Granada avenged?

Regarding the naval battles and Spanish strongholds

Spanish possessions in Africa Norte... in this category are those of Spanish territory or sovereignty strongholds include:

A) Possessions.

Cazaza (1505-1532).
Mazalquivir (1505-1708, 1732-1792).
Orán (1509-1708, 1732-1791).
Algiers (1510-1530).
Bejaia (1510-1555).
Peñón of Algiers (1510-1529).
Gerba (1521-1524) and (1551-1560).
Honaine (1531-1535).
Bizerte (1535-1573).
La Goleta (1535-1574).
Tunisia (1535-1574).
Monastir (1541-1550).
Susa (1541-1550).
Mahdia (1550-1553).
Santa Cruz de Mar Pequeña (1510-1644).
Tripoli (1510-1523; ceded to the Order of Malta, lost definitively in 1551).
Mamora (1614-1681).
Larache (1610-1689) and (1912-1956).
Tetuán (1860-1862) and (1912-1956).


B) Spanish sovereignty strongholds.

Melilla (since 1497).
Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera (1508-1522 and since 1564).
Alhucemas Islands (since 1559).
Ceuta (1415-1668 Portuguese;1580-1668 Iberian Union) since 1580 is Spanish.




-Following Lepanto, was fought against the Ottomans at least two major naval battles:


The first was to Battle of Cape Corvo in August 1613, near the island of Samos... When a Spanish squadron from Sicily, under Admiral Ottavio d'Aragona, engaged an Ottoman fleet led by Sinari Pasha.

The Spanish Were victorious and captured seven galleys and About 600 Prisoners, Among them the Bey of Alexandria and another 60 Important Ottoman nobles.
Corvo Cape was the first major victory of the Spanish fleets under Pedro Téllez-Girón, 3rd Duke of Osuna, the Spanish Viceroy of Sicily, as well as the greatest Spanish victory over the Ottoman Empire since the Battle of Lepanto


Battle of Cape Celidonia


In 1616 a Spanish fleet under the command of Captain Don Francisco de Rivera and Medina sailed from the Spanish Kingdom of Sicily to the Eastern Mediterranean waters in order to Undertake Against Ottoman privateering vessels and ports in the area between Cyprus and the region of Çukurova.

It was composed by five galleons and one patache.(1)
These ships were 52-gun Concepción, the galleon Concepción with 52 cannons and flagship of Rivera; Almiranta with 34 guns and commanded by Lieutenant Serrano; 27-gun Buenaventura, under Don Iñigo de Urquiza; Carretina 34 guns, commanded by Balmaseda; 30-gun San Juan Bautista, led by Juan Cereceda; and 14-gun patache low Gazarra Santiago. Aboard the ships were about 1,600 Spanish soldiers, of which 1,000 were musketeers.

They faced 14 to 16 July 1616 nearby Cape Celidonia on the southern coast of Anatolia to Ottoman fleet of 55 galleys, the fact is that the Turks, five pieces per boat, gathered no less than 275 guns against the 95 of each band of Spaniards, and as for men, no less than 12,000 to less than 2,000 Spaniards. The Turkish victory seemed beyond doubt.

The Ottoman fleet was completely defeated by the Spanish... suffering heavy losses, with 10 galleys sunk and another 23 disabled. 1,200 Janissaries and 2,000 sailors and rowers were killed.

The Spanish fleet only suffered 34 dead and 93 wounded, as well as damage to the rig of the Concepción and the Santiago, which had to be towed by other vessels.

The Spanish naval defeats and victories of English, Dutch and French are apparently well known and help the myth that any enemy or an alliance of enemies of Spain: European, Ottoman or African... would be sufficient that they would proposed thereto and manage to defeat Spain.

Regarding the naval battles in the wars against their European rivals, just give some examples to demystify the perception of some people about the one-sidedness of the fighting against the Spaniards.



1) The battle called of Muros or Finisterre between French and Spanish occurred on July 25,1543. The French raiding squad was composed of 24 ships under the command of Jean de Glamorgan.

The Spanish fleet of 16 ships commanded by Don Alvaro de Bazan, father of the homonymous and most famous Marquis of Santa Cruz who also would defeat another French fleet in the Azores, healthy later ..
With the result of being imprisoned not less than 23 French ships, escaping only one, although other ratios lower the figure to 16 vessels without losing a single ship Spaniards meanwhile. French casualties were over three thousand dead and similar number of prisoners per 300 deaths and over 500 injuries among Spaniards.

2) The Battle of Cape Palos or Almeria happened in the summer of 1591 when the Spanish fleet in advance, Don Martín de Padilla (once back from his trip to the Republic of Venice to Spain surprised to an Anglo-Dutch fleet Almería waters. Resulting in a complete victory for Spain.


Finally to mention the Spanish victories in two naval battles: Bayonne bay 1590 and the Battle of the Bay of Biscay in 1592.


The main sources used to extract,verify and translated the data are:

A)''La Armada Española desde la unión de los reinos de Castilla y Aragón” (The Spanish Armada from the union of the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon) a classic work by Navy Captain Don Cesàreo Fernàndez Duro.

B) Victorias por Mar de los Españoles (Mar victories of the Spaniards) by Agustin Ramon Rodriguez Gonzalez a professor and academic of the R.A. of History.




Edit. Footnote.

1) A patache is a coasting vessel, typical of Northern Spain.
 
Last edited:
Wait, are those notes? Or are you systematically going through the list and injecting bad luck to the Spaniards at each turn?
 
I think my previous post was clear.

Wait, are those notes? Or are you systematically going through the list and injecting bad luck to the Spaniards at each turn

I think my previous post was clear... It was a information list of the Spanish possessions in North Africa and how long they were.
Also writing a summary list of naval battles won by the Spaniards; quoting to my sources and thereby help avoid something very common,in my opinion, which continue making assumptions and/or misinformed speculations about the strengths or weaknesses of Spain, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Implicitly assuming that any enemy could to defeat Spain in a war with only intending...


Regarding the footnote, if you refer to that?

It was required to write a footnote and explain to those unfamiliar with the term, what kind of vessel was a patoche.
 
I think my previous post was clear... It was a information list of the Spanish possessions in North Africa and how long they were.
Also writing a summary list of naval battles won by the Spaniards; quoting to my sources and thereby help avoid something very common,in my opinion, which continue making assumptions and/or misinformed speculations about the strengths or weaknesses of Spain, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Implicitly assuming that any enemy could to defeat Spain in a war with only intending...


Regarding the footnote, if you refer to that?

It was required to write a footnote and explain to those unfamiliar with the term, what kind of vessel was a patoche.

Hey listen, never underestimate the ability of luck to change a battle. Vienna got saved from the turks by luck once, and arguably those quick, hostile takeovers by the spaniards across the sea hinged on no insignificant amount of luck, regardless of the merits of the figures.
 
'Luck'.

Hey listen, never underestimate the ability of luck to change a battle. Vienna got saved from the turks by luck once, and arguably those quick, hostile takeovers by the spaniards across the sea hinged on no insignificant amount of luck, regardless of the merits of the figures.

OK. What happens is that 'Luck' can not be quantified or measurable and is logically entirely subjective.

I provided the data and my interpretation .. if your interpretation of them and / or rate them, differs from mine .... we will have to agree that we disagree ...
 
OK. What happens is that 'Luck' can not be quantified or measurable and is logically entirely subjective.

I provided the data and my interpretation .. if your interpretation of them and / or rate them, differs from mine .... we will have to agree that we disagree ...

You didn't contrast my interpretation, you just said that luck cannot be quantified. I'm of the opinion that cause and effect is easy to understand, quantify, and reproduce with enough hindsight- there are branches of mathematics dedicated to that, and of course anyone who's written a decent TL on this forum knows how to manipulate fortune and see the changes ripple. Perhaps our definition of "luck" differs.

Furthermore, I'm not trying to contest you or the data you provided, I'm merely offering suggestions in what I thought was a casual manner.
 
The luck factor.

You didn't contrast my interpretation, you just said that luck cannot be quantified. I'm of the opinion that cause and effect is easy to understand, quantify, and reproduce with enough hindsight- there are branches of mathematics dedicated to that, and of course anyone who's written a decent TL on this forum knows how to manipulate fortune and see the changes ripple. Perhaps our definition of "luck" differs.

Furthermore, I'm not trying to contest you or the data you provided, I'm merely offering suggestions in what I thought was a casual manner.

Thanks for giving me your opinion.

I was referring to your conclusion, what you've described as the luck factor, having been instrumental in certain or all Spanish victories.

That rate is what is subjective and unquantifiable... in my opinion.

Because the task of analyzing all human, technical and meteorological factors that came together in that particular victory or defeat of a Spanish fleet or from any other Nation...and determine whether a biotic factor decisively influenced the outcome of a battle... beyond the obvious like a storm or lack of winds... is not feasible to do so here, with the length and thoroughness necessary and as if trying to post here, even a version summary, will result in huge blocks of text. In addition, given how it works, the academic world, most Spanish classical sources that should be used are not even available in English nor are written in modern Spanish.
The mathematization of the chaos theory or that you need to have the unexpected effect of chance in human events and their use or manipulation for literary purposes... these have nothing to do with being 'lucky' or maybe as you said we have different senses of 'Luck'.

Luck is what the chroniclers often referred to a series of random events beyond the control and human planning that are impossible to replicate at will; which incidentally happen to be favorable to one of the fighters of a Naval combat.

These events are not the same for the sailors of the XVI century with its limited understanding of natural phenomena and their causes, as for of the present time with their ability to foresee and use them in their favor.
 
So what I'm taking away from this discussion, Xenophonte, is that a post-Reconquista re-invasion of Iberia by Maghrebi forces is not plausible?

What about this: a war between Spain and France which sees a French ground invasion and naval attack on Spain (arising from whatever political situation is most plausible), during which Morocco (and England?) provides military support to France and is able to launch a limited operation of its own against the coast of Andalusia.

Since naval power is a huge factor in these scenarios, as many posters have pointed out - is there any way to boost Morocco's naval capability during the late 15th century?

Basically, I'm trying to see what is the maximum plausible extent to which a 16th-century Moroccon state could carry out a successful military operation against Habsburg Spain, in which it acquires the maximum plausible amount of territory for the maximum plausible amount of time. Even if the answer to that is "a few villages on the Andalusian coast for about a week" ;)
 
A Magrebi invasion post-Granada is not just implausible, it's borderline impossible. The Wattasid Dynasty, the ruling dynasty of Morocco at the time of the fall of Granada, were a mess, and later proved to be incapable of defending themselves from the Portuguese and the Spanish, and I feel that had it not been for the Saadi's, the Reconquista would've surely continued into conquest of the former Mauritania province. On top of that the Wattasids, (more so the later rulers of that dynasty) pursued a conciliatory stance with the Iberians, to no avail.

Simply put, before you can talk about any wank with Morocco from that time frame, you first need to settle the internal crapstorm that is going on in Morocco, either by changing the policies of the Wattasids, or by establishing a dynasty that can sooner than OTL (the succeeding Saadi's didn't accede until 1554, by then too late to effectively fight the Iberians on their own turf.)
 
French threat and Berber fleet.

So what I'm taking away from this discussion, Xenophonte, is that a post-Reconquista re-invasion of Iberia by Maghrebi forces is not plausible?

What about this: a war between Spain and France which sees a French ground invasion and naval attack on Spain (arising from whatever political situation is most plausible), during which Morocco (and England?) provides military support to France and is able to launch a limited operation of its own against the coast of Andalusia.

Since naval power is a huge factor in these scenarios, as many posters have pointed out - is there any way to boost Morocco's naval capability during the late 15th century?

Basically, I'm trying to see what is the maximum plausible extent to which a 16th-century Moroccon state could carry out a successful military operation against Habsburg Spain, in which it acquires the maximum plausible amount of territory for the maximum plausible amount of time. Even if the answer to that is "a few villages on the Andalusian coast for about a week" ;)

Ok. You need is a landing of an invasion force and to control the ground temporarily until they are expelled...

First I'm no expert in Morocco but my knowledge of the socio political situation and the Iberian powers interactions in OTL, I must say it is quite difficult, almost impossible without major changes prior to this period that such changes only alter Morocco, it is even harder.

As I said before, you need the Banu Marin survive as a power in Africa to this time or their successors: the sultanate Wattásida or the Saadian sultanate achieved expand his power base and build a fleet capable of destroying the Spanish fleet in the Alborán sea.
Achieve mastery of the Straits of Gibraltar, isolating the Mediterranean from Atlantic at least for a while.

If done, their army should be able of take on the task of laying siege and conquer the Spanish strongholds that prevent the landing and reinforcement of troops on the coast of the Alborán Sea.

Not to mention the fortresses on the African coast, that until its conquest will threaten standing, against theirs rear and possible beachhead Spanish in Africa.

Then, as it mentioned above; the Berber fleet should be able to prevent the Spanish fleet in Naples and Sicily to transport and land in Spain to the Spanish thirds from Italy.


Achieved this and assuming it before 1580 and Portugal do not decide that this invasion is more dangerous for them than for Spain and decide to get involved...

The threat of France varies according to the seasons and according to the internal strength of the kingdom of France, but overall it's not a big threat to the territory of Spain because besides that was often bypassed by... ,in OTL, the French invasions were limited to northeastern of Spain and the only strategic city threatened it would Barcelona and historically in this period, the required size of the army to threaten would have to be very large.

Because in addition to the Spanish military forces... every Iberian kingdom had ability to maintain and recruit their own defense forces .... But it depends if the timeframe chosen to succeed this distraction; if it's conforms to the actual capacities of France and Spain... could serve.

Regarding the French naval threat similar to what I said about the French army, and especially the time frame chosen the French navy went from being a threat to be ineffective or divided as the rest of France in religious loyalties and side Catholic was an ally of the Spaniards.

Finally you should find a time when France still represents a credible threat and decides to fight in Spain and not in Italy...

This should coincide with the establishment of a new Berber empire in North Africa successor and stronger than their predecessors; covering the territories of present Morocco and at least part of Algeria.

This African Empire besides their military force, must build a credible naval capability that allows the achievement of the desired goals for you.

This hypothetical Navy Berber should be able to cope and be successful in an naval engagement, something very different in capacity and type of vessels required; to those used for piratical incursions in OTL.
Also, they should be able to do what European rivals Spain, failed to establish and defend... a beach head permanently in Spain, as a prelude to an invasion.
 
Could the Moroccans have landed a force in southern Spain to support a revolt? I'm sure they could, I'd hate to guess how large.

Might the Ottomans promising support make that more likely? Yes, but any realistic amount of support simply isn't going to arrive over those distances.

Would Spain's foreign entanglements and distractions give the Moroccans a chance to gain a foothold? Entirely possible, IMO.

Would Spain drop those entanglements and distractions (if necessary) like a red hot poker? You bet they would. The legitimacy of the crown is largely predicated on the Reconquista.

What would the most likely outcome of such a Moroccan invasion be? 1) expulsion of the Moroccan armies. 2) auto-da-fé s and mass execution of thousands, or 10s of thousands of additional moriscos. 3) Conquest of (large portions of) Morocco, even if they had to genocide the entire population. And even if it meant losing chunks of Spanish America to other powers.
 
Could the Moroccans have landed a force in southern Spain to support a revolt? I'm sure they could, I'd hate to guess how large.

Might the Ottomans promising support make that more likely? Yes, but any realistic amount of support simply isn't going to arrive over those distances.

Would Spain's foreign entanglements and distractions give the Moroccans a chance to gain a foothold? Entirely possible, IMO.

Would Spain drop those entanglements and distractions (if necessary) like a red hot poker? You bet they would. The legitimacy of the crown is largely predicated on the Reconquista.

What would the most likely outcome of such a Moroccan invasion be? 1) expulsion of the Moroccan armies. 2) auto-da-fé s and mass execution of thousands, or 10s of thousands of additional moriscos. 3) Conquest of (large portions of) Morocco, even if they had to genocide the entire population. And even if it meant losing chunks of Spanish America to other powers.

I feel like the picture people are painting of 16th-century Spain is putting it on par with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in its military capability and hate-fueled fanaticism. I mean, them steamrolling the American civilizations is one thing (and even there, luck and microbiology played a huge role), but this is almost making them out to be invincible.

That said, I agree with you guys that from a logistical point of view, a Moroccan invasion of Iberia seems to be pretty much up there with León Marino :p
 
I feel like the picture people are painting of 16th-century Spain is putting it on par with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in its military capability and hate-fueled fanaticism. I mean, them steamrolling the American civilizations is one thing (and even there, luck and microbiology played a huge role), but this is almost making them out to be invincible.

That said, I agree with you guys that from a logistical point of view, a Moroccan invasion of Iberia seems to be pretty much up there with León Marino :p

Well to be fair, by most modern standards what happened to the Moriscos and Conversos of Spain would most likely today be regarded as genocide. But of course such terms in the context are quite anachronistic, and we should refrain from describing it as such.
I'm not an expert on 16th century Spain, but I still stand by my choice of PoD as the Morisco Revolt. Perhaps a more successful revolt could lead to a similar terms of agreement as the Alhambra decree of 1492 (freedom of religion, culture, language etc. In return for extra taxes, similar to the Ottoman Millet system), and then as Spain begins to the feel the weight of its imperial expansion and over saturation of gold/silver, a morisco state (probably still majority Christian) could gain independence during the first wave of nationalism.
However, this is under the stipulation the Spanish regime would be willing to compromise on religious issues, especially within Iberia, and that's a very big ask.
 
I feel like the picture people are painting of 16th-century Spain is putting it on par with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in its military capability and hate-fueled fanaticism.
Ummm.... For 500+ years, the various Christian powers in Iberia have made it their goal to kick the Muslims (and Jews) out of the peninsula, to destroy their culture and religion root and branch. With, I'll admit, a brief hiatus when it was economically convenient to squeeze Granada rather than kill it.

If Morocco tries to reinvade?
The raison d'être of Spain is threatened. It would be like Mexico setting out on a reconquest of the American West - only with a religious basis to fuel the fanaticism. Spain would NOT stop until the Moroccan government was annihilated, and probably not until the State was.

No, they're not 'invincible'. But they WOULD recall all necessary armies from the rest of Europe, for instance, until they could smash the offending state and take over enough of the land to be able claim a further 'reconquest' (of Roman Empire Christian land).

The only way they could hold it would be if they then expelled/killed all the locals. (Normally, they'd have allowed some to convert - but if this was SPARKED by nominally Christian ex-Muslims revolting, well, they're not going to allow THAT again.)

So...
Face it, even the Nazis didn't force the Jews to convert to Nazism before killing them.
 
What would the most likely outcome of such a Moroccan invasion be? 1) expulsion of the Moroccan armies. 2) auto-da-fé s and mass execution of thousands, or 10s of thousands of additional moriscos. 3) Conquest of (large portions of) Morocco, even if they had to genocide the entire population. And even if it meant losing chunks of Spanish America to other powers.

2) It's a bit doubtful. Let's compare some examples.

Mudejar rebellion of 1264 in Sevilla and Murcia. Defeated, repressed harshly. The Muslims living in Sevilla left the area to go to Granada. Those in Murcia kept living there.

Mudejar rebellion of 1276 (it lasted somehow until 1304). Even if an area to the north of Alicante lost a lot of population, the bulk of the Muslim population in Valencia or around the Ebro area remained in place, alive and kicking.

In short. It would depend on the kind of "invasion" and, also, of each kingdom. An example. While in Castille conversion to Christianism was conmpulsory and by force, in Aragon it was done peacefully.

3) No. If an invasion from Morocco was launched, Spain would retaliate, of course. But to loose part of his Empire to do so? No, they weren't so crazy. America fuelled the empire.


Oh, by the way. When Farax Abenfarax entered Granada with his rebel army, the Muslims citizens refused to side with him. Would a Moroccan invasion had fared better? I doubt it.
 
Spain,Moorish minority and European anti-Semitism.

As previously stated by Kurt Steiner... the Moorish rebellion did not unanimous support; and neither would have the full support by the Moorish population a hypothetical invasion of an Islamic power.
This only makes even more reprehensible and regrettable, theirs final expulsion of Spain.

The repression of the Moors rebels; in the situation discussed above, with at least part of the Moorish population, rebelled again to support a foreign invasion and those suspected of being rebels or support them in a very hard way, it is possible and likely.



Ummm.... For 500+ years, the various Christian powers in Iberia have made it their goal to kick the Muslims (and Jews) out of the peninsula, to destroy their culture and religion root and branch. With, I'll admit, a brief hiatus when it was economically convenient to squeeze Granada rather than kill it.

If Morocco tries to reinvade?
The raison d'être of Spain is threatened. It would be like Mexico setting out on a reconquest of the American West - only with a religious basis to fuel the fanaticism. Spain would NOT stop until the Moroccan government was annihilated, and probably not until the State was.

No, they're not 'invincible'. But they WOULD recall all necessary armies from the rest of Europe, for instance, until they could smash the offending state and take over enough of the land to be able claim a further 'reconquest' (of Roman Empire Christian land).

The only way they could hold it would be if they then expelled/killed all the locals. (Normally, they'd have allowed some to convert - but if this was SPARKED by nominally Christian ex-Muslims revolting, well, they're not going to allow THAT again.) :confused:

So...
Face it, even the Nazis didn't force the Jews to convert to Nazism before killing them
.


What is not so, is based on this thinking that the Spaniards could have acted deliberately so radically different than any other government of the time, they had acted in a similar case.

Therefore it is likely that later one counter invasion of retaliation against the enemy Sultanate in Africa is made.

It can happen and that costs victims of that counter invasion would be high for both sides, there is no doubt ... but from there to say baseless that the Spaniards could during or after their conquest hypothetical to act in a way deliberately genocidal is in my opinion, unrealistic and ignore the socio-political and religious realities of the time...

Then began to include in your argument to the other religious minority in Spain and linking two problems apparently similar but essentially different and began to speculate about an alleged genocide acts. Because only in Spain there was an Islamic minority, originating from the defeat and conquest of Muslim states; this Moorish minority, most of its members live peacefully in their home regions for decades and even centuries after its conquest by the different Iberian Kingdoms.


Your argument went beyond what was acceptable at least in my opinion, to make a comparison with the Nazis and stating explicitly that the same people who designed and executed the Shoah... could have done better than the Spaniards of the time in their actions against the Jewish people, based on the argument:...
So...
Face it, even the Nazis didn't force the Jews to convert to Nazism before killing them
.
:confused: :mad:

It should be remembered before making unfortunate comparisons with Nazi Germany ... that the main motivation in the case of Spain was religious, not racial nor was the extermination of all those belonging to the Jewish people... like it was in the case of the Nazis !!


Also because in the case of Spain, the goal was the religious homogenization of the Kingdom... a common goal of the time, which as with the methodologies to achieve it were shared with local variations by most Europeans of the time.

The expulsion of Jews from Spain was one more than the long, sad history of discrimination and attacks that the Jewish people were forced to suffer in the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of Christian Europe. :( :mad:

Although I understand the historical context, of course I can not share*that objective nor even less, the reprehensible methods that made use the Monarchs and their royal counselors to expel Spanish compatriots, who belonged to a religious minority... :eek: :(

There are different levels in the politico-religious intolerance and actions that this motivates against those perceived as foreign to the dominant group and / or majority of a society at a given historical period.


Of course, are reprehensible and must be condemned all manifestations of intolerance and hatred in the present and in the past, but even condemning and rejecting our ancestors' actions and motivations ... but that condemn
it should also be accompanied by a critical reading of history to understand why those who did acted as and when they did. :(

In the medieval Christian Europe, these perception, intolerance and hatred as well as promoting intolerance towards members of the Jewish people, for at least part of the European political-religious elites.
Not to mention the countless hate crimes, of which Jews were victims and
of which were financially benefited some members of the European elites. :mad:


The situation to which the Jewish people in Europe was submitted ranged from being forced to lend money to the Monarchs and Nobles and / or after they confiscated their possessions and expelled from a nation where the Jewish people had lived for generations and considered their country itself, which in some cases were barred from the society and banned from returning and / or reside in that nation again... until, in some cases, time later, were called to return and restarting the tragic cycle again.

*In the worst cases they were also victims of the rioting crowds, with impotence or complicity of the local authorities. This situation with the logical local variations of intensity and frequency by historical periods was unfortunately a common situation in Medieval Europe.

This situation was not unique to the Middle Ages sadly and unfortunately with different expressions... the intolerance and hatred towards the 'different', have persisted until today.
 
Last edited:
Top