[MB.]

I would not disagree that the armada campaign represents a watershed moment in English naval history.

I didn't know you also studied naval history academically!

[Oxymoron]

I didn't know you also studied naval history academically!

Well I dont study Naval history exclusively, but history in general. I am in the process of getting a BA in History.

[MB.]

Nice! That's a serious endeavor, and I hope you graduate soon. You should consider naval history, if you are interested, more specifically.

Try to stick with the topic from here guys - SD

[dugfromthearth]

the UK won because

1) they had more ships
2) they had faster ships
3) they had more maneuverable ships
4) they had better guns
5) they were able to reload their guns in battle
6) they had better sailors
7) they had the wind-gauge

The Spanish had nothing going for them in the battle. It was a last defiant gesture of a crumbling power hoping to snatch victory with a massive gamble before naval power turned forever to the British.

[MB.]

It was a last defiant gesture of a crumbling power hoping to snatch victory with a massive gamble before naval power turned forever to the British.

I couldn't disagree more. Your statement here reeks of teleology, and is fundamentally wrong.

[Oxymoron]

1) they had more ships

False.

2) they had faster ships

Yes, which had little to do with their victory.

3) they had more maneuverable ships

Which had little to do with the victory.

4) they had better guns

Ok, which had little to do with the victory

5) they were able to reload their guns in battle

And the spanish couldnt?

6) they had better sailors

Had little to do with anything.

7) they had the wind-gauge

Explain please.

[MB.]

He meant the weather-gauge, meaning, the ability to approach from the windward and attack with favourable maneuverability.

This term doesn't really mean anything, especially in the context of the Armada campaign, since the battles took place on different days and with varying weather conditions which did not always favour the English.

[pugsville]

I think the whole spanish approach was flawed. They over estimated their strategic capabilities. They had some vague nebolous paln to sail up to the english channel defeat the english fleet , invade, war over. three problems, (a) that they had the ability to force the english into a single (or quick sucession of encounters) leading to complete naval dominiance, they might have done better but generally I think the English could have retreated into various ports if they were getting the worst of it (b) lacked the organizational ability to co-ordinate and actualy land a significant force in england, projecting amphious forces at long distance against a large hostile even if not that martiallity orgganizsed but advanced population was pretty unfeasible (c) the English just would not have rolled over after a couple of battles and said Ok you win. I think dont defeating this english navy or that english army would have been enough.

The English had already developed a pretty useful way of operating on the sea, and the coming Royal Navy dominace of the worlds seas was already in motion, I think overall the Amanda episode is overated as a historically majorly significant event, a useful signpost of the way of things but not significat in shaping them so much.
]

[Oxymoron]

I think that is a very good analysis.

[Thunderhawk]

Drakes unanswered attacks prior to the Armada launching.

As I understand it, his cadiz raid and interception of supplies devestated Spanish barrel supplies and the Spanish were forced to use greener inappropriate wood for barrel productiond, which didnt keep well and caused spoiling of the food stuffs. The spoiled food stuffs resulted in the crew of the armada being ill and not as effective in combat.

Yes/no?