into a proper signature when you save the page. Sancho 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "19th century" a misprint? 

message: The kingdom of Spain didn`t exist yet is like you put also in the article the United Kingdom. It should be kingdom of Castilia and Crown of Aragon.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolg (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kingdom of England was more precisely the Kingdom of England and Wales, but that gets complicated. Kingdom of Spain is realistic shorthand. If United Kingdom is anywhere in the article it should not be.--Charles (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Spain? 

message: In one part of the article, it reads:
:The fleet was composed of around 130 ships
While in another part of the article, it reads:
:The Spanish fleet outnumbered the English both in absolute numbers, with over 200 ships to 130 ships
What's happened here? It seems to me that someone has confused Spanish numbers with English; the English infact outnumbered the Spanish; the Armada had 130 vessels, while the English mobilised up to 200 in the channel. Change required perhaps? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers Confusion 

message: I just read both the english and dutch articles of the Spanish Armada, and my conclusion is that the dutch article provides a thorough, much better cover of the armada then the english article - i suggest future editors use the dutch article to improve this one. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch wiki-article 

message: We need a map of Western Europe at that time showing which lands were occupied by Spain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.177.222 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? not much reason for that since the other habsburg lands have nothing to do with the armada. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: actually 6000 Italians ,6000 Walloons, 6000 Burgundians,9000 were requested by the Duke of Parma and he received most of these levies he requested.Also most of the Spanish soldiers were brought from the forts of North Africa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.155.112 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: As noted above, saying that the Spanishy retained any sort of Atlantic military dominance into the 19th century (which, I am aware, includes the whole century and the decisive Battle of Trafalgar, which really marks the end of French dominance rather than Spanish--that was already long gone) is absurd.  Even the middle 17th century saw a substantial decline in the Spanish position.  Part of the problem with the viewpoint of this article is evidenced by this: "Two further wars between England and Spain were waged in the 17th century, but it was only during the Napoleonic Wars that the British navy established its mastery at sea at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805."  Don't assume that the Spanish and the English were the only dominant seafaring nations in the time period--one could easily argue for Dutch supremacy during the early 17th century (the Dutch repeatedly and consistently defeated the Spanish at sea during this time period).  The French were also very powerful in the 17th century, which is one of the reasons that the Spanish were forced to align themselves with the Dutch during the Anglo-Dutch Wars.  By the end of the Thirty Years War, only a fool could argue that the Spanish retained the level of dominance then held by the French or the English.
In this and many other instances in this article ("centuries of British literature perpetuated many myths about the event," "which was in contrast to the assistance given by the Spanish government to its surviving men," etc.), one can easily see pro-Spanish (and anti-British) bias that has little historical relevance.  These claims also tend to come without citation, which is not the least bit proper for the number of controversial elements they contain.  Clicking through several other articles related to the Anglo-Spanish War, this seems to be rather systematic of the Wikipedia coverage of the issue (inappropriate value judgments and a dearth of citations).  I wish I had enough free time to address the problem, and I hope someone else is able to do so.
Akulaalfa 22:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's fair enough. The lack of citation needs fixing - and it can be fixed, because there's nothing inaccurate in the facts. Citation of opinion is more difficult. Is the article pro-Spanish/anti-"British"? I don't think so, and countering the Anglo propaganda on this campaign is not a bad thing. But simply recounting facts is a better thing. If you want to get in to it, we can start with the intro, which I think is balanced.--Shtove 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim being advanced on this page is that the popular idea of "British naval dominance," contrary to the conclusions drawn from the Armada campaign, had no historical reality before the 19th century. Why would it follow, as you've obviously inferred, that Spain necessarily maintained or consolidated any measure of naval power until that time? In fact, the article has always explicitly acknowledged that Spanish naval might vanished when the Dutch repeatedly drove a stake through the Spanish Navy in the 17th century, making your tirade above a little misplaced. Notwithstanding all the huffing and puffing about real or perceived biases, do you have any evidence that the claims you cited above are in error? Or maybe you came to this page expecting something else? Albrecht 22:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anti-English bias in the article is noticeable. The problem is that the would-be revisionists (however sincere), in their anxiety to do down the English, are themselves guilty of overcorrection, amounting to distortion. However I do think it's mostly unintentional. The problem is the vague terminology, specifically what it is that actually constitutes 'naval dominance'. The solution is to use more precise language. This will lengthen the article, but it will also clear up a lot of confusion which is contributing to the unnecessary re-edits. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Spanish and French could derive satisfaction from the fact that they had a lot of men-of-war and merchantmen, and carried on an extensive maritime commerce, and major naval battles were few and rarely ‘decisive’, but the English perception of their superiority derives from the fact that their navy, on a tactical level largely because of its gunnery, could usually feel confident of victory in major encounters. Occasional exceptions don't disprove the rule. In the Second Anglo-Dutch War, for example, the English fleet was divided by having to counter simultaneous threats from both the French and the Dutch. The English battle fleet and naval shipbuilding programme for the seventeenth century as a whole was marginally larger than the Dutch, and its ships were larger and more heavily armed. So the perception is based on a long tradition of relative success, and should not be dismissed as a false one, simply because its meaning has the potential to be misinterpreted by casual readers. Lachrie 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (While not acquainted with the historiography,) I would hardly find Lewis, MacCaffrey, et al guilty of "revisionism." In fact, in the last quarter century, the revisionists, (i.e. Wernham) have been those defending Elizabeth's foreign policy! I think reasonable editors can disagree over how much of the British maritime ethos was a Victorian invention and how much of it had a material basis prior to the Revolutionary Wars (statistically, the English/British do come off worse in the majority of naval battles prior to the end of the Family Compact)—but that's neither here nor there, and the simplest solution might be to remove the offending material entirely (or else phrase it in a fashion that satisfies everyone, which, honestly, shouldn't be as difficult as we're making it here). All this article sought to correct was the notion—repeated far more often than you seem prepared to admit—that England came to rule the waves as a direct consequence of the Armada. And frankly (while this does not excuse inaccuracies), looking at popular depictions of the Armada, or even those in the historical literature, I think Hispano-over-correction is last thing we need to worry about. Albrecht 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I don’t think the article's presentational strategy accurately reflects the historiography that it’s purportedly based on, because, given the need for concision in a short encyclopaedia article, the reprioritisation produces an effect of overstatement. The logic for the censoriousness is as questionable as for any pre-emptive war. I don't think the negativity can be rationalised away by a convenient appeal to the existence of some hypothetical prejudice on the part of an imagined British public, as the effect of overcorrection in such a space can be equally misleading. My own perception is that the claims usually made in modern popular history about the victory actually tend to be fairly modest, so the prejudice itself may well be a rhetorical invention. Attacks on popular depictions would be better dealt with in separate articles specifically relating to those (such as film criticism), and by adding a separate section to this article on the historiography, with full citations, so that such criticisms can actually be tested. Even the defence that the English came off worse ‘statistically’ before the Family Compact can’t be accepted at face value, but obviously requires decomposition, because in military history, as elsewhere, an aggregate measure is precisely the kind of over-generalisation that lends itself to manipulation, and for the sake of the argument, even if after prolonged hair-splitting it were found to be true, it doesn’t follow that such a conclusion would have had any historical valence. Lachrie 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I´m the spanish boy who wrote that before. I´m afraid I haven´t understood your post very well but I think I have got the idea. You are right, I have probably misunderstood the article, but this: "Two further wars between England and Spain were waged in the 17th century, but it was only during the Napoleonic Wars that the British navy established its mastery at sea at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805." what was made me confused. It stars talking about "wars between England and Spain" and then "but it was only during the Napoleonic Wars that the British navy established its mastery". And I got the idea that it was still refering to the Spanish. As if some kind of Spanish-British war had taken 2 more centuries (at least that´s what I got). I was just saying that Spain had lost all kind of dominance a long time ago, so there was no point on that. But you´re right and the article says clear some times before. And about the other thingsI´m not going to lie you, I was expecting something like that or like many other films and stuff that ridicule Spanish. But I don´t understand your question "do you have any evidence that the claims you cited above are in error?", I haven´t say anything about errors (another possibility is that I don´t get what has annoyed you).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.97.198.37 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's weak and inaccurate treatment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in a few throwaway lines obviously leaves a lot to be desired. The importance of the Battle of the Downs as a turning point is here being exaggerated, presumably through the influence of Dutch sea-lion nationalism, and the statement that it was only after Trafalgar that ‘the British navy established its mastery at sea’ is also dubious, and should probably be removed. Perhaps Trafalgar could be considered a marker for the unchallenged dominance of the high seas in wartime by the British, because it was the last great wartime encounter between the fleets, and paved the way for the Pax Britannica and the Victorian world order. But Trafalgar was only the last in a long line of major victories won by the British Navy over French fleets in repeated wars. Each time, including after Trafalgar, the French demonstrated a capacity for recovery, without being able to challenge the British Navy as a whole on anything approaching equal terms. Doing that in the second half of the eighteenth century had required the co-ordination of the other leading maritime states in anti-British coalitions; by the turn of the nineteenth century even that was not enough to threaten seriously British preponderance. Trafalgar saw off the immediate invasion threat but it didn’t alter the long-term geo-strategic balance, which at sea had long been tipped in favour of the British. Lachrie 03:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Bias 

message: Is that title on the battlebox like that on purpose, since the article is about the Spanish Armada? Or did you miss the "Battle" part? I suppose it is the former? Pedroshin (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlebox: of Gravelines? 

message: I restored the intro - someone put the second half in to the main body (probably thinking it was too long), but that's confusing. If it is too long, then pare it down.
The rest of the changes are just for style and logic. I hid a couple of comments and references, but they're probably better off as footnotes (forgotten how to do that for now).
The Consequences section has swung too far - there's no mention of the outcome of the war or of the  remaining battles. And no mention of the retooling of the Spanish navy in the 1590s. As far as I recall, these were all dealt with in the article a few months ago. Battle of the Downs is fine. Napoleon stuff to remote.
Any objections - please send me a message. Thx.--Shtove (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidied up 

message: Hi there ;) Just a note on the opening with "The aim was to suppress English support for the United Provinces — part of the Spanish Netherlands — and to cut off attacks against Spanish possessions in the New World and the Atlantic treasure fleets. The expedition was supported by Pope Sixtus V, with the promise of a subsidy should it make land." I'm no expert on the Armada, but I thought the Spanish ships were spearheading an invasion by land of England, and that was its main aim... Maybe this should be mentioned (if true, of course). Cheers! :) Dr Benway (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah.--Shtove (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aim of the Armada 

message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/01/artsandhumanities.arts
Does anyone want to include this information??
For four centuries, Sir Francis Drake has symbolised English nonchalance and cunning in the face of danger. First, according to the legend drummed into every pupil, he insisted on finishing his game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe as the Spanish Armada approached in July 1588. Then he despatched the enemy ships with little more than a few burning rowing boats and a favourable breeze.
But yesterday, it was claimed that Elizabeth's protestant throne was saved by a less celebrated ally: the Turkish navy.
Jerry Brotton, a lecturer at Royal Holloway College, London, told the Guardian Hay literary festival that a hitherto unnoticed letter from Elizabeth's security chief and spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, to her ambassador in Istanbul showed that it was Turkish naval manoeuvres rather than Drake's swashbuckling which delivered the fatal blow to the Spanish invasion plans.
The letter, which ordered the ambassador, William Harborne, to incite the Turks to harry the Spanish navy, was written in the mid-1580s and has been buried in archives ever since because it did not apparently relate to any major historical event.
But Mr Brotton told the fes tival: "Walsingham's plan was ultimately successful. Ottoman fleet movements in the eastern Mediterranean fatally split Philip II's armada _ So alongside all the stories we're told at school about why the Spanish Armada failed to conquer Britain and destroy Protestantism, we should add another reason: the Anglo-Ottoman alliance brokered by Elizabeth, Walsingham [and others]."
In his letter to Harborne, Walsingham wrote: "Her Majesty being, upon the success of the said King of Spain's affairs in the Low Countries, now fully resolved to oppose herself against his proceedings in defence of that distressed nation, whereof it is not otherwise likely but hot wars between him and us, wills me again to require you effectually to use all your endeavour and industry in that behalf."
Walsingham hoped that Islamic forces might keep the Spanish forces "thoroughly occupied" by "some incursions from the coast of Africa", or by attacking his Italian territories from the sea.
The Spanish fleet was eventually defeated on July 30 1588 as it awaited the rest of the invasion force off Calais. At the battle of Gravelines, the English navy used fireships before closing in on the confused Spanish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.19.98 (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to The guardian the defeat of the spanish Amarda was due to an alliance with Turkey