I seem to remember hearing some time ago that there was government appointee whose sole assignment was to watch for the Armada. The position was not officially eliminated until well into the 20th century. Is this a muddled memory or was there actually such a position?
This is exactly the kind of content that I subscribe for, as it provides me with history that I would likely never have been exposed to otherwise. Thank you so much for bringing us guests such as this to fill in the gaps of historical knowledge. This is an excellent addition to the two videos on the Armada. Well done and many thanks, sir.
Agreed, this is one of the best channels out there for actually learning about naval (and other) history. I'm always looking forward to the next video.
As someone from Poland who's understanding of the Armada just 3 weeks ago was: Spanish had ships with short range guns and wanted to board, English had long range guns, guns win cause Spaniards couldn't close in, thank you from the bottom of my heart for this series, it's so interesting and so enlightening!
Wow. As you've said Drach, we don't get taught this. Zeeland and Antwerp weren't even on my radar with the Armada before this great video. It also explains the Treaty of London of 1839 and why we cared about the independence of Belgium in 1914.
The Treaty of London 1839 was itself the guarantee - it's why the British joined WWI in 1914 after the German Empire (the successor to the signatory state of Prussia) violated Belgium's borders as part of the Schlieffen Plan.
First, I cannot find any English translation of the Treaty of London of 1839 where any guarantee is made to Belgium, only that it requires Belgium to remain neutral. Second, even if there were it is not why Britain went to war. At best it was an excuse to join a war they wanted to be involved in. Britain wanted to go to war, to aide in a victory for the Franco-Russian alliance and to knock the growing German power down a peg or two was why Britain went to war in 1914.
The story of AngloDutch relations is far deeper than people think, I can't believe how underrated and unknown Francis de Vere is for example for what he achieved
Knowing his actions at Nieuwpoort, he should be just as well known as Drake. His obscurity might stem from the fact that he later fell from grace in the republic due to a fake surrender at the long siege of Oostende. Nevertheless, his brother Horace continued to serve the republic, and the new model army was directly based on the states army.
For anyone interested in how all of this fitted into the eighty years war in more detail, as well as the war itself, I can highly recommend defragged history's series on this subject.
I agree, but Drach has to keep a world wide audience happy. So the next extended series will probably be in the Mediterranean, Pacific or something the Yanks did.
@@Dave_Sisson well, the Anglo-Dutch Wars had some pretty big implications for the rest of the world as well, like the Dutch giving up New Amsterdam and gaining a foothold in South America, which as far as influence goes one can argue still exists. But we'll see what he has in store for us!
Dutchy here, (irrelevant) we never destroyed each other nor had a total war. Because deep inside, we were and still are, intellectual partners of free market and thought. We needed each other more than we had differences over which we fought. I love these English knubs.
This has been a great series. Thank you for the effort. That is an interesting point regarding successful invasions of England through History. Except for William of Normandy's invasion in 1066 all the other SUCCESSFUL invasions landed everywhere other than Southeast England. Also no successful invasion ever landed in Kent: The Angles and Saxons invaded primarily East Anglia; the Vikings hit Northumbria and Yorkshire; William of Normandy lands at Pevensey Bay (Sussex) then has to march West to cross the Thames; Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) lands at Ravenspur, Yorkshire to overthrow Richard II; Richard Neville Earl of Warwick landed at Dartmouth, Devon and successfully restored Henry VI to the throne from Edward IV Edward IV copied Henry VI's grandfather's plan and landed at Ravenspur Yorkshire to reclaim the throne Henry Tudor (Later Henry VII) landed at Mill Bay, Pembrokshire (South Wales) to go on and defeat Richard III at Bosworth; and finally William of Orange (William III) landed at Torbay, Devon. It would seem that neither Revolutionary France, Napoleon or Adolf thought to study these previous successes and wonder why no one landed at the closest point at Kent. I hope you one day do the 3 Anglo Dutch Wars and go in detail about the "embarrassment at Medway".
The first landings by Caesar in 54 and 55BC were in the Pegwell Bay are of north Kent. The successful Claudian invasion in AD 43 I believe was in the area of Lympne, Kent (Portus Lemanis) but that is disputed I think.
@@danielpankhurst3195 I decided not to include the Romans (and Julius Caesar did not conquer Britannia so it doesn't count as a success anyway). However Claudius' conquest of Britannia did start from Bolougne and MAY have landed in Kent although that is under debate by Historians who also think that the area around Portsmouth and the Solent River was also a likely landing point. Maybe he did both which puts him in both camps.
@@Chewiebakke Julius Casar landed in Kent but didn't conquer Britain. Claudius invasion in 43 AD did succeed but Historians arent sure whether he landed in Kent or in Hampshire around Portsmouth (or both) so I suppose his invasion, as it did succeed, could be put in both camps.
27:05 One interesting aspect here is that while the Flemish coast does have a ton of sandbanks and shallow water in front of it it also has a number of deep trenches running in-between them. A captain that knew how to navigate them would've been able to sail even the bigger ships of the time almost straight up to the beach. The main problem was that the foreign captains involved didn't have a clue of how to do that, and the place they ended up at (Gravelines) was one of the spots where the deep water was much further out. In fact Gravelines can hardly be called a port to begin with, it's located several kilometers behind the dunes and is only connected to the sea with a small manmade canal/redirected river.
The problem there is that you needed to have up to date knowledge of where those channels were. The currents keep moving those sandbanks which is why Brugge lost its position as a major port. These day the channels are buoyed, of course, and dredged to keep them open, but in 1588 that wasn’t the case
@@frankteunissen6118 Brugge lost its position as a trade port because its connection to the sea silted up, to the point it literally didn't have a port anymore and became landlocked. And these sandbanks in front of the coast don't shift, there are very detailed depth charts of the 19th century and they're still in effectively the exact same place to this day. It's inside of the Schelde estuary where shifting sand banks were a problem for foreign sailors.
@@asuka7309 yeah, those 19th century charts are still good. You’ve heard of dredging, have you? And Het Zwin (you might want to Google that) silting up is exactly one of the things that is associated with wandering sandbanks. /smh
@@frankteunissen6118 You are not seriously arguing that we're artificially keeping our sandbanks in the position of an 1866 map through dredging. If they wandered they wouldn't even have been in the position of the 1866 chart I am referring to by the time large-scale dredging operations began in this country lmao. And no, the silting of het Zwin had fuck all to do with sandbanks. That's just the tides depositing sand in an inlet that had no outflowing water to flush it back out. Got to love it when people on the internet are confidently incorrect and then start grasping at straws to defend their claims.
This is excellent content. On their own, the Spanish Armada videos did bring a lot of context, but this absoultely brings it in on a much larger scale. Strategic decisions that turned out to be crucial, knowing where the weaknesses were. In terms of land based warfare. Much thank you to Paul Leyland for your insightful commentary. One thing that gnaws on me - and please correct me if I'm wrong: In WWII, in a weird twist of not learning from history, when breaking out of Normandy the allies overlooked the importance of Walcheren when trying to secure Antwerp. The ONLY deep sea water port within range, leading having to resort to the famed Red Ball Express.
Yes. This. And Monty in his hybris wanting to paradrop into Arnhem in september 1944 while the port of Antwerp couldn't be used until november/december....Even if Market Garden would have succeeded, it would have been a logistical nightmare for the allies.
No offense, but I like listening to your channel as a late night go to sleep activity. I feel like I learn through osmosis lol. Then I wake up and re-listen. I like the two part armada series!
This is brilliant, as most military history concentrates on how many pointy sticks one set of forces put in the other, without understanding the geopolitical forces behind how the two forces got there and how they afforded the pointy sticks. For the Tudor English ascendancy (where the English had minimal resources compared to the forces they faced) it's critical to understanding how they got away with really winding up ostensibly much more powerful forces.
The English have the island. In 1588 Spain was invading Germany. In 1589, Drake's Invincible Fleet was destroyed, losing 80 ships. Elisabeth was so angry that she condemned Drake to be a lighthouse keeper. In 1590 Spain invades Paris, forcing the king of France to accept Catholicism as the official religion. It was in the Tudor era when the Spanish fleet of the Duke of Alba transported Philip II to England, to become king, marrying Mary Tudor, half-Spanish queen of England. If they had had a child. Spain sent another 3 invasion fleets to England in 1596, 1597 and 1718, each with more than 100 ships. All three were stopped due to storms. A sunny day... Between island, abortions and storms... The English would have to put 3 monuments to that in Trafalgar Square. Again in 1779-81, the Spanish fleet made a naval blockade of England, capturing two British fleets of 24 and 55 ships, which sank the London Stock Exchange. The idea was to invade England, but the French allies were not so convinced of being able to support the invasion with infantry, artillery, cavalry...
I am sold already. I suppose I am a revisionist and iconoclast by inclination. Good to see our British/English national myths put into context under the microscope with the benefit of hindsight. Lovely to get to hear from Paul - someone I think I might just be following from now on.
As Prof. Mattingly pointed out in his1959 book on the Armada, someone should have told King Philip II "Look, Your Majesty, as the whole aim of the Armada is to join Parma's army and convey it to England, and as the ships of the Armada draw more water than you'll find anywhere Parma can get his troops, why not stop now?"
Most informative and completes the explanation of several key things that had always worried or confused me. To the examples you used add Malta, Cyprus, Aden, Oman, British occupation of the Balearics, Corsica & Sardinia at various times
In the Europa Universalis game which is global. I add Muaritus, and several other sets of Islands - that often includes 1 of the Cannariers or Azores (I usually can't get both), Cape Verde Islands to. This gives agreat chain to hope from to reduce the vile risks of long sea voyages and storms. This also helps explain St Helena and Tristran de Cunha. Very useful intermidiate points. Look up the photos of the fotifications on St Helena - truely impressive
I got about 20 minutes in and I suddenly realized that I was not paying close attention. This is good stuff. A very detailed bit of history. I am going to back up about 13 minutes and put on my headphones. Really top notch.
Thanks for this. You do a wonderful job of filling in gaps in my love of naval history. I think we spent a grand total of 15 minutes (if that) on the Armada in my history classes. And nothing on the other aspects of it. I'm constantly looking forward to your new vids and working my way through the existing ones. Well done.
Wow! Fantastic discussion, show us so many facets that for most were likely unknown. BTW, this is the kind of strategic level discussions I was talking about in my submissions on Patreon about an interview with rar adm. Chris Parry. Thank you @Drachinifel
I am not sure why this would be so controversial. I suppose it can be argued that it lowers the stakes that the English navy were fighting for. But the Armada was still sent straggling back home with its tail between its legs, with something approaching 50% losses. It doesn’t reduce the valor of victor or vanquished (aside from that small matter of the disappearing 26k gold pieces). But there have certainly been other situations in history where the strategic control of land have impacted the ability to control the sea.
Well, in 1588 Spain was invading Germany. England is an island. Spain defeated Drake's invincible fleet in 1589, sinking 80 ships. Elisabeth condemned Drake to be a lighthouse keeper. When she forgives Drake, he loses 5 battles in the Caribbean and dies. Spain invades Paris in 1590, forcing the king of France to accept the Catholic religion as the official religion. Spain sent another 3 invasion fleets to the British Isles in 1596, 1597, 1718. All three were stopped by storms, with the Royal Navy completely lost as to the location of the Spanish ships. In 1597 and 1718, 500 and 600 Spaniards landed on the English coast, causing a little chaos there. Spain made a naval blockade of England in 1779-81, capturing 2 British fleets of 24 and 55 ships (including 39 frigates). That sank the London stock market. The objective was to invade England, but in the 18th century, such an amphibious invasion was very complicated, and the French advised against the invasion, because they could not transport support troops of infantry, artillery and cavalry.
And I think you have to give Howard a lot of credit for his handling of the fleet and learning from the early engagements; not to mention stopping his subordinate commanders from killing each other!
Drach looking like a distinguished gentleman, I like to imagine that this is in-fact his house which has been filled with so many relics and books that it has simply become labelled 'The national maritime museum'.
For completely ridiculous reasons I've been binge watching Defragged History's series on the 70 years war. The Dutch and Belgian ports can be pretty useless if you only control the port and not the river to the sea. I think your guest makes a very strong argument for Zeeland's control of port access, scuppering the invasion part of the armada. I may need to take a deep dive into Mahan and see what his analysis of the Armada looks like. I was also very amused by your statement to the effect that Smashing Suffolk is only a way to indicate that you are mad at London. Thanks for a great Friday episode.
Failure to control the Scheldt Estuary reared its head in September 1944 when Montgomery failed to clear the estuary of German troops rendering the capture of Antwerp moot.
A brilliant historical description of the run up to the Armada. The power politics of the period are fascinating. Thank you for giving us great insight in such a concise package.
Often from those fleets' own choice. They figured it was better to fight from a picked defensive position than to risk an open-water battle with the RN.
7 minutes in: Dear Drach. I absolutely loved the way you used the models and charts in part 1-2! A HUGE Benefit. Smashing three programs! Absolutely stellar semi-introduction. Furthermore: The English supporting the Spanish to fight the French, supporting the hugenots to fight the French Catholics and crown, supporting the Dutch Calvinists to fight the Spanish? Am I the only one hearing Sir Humpfrey Appleby explaining Britain's European policy to Minister Hacker?x
Remember, anglicanism was not Calvinism. Eliz had real problems with extremist protestants coming back from Europe pushing the English settlement further towards the "reformed" end of the spectrum, which didn't respect the Anglican arrangement.
And if the Canadians had just kept driving, or Montgomery had told them to keep driving, they had absolutely nothing in their way for several days. The Germans escaped to Walcheren Island starting several days after Antwerp was captured.
Ties in with the very common misconceptions about "Port Cities" is that they must be coastal, where more than a few are indeed actually many kilometers/miles up large rivers, bays, and/or estuaries. Thus, controlling the port requires controlling a large amount of land between the port and the sea.
The pattern for dominate cities is that they are most often located on large rivers in the area where ocean going ships cannot go any further inland. This is where inland traffic needs to go onto ships and where incoming traffic needs to off load. The N. American coast was a problem for ports as there are no rivers that reach very far into the interior except for at Chesapeake and the Hudson at New York.Neither place is prime as the rivers all narrow quickly as they leave the coast but at least they provide good anchorage. This was why the Erie Canal and the Potomac Canal were among the first built. Without the Erie Canal and the rise of Rail transport the Saint Lawrence and Great Lakes would have been of greater significance. Canada's loss. @@genericpersonx333
At 5:04 Paul Leyland is cutting corners, I'm afraid. On 1 April 1572 (so not in March) the Sea Beggars did indeed capture Brielle, which is located in Holland on the combined Rhine/Maas estuary. On 6 April, Vlissingen (Flushing) followed, and this town is located on the Scheldt estuary, as well as the island of Walcheren, Zeeland. Roughly the same area, but, depending on the exact route, there are/were still two or three islands inbetween. The way Paul tells it, the two seem almost merged. The dates are easy to remember for us Dutch, as we still have little rhymes commemorating the events: "Op een april verloor Alva zijn bril" and "Op april zes verloor Alva zijn fles", literally: "On 1 April, Alva lost his glasses", and "On April 6, Alva lost his bottle". By the way, there is a very thorough 20-episode series on the Eighty Years' War on the channel Defragged History, each episode just over an hour long, which goes in-depth on the causes for the Dutch Revolt (which turned into the Eighty Years' War), the Sea Beggars, and their exploits. One of very few channels narrated about as well as Drach's that I know of.
A little note on the occupation of walcheren or zeeland Many of the english troops died of the Zeelandic fever. A form of malaria . Zeeland fever The Zeeland fevers were a moderate form of malaria that occurred on Walcheren and in many cases proved fatal in combination with contagious infectious diseases. Of the 40,000 English soldiers who invaded Zeeland in 1809 during the Walcheren expedition to attack Napoleon Bonaparte in the back and threaten strategic Antwerp, 13,000 fell through this disease within a few weeks. That is why the Grote Kerk of Veere was arranged as a lazaret as much as possible. That same year, 1809, the English troops withdrew. They had not been defeated by the French, but by the mosquitoes. In the Grote Kerk of Veere, 1427 men died in nine months. It is estimated that 4,000 men among the English troops died from the effects of the Zeeland fever. Fewer than 50 English men died in combat.
It was typhus and typhoid that did the killing rather than Zeeland malaria in 1809 - which was debilitating and aggravating but rarely fatal on its own - 40,000 men living in their own faeces with inadequate fresh water was a recipe for an epidemic - tellingly only 3% of the officers died, which shows it was more about living conditions than airborne disease This was nowhere near as bad in 1585 because the English troops were always cycling through Walcheren and there were far fewer of them - a lot less fatal mass living in poo going on It was rumoured that the Earl of Leicester, the English Commander, died of malaria in September 1588 though - which would have been from Zeeland - but cancer is a more likely cause of death, with malaria just an aggravating factor / unpleasant addition
@@inventingvictory Same with Many spanish troops and commanders that died of zeeland fever . As the combination of this disease and of other infectious diseases. Is lethal . Most of the dutch and belgian country side was swamp land in those days. And nordic malaria is much deadlier than the tropical malaria types.
Really a great and exceptional video that re-frames and re-includes some strategic depth into several subjects - and incidentally questions a certain historiography, based on the most recent assumptions (and mentions the actual outcome of the Armada fighting, i.e. a tactical draw including after Gravelines, which leads to a Spanish operational and strategic defeat). The most interesting part is the articulation between land and naval issues, both on the Flanders coast and in England itself - I had never heard, in an Armada documentary, a discussion of the questionable likelihood of success of a Spanish invasion after landing, all sources (especially naval historians, but also historians more focused on monographies) seem to implicitly assume that had the Spanish landed, the English would have been done for...
Excellent video, thanks. It is unfortunate that military historians tend to align themselves along either Army or Navy focus. Almost all military operations were some mixture or hybrid of the two.The Army is doing something because of the Navy and the Navy is doing something because of the Army. When viewed in isolation, conclusions are often skewed. Thanks for always bringing a balanced presentation.
"The English counter-armada of 1589 didn't really end that well". That's got to be the understatement of the year. A disaster so complete that the leaders had to lie to the Queen about how it went and it become a crime to speak or write about it. Somewhere north of 15,000 of the 23,000 perished.
Fascinating! I had to watch it twice over, one right after the other, and consult some maps of world history as well to absorb even half of the information presented! Great job! Thank you.
It almost seems like we're developing a legend here of "southern England can't be successfully invaded because...hills...and Thames...and stuff" kind of on par with stuff like "supership Bismarck". Obviously there are going to be difficulties for any foreign army invading an enemy homeland, particularly when that homeland is an island. But considering the vastly superior fighting quality of Parma's army compared to anything the English could have mustered at that time...I have a really hard time believing that Parma getting most or all of his force ashore could just been "handled". At the very least, I could see the Spanish army forcing major concessions in exchange for a withdrawal, along the lines of one of the scenarios Phillip II had envisioned.
It's not impregnable, but the terrain allows for huge defensive multipliers, hence why most armies tend to avoid the area. Air power, indirect artillery and amphibious vehicles lessen this but don't eliminate it.
Agreed. I think the other point is that England wasn't that protestant at the early part of Eliz I's reign. The Articles of Association show the lack of certainty that the county establishment would back the crown and resort to private networks.
Well done, this is turning out to be a tremendous series. The legend of the Armada as powerful a story as it is, it’s just that a good tale. As good tales do they are built around a kernel of truth at the expense of the real lesson. Plucky little England running rings around the giant Spanish Armada is a great story if triumph against the odds. Not to mention a seminal moment in world history. The history of the small volunteer force sitting tight and preemptively bottling up the Spanish in Antwerp doesn’t neatly fit the heroic tale. All that aside we forget the clever minds who laid the groundwork of victory at our own peril. Those who strategically deploying their inferior resources to deny the enemy a chance for victory before battle commenced. The greatest victories are those that don’t require massive bloodshed, though perhaps not the ones every kid wants to hear about growing up.
Around this historical fact, UK has built its own patriotic Disneyland with approximately the same historical rigor as the original that we can enjoy near Paris. In any case, an amphibious operation on this scale at that time, even being able to avoid the randomness of the storms, resulted in tremendous military and logistical difficulty. As the English themselves were able to see firsthand the following year.
Well, as the Netherlands are famous for their shoal waters & lee shore, it seems pretty obvious. That fellow Lord Lumey, who led the Sea Beggars, is in our Van Demark family tree. (history is fun!)
Admiral Lumey also known as Willem II van der Marck . was lets we say a bit more brutal and vengefull than ordinary sailors captains or admirals. He could or would have been the leader of the dutch republic as he was stadholder of Holland and zeeland. William II de La Marck William II van der Marck Lumey Capture of Brielle, 1 April 1572 (Frans Hogenberg) William II de la Marck (Lummen, 1542 - Bishopric of Liège, 1 May 1578) (Dutch: Willem II van der Marck) was the Dutch Lord of Lumey and initially admiral of the Watergeuzen, the so-called 'sea beggars' who fought in the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648), together with among others William the Silent, Prince of Orange-Nassau. He was the great-grandson of an equally notorious character, baron William de la Marck, nicknamed the "wild boar of the Ardennes". On 1 April 1572 - the day of the Capture of Brielle - the Sea Beggars were led by De la Marck, and by two of his captains, Willem Bloys van Treslong and Lenaert Jansz de Graeff.[1] After they were expelled from England by Elizabeth I, they needed a place to shelter their 25 ships.[2] As they sailed towards Brill, they were surprised to find out that the Spanish garrison had left in order to deal with trouble in Utrecht. On the evening of 1 April, the 600 men sacked the undefended port.[3] A Calvinist, who opposed Catholicism, on 9 July 1572 he had executed the Martyrs of Gorkum, 19 Dutch Catholic priests and religious who were ultimately canonized in 1865. Their crime was their refusal to abandon their belief in the Blessed Sacrament and in papal supremacy, even under torture. Lumey's action was contrary to orders he received from William the Silent.[4] He also played a part in the murder of Cornelis Musius. Having conquered South-Holland and controlling North-Holland and Zeeland, on 20 June 1572 Lumey was appointed stadtholder of Holland and consequently Captain General, i.e. military Commander in Chief of the conquered territories. It has never been evidenced that Lumey recognized either the authority or the seniority of the Prince of Orange, who was eventually recognized as the leader of the Low Countries' uprising against the King Philip II of Spain. In 1576 Lumey was banned from the Netherlands, either by the States of Holland or the Prince of Orange. He is said to have participated in the lost Battle of Gembloux against the Spanish. He went back to his homeland, the Bishopric of Liège, where on 1 May 1578 he died in his residence on Mont-Saint-Martin. There are two different accounts offered for the circumstances of his death, one that he died of the bite of a mad dog or that he was poisoned while in prison.[5] There is evidence that the earthly remains of William van der Marck are stowed away in a casket, that is bricked up in the Arenberg-family crypt under the former Capuchin Monastery Church at Enghien, today located in Belgium
Very interesting. The strategic background as described here makes the muster at Tilbury much more rational than navalist historians adjudge it to have been.
Great video as usual! I wish you would consider doing a series on the Anglo-Dutch Wars. These are some of the most tactically interesting battles of the age of sail, and yet there is very little about them on You Tube (and not a great deal in print in English).
*_THANK YOU!!!!!_* That was fascinating. From WWII - I was aware of the value of the Scheldt Estuary but not in a Historical Sense. One of the things about European History is that you've been killing each other over there for thousands of years and over the same ground time and again. Here - this points out how much emphasis the British placed on the holding of these areas - and why the Germans were such fools as to implement the Schlieffen Plan. Of course - reversing the Schlieffen Plan - illustrates why Monty wanted the Northern Flank so he'd be advancing over all that flat terrain - and - could take Antwerp and the Scheldt and then of course there would be Market Garden. Seeing all these things in their Historical Contexts is fascinating. I liked the comment about the taking of small bits of land for their strategic value. One of the things about Naval Power - is that it is inherently Strategic - and thus Naval Powers more advanced in their Strategic thinking - in contrast to, again, the Germans - who while Operationally Brilliant - were Strategic Morons ... Can you imagine anyone emphasizing the Oil in the Caucuses rather than the Oil in the Middle East - when they had Land Access to it? Again - Thank You! .
Walcheren island and the Scheldt estuary were also very important in the 1944 campaign in Northern Europe, for exactly the same reasons as in this period. The British and Canadians captured Antwerp in a rush on September 3rd, 1944, but failed to capture the Scheldt estuary, the Germans rushed in and fortified it, and it took until November 8th to clear the Scheldt and Walcheren and another couple of weeks to clear the mines and open Antwerp for Allied logistics.
Spanish decision was forced on this one. Regardless if they were free to do as they see fit or not in the Rhine estuary, this situation with England meddling in the Low Countries could not be allowed to last. There's a similarity between this and the first Persian expedition to Greece that was stopped at Marathon. You might not even be completely sure if it can succeed but you certainly have to at least make a statement this way so a bunch of upstarts stops helping insurgences in part of your empire. For Spain there was also a matter of those godless heretics eating into profits from the New World.
I’d also think a great deal of where to actually invade England depends on where your invading from. More crucially though is who is doing the “invading”. Bolingbroke landed in the north because that’s where his supporters were concentrated and Richard II was in Ireland. Henry Tudor landed in Wales to gather local support. Even Williams invasion and his Protestant wind was based around not subduing the country like Parma, Napoleon or et al., would have had to do. William got ashore with some force but it was the defections from James and his own bad decisions that did him in and left him watching the RN burn French ships at La Hogue. The Spanish in this scenario couldn’t count on a lot of local support or intelligence. Unlike more “successful” invasions. A very well presented video, with lots of food for thought. Well done.
I would add that seizing Walcheren is one of the first moves I make in strategic or operational level Napoleonic games because with naval support it is effectively invulnerable to a continental force. It also then serves to dominate a very valuable section of coast both offensively and defensively. If not reacted to by a considerable covering force (often several covering forces) due the flexibility of naval transport, then much hay can be made to trouble the Frogs. Creating almost as much fun as strong forces in Gibraltar and the Beleric Isles with good naval support operating against Spain. Similar can be done against positions in Italy from Corsica / Sardinia / Sicily. Personally, I prefer the first two as Sicily. in vulnerable to a sudden coup de main as the Straits of Massena are so narrow and crossable.
Well the brits didnot have the best of times at walcheren in the 16th century or the napoleonic wars. just like the spanish of Swamp fever or Zeelandic fever also known as Malaria . Zeeland fever The Zeeland fevers were a moderate form of malaria that occurred on Walcheren and in many cases proved fatal in combination with contagious infectious diseases. Of the 40,000 English soldiers who invaded Zeeland in 1809 during the Walcheren expedition to attack Napoleon Bonaparte in the back and threaten strategic Antwerp, 13,000 fell through this disease within a few weeks. That is why the Grote Kerk of Veere was arranged as a lazaret as much as possible. That same year, 1809, the English troops withdrew. They had not been defeated by the French, but by the mosquitoes. In the Grote Kerk of Veere, 1427 men died in nine months. It is estimated that 4,000 men among the English troops died from the effects of the Zeeland fever. Fewer than 50 English men died in combat.
The theory seems to be right. Alvaro de Bazan, the spanish admiral formerly commanded to the fleet, was in complete diagreement with the plans due to that anglo-dutch blockade posibility. Unfortunatelly he died and the new admiral, an inexperienced man set sails.
Except Bazan wasn't very good at logistics, getting the Armada actually ready to set sail. It was Medinia Stdonia's oganisational abilities that actually had the the Armada prepared for going to sea.
@@neilbuckley1613 let us think of the possibility of Alvaro de Bazan being the fleet admiral and Medinia Stdonia being his logistics officer. Would that be a team that could over come the premise that Paul Leyland has presented.
@@ionaguirre No, that was not the reason the reason why Pillip II chose him was because he did a good job in organizing the recovery of Cadiz after Drake's sacking in 1587 The fanatical king thought how he did well in Cadiz, he could do the same by commanding a fleet. Sidonia himself told the king that he was not suitable for that task but the King told him that it was a command ¡¡¡from God!!!.
By the way, about Walcheren determining the usefulness of Antwerp as a port, I believe Bernard Montgomery found that out the hard way at another point in history.
Walcherin island also blocked allied use of the undamaged 12:15 port of Antwerp in World War Ii. Montgomery was almost fired because he neglected to take it.
To be fair to Montgomery, of all the senior Allied Leaders only Admiral Ramsey saw Antwerp as vital for sustaining the invasion of Europe. None of the other senior leadership did, American or British, so Montgomery was not exactly alone in that.
RE: Spanish, Basques, Portuguese, and Sir Humphrey Gilbert; Gee, I've been asking anyone who might know for *years* why St. John's Newfoundland doesn't have a Portuguese quarter; or, if it does, where is it? Short answer: Spanish activity north of the tropic of Cancer was limited for most of the last 500+ years, but the Basques and the Portuguese had been running westward to the fishing grounds of the Grand Banks for at least that long, and to Labrador for whaling *prior* to the discovery by John Cabot (AKA Giovanni Caboto). Consequently, there's a higher chance of finding living descendants of stranded Spanish sailors who'd reached Ireland than finding a predominantly Portuguese neighborhood in St. John's. Slightly more common, though, is for individuals to marry into the local population (usually to a good Catholic girl) or perhaps for a single family to immigrate as a consequence of job duties, particularly in the mid to late 20th century.
Invasion by Barge? This is precisely what AH was going to attempt in 1940 and it would have been a disaster (for him, that is). It is clear that Op ZEELOWE could not ever, ever have been a success, given the overwhelming strength of the Royal Navy. That the RAF won the Battle of Britain was great, and handed a fine propaganda opp to Churchill, but even if the RAF had looked out of the windows of the Mess and decided it was too foggy/wet/etc to fight, the invasion still could not have succeeded.
The Royal Navy might not have been able to operate if the Germans had complete air superiority, but I don’t think even that was achievable. In the worst case scenario, the RAF just had to relocate all their aircraft at airfields beyond the range of the 109’s and that would be the end of it.
The air superiority thing is a bit of a common misconception. The invasion was to have taken place at night, and the Luftwaffe (and RAF, come to that) had Zero useful night bombing capability. Neither did they have any torpedo capability (HGoer had vetoed it) and their previous successes (Narvik, N France, Dunkirk) against destroyers were when they stood stil; hitting a jinxing ship going at 30 Kts is a different proposition. Churchill was well aware of this, hence he allowed the sending of our only two capable Armoured units to N Africa in mid-1940; he knew full well an invasion was impossible, but the threat of one - well, that's a different matter. Just the thing to get the people united, etc. He was the master of this! Incidentally, rough comparisons of naval power at the time - within easy reach of the Dover straits area and S Coast in early Sept '40 - stands at RN with 40 Destroyers, 29 TB/MTB, and 3 Lt Cruiser. Slightly further away - within 10 Hrs sailing - were another 16 Destroyers, 1 Lt cruiser, 4 Medium Cruisers and a Battleship. And that's ignoring those at Scapa, Rosyth, Belfast and Liverpool. Against this the KsM had - at best - 7 Destroyers, and around 20 - 30 E-Boats, pluse some coastal U-Boats.
@@alanlawson4180 they wouldn’t have needed to bomb the ships at night. If they could have suppressed the RAF completely (not really possible) they could have taken out the Navy at leisure.
@@jeremypnet I think we can agree to disagree on that one - 'taking out' the RN would have been a hell of a task, even with air supremacy. AH, WSC, both Armies and both Navies knew that Sealion was a non-starter, and so it played out.
You don't mention the Royal Navy's coastal submarines, the S class. They would have been effective against transports attacking on the surface at night.
There have only been a handful of successful invasions of England in known history. The last was William the Bastard in 1066, who, as mentioned, was a claimant to the throne. The next was the Danes, who created the North Seas Empire; I do not know where they landed, but they took London. Before them was the Great Heathan Army, again Danes, who created the Danelaw; they landed in East Anglia and took Northumbria before working south and west, taking all but the very south west of England before being halted by Alfred the Great. The next group back was Hengest and Horsa, who were Danes leading a coallition of Angles, Jutes, and Saxons; I do not know where they landed, but they settled southern England and refused to live in the ghost town London. And before Hengest and Horsa, it was Julius Caesar; I do not know where he landed but Dover Castle has a Roman lighthouse still standing. All in all, England has proved a difficult island to take.
The plan of Spanish Armada was too ambitious and complicated for that time. It depended excessively on uncontrolled factors: weather, slow communications, in addition to not having adequate friendly ports to protect the fleet. That Medina Sidonia had not taken advantage of the tactical advantage of having surprised the English fleet docked in Plymouth, against the judgment of some of his most experienced captains, also demonstrated that Medina Sidonia himself was right when he himself believed that he did not was the appropriate command for this operation. Luckily for the English.
You need to be careful. The Spanish did not have expeditionary Naval force that could land and attack forces on the English mainland and the Spanish Admirals knew it that why he disobeyed order from there Spanish King at times.
When British and Dutch created the Counter-Armada in 1589, 200 ships set sail to attack Santander where remnant of the Spanish fleet was recovering. Then attack Lisbon in Portugal and then were to attack the Azores islands. It was a disaster. Drake was English Admiral and John Norris was Marine general. Nothing went as planned, but the English and Dutch did manage to land forces in Spain at Curona which was not part of the original plan, thinking that it was an easier target it was not. Curona repullsed the English and Dutch assaults and it wasn't any better when the landed in Lisbon, Portugal. The fleet did manage to get back to England but only under heavy losses.
NOOOO... Drach... At the beginning when he said.. he will try and reduce it all down to a few minutes.. You should have aaid.. nooo no Sir, you take your time, and be as thorough as you can... Lol... I love it when you have guests... The longer the better... Though i understand his time is important, and you cant take to much
As someone born and raised in old Zealand: don't take it too harshly. The place is practically a dead zone and most shipping that could reach you is owned by Maersk etc. who aren't too fond of lending them out for the trip.
If the RNZN is down to two old frigates (which isn 't very scary), maybe they could intimidate the dutch using the RNZAF instead? Bwahahahahaha!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣
antwerp (or brussels) would have been the first choices for a capital of the netherlands if they had been kept from the Habsburg rule... even tho Malines used to be the capital of the 17 provinces... but people tend to forget most of the folk in the south had remained catholic... the duke of Alva had for a time antagonized everyone to chose the rebel side, but eventually the cause was lost in the south. Belgium (and Luxembourg) and the netherlands might well have ended up as one country, but people outside of benelux don't seem to take into account the cultural differences that already existed, and the ones that formed after the divide in 1585... Belgium is a country in it's own right, a flawed one, but one nontheless. Luxembourg is still the (grand)duchy it always was, so in a way it's the oldest of the three. nowadays BeNeLux is a cause all three nations are commited too, militarily, economically and culturally, but none of the countries' inhabitants want to become part of one of the other country's, not even Flemish separatists, and only 16 % of dutch are for annexing Flanders... the walloons who want to join France are negligeable.
I love the fight the Frisians gave the Romans, but ever since viking times, I am confused by Frisia's separation from the rest of Denmark. The vikings controlled the water and had many cities there; one of Ragnar's sons (who died in the Great Heathan Army), was even called the Duke of one of them (sorry, I cannot remember which off the top). The geography is the same, when Doggerland existed they were the same people, when the Cimbrians ruled they were the same people, and until Charlemagne took Frisia and failed to cross the Danevirk and take Denmark, they were essentially brothers. What a wonderful world it would be with all the low countries united with Denmark. Does anyone in BeNeLux talk about bringing back Frisia? Or joining Denmark? Or has it just been too long?
Pinned post for Q&A :)
What submarine has sunk the most tonnes of ships and cargo
Just how lucky was I-19s torpedoing of USS North Carolina.
How did Chinese junks of the time of the Spanish armada stack up to British and Spanish galleons?
I seem to remember hearing some time ago that there was government appointee whose sole assignment was to watch for the Armada. The position was not officially eliminated until well into the 20th century. Is this a muddled memory or was there actually such a position?
Can you please cover William Adams' voyage to Japan in 1600? (I'm gonna ask 'til ya tell me "no." LOL)
"English policy was to keep everyone fighting"; just got a mental image of a proud and content Sir Humphrey Appleby
Yes, Prime Minister.
We went into the common market to create a disunited Europe... Yes Minister "The Writing On The Wall."
My ❤ thoughts and memories, exactly!
Not new. Divide and conquer. Latin: divide et impera
fighting eachother if need be
A Part 3 so soon? What a Friday
I believe there will be a part 4 too. If I remember correctly from the end of part 2.
@@darkhorse989 “at least two more”
I just finished the last video 😊
It’s what day? Hmm. Ohhh. I’m using the old calendar. Add eleven. It’s Tuesday?
This is exactly the kind of content that I subscribe for, as it provides me with history that I would likely never have been exposed to otherwise. Thank you so much for bringing us guests such as this to fill in the gaps of historical knowledge. This is an excellent addition to the two videos on the Armada. Well done and many thanks, sir.
Agreed, this is one of the best channels out there for actually learning about naval (and other) history. I'm always looking forward to the next video.
As someone from Poland who's understanding of the Armada just 3 weeks ago was: Spanish had ships with short range guns and wanted to board, English had long range guns, guns win cause Spaniards couldn't close in, thank you from the bottom of my heart for this series, it's so interesting and so enlightening!
Wow. As you've said Drach, we don't get taught this. Zeeland and Antwerp weren't even on my radar with the Armada before this great video. It also explains the Treaty of London of 1839 and why we cared about the independence of Belgium in 1914.
**cough** cared so much in 1839 it also forced neutrality without guarantees onto Belgium.
The Treaty of London 1839 was itself the guarantee - it's why the British joined WWI in 1914 after the German Empire (the successor to the signatory state of Prussia) violated Belgium's borders as part of the Schlieffen Plan.
First, I cannot find any English translation of the Treaty of London of 1839 where any guarantee is made to Belgium, only that it requires Belgium to remain neutral.
Second, even if there were it is not why Britain went to war. At best it was an excuse to join a war they wanted to be involved in.
Britain wanted to go to war, to aide in a victory for the Franco-Russian alliance and to knock the growing German power down a peg or two was why Britain went to war in 1914.
After the age of sail perhaps the strategic significance of the low countries was not so much.
@@88porpoise thanks for the backup. It's surprisingly hard to convince people that Belgian neutrality wasn't by choice.
The story of AngloDutch relations is far deeper than people think, I can't believe how underrated and unknown Francis de Vere is for example for what he achieved
Knowing his actions at Nieuwpoort, he should be just as well known as Drake. His obscurity might stem from the fact that he later fell from grace in the republic due to a fake surrender at the long siege of Oostende. Nevertheless, his brother Horace continued to serve the republic, and the new model army was directly based on the states army.
Not least, though considerable later, the basing of the British India company on the Dutch East India company; the very heart of the British Empire ;D
The Cloggies are almost English, they taught them how to make steel and other technologies. The Dutch banks financed their wars.
Whether the Dutch and British are allies or enemies historically, is one of those questions you can answer with 'yes'.
@@paulstewart6293don’t insult us, we do not even speak the same language, our harts are totally different.
For anyone interested in how all of this fitted into the eighty years war in more detail, as well as the war itself, I can highly recommend defragged history's series on this subject.
Excellent series! The Anglo-Dutch Wars are an obvious follow-up I would say.
I agree, but Drach has to keep a world wide audience happy. So the next extended series will probably be in the Mediterranean, Pacific or something the Yanks did.
@@Dave_Sisson well, the Anglo-Dutch Wars had some pretty big implications for the rest of the world as well, like the Dutch giving up New Amsterdam and gaining a foothold in South America, which as far as influence goes one can argue still exists. But we'll see what he has in store for us!
Dutchy here, (irrelevant) we never destroyed each other nor had a total war. Because deep inside, we were and still are, intellectual partners of free market and thought. We needed each other more than we had differences over which we fought. I love these English knubs.
Yes and perhaps do that series in the Rijksmuseum, lots of paintings there, as well as the preserved stern decoration from the Royal Charles
"We didn't lose at sea, but perhaps we actually won on land"
What a fire quote and a brilliant way to end a great video✍🔥
Loved this as a Belgian
watch Defragged History
It's a 15-20 hrs doc on the 80 years war ( with a lot of humor as well)
This has been a great series. Thank you for the effort.
That is an interesting point regarding successful invasions of England through History. Except for William of Normandy's invasion in 1066 all the other SUCCESSFUL invasions landed everywhere other than Southeast England. Also no successful invasion ever landed in Kent:
The Angles and Saxons invaded primarily East Anglia;
the Vikings hit Northumbria and Yorkshire;
William of Normandy lands at Pevensey Bay (Sussex) then has to march West to cross the Thames;
Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) lands at Ravenspur, Yorkshire to overthrow Richard II;
Richard Neville Earl of Warwick landed at Dartmouth, Devon and successfully restored Henry VI to the throne from Edward IV
Edward IV copied Henry VI's grandfather's plan and landed at Ravenspur Yorkshire to reclaim the throne
Henry Tudor (Later Henry VII) landed at Mill Bay, Pembrokshire (South Wales) to go on and defeat Richard III at Bosworth; and
finally William of Orange (William III) landed at Torbay, Devon.
It would seem that neither Revolutionary France, Napoleon or Adolf thought to study these previous successes and wonder why no one landed at the closest point at Kent.
I hope you one day do the 3 Anglo Dutch Wars and go in detail about the "embarrassment at Medway".
Fascinating!
Genuine question, as I've just realised I don't know the answer: where did the Romans land?
The first landings by Caesar in 54 and 55BC were in the Pegwell Bay are of north Kent. The successful Claudian invasion in AD 43 I believe was in the area of Lympne, Kent (Portus Lemanis) but that is disputed I think.
@@danielpankhurst3195 I decided not to include the Romans (and Julius Caesar did not conquer Britannia so it doesn't count as a success anyway). However Claudius' conquest of Britannia did start from Bolougne and MAY have landed in Kent although that is under debate by Historians who also think that the area around Portsmouth and the Solent River was also a likely landing point. Maybe he did both which puts him in both camps.
@@Chewiebakke Julius Casar landed in Kent but didn't conquer Britain. Claudius invasion in 43 AD did succeed but Historians arent sure whether he landed in Kent or in Hampshire around Portsmouth (or both) so I suppose his invasion, as it did succeed, could be put in both camps.
27:05 One interesting aspect here is that while the Flemish coast does have a ton of sandbanks and shallow water in front of it it also has a number of deep trenches running in-between them. A captain that knew how to navigate them would've been able to sail even the bigger ships of the time almost straight up to the beach.
The main problem was that the foreign captains involved didn't have a clue of how to do that, and the place they ended up at (Gravelines) was one of the spots where the deep water was much further out. In fact Gravelines can hardly be called a port to begin with, it's located several kilometers behind the dunes and is only connected to the sea with a small manmade canal/redirected river.
The problem there is that you needed to have up to date knowledge of where those channels were. The currents keep moving those sandbanks which is why Brugge lost its position as a major port. These day the channels are buoyed, of course, and dredged to keep them open, but in 1588 that wasn’t the case
@@frankteunissen6118 Brugge lost its position as a trade port because its connection to the sea silted up, to the point it literally didn't have a port anymore and became landlocked.
And these sandbanks in front of the coast don't shift, there are very detailed depth charts of the 19th century and they're still in effectively the exact same place to this day. It's inside of the Schelde estuary where shifting sand banks were a problem for foreign sailors.
@@asuka7309 yeah, those 19th century charts are still good. You’ve heard of dredging, have you? And Het Zwin (you might want to Google that) silting up is exactly one of the things that is associated with wandering sandbanks. /smh
@@frankteunissen6118 You are not seriously arguing that we're artificially keeping our sandbanks in the position of an 1866 map through dredging. If they wandered they wouldn't even have been in the position of the 1866 chart I am referring to by the time large-scale dredging operations began in this country lmao. And no, the silting of het Zwin had fuck all to do with sandbanks. That's just the tides depositing sand in an inlet that had no outflowing water to flush it back out.
Got to love it when people on the internet are confidently incorrect and then start grasping at straws to defend their claims.
@@asuka7309 Your issue is your arguing with someone who allready accepted they are right and your wrong
This is excellent content. On their own, the Spanish Armada videos did bring a lot of context, but this absoultely brings it in on a much larger scale. Strategic decisions that turned out to be crucial, knowing where the weaknesses were. In terms of land based warfare. Much thank you to Paul Leyland for your insightful commentary.
One thing that gnaws on me - and please correct me if I'm wrong: In WWII, in a weird twist of not learning from history, when breaking out of Normandy the allies overlooked the importance of Walcheren when trying to secure Antwerp. The ONLY deep sea water port within range, leading having to resort to the famed Red Ball Express.
Yes. This. And Monty in his hybris wanting to paradrop into Arnhem in september 1944 while the port of Antwerp couldn't be used until november/december....Even if Market Garden would have succeeded, it would have been a logistical nightmare for the allies.
An excellent conversation between Mr Leyland and Drach, thank you both.
No offense, but I like listening to your channel as a late night go to sleep activity. I feel like I learn through osmosis lol. Then I wake up and re-listen. I like the two part armada series!
It takes 3 years to build a ship. It takes 300 years to build a tradition. - Andrew Cunningham
The US Navy now has reversed those things...
@@jwenting so did the Japanese.
This is brilliant, as most military history concentrates on how many pointy sticks one set of forces put in the other, without understanding the geopolitical forces behind how the two forces got there and how they afforded the pointy sticks. For the Tudor English ascendancy (where the English had minimal resources compared to the forces they faced) it's critical to understanding how they got away with really winding up ostensibly much more powerful forces.
The English have the island. In 1588 Spain was invading Germany. In 1589, Drake's Invincible Fleet was destroyed, losing 80 ships. Elisabeth was so angry that she condemned Drake to be a lighthouse keeper. In 1590 Spain invades Paris, forcing the king of France to accept Catholicism as the official religion. It was in the Tudor era when the Spanish fleet of the Duke of Alba transported Philip II to England, to become king, marrying Mary Tudor, half-Spanish queen of England. If they had had a child. Spain sent another 3 invasion fleets to England in 1596, 1597 and 1718, each with more than 100 ships. All three were stopped due to storms. A sunny day...
Between island, abortions and storms... The English would have to put 3 monuments to that in Trafalgar Square. Again in 1779-81, the Spanish fleet made a naval blockade of England, capturing two British fleets of 24 and 55 ships, which sank the London Stock Exchange. The idea was to invade England, but the French allies were not so convinced of being able to support the invasion with infantry, artillery, cavalry...
Going to the National Maritime Museum was a highlight of my first visit to London a couple months ago. It was amazing!
I am sold already. I suppose I am a revisionist and iconoclast by inclination. Good to see our British/English national myths put into context under the microscope with the benefit of hindsight. Lovely to get to hear from Paul - someone I think I might just be following from now on.
As Prof. Mattingly pointed out in his1959 book on the Armada, someone should have told King Philip II "Look, Your Majesty, as the whole aim of the Armada is to join Parma's army and convey it to England, and as the ships of the Armada draw more water than you'll find anywhere Parma can get his troops, why not stop now?"
Philip F was a fanatic and hoped that the two armadas of medina sedonia and parma would be united by divine providence.
Drachinifel deserves way more followers. Thank you so much for the passion and effort you put into informing us!
Quality video.
You have outdone yourself with the Armada videos good Sir👌😎
Thank you for your persistent quality👏👏
Most informative and completes the explanation of several key things that had always worried or confused me. To the examples you used add Malta, Cyprus, Aden, Oman, British occupation of the Balearics, Corsica & Sardinia at various times
You didn't mention Singapore, probably more important than many of the others.
There's a reason for the Falkland Islands as well, and south africa. Global pinch points
In the Europa Universalis game which is global. I add Muaritus, and several other sets of Islands - that often includes 1 of the Cannariers or Azores (I usually can't get both), Cape Verde Islands to. This gives agreat chain to hope from to reduce the vile risks of long sea voyages and storms. This also helps explain St Helena and Tristran de Cunha. Very useful intermidiate points. Look up the photos of the fotifications on St Helena - truely impressive
Armada and other sea tales can make a grown man listen for hours with eyes on stilts and red ears from excitement.
I got about 20 minutes in and I suddenly realized that I was not paying close attention. This is good stuff. A very detailed bit of history. I am going to back up about 13 minutes and put on my headphones. Really top notch.
Thanks for this. You do a wonderful job of filling in gaps in my love of naval history. I think we spent a grand total of 15 minutes (if that) on the Armada in my history classes. And nothing on the other aspects of it. I'm constantly looking forward to your new vids and working my way through the existing ones. Well done.
Wow! Fantastic discussion, show us so many facets that for most were likely unknown.
BTW, this is the kind of strategic level discussions I was talking about in my submissions on Patreon about an interview with rar adm. Chris Parry.
Thank you @Drachinifel
That's awesome :) I can hear Drach in Right speaker and Sharp Dress Man in LEFT one 🤣
I am not sure why this would be so controversial. I suppose it can be argued that it lowers the stakes that the English navy were fighting for. But the Armada was still sent straggling back home with its tail between its legs, with something approaching 50% losses. It doesn’t reduce the valor of victor or vanquished (aside from that small matter of the disappearing 26k gold pieces). But there have certainly been other situations in history where the strategic control of land have impacted the ability to control the sea.
what gold pieces, they weren't on board. No idea what you are talking about sir (shifty eyes)
Storms are not really a victory .the english navy barely made a dent in the armada when they did fight them .
Well, in 1588 Spain was invading Germany. England is an island. Spain defeated Drake's invincible fleet in 1589, sinking 80 ships. Elisabeth condemned Drake to be a lighthouse keeper. When she forgives Drake, he loses 5 battles in the Caribbean and dies. Spain invades Paris in 1590, forcing the king of France to accept the Catholic religion as the official religion. Spain sent another 3 invasion fleets to the British Isles in 1596, 1597, 1718. All three were stopped by storms, with the Royal Navy completely lost as to the location of the Spanish ships. In 1597 and 1718, 500 and 600 Spaniards landed on the English coast, causing a little chaos there. Spain made a naval blockade of England in 1779-81, capturing 2 British fleets of 24 and 55 ships (including 39 frigates). That sank the London stock market. The objective was to invade England, but in the 18th century, such an amphibious invasion was very complicated, and the French advised against the invasion, because they could not transport support troops of infantry, artillery and cavalry.
And I think you have to give Howard a lot of credit for his handling of the fleet and learning from the early engagements; not to mention stopping his subordinate commanders from killing each other!
Drach looking like a distinguished gentleman, I like to imagine that this is in-fact his house which has been filled with so many relics and books that it has simply become labelled 'The national maritime museum'.
For completely ridiculous reasons I've been binge watching Defragged History's series on the 70 years war. The Dutch and Belgian ports can be pretty useless if you only control the port and not the river to the sea. I think your guest makes a very strong argument for Zeeland's control of port access, scuppering the invasion part of the armada. I may need to take a deep dive into Mahan and see what his analysis of the Armada looks like. I was also very amused by your statement to the effect that Smashing Suffolk is only a way to indicate that you are mad at London.
Thanks for a great Friday episode.
Hense the battle of the bulge and battles of zeeland in 1940 and 1944 .
Defraged history great channel tons of sarcastic humor as well .
@@marcusfranconium3392 Seems to be a trademark there.
Apologies but it's Southwark (area south of London Bridge) not Suffolk (county north of London)
@@tonyvancampen-noaafederal2640 Sorry my naive are you saying she was wrong in her documentary about the 80 year war ???
Failure to control the Scheldt Estuary reared its head in September 1944 when Montgomery failed to clear the estuary of German troops rendering the capture of Antwerp moot.
A brilliant historical description of the run up to the Armada. The power politics of the period are fascinating. Thank you for giving us great insight in such a concise package.
It has been remarked that many of the Royal Navy's victories have been against fleets at anchor.
Often from those fleets' own choice. They figured it was better to fight from a picked defensive position than to risk an open-water battle with the RN.
IJN: write that down, write that down.
@@chrissouthgate4554 Exactly, if they won't come out and fight then you have to go in after them.
Len Deighton made that point in "Blood Tears and Folly".
@@richardbennett8522 That may be where I got it from.
7 minutes in:
Dear Drach.
I absolutely loved the way you used the models and charts in part 1-2! A HUGE Benefit. Smashing three programs! Absolutely stellar semi-introduction.
Furthermore: The English supporting the Spanish to fight the French, supporting the hugenots to fight the French Catholics and crown, supporting the Dutch Calvinists to fight the Spanish?
Am I the only one hearing Sir Humpfrey Appleby explaining Britain's European policy to Minister Hacker?x
Remember, anglicanism was not Calvinism. Eliz had real problems with extremist protestants coming back from Europe pushing the English settlement further towards the "reformed" end of the spectrum, which didn't respect the Anglican arrangement.
There was also an amphibious assault on Walcheren (Operation Infatuate) during WW2 and a long battle for the Scheldt
The Germans needed to be cleared from the forts so the port could supply the fighting for the Western Front WWII end game in Europe.
And if the Canadians had just kept driving, or Montgomery had told them to keep driving, they had absolutely nothing in their way for several days. The Germans escaped to Walcheren Island starting several days after Antwerp was captured.
Ties in with the very common misconceptions about "Port Cities" is that they must be coastal, where more than a few are indeed actually many kilometers/miles up large rivers, bays, and/or estuaries. Thus, controlling the port requires controlling a large amount of land between the port and the sea.
The pattern for dominate cities is that they are most often located on large rivers in the area where ocean going ships cannot go any further inland. This is where inland traffic needs to go onto ships and where incoming traffic needs to off load. The N. American coast was a problem for ports as there are no rivers that reach very far into the interior except for at Chesapeake and the Hudson at New York.Neither place is prime as the rivers all narrow quickly as they leave the coast but at least they provide good anchorage. This was why the Erie Canal and the Potomac Canal were among the first built. Without the Erie Canal and the rise of Rail transport the Saint Lawrence and Great Lakes would have been of greater significance. Canada's loss. @@genericpersonx333
Both Parma and Montgomery took Antwerp, but neither realized in time that they also needed to control the Scheldt.
I really like this armada series. Superb content. Fascinating context
At 5:04 Paul Leyland is cutting corners, I'm afraid. On 1 April 1572 (so not in March) the Sea Beggars did indeed capture Brielle, which is located in Holland on the combined Rhine/Maas estuary. On 6 April, Vlissingen (Flushing) followed, and this town is located on the Scheldt estuary, as well as the island of Walcheren, Zeeland. Roughly the same area, but, depending on the exact route, there are/were still two or three islands inbetween. The way Paul tells it, the two seem almost merged.
The dates are easy to remember for us Dutch, as we still have little rhymes commemorating the events: "Op een april verloor Alva zijn bril" and "Op april zes verloor Alva zijn fles", literally: "On 1 April, Alva lost his glasses", and "On April 6, Alva lost his bottle".
By the way, there is a very thorough 20-episode series on the Eighty Years' War on the channel Defragged History, each episode just over an hour long, which goes in-depth on the causes for the Dutch Revolt (which turned into the Eighty Years' War), the Sea Beggars, and their exploits. One of very few channels narrated about as well as Drach's that I know of.
Thank you for the correction - I was indeed cutting corners on that bit :)
A little note on the occupation of walcheren or zeeland Many of the english troops died of the Zeelandic fever.
A form of malaria . Zeeland fever
The Zeeland fevers were a moderate form of malaria that occurred on Walcheren and in many cases proved fatal in combination with contagious infectious diseases.
Of the 40,000 English soldiers who invaded Zeeland in 1809 during the Walcheren expedition to attack Napoleon Bonaparte in the back and threaten strategic Antwerp, 13,000 fell through this disease within a few weeks. That is why the Grote Kerk of Veere was arranged as a lazaret as much as possible. That same year, 1809, the English troops withdrew. They had not been defeated by the French, but by the mosquitoes.
In the Grote Kerk of Veere, 1427 men died in nine months. It is estimated that 4,000 men among the English troops died from the effects of the Zeeland fever. Fewer than 50 English men died in combat.
It was typhus and typhoid that did the killing rather than Zeeland malaria in 1809 - which was debilitating and aggravating but rarely fatal on its own - 40,000 men living in their own faeces with inadequate fresh water was a recipe for an epidemic - tellingly only 3% of the officers died, which shows it was more about living conditions than airborne disease
This was nowhere near as bad in 1585 because the English troops were always cycling through Walcheren and there were far fewer of them - a lot less fatal mass living in poo going on
It was rumoured that the Earl of Leicester, the English Commander, died of malaria in September 1588 though - which would have been from Zeeland - but cancer is a more likely cause of death, with malaria just an aggravating factor / unpleasant addition
@@inventingvictory Same with Many spanish troops and commanders that died of zeeland fever . As the combination of this disease and of other infectious diseases. Is lethal . Most of the dutch and belgian country side was swamp land in those days. And nordic malaria is much deadlier than the tropical malaria types.
Brilliant video. Thanks to Drachinifel for another great piece of naval history.
An excellent companion to your other armada videos Drach! Well done to both of you!
Really a great and exceptional video that re-frames and re-includes some strategic depth into several subjects - and incidentally questions a certain historiography, based on the most recent assumptions (and mentions the actual outcome of the Armada fighting, i.e. a tactical draw including after Gravelines, which leads to a Spanish operational and strategic defeat). The most interesting part is the articulation between land and naval issues, both on the Flanders coast and in England itself - I had never heard, in an Armada documentary, a discussion of the questionable likelihood of success of a Spanish invasion after landing, all sources (especially naval historians, but also historians more focused on monographies) seem to implicitly assume that had the Spanish landed, the English would have been done for...
What a setting to have this conversation in!
Excellent video, thanks. It is unfortunate that military historians tend to align themselves along either Army or Navy focus. Almost all military operations were some mixture or hybrid of the two.The Army is doing something because of the Navy and the Navy is doing something because of the Army. When viewed in isolation, conclusions are often skewed. Thanks for always bringing a balanced presentation.
A very good point and well made.
What a great episode! Thank you!
"The English counter-armada of 1589 didn't really end that well". That's got to be the understatement of the year. A disaster so complete that the leaders had to lie to the Queen about how it went and it become a crime to speak or write about it. Somewhere north of 15,000 of the 23,000 perished.
Fascinating- I have to listen again it’s such a well woven narrative! Thank you both.
Listening to old drydocks and missed the video dropping, glad its today, this has been very informative to me.
Fascinating! I had to watch it twice over, one right after the other, and consult some maps of world history as well to absorb even half of the information presented! Great job! Thank you.
first rate exposition of the circumstances that defeated the Armada, thankyou all
Some of Drach's best work right here. Way to go man
I feel that in addition to be entertained, that I have earned college credits for watching this series. Drach you have outdone yourself.
History, especially naval history, just got rewritten, and the receipts seem to match! 😮
It almost seems like we're developing a legend here of "southern England can't be successfully invaded because...hills...and Thames...and stuff" kind of on par with stuff like "supership Bismarck". Obviously there are going to be difficulties for any foreign army invading an enemy homeland, particularly when that homeland is an island. But considering the vastly superior fighting quality of Parma's army compared to anything the English could have mustered at that time...I have a really hard time believing that Parma getting most or all of his force ashore could just been "handled". At the very least, I could see the Spanish army forcing major concessions in exchange for a withdrawal, along the lines of one of the scenarios Phillip II had envisioned.
It's not impregnable, but the terrain allows for huge defensive multipliers, hence why most armies tend to avoid the area. Air power, indirect artillery and amphibious vehicles lessen this but don't eliminate it.
Agreed. I think the other point is that England wasn't that protestant at the early part of Eliz I's reign. The Articles of Association show the lack of certainty that the county establishment would back the crown and resort to private networks.
Two Drach videos in one week is awesome. Great Friday. Thanks Drach it was very interesting.
Well done, this is turning out to be a tremendous series. The legend of the Armada as powerful a story as it is, it’s just that a good tale. As good tales do they are built around a kernel of truth at the expense of the real lesson. Plucky little England running rings around the giant Spanish Armada is a great story if triumph against the odds. Not to mention a seminal moment in world history. The history of the small volunteer force sitting tight and preemptively bottling up the Spanish in Antwerp doesn’t neatly fit the heroic tale. All that aside we forget the clever minds who laid the groundwork of victory at our own peril. Those who strategically deploying their inferior resources to deny the enemy a chance for victory before battle commenced. The greatest victories are those that don’t require massive bloodshed, though perhaps not the ones every kid wants to hear about growing up.
Around this historical fact, UK has built its own patriotic Disneyland with approximately the same historical rigor as the original that we can enjoy near Paris.
In any case, an amphibious operation on this scale at that time, even being able to avoid the randomness of the storms, resulted in tremendous military and logistical difficulty. As the English themselves were able to see firsthand the following year.
Well, as the Netherlands are famous for their shoal waters & lee shore, it seems pretty obvious. That fellow Lord Lumey, who led the Sea Beggars, is in our Van Demark family tree. (history is fun!)
Admiral Lumey also known as Willem II van der Marck . was lets we say a bit more brutal and vengefull than ordinary sailors captains or admirals. He could or would have been the leader of the dutch republic as he was stadholder of Holland and zeeland.
William II de La Marck
William II van der Marck Lumey
Capture of Brielle, 1 April 1572 (Frans Hogenberg)
William II de la Marck (Lummen, 1542 - Bishopric of Liège, 1 May 1578) (Dutch: Willem II van der Marck) was the Dutch Lord of Lumey and initially admiral of the Watergeuzen, the so-called 'sea beggars' who fought in the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648), together with among others William the Silent, Prince of Orange-Nassau. He was the great-grandson of an equally notorious character, baron William de la Marck, nicknamed the "wild boar of the Ardennes".
On 1 April 1572 - the day of the Capture of Brielle - the Sea Beggars were led by De la Marck, and by two of his captains, Willem Bloys van Treslong and Lenaert Jansz de Graeff.[1] After they were expelled from England by Elizabeth I, they needed a place to shelter their 25 ships.[2] As they sailed towards Brill, they were surprised to find out that the Spanish garrison had left in order to deal with trouble in Utrecht. On the evening of 1 April, the 600 men sacked the undefended port.[3]
A Calvinist, who opposed Catholicism, on 9 July 1572 he had executed the Martyrs of Gorkum, 19 Dutch Catholic priests and religious who were ultimately canonized in 1865. Their crime was their refusal to abandon their belief in the Blessed Sacrament and in papal supremacy, even under torture. Lumey's action was contrary to orders he received from William the Silent.[4] He also played a part in the murder of Cornelis Musius.
Having conquered South-Holland and controlling North-Holland and Zeeland, on 20 June 1572 Lumey was appointed stadtholder of Holland and consequently Captain General, i.e. military Commander in Chief of the conquered territories. It has never been evidenced that Lumey recognized either the authority or the seniority of the Prince of Orange, who was eventually recognized as the leader of the Low Countries' uprising against the King Philip II of Spain.
In 1576 Lumey was banned from the Netherlands, either by the States of Holland or the Prince of Orange. He is said to have participated in the lost Battle of Gembloux against the Spanish. He went back to his homeland, the Bishopric of Liège, where on 1 May 1578 he died in his residence on Mont-Saint-Martin. There are two different accounts offered for the circumstances of his death, one that he died of the bite of a mad dog or that he was poisoned while in prison.[5]
There is evidence that the earthly remains of William van der Marck are stowed away in a casket, that is bricked up in the Arenberg-family crypt under the former Capuchin Monastery Church at Enghien, today located in Belgium
You are a great narrator I pictured you as an older man in his late 50s or early 60s..
What can I say, fantastic video, excellent to watch 👏👏👏
Part 3 of a truly fascinating subject thanks Drachinifel
16:10 Actually Drach, the Thirty Years' War wouldn't start for another 46 years, coinciding with the last 30 years of the Eighty Years' War.
Very interesting. The strategic background as described here makes the muster at Tilbury much more rational than navalist historians adjudge it to have been.
Great video as usual! I wish you would consider doing a series on the Anglo-Dutch Wars. These are some of the most tactically interesting battles of the age of sail, and yet there is very little about them on You Tube (and not a great deal in print in English).
Glad I’m Dutch, raised with this complex history.
Great video, thank you. I really enjoyed it
Fabulous discussion - the only time I'd heard of Walcheren and military activity before was in connection with the Napoleonic period - wonderful!
Am really enjoying this series,many thanks from nz.
When Drach said Parma didn’t would to go to Margate, my mind instantly supplied, "well no-one wants to go to Margate"
*_THANK YOU!!!!!_*
That was fascinating.
From WWII - I was aware of the value of the Scheldt Estuary but not in a Historical Sense. One of the things about European History is that you've been killing each other over there for thousands of years and over the same ground time and again.
Here - this points out how much emphasis the British placed on the holding of these areas - and why the Germans were such fools as to implement the Schlieffen Plan. Of course - reversing the Schlieffen Plan - illustrates why Monty wanted the Northern Flank so he'd be advancing over all that flat terrain - and - could take Antwerp and the Scheldt and then of course there would be Market Garden. Seeing all these things in their Historical Contexts is fascinating.
I liked the comment about the taking of small bits of land for their strategic value. One of the things about Naval Power - is that it is inherently Strategic - and thus Naval Powers more advanced in their Strategic thinking - in contrast to, again, the Germans - who while Operationally Brilliant - were Strategic Morons ... Can you imagine anyone emphasizing the Oil in the Caucuses rather than the Oil in the Middle East - when they had Land Access to it?
Again - Thank You!
.
This discussion is very informative, it will be most helpfull for the our next Invasion plan. Dankeschön, merci y muchias gracias.
Outstanding, great lessons there.
I love the framing of this video. You’ve come along way from using the computer voice and a slide show. Live tour at all the ports next I hope.
New to your channel, 7 days, I think. Great content 👌
I've listened to a 100 of your videos and never knew you name was Paul
Walcheren island and the Scheldt estuary were also very important in the 1944 campaign in Northern Europe, for exactly the same reasons as in this period. The British and Canadians captured Antwerp in a rush on September 3rd, 1944, but failed to capture the Scheldt estuary, the Germans rushed in and fortified it, and it took until November 8th to clear the Scheldt and Walcheren and another couple of weeks to clear the mines and open Antwerp for Allied logistics.
Spanish decision was forced on this one. Regardless if they were free to do as they see fit or not in the Rhine estuary, this situation with England meddling in the Low Countries could not be allowed to last. There's a similarity between this and the first Persian expedition to Greece that was stopped at Marathon. You might not even be completely sure if it can succeed but you certainly have to at least make a statement this way so a bunch of upstarts stops helping insurgences in part of your empire. For Spain there was also a matter of those godless heretics eating into profits from the New World.
Plus that whole piracy buisnes.
Drach is covering up the successful invasion of GB by Nissan Armadas
To keep up our momentum, I suggest a look into the failed Mongol/continental invasions of Japan in the 13th century.
I’d also think a great deal of where to actually invade England depends on where your invading from. More crucially though is who is doing the “invading”. Bolingbroke landed in the north because that’s where his supporters were concentrated and Richard II was in Ireland. Henry Tudor landed in Wales to gather local support. Even Williams invasion and his Protestant wind was based around not subduing the country like Parma, Napoleon or et al., would have had to do. William got ashore with some force but it was the defections from James and his own bad decisions that did him in and left him watching the RN burn French ships at La Hogue.
The Spanish in this scenario couldn’t count on a lot of local support or intelligence. Unlike more “successful” invasions.
A very well presented video, with lots of food for thought. Well done.
The Dutch fleet and army was nevertheless bigger than the Spanish armada.
I would add that seizing Walcheren is one of the first moves I make in strategic or operational level Napoleonic games because with naval support it is effectively invulnerable to a continental force. It also then serves to dominate a very valuable section of coast both offensively and defensively. If not reacted to by a considerable covering force (often several covering forces) due the flexibility of naval transport, then much hay can be made to trouble the Frogs. Creating almost as much fun as strong forces in Gibraltar and the Beleric Isles with good naval support operating against Spain. Similar can be done against positions in Italy from Corsica / Sardinia / Sicily. Personally, I prefer the first two as Sicily. in vulnerable to a sudden coup de main as the Straits of Massena are so narrow and crossable.
Well the brits didnot have the best of times at walcheren in the 16th century or the napoleonic wars. just like the spanish of Swamp fever or Zeelandic fever also known as Malaria .
Zeeland fever
The Zeeland fevers were a moderate form of malaria that occurred on Walcheren and in many cases proved fatal in combination with contagious infectious diseases.
Of the 40,000 English soldiers who invaded Zeeland in 1809 during the Walcheren expedition to attack Napoleon Bonaparte in the back and threaten strategic Antwerp, 13,000 fell through this disease within a few weeks. That is why the Grote Kerk of Veere was arranged as a lazaret as much as possible. That same year, 1809, the English troops withdrew. They had not been defeated by the French, but by the mosquitoes.
In the Grote Kerk of Veere, 1427 men died in nine months. It is estimated that 4,000 men among the English troops died from the effects of the Zeeland fever. Fewer than 50 English men died in combat.
Lovely. Thank you for this. I had no idea about this.
The theory seems to be right. Alvaro de Bazan, the spanish admiral formerly commanded to the fleet, was in complete diagreement with the plans due to that anglo-dutch blockade posibility.
Unfortunatelly he died and the new admiral, an inexperienced man set sails.
Except Bazan wasn't very good at logistics, getting the Armada actually ready to set sail. It was Medinia Stdonia's oganisational abilities that actually had the the Armada prepared for going to sea.
@@neilbuckley1613 let us think of the possibility of Alvaro de Bazan being the fleet admiral and Medinia Stdonia being his logistics officer. Would that be a team that could over come the premise that Paul Leyland has presented.
Spain only has,ONE!!!! efficient admiral at that time ???
No, but Medina Sidonia was the next in the rank.
@@ionaguirre
No, that was not the reason
the reason why Pillip II chose him was because he did a good job in organizing the recovery of Cadiz after Drake's sacking in 1587
The fanatical king thought how he did well in Cadiz, he could do the same by commanding a fleet.
Sidonia himself told the king that he was not suitable for that task but the King told him that it was a command ¡¡¡from God!!!.
A minor correction: you describe the conflict as an extension of the Thirty Year's War, but that started 30 years after the Armada.
Indeed, it was the other way around. the Thirty Year's war was an extention of the Dutch (and Czech!) revolts.
By the way, about Walcheren determining the usefulness of Antwerp as a port, I believe Bernard Montgomery found that out the hard way at another point in history.
Sort of a "Shattered Sword" look at the Spanish Armada. What would have happened if there *had* been landing is not something I've ever thought about.
On the Subject of the 1584 siege of Antwerp, @SandRhomanHistory has a detailed video of that siege, including the attempt to blow up the bridge.
Walcherin island also blocked allied use of the undamaged 12:15 port of Antwerp in World War Ii. Montgomery was almost fired because he neglected to take it.
To be fair to Montgomery, of all the senior Allied Leaders only Admiral Ramsey saw Antwerp as vital for sustaining the invasion of Europe. None of the other senior leadership did, American or British, so Montgomery was not exactly alone in that.
I was confused until I realised it’s the Duke of Parma’s army, not Rear Admiral Henry Palmer’s
Great job Dutch Republic!
RE: Spanish, Basques, Portuguese, and Sir Humphrey Gilbert; Gee, I've been asking anyone who might know for *years* why St. John's Newfoundland doesn't have a Portuguese quarter; or, if it does, where is it?
Short answer: Spanish activity north of the tropic of Cancer was limited for most of the last 500+ years, but the Basques and the Portuguese had been running westward to the fishing grounds of the Grand Banks for at least that long, and to Labrador for whaling *prior* to the discovery by John Cabot (AKA Giovanni Caboto). Consequently, there's a higher chance of finding living descendants of stranded Spanish sailors who'd reached Ireland than finding a predominantly Portuguese neighborhood in St. John's.
Slightly more common, though, is for individuals to marry into the local population (usually to a good Catholic girl) or perhaps for a single family to immigrate as a consequence of job duties, particularly in the mid to late 20th century.
Invasion by Barge? This is precisely what AH was going to attempt in 1940 and it would have been a disaster (for him, that is). It is clear that Op ZEELOWE could not ever, ever have been a success, given the overwhelming strength of the Royal Navy. That the RAF won the Battle of Britain was great, and handed a fine propaganda opp to Churchill, but even if the RAF had looked out of the windows of the Mess and decided it was too foggy/wet/etc to fight, the invasion still could not have succeeded.
The Royal Navy might not have been able to operate if the Germans had complete air superiority, but I don’t think even that was achievable. In the worst case scenario, the RAF just had to relocate all their aircraft at airfields beyond the range of the 109’s and that would be the end of it.
The air superiority thing is a bit of a common misconception. The invasion was to have taken place at night, and the Luftwaffe (and RAF, come to that) had Zero useful night bombing capability. Neither did they have any torpedo capability (HGoer had vetoed it) and their previous successes (Narvik, N France, Dunkirk) against destroyers were when they stood stil; hitting a jinxing ship going at 30 Kts is a different proposition. Churchill was well aware of this, hence he allowed the sending of our only two capable Armoured units to N Africa in mid-1940; he knew full well an invasion was impossible, but the threat of one - well, that's a different matter. Just the thing to get the people united, etc. He was the master of this!
Incidentally, rough comparisons of naval power at the time - within easy reach of the Dover straits area and S Coast in early Sept '40 - stands at RN with 40 Destroyers, 29 TB/MTB, and 3 Lt Cruiser. Slightly further away - within 10 Hrs sailing - were another 16 Destroyers, 1 Lt cruiser, 4 Medium Cruisers and a Battleship. And that's ignoring those at Scapa, Rosyth, Belfast and Liverpool. Against this the KsM had - at best - 7 Destroyers, and around 20 - 30 E-Boats, pluse some coastal U-Boats.
@@alanlawson4180 they wouldn’t have needed to bomb the ships at night. If they could have suppressed the RAF completely (not really possible) they could have taken out the Navy at leisure.
@@jeremypnet I think we can agree to disagree on that one - 'taking out' the RN would have been a hell of a task, even with air supremacy. AH, WSC, both Armies and both Navies knew that Sealion was a non-starter, and so it played out.
You don't mention the Royal Navy's coastal submarines, the S class. They would have been effective against transports attacking on the surface at night.
There have only been a handful of successful invasions of England in known history. The last was William the Bastard in 1066, who, as mentioned, was a claimant to the throne. The next was the Danes, who created the North Seas Empire; I do not know where they landed, but they took London. Before them was the Great Heathan Army, again Danes, who created the Danelaw; they landed in East Anglia and took Northumbria before working south and west, taking all but the very south west of England before being halted by Alfred the Great. The next group back was Hengest and Horsa, who were Danes leading a coallition of Angles, Jutes, and Saxons; I do not know where they landed, but they settled southern England and refused to live in the ghost town London. And before Hengest and Horsa, it was Julius Caesar; I do not know where he landed but Dover Castle has a Roman lighthouse still standing.
All in all, England has proved a difficult island to take.
The plan of Spanish Armada was too ambitious and complicated for that time. It depended excessively on uncontrolled factors: weather, slow communications, in addition to not having adequate friendly ports to protect the fleet.
That Medina Sidonia had not taken advantage of the tactical advantage of having surprised the English fleet docked in Plymouth, against the judgment of some of his most experienced captains, also demonstrated that Medina Sidonia himself was right when he himself believed that he did not was the appropriate command for this operation. Luckily for the English.
You need to be careful. The Spanish did not have expeditionary Naval force that could land and attack forces on the English mainland and the Spanish Admirals knew it that why he disobeyed order from there Spanish King at times.
When British and Dutch created the Counter-Armada in 1589, 200 ships set sail to attack Santander where remnant of the Spanish fleet was recovering. Then attack Lisbon in Portugal and then were to attack the Azores islands. It was a disaster. Drake was English Admiral and John Norris was Marine general. Nothing went as planned, but the English and Dutch did manage to land forces in Spain at Curona which was not part of the original plan, thinking that it was an easier target it was not. Curona repullsed the English and Dutch assaults and it wasn't any better when the landed in Lisbon, Portugal. The fleet did manage to get back to England but only under heavy losses.
NOOOO... Drach... At the beginning when he said.. he will try and reduce it all down to a few minutes..
You should have aaid.. nooo no Sir, you take your time, and be as thorough as you can...
Lol... I love it when you have guests... The longer the better...
Though i understand his time is important, and you cant take to much
I live in New Zealand and old Zealand never even comes to visit us, this fills us with such rage and we are preparing to invade soon.
Kiwiland is on the march!
Want to borrow some Warships ? - sorry HMNZ Achilles is no longer available!
@@moosifer3321 I think we have a pair of frigates from the 70s so I think we're good thanks!
As someone born and raised in old Zealand: don't take it too harshly. The place is practically a dead zone and most shipping that could reach you is owned by Maersk etc. who aren't too fond of lending them out for the trip.
If the RNZN is down to two old frigates (which isn 't very scary), maybe they could intimidate the dutch using the RNZAF instead?
Bwahahahahaha!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣
A very interesting analysis.
"until the Boers start get annoying". Those dastardly Dutch, making trouble for the Brits even in South Africa 🤣
antwerp (or brussels) would have been the first choices for a capital of the netherlands if they had been kept from the Habsburg rule... even tho Malines used to be the capital of the 17 provinces... but people tend to forget most of the folk in the south had remained catholic... the duke of Alva had for a time antagonized everyone to chose the rebel side, but eventually the cause was lost in the south. Belgium (and Luxembourg) and the netherlands might well have ended up as one country, but people outside of benelux don't seem to take into account the cultural differences that already existed, and the ones that formed after the divide in 1585... Belgium is a country in it's own right, a flawed one, but one nontheless. Luxembourg is still the (grand)duchy it always was, so in a way it's the oldest of the three. nowadays BeNeLux is a cause all three nations are commited too, militarily, economically and culturally, but none of the countries' inhabitants want to become part of one of the other country's, not even Flemish separatists, and only 16 % of dutch are for annexing Flanders... the walloons who want to join France are negligeable.
I love the fight the Frisians gave the Romans, but ever since viking times, I am confused by Frisia's separation from the rest of Denmark. The vikings controlled the water and had many cities there; one of Ragnar's sons (who died in the Great Heathan Army), was even called the Duke of one of them (sorry, I cannot remember which off the top). The geography is the same, when Doggerland existed they were the same people, when the Cimbrians ruled they were the same people, and until Charlemagne took Frisia and failed to cross the Danevirk and take Denmark, they were essentially brothers. What a wonderful world it would be with all the low countries united with Denmark.
Does anyone in BeNeLux talk about bringing back Frisia? Or joining Denmark? Or has it just been too long?
Drach make a vid about the Anglo-Dutch Wars. There are very few videos about it on YT.