AHC: Spanish Armada conquers England

And France is happy with Spain in every direction?
Oh no. Of course not. France will end up fighting Spain sooner than later, probably helping the Dutch kick out the Spanish out of the Southern Netherlands, while keeping the Spanish troops bottled up in England.
 
I have the feeling that, somehow, Felipe II hoped that by landing and getting a foothold in England there would be a general panic that would bring down Elizabeth and make them to sue for peace, forget the Dutch and get some kind of settlement where Catholics were to be given some kind of breathing space.

As Captain Edmund Blackadder would say, "It was bollocks, Baldrick".

I think the Catholic thing is very doable. Well, to put it another way, far more Catholics are present in Elizabethean England than were Protestants at the time of Henry VIII's switch.
 
Philip wanted to install his daughter Isabella Clara Eugenia on the throne of England.
In the end both Spain and England will loose-Spain will waste its resources fighting English rebels, England would fall into chaos. Queen Elizabeth will be imprisoned, or even executed for heresy so there is dynastic crisis even if Spaniards are finally driven back. In the long run thats mean that alongside Dutch Republic we could have also English Republic across the Channel.
 
I'm not wrong, right? The Spanish had veterans from fighting the Dutch for years. The Spanish had the much larger fleet and a much larger army.

How are they getting that army to England though?

Because it's not actually aboard the Armada and Parma hasn't actually got any barges to help board it. And maurice of nassau still has a large enough fleet to control the waters around antwerp even if the English do nothing.
 
It may not be necessary for the invasion to happen... Because I think it would be probable that when the news spread that the English fleet was defeated / destroyed... In addition to increasing the fear of invasion will weaken much the position of the Queen and / or that of the faction favorable to the war. Therefore, perhaps the Queen may be forced or would have been asked to try to request terms of peace to the Spanish monarch. Of course I suppose, except, at least officially, by the royal abdication, there would be little that would not be accepted of the possible terms for peace.

Would have created another possibility, which I think that could be less probable, that is, that the Queen could be overthrown or forced to abdicate and that those who take power negotiate peace with the Spaniards. However, in case the Tercios had landed in England, their priority will be to reach London... There, would be guessed, that in the face of the threat of assault, could be imposed conditions of peace, and of course to obtain a heavy indemnity from both the English government and London city itself.

In the scenario described above, the permanence of the Spanish troops would be considered, limited geographically. As for the duration of the occupation, it would be only necessary to guarantee compliance with the most important conditions and / or receive payment of at least part of the compensation. After which most of them would be withdrawn except for those destined to garrison some of the most strategic / important cities / ports until the total fulfillment of the terms of the peace agreement.
 
Last edited:
Well... in the long run, the winner will be... France! :)

This was a huge factor in the OTL situation actually; the Spanish plan was to create a puppet monarchy via the Catholic League--either the current monarch would be cowed, or they'd put in a new one.

My go-to source on this is The Armada, by Garrett Mattingly (Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1959).

The most important single lesson from the book: The English had superior guns. And Spanish captains and I suppose sailors knew this too. English ship cannon had longer range. They learned, over the course of the encounter, that they could not stand off so far as to be safe from Spanish return fire (the Armada, by the way, was actually pretty multinational in its crews and hulls, using Portuguese as well as a single grand Venetian galleon (basically confiscated) and perhaps some others in the mix too) but still, if they came in close enough for really devastating firepower on the Armada ships, the Hapsburg expeditionary counter fire was considerably less damaging to them. No way to win without getting bloodied (they tried that first, albeit with some disruption by captains keen on prize-taking).

Also the English were defending, and deployed close to their supply bases--which got overwhelmed, but the Spanish had to sail for a very long time to reach England, and had short and bad supplies. Both sides used up ammunition a lot faster than they estimated they would, but the English could do something about that.

If I recall Parma's attitudes correctly, what he believed was that the Hapsburg Empire should concentrate on conquering the Netherlands first, and then, with commandeered Dutch hulls and crews, and more importantly without these skilled and apt sailors with their light ships very well suited to Channel waters being on the hostile side hemming in Imperial options, invade England after the fall of the Dutch. And considering the huge amount of money King Philip spent on the Armada, it seems plausible to me that if that same money had gone to the enterprise of subduing the Lowlands completely, Parma could have accomplished it and then, using ships superior for the purpose over a much shorter range, and with the interdiction of the former Dutch enemies eliminated, managed to land sufficient troops in England.

The question of whether Protestantism could ever be fully suppressed in England might be the ultimate downfall of Hapsburg-puppeted England, but there most certainly were a whole lot of Catholics in England, whereas the English armies would be no match for Parma's forces if he could only get them landed. They would count on a large rising of the English countryside in their favor. Quite a few nominal Protestants would surely shift back to Catholicism if Elizabeth were to be killed or exiled, and a coalition of Spanish forces (really, mercenaries, but paid by Philip and certainly including quite a few Spanish tercios) and Catholic English held the upper hand. It would be entirely possible for a Catholic monarch to be conciliatory to Protestants and tolerate them, those willing to submit anyway, reserving fire and terror only for those who would not. Now in the long run this might or might not stabilize, but in the short run--Elizabeth could not last long, not as ruling queen anyway, if only those Spanish armies could land.

The Armada plan as approved was doomed I think, but I do suspect that a heavy surge to break Dutch resistance followed, within just a few years at most, by invasion across the Channel from the Netherlands could have worked. The trouble with that was that Philips's pretext for invading was the execution of Mary, and he had to show that Elizabeth would be punished for that directly and immediately, not as something that might happen half a decade or so hence. Also the notion had arisen in some councils that it would be very difficult and perhaps impossible to defeat the Dutch rebellion as long as England was able to aid them. Parma was overruled, wrongly I suspect.

I believe Mattingly does address the incident where shifts of the wind did give the Armada some advantage, but dismisses it as temporary and non-decisive, for even if the Spanish took the best advantage they could English superior gun range would still make it chancy and costly for the Armada to decimate the English ships--whereas when the wind did shift, the Spanish would then be in dire straits indeed. I've found the book and skimming over the chapters again it seems this is pretty much the gist of it. The Armada was indeed more impressive and better organized than the English had anticipated, and staying at safe distances from Spanish counter-fire the English could do nothing to it--but they learned to come in closer, taking damage but dishing out more. Meanwhile if I have found the right passages, Mattingly dismisses the idea that the Spanish fleet could have either caught the English between sea and shore, or landed on England themselves--the necessary troops were in the Lowlands which is why Sidona's orders were to proceed there, to the Flemish ports, and cover their being ferried over.

Another possible divergence from OTL might be if Drake, and other English hotheads, had been given the leeway to indulge in aggressive schemes to attack Iberia in the hope of either decimating the Armada before it fully formed or diverting it to defend their homeland. In fact Drake had led such an expedition earlier, and Mattingly credits the greatest prize he won in raiding the Spanish and Portuguese coast as a large stock of seasoned wood, suitable for building storage casks for supplies; this was far too bulky for his raiders to bring home but instead it was burned up. Mattingly stresses very strongly the suffering of the Armada from supplies that went bad in green wood casks that were poor replacements for what Drake destroyed. But as the possibility of the Armada went from remote to imminent, Queen Elizabeth kept her sea dogs on a tight fiscal leash. This meant that the English, lying in wait in sight of their home shores, were to enjoy the strategic advantage of relatively easy and abundant resupply, and that the entire mass of English seapower would be amassed there. Drake and others wanted to venture out instead, and had they done so, they would have found no amount of mayhem on Spanish or Portuguese shores would divert Medina Sidona from his orders specifically forbidding him to be so distracted, and coming upon England guarded by a depleted and scattered fleet, might have been far better able to arrive at his appointed rendezvous intact. Englishmen fumed against their Queen's womanly "cowardice," compounded with penny-pinching, but in fact Elizabeth's strategic judgement appears to have been far superior to theirs. To make such a POD then, one either must have mass mutiny against the regal commands, or for Elizabeth to be browbeaten or beguiled into quite different decisions. These would be out of character.

Two more major issues, already touched on, cloud any possible Spanish victory. Parma was not disobedient to his orders in the grand plan, but he simply could not come up with suitable shipping for the necessary troops, nor could they expect to get across the channel without detection and decimation by screening Dutch patrols. Parma did not in fact control a suitable port to embark his legions.

His own idea as mentioned was that if the Empire had subdued the Netherlands first, the picture would be very different.

Then there is the question of whether English patriotism would trump the sectarian calculations of the Catholic invasion--patriotism both in the form of die-hard and fanatical resistance by English Protestants, and the question of how certain the Catholic and crypto-Catholic sectors of the countryside would be to rally to the foreign invaders. Again the character of Elizabeth herself is pretty pivotal.

My belief, no doubt strongly influenced by Mattingly, is that the consolidation of both these factors in England's favor, that is the ultimate failure of the Hapsburgs to take control of the Netherlands entirely, and the solidifying of English patriotism so that even Catholics could be relied upon to put country and crown first, were more products of the victory over the Armada than backstops against a failure. The failure of the Armada was a great breeding ground of patriotic myth in England, and reinforced the general progress of Elizabeth building up solid Westphalian nationality in her kingdom over her reign. And it also meant the Dutch would be reinforced by England still, whereas the Hapsburg empire was much exhausted from it, especially financially. Had it gone otherwise somehow, we'd find the English identity quite a different thing--surely not Hispancized, but not the nation Elizabeth bequeathed to James either. The Netherlands would probably have to be conquered before the invasion of England, and if by some bizarre miracle England could be conquered before the Netherlands were subdued, their fall would be in short order after the loss of their diligent protector/partner across the Channel.
 
This was a huge factor in the OTL situation actually; the Spanish plan was to create a puppet monarchy via the Catholic League--either the current monarch would be cowed, or they'd put in a new one.
Given the claims of James of Scotland, if he does not get the job then the French will annoyed. If he does then some Spanish would ask why put a French puppet on the throne of England?
 
Given the claims of James of Scotland, if he does not get the job then the French will annoyed. If he does then some Spanish would ask why put a French puppet on the throne of England?

To clarify, I was referring to a puppet Hapsburg-obedient monarchy in France. Much of the book is about Henry III being hemmed in and brought to bay by a widespread and pretty open conspiracy against him personified by Henry of Guise--it was only late that the king turned and struck back against those who would either dictate how he might be permitted to pretend ruling or shove him aside completely. The fate of a third Henry, Henry of Navarre, is wound up in these events. As Mattingly presents it anyway, the Protestant cause, and the independence of the king of France from the supervising hand of the Hapsburgs, were woven together, and with the fate of England; Henry the last Valois, son of Catherine de Medici (who is among those conspiring against him) is apparently helpless until the victory of the English against the Armada steels him, and perhaps, if this linkage is not an artifact of Mattingly's narrative, this reflected a real balance of power in France; that the King could not resist the Spanish-guided plots against him until and unless Spanish power were visibly broken; the implication is that had the Armada somehow fulfilled its mission and landed Parma's troops in England, and destroyed the Tudor monarchy, Henry of Guise would have done away with Henry Valois completely and the next French dynasty would be Guise, not Bourbon. Perhaps Guise would not have proven as slavish a Spanish agent as his career had made him up to that point, but anyway he was Spain's desired candidate.

In France, not England. Obviously the Spanish invaders would not put James on the English throne; more likely they'd invade Scotland after getting control of England and wipe out the Stuart line as well. IIRC Mattingly, right or wrong, assumes Philip would have taken up the English crown himself, as the husband of former Queen Mary, and I suppose he'd make sure of who the successor would be as well. Philip's position was that Elizabeth was illegitimate and therefore out of the line of succession, and the crown should have gone to Mary, Queen of Scots. Mattingly points out though that because of her ties to France, Philip would hardly have wanted Mary to actually take power. Yet, every day she lived, it was her and no one else English succession law declared to be Elizabeth's heir! Per Mattingly, Elizabeth herself had good reason to regret Mary QoS's execution, in that this action put England into open warfare with Spain, but despite that it was also true that a single assassin would have been able to deliver England to this incorrigible Catholic's rule any day she outlived Elizabeth. Elizabeth kept her cousin on ice as long as she could, for had Mary actually taken the throne Philip would have been nearly as frustrated as if Elizabeth could live forever--for Mary would represent far more French influence in England that Spanish.

Philip himself has the English crown, in Hapsburg theory he has been rightful king since his wife Mary died. Since the Hapsburg monarch can hardly tie himself down to English affairs, I suppose that after getting the island subdued, Philip will appoint some sort of viceroy, probably Dr. William Allen. I suppose Allen would be made Archbishop of Canterbury and will oversee all government affairs. Very possibly Philip will not even set foot in England, since he's already been crowned king back during Mary's reign; he'd just assert the whole reign of Elizabeth was an usurpation. With Parliament and the Privy Council in Catholic hands, if necessary the laws of succession will be revised either to perpetuate Hapsburg personal union, or perhaps to handpick some plausible dynastic English successor, preferably someone unmarried, persuade that person to marry someone handpicked to secure the new dynasty to Hapsburg interests, then name them Philip's heir if the personal union is deemed impolitic to try to perpetuate.

Since the Hapsburgs have a lot of irons in the fire, Philip's immediate interests are to be somewhat conciliatory to buy peace. Of course there are certain priorities that may make this impossible; he will restore the supremacy of the Catholic Church, and even if he thinks he is being moderate about it will probably take actions millions of English think intolerable. Probably he finds that a substantial army force is bogged down there in England supporting the Catholic faction. Despite trying to buy peace, his party may wind up having to suppress so much dissent it amounts to civil war. But Parma knew how to do something similar in the Lowlands and probably, at some cost of keeping up a standing army (costs paid in part by ruling of Parliament, since this body would be under his thumb) to keep the threat of violent suppression visible, a sullen peace of sorts would prevail, between bloody flare-ups keeping that army busy. Still, he should be able to come out ahead; at any rate all English support for the Dutch would vanish, and the Pope will make payment on his promise to reward Philip for the suppression of Protestantism in England. Funding to follow through crushing the Dutch revolt should be available.
 
Philip himself has the English crown, in Hapsburg theory he has been rightful king since his wife Mary died. Since the Hapsburg monarch can hardly tie himself down to English affairs, I suppose that after getting the island subdued, Philip will appoint some sort of viceroy, probably Dr. William Allen. I suppose Allen would be made Archbishop of Canterbury and will oversee all government affairs. Very possibly Philip will not even set foot in England, since he's already been crowned king back during Mary's reign; he'd just assert the whole reign of Elizabeth was an usurpation. With Parliament and the Privy Council in Catholic hands, if necessary the laws of succession will be revised either to perpetuate Hapsburg personal union, or perhaps to handpick some plausible dynastic English successor, preferably someone unmarried, persuade that person to marry someone handpicked to secure the new dynasty to Hapsburg interests, then name them Philip's heir if the personal union is deemed impolitic to try to perpetuate.
Works for one generation and given that it is the Spanish the Stuarts will go along with that. What happens when he dies though? Who is the real heir?
 
Let us assume that Elizabeth's navy is defeated or scattered - it's hard to do this (they were well designed ships with good guns, seasoned crews and aggressive commanders) but hardly impossible.

Unless the Armada is exhausted in the course of winning that fight, it can probably get Parma's troops aboard, and land them; I doubt the Dutch ships available would outmatch the English ones, and wouldn't the Dutch quite like to see the Spanish army leave their shores? Short of horses, low on ammunition, potentially somewhat disorganised; but veteran soldiers landed in England. (The force density is sufficiently low that stopping them at the beaches is implausible.
What would Parma do with that army? If I were him I'd move on London. Not as dominant then as it is now in English affairs, but still the biggest, richest city, the capital, and the location of much of England's naval and military capability.
An English army would likely meet them before they got there. That army would most likely lose in the field, but much depends upon the manner of the loss.
If they fight well for much of the day but are forced to retreat late in the day, they may be able to withdraw successfully behind fortifications; Parma's army is short of cavalry. There will then be a solid core to English resistance of troops who have faced the Spanish in open field. On the other hand if they're broken at the first charge, English morale might collapse.

The militia, and English soldiery in general, aren't up to the standards of Parma's veterans. However, if the fight drags on they will most certainly learn.
Contra the fears of Elizabeth and later James' governments, most English Catholics saw themselves that way around rather than as Catholic Englishmen and in any case by the late 1580s most of the population (and even more of those in positions of power and influence) were Protestants.
If Elizabeth is in a place of safety to focus the English, and Parma's troops are getting paid no more often than OTL? I could see it ending in a humiliating retreat a few years later; maybe the Spanish hang onto one or two heavily fortified points for a bit longer until there's a peace treaty.
And at that point England has a burning hatred for Spain, a veteran army, and knowledge that whatever comes next can't be as bad as what just happened (or so they think). How messy do you think things can get...
 
IIRC England was still majority-Catholic at this time, so whilst it would be next to impossible to eliminate Protestantism entirely I think the country as a whole would remain/return to being Catholic.

While it is hard to say given the state of the surviving evidence, I think by 1588 England was moving past the tipping point into a Protestant society, especially in the South (which was where the most wealth and intellectual capital was). Elizabeth had been on the throne for three decades, which mean that A Catholic monarchy was beyond most Englishmen's living memory already. England was also intensely xenophobic, and would resist Spanish efforts along these lines in a way they did not and would not with a native English dynast.

More likely you end up with an England deeply divided by religion, with a significant chance of regional fragmentation. Spain has too many balls to juggle to devote the resources needed to a thorough makeover of English society. The 17th century likely ends up as a long series of religiously dominated dynastic wars.
 
I have the feeling that, somehow, Felipe II hoped that by landing and getting a foothold in England there would be a general panic that would bring down Elizabeth and make them to sue for peace, forget the Dutch and get some kind of settlement where Catholics were to be given some kind of breathing space.

As Captain Edmund Blackadder would say, "It was bollocks, Baldrick".

Based on the accounts we have, Philip put an awful lot of stock in his experience from his stay in Spain during his marriage to Mary. Too much, considering he never even learned the language.
 
While it is hard to say given the state of the surviving evidence, I think by 1588 England was moving past the tipping point into a Protestant society, especially in the South (which was where the most wealth and intellectual capital was). Elizabeth had been on the throne for three decades, which mean that A Catholic monarchy was beyond most Englishmen's living memory already. England was also intensely xenophobic, and would resist Spanish efforts along these lines in a way they did not and would not with a native English dynast.

John Guy for one, IIRC, suggested that it was in fact the failure of the Spanish Armada that provided the tipping point, both by making Catholicism look foreign and threatening and by apparently giving divine sanction to the Protestant monarchy.
 
Top