What If - the Spanish Aramada had succeded

[BlackCat]

Al, I think that there are some minor points that you are missing. First, there were lots of brits that easily could have been swayed to support a catholic rule, so there would not be a widespread uprising. Second, the scots wasn't that happy with Elizabeth (something about a beheaded woman).

Third, we are talking about a 55.000 men large 16'eth century army that can be set at land almost anywhere without british interference. Don't compare with modern tim warfare. The british army may be ready, but will most probably don't be where they make landfall. Fourth, yeah, spain may have trouble with the dutch, but they apparently felt confident enough to redirect 30.000 men to the invasion - after all, a succesful invasion would make life much easier against the dutch.

[Al B. Sure!]

Al, I think that there are some minor points that you are missing. First, there were lots of brits that easily could have been swayed to support a catholic rule, so there would not be a widespread uprising. Second, the scots wasn't that happy with Elizabeth (something about a beheaded woman).

Third, we are talking about a 55.000 men large 16'eth century army that can be set at land almost anywhere without british interference. Don't compare with modern tim warfare. The british army may be ready, but will most probably don't be where they make landfall. Fourth, yeah, spain may have trouble with the dutch, but they apparently felt confident enough to redirect 30.000 men to the invasion - after all, a succesful invasion would make life much easier against the dutch.

The Spanish could not transport a sizable army from Flanders to England. The Duke of Parma's invasion was flawed on many levels. The plan was to transport the army across the channel on barges. The waters off the Flemish coast were too shallow for the Armada, however, to approach within 12 miles of the Flemish coast to screen the barges. That meant Dutch flyboats could devastate the defenseless barges for miles worth of sea. Then you're talking harassment by both the English and the Dutch of the supply lines from Flanders to England.

Furthermore, the nonexistence of Irish support for the Spanish that landed in Ireland tells you how much sharing the same faith with the Spanish mattered.

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't see the Spanish succeeding period. Even if they somehow managed to land in England which doesn't seem possible, subduing all of England was an impossibility.

A more interesting and possible "What If" scenario would be had the Spanish devoted so much attention and resources in subduing the Dutch and successfully crushed the nascent Netherlands, how would history have been different?

[Ben Kenobi]

Mike G:

Angevin Empire, anyone?

[BlackCat]

Mike G:

Angevin Empire, anyone?

First, You probably mean MikeH

Second, the Kalmar union was larger and lasted longer.

[Al B. Sure!]

Mike G:

Angevin Empire, anyone?

Wasn't even English. It was French, if anything.

[BlackCat]

Wasn't even English. It was French, if anything.

Al, national identity wasn't invented at that time, so there aren't any difference between french and english.

[BlackCat]

Wasn't even English. It was French, if anything.

Actually, the North Sea Impire was probably also larger, but who really care - it was some 300 years before this "What If".

[Al B. Sure!]

Al, national identity wasn't invented at that time, so there aren't any difference between french and english.

Umm... yes, there were. English, as in the common people who lived in England, were very different from French, and from their French overlords. For one, they spoke an entirely different language, which the Angevin kings (with the possible exception of John) didn't bother to learn. Culturally, they were very distinct, as well. England had been a united kingdom since Athelstan in the early 10th century, united primarily because of the threat of Danish invasion.

The Angevin 'empire', if you can call it that, was ruled by a French-ethnic King (from the house of Anjou, in NW France) who ruled from his court in Angers (in NW France) NOT in London. Its rulers were French. Its orientation was French. I think I've read that Richard the Lionheart didn't even step foot in England during his reign except to be crowned king. (He was born in England, though, and may have grown up in England but still didn't know English)


Seriously, BlackCat, your reference to Martin Luther in your opening post says a whole lot about your knowledge of history.

[C0ckney]

i'd like to thank al b sure for saying verbosely in four posts what i managed to say first in one.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

The English and the French are very similar. They drink too much, are always on strike, and are arrogant. Main difference is that the French eat baguettes rather than normal bread, which for some reason smells like armpit sweat.

By the way, the European elite (FYI that includes the British isles...) spoke French for centuries, at least up until the late 1800's.

[Al B. Sure!]

By the way, the European elite (FYI that includes the British isles...) spoke French for centuries, at least up until the late 1800's.

Who was it here who was arguing with me that French had ceased being a lingua Franca after the defeat of Napoleon?

[Barnabas]

Dude, are you serious? Thirty Years War? The Schmalkaldic Wars? The French Wars of Religion?

From the start of the Protestant Reformation to about 1648 (the end of the Thirty Years War), there was incredible amounts of bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants. Basically all of Europe was gripped by religious wars. The differences between Catholics and Protestants were enough that they were killing over them for over a century.

I agree with all that, what I mean is that England would have become a great power with colonies even if it had remained Catholic, that Catholicism was not an impediment for England.

Albie, two more things

At that time, England had more or less half the population of Spain, and the Spanish armies were pretty much undefeated for over a century. from the 1520s to the 1640s when France begun to get the upper hand in the battles.

The invasion would have been something like a Coup d'état, they would have executed a lot of protestant nobles and priests, and put the english catholic faction, which was still quite large, in power, the monarch would have been someone like the Duke of Norfolk.

The Spanish did not mean to turn England into a Colony, making it a Catholic country again, getting the English to stop the Piracy in the caribbean, and getting the English to help the Spaniards in the Netherlands (or at least to do nothing instead of helping the prostestant Dutch) would have been the objectives and they would have felt satisfied with that.

[Barnabas]

In Argentina till the 70s educated people spoke French and not English.

[Al B. Sure!]

I agree with all that, what I mean is that England would have become a great power with colonies even if it had remained Catholic, that Catholicism was not an impediment for England and that getting rid of it is what allowed England to become a great power.

Albie, two more things

At that time, England had more or less half the population of Spain, and the Spanish armies were pretty much undefeated for over a century. from the 1520s to the 1640s when France begun to get the upper hand in the battles.

The invasion would have been something like a Coup d'état, they would have executed a lot of protestant nobles and priests, and put the english catholic faction, which was still quite large, in power, the monarch would have been someone like the Duke of Norfolk.

The Spanish did not mean to turn England into a Colony, making it a Catholic country again, getting the English to stop the Piracy in the caribbean, and getting the English to help the Spaniards in the Netherlands (or at least to do nothing instead of helping the prostestant Dutch) would have been the objectives and they would have felt satisfied with that.

Spain's position was far weaker than it looked. The Spanish government was bankrupt, had absurd amounts of inflation, and financing wars during Philip II's reign would result in another bankruptcy. The Dutch revolt was extremely problematic, especially as it denied the Spanish crown the main source of tax revenue, and the superior Spanish armies couldn't subjugate the Netherlands. Meanwhile, while the Armada was sailing, Philip had armies in France fighting Henri IV during the French Religious Wars.

It should be noted that the Spanish Armada of 1588 wasn't the only Armada Spain sent to England. Two other fleets were sent in the late 1590's and then an invasion of Ireland took place in 1601 which was defeated by the English.

This wasn't some one-off event. Four planned invasions were thwarted. I don't think an invasion of England by the Spanish was even possible, at least not, as conceived by the Spanish.