historical myths people somehow still believe

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The anecdote I read from Norwich was that he prayed on a balcony of the Holy Sepulchre which was then taken over.
And what did the Patriarch say to all of this? It is recorded that he muttered "Behold the Abomination of Desolation, as spoken of by the Prophet Daniel, who standeth in the holy place."

Its funny, because Uthman (and many of the other early Caliphs) went out of his way to be nice to these guys. He was on his way to Damascus with his army when he got news that the Patriarch had agreed to surrender Jerusalem, but only to Uthman directly. Dude immediately took off in the night with one camel and one solider, trading the mount back and forth between them, to get to Jerusalem ASAP. It was then the Patriarch who asked him to come pray with him, but Uthman who had the wherewithal not to enter the Holy Sepulcher.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Myth: William Bligh was an exceptionally brutal and cruel tyrant who had it coming.

 

[aronnax]

By 1588, sure, the Spanish were declining in power and resources, because they had already managed to screw up the financial and industrial infrastructure of their empire. But before the Dutch Revolt, you could probably say they were a "world power" of pretty decent magnitude,

Okay, before we continue. What does "World Power" here mean? As in, the amount of power the Spanish had over the world (I'll limit world to mean the New World, The Atlantic Ocean, North Africa) and Europe?

Because I'm arguing that people give the Spanish, Empire and all, too much credit and power and that even in their prime, Say 1530s-50s, They were at best, a great European Land Power with a respectable Navy and were only just slightly more or equal in powerful to France, the Ottomans, Poland Lithuania, not the Master of Europe as pop culture likes to show.

They did face an all-mighty power. The strength of the Spanish Empire in 1588 would be difficult to overstate. The pieces involved in the Spanish Armada were absolutely massive. It is important to note a few points in that conflict.

Okay
1) Where on earth did I say Spanish overstatement of power that caused the disastrous Spanish Armada? All I said was that they were not as strong or as powerful as people of the 21st century like to think. People often liken the Spanish in 1588 to some glorious, European Superpower. It was as if England was the rebels and Philip I, Darth Vader.

2) Just because I said they weren't as strong as people thought, doesn't mean I said they were pitifully weak. The Spanish clearly threw their weight around and were at times a force to be reckon with. But my point is that, the Spanish weren't so powerful, the Mighty Superpower, that they could steamroll Europe like Napoleon or Hitler did. They were at best an overstretched Great Power, equal to contemporary France, Poland-Lithuania or the Ottoman Empire.

3) Your entire last two paragraphs supports my point of 'look-Spain-wasn't-that-strong, so I wasn't even sure what you are arguing.

 

[North King]

Okay, before we continue. What does "World Power" here mean? As in, the amount of power the Spanish had over the world (I'll limit world to mean the New World, The Atlantic Ocean, North Africa) and Europe?

Because I'm arguing that people give the Spanish, Empire and all, too much credit and power and that even in their prime, Say 1530s-50s, They were at best, a great European Land Power with a respectable Navy and were only just slightly more or equal in powerful to France, the Ottomans, Poland Lithuania, not the Master of Europe as pop culture likes to show.

Okay, I guess. But I don't really think even Europeans of the time believed the Spanish were hegemons, just that they were seriously threatening to do so. Partly because of the aura of invincibility that Spanish arms had around them, which is where the whole Armada myth comes from in the first place.

But even then, you have to take into account that little England was leagues below the Spanish in power level power projection capability. The French might have been in the same tier, the Ottomans were even more threatening at this point, but the English were a rather small nation with a fraction the resources of the major continental powers. Really all they had going for them were their obnoxiously good naval skills.

 

[aronnax]

Okay, I guess. But I don't really think even Europeans of the time believed the Spanish were hegemons, just that they were seriously threatening to do so. Partly because of the aura of invincibility that Spanish arms had around them, which is where the whole Armada myth comes from in the first place.

So we agree, the first 30 seconds of this trailer should make you recoil in horror as well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfp09u8g7vI

But even then, you have to take into account that little England was leagues below the Spanish in power level power projection capability. The French might have been in the same tier, the Ottomans were even more threatening at this point, but the English were a rather small nation with a fraction the resources of the major continental powers. Really all they had going for them were their obnoxiously good naval skills.

It's precisely because England had obnoxiously good naval skills that you can, in a way, put them in the same league as Spain. While not as rich or militarily strong as Spain, because England was on an island, it didn't need to be. It all came down to the Naval prowess of the English ships vs the Spanish ships. And in that category, England was on par, or even better than the Spanish.

I always thought that rampant English, Dutch and Turkish piracy showed how weak (or overstretched) the Spanish Navy was. Drake's sea dogs went on a rampage on the Pacific side of South America, North African Beys depopulated Southern Italy and Spain for Christian slaves. Spanish Colonies were forced to trade with English Pirates, plenty of treasure ships ended up in English hands.

Gravelines... seemed like a doomed battle for the Spanish the moment they set sail, even without the storm.
Firstly, the English and Dutch had more warships and armed merchant vessels than the Spanish
Secondly, the English and Dutch were on home waters, they could resupply much easier than the Spanish
Thirdly, having an invasion force on the ships probably means less room for experienced sailors to fight naval battles
Fourthly, because of the Battles of Lepanto and Ponta Delgada, which were great Spanish successes, the refused to change their strategy of hitting close and hard with hand-to-hand fighting.
Fifthly, because the English knew precisely that this was their strategy and took good advantage of it.

And further still, it wasn't possible for Spain to have focused her entire empire's productivity in destroying England. There were the Dutch, the French, the Ottomans and the Protestants to fight.

So precisely because Spain's military power is a moot point when comparing with a defensive England, precisely because Spain had plenty of enemies, and precisely because Spain's navy wasn't at all that big or experienced, I wouldn't consider Spain that great of an adversary to the Spanish in 1588.

 

[vogtmurr]

1) Where on earth did I say Spanish overstatement of power that caused the disastrous Spanish Armada? All I said was that they were not as strong or as powerful as people of the 21st century like to think. People often liken the Spanish in 1588 to some glorious, European Superpower. It was as if England was the rebels and Philip I, Darth Vader.

That might be overstating people's thoughts nowadays a bit Aronnax, but it is true that on the continent Spanish arms were viewed as near invincible by their contemporaries; their reputation survived the Swiss pikes and German Landsknecht. Only France and their Swiss mercenaries gave them a serious challenge for awhile in the early 16th century, and usually they got their ass handed to them. That reputation kind of spilled over to their Armada after the Battle of Lepanto, and other actions in the Mediterranean like Malta. But that was a different naval war..... It is true though that if they had been able to land that army of 30,000 marines with its siege gear and supplies, it is unlikely an English army could have stood up to it, especially with another 16,000 reinforcements ready in Holland. But if you want to know who the 'rebels' were to Darth Vader's 'stormtroopers', it was clearly the Dutch already in the throes of an 80 year revolt, with the Spanish army generally taking Dutch cities whenever they put their mind to it. That was clearly a case of a small power (with some enterprising merchantmen) taking on a great power and eventually prevailing, but only after half of Europe was already engaged.

2) Just because I said they weren't as strong as people thought, doesn't mean I said they were pitifully weak. The Spanish clearly threw their weight around and were at times a force to be reckon with. But my point is that, the Spanish weren't so powerful, the Mighty Superpower, that they could steamroll Europe like Napoleon or Hitler did. They were at best an overstretched Great Power, equal to contemporary France, Poland-Lithuania or the Ottoman Empire.
.

Spain was definitely above Poland-Lithuania and considerably above France in power projection, at least until Rocroi in 1634. The union of Spain with the Austrian Hapsburgs is what made it a superpower, equivalent to the Ottomans at the time (who also started getting their arses kicked). It took 30 years and a succession of great warlords to break their power hold over Europe, and that was 50 years after the 'invincible' Armada, so we shouldn't entirely underestimate how they were viewed at the time in terms of military capabilities.

 

[aronnax]

That might be overstating people's thoughts nowadays a bit Aronnax,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfp09u8g7vI I'm not. First 30 seconds.

but it is true that on the continent Spanish arms were viewed as near invincible by their contemporaries; their reputation survived the Swiss pikes and German Landsknecht. Only France and their Swiss mercenaries gave them a serious challenge for awhile in the early 16th century, and usually they got their ass handed to them.

See below

That reputation kind of spilled over to their Armada after the Battle of Lepanto, and other actions in the Mediterranean like Malta. But that was a different naval war.....

Lepanto itself is a historical myth that everyone believes, I'll explain later.

It is true though that if they had been able to land that army of 30,000 marines with its siege gear and supplies, it is unlikely an English army could have stood up to it, especially with another 16,000 reinforcements ready in Holland.

I agree with this.

But if you want to know who the 'rebels' were to Darth Vader's 'stormtroopers', it was clearly the Dutch already in the throes of an 80 year revolt, with the Spanish army generally taking Dutch cities whenever they put their mind to it. That was clearly a case of a small power (with some enterprising merchantmen) taking on a great power and eventually prevailing, but only after half of Europe was already engaged.

Put their mind to it? Some enterprising merchantmen? You make it sound like the Spanish could have swept away the Spanish Netherlands with ease but chose not to because they simply didn't "put their mind to it". Yeah, true, the Dutch lost when pitted head on with the Spanish on the field, but the Dutch Revolt was more than battles on a field, it was also a guerrilla war, an attrition war and a naval war. To measure it by the number of cities they held is not detailed enough. Deventer, Leiden, Reimerswaal, Rijmenam, Turnhout, Alkmaar, Groenlo, Nieuwpoort, Sluis and Gibraltar were all great Dutch Victories, A number of them, land battles with grand armies and city sieges. Although the strength of the Spanish Tercio was a force to be reckon with, the myth of them being "unbeatable" till Rocroi is farce.

Spain was definitely above Poland-Lithuania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Golden_Age Huh? What?

and considerably above France in power projection, at least until Rocroi in 1634.

debatable. France, despite constantly losing to Spain in the Italian Wars, was more than able to project her influence onto German Protestant states, Scotland, parts of Italy, the Dutch Rebels and most importantly, her long-standing alliance with the Ottomans.

The union of Spain with the Austrian Hapsburgs is what made it a superpower, equivalent to the Ottomans at the time (who also started getting their arses kicked).

The Ottomans were hardly "getting their arses kicked" in the 16th century. 2 years after the so called 'decisive' Lepanto, 350 new Ottoman ships captured Cyprus under the noses of the Venetians, Spanish and their allies. The year after that, the Ottomans kicked Spain out of Tunisia. 9 years after Lepanto, they pushed Portugal out of Morocco. In 1604, the Hasburg accepted defeat to the Ottomans in the Long War and ceded Hungary. In 1664, where after two battles, one in victory and one in defeat against Austria, Austria paid tribute to the Ottomans. Even as late as as 1711, the Ottomans repulsed a Russian invasion. I call that a pretty spectacular record of bad-assery on the part of the Ottomans.

It took 30 years and a succession of great warlords to break their power hold over Europe, and that was 50 years after the 'invincible' Armada, so we shouldn't entirely underestimate how they were viewed at the time in terms of military capabilities.

Yes, look at all the power they had over Europe, unchallenged at any point, pure domination of Europe.

The Hapsburg increasingly lost control over the Holy Roman Empire, never had control of the Mediterranean Sea, slowly lost control of the Spanish Netherlands, had pirate-disrupted control of her colonies, fought a centuries worth of incredibly exhausting and costly wars with France to keep control of parts of Italy, lost control of the Balkans, lost control of their economy. In other words, yes, we can entirely underestimate how they were viewed at the time in terms of military capabilities, as well political and economical.

 

[North King]

So we agree, the first 30 seconds of this trailer should make you recoil in horror as well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfp09u8g7vI

Not really. They're selling a movie.

It's precisely because England had obnoxiously good naval skills that you can, in a way, put them in the same league as Spain. While not as rich or militarily strong as Spain, because England was on an island, it didn't need to be. It all came down to the Naval prowess of the English ships vs the Spanish ships. And in that category, England was on par, or even better than the Spanish.

Now that's nonsense. You can't put one country in the same league as another one just because it is extremely defensible. Switzerland might have withstood the assault of any nation in Europe, but you're not going to mistake them for a world power in anything except finance and watchmaking. There's a difference between tough and strong.

I always thought that rampant English, Dutch and Turkish piracy showed how weak (or overstretched) the Spanish Navy was. Drake's sea dogs went on a rampage on the Pacific side of South America, North African Beys depopulated Southern Italy and Spain for Christian slaves. Spanish Colonies were forced to trade with English Pirates, plenty of treasure ships ended up in English hands.

But plenty of treasure ships got through, colonies weren't forced to trade by strength of arms but by the rather stupid policies of the Spanish crown, "depopulating" is an overstatement, etc. Granted, the Pacific coast was hilariously underdefended, but that's the whole point. The Spanish weren't a naval empire. But in a time period where the only real "naval powers" were the English, the Italians, and the Turks, and you can use the resources of the middle one and the first one isn't going to hurt you anywhere except by piracy, which in the long run was significant but bearable... well, then you don't really need to be a naval empire.

The Spanish weren't good at projecting their power over water, but they were extraordinarily good at projecting it over land and into the colonial world. So, no, not a hegemon, but certainly still a formidable assemblage.

Gravelines... seemed like a doomed battle for the Spanish the moment they set sail, even without the storm.
Firstly, the English and Dutch had more warships and armed merchant vessels than the Spanish
Secondly, the English and Dutch were on home waters, they could resupply much easier than the Spanish
Thirdly, having an invasion force on the ships probably means less room for experienced sailors to fight naval battles
Fourthly, because of the Battles of Lepanto and Ponta Delgada, which were great Spanish successes, the refused to change their strategy of hitting close and hard with hand-to-hand fighting.
Fifthly, because the English knew precisely that this was their strategy and took good advantage of it.

And further still, it wasn't possible for Spain to have focused her entire empire's productivity in destroying England. There were the Dutch, the French, the Ottomans and the Protestants to fight.

I agree with basically all these points. It was a badly planned and ludicrously badly run invasion (even according to the standards of the bad plan they had) and even if they had planned it better it would have been a difficult battle.

So precisely because Spain's military power is a moot point when comparing with a defensive England, precisely because Spain had plenty of enemies, and precisely because Spain's navy wasn't at all that big or experienced, I wouldn't consider Spain that great of an adversary to the Spanish in 1588.

I dunno, I would still put them up there. They're not going to be invading England any time soon, but that doesn't give the English parity by any stretch of the imagination, and it still makes the Spanish up there as one of the top two or three powers in Europe.

And for reference, you can't just say that because an empire is overstretched, it's not a powerful empire, which seems to be an implication here.

 

[Louis XXIV]

BTW, although I do think the Spanish Hapsburg Empire at its peak, was the dominant power in Europe, I think more interesting is that Spain was able to be so significant considering it never really had the resources of France or England. I think the resources it did get from the new world were squandered in warfare, but they were able to put those resources to bear all over the globe.

 

[Dumanios]

Yes, look at all the power they had over Europe, unchallenged at any point, pure domination of Europe.

And what of America's Clear Military Dominance over everyone else?

 

[aronnax]

And what of America's Clear Military Dominance over everyone else?

You do realised that for the first 4, America did not have sole dominance of the world right? USSR and such

And for the 5th one, It was WWII, America did not have sole dominance, otherwise Japan wouldn't have you know, attacked.

And the last two, they won one and both of them are in an era of declining American influence.

Lastly, none of those wars were a serious blow to the ability of American Power Project projection.

The Hapsburg's ability to fight was seriously reduced by you know, the Protestant Reformation against the Catholics and the powers of the Emperor? The Ottomans pushing them out of Hungary and North Africa, the English and Dutch draining them into four bankruptcies.

Give me a call when America declares bankruptcies, have New York declare independence (Dutch Revolt), loses the whole West Coast to Canada and Russia (lost of North Africa and the Balkans to the Ottomans), has its entire East Coast raided by pirates every summer (English, Dutch, Turkisk Piracy)and all the Catholic Citizens successfully fighting for religious and semi-political autonomy(Protestant Reformation and related wars) while losing it's entire fleet to England (Gravelines). And throw in a China that declares war on you every 20 years (Italian Wars with France)

Bad comparison. Really bad comparison.

 

[North King]

BTW, although I do think the Spanish Hapsburg Empire at its peak, was the dominant power in Europe, I think more interesting is that Spain was able to be so significant considering it never really had the resources of France or England. I think the resources it did get from the new world were squandered in warfare, but they were able to put those resources to bear all over the globe.

Well, this is actually what I was kind of trying to discuss earlier. Spanish power was never really Spanish power to begin with; though the contributions of the peninsula weren't exactly insignificant, the Empire was a lot more remarkable for its ability to coordinate the resources of different regions controlled or aligned with the Hapsburg monarchy, notably Italy, the Netherlands, the New World, Germany, and Spain itself. It was the decline in influence over these regions that really doomed the Spanish to the status of a third rate power -- well, that and the fact that their metropol's economy never really got going, too.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Oh, I can't argue that Spanish power solely in Spain wasn't very impressive. But it's colonial holdings gave it a huge advantage at one point. As for their European holdings, I think they gave them a significant advantage at one point, but this advantage turned into a disadvantage eventually. It wasn't a sustainable empire, but this is obvious just based on the fact that it wasn't sustained. But I do think they were the most powerful European power when they were at their peak (which doesn't mean that the other powers were useless or that the Ottomans weren't more powerful).

 

[Dachs]

It wasn't a sustainable empire, but this is obvious just based on the fact that it wasn't sustained.

aaaaargh

 

[vogtmurr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfp09u8g7vI I'm not. First 30 seconds.

Thanks, I enjoyed the trailer. Do you deny England thought they were taking on a tiger at the time ?

Put their mind to it? Some enterprising merchantmen? You make it sound like the Spanish could have swept away the Spanish Netherlands with ease but chose not to because they simply didn't "put their mind to it".

Then maybe you should forget how it sounds to you, and read what I wrote, and what actually happened, and how the other powers of Europe looked at Spain at the time. You compared England to the rebels in Star Wars; I said the comparison is more appropriate to the Dutch. How does that make it an easy conquest for Spain ?

Yeah, true, the Dutch lost when pitted head on with the Spanish on the field, but the Dutch Revolt was more than battles on a field, it was also a guerrilla war, an attrition war and a naval war. To measure it by the number of cities they held is not detailed enough. Deventer, Leiden, Reimerswaal, Rijmenam, Turnhout, Alkmaar, Groenlo, Nieuwpoort, Sluis and Gibraltar were all great Dutch Victories, A number of them, land battles with grand armies and city sieges. Although the strength of the Spanish Tercio was a force to be reckon with, the myth of them being "unbeatable" till Rocroi is farce.

That myth was very real at the time, and unfarcical. You are implying this is a modern day fallacy, when actually (according to you) it was a contemporary fallacy. The list of fortified moated cities the Spanish took from the Dutch is far longer; including some that had held out earlier like Groenlo, Mechelen, Zutphen and Breda to name a few. Do you think 80 years is a long time for them to secure their independence, only after Spain faced a coalition of every other major power on the continent ? There is barely one decisive victory over the Spanish Tercios for almost a century before Rocroi. Nieuwpoort was the first serious check the Dutch gave them in battle, far from decisive, and it didn't save Ostend, the biggest and most disastrous siege of the war. Nor could Maurice of Nassau save Breda again, in 1624. The Dutch survived and prevailed which is remarkable, but not because 'the Spanish were grossly overrated'. Don't forget; it took Mansfeld, Brunswick, Gustavus Adolphus, Torstenson, Conde and Turenne a long bitter war to finally check Spanish-Hapsburg power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Golden_Age Huh? What?

I was going to say 'no comment' - but sure Poland had its glory days.

debatable. France, despite constantly losing to Spain in the Italian Wars, was more than able to project her influence onto German Protestant states, Scotland, parts of Italy, the Dutch Rebels and most importantly, her long-standing alliance with the Ottomans.

Yeah ok 'influence' sounds pretty tenuous - how does that compare to this (in 1547); and it doesn't include the New World

Spoiler :

The Ottomans were hardly "getting their arses kicked" in the 16th century. 2 years after the so called 'decisive' Lepanto, 350 new Ottoman ships captured Cyprus under the noses of the Venetians, Spanish and their allies. The year after that, the Ottomans kicked Spain out of Tunisia. 9 years after Lepanto, they pushed Portugal out of Morocco. In 1604, the Hasburg accepted defeat to the Ottomans in the Long War and ceded Hungary. In 1664, where after two battles, one in victory and one in defeat against Austria, Austria paid tribute to the Ottomans. Even as late as as 1711, the Ottomans repulsed a Russian invasion. I call that a pretty spectacular record of bad-assery on the part of the Ottomans.

I'm afraid I have to correct you here, the fall of Nicosia and resultant massacre happened before Lepanto, which event it triggered. Famagusta also fell two months before Lepanto. Spain raided Tunis which was a stronghold of the Barbary corsairs and held it for a short while before Lepanto, its not like they were defending home turf. I'm talking about overall trends here. I said the Hapsburg-Spanish empire was equivalent to the Ottomans in power, who began to get the worst of it. Lets not get in to who was the most badass empire, it inevitably leads to some offensive misinterpretation that this whole debate is about our personal favourites or prejudices, which for me is neither in this case.

Yes, look at all the power they have over Europe, unchallenged at any point, pure domination of Europe.

So what are you trying to say ?
I could provide a longer list of Spanish victories in Europe. Did the ottomans have a great empire - granted they did. I don't have as long a list of URLs of Hapsburg-Spanish succeses vs. the Ottomans before the Siege of Vienna. But you can start with these:

Ottoman-Portuguese conflict 1538-1557 not really Spanish yet, but since we are talking about power projection
Rhodes technically an ottoman victory, but...
Siege of Malta
Lepanto
Saint Gotthard
EDIT: and most definitely, don't neglect this overlooked little piece of history 1645-1669 Venetian-Ottoman War
And this doesn't include the two victories of Poland at Khotyn in 1621 and 1673. By the way, any past reference to Sobieski I may have made, is only to respect a good soldier, not that he was the 'saviour of western Christendom'.

 

[Yui108]

I was under the impression Spain was the premier power in Europe until the mid 17th century. Not hegemonic, but that is pretty rare.

 

[Louis XXIV]

aaaaargh

I was a touch tongue in cheek there, don't worry. But I do think Spain itself could not stay on top forever and this is seen in how they kept themselves on the top. When people look back at the Spanish Empire, there are very few pet what-if theories about how, if one event had changed, they would still be dominant. It shows that it was more good circumstances of the time that propelled them into prominence than bad circumstances that dropped them from that role.

 

[Dachs]

I was a touch tongue in cheek there, don't worry. But I do think Spain itself could not stay on top forever and this is seen in how they kept themselves on the top. When people look back at the Spanish Empire, there are very few pet what-if theories about how, if one event had changed, they would still be dominant.

Maybe this is chiefly due to a general lack of understanding as to the causes of the rapid destruction of the Spanish Empire more than a lack of interest in the counterfactuals nestled within. Few people inquire as to alternative resolutions of the wars of the Diadochoi, but those wars were nothing if not chock full of contingent events and instances of extremely high indeterminacy. Perhaps it is simply that those events are uninteresting to people, or that there have been no great romanticizers of early modern Spanish - or, indeed, Hellenistic - history to instill what-ifs in countless authors' minds.

It shows that it was more good circumstances of the time that propelled them into prominence than bad circumstances that dropped them from that role.

It does nothing of the sort. Those two things are far from inherently juxtaposed, for one thing.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I was under the impression Spain was the premier power in Europe until the mid 17th century. Not hegemonic, but that is pretty rare.

Essentially, though by the beginning of the 17th century Spanish power was, for the most part, on the decline.

 

[Tee Kay]

I could provide a longer list of Spanish victories in Europe. Did the ottomans have a great empire - granted they did. I don't have as long a list of URLs of Hapsburg-Spanish succeses vs. the Ottomans before the Siege of Vienna. But you can start with these:

So? He's not trying to say that the Ottomans were superior to the Habsburg or that they dominated the Europe. It appears he was disproving the point that the Habsburg had some kind of unassailable power and dominance in Europe.