Talk:Battle of the Narrow Seas

Dubious accuracy

This article shows several dubious assertions, caused, probably, because of the books in which it appears to be based have neglected the usage of Spanish sources. The result, the development and the consequences of the battle, in particular, are explained in a very different way in Spanish modern essays. The result of the action was obviously an Anglo-Dutch victory. However, Spanish galleys continued to be a threat the the protestant shipping until the port of Sluis, base of the galleys, were captured by the Dutch army in 1604. As for the battle losses, three galleys, instead of only one, were saved, two at Nieuwpoort and one at Dunkirk. Later, Spinola reinforced these relics of his original fleet with 5 new galleys. But the greatest difference comes with the development. Spanish sources point that Spinola's 6 galleys passed unharmed during the night between the English and Dutch fleets. The galley fleet was afterwards struck by a storm; two galleys were wrecked, one reached Calais and two Nieuwpoort (as said). No real action ensuded until Spinola's flag galley San Luis, which had sought refuge after the storm in a sand bank near Dunkirk, was attacked by 10 Dutch ships, which failed in turn to prevent Spinola from escaping and reaching Dunkirk. Check Ambrosio Spínola, Primer Marqués de los balbases; Armada española desde la unión de los reinos de Castilla y de Aragón and El Gran Duque de Osuna y su marina: jornadas contra turcos y venecianos.

Before doing any change on the article I prefer to agree with the main author how to reflect honestly both views. --Weymar Horren (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no dubious assertions in this since I used sources which state the facts as such both English and Dutch some of the sources were recently written. As for the consequences the results are clear - according to Prof Wernham the galley borne invasion was no longer a threat and the English and Dutch had domination of the seas as was clear that Sluis was blockaded and hence the defeat of Spinola in 1603. As for changing the article if the two galleys that were wrecked at Nieuport were not wrecked or were wrecked then refloated - then I would happy for this change since I have seen this report which says they made it into Neiuport William Camden, Annales Rerum Gestarum Angliae et Hiberniae Regnante Elizabetha (No.9). As for the two galleys that were sunk San Felipe and Lucera are you saying they were wrecked or sunk since they were clearly a subject of a painting? ChrisWet (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The most recent book (the first one), which also gives the most detailed account, claims that the galleys were wrecked in the storm. An old Spanish chronicle, Historia de las guerras civiles que ha avido en los estados de Flandes des del año 1559 hasta el de 1609, says exatcly the same. On the other hand, Cesareo Fernández Duro mentions that both San Felipe and Lucero were sunk by Dutch ships. All books note, however, that three galleys escaped. Also, before being killed, Spinola effected at least one (uneventful) cruise off Ostend. Some sources may claim that only one galley escaped probably because they are based in the accounts of the English commanders, who really thought that all except one ship were lost. I would begin to chaged this --Weymar Horren (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am happy for that to change since the document quoted says the same thing. There may have been some mix up in history with regards to the fate of the wrecked ships which in fact were sunk but were mistaken for the ones 'wrecked' on Nieuport which isn't or wasn't the case now. Thank you for changing it.ChrisWet (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I introduced several changes. What do you think?--Weymar Horren (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just did some minor edits and this is spot on, thank you sir. ChrisWet (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I proceed to remove the template.--Weymar Horren (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Two Spanish galleys sunk, one burnt is far too minor to deserve the extraordinary claim "Anglo-Dutch command of European waters". Galleys were light, agile rowing vessels, used for privateering of merchantmen and amphibious landing operations, they were not meant for fighting galleons. If they did, it was merely that they were unlucky and had not been able to get away. Take a look at the Islands Voyage in 1597 to see what a major battle consists of. Spanish galleons and frigates were sailing regularly through the Channel in the decades after this incident, transporting soldiers and capturing hundreds of ships in the Channel and the surrounding waters. Provocateur (talk)

The islands Voyage was not a naval battle but more of a missed opportunity, there is a citation with the explanation as to what the results of this battle consisted of. As for the galleys the commander of them; Spinola had intended to use them as an invasion platform as mentioned in the background. As for Spanish galleons and frigates were sailing regularly through the Channel in the decades after this incident let us stick to the war itself which would end less than two years later after which the Spanish would able to use the channel unmolested as per terms of the London Treaty. ChrisWet (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if we accept the idea there was control or dominance over the Channel by Anglo-Dutch forces (let's just forget about the Dunkirkers for the moment), this falls a long way short of command of European waters. Seems everyone is forgetting that the Spanish Habsburgs were waging a war of economic disruption by naval means. But we can always pick some historian or other who makes some sweeping statement, overlooking inconvenient facts like that, can't we?Provocateur (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a POV - the economic war hit both sides. If we accept that the Islands Voyage consisted of a 'major naval battle'? As well as Wernham's quote - Winston Graham says 'complete command of the English channel'; Randal Grey in Spinola's Galleys in the Narrow seas states the same fact and goes further by saying BEYOND the English channel. ChrisWet (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Numeric inconsistency

"Mansell, with three ships (the 30 gun Hope along with the 42 gun Victory, the Answer, Samson, and the Moon) departed and patrolled about Dungeness"

It says Mansell with 'three ships ... departed', but then lists five ships. Can someone fix this please. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Moon & Samson were Dutch flyboats ChrisWet (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Narrow Seas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160316091501/http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=1572890 to http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=1572890

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)