The dreadnought revolution of tudor England

Mariners Mirror

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 269-300

  Parker, Geoffrey ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650940155     PISSN: 00253359     EISSN: 2049680X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00253359.1996.10656603     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. I am most grateful for references and suggestions to Thomas Arnold, Jan Glete, Holger Herwig, Paul Kennedy, Peter Pierson, Glyn Redworth, I.A.A. Thompson, Nancy van Deusen and, especially, Nicholas Rodger; and for research assistance to Paul Allen and Paul Dover (financed by the History Department of Yale University), and to Richard Lundell and Edward Tenace (financed by the Research Board of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
2. Fernández Duro, C., 1885. La Armada Invencible (2 vols, Madrid, II, 5–13, Philip II's Instructions to the Duke of Medina Sidonia, commander of the Armada, 1 April 1588 (see pp.9–10.) The origins of this advice are interesting:it also featured verbatim in the Instructions sent to Medina Sidonia s predecessor, the Marquis of Santa Cruz, on 14 Sept. 1587:see J. Calvar Gross et al, eds, La Batalla del Mar Océano (henceforth BMO; 3 vols to date, Madrid 1988–93), III, 1067–8. Ironically, the King repeated something Medina already knew:see the Duke's own Instructions to the fleet leaving for America, 31 March 1587, in Gabriel Maura Gamazo, duque de Maura, El designio de Felipe II y el episodio de la Armada Invencible (Madrid, 1957), 175–7. The reports (‘avisos’) mentioned by the King have not been found, but they might have included the description of English naval superiority and the need to use different (smaller) ships in order to counter it, in AGS Secretarías Provinciales libro 1550/569, Cardinal Albert to Philip II, 25 Oct. 1586
3. Gracía Rivas, M., 1984. “ ‘El motín de la “Diana” y otras vicisitudes de las galeras participantes en la jornada de Inglaterra’ ”. In Revista de historia naval, II 33–45. no. 4
4. Estado AGS 594/130–2, ‘Relaciones’ on the vessel's fate (it parted from the Armada on 26 July ‘through the carelessness of the pilot and from having lost a bowsprit’ and took refuge first in La Hogue and then in Le Havre, where it became blockaded by the English); and AGRB SEG11/19V and 29v, Orders of the Duke of Parma dated 16 Oct. and 3 Sept. 1588, respectively, for salvage
5. San Lorenzo's See the gripping—and apparently unknown—account of the loss by Don Fernando de Ayala (who was aboard):BNM MS 5489/120v-30v
6. State Papers concerning the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Anno 1588 For the munitions, see J.K. Laughton, ed., (2 vols, London, 1895:Navy Records Society, I-II), I, 338, John Gilberte to the Privy Council, 8 Aug. 1588 NS, and II, 156–7, inventory of the stores taken on the San Salvador.; The large quantity of heavy-calibre ammunition found aboard these two ships—which can scarcely have been unique (see pages 278–80)—underscores the significance of the failure of other vessels to use their ammunition effectively against the English in battle
7. 1988. The Spanish Armada 227–50. London For examples, see C. Martin and G. Parker
8. Oppenheim, M., Thomas A history of the administration of the Royal Navy 1509–1660 (London, 1896), 163. Even so, the accounts compiled by the owners seem to have been ‘padded’:thus Drake charged the government £1,000 for his 200-ton bark (Devon County Record Office, Exeter, Deposit 346/F588, ‘Accompte of sondrye charges’)
9. Laughton. Defeat, I358–62. Hawkins to Walsingham, 10 Aug. 1588 NS. See also the testimony of Howard (II, 59–60) and of the Florentine ambassador in Paris in Nov. 1587, that the Armada ‘is the largest that has ever been in these seas [sc. outside the Mediterranean] since the creation of the world’. (G. Canestrini and A. Desjardins, eds, Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane, IV (Paris, 1872), 737
10. Kenyon, J. R., 1983. “ ‘Ordnance and the king's fleet in 1548’ ”. In International Journal of Nautical Archaeology XII 63–5; and A.B. Caruana, The History of English Sea Ordnance, 1523–1870, I (Rotherfield, 1994), 18–21 (summary of the artillery listed in the Anthony Anthony roll of 1546). On the early Scottish navy see N.A.T. Macdougall, ‘“The greattest scheip that ewer saillit in Ingland or France”:James IV's “Great Michael”’, in Macdougall, ed., Scotland and War, AD 79–1918 (Edinburgh, 1991), 36–60. On the calculation of displacement see Ref. 11
11. 1993. Navies and nations. Warships, navies and state-building in Europe and America, 1500–18860 All ship weights given in this article are ‘tons displacement’, even though almost all English records of the period—and subsequently—give only the ‘tons and tonnage’ for each ship, a measurement that relates to their internal volume. Jan Glete, (2 vols, Stockholm, II, 527–30, shows how to calculate displacement by multiplying the length, beam and draught of each ship, and then adjusting the total to establish how much of the hull lay under water (the ‘block co-efficient’). Since not all ships in the navy possessed the same design features, the ‘block coefficient’ differs slightly in each case. However Dr Glete has estimated the probable displacement for each vessel, based on its exact dimensions, and very generously shared his calculations with me (see Appendix 1). I am very grateful to him. I am also grateful to Nicholas Rodger for pointing out to me the advantage of using Glete's method. The same could be done with Spanish ‘toneles’—also a measurement of carrying capacity and not displacement:see the erudite discussion in J.L. Casado Soto, Los Barcos españoles del siglo XVI y la Gran Armada de 1588 (Madrid, 1988), 57–94, and the weights and measurements for each ship in the Armada of 1588 given later. For lack of more accurate data, however, in this article I have multiplied Casado Soto's weights in toneles by 1.5 to suggest displacements—but the figures remain approximate
12. Warspite P.R.O. WO55/1672, ‘A view and survey of all her Majesty's Ordinnance’, listing all ships except the and the Repulse; the totals for these two ships have been added from WO55/1627, ‘The booke of the remaynes’. See also Appendix 1, which gives details for the capital ships (only)
13. Swiftsure The, also launched in 1573, only displaced 550 tons according to a survey of 1590–1, but was ‘new built’ in 1592, increasing her displacement to 650 tons. In 1595 she carried 37 guns with a total weight of 43 tons—6.61 per cent of her total displacement. The Dreadnought also underwent extensive repairs in 1592, but they do not seem to have affected her displacement. Calculations of displacement supplied by Jan Glete; weight of ordnance calculated from the totals aboard each ship in Sept. 1595 according to P.R.O. WO55/1672, ‘A view and survey of all Her Majestie's Ordinnance’ (see Appendix 1.) Note that the ordnance weights include only the gun barrels:the mountings, equipment and ammunition were additional
14. 1990. English Historical Review 177–87. See the most interesting document on the rotation programme presented by S. Adams, ‘New light on the “Reformation” of John Hawkins:the Ellesmere Naval Survey of January 1584’, CV 96111. See also T. Glasgow, ‘The shape of the ships that defeated the Spanish Armada’, M.M., L (1964)
15. Victory See the figures in Appendix 1; see also T. Glasgow, The origin of the first royal ship—1562’, M.M., LIII (1967), 184–6)
16. Victory See the figures in Appendix I. The participation of the three great ships (and the equally large) in the ‘Great Armye’ is recorded in P.R.O. E351/2227 and AO1/1686/25, account of the Treasurer of the Navy for 1590. The Triumph was ‘new built’ between June 1595 and April 1596 at a cost of £2,534; so she must have undergone extensive changes (E351/2232 and AO1/1688/31, account of the Treasurer of the Navy for 1595–6). In 1597–8, it was the turn of the Elizabeth Jonas, and over those two years the ‘new building’ cost almost £6,000 (E351/2235–2236 and AO1/1689/33–34, accounts of the Treasurer of the Navy for 1597 and 1598.) The White Bear was ‘new built’ in 1598–1600 and, since the total cost—spread over three years—exceeded £5,800, she too was presumably totally reconstructed:see E351/2236–2238 and A01/1689/34–1690/36, accounts of the Treasurer of the Navy for 1598, 1599 and 1600. It is possible that the three ‘great ships’ did not have all their armament aboard when surveyed in 1595, since they did not participate in either of the major expeditions that year (to Cadiz and the Caribbean); but two considerations suggest that they were all, in fact, fully armed. First, in the absence of almost all the Queen's other capital ships, these vessels constituted the core of the forces left to protect England while the rest were away; second, both of the surveys of 1595 (P.R.O. WO55/1672 and NMM MS CAD/C/2) listed every gun that ‘belonged’ to each ship, whether they were aboard or not. Admittedly, ships did receive additional guns from time to time:thus the Ark Royal, listed as having 32 guns in Sept. 1595, set out for Cadiz in April 1596 with 44; but almost all the extra pieces were small (six sakers, six fowlers and only two culverins:P.R.O. WO55/1627). It seems unlikely that the three ‘great ships’ lacked any significant heavy guns in the 1595 survey
17. A shift towards iron guns had begun before this:Sir William Winter, as Master and Surveyor of the Ordnance, received £2,160 in 1586 to cast 116 iron and 20 bronze pieces of saker calibre and above for the fleet (P.R.O. E351/2607). By Sept. 1595, the Queen's ships carried a total of 789 bronze and 188 iron guns:P.R.O. WO55/1672. (A slightly earlier survey, in March 1595, gave totals of 764 bronze and 186 iron pieces:NMM, MS CAD/C/2.)
18. Repulse Only one Elizabethan government document that specifies the location of guns has been found so far (it refers to the and the Warspite in 1595):see Oppenheim, History, 156. But see AGS Estado K 1567/62a-b, ‘Relación que ha publicado en Francia el embaxador de Inglaterra de la Armada de su ama’, forwarded to Spain on 15 April 1588 (English summary in M.A.S. Hume, ed., Calendar of State Papers…Spanish:Elizabeth, IV [London, 1899], 244–5). Since the total of guns aboard the Queen's ships generally corresponds with English sources (see Appendix 1), there seems no casue to doubt the accuracy of the distribution (even though some of the armament recorded aboard the smaller vessels is clearly excessive:see B.T. Whitehead, Brags and boasts. Propaganda in the year of the Armada [Stroud, 1994], 47)
19. Earle, P., The last fight of the Revenge 181 (London, 1992), 144–5. Earle gives figures on the weight of the guns from Spanish documents on p. but seems unaware that the Keeper of the Tower Store listed in detail the ordnance lost on the Revenge and estimated its weight:see P.R.O. WO55/1659, ‘The declaration of…Thomas Bed- well’, fo. 10, and A01/1906/242, Bedwell's account for 1589–92. These list only 40 guns as lost on the ship (only 6 demi-culverins instead of the 8 recorded by the Spaniards at the vessel's capture), and estimated their total weight at 85,280 pounds, or about 39 tons. Now every ship in the fleet had its own distinctive configuration of guns, which makes it difficult to verify this estimate; however in 1595 the armament of the 39- gun Nonpareil - 2 cannon periers, 4 demi- cannon, 6 culverins, 8 demi-culverins, 11 sakers, 8 breech-loaders—came quite close to that of the Revenge, and also weighed 39 tons (P.R.O. WO55/1672, ‘A view and survey’). So that was close to the weight of the guns aboard the Revenge which so impressed her Spanish captors. AO1/1906/242 also specifies the amount of powder issued to the Revenge, which Earle (p.44) estimated—‘proportional to her tonnage’—at 90 barrels. In fact the Ordnance Office issued her with only 78 barrels (3 lasts 6 cwt 21 lbs). Since she still had 70 barrels when captured (Earle, p. 124), unless she had received additional stores later, she had indeed fired her guns seldom—albeit to great effect!
20. Earle. The lastfight 42–3. 121–2,128,130
21. Treatise concerning the Navie of England Details on galeasses from the 1589 ‘Ad- dicoune’ to John Mountgomerie's (Magdalene College, Cambridge, Pepys Ms. 1774); AGS GA221/39, ‘Relación’; and AGS Estado 594/152, ‘Relación de lo que queda de la galeaza,’ for the armament of the San Lorenzo, which included two 50-, two 36- and two 35-pounders
22. Two Neapolitan galeasses, it is true, had sailed with the Marquis of Santa Cruz in 1583 and taken part in his victory off Terceira, but those that sailed against England were different vessels and only reached Lisbon in Aug. 1587; the Transatlantic guardships did not arrive there until Feb. 1588.
23. Taylor, E. G.R., The troublesome vovage of Captain Edward Fenton, 1582–83, Hakluyt Society second series (Cambridge, 1959, CXIII),154. On the advice of Jan Glete, I have applied a rough conversion factor of 1.5 to the ‘tons and tonnage’ of these two private vessels to suggest their displacement (see Ref. 11 above). The speed of England's mobilization in 1588 was truly remarkable:within three months Elizabeth concentrated a fleet larger than the Armada, which had taken Philip three years to assemble. Moreover, her fleet was entirely English whereas Philip's fleet was by no means all Spanish
24. Grifón On the, see AGS CS2a/280 fo. 1939, statement of Juan Gómez de Medina, 8 Oct. 1588 (copy):‘maltratada de la mucha artillería con que algunos navios de la armada inglesa la batió, y de la que ella asimismo jugó contra ellos’. The same could happen to purpose- built warships:AGS GA226/8, Don Jorge Manrique to Philip II, 19 Aug. 1588, described the San Mateo, a Portuguese galleon built in the 1570s which sank off the Flemish coast, as being ‘abierto de su mesma artillería’
25. Laughton. Defeat, II11 Sir William Winter to Walsingham, 11 Aug. 1588 NS
26. 1889. 345 (Deposition of two Dutch sailors from the Armada, 11 Aug. 1588); Duro. Armada Invencible,:180–1. Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honorable the Marquis of Salisbury, III (London, II, 405 (Account of Friar Gerónimo de la Torre, aboard the flagship); Laughton, Defeat, II, 60, Howard to Walsingham, 8 Aug. 1588 NS (reporting claims made by his Spanish captives). See also the ‘Observations’ written later on by Sir Arthur Gorgas, who had fought in the action, concerning the ability of the English to discharge ‘our broadsides of ordnance double for their single, we carrying as good and great artillery as they do and to better proof, and having far better gunners’:T. Glasgow, ‘Gorgas’ seafight’, M.M., LIX (1973), 179–85, at
27. Duro. Armada Invencible, II 392 (Account of Captain Vanegas)
28. Voyages to Hudson Bay in Search of a Northwest Passage II, 241 (Medina Sidonia), or 261 (a Jesuit aboard the flagship)
29. Drake Papers 1602–3. The records of the munitions issued to the squadron commanded by Sir Francis Drake at Plymouth (6 royal and 32 merchant ships) have survived. They reveal the delivery of some 5,220 rounds and almost 39,000 pounds of powder between Oct. 1587 and April 1588 for the whole squadron, and the distribution of these munitions in May 1588 among individual ships; however they unfortunately provide no indication either of munitions already aboard or of the quantities expended in the 1588 campaign. See West Devon County Record Office, Plymouth, 1971/4, ‘Powder and munition delivered at Plymouth’. P.R.O. E351/2607 lists 160 pieces of artillery provided in Dec. 1587, at a cost of £2,081, to equip 14 more of the Queen's ships to be sent to Plymouth to serve under Drake. Annual accounts of the issue and return of munitions to each of the Queen's ships clearly once existed, but only the following seem to have survived for Elizabeth's reign:P.R.O. WO55/1626 and 1627, for 1596; 55/1628, for 1598; 55/1629 and 1630, for 1599–1600; and 55/1631, for
30. Usherwood, E., 1983. The Counter- Armada, 1596. The ‘Journall’ of the S. and Mary Rose (London, 77; P.O. Pierson, Commander of the Armada. The Seventh Duke of Medina Sidonia (New Haven, 1989), 201; P.R.O. WO55/1627 ‘The booke of the remaynes of Her Majesties shippes returninge from the seas’, Dec. 1595-Aug. 1596. Note that the Ordnance Office ‘hundredweight’ contained only 100 pounds for powder, but 112 pounds for guns. Note also that the guns carried by ships when they sailed differed slightly from those ‘surveyed’ in 1595:see Ref. 16 above
31. 1972. The Last Vovage of Drake and Hawkins, second series CXLII) 72–3. Cambridge P.R.O. WO55/1627 for the individual ships; K.R. Andrews, (Hakluyt Society, 72–3 for the totals (taken from P.R.O. AO1/1688/30). See also Appendix III. Note that the English—at Cadiz and in the Caribbean—also fired off substantial quantities of ‘crossbar shot’, ‘chain shot’, ‘jointed shot’, stone shot and ‘hail shot’:see the impressive totals in Andrews, The Last Voyage…
32. Elizabeth Jonas 1599–1600. The now boasted 2 demicannon, 3 cannon periers, 18 culverins, 13 demi- culverins, 19 sakers, 1 minion and 2 fowlers, and the Triumph 3,4,19,16,13,0 and 4 respectively:P.R.O. E351/2237, account of the Treasurer of the Navy for 1599, and WO55/1630, ‘Book of the remains’ for
33. Defeat, All English sources lamented the lack of powder and especially shot on and after 8 Aug.:see Laughton,I, 359 (Hawkins to Walsingham, 10 Aug. 1588); II, 11 and 13 (Winter to Walsingham, 11 Aug. 1588), 38 (Fenner to Walsingham, 14 Aug.), 54 (Howard to Walsingham, 17 Aug.), 64 (Whyte to Walsingham, 18 Aug.) and so on (all dates New Style). W. Raleigh, ‘Excellent observations and notes concerning the royall navy’, written before 1612 and printed in his Judicious and select essayes and observations (London, 1650), part III, 26, commented on the need to match the issue of powder and shot to the number of guns aboard each ship, ‘as was seen in the sea-battaile with the Spaniards in the yeare 88, when it so neerly concerned the defence and preservation of the kingdome. So as then many of those great guns, wanting powder and shot, stood but as cyphers and scarecrows’
34. 1938. The Voyage of Pedro Alvares Cabrai to Brazil and India, 2nd series London Instructions issued by King Manuel of Portugal in Feb. 1500, in W.B. Greenlee, ed., (Hakluyt Society, LXXXI), 183
35. Correa, G., 1922. Lendas da India 329–32. I.i (Coimbra
36. Oliveira, Fernando. 1983. A arte da guerra do mar (Coimbra, 1555:reprinted Lisbon, fo. lxxii; he also warned, ‘Do not place heavy artillery on small ships, because the recoil will pull them apart’., fo. xlviii. Oliveira served as a galley pilot in 1535–43 and 1544–5, fighting against the Royal Navy (see fos xl-xli, with an interesting account of the battles between French galleys and English warships in 1544–5). He spent the next two years in England
37. Espejo de navigantes Alonso de Chaves, ‘De la guerra o batalla que se da en la mar’, a manuscript of c. 1540 published by C. Fernández Duro, Armada Española desde la unión de los reinos de Castilla y de Aragón, I (Madrid, 1895), 379–91, and in more detail in De algunas obras desconocidas de cosmografía y de navegación (Madrid, 1894–5)
38. The Spanish Armada 31 The crescent-shaped formation of the Armada is discussed in Martin and Parker, 285. See also the illustration on p
39. de Freitas de Meneses, A., 1987. Os Açores e o domínio filipino (1580–1590) (2 vols, Angra do Heroísmo, II, 61–2 (Rodrigo de Vargas to Antonio de Erasso, 1 Aug. 1582) and II, 83 (Don Lope de Figueroa to Philip II, 3 Oct. 1582)
40. Medina Sidonia Papers:Capitanía General, Cuentas For an example of the former, from which the quotation comes, see KML, 9/66 (fos 146–7v), Instruction to Juan de Escandón, escrivano de raciones aboard the San Bartholomé, 29 June 1587; for the latter see AGS CMC 2a/772, Papers of La Concepción Menor; pliego 132, statement of Antonio del Castillo, ‘persona señalada…para el apercivimiento de la pelea y distribuyción de las municiones y armas’, 24 Aug. 1588. Alas, very few of these detailed records seem to have survived
41. At one time at least six ‘Libros de quentas fenescidas de las naos que sirvieron en la Armada que fue a Inglaterra' contained dossiers on each hired ship in the Armada. Today, substantial parts of only four can be found:‘Libro segundo' (AGS CMC2a/942 and 1012), ‘Libro tercero' (CMC2a/772); ‘Libro quarto’ (CMC2a/460); and ‘Libro sesto’ (CMC2a/905). In addition, fragments from other ‘libros’ (unidentified) may be found in AGS CMCla/1735 and 1736. The crown's accountants did not complete their audit for three-quarters of a century:final payment for the hire of the Concepción de Zubelzu, embargoed 1 May 1586 and lost 26 Oct. 1590, was made 7 April 1652! (See papers on this ship in AGS CMC2a/460.) The copious papers concerning the wages of those who served on the ‘Armada de Yngalaterra’ between 1588 and 1593 are in much better order, in AGS CS2a/273–296. On the approximate displacement figures, see Ref. 11 above
42. Trinidad Escala AGS CMC2a/942, Papers of the, fo. 109. This ship's personnel seem to have shown a sustained lack of enthusiasm. In Aug. 1589, despite frequent warnings to be prepared, they expressed total surprise when ordered to put to sea again and claimed they were not ready ‘giving such feeble excuses [escusas tan flacas] that they deserve exemplary punishment’. The fleet commander thereupon decreed that the ship would receive no payment for its hire after 21 Sept. 1588, when it returned with the Armada:AGS CMC2a/1012, Papers of the Trinidad Escala, order of Don Alonso de Bazán, 5 Aug. 1589
43. Santa Bárbara AGS CMC2a/460, Papers of the, unfo.; and I.A.A. Thompson, War and Society in Habsburg Spain. Selected Essays (London, 1992), VII, 77. This ship also had a poor record for enthusiasm:Medina Sidonia had its captain, Don Cristobal de Ávila, hanged at his own yardarm for abandoning the fleet on 8 Aug
44. San Francisco AGS CMC2a/772, Papers of the, unfo.; and KML Medina Sidonia Papers:Ca.sa de la Contratación 8/37 (fos 207–13). Interestingly, although the ship's papers at Simancas record the issue of lead to the soldiers of each company on board ‘so that they could make [musket] balls ready for the time of combat’, and also of powder and cord and more lead ‘so that they could drill [para que se exercitasen]’, apparently nothing was issued for gunnery practice
45. San Juan Bautista AGS CMC2a/460, Papers of the of Pedro Fernández de Soto, unfo.; and KML Medina Sidonia Papers:Casa de la Contratación 8136 (fos 199–204.)
46. Santa Catalina AGS CMC2a/940, Papers of the, pliegos 151–5 and 164; and KML Medina Sidonia Papers:Casa de la Contratación 8/32 (fos 181–8), recording (inter alia) the issue of 644 cannonballs in Andalusia before the ship left for Lisbon
47. Concepción Menor AGS CMC2a/772, Papers of the (or ‘Del Cano’), pliegos 107–12 and 128–33. The accountants complained bitterly that no one had recorded the calibre of each shot, so that they could not cross-check the quantities of powder expended; but they did note that the two largest guns carried by the ship weighed only 2,400 pounds apiece, which probably meant its 9-pounder medias culebrinas (see fo. 132, and Martin and Parker, The Spanish Armada, 217)
48. San Juan Bautista AGS CMC2a/905, Papers of the, pliegos 119–21 and 132. The same legajo contains papers on the 350-ton San Juan Bautista de la Esperanza, which seems to have joined the Armada only on 13 June 1588 and served thereafter with the Levant squadron, somehow missing all the standard ‘censuses’ of the Armada's strength. The calibre of its guns apparently remains unknown, but they fired 314 rounds ‘at the enemy, including the enemy flagship’ during the first week of Aug. (idem., Papers of San Juan Bautista de la Esperanza, pliegos 39–43)
49. Martin and Parker. Spanish Armada 203–4. See
50. Armada Invencible, AHN OM3512/34, ‘Relación hecha por un soldado en la Almiranta’; Duro,II, 377–8, 384–5, and 392. Vanegas also estimated that the rest of the Armada fired 600 rounds on 31 July (against 2,000 from the English), and that the two fleets together fired over 5,000 rounds on 2 Aug., the same again on 3 Aug., and some 3,000 rounds on 4 Aug. Unfortunately for historians, the galleons of Portugal do not appear to have kept the same meticulous records as the hired ships and the squadron of Castile, but accounts of the Dutch salvage operations on two wrecked Portuguese warships recorded a substantial quantity of unused ammunition:1,700 pounds of powder. RAZ Rekenkamer C2983, Account of Pieter Willem-szoon. Likewise the wreck of the 50-gun San Lorenzo, flagship of the galeasses, a squadron noted by both sides as in the forefront of all the fleet actions in the Channel, yielded no less than 2,650 cannonballs, implying that relatively few had been fired; see AGS CMC3a/1704, no. 45, account of Vicenzo de Bune
51. Defeat, P.R.O. SP12/220, ‘Survey’ of the Queen's Ships carried out on 25 Sept. 1588 OS (see extracts in Laughton,II, 241–9). Although a number of masts and other items are reported as ‘decayed’, which may be a euphemism for battle damage, they are not numerous; the only specific references to enemy action concerned some sails of the Elizabeth Bonaventure which were ‘shot full of hooles’ (fo. 50). However rather more damage was reported in a survey carried out three days later:most notably, the mainmast of the Revenge was described as ‘decayed and perished with shot’ (Laughton, Defeat, II, 250–4, at p. 252)
52. Sloane Details from the 1588 account of the Treasurer of the Navy:P.R.O. E351/2225 and (more legibly) AO1/1686/23. BL MS 2450, ‘Sea causes extraordinary, A.D. 1588’, also includes accounts for numerous repairs carried out in spring 1588, as well as in Sept. Thus (fo. 54) in March 1588 the Queen's ships required 1,352 feet of 4 inch planking, 1,732 feet of 3 inch, 1,810 feet of 2 inch and 2,983 feet of 1.5 inch; three loads of knees; and 6,500 treenails. My thanks to Nicholas Rodger for helping me interpret these figures. Paul Kennedy has reminded me that, in the eighteenth century, damage to (and loss of) ships due to weather stood in a proportion of four, five, or even six to one, compared with damage due to enemy action
53. Merhonor In 1590, building the, 108 feet ‘by ye keel’ and 36 feet amidships, cost £3,600; the Garland, 96 feet by 34, cost £3,200; and the Defiance, 92 feet by 32, cost £3,000 (P.R.O. E351/2227 and AO1/1686/25, Account of Sir John Hawkins); in 1595, new-building the Triumph and building the Repulse and the Warspite absorbed £9,372 (P.R.O. E351/2232 and AO1/1688/31, Account of Margaret Hawkins); and in 1598 alone new-building the Elizabeth Jonas consumed £4,449 and 101 trees, 80 loads of timber, 31 loads of knees and 8,924 feet of planking (E351/2236 and AO1/1689/34, Account of Roger Langford:see also Ref. 16 above)
54. Estado P.R.O. E351/2227 and AO1/1686/25, Account of Sir John Hawkins for 1590. 55 AGS K1448/77, ‘Lo que refiere Manuel Blanco’
55. Bor, P., 1626. Vervolch derNederlantsche Oorloghen III part 2 (Amsterdam, fos 10–12, interrogation of Pimentel; Martin and Parker, The Spanish Armada, 37, on Calderóni evaluation of the San Juan Bautista of the squadron of Castile
56. War and Society, Data on guns from AGS GA347/218, ‘Las naves que fueron en esta última armada’, and Thompson,VII, 82. Weights computed from Casado Soto, Los barcos, 382–4, multiplying the weight in ‘toneles’ by 1.5 according to the formula proposed by Jan Glete (see Ref. 11 above). Unfortunately, information on the ships of the squadron of Portugal—reputedly the finest in the Armada—seems hard to find. Nevertheless the San Martín (the flagship), which in 1588 had carried 48 guns, in Jan. 1591 carried 45, of which the heaviest were two 29- pounder cannon periers; only one other gun fired more than 14 pound balls (AGS GA347/206, ‘Relación particular’). RAZ Rekenkamer C2983, account of Pieter Willemszoon, recorded the calibre of 38 guns recovered from the wrecked Portuguese galleons San Mateo, San Felipe (which had originally carried 34 and 40 guns respectively). The heaviest were nine 14- pounders, plus one 11-, seven 9-, and five 8- pounders along with sundry other small pieces
57. The Spanish Armada By contrast, the English fleet boasted over 250 guns firing 16 pound shot and above, all of them weapons specifically intended for shipboard service and almost all of them belonging to just three calibres. See Martin and Parker, 197 and 208–25 for a full discussion
58. Mary Rose). P.R.O. E36/13, Inventory of the Navy (see pp.55–62 for the ‘Truckles’, ‘extrees’ (axle trees) and other items to make sea-carriages feature in, for example, Bodleian Library, Ms Rawl A204/1, Ordnance Office accounts for 1578 (including carriages made for the Revenge); P.R.O. E351/2607, Account of William Winter as Master of the Ordnance, 1586–9; P.R.O. AO 1/1846/70, Account of Henry Killi- grew as Treasurer of the Ordnance, 1587–8; P.R.O. E351/2632, Account of George Carew as Lieutenant of the Ordnance, 1596; and especially WO55/1626, Ordnance Office issues for 1596—every new ‘shippe carriage’ required 2 ‘extrees’ and 2 pairs of ‘truckes’ (see fos 3, 14,15, 66–7v etc.) Field carriages, with ‘strakes, spykes, nave hoopes’ and so on, were clearly constructed in an entirely different way (see fo. 36)
59. AGS CMC2a/1210, Miscellaneous accounts, order of Valdés dated 22 April 1588; a second copy at CMC la/1718 fo. 759, noting that the culverin was exchanged for a medio sacre of 18 quintals.
60. Martin and Parker. The Spanish Armada, 208 210 and the plate on p. 223
61. Medina Sidonia Papers:Casa de la Contratación KML 8/30–41 (fos 171–236), Accounts of ordnance and munitions supplied to embargoed ships by the Duke of Medina Sidonia in July 1587. No. 32 (for the Santa Catalina) called for wheels ‘3.5 palms high’, or 29 inches (the size of the gun it would carry is unstated). They were certainly not ‘truckles’
62. 1995. Alberto Struzzi. Unprecursor barroco del capitalismo Leuven BNM MS Res. 210 ‘Arquitectura y máquinas militares’, see fos 61–4. The binding indicates that the volume once belonged to Philip IV's libtary; fo. 55 shows a cannon with the date ‘1610’. It may have been presented by Alberto Struzzi, who came to Spain in 1614 to give the king an army of toy soldiers, modelled on the Army of Flanders:see M.A. Echevarría Bacigalupe, (5
63. Douce Bodleian Library, MS b.2, ‘Machines et ustenciles de guerre’, donated to the Library in the nineteenth century by Francis Douce, but of unknown provenance. The French binding bears the date 1596; the heraldry and artefacts depicted are Portuguese, and the cannon all show the date 1582. All this suggests authorship by a Portuguese engineer in France (perhaps in the service of the Pretender, Dom Antonio?). Several designs seem to be experimental (e.g. fo. 58, showing a jack to lift the axle so that one of the wheels on a four wheel carriage could be changed). I am grateful to J.F. Guil-martin for pointing out to me the inherent weakness of the ‘truck carriage’ designs in this volume
64. The Spanish Armada See the assertions of Sir Henry Mainwairing and Sir William Monson in the early seventeenth century that Spanish ships ‘carry their great ordnance upon field carriages’ in Martin and Parker, 208. The problem is that so few records offer precision. Thus an account from Gravelines in Flanders from 1587 records a44-pounder full cannon ‘mounted and equipped to serve at sea’—but provides no description:see A. Le Glay and J. Finot, ed., Inventaire sommaire des archives départementales antérieurs à 1790. Nord, Série B, V (Lille, 1885), 315
65. Defeat, For gunners aboard the Queen's ships see Laughton,II, 324–5. On the Spanish side, surviving data for the Andalusian squadron demonstrate two things:first, that when the ships of this squadron (all but one of them built in Cantabria) were embargoed in Andalusia, most had relatively few gunners, and a number of them were foreign (Ragusan, Flemish, French, German, Italian, Polish and Danish); second, that although Medina Sidonia greatly increased the size of the mariners before sending the ships to Lisbon, he did little to augment the number of gunners and many of those now rated ‘marinero y artillero’ had formerly been merely ‘marinero’. Of the ships whose performance in action is discussed above, the 31-gun San Juan Bautista left Andalusia with seven gunners (up from four); the 23-gun Santa Catalina had ten (up from eight); and the 21-gun vice-flagship San Francisco had 13 (down from 14). KML Medina Sidonia Papers:Casa de la Contratación 8/1–29 (fos 1–170). For the squadron of Castile, see AGS CS2a/288, ‘Libro de asiento’ with the crews of each vessel; for ‘asientos’ with individual gunners (and many others) see CS2a/290. Little more data survives for the English fleet:see Huntington Library, San Marino, Ellesmere MS 6206b/15v- 16, from 1575, which records 50 gunners per great ship; and B. Lavery, ‘The revolution in naval tactics, 1588–1653’, in M. Acerra, ed., Les marines de guerre européennes, 16e-17e siècles (Paris, 1985), 167–74, especially the diagram on p. 173
66. Raleigh, W., ‘Excellent observations’, p. 234
67. Duro. Armada Invencible, II 373 (Vanegas) and 46 (Medina)
68. 1983. :364–5. II, 44–5; C.J.M. Martin, ‘The equipment and fighting potential of the Spanish Armada’ (St Andrews University Fh.D. Thesis
69. Defeat, 324–31. P.R.O. AO1/1686/23 (a copy in better repair than E351/2225), Account of the Treasurer of the Navy for 1588, section ‘Extraordinary:sea wages’, gives the tonnage and crews of most of the ships mobilized to repel the Armada, but no armament. This document gives more detail on the hired ships than the manuscript, ‘Her Majesty's whole army’, printed in Laughton,II
70. Estado AGS 455/602–3, Don Francisco de Bobadilla to Don Juan de Idiàquez, 20 Aug. 1588:‘La fuerza de nuestra armada heran hasta veynte bajeles, y estos an peleado muy bien’; Laughton, Defeat, II, 13, Winter to Walsingham, 11 Aug. 1588 NS:‘If you had seen that which I have seen, of the simple service that hath been done by the merchant and coast ships, you would have said that we had been little holpen by them, otherwise than that they did make a show’
71. Defeat, 190–1. On the galeasses, see Ref. 21 above; on the two captured ships, see the inventories made by the English:Laughton,II, 154–7 and
72. AHN OM3512/34, ‘Relación hecha por un soldado en la Almiranta’ (but evidently dictated by Recalde), entries for 29 and 30 July and 4 and 6 Aug. 1588; OM3511/41, Recalde to Medina Sidonia and Don Francisco de Bobadilla, 1 Aug. 1588.
73. Armada Invencible, AHN OM3511/41, ducal apostil on Recalde to Medina Sidonia, 1 Aug. 1588; Fernández Duro,II, 10, Philip II's Instruction to Medina Sidonia, 1 April 1588 (see also BMO, III, 1068, for the same order to Santa Cruz in Sept. 1587). Whether Recalde's ‘alternative strategy’ would have proved more successful than those of Medina between 29 July and 6 Aug. is a most interesting counterfactual question; but the failure of the Armada ships to inflict any substantial structural damage on 8 Aug., and the disabling of the powerful San Mateo, San Felipe, suggests that it would not
74. Revista de Historia Naval. AHN OM3512/34, ‘Relación’, entries for 7 and 9 Aug. 1588.1 shall publish these fascinating yet unknown documents, sent by Recalde to the king upon his return to Spain in Oct. 1588, in the
75. The Spanish Armada On Drake and the Rosario, see Martin and Parker, 168–9; on boarding, see Laughton, Defeat, 1,355, ‘Memorial for Richard Drake’. On the other hand, division would dog both the 1589 expedition to Portugal and the 1596 raid on Cadiz
76. Los barcos 206–9. See the dates in Casado Soto
77. 98–9. A hiatus in the 1560s is noted by Adams, ‘New Light’
78. 1964. English Public Finance, 1558–1641 Naval totals from Appendix II; cost of the Irish war from EC. Dietz, (2nd edn, London, 4323; subsidies to the Dutch from W.A. Shaw, ed., Report on the manuscripts of Lord De L'Isle and Dudley preserved at Penshurst Place (HMC Report No. 77), III (London, 1936), xlv
79. Parker, G., 1990. Spain and the Netherlands, 1559–1659. Ten studies See (2nd edn., London, 36. Jan Glete has informed me that Sweden and Denmark may sometimes have devoted 30 per cent of their defence budgets to their navies during the 1560s, when they were at war (though not for two entire decades):personal communication, 19 April 1996
80. Loades, D., 1992. The Tudor Navy. An administrative, political and military history London (280
81. Warspite P.R.O. WO55/1672, ‘A view and survey of all her Majesty's Ordinnance’, listing all ships except the and the Repulse; the totals for these two ships have been added from WO55/1627, ‘The booke of the remaynes’. See also Appendix I, which gives details for the capital ships (only)
82. BMO, 1 476–7, Philip II order of 25 May 1585; S.P. Haak, ed., Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. Bescheiden betreffende zijn staatkundig beleid en zijn familie I. 1570–1601 (The Hague, 1934), 139–40, Joachim Ortel to Oldenbarnevelt, 1 July 1588 OS
83. Thompson. War and Society, VII79
84. Thompson, I. A. A., 1976. War and Government in Habsburg Spain, 1560–1620 London (192; Earle, The last fight, 121
85. Wernham, R. B., The return of the Armadas. The last years of the Elizabethan war against Spain, 1595–1603. The return of the Armadas. The last years of the Elizabethan war against Spain, 1595–1603 (Oxford, 162, 168,183. Nevertheless the San Mateo, at least, bore a great deal of ordnance:4 demi-cannon, 4 cannon periers, 14 culverins, 15 demi-culverins and lighter pieces (see P.R.O. WO55/1626/232–3, Inventories of the two ships, 12 Nov. 1596). Both ships were repaired (at a cost of £1,200) in the royal dockyards in 1598 (see P.R.O. E351/2236, Account of Roger Langford)
86. Elias, J. E., 1933. De vlootbouw in Nederland in de eerste helft der 17e eeuw, 1596–1655 20–1. (4–7; J.R. Bruijn, The Dutch Navy of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Columbia, SC, 1993)
87. Prince Royal At least two warships in 1610 exceeded the in displacement:the Danish Tre Cronor (2,200–2,300 tons) and the Swedish Julius Caesar (2,000–2,500 tons):personal communication from Jan Glete, 19 April 1996
88. Kemp, P., 1960. The Papers of Admiral Sir John Fisher I (London, 40, Fisher to the Committee of Seven, May 1904