1588: the Spanish Armada Still Loses 

1589: The English Armada loses even more

I think that a wrong interpretation is being made with the use of that large cannon found in the wreck of the Trinidad Valencera. It is a siege cannon, one of those transported for use on land, not a naval cannon to be used in naval combat. There is a certain fact. The Spanish had and used naval artillery on their warships and also had doctrine for its use as a confrontation element. It is completely unfounded that the Spanish dedicated themselves almost exclusively to boarding and did not fight with naval artillery, quite the opposite. This idea is a product of later British patriotic historiography, in which it is practically established as a merit of the English navy to have laid the foundations for the successful use of naval artillery, as the form of combat that would mark the future of the war in the sea for the next 4 centuries. Not at all. 6 years earlier in the Battle of Vila Franca do Campo, in the Azores Islands, a Spanish fleet against a combined French, English and Portuguese fleet, where the use of artillery was extensive throughout the entire battle, along with assaults and boardings when the situation of the ships made it possible or advisable, in the same way that it would continue to be done throughout the following centuries of sailing. The interpretation made that the Spanish of the Armada of 1588 fired little due to the inadequacy of their artillery or the lack of skill of their artillerymen, is another later British patriotic interpretation to give more emphasis by comparison to their own artillerymen. . The reason why the Spanish fired much less was because their ships, being far from their bases, could not replenish ammunition and they also knew perfectly well that the long-distance effect of the cannon shots was ineffective and a waste of ammunition that they couldn't afford it. It is worth remembering that throughout the time these clashes lasted, numerous small and fast English ships came and went from nearby ports replenishing ammunition and gunpowder for the English fleet and hence they could use their artillery with fewer restrictions. And other issues that I don't want to go into at this time.

1588 is only a small (although important for England) chapter in a world war. England was saved by the island. In 1588 Spain was invading Germany (which is why South Germany and the Palatinate are Catholic today) In 1589 the Spanish fleet destroyed Drake's invincible English fleet, sinking 80 ships. Elisabeth condemned Drake to be a lighthouse keeper. In 1590 the Spanish Empire invaded Paris. France had to accept Catholicism as its main religion. We were also in Italy and the Netherlands. In 1595-96 Drake had 5 defeats in the Caribbean and died. In 1596 Spain sent another 130 invasion ships to the British Isles. The fleet was stopped by a storm In 1597 Spain sent the third invincible fleet, with more than 130 ships, to invade England. With 20,000 elite soldiers, without the need to rely of Spanish Troops in Belgium. The Royal Navy did not know where the Spanish fleet was. Another storm stopped the Spanish. Although 500 soldiers arrived on the English coast and made a little chaos there. It must be remembered that a large part of the English population was Catholic, and would have supported the invasion. The Spanish fleet achieved dozens of naval victories throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. -1591 Spain defeats the French fleet off the French coast -1591 The Spanish fleet defeats the combined English-Dutch fleet at Almería -1591 Spain defeats the English fleet in Portugal -1592. 5 small Spanish ships defeat and capture the English fleet in the Bay of Biscay -1593 The Spanish fleet defeats the English fleet off the French coast -1595 Spanish attack on towns in England -1597 Spain defeats the Essex-Raleigh expedition -1601. Almeria. Spain defeats the combined fleet of France and Holland -1602 Spain defeats the English at Cape Saint Vincent -1605 Spain defeats the Dutch fleet in the English Channel -1606 Spain defeats the Dutch at Cape Saint Vincent -1613 Spain defeats the Turkish fleet in Türkiye -1616. Spain defeats the Turkish fleet in Türkiye -1617. The Spanish fleet defeats the Venetian fleet -1621 Spain defeats the Dutch fleet -1625 Spain defeats the Dutch fleet in Brazil -1625 Battle of Cádiz. Spain destroys 62 English and Dutch ships -1625 The Spanish fleet defeats France and Savoy at Genoa -1627 Spain defeats the Dutch fleet -1629 Spain defeats the combined fleet of England and France at Saint Kitts, Caribbean. Spain wins the war against England -1631 Spain defeats the Dutch fleet in Brazil -1633 Spain defeats Holland in the Antilles -1636 Spain defeats the Dutch fleet in Corsica -1637 Spain defeats the combined French and Dutch fleet off the French coast -1638 Spain defeats the Dutch fleet in Cuba -1641 Spain defeats the French fleet at Tarragona -1641 Spain defeats the French fleet again in Tarragona -1646 Spain expels the French fleet from Italy -1646-47 Spain defeats the Dutch fleet in the Philippines -1651-52 Spain defeats the French fleet in Barcelona -1681 Spain defeats the fleet of Brandenburg, Germany, at Cape Saint Vincent ... Regarding the quality of Spanish ships in the 18th century, compared to the British: there was not that much difference. The ship "El glorioso", coming alone from America with a cargo, fought against 12 British ships. 4 ships of the line 6 frigates and 2 brigs. The Glorioso sank 1 ship of the line and a frigate, damaging the rest of the British ships and leaving the cargo in port. She only gave up when she ran out of ammunition. She was a little Spanish Trafalgar. They were high quality boats. The same cannons carried by British ships of the line were carried by British frigates. However, when Spain made a naval blockade of England in 1779-82, capturing two British fleets of 24 and 55 ships, the 39 British frigates surrendered without a fight. I think the British had better ships, but Trafalgar is not the battle that reflects the quality of the Spanish or French fleet throughout the 18th century. In the War of Jenkins' Ear 1739-48, Spain captured more than 400 British ships, war and merchant, in the Atlantic and Caribbean. Only 100 Spanish ships captured. Spanish cannons, moved from Spanish ships to the fortresses of Cartagena de Indias in 1741, sinking dozens of British ships. The British were also very vulnerable when they got off the ships. In 1806-07, a year after Trafalgar, Spain defeated the British invasion army in Argentina and Uruguay, capturing the generals and redcoats. And Nelson in Tenerife 1797. That was repeated many times. The British were only able to capture 1 out of 400 parts of the Spanish empire in 300 years, and 2 indies fleets out of 1200 Spanish indies fleets. And it was in the 17th century, in a port and without a prior declaration of war.

1589: The English Counter Armada Still Loses in La Coruña.

Wonerfull, briliant and enlightening! Thank you so much, Prof. Parker, for your rivetting presentation of your decades of work on the Spanish Armada! Definitive!

They cannot go back through the channel mosty because of the prevailing winds. Going south would mean sailing against the wind, which takes much longer. The Armada would be sitting ducks with many of their ships already badly damaged. Stating the English ran out of shot is strange as their supply is a day away.

The messages to the Spanish troops about the rendezvous with the fleet were severly delayed, by some accounts arriving at the Spanish command in the Low-countries on the same say the armada reached the channel.

Don't know how much weight the words of this man can carry when he searches for Martin Luther in the heavens.

Simple explanation of the failure of the Armada. In 1804, Nelson's fleet totally defeated the combined Spanish and French fleet at Trafalgar in about 4 hours. In 1588, under ideal conditions for battle, the Spanish and English fleets fought for a whole week while moving up the length of the Channel, with no decisive result. Why the difference? The firepower of naval ships greatly increased. So by the eighteenth century, a naval battle could be decided quickly. Not so in the sixteenth century. So neither the Spanish nor English fleets had enough firepower to stop the other. This would appear to give the Spanish a big advantage. By the time the superior guns of the English fleet could wear down the Spanish, weeks later, assuming enough ammunition could be produced, the Spanish army would have landed in England. But, there was on problem. The Armada did not carry enough troops to invade England. They had to pick up most of the army from the continent, from the army that was fighting the Dutch. But there was no port deep enough for the Armada to sail into to pick up the troops. The troops would have to be ferried out to the Armada on small boats. But the Dutch fleet of small ships commanded by privateers/pirates would destroy such an effort and the Spanish troops would die in water too shallow for the Armada but plenty deep enough to drown in. So the commander of the Spanish fleet, the Duke of Parma, considered the foremost general of the war, refused to send out hisey troops. The Armada had no chance. They could, by some miracle, sink the entire English fleet, and still be unable to pick up the troops from the continent, a minimum requirement for the invasion to have a chance of succeeding. Another separate problem is even if all the Spanish troops are somehow landed in England, the Spanish army would be smaller than what the English could field so It's not clear the Spanish would have won anyway.

I remember watching this gun 29:00 on TV in the late 80s and was always fascinated by it. Have looked for it on RU-vid many times with no luck

I've always thought the decision the Spanish had to make after Grevelines was the pivotal moment. There seems to be conflicting opinions about this, with partker and others clearly arguing that going north was a deliberate Spanish decision to avoid further damage, and others saying it was ultimately the weather that pushed them north and put the decision out of their hands. In any case, I think Parker's representation that the Spanish had had enough and were beaten into submission is contradicted by the reports in different sources that they turned around and challenged the English fleet to do battle twice after Gravelines. While it is true that the war council met on board the flaghip and debated surrendering, they decided not to do that. So ultimately, did they decide to sail north, or were they basically blown that way by the wind?

I think the professor misspeaks about the English being out of shot and not presenting a threat to the Armada returning down the Channel. They ran out of shot and powder every day and got resupplied. Because of distance it may have given the Armada a day respite, they couldnt have cleared the Channel against the wind quickly enough to avoid the English fleet fully resupplied. The big problem the Spanish had was Parma didnt really want to abandon the Netherlands, and the Dutch forced the Spanish to use canals and inland routes to move troops and supplies, which meant getting to the fleet would have been drawn out, giving the English a week or two to bombard a stationary fleet. The plan was doomed to failure.

The Dutch fleet prevented the Spanish army under Alessandro Farnese from leaving Calais.

These are fascinating additional perspectives to consider as I have been studying the various positions of history tellers who appear to want it their way, making it his story rather than reality! I have read/watched, 8 different perspectives and will take all into consideration, including Drakes affectations early on in this struggle by destroying or harming the Armada supply ships which delayed Philip from starting the campaign due to this and later the death of one of his most experienced Lord of the seas and had to be replaced by a land army general instead (sorry, I forgot the names) all the delays caused battles plans and instructions to be changed over and over again and therefore much confusion due to delays in communications! Weather seems to have played fair for the English who could almost steer into the wind with little tacking, which the Spanish had to do with hard about tacking, the English could maneuver at at ease except for in calm seas, but then the Spanish could not either! Sleeker, smaller and lighter ships of the English alongside better and faster firepower helped greatly and with the Dutch lending a hand to some degree harassed the Spanish in port! The inevitable journey around Scotland was due to wind conditions being unfavourable for the Spanish who had little choice other than to go with the wind direction to make any headway! The supplies of munuitions was severely hampered and I have to wonder about potential damp conditions affecting gunpowder? The English could easily re supply at will, creating an enormous advantage! The lack of availability of Dutch coastlands to the Spanish meant they had to re supply in France and it appears that was not easy for them! Thank you for your perspectives! I will carry on with this interesting time in history, which connects with the rise of the British Empire and the connections to varied languages that combine over time to create today's English language from the time of the Druids forward until today!

So Phillip, being so devoted to God, forgot to plan a failure plan. That’s why one should never leave God to roll the dice.

I’m trynna learn about the Spanish Armada and this dude is going on about how Ohio is “muh stolen land” lmao. Guess I’ll have to go find a new video.

Viva España e Irlanda...Ostia