Sailing to War: The Age of the Ship of the Line
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ย. 2022
- For nearly three centuries, naval warfare in the Western world was dominated by capital sailing ships. From the 17th century onward, they usually fought in a single long line, the line of battle, which allowed them to fire thunderous broadsides at the enemy fleet. Ships chosen for this demanding task, only the very best, were called ships of the line. In this video, we look at how modern historiography explains the evolution of the unstable, sluggish sailing ships of the Middle Ages to the massive, cannon-laden and maneuverable ships of the line that dominated the seas in the 17th and 18th centuries.
#history #sailing
Patreon (thank you): / sandrhomanhistory
Prints & T-Shirts: sandrhoman.creator-spring.com/
Paypal (thank you: www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter: / sandrhoman
Bibliography
DeVries, K. The Effectiveness of Fifteenth-Century Shipboard Artillery', Mariner's Mirror 84 (1998), 389-99.
McKee, A., King Henry VIII's Mary Rose, New York 1974, pp. 65-8.
Parker, G. , Ships of the Line, in: The Cambridge History of Warfare, Cambridge 2005.
Parker, G., "The 'Dreadnought' Revolution of Tudor England," Mariner's Mirror, Aug 1996, Vol. 82, Issue 3.
Parker, G., The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1800, Cambridge 1988,.
Stradling, R. A. The Armada of Flanders: Spanish Maritime Policy and European War, 1568-1668. Cambridge and New York 1992.
Glete, J., Warfare at Sea, 1500-1650: Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe, London and New York 2000.
Rodger, N. A. M., The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain, 660-1649, London 1997.
Sicking, L. , Naval warfare in Europe, c. 1330-c. 1680, in: Tallet, Frank/Trim, D. J. B. (Ed.), European Warfare 1350-1750, Cambridge 2010, p. 242.
Fiction related to the Early modern period:
Alexandre Dumas,The Three Musketeers amzn.to/2CJVAuu
Alexandre Dumas, 20 Years After amzn.to/32g82Lv
Alexandre Dumas, The Vicomte de Bragelonne amzn.to/2EnIOCB
Markus Heitz, The Dark Lands amzn.to/3ntZgEu
Military Si-Fi recommendations:
Bernard Cornwell, Sharpe (Series of 22 books on the Napoleonic Wars), amzn.to/3RZyty0
Dan Abnett, The Founding: A Gaunt's Ghosts Omnibus (Gaunt’s Ghosts) amzn.to/3vdGxkZ
Dan Abnett, The Lost: A Gaunt's Ghosts Omnibus (Gaunt’s Ghosts) amzn.to/3osvFvA
Dan Abnett, The Saint A Gaunt's Ghosts Omnibus (Gaunt’s Ghosts) amzn.to/3orikUk
Glen Cook, Chronicles of the Black Company (Chronicles of the Black Company Series Book 1) amzn.to/3PVgyGV
Historiography:
Neville Morley, Writing Ancient History 1999. amzn.to/3NCyoNl
Albeit focused on ancient history, it's a brilliant book for anybody who is interested in what history actually is. Is it a story? How does it work in practise? Can writing history be objective? Is it "scientific"? What makes it a proper discipline at university?
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] Tứ Xuyên (Trung Quốc) VS U20 Thái Lan | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024 | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bguJ41PcW0c/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out World of Tanks here and get exclusive bonuses: bit.ly/3WPWppW
Check out part of our naval-warfare-series here: th-cam.com/video/bVkdubCi2PI/w-d-xo.html
Thanks to all of you who consider becoming a Patreon: www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory
You are slightly confused as land ships where code named tanks by Britain in its development pretending them to be water tank designs for steam boilers.
The code name tank stuck globally instead of landship as British military personal where under order to refer to them as tanks & never landships!
Basically, Tank is a word formed from British military encryption.
Broad side gun ports didn't come to being stright after the galley with caravels.
gunports instead of bow deck gun on galleys started with (stern chasers) on merchant vessels to return fire while fleeing pursuers dated to 1501 on surviving vessels but likely older.
Shortly after though unclear stern chasers would be out fitted to (bow chasers) on galleys & swift sail ships.
The gun ports would finally be made broad side on carrack warships with 1st to have had broad side gun being the English Mary rose laid down in 1510 & completed in 1512 by Henry the 8th of the house of Tudors commission.
The Mary Rose served 33 years though sank on the way to a French invasion in 1545 in the Solent a stright north of the of the isle of wright & the wreck of the Mary Rose was located in 1971 and was raised on 11 October 1982 by the Mary Rose Trust in one of the most complex and expensive maritime salvage projects in history.
Mind the word broadside was not coined till 1590's by the English.
these early gun ports where most often referred to as dischargers refer to as stern, Bow, starboard & port dischargers/canons respectively though the language was far from fixed till the 1590's as previously mentioned.
The 1st broad sider was a Carrack with 4 masts & not a caravel!
The Great Michael was launched October 1511 3 months after the Mary Rose in 1511 July.
The Scottish ship was laid down in 1507 but not launched before England.
Scots took 4 & 1/2 to do what England did in 1 & 1/2 years.
Great Michael only had 24 broad side guns compared to Mary roses 78 larger pieces increased to 91 in 1536 in its refit.
This is common argument we nautical lot of Scotland & England have with the Scots never being happy by the end of it;)
Peter Pomegranate another English ship is worth a mention commissioned & launched in 1510 that had 36 cannons & 66 swivel guns in records with 19 cannons on each side totalling 38 though how many were cannon or swivel on broad sides is unknown.
In 1536 the ship was enlarged from 450tons displacement to 600 last mentioned in records of 1558 but the fate of the vessel is unknown to this day!
Bow (the front of the ship) and bow (the weapon) may be spelled the same abut are pronounced differently. Bow (the front of the ship) has the same -ow sound as cow. Same goes for prow.
@@palmtrees2924 Now you mention it he did pronounce ''bow'' like bowtie.
No big problem of a mistake as SandRhoman 1st language is likely not English so some leniency should be granted in my opinion.
Minor correction: the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War was fought in the 18th century from 1780 to 1784, not from 1680 to 1684
damn. thanks for pointing it out. upvoted so people will see it.
@@SandRhomanHistory pin the comment
Or put it in the description with a line crediting the esteemed Van Nassau; if you don't want to pin it; however this may be better for visibility. The way you responded to this reinforces a special kind of accountable credibility rarely seen on youtube.
@@bigiron9334 I think you can only pin one comment at once
@@bigiron9334 can‘t cause of the sponsor!
Although large-scale battles and operations truly depended on the huge ships of the line filled with artillery it is interesting to point out the huge role that smaller ships, particularly frigates, still had in the theater of war. Their role in disrupting supply, raiding convoys, harassing coastlines, and gathering intelligence was actually the bulk of naval operations and it is also a scene for many smaller battles and prize captures. I would argue that some of the most interesting naval actions o the 18th and early 19th centuries had to do with these smaller ships
Also, in line battles frigates also served as communication vessels, sailing "behind the line" (from the enemies perspective) and repeating the flag ships' signals. This was necessary due to not every vessel of the line always having a line of sight to said flagships.
The art in this video is groundbreaking! I love your first videos so much & its been so awesome to see how professionally youve developed your profound & dare i say, truly revolutionary means of education
Outstanding episode. “Bow” as in the front of a ship is actually pronounced like the German “hau” or English “cow”, today whereas the “bow” that archers use is pronounced as in this video or as in the English “flow” or “blow”.
I apologise for the endless circus that is English spelling & phonics
Same with prow. Pronunciation here really kept taking me out of the video.
Wait, really? English is my first language and I didn’t know that
@@malegria9641 Wow. Woe!
Nothing like a sailing ship! Always fascinates me how these almost delicate things work on a forceful element like the ocean
A big trend in history was before rockets/torpedoes were invented the biggest ships could carry the biggest guns and take the most hits. Ergo warships were as big as engineering would allow. These days the biggest warships are never meant to see the enemy and smaller, faster, and sneakier ships carry heavy weapons.
Yeah. The legendary dreadnoughts. And the biggest of them being the two Yamatos from WWII.
Dreadnought battleships are at the same time fascinating and ironic. Since they were so damn large and expensive, the nations that built or bought them were just too scared of losing them to activelly use them in combat.
@@rotciv1492 bismark and tirpitz would know, right?
@@the_rover1 Tirpitz never fired her primaries.
@@IrrieldeCZ nor did I.
@@IrrieldeCZ It did, but at planes.
There is a report by a bomber crew member describing how, while attacking the Tirpitz, the ship started firing its main artillery at the planes. According to the report, he looked out the window and saw a fellow plane 'disappear' when hit by the main gun shell.
So, the history of cannons is kinda a weird one. From siege guns to replacements for rams to proper artillery later on.
A slight "correction", if it's even that. The defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English wasn't the crucial watershed moment that it's often portrayed as. If nothing else, the English counter-attacked with an English Armada the following year, which the Spanish defeated of the Iberian coast just as comprehensively. Really, the incident shows that "home advantage" is crucial when it comes to massive fleets; presumably because of logistical and command & control issues.
Of course, English historiography (which counts for a disproportional share of european historiography) stresses its victories more than its defeats. Especially when those victories enter the national mythos so strongly that it's even taught to 10yo at school.
Given Britain ultimately conquered much of the world you'd think key British victories would be considered important by many cultures.
@@samsonsoturian6013 Huh? How does that line of thinking not lead us to conclude that British defeats are just as important?
@@QuantumHistorian You might not. The average high schooler who doesn't live in Britain would
@@samsonsoturian6013 it's a good thing I set the standards for this channel to be higher than an average high schooler then
Nice, I need this for my 17th century setting.
I hope it's a game but it's probably a book, right?
@@SandRhomanHistory well originally it was supposed to be a book, maybe in the long run still.
However, I like animated series ideas a lot more and who knows maybe even a game one day.
You always knock it out of the park with your quality content. Thanks bro.
what shall we do with the drunken sailor?
i don't know but apparently people struggled to put cannons on the side of ships?
yeah, apparently that's more difficult than it seems to be. In hindsight everything is easy. At the time it was more of an engineering problem because of the weight / recoil / balance. Too many guns on the side of the ship meant that your million-dollar sailing ship would sink. Kind of reasonable thinking imo.
Put 'im in the hole with the Captain's daughter
Much like with your videos on the evolution of warfare on land, this series truly showcases how changing times and improved technology brought constant changes to the field of battle. Rather than "and on 1 January 1723, every single galley was sunk and ships of the line popped into existence in an instant, and so did all the tactics and infrastructure and so on surrounding that," it puts the flow of things into great perspective. Bravo!
As a side note, I'd love to see something similar on the early steam ships and the transition to ironclads, it feels so open-ended now :') (and yes I know history is open-ended but you can't fault me for loving a story eh)
god, i love these videos... sooo many little facts and interesting stories... not like big budget corporate media productions with tons of filler and and hardly any actual info... you sir are infinitely superior to those clowns at the "history channel" and the like
Excellent video as always guys! Only critique: make sure your graphics match the time period you are talking about at that timestamp. It helps show the evolution of design better. Example: Your first pic of the Prince Royal was after a later refit, then you showed a pic that was clearly from an earlier period of it's service. But excellent content as usual!
These video's are usually very informative which I can appreciate. Nice video.
Everyone forgets that the english sent their own Armada in the aftermath of the Spanish naval defeat, the same year, the objective was to de unified Portugal by attacking Lisboa (Lisbon) , but were repelled by the Iberian ships
A wonderful historical coverage of battleships upgrades during centuries amongst European competitors
Thank you so much for your videos. They help a lot in learning about old ships and war vessels.
The galleon had also some of the first bilge pumps that were hand powered which made dewatering effective.
The Romans had bilge pumps too
Awesome video, as usual. Thank you! 🙏
Excellent video, script and graphics. Very interesting - thanks!
Thank you so much. I was hoping for more of this kind of content after getting hooked on Gold & Gunpowder's videos.
That channel rocks 🤙
This topic and the visual style makes me want to play Port Royal again. Super interesting time and topic, thx for covering it!
Great video as always!
Funfact: despite being heavily outnumbered and facing the combined English/French navy in the battle of texel. We still won by luring the enemy over sandbanks. Our ships were designed with a shallow draft, we could easily sail over them, Now it was just like target practice.
Devilish clogmancer trickery it was!
Fantastic video again. Thx
There must be *refrigerator magnets* of the wonderful animated soldiers and historical figures (e.g. *Philip II* at 09:56 - 10:01) that populate these videos.
Some *enamel pins* would be nice, as well.
Regards,
Kev
ps.
I've watched 'em all twice (at least) and I never miss a new post.
This channel is a gem.
-K.
Another great video! Thx
awesome. cant wait for more
I love your videos. Please more
I feel like that the developement of the line of battle marks the point when naval warfare stopped being "land warfare on water" and started being a thing of it's own. Before, fleets had been formed up like battle lines on a field.
Very interesting video!
It's a good day when you upload.
Great video !
Another great video! Greetings from Brasil!
Maybe I should’ve been an admiral. So much artillery for one.
Love it!
It feels so wild to me to have these big ships just sail past each other before blasting each other into another dimension
Most excellent!
Wasn't there a naval war in napolianic battles where the brittish instead of choosing the line formation choose to go traight at the enemy and won, but the famous guy died?
the great man's instruction was: if you don't see signals from the flag ship, go straight at them. The boarding usually came after the enemy was heavily battered and could not manage his ship. And the battering stage was most effective when ships formed the line of battle
That was admiral nelson at the battle of trafalgar, his fleet was outnumbered so in order to even out the fight he ordered his ships to charge the french flank, it worked and and the british won a decisive victory although nelson did die and was hailed as a hero for it.
@@amitshitrit9907
Correct. The reason they were able to get away with that was the experience of the Royal Navy compared to the French and Spanish fleets (having been effectively bottled up for a while due to the British blockade).
Crazy thing is that the British had to endure a full hour of broadside bombardment before they could split the line and start firing their own guns. Hearts of oak indeed.
Yes. Unpredictability is important, specially if you are outnumbered
@@eldorados_lost_searcher and let's not forget that the British had effectively combated scurvy at this point, which the French and Spanish had not. A lot of those sailors were out of commission.
A wonderful historical coverage of battleships upgrades during centuries amongst European competitors. A wonderful historical coverage of battleships upgrades during centuries amongst European competitors.
"Land Ships" was not the code word for tanks. It was tank, like water or septic tank. "Land Ships" were a very common concept during and before WW1, so much so that calling their machine a "Land Ship" would have given it away. So they instead named it "tank" to make it appear as though they were working on a storage tank.
you're right on that
Was hoping someone would bring this up. Thanks!
4:00 There were like the Constitution Class starships in Star Trek, with the sudden and massive advances in technology. Same types of missions too!
This is a good video, but it fails to explain the principle of naval tactics that led to the creation of the Line Ahead tactic of the 17th century; For example, in the first half of the 16th century, there were already naval writers such as the Spanish Alonso de Chaves, who recommended the use of row formations to enhance the use of artillery on sailing ships (as mentioned by the historian Angustín Ramón Rodriguez Gonzáles) and the proof of this is in the formation adopted by Admiral Alvaro de Bazan y Guzmán (the famous Marquis of Santa Cruz) in the Battle of San Miguel on June 26 of 1582 (also known as Battle of Ponta Delgada and Naval Battle of Terceira Island) against the French fleet of 64 ships captained by Philippe Strozzi; In that naval combat the Spanish Marquis formed his 25 Galleons and Nao's Ships in double rows, divided into three separate groups called Vanguard, Center and Rear. The only difference is that in these times these lines were not kept rigid as in the 17th and 18th centuries, but at a certain point in the battle they broke formation to carry out boarding or close combat (11:16), since the captains had more autonomy in the use of their ships than a century later. It catches my attention that despite this being the first naval battle of galleons held in the Open Sea in history (1500 km away from the coast of Portugal), you have not mentioned it at all in this video and especially wrongly saying which was a later invention of the English and Dutch navies (11:27). It is also incorrect to say that England became the naval power after the Great Armada of 1588 (9:50), when Spain remained so for several decades until its defeat against the Dutch fleet in 1639 and it was not until the War of the Spanish Succession (1700 - 1714) when the British ended up surpassing the other naval powers (because until then it was surpassed by the Dutch and closely followed by the French).
I would like you to make a more in-depth video of the naval battles of the galleons during the 16th century, until the middle of the 17th century, focused mainly on the use they were given in the first armies that began to battle around the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian sea, being the case of the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and English.
How many cannons should we put on the ship, Sire?
Yes.
I find it amusing how sailing ships in your animations are able to sail against the wind.
Nice video
the tactic of "shoot from the side while moving" is so effective that is has been used for thousands of years by horse archers (and caracole for a while)
[Laughs in AC-130]
Even in WWI they still use this line of battle
That transition to World of Tanks tho!
I love your contents. ☺
thanks! will keep it coming.
4:50 i like how shrewd little galley easily destroys clumsy sailing ship
thank you
It's the claws x incredible reaction times x superb agility x teefs all packaged together that put cats at the apex of the food chain. Not to mention the beauty and grace which disable our defences.
1 Minute in an I already love it
it is quite amazing how much battle damage these behemoths could sustain and still keep fighting
The hull on the gun decks could be over two feet thick and the vertical beams that held the hull were massively over-engineered, as were the structures supporting the masts.
So now I know what that battle in that Oversimplified video was about
Thank you for an interesting video.
Carvel-built versus clinker-built, I would call the difference rigid versus flexible, rather than carvel-built being solid and stable.
Solid depends on how well the ship is built and suited for the forces of the seas. A flexible ship might be less prone to fall apart, and thus more solid. A carvel-built ship can be built larger but will face more force from the sea because it is more rigid, and thus need to be built more solid in order not to fall apart. It is not solid in itself befause it is carvel-built. Artillery needs a stable platform. Stability not at least comes from the size of the ship. Thus a large carvel-built ship is a better option as an artillery platform than a more flexible clinker-built ship, with one end flexing to one side and the other end flexing to the other. One could say that the carvel-built ship rides over the waves, the clinker-built ship rides through the waves.
I've been waiting on good videos on ironclads, sounds like its on the way
Will the part three feature the steam-powered warships of the 19th century?
maybe next year.
actually the original Galleass were sort of galkeys with sails and cannons added that gradually got bigger over time and started to develop into the later frigates.
Can’t imagine two 5km lines of ships blasting cannons at each other
a bit more complex becuase the cog developed into to divergent styles the style that became the galleon and the style that became carracks. carracks were massive cargo ships that often were very well armed but not super easy to manoeuvre in combat.
9:50 - someone is ignoring the utter failure of the far more disastrous English Armada
Like everyone always does... Including, back when I was in school, the British history syllabus. Something which is all the more galling as we specifically used both English and Spanish accounts of the battle to learn about how different sources can describe the same event differently. When I learnt years later about the English Armada, I was shocked at the balls of making such a huge biased omission when talking about the bias in sources.
Ah yes, the lovely Bay of Biscay and the most spooky ghost of military history, logistics.
And the fact that the Spanish fleet was heavily wracked by a storm before the their naval battle with the English.
And the fact that the English used fireships as well.
Far more disastrous? Umm, you need to go back to the source material. 😂
@@eddiel7635 dude the English lost 40 fucking main ships and 11-15 000 dead...
@@neutralfellow9736all of which were vastly smaller vessels than what Spain lost in the THREE armadas they sent.
13:53 Ships not being sunk was of great advantage to the bellingerents, because it guaranteed that the ship could be taken as a prize. Taking enemy ships and reusing them in your fleet became extremely common throughout the 18th century.
Please a video of the battle of Lepanto, the siege of castelnouvo and the siege of oran........
all of these topics are planned. probably next year though.
Ja das Hörbuch ist Klasse.
The frigate was developed by the Spanish/Flemish privateers known as Dunkirkers, who almost strangled the economy of the dutch republic!
I don't think it'd be right to claim it was developed specifically by a town without major shipyard... The concept of low-built single-decker warships does seem to have originated from the low countries, probably even the Dutch republic itself. But it's hard to pinpoint exactly.
That said, at the time the frigate came around, most of the vessels around were still trade ships (spiegel-retourschepen for example) functioning as auxiliary warships in times of need. Some of the first organised frigate patrol routes were organised from Zeeland, in an attempt to limit the Dunkirk-based threat to shipping through the English Channel.
You can see the Line of Battle in the Dutch movie called Michiel de Ruyter. Wich is a movie that took place during the Anglo-Dutch wars.
Hope you don't get demonitized by saying "galleass". Brilliant vid.
Are you gonna cover siege machienes or specialised contraptions made for war anytime?
yeah at some point. but not any time soon!
Does anyone know where I can read more about that ship the 'Grande Francoise'? I can't find much about it
A little anglo focused but great video.
Love the episode, I'm pretty sure the word "Tank" (water tank) was the cover word for landship. (Or I'm I missing something?)
That's correct. The word "tank" was chosen so that german spies would believe they were tracked water carriers instead of combat vehicles.
13:00 "All european powers adapted the line of battle." Except for the Netherlands ... these guys were just mad.
Antiquity naval tactics video when?
Maybe my memory is wrong, but I thought that the Mars predated a lot of the things you claimed were only introduced later.
The famous defeat of the spanish armada invasion meant nothing for Spain actually, check your sources because that's a big missconception. And little is said about the english couteroffensive invasion attemp of Spain shortly after which was bigger in numbers and failed even harder than the previous spanish attempt.
All I know is some Spanish swam to Ireland stayed married Irish women and created the Black ☘️
@@MbisonBalrog Sounds so racist, given that spaniards are mediterranean, same as greeks or romans... But yeah I know that story, there is a yearly tribute celebration in ireland remembering the event and the history behind.
30 seconds in and I already learned something new. I always thought "ships of the line" was referring to some kind of assembly line churning out ships.
how an from where did the food come from to build an feed the growing number of ships and sailors, . or did they all live of fresh air!!
Correction: Tanks weren’t called land ships to hide them from the enemies intelligence. Land ships were called tanks to make the enemy intelligence believe they were mobile water tanks.
I think the first tanks were called landships as the Royal Navy was the first user.
When are you licensing your artwork for a game? I'd buy one.
haha, well, we don't own the rights for that. copy rights / licensing rights are really complex (and expensive).
@@SandRhomanHistory damn.
Another ship of the line tactic was to cut the line where the line sailed though the center of the enemy line. Tactic should be added to the video.
Good video in part... But unfortunately, there is a serious mistake. The destruction of the Invincible Armada did not ruin the Spanish naval superiority, because right after it, the British counter-armada occurred that was a disaster much more serious than the disaster of the invincible armada itself and greatly damaged the financial capabilities of the British crown for the following decades (even the peace terms of that war favored Spain) and was not until almost 150 years later, of the British again challenged the spanish naval power.
The disaster for Spain began to be forged in the war of succession, by which England obtained mercantile access to the Spanish territories in America and the Spanish Crown, agreed to eliminate some vital defense fleet such as the "Armada de Barlovento", among other concessions.
And then Spain launched 2 more armadas that were utterly destroyed as well.
@@lesdodoclips3915 If you really believe that "destroyed" you should go back to the story. That of 1596 lost 25 ships, the same as that of 1598 which lost 28, leaving most of the fleet safe, except that the invasions in both cases canceled. And for more than the next 100 years, Spain maintained a sufficiently decent "hegemony" of the oceans, despite facing the English, Dutch and French at different times.
The real disasters for the Spanish navy and that really weakened it, was as a result of the agreements of the war of succession, one of the points, for example, was the elimination of the Armada de Barlovento that it or in its previous forms had been a very effective tool against piracy and corsairs as well as against the introduction of settlements of other nations without permission from the Crown. From that moment on, the decline is firm, but not yet definitive.
The eighteenth century would be the real problem and the beginning of the nineteenth century, was already decisive, not as much as it might seem because of the battle of Trafalgar, but because of the lack of maintenance and the lack of creation of new ships, mainly because of a destructive struggle in Spain against French domination and the liberal movements that created the first liberal Constitution, but which sowed fear of the liberal in the transatlantic territories which led first to counter-liberal movements that later became the processes of independence of the territories that had previously been viceroyalties and that some were transformed into new nations and others into several, which gave rise to bloody struggles between them. Mostly well exploited by England, USA and France to establish their primacy and sink them economically.
And for the record, I am not complaining about what those three nations did, since each nation does what it considers best for its interests, in any case, the idiots, were the ones who allowed themselves to be handled like puppets, mostly to have their little piece of power, in the case of some, try to be "emperors", although in the case of some bloodthirsty like Bolivar, He carried only blood, war and destruction wherever he went.
But as if you say, the destruction of the first "armada" totally dislocated the naval power of Spain, it is impossible that for at least another century, it was mostly uncontested or that its fleets of the race arrived in Spain or even that something as vital as the Canary Islands or how during the seventeenth century England could not take something as vital for Spain as the Azores in the return of the treasure fleets to Spain. If what you say were true, the Spanish empire would have died in the seventeenth century.
@@Timberjactotal bs. The Battle of the Downs in 1639 destroyed Spanish naval power. During the Wars of Louis XIV Spain barely had a navy
@@5thMilitia What total bs? Most of the ships in the Spanish Armada were destroyed by storms and shipwrecking, the English only destroyed some of the ones that survived
Plus that statement of the Spanish Armada's downfall being Britain's doing is just wrong. It was due to storms. The thought of Britain destroying the Spanish Armada, let alone "overtaking" Spain during the Iberian Union as a naval power, is hilarious to say the least
The name 'tank' is the name that was the ruse. As in a tank to carry water.
That's a lot of dakka.
Nice video again. How did they fired all 100 guns? Im thinking, if all gun fired at same time, it have to destroy your own ship? Hope someone will answer my question.
As far as I'm aware, they usually fire the guns in succession and not all at once
Just an fyi, “bow” when referring to the front of a ship is pronounced “b-ow”, with the o sound like in “ow”, or in “bowing”.
Any recommendation for games
You got your tank fact backwards. The term tank refers to water tanks for troop support the lie used to hide the development of what was referred to as land ships at the time. The code name tank stuck.
Nit picking here, but "bow" in this case is pronounced the ssme as bending at the waist, not the thing you shoot arrows with.
the portuguese were able to use broad sides in the battle of diu and before that
I heard one of the reasons the Mary Rose sank was because a lot of the sailors on it were press-ganged Spanish sailors and didn't understand English.
Dude unironically named Louis Sea King
sun*
Some historical mistakes on the video.
1 - Portugal had ships with broadside capacity prior to the examples mentioned. No mention of the batle of Diu???
2 - galleons existed, as a particular type of war ship, much sooner than the 1620s...in the works of D. Joao de castro, vice roi of India, we can clearly see diferent type of ships with diferent funcions, used on the indian ocean by the midle of the 1500s.
3 - for the love of God, stop using english propaganda, defending that england became the premier naval power after the armada of 1588. That is not true. Spain continued to be the principal european power until the 1640s and also the main naval power, together with Portugal under the iberian union.
4 - Holland is the naval power that replaces the iberian powers, not england.
Tbh I love this youtube channel but damn I had to turn off this video due to the part where he sources English propaganda, you would think sandrhoman would acknowledge this but clearly not
@@biggusdickus819 i also like this channel and hope he does a response video about this topic because, i believe, it is intoxicated by preconceived ideas about iberian naval power and northern european efforts. Ever notice not one big movie/documentary/you tube video regarding the english counter armada???
@@dragaoastro69 The source he cited is old too even British historians today acknowledge that the outcome of the Spanish armadas failure was exaggerated
how can those schips go in opposite lines? Since they couldnt sail agains the wind as far as i know?
google point of sail!
portugal was so rich and technologically advanced that in 1534 they had a galleon with 366 Cannons. And it was functional.
In which battle?
@@5thMilitia conquest of Tunis (1535)
Ah yes, the Botafogo!
This number included firearms. Most technologically advanced naval yards of the 19th century only had *theoretical plans* for 170-180 gun ships. Most ships had 110-130 guns, rarely more.
Okay, I looked this up and it is a myth. It would be impossible to have so much cannons on a galleon. The only way this can be true is if they counted hand cannons and other forms of small artillery
One would expect the sponsor to be World of Warships but hey, its funny.
I loved the remake of Sid Meier's _Pirates!_ where you could master the art of dancing and win dancing shoes to better your odds of scoring a hotter Governor's daughter for a wife.