Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The British and Dutch Invade the New Spain after the Grand Armada Debacle.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The British and Dutch Invade the New Spain after the Grand Armada Debacle.

    Spain lost most of its merchant fleet and almost all its war fleet was heavily damaged during the Grand Armada debacle.

    Instead of capitalizing on the inability of Spain to defend its invaluable colonies, Britain organized rather poorly the Norris-Drake expedition to attack Spain and Portugal without siege guns, etc, which resulted in a British debacle and allowed Philip II time to repair his warships and build more cargo ships, restoring Spanish naval supremacy.

    Had Britain and Holland sent a large fleet to invade the poorly defended New Spain (instead of the well defended Spain and Portugal), they would have most likely succeeded without losing the numerous men and ships lost in Spain and Portugal. Once firmly established in the New Spain they could capture Cuba and the Spanish Caribbean islands. Excluding the Spaniards from the region.

    Capturing the New Spain would not only provide access to a huge territory and to large gold and silver deposits, but also access to the Philippines (Manila was founded in 1571 by Legazpi, from the New Spain), Hawaii, etc, on the Pacific and to Spanish and Portuguese South America. Losing the New Spain would have effectively ruined the already heavily indebted Spanish king and boosted Britain and Holland enormously.
    Last edited by Draco; 01 Oct 12, 12:56.

  • #2
    I think it difficult for Britain to launch such a force; it didn't exist till 1701

    Is this map one you would consider usable for this OT?

    Looks like New Spain comprised all the bad bits where people ate hearts and what not;

    Philip could keep that kind of trouble, for my money. Especially if one has to purchase a costly fleet and outfit forces for invasion. 8,000 men was too big to support outside of England, in the Netherlands, as it was, let alone outfit a force of occupation to go around the world. Spain's military man power in the 1590s was 200,000, Englands; 30,000. England had to send troops to the Netherlands.
    Now, why bother to mine it yourself and manage the serpent-worshipping heathen natives, when you can just take it off passing Spanish?
    Furthermore, eliminating Spain may have been as much in England's advantage as letting France go by the wayside, it ruined the balance necessary to ignore Europe as much as possible.
    Last edited by Selous; 01 Oct 12, 16:50.
    ------
    'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

    If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

    Comment


    • #3
      The idea that the British captured a lot of Spanish gold and silver is a widespread myth. Over 99% of the thousands of tons of gold and silver produced in Mexico and Peru and shipped from Mexico, which were not lost to Hurricanes, etc, arrived in Spain for centuries. The idea of heart eating savages is also extremely ignorant.
      Medicine, including surgery was more advanced in Mexico than in Britain at the time. The Spaniards not only found huge silver and large gold deposits in Mexico, they also made a fortune with cocoa, a red dye extracted from an arthropod and took tomatoes, maize, hot peppers, peanuts, beans, zucchini, turkeys, pumpkin, etc, to Europe (imagine Italian food without tomatoes from Mexico or German food or fish and chips without potatoes from Peru).
      Mexico was conquered by a few thousand Spaniards, Americans or Frenchmen even when it was much stronger and had a much larger population than around 1589.
      Precisely because Spain had a huge army and Philip had also recently become king of Portugal, it was extremely stupid to attack Spain and Portugal and lose over 10,000 men and 30 ships, instead of sending 6,000 of those nearly 20,000 to the New Spain.
      The Dutch had colonies in the Caribbean and South America that yielded little or no gain, compaired to the New Spain. The British made a lot of money producing sugar in small areas like Jamaica, etc, and started several colonies that failed or grew very slowly in Virginia and would have produced much more sugar in Cuba, etc, and become extremely wealthy in Mexico.
      Most importantly, Philip's huge army and navy were supported mostly by Peru and Mexico and they would have collapsed without them, so Holland and Britain would not have wasted thousands of men and fortunes fighting him for decades.
      The Spaniards also made a lot of money by shipping Mexican silver to the Philippines and trading with the Chinese (who valued it almost as much as gold) for silk, china, etc, which they sold at great profit in Europe. Huge ships were built in Mexico and the Philippines in order to cross the Pacific, stopping in Guam, an incredibly long trip transporting a heavy load in the 16th century. Some heart eating savages.
      Last edited by Draco; 01 Oct 12, 18:54.

      Comment


      • #4
        ' The idea of heart eating savages is also extremely ignorant.'

        It's a gift

        'The idea that the British captured a lot of Spanish gold and silver is a widespread myth.' - Unless the Scotts were in on it too, it'd be difficult to say the British were trying to capture anything. Even then Britain doesn't exist as a state at this time you speak of. The idea that Britain and England are synonymous would appear to be an even more widespread myth.
        ------
        'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

        If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

        Comment


        • #5
          The Dutch and English spent fortunes and thousands of men fighting the Spaniards for a small area of swamps and then the Dutch spent fortunes and lots of work draining those swamps and building dikes to prevent flooding, etc,
          Most Dutch colonies were either extremely far from Holland or very difficult to colonize due to disease, etc, or both.
          Had the protestant Dutch migrated to the resource-rich New Spain with good weather, together with English and protestant settlers from France, Germany, etc, they would have thrived there with much less fighting than in Europe.

          Actually, it is hard to understand that instead of administering directly his invaluable colonies, Philip II would waste nearly a million men and incredible fortunes fighting the protestants, French, Portuguese, Turks, etc, while he had to deal with several stubburn kings under him in Spain. Had he simply relocated his court to America (like the king of Portugal moved his to Brazil when Portugal was invaded by Napoleon), alternating every 5 years between Mexico and Peru and perhaps expanding into North America and Brazil, he, America and Europe would have been far more wealthy and prosperous. In the end Spain would lose about 20 million km2 in America and keep only 500,000 km2 in resource poor and over populated Spain.
          Spain conquered the New Spain with a few thousand men and then conquered Peru, Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina, the Philipinnes, Caribbean islands, etc, also with a few thousand men and made fortunes there. In contrast, Philip wasted nearly 100,000 men and fortunes over decades in the Low Countries and never managed to subdue completely the Dutch.
          Last edited by Draco; 15 Oct 12, 11:43.

          Comment


          • #6
            Draco's idea, perhaps on a more limited scale has merit. A force of English/Dutch only need to control the outter islands to gain control of the area. What good is all the gold etc of Mexico going to do the Spanish if they cannot ship it past Enlgish/Dutch controlled sea lanes?
            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

            youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              If the B-D don't capture the ports in America, the Spaniards will eventually repair and enlarge their war fleet and continue escorting their ships successfully. However, capturing the ports (and eventually the interior) effectively excludes the Spanish fleet from the Americas. British pyrates or RN, even with small forces repeatedly took most ports or strongholds they attacked in the caribbean and continent, including Campeche, Habana, Panama, Lima, etc, always capturing gold, etc, but abandonning them. With a few thousand men initially, followed by most of the population of Holland and protestants from England and the rest of Europe, they could have easily kept the whole continent.
              Even Brazil was untenable, for its navy was never formidable and most of the important cities were either sea or river ports.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Draco View Post
                If the B-D don't capture the ports in America, the Spaniards will eventually repair and enlarge their war fleet and continue escorting their ships successfully. However, capturing the ports (and eventually the interior) effectively excludes the Spanish fleet from the Americas. British pyrates or RN, even with small forces repeatedly took most ports or strongholds they attacked in the caribbean and continent, including Campeche, Habana, Panama, Lima, etc, always capturing gold, etc, but abandonning them. With a few thousand men initially, followed by most of the population of Holland and protestants from England and the rest of Europe, they could have easily kept the whole continent.
                Even Brazil was untenable, for its navy was never formidable and most of the important cities were either sea or river ports.
                Rebuilding and enlargeing the Spaish navy cost money. Much of it cut off buy the E/D which now has more money to also enlage thier navy's. Not such an easy task for Spain to regain thier positon of power in the Caribbean or the rest of the Americas.
                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Draco View Post
                  The idea that the British captured a lot of Spanish gold and silver is a widespread myth. Over 99% of the thousands of tons of gold and silver produced in Mexico and Peru and shipped from Mexico, which were not lost to Hurricanes, etc, arrived in Spain for centuries. The idea of heart eating savages is also extremely ignorant.
                  Medicine, including surgery was more advanced in Mexico than in Britain at the time. The Spaniards not only found huge silver and large gold deposits in Mexico, they also made a fortune with cocoa, a red dye extracted from an arthropod and took tomatoes, maize, hot peppers, peanuts, beans, zucchini, turkeys, pumpkin, etc, to Europe (imagine Italian food without tomatoes from Mexico or German food or fish and chips without potatoes from Peru).
                  Mexico was conquered by a few thousand Spaniards, Americans or Frenchmen even when it was much stronger and had a much larger population than around 1589.
                  Precisely because Spain had a huge army and Philip had also recently become king of Portugal, it was extremely stupid to attack Spain and Portugal and lose over 10,000 men and 30 ships, instead of sending 6,000 of those nearly 20,000 to the New Spain.
                  The Dutch had colonies in the Caribbean and South America that yielded little or no gain, compaired to the New Spain. The British made a lot of money producing sugar in small areas like Jamaica, etc, and started several colonies that failed or grew very slowly in Virginia and would have produced much more sugar in Cuba, etc, and become extremely wealthy in Mexico.
                  Most importantly, Philip's huge army and navy were supported mostly by Peru and Mexico and they would have collapsed without them, so Holland and Britain would not have wasted thousands of men and fortunes fighting him for decades.
                  The Spaniards also made a lot of money by shipping Mexican silver to the Philippines and trading with the Chinese (who valued it almost as much as gold) for silk, china, etc, which they sold at great profit in Europe. Huge ships were built in Mexico and the Philippines in order to cross the Pacific, stopping in Guam, an incredibly long trip transporting a heavy load in the 16th century. Some heart eating savages.
                  The Dutch, well the Dutch never had any real interest in colonising the world. After all it is only a very small country. They were more interested in trading. Initially you will find Dutch trading posts all over the world. The problem for the Dutch starts with those who barred them from doing so.
                  Now many may get confused about the (Dutch) East India Company, which is already a misnomer The VOC, was a privately run institution, more over it does not even have the word -Dutch- in it's original title. VOC stand for Vereenigde Oost Indische Compagnie. (=United East India Company).
                  Why was the Predicate 'Dutch' added. Well quite simply to differentiate
                  because later several companies sprouted bearing the name East India Company. To let the traders know who they were dealing with the prefix was added. There was also a West Indian Company, although they were less successful, for reasons which were quite understandable. The Spanish and Portugese monopolised the South Americas. In the spirit for free enterprise, a number of 'Dutch' Privateers cum Pirates operated in the Caribbean. The Dutch could have protected their factory (=trading post) New Amsterdam from the English maybe once or twice, but it was thought not worth the efford in the long run, hence. The idea of Dutch and English states working together to colonise the world, is a bit fancyful. Yes the Dutch always got along fine with the English, even during times of war with each other. To the Dutch war was a form of business. The Dutch and the English had several ventures going together. Many a time the captains and admirals at least knew of each other and in some cases, they were even personal friends. Which could cause a lof of kerfuffle when the heads of state had other plans.
                  Anyway the world in the 16th and 17th Century worked a little bit differend
                  than might be expected. Very interesting times if you spend a little more attention beyond the well trodden paths. The Dutch state ended up with colonies eventually, but that is much later.

                  Ed.
                  Last edited by dutched; 16 Oct 12, 08:35.
                  The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Had Britain and Holland sent a large fleet to invade the poorly defended New Spain (instead of the well defended Spain and Portugal), they would have most likely succeeded without losing the numerous men and ships lost in Spain and Portugal. Once firmly established in the New Spain they could capture Cuba and the Spanish Caribbean islands. Excluding the Spaniards from the region.
                    I think the overview we are giving the area detracts from our understanding. In the 1500s and early 1600s, Spain was the greatest land army in Europe. It's weakness was it's Navy. The "Dutch" were the Seven Provinces, and they and the English exploited their positions as developing maritime powers to wage war against the Spanish on both land and sea, with markedly better results with the latter. Indeed, perhaps the Dutch and English owe their discovery of Sea Power to the might of the Spanish armies.

                    The Dutch nearly took Puerto Rico, and the British did take both Puerto RIco and Havana in late 1700s. But the problem lay not so much in taking those locations, as in holding them. Tropical diseases were what defeated the British. In both Puerto Rico and Havana, it decimated the troops to the point that the British were forced to withdraw before replacements could arrive. The Spanish, on the other hand, had the advantage of Creole populations who were familiar with local diseases, and took measures to avoid the areas associated with them, or had developed some level of immunity.

                    This brings us to the differences in English and Dutch versus Spanish methods of colonization. The English and Dutch tended to settler colonization, which differed from the Spanish model of military conquest, taking over indigenous empires from the top, and intermarrying with the local ruling classes to govern those below. Where the Spanish found no great empires, they were weakest. And where they found them, they were strongest.

                    Ergo, the best way to weaken Spain was to mount occasional filibustering expeditions, and raid their shipping. What England and Holland lacked was the experience of the Reconquista that formed Spain's view of both military operations and colonization. In the end, that may have been to their benefit as colonial powers.
                    dit: Lirelou

                    Phong trần mi một lưỡi gươm, Những loi gi o ti cơm s g!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The British East India Company was also private.

                      The only reason the Spanish army didn't take Holland was that they were not good at fighting in the marshes, and the Dutch were.
                      Philip not only had a formidable army, he also had the most powerful navy and merchant fleet in the world, which is why by far most of the gold and silver from the Americas arrived in Spain. It was only when the grand armada was wrecked that the Spanish navy was handicapped for a short time, while it repaired the warships damaged and replaced the lost merchant ships.
                      Had the Dutch and British used this window of opportunity to seize the ports in America and to transport the protestant Dutch and French to America, Spain could not have regained the ports. It would have been much easier and far more productive for the D-B to take the extremely weak colonial ports than to raid Spain and fight in Holland for swamps against a huge army.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Draco View Post
                        The British East India Company was also private.

                        The only reason the Spanish army didn't take Holland was that they were not good at fighting in the marshes, and the Dutch were.
                        Philip not only had a formidable army, he also had the most powerful navy and merchant fleet in the world, which is why by far most of the gold and silver from the Americas arrived in Spain. It was only when the grand armada was wrecked that the Spanish navy was handicapped for a short time, while it repaired the warships damaged and replaced the lost merchant ships.
                        Had the Dutch and British used this window of opportunity to seize the ports in America and to transport the protestant Dutch and French to America, Spain could not have regained the ports. It would have been much easier and far more productive for the D-B to take the extremely weak colonial ports than to raid Spain and fight in Holland for swamps against a huge army.
                        Draco, just bear in mind that the struggle of what you call the Dutch against the Spanish is far more complicated. As far as the "Dutch" (Republic of the Seven United Provinces), part is concerned, they were fighting the Spanish off and on for 80 years. It started when Charles V was in power. At times it seemed that the Spanish had won. But new armies were raised abroad, the fighting re-started and the struggle continued. It was a rollercoaster ride for the "Dutch". It was not a Nation as we understand it today. Like said before there was some co-operation between the English and the Dutch but only if it was deemed convenient to both parties and many a time it was very short lived. Generally speaking in the 17th Century "Hollands" power was on the rise, this does not mean that there were no set backs because there were many.

                        Ed.
                        Last edited by dutched; 16 Oct 12, 16:02.
                        The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lirelou View Post
                          I think the overview we are giving the area detracts from our understanding. In the 1500s and early 1600s, Spain was the greatest land army in Europe. It's weakness was it's Navy. The "Dutch" were the Seven Provinces, and they and the English exploited their positions as developing maritime powers to wage war against the Spanish on both land and sea, with markedly better results with the latter. Indeed, perhaps the Dutch and English owe their discovery of Sea Power to the might of the Spanish armies.

                          The Dutch nearly took Puerto Rico, and the British did take both Puerto RIco and Havana in late 1700s. But the problem lay not so much in taking those locations, as in holding them. Tropical diseases were what defeated the British. In both Puerto Rico and Havana, it decimated the troops to the point that the British were forced to withdraw before replacements could arrive. The Spanish, on the other hand, had the advantage of Creole populations who were familiar with local diseases, and took measures to avoid the areas associated with them, or had developed some level of immunity.

                          This brings us to the differences in English and Dutch versus Spanish methods of colonization. The English and Dutch tended to settler colonization, which differed from the Spanish model of military conquest, taking over indigenous empires from the top, and intermarrying with the local ruling classes to govern those below. Where the Spanish found no great empires, they were weakest. And where they found them, they were strongest.

                          Ergo, the best way to weaken Spain was to mount occasional filibustering expeditions, and raid their shipping. What England and Holland lacked was the experience of the Reconquista that formed Spain's view of both military operations and colonization. In the end, that may have been to their benefit as colonial powers.

                          The idea that the English or Dutch were deterred by tropical disease is disproven by English and Dutch Guyana, Belize, India, Jamaica, the DEI, etc,
                          Moreover, Mexico city does not have a tropical climate at all, owing to high altitude.

                          The English abandoned Havana and Puerto Rico, because they were broke, having no gold, silver, etc, (Cuban chromium and nickel had no use yet) and no slave, trade and population flow from Spain during English occupation. The English had excess sugar from Jamaica, etc, (which they forced on the American colonies) and had little use for Cuban sugar. In contrast, the Spaniards started producing sugar in what today is north Brazil when Cuba was occupied.

                          Depriving Spain of the New Spain ruins its economy by taking away Chinese gold and goods (through the Philippines), Mexican gold, silver, cocoa, tobacco, etc, and makes shipping gold and silver from Peru much more difficult. In contrast, it opens the Pacific and all of America to England and Holland. Spain cannot rebuild its fleet with limited Spanish lumber and money, while England can build a large fleet with lumber, labor and precious metals from the Philippines and the Americas.

                          Moreover, in the 19th century England can push not only opium from India, but also cocaine from South America, becoming an even richer worldwide cartel protected by the RN.

                          It is ironic that the first emperor of Brazil hired English mercenary sailors to crush a rebellion in the 19th century, because his navy was useless. Instead of England taking Brazil in the 18th century.
                          Last edited by Draco; 14 Sep 14, 12:01.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Draco View Post
                            The idea that the English or Dutch were deterred by tropical disease is disproven by English and Dutch Guyana, Belize, India, Jamaica, the DEI, etc,
                            Moreover, Mexico city does not have a tropical climate at all, owing to high altitude.

                            The English abandoned Havana and Puerto Rico, because they were broke, having no gold, silver, etc, (Cuban chromium and nickel had no use yet) and no slave, trade and population flow from Spain during English occupation. The English had excess sugar from Jamaica, etc, (which they forced on the American colonies) and had little use for Cuban sugar. In contrast, the Spaniards started producing sugar in what today is north Brazil when Cuba was occupied.

                            Depriving Spain of the New Spain ruins its economy by taking away Chinese gold and goods (through the Philippines), Mexican gold, silver, cocoa, tobacco, etc, and makes shipping gold and silver from Peru much more difficult. In contrast, it opens the Pacific and all of America to England and Holland. Spain cannot rebuild its fleet with limited Spanish lumber and money, while England can build a large fleet with lumber, labor and precious metals from the Philippines and the Americas.

                            Moreover, in the 19th century England can push not only opium from India, but also cocaine from South America, becoming an even richer worldwide cartel protected by the RN.
                            It is ironic that the first emperor of Brazil hired English mercenary sailors to crush a rebellion in the 19th century, because his navy was useless. Instead of England taking Brazil in the 18th century.
                            cocaine wasn't isolated until 1855, slightly out of your time frame, although 'coca wine' may have been a possibility..

                            Of course, the British were always ahead of their time- right, Selous?

                            http://historyhouse.com/in_history/cocaine/

                            "We can only speculate as to how twentieth century history would be different if the Germans had discovered marijuana instead of cocaine."

                            Now there is an " Alt Militry histoy' youmay want to tackle, Draco...
                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                              Draco's idea, perhaps on a more limited scale has merit. A force of English/Dutch only need to control the outter islands to gain control of the area. What good is all the gold etc of Mexico going to do the Spanish if they cannot ship it past Enlgish/Dutch controlled sea lanes?

                              Drake he's in his hammock an' a thousand miles away,
                              (Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
                              Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
                              An' dreamin' arl the time O' Plymouth Hoe.
                              Yarnder lumes the Island, yarnder lie the ships,
                              Wi' sailor lads a-dancing' heel-an'-toe,
                              An' the shore-lights flashin', an' the night-tide dashin',
                              He sees et arl so plainly as he saw et long ago.

                              Drake he was a Devon man, an' ruled the Devon seas,
                              (Capten, art tha' sleepin' there below?)
                              Roving' tho' his death fell, he went wi' heart at ease,
                              A' dreamin' arl the time o' Plymouth Hoe.
                              "Take my drum to England, hang et by the shore,
                              Strike et when your powder's runnin' low;
                              If the Dons sight Devon, I'll quit the port o' Heaven,
                              An' drum them up the Channel as we drumm'd them long ago."

                              Drake he's in his hammock till the great Armadas come,
                              (Capten, art tha sleepin' there below?)
                              Slung atween the round shot, listenin' for the drum,
                              An' dreamin arl the time o' Plymouth Hoe.
                              Call him on the deep sea, call him up the Sound,
                              Call him when ye sail to meet the foe;
                              Where the old trade's plyin' an' the old flag flyin'
                              They shall find him ware an' wakin', as they found him long ago!


                              Sir Henry Newbolt
                              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X