[Watermoon]

Why UK won? Thanks

DDave3 mod note: Off to the History Forum. Moved.

[Oxymoron]

Bad Planning by the Spanish, bad Weather,British quick and premtive actions, and some bad luck.

[Thunderhawk]

If I recall right, the subsequent storm did much more damage to the Armada then the English.

[Potemkin]

By the time the storms hit, they had already lost the battle. They were running away, around the entire coastline of Britain.

[Oxymoron]

If I recall right, the subsequent storm did much more damage to the Armada then the English.

The storm did minimal damage but managed to scatter the fleet, making any sort of meeting with the Duke on the Mainland impossible.

[LiberalOne]

There has been evidence that Spanish armaments were lacking compared to their English counter-parts. Apparantly the Spanish were using cannon that could not pulled back into the hull to be reloaded. I think the average number of shots fired by each gun was only 1.5 - the English weapons were fired well over double that amount. The Spanish wrecks were discovered with most of their ammunition still on broad; they had not been used.

The recent recovery of artefacts http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7899831.stm from an Elizabethan wreck seem to suggest that the Royal Navy had managed to standardise it's armaments (which of course had implications for procurement, supply and the organisation of the Elizabethan war machine - i.e. a 'modernising state'). This the Spanish did not have.

The older, but smaller English ships were also much more manoeuvrable compared to the larger, clumsier 'super' ships of the Spanish. This undoubtedly helped the English cause.

[MB.]

Spanish didn't lose the Armada campaign, it was a tie. Sidonia failed in his objectives, of course, but it's not like the English won a triumphant crushing victory or anything like that.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

A bit of all of the above. Bad tactics, bad leaders, bad weather, fire ships that made the Spanish break harbour and good harassing tactics from the english. I remember someone saing it wasn't the only armada but I'm not sure if it was true or not.

[MB.]

Philip attempted to send several further armadas, I don't remember if any actaully sailed.

Bad tactics, bad leaders, bad weather, fire ships that made the Spanish break harbour and good harassing tactics from the english

I would argue that the decisive cause of Sidona's failure was the difficulty of loading and unloading troops at sea in the early modern period.

What was wrong with the Spanish tactics? The crescent formation used by the Armada was a strong formation, buttressed by the presence of Portuguese galleons.

Sidona himself was quite capable, I'm sure being a Duke he must have has some long and glorious military carrier fighting moors or the dutch or whatever. Consider that the armada actually circumnavigated England on the return voyage to Spain-- no mean task.

The weather that you mention was a factor, only insofar as it prevented the armada from embarking its soldiers during a crucial couple of days (or day?). It's not like Sidona couldn't have just tried again later.

The fireships were not as effective as the subsequent legend makes them out to be. Indeed, the fireships failed to cause the armada to completely lose its formation, thus making it vulnerable to direct attack.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

I would argue that the decisive cause of Sidona's failure etc

I'm happy to stand corrected. As much as I love the military side of history air/land makes more sense to me than naval matters. Theoretically I understand how Nelson crossed the "T" but I find it hard to visualise it.

[MB.]

Nelson broke the line, he didn't cross the T.

naval matters.

Naval history is a very specific niche, I must say.

[Oxymoron]

I would argue that the decisive cause of Sidona's failure was the difficulty of loading and unloading troops at sea in the early modern period.

More so with lack of communications, the Strategy relied on the perfect synchronicity of Duke de Palma and the land force and the Fleet which without perfect conditions was a rather dubious plan to begin with.

What was wrong with the Spanish tactics? The crescent formation used by the Armada was a strong formation, buttressed by the presence of Portuguese galleons.

It was a good defensive formation.

The weather that you mention was a factor, only insofar as it prevented the armada from embarking its soldiers during a crucial couple of days (or day?). It's not like Sidona couldn't have just tried again later.

No the Fleet lost its organization, lost most of their main fighting Ships, and lost morale. If they hadnt sailed they would have been destroyed there.

The fireships were not as effective as the subsequent legend makes them out to be. Indeed, the fireships failed to cause the armada to completely lose its formation, thus making it vulnerable to direct attack.

They werent battle winners, but they contributed to the overall strategy.

[MB.]

If they hadnt sailed they would have been destroyed there.

According to whom?

[Oxymoron]

According to whom?

Sidona.

[MB.]

Which document are you referring to?

[Oxymoron]

Oh God, the storms disorganized the fleet, his best ships were destroyed or captured. There was no communication with Palma, staying there would put the whole fleet in jeapordy he took the risk and tried to get back to Spain. Why do you assume he left then?

[MB.]

I don't pretend to grasp the motivation of a man dead for over 400 years, but I am curious as to where you're getting your information, if only for the sake of historiography.

I imagine Sidona had to decide if it was worth pushing for an embarkation & subsequent landing- and possibly losing Parma's army- or if the point had been made simply by the act of sending the armada.

If the armada campaign is considered merely a sideshow operation in the Eighty Years War perhaps the degree of Sidona's success can be more directly gauged- given that England was unable to interfere more directly in the Netherlands (until the Anglo-Dutch wars of the mid 17th century).

[Oxymoron]

don't pretend to grasp the motivation of a man dead for over 400 years, but I am curious as to where you're getting your information, if only for the sake of historiography.

Based on my reading, thats the conclusion that was put forward and I kind of agree with. If you want to know the name of the books I can get back to you.

Sidona's success can be more directly gauged- given that England was unable to interfere more directly in the Netherlands (until the Anglo-Dutch wars of the mid 17th century).

At that time Britain wasnt a majour power yet, but the battle demonstrated the dominance of the British fleet especially Drakes unanswered attacks prior to the Armada launching.

[MB.]

Based on my reading

Don't worry about it- I just thought you might have had access to some kind of primary source material.
If you don't mind me asking, why were you researching the armada campaign?

but the battle demonstrated the dominance of the British fleet

I wouldn't be so quick with the 'd' word here. The impact of English action on the armada was not significant compared to attrition the Hapsburg fleet suffered from scurvy, lack of clean water and proper medical care. Ultimately, the English accredited the 'victory' more to divine intervention in the form of prohibitively violent winds, than to their own successful, albeit, ineffective attacks.

[Oxymoron]

If you don't mind me asking, why were you researching the armada campaign?

For one of my classes.

I wouldn't be so quick with the 'd' word here. The impact of English action on the armada was not significant compared to attrition the Hapsburg fleet suffered from scurvy, lack of clean water and proper medical care. Ultimately, the English accredited the 'victory' more to divine intervention in the form of prohibitively violent winds, than to their own successful, albeit, ineffective attacks.

Obviously it wasnt as significant as the battle of Kursk in changing the balance of power. I think it definately was a turning point in the accendance of Britain on the Sea's.