Armada 1588- Spanish TERCIOs vs Elizabethan levies

[MarkhamS.Pyle]

Originally Posted by Falastur

Parma didn't think that the Armada would ever land. In this, he was correct. That isn't to say that he didn't think that the tercios could conquer England. They blatantly would. England's standing army of the time was about 1,000 men organised in bodyguard regiments - the yeomanry, the Royal Archer Company, a few castle garrisons etc. The majority of any English force would be city militia and the London Trained Bands. These units would be stomped all over. Spanish conquest of England would be a foregone conclusion. The only thing is that the ideas for how to get the troops across the Channel were a beautiful addition to the centuries of abortive English invasion attempts. In fact, it was alarmingly similar to both Napoleon and Hitler's plans. They wanted the troops to board these oblong-shaped barges, each to hold 100 men, and to be dragged by the Spanish warships. They believed that this could be done in one go, which was entirely false since Parma's army was 27,000 and the Spanish had 130 ships. On top of this, the Spanish would be forced to refuse combat while dragging the barges as turning much would capsize them. Heck, rough waves would capsize them. It would potentially take four or five hours under decent weather for the Spanish to get half of their army across, and while this half an army alone could conquer England, it would be in disarray, and likely the barges would have been ripped to pieces by the English and Dutch ships, who would be free to attack the barges with the Spanish unable to bring them to bear at all. In fact, it's worse - the army was supposed to embark from Flanders, but Flanders had no deep draft ports to allow the troop barges access to the Armada ships, so the invasion would never even be able to start. The Spanish in Spain blindly believed the Armada would have no trouble completing their goal, even the Admiral (Medina Sidona?) pressed ahead anyway. Parma knew for sure it would fail and gave up before even making an attempt at making it work.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why Parma stormed off in a grump and marched into Brabant rather than waiting for the Armada to take him across the sea.

But yes, to clearly answer the original question, the Spanish tercios would have no trouble at all in suppressing the English army - if one would even be raised.

I am, as I expect most people are, well aware, thank you, that so long as Justin of Nassau controlled the inshore waters of the Low Countries and Parma had not seized a deep-water port, the question is moot.

I continue to maintain that Parma, correctly, did not regard even raw English levies as walk-overs. Leicester was worse than useless as a commander, but Parma had a wary respect for such commanders as Norris and Sir Roger Williams, and had long made it a habit to note the presence, in forces opposing him, of English troops and particularly English heavy cavalry.

It might also be noted that, even if a successful crossing put Henry 3d of France fully in the power of the League and the Guisards, few things might have so quickly caused a rapprochement between James and Elizabeth, despite the recent unpleasantness at Fotheringhay, as Catholic troops landing anywhere in the island.

[Tyr]

Originally Posted by Ofaloaf

Really? Are there any good sites (historical societies or whatnot) devoted to old walled towns?

Not that I know of. I see them when I travel to other cities though- even today, civilized peaceful times when people didn't care about history greatly ruined many of them.
Just off my head I recall Newcastle has bits of its old wall, York has quite a bit of its one and Berwick has some pretty good fortifications still existing (Elizabethan ones- it would probably be the best fortified place in England apart from London at the time of the armada)
London of course was very well defended.

[Falastur]

OK. Let's see here.

Originally Posted by pompejus

There is one thing I never understood. If the Dutch managed to succesfuly (or at least relatively succesfully as most of Flanders and half of Brabant remained Spanish) beat the Spanish, why wouldn't the English be able to?

The thing about the Dutch, which I don't think anyone has yet put their finger on, is the natural advantage of their country. It's extremely low down in terms of sea level, and most of the major cities, at least in the north, are close to the sea or surrounded by flood plains from major rivers. Simply put, the Dutch mechanism for defeating the Spanish was to sortie out to attack isolated garrisons and weaken the Spanish hold of the area, and if threatened to retreat to a city and then flood the land. They would flood their land thoroughly, and the Spanish weren't able to get anywhere close to the cities. Indeed, if the Spanish tried to hang around for long then there was a risk that the land turning into marsh would create a load of diseases to ravage their army. The land could be so flooded that there are numerous stories of Dutch warships sailing across the fields to resupply the cities. Thus the major cities of the north were unconquerable.

In addition to this, the Dutch had had to keep pace with the fortress-building of the age, so their walls were relatively resistant to cannon-fire...if the Spanish could even get close enough to establish cannon batteries. In England, no army had invaded properly since William the Conqueror...ok, maybe I'll give you Prince Louis in 1217. But still, the cities had mediaeval walls which a cannonball even had a chance of reducing on the first shot. In addition to this, the English could not flood their fields, and most English cities, because of the lack of need for defence, weren't even situated in strategically sound places. The Dutch always had bases to attack from. In England the Spanish could garrison maybe ten key cities and England would be entirely and hopelessly subdued.

Originally Posted by Valdemar II

The Dutch had a better army. Holland had a long tradition to go to war with their neighbour without help from the rest of Burgundian inherience. The defeat of Gelderland and the conquest of most of Northen Netherland was more or less done by Holland alone without help from either Charles V or even Brabant or flandern. The British was isloated on a island with few enemies on.

I'm not so sure about this. The Dutch hadn't been properly Burgundian for about 50 years by this point - if anyone had lived long enough to remember the days of Burgundy then they were too old to command armies and certainly too old to fight. Dutch troops were occasionally raised for tercios but the Spanish preferred native Spanish armies so the Dutch hadn't much experience here either. The English sent an army under the Earl of Leicester to join the Dutch in 1575 (I think) to help the Dutch and by all accounts it was about as efficient as the Dutch were. That's not to say it was bad or good, it was average, but it showed that England and the Neths' independent histories hadn't counted for a huge disparity in military ability. Also in England's favour was the fact that they had a habit even in the Tudor era of sending small armies to interfere in conflicts every now and again as token support of their allies, so if anything the English had the greater military history in recent memory.

Originally Posted by pompejus

But wouldn't a war in England turn pretty quickly into a whack-a-mole? I doubt the English population would accept the Spanish more than the Dutch. Even less actually as the Spanish had a lawful claim to the Netherlands, which they didn't have on England.

Not so much. As mentioned above, the Dutch always had cities to attack from because it could use flooding tactics to keep a number of key cities free of attack. The Dutch also had a fairly spread-out nobility base due to their recent history of being as many as 8 or 9 separate states. Where an army exists, in this era it needs nobles to command it or it is nothing more than an angry mob, and it needs key figures to fund it. The Dutch had these as each province had its Stadtholders and its own separate courts. In England, if London fell most of the nobility would be placed under house arrest immediately and confined to London, thus taking away most of England's ability to raise armies in one fell swoop, and the fall of the other cities would deprive those remaining nobles of large potential recruiting bases, making it virtually impossible to raise enough men before they were hunted down. They would also struggle desperately for the money to keep their troops happy since overwhelmingly England's administration and economic base was London. Simply put, England in this era wouldn't really be able to fight a war from the minute that London fell.

Also, Philip's intention for England was to enthrone his daughter Isabella as an independent Hapsburg allied monarch.

Originally Posted by Ofaloaf

Actually, Philip II claimed to be a direct descendent of King Edward III of England. Plus, Philip had already technically been King of England when married to Queen Mary I between 1554 and '58.

Let's see. I'm going from memory here.

Edward III --> John of Gaunt (his third son) via marriage to his second wife (can't remember her name) who was the widow of a King of Castile and thus claimed the throne --> Constanza of Castile (or something), daughter of John and his second wife. She was married to the other claimant, King John II of Castile in the treaty ending John of Gaunt's claims --> Castilian line follows to Isabella of Castile, who married Ferdinand of Aragon, they famously united the thrones which would become Spain in the late 15th century --> Joanna the Mad, daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand --> Charles I of Spain (Charles V, HRE) --> Philip II. So yes, Philip is descended from Edward III.

Philip II was never King of England. Popular misconception. He was married to Mary, yes, but the House of Commons denied him the title King of Spain to prevent him from having a claim to the throne supposing Mary died childless. Needless to say it didn't work well, but it did get Elizabeth on the throne without question for two decades.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by pompejus

But wouldn't a war in England turn pretty quickly into a whack-a-mole? I doubt the English population would accept the Spanish more than the Dutch. Even less actually as the Spanish had a lawful claim to the Netherlands, which they didn't have on England.

The spaniards did not want to occupy England. At most, a garrison in London, but no more. For Philip, getting England to stop supplying the dutch rebels and reverting England back to catholicism -which was not impossible in 1588- via an allied but independent Habsburg king was enough. The entire "OMG teh spaniardz will conkur uz and in 500 years we'll all be speaking dago" meme was a very succesful creation of english propaganda.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Melvin Loh

After reading RULED BRITANNIA last wk, with the POD involving the veteran Spanish troops after a successful Armada landing, easily defeating the ad hoc, ill-equipped & partially-trained English militia- would such a result necessarily have been a foregone conclusion, though ?

In a word, yes. At least as far as the initial campaign goes, it would be a walkover for the the Spanish.

I suppose the first question is how and where the Spanish get ashore. For the how, there are two possibilities: Phillip sticks with the original plan and sends Medina Sidonia to Ireland, thus decoying the english fleet; or the duke of Parma has advance warning of the approach of the armada, and begins embarking his troops on August 4 or 5, which would mean that they would be ready to depart on the 6th or 7th (IOTL the embarkation began on the 7th, with the fleet being destroyed on the 8th). As for the where, the plan was for the spanish to quickly shuttle ashore in Kent, and then march on London.

Now, the situation on the ground. Parma will land at Margate, kent, with roughly 30,000 men. Their objective would be to march on london, and hopefully storm it and capture elizabeth. Failing at either task, they were instructed to use their position as leverage to evict the british from Holland and the americas, as well as to enforce the toleration of catholics. Against them were arrayed a collection of militia in southern england in a somewhat pathetic state. The militia was only assembled rather late, and for the most part mustered at Tilbury, Essex: 70 miles away from london, and seperated by the Thames and possibly by the armada. In Kent, there were about 4,000 militia of dubious quality wracked by desertions, tasked with holding the county (although the commanders were not exactly in agreement as to how to do so). Finally, the British defensive works were begun late, haphazard, and incomplete at the time of the Armada.

let's say that Parma comes ashore on August 8, 1588. Using his normandy campaigns as a guideline, and assuming that he can quickly take or bypass rochester and upnor, respectivly, then he should arrive at London around august 16. This may not end the campaign, but there is little the british can do to prevent this event.

Originally Posted by HJ Tulp

How fortified was England anyway? The Netherlands was heavily fortified with even towns such as Naarden and Oldenzaal being walled and able to withstand a siege for some time.

Not enough to meaningfully slow down the Spanish. Long story short, England hadnt seen nearly as much warfare in the past century or two as much of europe. As a consequence, towns tended to be unfortified or to rely on older, outdated fortifications. The main towns of Kent at the time were Canterbury and rochester (canterbury was behind the planned landing site, but rochester most likely would have been taken to cross the medway; maidstone might also have been attacked for that purpose). Both were dependent on medieval fortifications. The only fortress in the southeast which was modern enough to realistically resist was Upnor castle, on the medway. But Upnor could be bypassed, or taken.

The spanish came prepared for modern fortifications. twelve modern siege cannons, plue ammunition, were included in the fleet. These would have probably been enough to reduce upnor, given time, and been more than sufficient to break a town like rochester, or even london (which also relied on medieval fortifications for defense, although the "trained bands" may have been more effective than the levies in other regions). finally, if th war in the low countries can teach us any relevant lessons, one of them is that british garrisons were often willing to surrender to spanish gold. Given how most of the experienced soldiers in the realm, including a fair number of highly placed commanders, were of dubious loyalty, even the strongest fortification would be vulnerable to betrayal.

[The Lurker]

Originally Posted by Lugal

Parma knew it would be one long series of battles and sieges. Even Phillip was not expecting total victory as in April 1588 he advised Parma of the minimum Spanish demands if they reached a stalemate.

If Parma could have taken London and captured the Privy Council and the Queen, then he would be in the strongest position. But conquering the countryside would still be difficult if not impossible.

True.... but at the same time, England is not the Netherlands, and most of the modern fortifications and terrain defenses (canals, rivers, etc) that hindered things in the Netherlands wouldn't exist in England. In fact, the general policy of the previous Tudors had been to try to demilitarize certain aspects of the company, e.g. rural fortifications not under royal control. In other words, England would be pretty brittle compared to the Netherlands.

The English military was in rather lousy shape at this point-- there was no real standing army, the trained bands of the cities and some counties were basically militia, and the traditional practice of raising troops by contracting with nobles as commissioners of array had pretty much died out. In the latter case, guys simply didn't show up for duty, or the duties were limited to a small handful of favorites, since Lizzie didn't like the idea of non-royal people having military power. Likewise, what there was was pretty backwards-- hodgepodge of bows n' bills as well as pikes, muskets, etc.

If you look at the forces turned out for the Tilbury muster, I think you'd get a pretty good idea of what Parma would have encountered-- 16,500 foot and maybe 1-2,000 assorted cavalry.


Also, remember that the English had not having fought any real land battles since, oh, Pinkie Cleugh? I'm not counting Ireland, which was more of a running sore type thing, and I'm ambivalent of the usefulness of whatever experience English mercenaries may have brought home from the Netherlands (assuming they came back to England for the post-Armada fighting at all).

Other things possible include a Catholic rising in support of the Spanish, the possibility of a Scottish invasion of the north of England, etc.

Basic thing is, if Parma can get his army across and capture a secure seaport for reinforcements and resupply, he has a pretty good shot at success. He probably couldn't overrun England with just the proposed expeditionary force mentioned above, but he could certainly knock England out of the fight as far as the Netherlands were concerned, and ship in more troops later if necessary to complete a conquest. That, however, would be more of a luxury or an instance of mission-creep than a necessity.

The key would be London, in any case. Even if Lizzie escapes to the countryside, if Parma could take London he'd control most of the country's economy and trade.

[The Lurker]

actually, this book (google books link) has quite a bit of a what-if workthrough on what could have happened.

[Hypa]

Assuming a successful Spanish invasion of southern England, by whatever means and whatever scenario, and starting from the position that London has been captured and Elizabeth taken prisoner, would there have been any advantage - tactical, strategic, dynastic or other - for Philip II to have renewed his proposal of marriage to Elizabeth? And what might have been Elizabeth's reaction? Might there not have been considerations that would induce her to accept?
(See an earlier thread: Phil and Liz)