History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedThe Anglo-Spanish War

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
HaloChanter View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Post Options Post Options   Quote HaloChanter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Anglo-Spanish War
    Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 14:36
This is a thread for drgonzaga and challenger2, both of whom express an interest in the Anglo-Spanish War (so as not to hijack the Franco-American thread).
 
Drgonzaga stated:
 
Sorry, Halo, that is balderdash. Simply compile a listing of events for the years 1589-1603 and you'll understand why. England had neither the economic resources nor the naval power to maintain a sustained offensive much less have an upper hand in the Atlantic. Try this on for size:
 
- Infact, it was Spain who had neither the economic resources nor the naval power to maintain an offensive against England during these years. Throughout Philip II's reign his resources were stretched repeatedly to breaking point, keeping him on the defensive from the years 1560-1580, only from the early 80's onward could Philip take the offensive, and by then he was fighting on so many fronts, having to maintain so many standing armies and navies that he was forced to bankruptcy and neither succeeded in defeating England, contain the Dutch revolt, or successfully intervene in France.
Philip's extensive imperialism severely weakened Spain's ability to fight throughout his reign.
 
All of this combined to enhance the English position while crippling the Spanish one.
 
Take for example English offensives during this period. Spain itself, the heart of Philip's imperium, was fatally weak and exposed. “There are no horses in the country,” lamented a Captain General in 1575, “not one breast plate, harquebus or pike, nor any other type of weapon, nor anyone who knows how to handle them. None of the towns has any walls or towers or gates."
Perpignan, a pivotal frontier town in Navarre, needed extensive repairs and reinforcements after a storm in 1573-4, but despite the estimates of 74,000 ducats and three years to put it in an effective state, all that was available to it by 1575 was 7,000 ducats.
 
With arsenals and garrisons depeleted, then, and frontier defences in a ruinous state - England was at a great advantage during the war. Witness the consequences. In 1585, for example, Sir Francis Drake landed in Galicia and plundered Vigo and Bayona for three weeks without being opposed. In 1587 he swooped down on Cadiz where ships for Philip’s Invincible Armada were being assembled and sacked it for two days while sinking thirty vessels - the antiquated cannon of the harbour unable to prevent the destruction. In 1589 Drake returned with an army of 13,500 men and seized Corunna, assaulted Lisbon and once again sacked Vigo on his way home. In 1596 the earl of Essex repeated the same feat in seizing Cadiz, finding the defences again inadequate, sunk a treasure fleet and held the port to ransom for two weeks.
 
Spain did not possess the abilities to effect this same kind of offensive upon England. She was both overstretched strategically and financially.
We have only to listen to contemporaries at the time: By the 1590’s the Secretary of War lamented to the duke of Medina Sidonia the “miserable state of the monarchy, for which the only remedy and hope is to fortify Gibraltar, Perpignan, Navarre and the other frontiers…and to surround Madrid with fortresses, praying to God to give us the time, and in his mercy not punish us for our sins.” That does not sound like the boast of victory.
 
England could pillage Spain's American empire, hold off Spanish invasions in home waters, freely aid the Dutch in their successful rebellion, and strike at the heart of Spanish power in Spain itself.
 
True, upon James I's accession England was broke and the armed forces were effectively dismantled, but Spain too in a similar state. Elizabeth put over 100,000 men abroad during the Anglo-Spanish Wars, raised fleets to match Spain's, dispatched far more effective expeditions and sent millions of pounds to the Dutch rebels. Relatively speaking, England's efforts and results were far more fruitful than Philip's ever was.
 
Ah-Thank you.
 
NB: For quotes, see: Thompson's 'War and Government in Habsburg Spain', Elliot's 'Imperial Spain', Parker's 'The Grand Strategy of Philip II', and Pierson's 'Philip II'.
Kind regards,

HaloChanter
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 15:45
You can add the fact that the English navy (insofar as there was one formally) had better armed, better equipped, faster and more manoeuvrable ships, and, indeed more of them specialised for fighting rather than converted merchantmen and transports.
 
For the naval side there's N.A.M.Rodger's 'Safeguard of the Sea', the first volume of his heavyweight Naval History of Britain.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 609
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 15:57
Let us start with the fact that the sources you reference are so dated and Romantic as to be on a par with the usual Black Legend and Inquisition guff! To be blunt: England was but a peripheral gadfly, far removed from the serious action. England had little position other than that of the jackal when major carnivores combat.Evil%20Smile 
 
I hope that you will not be embarrassed by the fact that the historical documents do not support your hyperbole on Drake. You mentioned the 1589 assault on Corunna, where Drake with 150 sail, 15,000 troops, and 5,000 mariners could not make headway against the Marques de Cerralbo who with but the city's garrison of just some 2,000 actually forced Drake to retreat. Matters did not go well at Lisbon either. More details as to the "fictionalizing" of history for the sake of Drake is not really worth the time, after all you claim success for the 1589 expedition which was an economic disaster and actually left Drake in royal disfavor.  If 1589 was a failure, 1595 was disaster because the only thing that had worked to Drake's advantage, surprise, was no longer available. In fact, the great fortifications that stand throughout the circum-Caribbean all date from the 1580-1600 period. By the way, Essex did not "sink" the 1596 treasure fleet at Cadiz either, the Spanish did so as to prevent the contents of the vessels from falling into English hands. Spanish salvage technology was so advanced that cargo could be easily retrieved. Essex did not "take" the city although he did damage the area in search of plunder. The English tried again in 1626 with ever worse results, to the English, naturally. We will not mention Essex's fiasco in the Azores in 1597.  Perhaps you are not up to snuff with regard to what the documents really say...
 
Paul E. J. Hammer. Myth Making: Politics, Propaganda, and the Capture of Cadiz in 1596 .  The Historical Journal  (1997), 40: 621-642 Cambridge University Press.  
 

 

 




Edited by drgonzaga - 29-Dec-2007 at 16:00
Back to Top
HaloChanter View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Post Options Post Options   Quote HaloChanter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 16:45
What nonesense - the English assaults in the 1580's and 90's shook the Spanish to their core. As I have quoted, contemporaries were disillusioned and frightened, the state of the realm was dreadful, defences and resources for the most part inadequate.
Compare the English offensive with the Spanish ones.
 
Who made more headway?
 
The Spanish could not strike effectively at England like the English could at Spain. England never went bankrupt during her offensives - Philip did, three major ones during his reign. Spain was constantly overstretched. An English ambassador noted at the time: “[Philip's] warres on land, as those in the Lowe Countries…will cost him sixe time mores than it costeth his enemies, for that before he hath raised a souldier in Spaine, and placed him in the frontiers of Artois, ready to fight against a Frenchman, it costeth him a hundreth duckets, where a French souldier will cost his king but ten.” By the late 1580's Philip's finances were in the doldrums, and his ability to remain on the offensive caused devestation to the Spanish war effort. The Atlantic Fleet alone, for example, cost Spain 3m ducats in 1597, while the Med Fleet cost over half a million, the Army of Flanders, the intervention in France and the garrisoning of Italy all millions more. Of the 10m ducats needed between 1583-5, for example, Philip could find no more than 7m. Garrisons, fleets, and armies all went underpaid and militatry efforts fell apart in thier tracks - the Army of Flanders, for example, was torn apart by mutiny and ceased as a fighting force on more than one ocassion from the 1570's onward, indeed in the years between 1565-1620 there were over 40 mutinies in that army alone.
 
I did not claim success in all of Drake's or Essex's expeditions, indeed Lisbon and the Azores were utterly fiasco's. And I agree, England was very much a peripheral power under Elizabeth, and as the early Stuarts were to show, very incapable of projecting much power beyond its own borders (and rather incapable of doing so within, much of the time). However, that is not to ignore the actual accomplishments of the English during the war, where a number of effective and rewarding actions were fought against the Spanish, highlighting their weakness at home and abroad. Both the American empire and the Spanish heartland were laid waste on more than one ocassion, something the Spanish just could not do to England.
 
To deny that is to be, well, a big spaz.
 
Edit: You've quoted a source from the 1990's, whereas a lot of my sources are editions from 2000 onward. Pot, kettle - black!


Edited by HaloChanter - 29-Dec-2007 at 16:49
Kind regards,

HaloChanter
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 17:01

It shock Spain? Yes, it did. But hardly to its core at all. British have exagerated very much the impact of those little battles with respect to the future of Spain. Spain fought Britain to stop piracy and failled. That's all. However, British mythology don't allow them to see the plain truth.

In the long term Britain succeed and Spain decline simply because the economy of Britain was more efficient and its scientists and engineers were more creative. Simple.
 
Spain wasted its resources and money fighting religious wars while its people sunk deep into poverty. Even worst, Spain had so much money once that destroyed its own manufacturing industry. What a stupidity, indeed.


Edited by pinguin - 29-Dec-2007 at 17:03
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 17:31
Good points have been made, but we must remember that both protagonists had more on their plates than they could handle, especially for their respective resources available.
 
We also cannot look upon this conflict in the absence of the participation of France and the Dutch.
 
I am glad Paul E. J. Hammer has been mentioned, as his Elizabeth's Wars etc., Palgrave (2003) has added much to the understanding of how England managed to hold on for almost 20 years against Spain/Portugal, and how the realm managed some positive strategic results.
 
Also important as it touches on England in the last years of ER's reign is Paul C. Allen's Phillip III and the Pax Hispanica etc., Yale (2000).
 
Parker, of course is the source on Phillip II's strategy.
 
As I recall, I. A. A. Thompson had it right in that the crux of all this conflict was reduced to money.  It had little to do with personalities or who was the better privateer, or how good a strategist Parma was, etc.  Spain was only able to sustain her enormous and widespread efforts by transferring costs "from the private to the public accounts."  Debt financing against future revenues, bonds, annuities, etc. supported by silver, and actually facilitated by debasement of the coinage and by bankruptcies.  Spain was too big to fail, and she could still get loans.
 
England was unable to develop public finance to such a degree until a century later.  The purses of the Queen and her nobles had to do.  Still, England did what she could with as little resources as she could get away with.  There were a lot of 4,000 man "armies" despatched to the Low Countries and France, and the navy was dependent on private resources looking to recoup investment through plunder.  Even the Dutch with their growing near monopoly on the carrying trade to and from the Baltic were stretched to the limit.  No one was able to achieve a decisive success; it became absolutely a war of attrition. 
 
And although money became the overwhelming issue, the political and strategic pressures of both England and of Spain had to be dealt with:  In England, the succession, and Ireland; in Spain, the ultimately futile attempt to disengage from northern Europe, and most importantly what happened in France.
 
The three year siege of Ostend was as decisive as anything in the war could be.  What was decisive was that none of the parties could afford it any more.  Disengagement was gradual in the Netherlands, but with France now at peace, and able to recover enough to pose a renewed future threat to Spain, Phillip III and Lerma welcomed the chance to remove England as another adversary after 19 years.  A strategy of "peace" would enable Spain to concentrate on French threats to Savoy, Italy and the Spanish road to the north.  England would dismantle her military forces because of the costs, and be less a threat.  The Dutch were willing to talk as long as they didn't give up anything...talk buys time.
 
England had already identified Ireland as her main strategic concern.  The Low Countries were important, but the Dutch could now hold their own there.  In Ireland, the threat of a Catholic power establishing itself there with a Catholic population was too much to risk.  Spain had still retained the thought of establishing a foothold in Ireland for an invasion of England or at least to attack English commerce.  All effort had to be expended in Ireland with very large forces for England's resources, and the efforts of Mountjoy in the Irish-Spanish defeat at Kinsale in early 1602.  
 
So, anyway, the English were better than we might think.  They had some good generals....Norrys, Williams, Willoughby (not bad) and Mountjoy...even Essex when he could control himself.  The sea dogs were, frankly mostly pirates, although Lord Howard was a good "CNO" type.  The ships were good; the tactics innovative, and the sailors every bit as good as Spain's.
 
In the end, the lack of resources could never be overcome, and the best that England could get out of 19 years of war with Spain was some security in Ireland, and some good propaganda.  When James VI & I came to London, the kingdom was prostrate financially, Scotland's exchequer had nothing to offer, and his succession was not a sure thing.  PEACE called.
 
England did have her independence, and the foundations of a real navy going forward.  Consolation for all that effort.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 29-Dec-2007 at 17:36
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 17:45
HaloChanter has a point in that Spain and Portugal had great difficulty in preventing sizeable raids on their own coasts, in spite of the documented failures of some of the English goals there.  This goes to the point that Spain had not the resources to adequately defend her own territory, even when it happened again and again.
 
And the English felt themselves constantly under threat from Spanish fleets operating both from Spain and potentially from Brittany.  Two subsequent "Armadas" were despatched against England, both scattered and wrecked by storms.
 
EDIT:  I must disagree with drgonzaga on HaloChanter's sources.  J. H. Elliott's work on Spanish history is still quite relevant, and his reputation is secure.  Parker (1998) is an excellent study of its subject, and Thompson is an acknowledged expert on early modern finance.
 
I don't know Pierson, but my biography of Phillip II is Henry Kamen's (1997).
 
And, amazingly, they are all good reads!
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 29-Dec-2007 at 20:28
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 473
Post Options Post Options   Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 18:19
Originally posted by HaloChanter

This is a thread for drgonzaga and challenger2, both of whom express an interest in the Anglo-Spanish War (so as not to hijack the Franco-American thread).


Good grief!  You create a thread for me then, you GCLE and PikeShot make all my arguments  for me!  I'll just get the pop corn...LOL


Edited by Challenger2 - 29-Dec-2007 at 18:19
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 20:01
Originally posted by Challenger2

Originally posted by HaloChanter

This is a thread for drgonzaga and challenger2, both of whom express an interest in the Anglo-Spanish War (so as not to hijack the Franco-American thread).


Good grief!  You create a thread for me then, you GCLE and PikeShot make all my arguments  for me!  I'll just get the pop corn...LOL
 
Oh, c'mon.  You have to disagree with something!  Smile
 
 
Back to Top
HaloChanter View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Post Options Post Options   Quote HaloChanter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 20:58
LOL! Sorry :P
Kind regards,

HaloChanter
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 609
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2007 at 22:28
Objective achieved...a balanced "accounting" jotted on the books by Pikeshot. However, Pike, poor old Professor Elliot is a tad dated but he was up to snuff in the 70s albeit still exhibiting the Britannic delusion. Now as to debt financing one might say that Philip II was ahead of his times as to how government resolves its tax-shortfalls Cool. The pledging of future revenues to off-set current expenditures sounds terribly familiar, does it not?
 
Nevertheless, I feel my point has been made: Elizabethan England while a royal pain in the decades 1567-1587 did not constitute the catalyst for Spanish decline--in fact in terms of naval strategy and military deployment it actually promoted the consolidation of military security in the Americas and reinvigorated Spanish shipbuilding [the technology was even transferred to the Americas]. Now, what is often forgotten is the financial autonomy of the various "kingdoms" that composed the patrimony of Felipe II. That the crown could commit its "royal fifth" to imperial concerns such did not mean there was a centralization of overall finances. In that respect, Felipe II very much held his own and the subsequent financial crisis of the 17th century was Europe wide and what Pike referenced came fully to the front under Felipe IV as tax rates and the costs of financing operations not only generated four bankruptcies ( 1627, 1647, 1656, and 1662) but the retention of all American specie by the crown, the sale of offices, and ultimately revolt in two disaffected kingdoms: Portugal and Aragon. The surprising fact was that the system in the Americas chugged along and continued expanding. Everyone knew where the "treasure" was and could not get to it--after all did not the English try to take Buenos Aires in Napoleon's time? The campaign in the La Plata basin was a total fiasco both at Buenos Aires and Montevideo, in the 1807 attack the English suffered 50% casualties (killed or captured) in 2 days of battle on 4 and 5 July [I must observe a rather black date on English calendars). OK folks it is now time to discuss Las Malvinas!Angel
Back to Top
HaloChanter View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Post Options Post Options   Quote HaloChanter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 08:53
Oh I fully agree. Spanish decline is not as traditional and as obvious as those who see it clearly wish it to be.
Indeed Spain was fielding some of the largest naval fleets right up to the end of the eighteenth century.
And one must question whether there was indeed ever a "rise" for there to have been a "decline". The economy of Castile was never a strong one, while the other Spanish kingdoms guarded their priveledges so fiercly that Charles V and Philip II never really managed to squeeze much out of them in the "glory days". Habsburg imperialism was always somewhat of a borrowed imperium, relying on mortgaged rents that often left to their successors a ruined realm. Only the infusion of vast amounts of treasure from the 1570's onward enabled Philip to delay the economic stagnation and even disaster inherent since Charles V's Metz campaign. The trigger was of course the general European situation prevelent by the Thirty Years War - something the massive decline in American specie could not delay as previous.
 
Nonetheless, the Army of Flanders was still operating well in to the 1640's, the Spanish Roads widened and defended - Spain was still invading France right until the end of the Thirty Years War from the Low Countries. These are hardly the accomplishments of a declined power.
 
Yet all of which is not to suggest Spain came out of the Anglo-Spanish War better. Comparing their resources, capabilities and actual power, England out performed Spain in almost all theatres, and though the rise to World Power status was delayed by the Early Stuarts, by the time of the Commonwealth English fleets were cruising in the Mediterranean, blockading Lisbon, sinking Corsaire fleets and burning their bases, extracing reparations from Italian states, striking successfully (after a set-back) Spain's Jamaican possession, defeating Spanish forces in the Low Countries at the Battle of the Dunes and storming Dunkirk, and sinking Spanish and French shipping across the world (after displacing Portuguese power in India to become the prime European player in that part of the world).
 
So if the Anglo-Spanish War did not foster England's power as it did Spain's, England was nonetheless on the way to its rise. What the Spanish War did do, however, was to signal to England that its power lay on the sea, and for the first time ever, after dismantling the war machine built by Elizabeth, James and his successors retained a standing fleet of 30 sail in times of peace - an accomplishment that, followed by Charles I's Ship Money and the legislation and reforms of the Commonwealth period (all linked to the retention of a standing fleet) laid the foundation for England's rise as a World Power by the end of the century.
 
And don't knock Elliot - one can hardly denounce his work on the Catalonian revolt of the 1640's, still by far the authority on that subject.
Kind regards,

HaloChanter
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 10:30
I agree with those comments. However, I believe there is a problem of concept there. Wars are just external events, the sympthoms of what's going on in a country.
 
If one really wants to figure it out why Spain declined and Britain succeed we should focus better to the internal dynamics of those countries rather that to some anecdotical wars.
 
Spain declined simply because it wasn't able to invest in development.
 
If we read Don Quixote, it is very obvious Spain was in deep trouble already in the 17th century! Poverty was widespread in the countryside and lack of hope was the norm. People escaped in masses to the Americas. Every complex good was imported from abroad, including England. Kids were send to be killed to never ending wars.
 
It is so pathetic, for example, that while Spain was cultivating the arts and literature of the Golden Age, it has to import French and German professors to train theirs military engineers! And while England was industrializing whool textiles, Spain was getting out of the whool business! It is also pathetic that a genious like Geronimo Ayanz, who invented the Newcomen steam machine 50 years before Newcomen, besides air conditioning, submarine gadgetry and technology for mines, couldn't put theirs inventions into work because nobody was interested!
 
The sad fact for Spain is that become a "Third World" superpower with a quick glory and a long decadence. That's the tragic destiny of Spain. It was too immature a nation to have so much money and power as she did, and didn't do well.
 
 
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
HaloChanter View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Post Options Post Options   Quote HaloChanter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 11:55
Isn't it funny that every discussion of Spain is one of its decline LOL
Kind regards,

HaloChanter
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 12:05
Originally posted by drgonzaga

Objective achieved...a balanced "accounting" jotted on the books by Pikeshot. However, Pike, poor old Professor Elliot is a tad dated but he was up to snuff in the 70s albeit still exhibiting the Britannic delusion.
One day you will realise that that kind of snide denigration only weakens your arguments. It won't get you anywhere.
  
 
Now as to debt financing one might say that Philip II was ahead of his times as to how government resolves its tax-shortfalls Cool. The pledging of future revenues to off-set current expenditures sounds terribly familiar, does it not?
 
Nevertheless, I feel my point has been made: Elizabethan England while a royal pain in the decades 1567-1587
It continued to be a pain, in spite of your view that the 1588 Armada represented a Spanish victory.
did not constitute the catalyst for Spanish decline
I don't think anyone said it did, did they? Who said it?
--in fact in terms of naval strategy and military deployment it actually promoted the consolidation of military security in the Americas and reinvigorated Spanish shipbuilding
Well, yes, it would, wouldn't it? War tends to do that, and losing ships is a great motivation to build more instead.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 12:08
 
Originally posted by pinguin

It is also pathetic that a genious like Geronimo Ayanz, who invented the Newcomen steam machine 50 years before Newcomen, besides air conditioning, submarine gadgetry and technology for mines, couldn't put theirs inventions into work because nobody was interested!
 
Pinguin, I love the way you dig up inventors everywhere. Smile I think you have the makings of a book there somewhere.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 30-Dec-2007 at 12:08
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 12:17
Originally posted by HaloChanter

Isn't it funny that every discussion of Spain is one of its decline LOL
 
Spain has just two chapters in its history. A very long rising, particularly during the seven centuries of Islamic occupation, and a very long decline. In fact, its moment of glory was just an anecdotical pause between these two stages LOL
 
Poor Spain. Even with all the crimes theirs soldiers of fortune commited in the Americas, we can't help but love her because it has been so idiotic. LOL
 
An Uruguayan writer and communists say it clearly in his melodramatic book "open veins of Latin America"
 
"Spain owned the cow but other drank the milk" LOL
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 30-Dec-2007 at 12:17
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 12:49
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by pinguin

It is also pathetic that a genious like Geronimo Ayanz, who invented the Newcomen steam machine 50 years before Newcomen, besides air conditioning, submarine gadgetry and technology for mines, couldn't put theirs inventions into work because nobody was interested!
 
Pinguin, I love the way you dig up inventors everywhere. Smile I think you have the makings of a book there somewhere.
 
 
Well, there is two reason for that. First, All my life I have been fascinated with inventors in the fields of science and technology, because I believe development and progress start in those areas. In second place, I know a bit about inventors in non-Western and non-mainstream societies because I have dig them up, looking for a reason why not many of them are known.
 
Pick any list of inventors and outstanding scientists, from the British Encyclopedia, for instance. What do you find? 99.99% of them are either Anglosaxon-Germans and Russians, or ancient Greeks. What happened with the rest? Did the rest of the world also produce genious? I found out they did.
 
In the case of Spain, the guilty of the lack of knowledge is Spain itself. Ayanz, for example, was rediscovered quite recently after many centuries of being forgotten. Other figures, like Ramon and Cajal, Monturiol and De la Cerda and Torres Quevedo are relatively well known in Spain but hardly known worldwide at all, no matter the discovery of the neuron, the modern submarine and the gearing of the helicopters and the remote control were invented by them.
 
But the fault of Ayanz being forgotten was Spain lack of interest in sciences and technology. Spain has a strong humanistic biass. So strong it has downplayed the rol of science and technology for centuries. Even today, any mediocre literature writer or poet has the right to downplay science in Latin America, for example.
 
Spain (and Latin America) scientists and engineering innovators had to fight not only against the problem they analize but against a society so much biassed against science that cut creativity (and founds). Most of Spainish and Latin America's creators have worked abroad, as far away from anti-science biggotry as they can.
 
Anyways. A biography of Ayanz is available here. It is in Spanish, though, but it is worth reading, at least for the pictures. No information exist in English about him on the web.
 
 
 
This is a reconstruction of his steam machine
 
 
 
 
With respect to my book, well, I am preparing something about Science Fiction. An essay about the visionaries that predicted the future. I hope it has some success LOL
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 609
Post Options Post Options   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 17:20

One can only wonder why there is the persistence of fracture in interpreting history as concerns Spain given the fact that all of those tales are repeatedly mirrored in all imperial states. The defense of empire bankrupted Britain no less than Spain and a hell of a lot quicker! In fact, first the French and then the Brits embarked on much the same venture, with the latter even borrowing a motto: "The sun never sets..."

Pinguin hit on an interesting point when he wrote:
It is so pathetic, for example, that while Spain was cultivating the arts and literature of the Golden Age, it has to import French and German professors to train theirs military engineers! And while England was industrializing whool textiles, Spain was getting out of the whool business! It is also pathetic that a genious like Geronimo Ayanz, who invented the Newcomen steam machine 50 years before Newcomen, besides air conditioning, submarine gadgetry and technology for mines, couldn't put theirs inventions into work because nobody was interested!
 
The thematic might be correct but the claims presented are in error. I'll explain later below, but first to a comment by gcle:
It continued to be a pain, in spite of your view that the 1588 Armada represented a Spanish victory.
Just exactly where did I make such a statement. My contention was a simple one: the brouhaha made by the English on the 1588 Armada is incorrect in terms of 16th century realities and can hardly be used as evidence of British sea power and control in the Atlantic. Yet, just in presenting the obvious a series of old chestnuts are trotted out as "evidence" to the contrary. And now back to Pinguin...
 
If we are going to discuss military engineering in the Golde Age of Spain, then we must also underscore that the standard texts on that subject were written by Spaniards, whose books were employed in both France and the Germanies: Cristobal de Rojas (1555-1614) and Bernardino de Mendoza. In addition, it was Philip II who in 1583 established in Madrid the Academy of Mathematics. The text by Rojas, Teoría y Práctica de la Fortificación (The Theory and Practice of Fortification) and that of Mendoza, Teoría y Práctica de la Guerra (Theory and Practice of War), from 1595 were all translated into German, Italian, French and English! The fact that there were French and Germans [and Italians as well]  in Spanish service is not evidence of a dearth of Spanish military engineers but a fact underscoring the multi-lingual aspect of the Spanish Habsburg Crown. After all, it was the patronage of Madrid that consolidated the family at Vienna and the wars in the Netherlands were all about the protection of the Burgundian inheritance! What struck me as strange is the continued unfamiliarity with figures such as these in view of classics such as Sir Charles Oman's History of the Art of War in the 16th Century (1937). Closer to Pinguin (and touching upon the 17th and 18th centuries) is the history of the shipyards at Valdivia and Chiloe as well as the foundry at Santiago (and the minor installations at Niebla and Corral).
 
Now the fate of Castillian domestic industries is of great interest, because one of the historical facts of the Iberian peninsula in contrast to the rest of Europe in the 16th and 17th century was the higher wage scale of labor. In contrast to France, Italy and England, the Iberian peninsula was drastically underpopulated and both rural and urban enterprise demanded wage scales disproportionate to the rest of Europe. Placing aside the phenomenon of the 18th century as concerns the Americas and properly treated in D. A. Bradings Miners and Merchants in Bourbon Mexico, 1763-1810, events in 17th century Castille were the product of the non-competitiveness of Castillian production evident by the closing decade of the 16th century. The flow of bullion did serve as the base of the grand European inflation that affected prices continent wide but in the Iberian peninsula the availability of foreign manufactures at cheaper prices than domestic production was catastrophic. Royal cedulas dealing with the phenomenon provide ample evidence just by their volume alone on topics such as just price, foreign imports, and the cheaper prices of goods brought in trade as contrasted to traditional production in textiles, silks, and ceramics! One need only look at the restriction imposed upon the Manila Trade [only one ship per year permitted] for an example. [besides if we are to speak of the urban poor and single out Spain, what of the record left by Hogarth?]
 
Not to belabour a point but Imperial Spain was much more complex than the simplicities presented here, specially in the talk of immediate decline, and not that I endorse this view point but the assessment made by Carlos Sempat Assadourían in "The Colonial Economy: The Transfer of the European System of Production to New Spain and Peru" (1994) should be read for a better perspective. In the same vein, the various essays compiled for the first volume of The Cambridge Economic History of Latin America by Victor Bulmer-Thomas, John Coatsworth, and Roberto Cortes Conde are a must read so as to dispell the notion capsulized by Pinguin's "two chapters". What does surprise me however is the absence of mention of the seminal work done by Antonio Dominguez Ortiz on just this very subject:
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio et al. La crisis del siglo XVII: La población, la economía, la sociedad. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1989. Series: Historia de España, 23.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio, ed. Estudios Americanistas. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1998.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. "Guerra económica y comercio extrangero en el reinado de Felipe IV," Hispania, 23 (1963), 71-110.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. "Juros y censos en Castilla del seiscientos: Una sociedad de rentistas," in Antonio-Miguel Bernal, ed., Dinero, moneda y crédito en la monarquía hispánica, Proceedings, Simposio Internacional, Dinero, moneda y crédito: De la Monarquía Hispánica al Integración Monetaria Europea  (Madrid, 1999). Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2000, 789-806.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. "La falsificación de moneda de plata peruana a mediados del siglo XVII," in Antonio Domínguez Ortiz, ed., Estudios americanistas. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1998, 149-166.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. "Las caudales de Indias y la política exterior de Felipe IV," in Antonio Domínguez Ortiz, ed., Estudios Americanistas. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1998, 29-116.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. "Las remesas de metales preciosos de Indias en 1621-1665," in Antonio Domínguez Ortiz, ed., Estudios Americanistas. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1998, 167-191.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. Estudios de historia económica y social de España. Granada (Spain): Universidad de Granada, 1987. Series: Biblioteca de Bolsillo, 1.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. Orto y ocaso de Sevilla. Seville: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla, 1991. Series: Biblioteca de Bolsillo, 31.
Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. Política fiscal y cambio social en la España del siglo XVII. Madrid, 1984.
 

 


Edited by drgonzaga - 30-Dec-2007 at 17:25
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Dec-2007 at 17:55
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga

 
The thematic might be correct but the claims presented are in error. I'll explain later below, but first to a comment by gcle:
It continued to be a pain, in spite of your view that the 1588 Armada represented a Spanish victory.
Just exactly where did I make such a statement.
Don't play innocent. You wrote of the 'English "defeat" of the Armada', and the use of the double quotes implied an assertion that the English did not defeat the Armada - i.e. that it was successful.
 
That of course is ridiculous.
 
You also referred to a website in support of what you said at http://wesulm.bravehost.com/history/eng_armada.htm
which is a perfectly reasonable site that discusses the defeat of what the author calls the 'English Armada' of 1589 (though it's stretching things a bit to call that an 'armada' it certainly was an English defeat).
 
However it specifically itself refers to "the defeat of the Spanish Armada of 1588", which would seem to indicate you hadn't read it very carefully.
 
However, can I now take it you are withdrawing your implication that the 1588 Armada was not defeated? You ducked the question long enough.
My contention was a simple one: the brouhaha made by the English on the 1588 Armada is incorrect in terms of 16th century realities and can hardly be used as evidence of British sea power and control in the Atlantic.
It never has been so used. It is certainly evidence of English (not 'British' at this period incidentally - or is that another piece of black American slang?) domination of the Channel and the narrow seas, which anyhow has only ever been threatened by the Dutch.
 
Imputing assertions to the other side that were never put forward, just so you can knock them down is a rather disreputable debating tactic.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.