Superguns Helped Defeat the Spanish Armada 501
Hugh Pickens writes "With the discovery last year of the first wreck of an Elizabethan fighting ship off Alderney in the Channel Islands, thought to date from around 1592, marine archaeologists are revising their ideas on how the English defeated the Spanish Armada. Replicas of two cannon recovered from the Alderney wreck were recreated in a modern foundry, and tests carried out showed that the Elizabethans were throwing shot at almost the speed of sound. Elizabeth's 'supergun,' although relatively small, could hit a target a mile away. At a ship-to-ship fighting distance of about 100 yards, the ball would have sufficient punch to penetrate the oak planks of a galleon, travel across the deck, and emerge out the other side. Tests on cannon recovered from the Alderney wreck also suggest that the ship carried guns of uniform size, firing standard ammunition. 'Elizabeth's navy created the first ever set of uniform cannon, capable of firing the same size shot in a deadly barrage,' says marine archaeologist Mensun Bound from Oxford University, adding that that navy had worked out that a lot of small guns, all the same, all firing at once, were more effective than a few big guns. '[Elizabeth's] navy made a giant leap forward in the way men fought at sea, years ahead of England's enemies, and which was still being used to devastating effect by Nelson 200 years later.'"
There were 3 cannons to replicate (Score:5, Interesting)
Two cannons were shown on the programme being lifted from the sea bed to join a 3rd that had been lifted earlier.
They wanted 3 cannons to make sure that a matching pair was not a fluke. A matching triple is much less likly. It was also interesting to to note that all the cannon balls lifted were of the same size.
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:2, Interesting)
And that means the title of the abstract is all wrong. I admit I read the article after I posted but still I am right: the guns were not very special. It's the way they were used that was special.
They didn't help the English Armada though. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Armada
What amuses me is the selective memory Brits have on their naval affairs...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias
That's what I'd call a defeat.
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Interesting)
That only happened near the end of the 17th century - well after the start of the decline of the Dutch empire. Earlier that century, the Dutch did defeat the English at sea - three times.
So whatever advantage these guns gave, it wasn't very long-lasting.
The Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, so maybe everybody else had caught up by the mid 17th century?
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Interesting)
The dutch had a problem: they sea exits were very shallow, which put serious limit on the size of ships they could build and run domestically. They even invented cumbersome floating drydocks to help "fly" large east indiamen over reefs, but eventually trade and commerce went to the brits and the french, just like the german Hansa alliance lost most of their lucrative trade about 150 years beforehand.
Otherwise, english victory over the Spanish Amrmada was due to two factors mostly: wind conditions made it impossible to land the big spanish ships on british mainland and the english made iron cannonballs were of much higher quality owing to the slow cooling process applied after casting.
The spanish just threw their freshly minted cannonballs into a bucket of water, which made the metal brittle, so it shattered when hitting the outside of a sailing ship's thick timber, making little damage inside, if any. The english buried their hot cannonballs into charcoal, taking days to cool to ambient temperature, so the resultsing piece of iron was almost as soft as a piece of lead, staying in one piece while it went throught the timber of spanish ships, sometimes even coming out on the opposite side of the impact! (Whatever was in-between got almost totally destroyed).
On the other hand, one should not overestimate the role of artillery in late XVIth century sea combat. Accuracy was nil and reload times / repeat fire rates were nowhere near the Nelsonian standards. The Lepanto sea battle only a decade before, fought between venetians + spanish crusaders and the ottoman turks, was mostly sword and knife gore.
Let's say bad winds and substandard or outright bad seamanship was 75% of the 1588 spanish defeat, their commander actually never been to the sea before, he was simply a close relative of the king, that's why they appointed him to the post. (The russians made the very same mistake in 1905, earning the catastrophic Tsushima defeat.)
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the funny thing is: only because our history textbooks are still fascinated with conquerors, ignore civillian progress almost entirely, and kings which built up the economy instead of going to war are presented as weak kings. So yeah, you only get to hear about the stuff used in war.
But if you look as far back as the dawn of civilization, the advances which made those armies and empires possible in the first place were almost invariably civillian technology. E.g., you wouldn't have had those empires rising and falling in Mesopotamia without irrigation and timekeeping and a bunch of other things. I'm hard pressed to see how irrigation might have been developed for warfare.
Or if you look at ancient Egypt, their greatest advances were made before the Hyskos invasion, while Egypt was still shielded by the desert from any noteworthy warfare. Their only concerns were minor border fights against raiders and nubian tribes, and they didn't waste much of their GDP on the army or even on fortifying their cities. In fact, none of their cities had a wall at all. And yet in this age they developed construction, medicine, etc, to an extent far beyond their warring neighbours.
Romans, if you look at them, were actually a remarkably peaceful civilization. With some few exceptions, like the last war against Carthage, Rome almost never started a war of aggression. They just defended what was theirs and honoured their alliances to the letter. But when attacked, they hit back _hard_. Among other things because they hadn't ruined their economy and manpower with pointless wars before that. The vast majority of their conquests were actually done in counter-attacks.
But anyway, while everyone drools about the Roman legions, few people give thought to the economy that could afford them in the first place. There were advances in engineering, administration, construction, etc. There was stuff like the aqueducts that allowed Rome to have that monstruous manpower to throw at an enemy. Most of that stuff was civillian tech. Nobody built an aqueduct as an offensive thing.
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Interesting)
"We Dutch had the same guns on our trade- and war ships in that time"
The Spanish were notably impressed by Dutch gun makers, and commissioned lots of cannon and ammo for their armada from them. Unfortunately, the fact that they were occupying Holland by force at the time meant that the Dutch hated them, so archaeologists have found Dutch cannonballs on Spanish wrecks that had been "accidentally" made just slightly too big or just a smidgeon too small for the intended cannon.
These differences in tolerances were small enough to ensure that they looked as if they were the right size to Spanish inspections. Attempting to fire them at the English however would have had tragi-comic results such as swearing gunners being unable to force some cannonballs into the muzzles of their guns, while others formed such a poor seal that most of the gases from the burning powder went round them, so the initial "bang" was followed by the sound of a ball rolling sluggishly along the muzzle, and then a "plop" as it fell into the sea.
The strangest part of all this is of course that archaeological evidence from non-Spanish wrecks indicates that the Dutch ammunition tolerance problem didn't occur in stuff they made for themselves or sold to countries who weren't occupying them at the time. Some historians believe that this notable discrepancy may well have been behind the famous rant from King Philip II, where he threw his throne at a courtier while screaming "I'll kill those fucking Dutch!"...
The gaul wars were a mixed bag (Score:5, Interesting)
The gaul wars were a mixed bag and Caesar was going to be investigated by the Senate for it, when he decided to attack Rome instead.
But even there, it all started when the Helvetii attacked some gallic tribes which were allies and clients of Rome. The next two major interventions there followed the same pattern: someone attacks the allies of Rome, Rome smacks back hard.
It has nothing to do with crying "the Gaul have weapons of mass destruction", and everything to do with your allies being actually attacked first. Big difference.
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:3, Interesting)
Or the Tow home when it crashes [wikipedia.org] or gets infected with something like the Melissa Virus.
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:5, Interesting)
reminds me of ww2 (Score:2, Interesting)
there was a display in d.c. some time ago of russian war booty: hitler's desk, swastika-etched globe, military banners (direct descendants of medieval heraldy)...and nazi & russian small arms: the german guns were beautifully machined, but each took a unique ammo; the russian were stamped-steel, but all took the same round, a major logistical advantage...
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Our taxis not only crash with you in it, they drive over you, shoot at you, shoot at each other, ignore road laws at every turn, indicate after turning - if at all, pack 60 salty-water-sacks per taxi designed for ~12, are ignored by law enforcement or bribe 'em, stage mass action fucking up everyone's schedule, belong to violent gang-like groups who regularly take each other out, kill bus drivers for stealing their business, etc...
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a clip I found sometime back. An intersection in India, a must see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpVRC5dJsNA [youtube.com]
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:3, Interesting)
Their own stupidity makes them aggressive.
Post disclaimer: I am as French as you can be and have been living for a year in Paris.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)
While amusing the situations you describe are rather less clear cut than your (albeit funny) post suggests. I'll take one example, Agincourt.
Agincourt was a crowd control nightmare for the French made worse by the disproportionate number of heavily armoured french troops. The reason the English didn't have so many heavy troops was in part that archers were cheaper. Some accounts suggest the French had trouble moving (or even lifting their weapons) in the poor, near boggy conditions. A longbowman on the other hand, is lightly armoured, and does not need to close on you to use his weapon.
The French knights viewed war as their vocation. The English archers on the other hand viewed war as their profession. The English were a more professional force, a more disciplined force. It turned out that 'breeding' was no replacement for hours of practice each day.
Leadership played a important role as well. While the Henry V of Shakespeare never existed, the real Henry V had the loyalty and trust of his men. He had led them through France, and they had done rather well financially out of it. Less valiant but still effective was his instruction to his men (now effectively trapped) that they would not be ransomed themselves if captured, and that they had best fight for their lives. It is rarely wise to fight an army that is prepared to fight to the death. Henry was also highly pragmatic, executing valuable prisoners when he feared they might rearm themselves. Amusingly while the French chroniclers didn't seem to have much of a problem with this, it was probably rather unpopular with Henry's own army.
The list of factors that affect the outcome of a battle are numerous. And English grand strategy (of that time or any other) probably isn't best summarised by "shoot the enemy a lot", any more than the strategy of the Byzantine Empire is best summarised by "assassinate, assassinate, assassinate". Of course there is a nugget of truth to any funny summary of grand strategy. We can probably trace modern doctrines such as overwhelming fire-power and air superiority right back through to notions similar to the English focus on archers during the time of Henry V or the notions of naval superiority that arose in the post Elizabethan England (and later Britian).
As with most conflicts, one is looking at a long list of factors, and strategy and tactics vary depending on circumstances.
Re:Actually, standard practice (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget the ideological advantage. The Spanish, being good Catholics, followed the Aristotlean view that an object followed a straight horizontal path until it returned to its natural place; the ground in the case of a projectile. The English, meanwhile, actually paid attention to Galileo's (and others) work on ballistics, and realized that you achieved the greatest distance by firing upward, not straight at your target.
So it looks like the only advantage the Spanish had was that their galleons were too big to fail... uh-oh.
Re:There were 3 cannons to replicate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't see anything special (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the Russian admiral at Tsushima, Rozhestvensky [wikipedia.org] was a very competent and disciplined officer, and not some clueless fop. His problem was a conscript crew on the verge of mutiny, poorly trained officers, outdated ships ill suited outside the Baltic and only a few colliers stationed along the way for resupply. The Emperor ignored all of his suggestions and concerns.
The Japanese had a volunteer navy, British-built warships of the latest design with British-trained officers, and a variety of home ports nearby for refit and resupply. Oh, it also had Togo, the most brilliant and aggressive naval commander of his generation.
The Baltic Fleet was doomed before it even set sail, despite the quality of its commander.
Re:Expert naval tactics (Score:3, Interesting)
I wasn't saying LA drivers were assholes, I was saying that unless it's 70 and sunny they're incapable of driving properly. You see when it rains here, half the drivers believe they need to go 35 mph on the freeway, you know to compensate for the rain, while the other half of the drivers believe that they need to go 95 mph in order to compensate for the assclowns going 35!
Needless to say this is a perfect storm of stupidity....
Re:Actually, standard practice (Score:3, Interesting)