Why do the Spanish always seem to loose?

[Joe Pyrat]

I have traveled internationally quite a bit, but I don't know that I would say that that other folks have a "far better" understanding than we do. That is to make the same mistake as saying we have a better understanding. Other folks just have a different perspective. This is why I am fond of saying that there is precious little of what we think is "truth" in things like history. The "truth" of history often depends on what works best to support your opinion.

I would argue against the "better" but fully agree with the "different perspective". Everyone remembers history so it favors them.

Don't know about this black legend. After doing some research on it, it seems like a PR campaign designed to excuse the Catholic church and its Spanish client state. Everything I read hailed back to trying to excuse the Inquisition, put a good light on the conversion of the indiginous peoples, and shift the blame to the rest of Protestant Europe.

Hawkyns

If you are trying to assign blame there is plenty to go around on all sides, but keep in mind that we need to step back and look at history as dispassionately as we can, keeping in mind that our views were not the views at the time. Is the Black Legend an attempt to make the Spanish look better, most certainly, just as the original concept was designed to make them look bad. One ting you do in war is try and dehumanize your enemy. Makes killing them acceptable. This is as true now as it was then.

[Hawkyns]

Not sure there is a much more dispassionate way to look at it. The Catholic church had stated it's position to retake protestant Europe at all costs. Mary had burned heretics. The Spanish launched the Armada with the express intention of removing an anointed Queen and breaking the English monarchy. The Spanish were fighting the protestants in the Netherlands. The Pope divided the new world between the Spanish and the Portugese and declared heretic anyone who challenged that idea. In 1618, a religious war broke out that would devastate Europe as the Holy Roman Empire attempted to reinstate its sovreignty over Europe in the name of the Catholic church and the Pope. In 1688, the Catholics again tried to take over England and return it to Catholic rule.

You can call it the black legend all you like, but facts are facts and the Spanish, along with other Catholic allies, were launching expeditions and wars, solely for the purpose of reestablishing the Catholic church as master of the World. In reading the numbers of "heretics" imprisoned, tortured, and burned, the promoters of the black legend idea seriously underreport the depredations of the Inquisition. It ignores the fact that the church demanded and received a position of authority on every Spanish ship. I just don't see how it can be passed off as a PR campaign on the part of Spain's enemies.

And Patrick is right. No matter how un-PC, or who it may upset, there is no way to discuss this subject without the religious issue.

Hawkyns

[Hawkyns]

(I can't quite figure out why they were so nasty to the French who were Catholic though....)

Because the French were more interested in being a world power in and of themselves, rather than being a client state of the Vatican. Cardinal Richelieu, for example, paid protestant soldiers to fight against the Catholic Emperor because it was in France's interest to see the Holy Roman Empire kept weak and at a distance.

Hawkyns

[MarkG]

Not sure there is a much more dispassionate way to look at it. The Catholic church had stated it's position to retake protestant Europe at all costs. Mary had burned heretics. The Spanish launched the Armada with the express intention of removing an anointed Queen and breaking the English monarchy. The Spanish were fighting the protestants in the Netherlands. The Pope divided the new world between the Spanish and the Portugese and declared heretic anyone who challenged that idea. In 1618, a religious war broke out that would devastate Europe as the Holy Roman Empire attempted to reinstate its sovreignty over Europe in the name of the Catholic church and the Pope. In 1688, the Catholics again tried to take over England and return it to Catholic rule.

You can call it the black legend all you like, but facts are facts and the Spanish, along with other Catholic allies, were launching expeditions and wars, solely for the purpose of reestablishing the Catholic church as master of the World. In reading the numbers of "heretics" imprisoned, tortured, and burned, the promoters of the black legend idea seriously underreport the depredations of the Inquisition. It ignores the fact that the church demanded and received a position of authority on every Spanish ship. I just don't see how it can be passed off as a PR campaign on the part of Spain's enemies.

And Patrick is right. No matter how un-PC, or who it may upset, there is no way to discuss this subject without the religious issue.

Hawkyns

There are no saints on either side. Prior to the Armada, Elizabeth encouraged piracy against Spanish colonies. The Roanoke colony had significant support from the Sea Dogs who planned on using it as a base against the Spanish. Drake sacked Saint Augustine before the Armada. The Spanish tried to remove the anointed Queen of England. Sixty years later the Puritans did just that. Most of the other wars may have used religion as as excuse but were more about good old fashioned conquest. That's why England allied with Catholic Spain against the protestant Dutch in the Trade Wars.

The point is that, coming from an English heritage, we tend to see history as one-sided with the Spanish always being evil. If you hang out with the Irish then you find that they see England as always being the evil ones. Just Thursday I heard someone reciting an anti-King William (and Mary) poem.

Mark

[Joe Pyrat]

Well said mate.

[Fox]

There are no saints on either side. Prior to the Armada, Elizabeth encouraged piracy against Spanish colonies. The Roanoke colony had significant support from the Sea Dogs who planned on using it as a base against the Spanish. Drake sacked Saint Augustine before the Armada. The Spanish tried to remove the anointed Queen of England. Sixty years later the Puritans did just that. Most of the other wars may have used religion as as excuse but were more about good old fashioned conquest. That's why England allied with Catholic Spain against the protestant Dutch in the Trade Wars.

The point is that, coming from an English heritage, we tend to see history as one-sided with the Spanish always being evil. If you hang out with the Irish then you find that they see England as always being the evil ones. Just Thursday I heard someone reciting an anti-King William (and Mary) poem.

Mark

That'll be the Dutch William and Scottish Mary then?

I don't think conquest per se can be attributed as the sole cause (and perhaps not even the main cause) of most European wars in the 16-18thC. Religion certainly played its part in more than a few, but in the post-medieval period I think it's probably fair to say that trade was the muse of war. Often, the necessities of trade demanded conquest, but that's not the same thing as war for conquest's sake.

Also, a small correction, but worth making. The settlement of Roanoke and the raid on St. Augustine both occurred during time of declared war.

The most important point though, I suppose, is that it is the job of the historian to be dispassionate. To damn or defend is the job of journalists.

[MarkG]

That'll be the Dutch William and Scottish Mary then?

I don't think conquest per se can be attributed as the sole cause (and perhaps not even the main cause) of most European wars in the 16-18thC. Religion certainly played its part in more than a few, but in the post-medieval period I think it's probably fair to say that trade was the muse of war. Often, the necessities of trade demanded conquest, but that's not the same thing as war for conquest's sake.

Also, a small correction, but worth making. The settlement of Roanoke and the raid on St. Augustine both occurred during time of declared war.

The most important point though, I suppose, is that it is the job of the historian to be dispassionate. To damn or defend is the job of journalists.

Hostilities may have already started but the founding of Roanoke and the sacking of Saint Augustine happened well before the Spanish Armada sailed.

Piratical side note - Drake was a strong supporter of Roanoke. When he sacked Saint Augustine, he took as many windows as possible figuring that Roanoke could use them. He was expecting a sizable settlement of 300 men. When he got there he found that it was only 101 and their food was in short supply. It turned out that their main supply ship had run aground, ruining most of the food so the size of the colony was reduced.

The colony was "lost" because of the Armada. Elizabeth refused to allow any ships to leave England to resupply the colony. She wanted every ship available to fight the Armada. The next year there were rumors of a new Armada so she extended the restriction. Eventually Governor White was able to hire a privateer to make a side-trip to look in on the colony. The captain was killed when high seas overturned the ship's boat and the new captain was in too much of a hurry to hunt Spanish gold to stay to look for the colonists any longer. There were no other attempts to find the colony.

[Fox]

Hostilities may have already started but the founding of Roanoke and the sacking of Saint Augustine happened well before the Spanish Armada sailed.

Yes, but after the war began.

Am I missing the point?

[Jib]

It is interesting that the Spain-as-world-super-power can mirror some elements of what is going on with the US today. Weak economy driven/ addicted to military action in foregin countries. And some people outside of the US view it as a nation of spoiled, immoral, devils.

One note on the religious issue: Many of the reformer/ protestant faiths that condemed the Catholic Church saw the Pope as the Anti-Christ. That often made in unacceptable to practise the "old faith" at various times in Europe. Intolorance favors both sides in war of religion.

[Joe Pyrat]

Addressing the original thesis of this thread, the destruction of the Spanish Armada can't really be attributed to the British as it was Mother Nature who really did them in, just like the French fleet which left Fort Caroline to attack the Spanish at Saint Augustine in September of 1565.

Castillo de San Marcos, constructed between 1672 and 1695. When active it was white, covered with a lime mixture and the guard towers were red as was some of the trim.

According to the NPS the Castillo de San Marcos was attacked 15 times but never defeated. The largest of these attacks were the 1702 and 1740 attacks by the British. Following the 1740 attack the Spanish Governor of Saint Augustine realizing his weak spot was an inability to protect the Matanzas Inlet (about 15 nautical miles south of Saint Augustine through which Saint Augustine was resupplied during attacks) authorized the construction of Fort Matanzas, known then as the Tower at Matanzas. Fort Matanzas was constructed in 18 months immediately following the 1740 attack and during its operational life was also never defeated, firing on British (1742 when they probed the inlet in preparation for a second attack which due to the then new fort was called off), French and US ships at various times all of whom departed rather than engage due to the forts positioning and the difficulty an attack would represent.

A very interesting place, Saint Augustine... I was lucky enough to recently acquire an English translation of portions of Francisco Lopez de Mendoza Grajales' (the chaplain on Menendez's expedition) journal describing the period between August 25th and September 29th 1565 a fascinating read. I've also recently acquired a copy of The Enterprise of Florida; Pedro Menendez de Aviles and the Spanish Conquest of 1565 - 1568 by Eugene Lyon. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the early history of La Florida.

Fort Matanzas as it appears today. Like the Castillo de San Marcos, Fort Matanzas was originally white with red guard tower and trim.

[MarkG]

Hostilities may have already started but the founding of Roanoke and the sacking of Saint Augustine happened well before the Spanish Armada sailed.

Yes, but after the war began.

Am I missing the point?

It depends on when you count hostilities as beginning. It was an undeclared war. Wikipedia gives Drake's attack on Saint Augustine is given as the opening of hostilities. This site puts the start in 1587 with the raid of Cadiz and the burning of the original Armada. The BBC simply gives 1885 as the opening of hostilities. That brings us back to Drake being the opening attack. This one also names Drake's raid as the start of the war but also mentions the English aiding the Dutch against the Spanish the same year.

This puts an interesting twist on Hawkins' original point that the Spanish tried to remove the anointed ruler of England. Yes, Spain was trying to put a Catholic on the throne but it does not appear that the fired the opening shots in the war.

The Sea Hawks were engaging in acts of war and Elizabeth encouraged them. Spain wanted Drake hung for piracy but Elizabeth knighted him on his own ship. This attitude continues today. Look at the movie the Sea Hawk. Here's an English captain raiding Spanish shipping. His excuse? The Spanish stole the gold from the Indians so it is ok to steal it from them.

Mark

Edited August 26, 2009 by MarkG

[MarkG]

Addressing the original thesis of this thread, the destruction of the Spanish Armada can't really be attributed to the British as it was Mother Nature who really did them in, just like the French fleet which left Fort Caroline to attack the Spanish at Saint Augustine in September of 1565.

Technically, the Armada was defeated by the English but it was destroyed by nature. The goal of the Armada was to destroy the English fleet then to escort the actual landing force across the Channel on barges. They failed in this and took shelter at Gravelines. The English forced them out of that port by using fireships. Many Spanish ships cut their anchor lines in order to keep away from the fireships. This meant that they were without anchors when the storm took them.

BTW, Morgan used a fireship against the Spanish at Maricaibo, answering the original question - better tactics.

Mark

[Hawkyns]

This puts an interesting twist on Hawkins' original point that the Spanish tried to remove the anointed ruler of England. Yes, Spain was trying to put a Catholic on the throne but it does not appear that the fired the opening shots in the war.

Mark

Well, what do you consider the oepning of hostilities? I'd sya the Throckmorton plot and the Babbington plot would qualify. Long before Drake or anybody else started putting powder to barrels, there were multiple plots and attempts to free Mary, return her to the throne, and kill Elizabeth. Fortunately, thanks to Walsingham, they never came near to success. That doesn't mean that hostilites hadn't begun, though.

Hawkyns

[MarkG]

Well, what do you consider the oepning of hostilities? I'd sya the Throckmorton plot and the Babbington plot would qualify. Long before Drake or anybody else started putting powder to barrels, there were multiple plots and attempts to free Mary, return her to the throne, and kill Elizabeth. Fortunately, thanks to Walsingham, they never came near to success. That doesn't mean that hostilites hadn't begun, though.

Hawkyns

You are getting pretty far afield here. Yes, Spain knew about the plots and promised support to the Catholics, but the French were also involved and the plotters were native English. The Throckmorton Plot in particular involved a French invasion with Spanish financing. Your original point was that the Spanish were worse than the rest of Europe (at least I said that reports of their evil were exagerated and you disagreed). If multiple countries were involved then the Spanish were not exceptional. Elizabeth's on father engaged in this sort of plot. He and the Holy Roman Emperor were going to invade France and divide it between them with Mary and Elizabeth marrying the Hapsburgs. Then there was the successful plot to overthrow James II and replace him with his daughter and her husband (Mary and William). No Spanish in that plot.

Mark

[Commodore Swab]

Lest we forgot about the Portuguese . . .

[Fox]

This site puts the start in 1587 with the raid of Cadiz and the burning of the original Armada. The BBC simply gives 1885 as the opening of hostilities. That brings us back to Drake being the opening attack.

If Drake opened the hostilities by attacking the Armada preparations, what was the Armada preparing for?

If we're talking about the opening of hostilities, can we date it back further than San Juan de Ulua, 1569?

[Hawkyns]

Well, if we want to take it back to the real beginning, I guess we could say the Treaty of Tordessillas in 1494, when Pope Alexander VI divided the new world between the Spanish and the Portugese, and left nothing for England (or France, for that matter). The English relations with the Pope were always a bit shaky. Of course, when Henry broke with the Catholics and began the Dissolution, that really brought matters to a head. The next hundred years would bring a string of battles, raids, insults and plots. Yes, the French were involved, so were the Dutch, as the Spanish consolidated their control over the Low Countries under Philip I and Charles V.

They are all interconnected as the House of Habsburg tried to take over much of Europe under the HRE. England was never a major ally of the the HRE, and even under the few treaties, was never a very willing participant. I think trying to set a date for when hostilities began or who fired the first shot is a futile attempt. An uneasy truce was about the best you could say for the portions of the 16th century. Linking this back to the original question, the The English and the Dutch, and even the French, had societies that were not as rigid as the Spanish. In attempting to get rid of the HRE and it's yoke, they were much more willing to use unconventional tactics and not rely solely on a disconnected hereditary aristocracy to command the troops.

Hawkyns

[MarkG]

Back to the original question, there is the very modern issue of asymmetrical force. During the Golden Age of Buccaneers, Morgan and company coul pick and choose their targets. Spain didn't have that luxury. They had to defend all of their colonies, spreading their resources across the Caribbean. Morgan could mass enough people to take a major city but the Spanish had no idea where to mass their defenses. And if they did concentrate their defenses in one place, Morgan could attack elsewhere.

Later, during the Golden Age of Piracy, it was harder to raise fleets of raiders so most attacks were ship-to-ship. The Spanish tried to minimize their losses by using the Plate Fleets - convoys with warships to provide protection. This helped some but pirates would pick off stragglers. Also, a lot of Spanish shipping was on smaller merchant ships that could not afford to wait for a convoy. These had minimal crew and the owners often shorted them on cannons. Pirate crews were normally much larger and pirate ships carried as many cannons as they could get their hands on. When given a choice between almost certain death and surrendering someone else's ship, the crews most often surrendered.

On the other hand, if a ship looked too strong, then pirates wouldn't even attack. I think that someone already mentioned that.

Mark

[Jib]

So we can say that the Spanish were stretched thin over a large region and unable to keep all locations strong.

What about tactics and weaponry? I think I read that the Spanish guns on the Armada ships lacked wheeled carraiges and were difficult to aim. Of course I would guess that they had improved on the battle field with all the wars going on in Europe by the time of the Buccaneers.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Interesting point from my class; Spanish military operations were not conducted by seasoned professional troops with expeienced commanders. Those folks wanted nothing to do with the savage new world, and stayed in Europe. The people that came over to the Americas were those who were middling class (still too expensive for peasants to make the trip) that were not born into and could not become nobles, and they were unable to climb the caste ladder of the Spanish social order because of it. They were able to make more money in the Americas, and become part of the hierarchy in the New World through permission of the King and establish new Royal Cities. Anyhow, they were not the professional soldiers of spain, but more like volunteer militia forces sanctioned by the King or the established government authorities, so they would naturally not be as effective as regular forces.

The professor gave a list of arms that Cortez took with him from Cuba but I don't have my notebook handy. There were two types of cannon, some arquebusse gunnes, and I remember 36 crossbows.

Bo

Edited September 2, 2009 by Capt. Bo of the WTF co.

[MarkG]

So we can say that the Spanish were stretched thin over a large region and unable to keep all locations strong.

What about tactics and weaponry? I think I read that the Spanish guns on the Armada ships lacked wheeled carraiges and were difficult to aim. Of course I would guess that they had improved on the battle field with all the wars going on in Europe by the time of the Buccaneers.

Morgan's raid on Maricaibo is illuminating. He was originally planning on attacking Cartagena but his flagship's magazine blew up and many of his ships could not sail into the wind. As a result his force was reduced from 900 to 500. He decided that Cartagena was too powerful to attack with that force so he switched to Maricaibo. The city was reached by a river that had a fort at the narrowest point. On his way in, Morgan attacked the fort from land. The Spanish abandoned it and left a store of powder with a fuse burning, hoping to kill Morgan's force in the blast. Morgan defused the trap (personally according to some accounts) and went on to sack Maricaibo. When they went to leave the city they found that the Spanish had refortified the fort.

The fort only had enough cannons to defend one side and it took some time to move them. Morgan made a show of landing is men for a land attack and the Spanish moved their cannons to repel it. Actually, Morgan spent the day landing the same force. They would be rowed to shore then get into the water and hold onto the far side of the longboat then repeat. That night the Spanish expected an attack but Morgan's fleet raised anchor and floated past the fort.

When they got to the open ocean they found a Spanish anti-piracy fleet of three warships waiting for them. The made one of their ships into a fireship with hollowed out logs full of powder that looked like the crew. The fireship's crew used grappling hooks to fasten onto the Spanish flagship and sink it. The second Spanish ship ran aground and they took the third one.

All of this was so brilliant that Rafael Sabatini used most of it in The Adventures of Captain Blood.

Mark