You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Elizabethan foreign policy was governed by a single hard fact and a single overriding fear. The fact was that England was a second-rank power: its population of some four million and its modest royal revenues were dwarfed by those of the Habsburg empire of Philip II, which commanded Spain, the Netherlands, much of Italy, and the silver of the New World. The fear, after 1570, was of Catholic Spain — the greatest power in Europe, bound to the papal cause, and increasingly hostile to a Protestant queen whom the Pope had declared deposed. Elizabeth's instincts in the face of this danger were defensive, cautious, and cheap. She dreaded the expense and unpredictability of war; she dreaded still more the precedent of aiding subjects in rebellion against their lawful prince; and for the first three decades of her reign she manoeuvred, temporised, and improvised to avoid the open conflict that her more militant councillors pressed upon her. This lesson traces the long deterioration of Anglo-Spanish relations, the reluctant intervention in the Netherlands in 1585, the sea war and the exploits of Drake, the great set-piece of the Armada of 1588, the grinding continuation of the war to 1604, and the intractable Irish theatre that drained the treasury in the reign's final years.
The topic is shaped by two enduring debates. The first concerns the character of Elizabeth's policy: was her caution wise statecraft — the rational husbanding of limited resources by a poor power that rightly avoided over-commitment (the reading associated with Wallace MacCaffrey) — or indecisive drift, a pattern of half-measures and parsimony that repeatedly hamstrung her own commanders and prolonged the very conflicts she sought to limit (the reading associated with Susan Doran)? The second concerns the defeat of the Armada: was it won by English naval skill, by a fatal flaw in the Spanish plan, or by the weather — the "Protestant wind" of patriotic legend? As throughout this course, the discriminating answer refuses the single cause and weighs the layers of explanation against one another.
The organising question is this: was Elizabeth's handling of the Spanish threat — her long caution, her reluctant intervention, and her conduct of the war after 1585 — a rational and successful defensive strategy for a second-rank power, or a drift of indecision and under-resourcing that owed its survival as much to Spanish miscalculation and the weather as to English statecraft?
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y107 (British period study & enquiry): England 1547–1603 — The Later Tudors. It is examined in two ways:
Because Y107 is a period study, examiners reward command of how the Spanish threat developed across the reign; keep asking how each episode affected the security of the realm and the reach of English power. Our sequence groups the material around the deterioration of relations, the Netherlands, the sea war and the Armada, and Ireland — a pedagogical arrangement of our own, not a transcription of the specification's ordering (refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording). This lesson develops the Catholic and Spanish threat of Lesson 5 and the factional "war or peace" divide of Lesson 4, and its costs run directly into the crises of the 1590s in Lesson 8.
Anglo-Spanish hostility was not inevitable in 1558. For the first decade of the reign the two powers coexisted, and the drift to war took some thirty years — a slow accumulation of grievance rather than a sudden rupture. Tracing the phases of that deterioration precisely is what separates a strong answer from a vague sense that "Elizabeth and Philip were enemies."
| Phase | Period | Character |
|---|---|---|
| Cautious coexistence | 1558–1568 | Elizabeth avoided provoking Philip II, who initially valued a Protestant England as a counterweight to France; trade continued through Antwerp; both powers preferred diplomacy to confrontation |
| Growing tension | 1568–1585 | A cascade of grievances corroded relations: the seizure of Spanish bullion ships (1568), covert English aid to the Dutch rebels, the privateering of Drake and Hawkins, the papal excommunication (Regnans in Excelsis, 1570), and successive Catholic plots linked to Spain and centred on Mary Queen of Scots |
| Open war | 1585–1604 | The Treaty of Nonsuch (1585) committed English troops to the Dutch rebels; the execution of Mary Queen of Scots (1587) removed Philip's chief reason for preferring Elizabeth alive; Drake's raid on Cádiz made war inevitable; the Armada (1588) followed, and the fighting dragged on until the Treaty of London (1604) under James I |
Several threads wound together to pull the two powers apart. The religious thread was fundamental: after the excommunication of 1570, Philip could increasingly cast himself as the champion of a Catholic crusade against a heretic queen, and English Protestants could cast Spain as the great popish enemy. The strategic thread ran through the Netherlands, where a Spanish reconquest would plant a hostile Catholic army on the Channel coast opposite England. The economic thread ran through the sea, where English privateers preyed on Spanish shipping and treasure with the queen's tacit blessing and a share of the profits. And the dynastic thread ran through Mary Queen of Scots, whose plots (Lesson 4) repeatedly implicated Spain and whose execution in 1587 dissolved the last restraint on Philip's hostility. What is striking, and analytically important, is how long Elizabeth kept the peace despite all this — a caution that is either the mark of prudent statecraft or the mark of dangerous drift, depending on the interpretation one adopts.
The revolt of the Netherlands was the strategic pivot of Elizabethan foreign policy — the issue on which the queen's caution was most severely tested and, in 1585, finally overcome.
| Issue | Detail |
|---|---|
| The Dutch Revolt | The largely Protestant provinces of the Spanish Netherlands rose against Habsburg rule from the 1560s; the long conflict was the central strategic problem of the reign |
| Elizabeth's dilemma | She was deeply reluctant to aid subjects rebelling against their lawful sovereign — a precedent that could be turned against her by her own Catholic subjects — yet she could not allow Spain to crush the revolt and plant a hostile veteran army on the Channel coast opposite England |
| Treaty of Nonsuch (1585) | The turning point: Elizabeth committed around 7,000 English troops under the Earl of Leicester to the Dutch cause — open intervention that made war with Spain unavoidable |
| Leicester's expedition | A failure: Leicester quarrelled with the Dutch, provocatively accepted the title of Governor-General against the queen's express wishes (enraging her), and achieved little of military value before being recalled |
| Long-term effect | English intervention was costly and militarily inconclusive, but it helped tie down Spanish resources and contributed, over time, to the survival and eventual independence of the Dutch Republic |
The Netherlands is the focus of the chief interpretive debate on Elizabethan foreign policy. Susan Doran characterises the policy as one of indecision and half-measures: Elizabeth wanted to harass Spain and prop up the Dutch without paying for a real war, and her hesitancy and parsimony repeatedly undermined her own commanders — Leicester was sent with too little money and too little authority, and then blamed for the failure his under-resourcing helped produce. Wallace MacCaffrey counters that the caution was more rational than it looked: England genuinely lacked the resources for a sustained continental war, and a limited, deniable, low-cost intervention that kept the Dutch in the field without committing England to a ruinous land campaign was the prudent course for a second-rank power. The debate turns on whether one judges Elizabeth by her ends — England survived, Spain was contained, the Dutch endured — or by her means — the chronic under-resourcing of her own forces, which arguably prolonged the very conflict she sought to limit. The Treaty of Nonsuch is the hinge: it is either the moment prudence finally acted, or the moment half-measures committed England to a war it would fight on the cheap for nearly twenty years.
If Elizabeth was reluctant to fight Spain on land, the war at sea was a different matter — cheaper, more profitable, deniable, and congenial to the Protestant-patriotic-mercantile temper of men like Francis Drake and John Hawkins. Privateering was the characteristic English mode of the Spanish conflict, blending national strategy, private enterprise, and religious zeal into a single lucrative venture.
| Development | Detail |
|---|---|
| Privateering | State-licensed raiding of Spanish shipping and ports; the Crown licensed and invested in the raids and took a share of the plunder, so that patriotism, Protestantism, and profit reinforced one another |
| Drake's circumnavigation (1577–1580) | The first English voyage around the globe; a feat of navigation, a propaganda triumph, and a source of vast Spanish plunder — Elizabeth knighted Drake on the deck of the Golden Hind and shared handsomely in the spoils |
| Raiding the Spanish Main | Drake and others raided Spanish settlements and treasure fleets in the Caribbean, damaging Spanish prestige and revenue and inflaming Philip against England |
| The raid on Cádiz (1587) | Drake's pre-emptive attack on the Spanish fleet assembling at Cádiz — the "singeing of the King of Spain's beard" — destroyed shipping and stores and delayed the Armada by a year |
| Limits of the sea war | Spectacular and profitable, but it could harass Spain, not defeat it; the treasure fleets kept coming, and Spanish power at sea, though wounded, was not broken |
The sea war illustrates the whole character of Elizabethan strategy. It was low-cost and self-financing — indeed often profitable — which suited a poor Crown; it was deniable, allowing Elizabeth to injure Spain while professing peace; and it was popular, fusing the profit motive with Protestant patriotism. Drake's raid on Cádiz in 1587 was strategically valuable precisely because it was cheap and pre-emptive: by destroying stores and shipping it delayed the Armada by a crucial year, buying England time to prepare. But the sea war's limits were real, and a strong answer notes them: privateering could sting and enrich, but it could not compel Philip to abandon his ambitions, and it helped provoke the very invasion it could not, by itself, prevent.
The Armada is the great set-piece of the reign and one of the most mythologised events in English history — which makes it a superb test of the historian's discipline in resisting a patriotic single-cause story. Philip II's purpose was nothing less than the invasion and reconquest of Protestant England for the Catholic faith; the fleet was the instrument, and its failure was the product of several causes operating at different levels.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| The Spanish plan | Philip II assembled roughly 130 ships and some 30,000 men; the strategy was to sail the fleet up the Channel, rendezvous with the Duke of Parma's veteran army in the Netherlands, and ferry it across to invade England — a plan fatally dependent on a junction that proved impossible |
| The fatal flaw | Parma had no deep-water port free of the Dutch rebel "flyboats" from which to embark his army safely; the indispensable rendezvous was therefore impossible before the fleet ever sailed — the structural weakness on which Geoffrey Parker builds his interpretation |
| English advantages | Faster, more weatherly, more heavily-gunned ships; superior long-range gunnery; home waters and local knowledge; and Walsingham's intelligence network |
| The running battles | A series of indecisive engagements up the Channel (off Plymouth, Portland, the Isle of Wight) as the English harried the Spanish crescent formation without breaking it |
| The fireships at Calais | On the night of 7–8 August 1588, English fireships panicked the anchored Armada into scattering from its Calais roadstead, wrecking the formation and dooming the planned link-up with Parma |
| The Battle of Gravelines | 8 August 1588: the decisive action; superior English gunnery battered the disordered Spanish ships and drove them into the North Sea, unable to return down the Channel |
| The long retreat and the storms | Forced to flee around Scotland and Ireland, the Armada met ferocious storms that wrecked many ships on the Irish coast; perhaps half the fleet was lost — most of it to the weather rather than to English guns |
The causes of Philip's decision to launch the Armada were themselves multiple: religious (a Catholic crusade against a heretic realm), strategic (English intervention in the Netherlands and the desire to control the Channel), economic (years of English privateering against Spanish treasure), and personal-dynastic (the execution of Mary Queen of Scots in 1587, which removed Philip's reason to prefer Elizabeth to a French-backed successor). The defeat, likewise, was multi-causal, and this is the crux of the analysis. R.B. Wernham stresses English naval skill — the faster, better-gunned ships and the fireship tactic at Calais. Geoffrey Parker emphasises the structural flaw in the Spanish plan: because Parma had no deep-water port from which to embark his army beyond the reach of the Dutch flyboats, the rendezvous on which everything depended was impossible from the start, so the campaign was doomed before it sailed. And the providentialist tradition stresses the storms of the retreat, the "Protestant wind," which destroyed most of the ships actually lost. The strongest answers weigh all three: the Spanish plan was strategically unworkable (Parker), English tactics converted that latent impossibility into a battlefield defeat at Gravelines (Wernham), and the weather magnified an existing rout into a catastrophe — while firmly debunking the patriotic myth of a plucky English fleet single-handedly destroying a Spanish behemoth.
The defeat of the Armada was a deliverance, not a victory, and one of the most important correctives a strong answer can offer is that the war did not end in 1588 — it continued, inconclusively and expensively, for sixteen more years, until the Treaty of London in 1604 under James I.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.