Jump to content


Photo

Why Did The Spanish Armada Attack England?


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Betul (theBSB)

Betul (theBSB)
  • Student
  • 12 posts

Posted 13 January 2008 - 06:21 PM

why did the spanish armada attack England?
pls, can someone tell me, pls. :(

#2 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 13 January 2008 - 11:10 PM

Try this - http://www.schoolhis...sson_index.html - from the great Mr Field.

This is a good simple overview - http://www.historyle...nish_armada.htm

Some detailed pages from the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk...armada_01.shtml

And is is a VERY detailed article if you want to go deep - http://www.historybu...refarmada1.html

#3 Becca.Babes

Becca.Babes
  • Student
  • 1 posts

Posted 04 February 2008 - 10:50 PM

why did the spanish armada attack England?
pls, can someone tell me, pls. :(

Hey ,, ii think the spanish armada attacked England because Phillip 2nd wanted to put an catholic back on the throne

#4 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 04 February 2008 - 11:05 PM

why did the spanish armada attack England?
pls, can someone tell me, pls. :(

Hey ,, ii think the spanish armada attacked England because Phillip 2nd wanted to put an catholic back on the throne

Welcome, Becca Babes
You think 100% right.
He wanted Phillip II on the English throne! :lol:

#5 ahoythere

ahoythere
  • Student
  • 8 posts

Posted 18 February 2008 - 08:03 PM

Correct me if im wrong but didnt he not want him self on the throne but the current English Catholic Cardinal on the throne temporarlily before establishing a real leader, Spain never wanted to actually Invade England as such. I got a level 8a on this core outcome earlier this year.

didnt King Phillip II want to place not himself or any other from his country but except place an English Catholic, I think it was the Cardinal at the time, so I didnt invade as such, I would call it an religious invasion, trying to invade and then changing the religion round not invading it for ownership of the land.

#6 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 18 February 2008 - 09:01 PM

First, ahoythere, please note that you don't need to post over and over again if your post doesn't appear immediately - all student posts have to wait to be moderated (OK's by an administrator/teacher, just in case they contain something naughty).

Secondly - WHAT AN INTERESTING IDEA!
It's no wonder you got an 8a for your essay!


I do, however, fear that you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

It IS true that Philip claimed that he was invading England for religion, not for the throne.
After the Armada, he wrote:

'God is my witness, that it was not the desire to gain new kingdoms that guided me, but the zeal for his service and the hope of glorifying the holy faith.'

But this does not mean that he did not intend to become king when the Armada had succeeded.
Philip had a claim, through his marriage to Mary, to the English throne - I cannot see him overturning all the rules of legitimate succession to put a Cardinal on the throne.

And as for this 'Cardinal' I am almost certain that you mean Cardinal Allen, whose attack on Elizabeth after the execution of Mary Queen of Scots can be said to be the start of the war between Spain and England. Note what wikipedia (I grant, hardly the most reliable source - but nevertheless) says:

William Allen (1532 – 16 October , 1594) was an English Roman Catholic priest and cardinal. Allen helped plan the Spanish Armada's invasion of England, and was to have been Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor had it succeeded.


Philip had Allen created Cardinal to give his invasion moral clout, and he intended to make him Archbishop after the Armada succeeded, but king? Nah.

Philip did not WANT to be king of England, and would have preferred to see another Catholic on the throne, but the death of Mary QofS removed the last possible alternative candidate, and forced him to pursue his own claims.

I would be happy to be wrong on this - what is your evidence to the contrary?
1. What's your source?
2. Can you track down the name of the Cardinal whom you think was to be king?

#7 ahoythere

ahoythere
  • Student
  • 8 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 03:14 PM

Ahh yes, well I found the same thing on a few sites but while searching I found this site kind of supported what I said. I think I might of worded what I said wrong as it seems that the idea was only to temporalily make him incharge, not king, untill the Catholic Church decided what to do.

http://www.theothers...span-armada.htm - Source

Cardinal William Allen was the name

Who knows what could of happened. King Phillipe could of decided to make England part of the Spanish Empire or leave it independant but under religious control of the catholic relgion.

#8 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 24 February 2008 - 09:15 PM

Really interesting - thanks for these ideas.

#9 Arceus

Arceus
  • Student
  • 2 posts

Posted 25 April 2009 - 01:30 AM

THANKS!

#10 lollypop

lollypop
  • Student
  • 8 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:28 PM

WOW ahoythere. I did a bit of research and found that what you said was at least partly true.
I am now going to put that in MY piece of work if you don't mind

THANKS EVERY ONE :lol:

#11 Mattyemkay

Mattyemkay
  • Student
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:16 PM

Thanks guys, this Forum Has helped soooo much... thanks :D :D

#12 Mattyemkay

Mattyemkay
  • Student
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:26 PM

Said by: MrJohnDClare

'God is my witness, that it was not the desire to gain new kingdoms that guided me, but the zeal for his service and the hope of glorifying the holy faith.'


Am I right in saying that Philip Himself said this?? :wacko:

Please get back its for my essay for school in for thursday! B)

#13 Mr. D. Bryant

Mr. D. Bryant
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 1,068 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire
  • Interests:History teacher, with special interest in military history.

Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:18 PM

Welcome to the Forum.

I'm glad you've found it helpful so far. We will get back to you on the quote soon.

#14 Mattyemkay

Mattyemkay
  • Student
  • 3 posts

Posted 23 April 2012 - 06:38 PM

ok thanks :rolleyes:

#15 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:23 PM

ok thanks :rolleyes:

I can't find where I got it from now, but Philip II DID say it, and it is quoted in John C Rule, The character of Philip II: the problem of moral judgments in history, and also in Neville Williams, The sea dogs: privateers, plunder and piracy in the Elizabethan age.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users