Ottomans and the Armada

Coming into this with a knowledge base of about zero, I always believed that the notorious
Channel weather played the determining hand in stranding the Spanish fleet on the mud and
flat shores of the low countries -- and then blowing the ships around Scotland.

Doing a magnificent job of sabotaging his national effort was King Philip of Spain, a
micromanager of the highest order who refused to let the fleet sail until he personally had
checked the ships' manifests down to the nearest biscuit and nail. By the time he let his fleet
sail, the Channel was firmly under the grip of its usual seasonal weather.

As for Sir Francis Walsingham, I am sure he was writing letters to every friendly and neutral
power he could reach. Here is a theory that has yet to grow legs.

Robert Fripp, Toronto

It's been a long time since I've done any real research on the Armada, but the best book I've ever seen on the subject is by Garrett Mattingly, who looks with a fair and critical eye at all the major players, explores all the major circumstances surrounding and directing the enterprise, and does the job with graceful and intelligent style. In the process, he opens the door to the possibilty that Philip was pressed by many forces, not all of them to his liking, favor, inclination or interest; that Elizabeth was possibly less than the paragon of virtue who will undoubtedly make her appearance in the upcoming film; that Medina Sidonia has been slathered with tar almost as badly as our Richard. From what I can recall, from the time it was clear that the Armada was actually going to set sail, every Spaniard involved knew it was going to be a disater: Mattingly relates a conversation with one of the captains (I don't remember who it was), who reported all of the myriad disadvantages the Armada was going endure, down to the weather, the ammunition, and the difficulties of navigating in the Channel with the heavy galleons. He wound up with the wry conclusion that "we are sailing in the confident hope of a miracle."

As for Philip, to a great extent, he was saddled with reaping the harvest sown by his father, Charles V, who made a great deal of trouble in his lifetime, died in an aura of sanctity in the monastery of Yuste and left all the garbage for his descendants to clean up.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Fripp <r_fripp@...>
>Sent: Oct 10, 2007 10:26 AM
>To:
>Subject: Ottomans and the Armada
>
>Coming into this with a knowledge base of about zero, I always believed that the notorious
>Channel weather played the determining hand in stranding the Spanish fleet on the mud and
>flat shores of the low countries -- and then blowing the ships around Scotland.
>
>Doing a magnificent job of sabotaging his national effort was King Philip of Spain, a
>micromanager of the highest order who refused to let the fleet sail until he personally had
>checked the ships' manifests down to the nearest biscuit and nail. By the time he let his fleet
>sail, the Channel was firmly under the grip of its usual seasonal weather.
>
>As for Sir Francis Walsingham, I am sure he was writing letters to every friendly and neutral
>power he could reach. Here is a theory that has yet to grow legs.
>
>Robert Fripp, Toronto
>

The idea of involving the Ottoman Empire in the story of the Armada is
presumably intended to promote the "inclusive" nature of multi-cultural
Britain - Moslems helping the gallant Protestants defeat the evil
forces of Catholic oppression (or something like that). However, we are
surely opening a can of worms if we are trying to find Moslems in Tudor
history. What about the Moslems who raided the British Isles in search
of male slaves and white-skinned houris? I think the south coast of
Ireland suffered quite severely in this context.

--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> The idea of involving the Ottoman Empire in the story of the Armada
is
> presumably intended to promote the "inclusive" nature of multi-
cultural
> Britain - Moslems helping the gallant Protestants defeat the evil
> forces of Catholic oppression (or something like that).

As I understand it, Walsingham asked the Ottomans for help, but that's
as far as anything went.

If I ask the woman next door to make love to me, it doesn't mean that
she has made love to me. Some people seem to have difficulty spotting
logical fallacies these days.

Brian W

probable truths are also too often ignored/dismissed. a just little research begins to shed light on the whole issue. and i do mean a little research. it didn't take me long to find this info.

In 1585 Murat Reis crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and took several of the Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean, capturing the Spanish governor of the island of Lanzarote, who was later ransomed and released.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Reis_the_Elder

scroll to the bottom of this page for a list of battles/landings, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Turkish_Navy

i do find it interesting that there appears to be a gap in "records" for about 20 years in the late 16th, early 17thC.

and this page has some very interestingl leads within plus maps of the era being discussed. the ottomans were breathing down the spanish neck.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/behrooz/Osmanli.htm

what dr. brotton postulates doesn't sit well with what we've been taught. but then again what have we really been taught about the ottoman empire?

it is within the realm of possibility that the turks were delaying and annoying the armada, giving the english an edge. but then the turks went on to ransack the southwest coast of england. this too, i think is important to be taught to the kids. sometimes the truth hurts.

roslyn



Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> The idea of involving the Ottoman Empire in the story of the Armada
is
> presumably intended to promote the "inclusive" nature of multi-
cultural
> Britain - Moslems helping the gallant Protestants defeat the evil
> forces of Catholic oppression (or something like that).

As I understand it, Walsingham asked the Ottomans for help, but that's
as far as anything went.

If I ask the woman next door to make love to me, it doesn't mean that
she has made love to me. Some people seem to have difficulty spotting
logical fallacies these days.

Brian W

--- In , "Robert Fripp"
<r_fripp@...> wrote:
>
> Coming into this with a knowledge base of about zero, I always
believed that the notorious
> Channel weather played the determining hand in stranding the Spanish
fleet on the mud and
> flat shores of the low countries -- and then blowing the ships
around Scotland.


I saw a very interesting examination of the Spanish Armada disaster in
relation to the Japanese Current and the Gulf Stream, on, I believe,
the History Channel last year.

Despite all efforts by the captains of the Spanish ships that were
trying to sail around Scotland and Ireland and back home, the ships
were inexorably driven onto the rocks by the Gulf Stream, which was
unknown at the time.

Here's a link:

http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/2006_Issues/jfp0306-art3.cfm

Before anyone starts coming to firm conclusions about the
supposed "help" provided by the Turks, it might be worth examing some
of the technical details of ship design and construction. In
particular, I have a suspicion that the galleons used for service in
the Atlantic would not have been entirely suitable for work in the
Mediterranean - where lateen-sailed galleys or galleasses seem to have
been the preferred design. And as for delays to the Armada - what about
Sir Francis Drake's famous raid on Cadiz, when he burnt every Spanish
ship he could get his hands on, some 30 ships in all.

This responds to the post by Stanley C. Jenkins: Indeed, shipping was limited by currents
(and to a lesser degree wind) at the Straights of Gibraltar. Would Ottoman ships have been
much good in the English Channel? Bear this in mind:

The following passage mentions a major logistical problem confronting Christian forces
under Richard I and King Philip on the eve of the Third Crusade. The speaker is Eleanor of
Aquitaine, Richard's mother and tax-raiser extraordinaire, dictating her memoirs...

<< Where previous Crusades had marched overland at the mercy of the Turks, Richard
wisely chose not to recruit the vagabond-crusaders so beloved of Abbé Bernard. He would
take seasoned men-at-arms; they would travel by ship.

Here our venture confronted the mercy of winds and tides. Sailing-ships from Britain and
the continent's ocean coasts can pass between the Pillars of Hercules into the
Mediterranean Sea, but they cannot easily escape again. Galleys can row through the
straits against the current and thereby escape to the western ocean, but ships with sails
cannot. So, sailing-vessels chartered from English or Norman ports entering the
Mediterranean Sea are lost into that world for ever.

This increased the cost of Richard's Crusade. Although men-at-arms from Britain, our
Angevin lands and Aquitaine would march south to take ship at Marseilles, their transport
and cargo vessels would sail from Norman and English ports... >>

Source: "Power of a Woman. Memoirs of...Eleanor of Aquitaine" by Robert Fripp

read the caption under the graphic at the top of this page. barbary pirates aka ottoman corsaires. also look to the right and the sidebar. pirates and privateers, heading the list. sir francis drake aka a famous enlgish sea captain. but then it depends upon who is writing the history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

more info barbary pirates who revengened themselves for the explusion of the moors into the elizabethan era and beyond
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Topics/history/American_and_Military/Barbary_Pirates/Britannica_1911*.html

ottoman emporer contempory of e1.
Süleyman the Magnificent was the longest reigning and is the most well-known of the 36 Ottoman sultans. By the time he came to the throne in 1520 at age 25, his empire sat astride three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—and was the envy of contemporary European monarchs, including Frances I of France, Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, and Elizabeth I of England. "We talk about the Elizabethan England like it was this vast thing," says Peterson. "Well, it wasn't. It was this little island off the coast of Europe, and Elizabeth didn't even securely own the whole thing—Scotland was dubious and Wales was unstable. So she had part of an island. But then you look at Süleyman's realm. It was vast in comparison."

http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=1100

the above extract bothers me a bit..because elizabeth was also queen of a large part of "known/explored" northern north america...the british empire was growing via new world colonies, globally.

whether it's liked or not, the truth can not be forever hidden. it is possible and plausible the turks harried the spanish armada. this combined with other factors assisted in its defeat by the english.
roslyn

Robert Fripp <r_fripp@...> wrote:
This responds to the post by Stanley C. Jenkins: Indeed, shipping was limited by currents
(and to a lesser degree wind) at the Straights of Gibraltar. Would Ottoman ships have been
much good in the English Channel? Bear this in mind:

The following passage mentions a major logistical problem confronting Christian forces
under Richard I and King Philip on the eve of the Third Crusade. The speaker is Eleanor of
Aquitaine, Richard's mother and tax-raiser extraordinaire, dictating her memoirs...

<< Where previous Crusades had marched overland at the mercy of the Turks, Richard
wisely chose not to recruit the vagabond-crusaders so beloved of Abbé Bernard. He would
take seasoned men-at-arms; they would travel by ship.

Here our venture confronted the mercy of winds and tides. Sailing-ships from Britain and
the continent's ocean coasts can pass between the Pillars of Hercules into the
Mediterranean Sea, but they cannot easily escape again. Galleys can row through the
straits against the current and thereby escape to the western ocean, but ships with sails
cannot. So, sailing-vessels chartered from English or Norman ports entering the
Mediterranean Sea are lost into that world for ever.

This increased the cost of Richard's Crusade. Although men-at-arms from Britain, our
Angevin lands and Aquitaine would march south to take ship at Marseilles, their transport
and cargo vessels would sail from Norman and English ports... >>

Source: "Power of a Woman. Memoirs of...Eleanor of Aquitaine" by Robert Fripp

A fellow historian pal of mine is a specialist in early modern naval
history with an emphasis on the Mediterranean. Here's his take, in
response to the Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2185469,00.html


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting indeed!

I go with Nick Rodger's interpretation. The forces that the Ottomans
might
have "tied up" were not those that would have been, or were,
dispatched
against England and the timing is wrong. As Nick says, the word
would have
to have gone out years earlier for the Turks to have marshalled their
forces
to any effect.

Perhaps more to the point, the Turks had given up the struggle
against the
Spanish in the western Mediterranean by 1588 except as a low-grade
guerrilla
struggle. The final exchange of prisoners took place in 1585, well
before
the Armada.

It is my understanding that the English received significant
shipments of
Moroccan saltpetre that were incorporated in the gunpowder that helped
repell the Armada, but that was straightforward financial tranaction,
albeit
impelled by a common enmity toward Spain.

Those are very informative articles about the Ottoman Empire and the
Barbary pirates.

Although pirate ships may have harassed the shorelines of Europe during the

16th century, I doubt they would have come to the aid of England against
Spain since

they obviously had contempt for all Christian lands and would be happy if
they ( the

Christians) killed each other off. Any official request made by Elizabeth I
through

Walsingham would have been to Ottoman officials, not to pirates or corsairs.

I agree listers tend to be "focused" on England and English issues and
tend to

disregard or ignore the rest of the world at the time. It is important to
look at the

big picture. However, if the Ottomans had any part in deterring the Armada,
I

believe it was coincidence and not any planned assistance for England.



L.M.L.,

Janet

good summary janet, but i think it is important to include that in the ottoman empire it was wealth vs religion that determined your capacity towards "freedom". i.e. those who could pay a ransom were let go. the poor were enslaved. whereas in christian/catholic europe if you were muslim/ottoman you were dead in your tracks.

while we find it harsh to read that europeans could go free, sometimes, if they converted to islam. one must also consider it was a "sign" of the times. because if you were muslim or jew in a catholic christian country, you either converted or died or were exiled. kind of a tit for tat mentalty that went on until the 19thC, which is also the time that the spanish inquistion ended.

i do find it interesting that hundreds of years ago the jews fled to muslim held territory for protection from christians, and now it is christian countries that are protecting the jewish populations from radical extremist elements within the muslim faith.

also in this historical excursion, i was surprised to learn that the byzantium empire was taken over by the ottoman empire about 6 months after the birth of r3.

all in all, i think we, the western educated nations do need to take a better look at world history as a whole, vs just "our" perspective. the barbary pirates were the ottoman navy. a ragtag bunch of cut throat thieves and slave traders that only met their downfall because of the neopoleonic wars and the unification of the assorted european nations military/naval powers, that and the french capture of algeirs.

i have to wonder what the ottomans thought of the dutch and portuguese who were slave trading darker flesh to the new world during the same era.

what trevor phillips via jerry brotton's theory has done is open a gateway to some dialogue. and that is always good once we can get beyond knee-jerk reactions and responses.

Truth only reveals itself when one gives up all preconceived ideas. ~Shoseki

roslyn

Janet Trimbath <forevere@...> wrote:
Those are very informative articles about the Ottoman Empire and the
Barbary pirates.

Although pirate ships may have harassed the shorelines of Europe during the

16th century, I doubt they would have come to the aid of England against
Spain since

they obviously had contempt for all Christian lands and would be happy if
they ( the

Christians) killed each other off. Any official request made by Elizabeth I
through

Walsingham would have been to Ottoman officials, not to pirates or corsairs.

I agree listers tend to be "focused" on England and English issues and
tend to

disregard or ignore the rest of the world at the time. It is important to
look at the

big picture. However, if the Ottomans had any part in deterring the Armada,
I

believe it was coincidence and not any planned assistance for England.

L.M.L.,

Janet

It is obvious from studying history that no one group had a monopoly on
doing horrible things to other groups.

If you want to get into the slavery issue just look at how many African
tribes aided and abetted the Europeans by

securing other tribes to sell as slaves and holding them for the Europeans
to transport. Nobody comes off

looking good in that endeavor!

But back to the original issue, which was kind of OT anyway, about the role
played by Muslim naval forces

at the time of the Armada. I think it would be major revisionist history to
claim the pirates had any conscious

plan to assist the English. Making it seem as if they did is a sop the
current day Moslem population in

England and smacks of a political move to garner votes by that member of
Parliament. The Moslems have

done many good things for civilization, I'm sure, but I do not believe
helping England to defeat the Armada

was one of them.



L.M.L.,

Janet