Template talk:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish War

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

periodisation

[edit]

The box gives "1585" as start date, but contains engagements over 10 years previous to that. Is this not a problem? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed officially the war started in 1585 but as you mentioned precursor conflicts did take place 10 years before said date but had in fact started as early as 1568. One option is to delete the date altogether in box and leave war link? Shire Lord (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It´s an issue still unresolved as of 2025. Any new comments are welcomed. Darius (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo

[edit]

Most historians agree that the conditions were very favorable to Spain. In any case, the conditions were certainly not the same as before the war; there was no loss of territory but there were a lot of relevant economic and political changes and compromises, various of which were part of the nation's war goals. I suggest that we write a link to the page of the Treaty of London instead of having "status quo" as the result. It is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alumno ESL (talk • contribs) 05:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battles involving English privateers and mercenaries

[edit]

Should the English mercenaries' involvement in the Eighty Years' War, the piracy in the Caribbean, and the privateering in the Mediterranean be included as part of the general Anglo-Spanish War (1585-1604)? I would argue that they should, as the overarching conflict was fundamentally rooted in English private interests in the Netherlands, the Americas, and the Mediterranean. These actions steadily escalated the tensions to the point where both Crowns became officially involved. The rivalry reached its climax with the Spanish Armada in 1588 and the subsequent English Armada in 1589, with the conflict only truly winding down toward the turn of the century, particularly after the deaths of Philip II and, later, Elizabeth I. If an action in the Mediterranean is removed form the campaignbox, then the piracy acts in the Caribbean in the very first years of the 17 century should be removed too. Darius (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The action was removed because privateering by England had ceased in June 1603. The end of licensed privateering led some former privateers to turn to piracy soon after (see Anglo-Turkish piracy), so they continued to attack ships even during negotiations. Beforehand actions had been authorised by the Crown even before the 1585-1604 war. The same goes with the English forces in the Low Countries, but your right about mercenaries as they were before 1585 and after 1604. Also I meant to link that article to the Spanish-Barbary Wars (1605–1792) template. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that King James stop licensing privateering since that date, but the campaignbox is plenty of actions that were not officially sanctioned by the English crown, such as the Drake's expeditions previous to the circumnavigation, Newports actions in 1590 and 1592 or Hawkins' ill-fated journey to the Pacific. Even one could argue that since the war did not start until 1585, all the articles on English privateering actions, including famous Drake's circumnavigation, should be removed because there was still no war de iure. On the other hand, the Spanish authorities didn't care whether or not James I had terminated privateering licensing, the fact is that they were still at war with England and they were fighting English corsairs. Darius (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But all of the above had crown sanctions/approval/letters of marque, this includes Newport, et al. Even Drake & Hawkins did back at San Juan del Ulhua. This 1604 action did not & is actually the first not to throughout the war as a result of June 1603 privateering revoke. Also the war by this time (August 1604) was limited only to Ostend and Sluis as per the negotiations. There were certainly no other engagements between England & Spain elsewhere in this time. Please, if you can find any other example? Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full crown approval for some actions prior to 1585 is dubious at best; the issue of the inconsistency between the beginning of the war and a number of engagements listed in this template was first raised on this discussion page in 2015 and remains unsettled. Some readers could find themselves at odds with the chronological framework. If the concern is that a battle from another war is included here, is good to mention that some of these earlier events were actually part of the Dutch conflict when Spain and England were still officially at peace. Another strong argument against the removal of Oquendo's action is that the only available sources about Cadiz Gulf are Spanish, and they don't mention an action against 'Barbary pirates,' but English ones, at a time were negotiations were still dragging on; no formal ceasefire had been still implemented, besides the caveats on Ostend and Sluis. There was also some privateer action after King James directive, such as the capture of two Spanish galleons by Cleeve in the Old Bahama Channel on 28 August 1603 and an expedition led by Newport which departed Plymouth for the Spanish Main as late as May 1604. Darius (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indent: I've just found two Spanish sources explicitly listing the action as part of the 1585-1604 war. I added them to the "Aftermath" section of the article.--Darius (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were no privateer actions after June 1603 within scope of any ships departing after that date. Cleeve had left England when Elizabeth was still alive. Newport had departed the Spanish Main for trade and made no attacks on Spanish shipping or colonies. (He would've been reprimanded & we would know about ). There is a number of quotes by historians where James I proclaimed a 'unilateral ceasefire' and with the 'recall of all English privateering vessels'. So therefore the actions of said 'English' on August 1604 are therefore clearly piratical. What strikes me about this action is there is no complaint from the Spanish to King James I or the English peace delegation regarding the incident – eg. raiders from the Spanish Main had to forfeit their capture on their return due to delay in news of the LOM revoke. The two sources you've used probably used wiki as a source given their dates. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guillermo Nicieza is a renowned naval historian in Spain, so I guess we should assume he has consulted sources much more reliable than Wikipedia and that he has his own judgment on the matter. Same for Beltrán, a young legal scholar and historian. Two reliable sources should be enough to settle this matter, without further speculation.::Darius (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What details do they give on the action? Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources directly address the battle's inclusion within the wider war, the point we are discussing here. Further details of the action itself aren't necessary for this purpose. Nicieza, for example, lists 18 other engagements, while Beltrán mentions the Cadiz Bay action as one of the last in the context of the peace negotiations in London.--Darius (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's really doesn't help at all. The details are what we are after. Besides, it's already included. What we need is the name of the ship, captain's name etc. There was a unilateral ceasefire, I cant understand why theres no more detail? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is just about the inclusion of this action within the Anglo-Spanish War (1585-1604), not details about the battle itself, I insist; Nicieza makes a chronological list of the main battles, the last being Gulf of Cádiz, while Beltrán explicity mention Oquendo exploit as one of the last actions just before the signing of the Treaty of London. A comprehensive account of the battle is already available in the article’s sources. Although the Spanish authors and their primary sources do not provide the name of the English captain or the ship, this omission is not an obstacle for Wikipedia inclusion, as many existing articles have similar informational gaps. Darius (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Within the war technically yes, but the whole point was to show that privateering by England had ceased in June 1603. The proof is that James had delivered a unilateral ceasefire meaning that privateering was terminated by June 1603. Two historians saying 'yeah its part of the Anglo Spanish war' without any explanation proves nothing. The detail is what we are after. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any breach of a ceasefire agreement previous to a definitive peace treaty in any war, even if conducted by a maverick element (a corsair or even a pirate), would be met with lethal force by the opposite signatory, history is plenty of examples. It seems to be the case if your personal analysis is correct. And if this is the case, the violation of that ceasefire would be part of the war, definitively. Darius (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That much would be obvious but there is no more detail, just that’re ‘English’.. that’s it. There are no English sources (I’ve searched high & low in the Calendar of States Papers, and nothing) regarding the action either. I did find the proclamation by James I which is very relevant to this debate and backs up completely what I have said previously - I quote:

No man of war be furnished or set out to sea by any of his majesty’s subject under pain of death and confiscations of lands and goods. Not only to the captains and mariners but also to the owners and victuallers if the company of the said ship shall commit any piracy, depredation or murder at the sea upon any of his Majesty’s friends.[1]

It’s clear then that these men were NOT operating under the English flag, and therefore, foregone conclusion that they’re pirates. I don’t think that can be more clear. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source (which btw proves the outcome of this war was more favorable to Spain than to England) does not deal with the action of Oquendo. The decision of James II to end privateering is not a point of discussion; it's true that privateers was forbidden by 1604 to "any of his Majesty's subjects", it's also true according to the source you have provided, some of those subjects continued to looting Spanish shipping (and other's) in spite of the Royal Decree. The cited author reports (p. 18) that James "did the best to stop the looting of foreign ships by English privateer", not that he succeded in fully halt their activity (now turned into piracy). The Spanish point of view (and Fajardo's orders to Oquendo) is clear; any British subject violating James' decree (Spanish sources take note of that) would be subjected to the laws of war, at a time when there was still technically a state of war, pending a final breakthrough in the negotiations. I insist with the early example of dissident actors breaking a ceasefire in other wars.
In other matters, but closely related, considering the inconsistency of dates and that some actions were not fully supported by the English crown or were previous to the war itself, any attempt to change the current status of the template could open a Pandora's box — that is, jeopardizing the very inclusion of those actions or battles in the list. I'am for keeping the current ambiguity.Darius (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’ve mentioned that there is very little information on the action of Oquendo, as I said. The point was the source corroborates with the fact that the combatants are pirates and therefore should not be under the flag of England but either pirates or Barbary pirates/states of the Ottoman empire. I don’t see how the source mentions anything about the war being favourable to any nation, but I digress.
I am also happy with the list that has accrued over the years in the template, & yes there is the Pandora’s box element which you mention, so will leave as is. I hope you can see why I questioned it in the first place. It’s mentioned in the main War article and linked with Anglo Turkish piracy. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is an obscure event, as are others (e.g., the Essex-Raleigh expedition of 1597), which are barely mentioned, if not omitted entirely, in early Spanish sources. The same applies to the so-called 'Battle of the Barbary Coast' and others. No worries about the war's outcome; my apologies for introducing that unneeded comment. I also concur that the article should be linked to Anglo-Turkish piracy; a lot of articles dealing with this war are related to other conflicts. Regards.
Darius (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just added. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Muwatallis II has removed the English out of the Dutch Revolt pre 1585, would it be necessary to take them out of this template too? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case all actions before 1585 should be removed, including some notable events like Drake's circumnavigation. Darius (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And just as we were saying! Lol. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, even if I don't fully agree with the move, some consistency was still needed. I am against, however, a case for case review that could lead to endless disputes. Darius (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Tinniswood, Adrian (2011). Pirates Of Barbary Corsairs, Conquests and Captivity in the 17th-Century Mediterranean By ·. Random house. p. 17. ISBN 9781446468623.