Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
ElliotisGOD
Immortal Guard
Joined: 17-Dec-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Most Powerful Navy Ever Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 23:52 |
juan de austria served for spain, HE WAS SPANISH not austrian.. he was the half brother of philip II of Spain, and the son of charles V (SPANIARD).... I already knew that the royal navy is the naval army of great britain
Edited by ElliotisGOD - 19-Dec-2008 at 15:48
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Dec-2008 at 08:36 |
You unfortunately don't.
The Royal Navy is the Navy for operations at sea. The army fights on land and is transported and supplied by the Navy as appropriate.
The Navy has some units of marines but in those days were used mainly for raiding purposes
|
|
ElliotisGOD
Immortal Guard
Joined: 17-Dec-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Dec-2008 at 08:55 |
d'oh
|
|
Tore The Dog
Knight
Joined: 08-Feb-2008
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Dec-2008 at 11:26 |
Phoenicans must be a choise here , no great power but a naval power in the begining.
|
|
Red4tribe
Pretorian
Joined: 08-Jun-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Dec-2008 at 14:53 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Cartagena wasn't the worst defeat of the Royal Navy, even in that century. The Battle of the Chesapeake was. Moreover Cartagena was essentially a land battle, repulsing a military expedition. There were quite a few such operations that failed on land, including Nelson's expedition against Santa Cruz. |
What about the Raid on the Medway?
|
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.
George Washington - March 15, 1783
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Dec-2008 at 15:37 |
Different century. However, the Chesapeake defeat was much more important strategically. The Dutch expedition of 1667 was more of an embarrassment than anything else.
The question in the 17th century, as the original poster made clear in the poll, was whether the Dutch were more dominant. Certainly there was little to choose between the British and the Dutch at that time, with the Dutch having the edge for a while.
Edited by gcle2003 - 19-Dec-2008 at 15:41
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2008 at 19:54 |
Originally posted by ElliotisGOD
juan de austria served for spain, HE WAS SPANISH not austrian.. he was the half brother of philip II of Spain, and the son of charles V (SPANIARD).... I already knew that the royal navy is the naval army of great britain
|
Philipp II and Charles V were all Habsburgs which is a German dynasty. like Bourbon kings of Spain were French (and still are).
|
|
ElliotisGOD
Immortal Guard
Joined: 17-Dec-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 08:49 |
charles V as well as philip II were mid spaniards, both had spanish ascendy .
Edited by ElliotisGOD - 22-Dec-2008 at 08:53
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 11:11 |
Charles V and Don John were both born in Belgium and John's mother was Belgian. So was the man she was married off to.
Ascribing nationality to members of European royal houses is on the whole a pointless exercise.
|
|
ElliotisGOD
Immortal Guard
Joined: 17-Dec-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 19:50 |
belgium was spain at the time,known as spanish netherlands. :).
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 19:58 |
Belgium is and was of course part of the Netherlands: at one time part of the Netherlands belonged to the kings of the Spains, as it once belonged to the Duke of Burgundy, and the Holy Roman Empire, inter alia. It never has been, and isn't now, Spain, any more than India was Britain, or Persia was Greece (or Greece Persia for that matter).
|
|
ElliotisGOD
Immortal Guard
Joined: 17-Dec-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 09:03 |
Spain "created" belgium in the union of arras and reconquered cities as ostend or antwerp in the north after the pacification of Ghent, marking forever the religious border between belgium and the netherlands. Belgium is a catholic nation thanks to Spain (or the spanish king). Actually the spanish bourbon king is the ruler of spain and its overseas possesions.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 11:07 |
Originally posted by ElliotisGOD
Spain "created" belgium in the union of arras and reconquered cities as ostend or antwerp in the north after the pacification of Ghent,
|
So how come the Romans knew about the Belgae?
Did Spain create Luxembourg too? The current kingdom of Belgium only came into existence in 1830 (it included Luxembourg at the time). If you like, change my earlier statement about Charles and Don John and his mother, substituting 'Flanders' for 'Belgium' and 'Flemish' for 'Belgian'. Whatever you call it it wasn't Spain.
marking forever the religious border between belgium and the netherlands. Belgium is a catholic nation thanks to Spain (or the spanish king). Actually the spanish bourbon king is the ruler of spain and its overseas possesions. |
Yes, but Charles ruled Flanders as Duke of Burgundy not as King of the Spains (not 'Spain' - http://tinyurl.com/8kepfe ) Same as Elizabeth ruling the Channel Islands as Duke of Normandy, not Queen of England.
|
|
ElliotisGOD
Immortal Guard
Joined: 17-Dec-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 13:30 |
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 20:12 |
None of that makes Belgium Spain or Flemings Spaniards. George I was King of England, but he wasn't English (I'll give Temujin that ). Nicholas II ruled over Poland, but he wasn't a Pole. Catherine the Great ruled over Russia, but she wasn't Russian. And so on and so on.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 22:20 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Ascribing nationality to members of European royal houses is on the whole a pointless exercise. |
i agree, therefore i usually use the title as reference. btw born in a certain country doesn't automatically make one of that nationality. i mean an Indian Elephant born in a Zoo in Capetown is still an Indian Elephant and not an African Elephant. geographical location doesn't change one's pedigree.
|
|
Jams
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 365
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jan-2009 at 18:44 |
Originally posted by Temujin
well i meant Jütland was second most sucessfull battle for the German Navy in terms of enemy vessels sunk compared to overall forces involved and own forces committed.
to determine who won it is only necessary to check the objectives of both comamnders for the sea-going. at the moment it's most likely a draw.
|
The Germans wanted to lure the British battle cruiser fleet and destroy it, but the Brits wanted an engagement that would cripple the entire German fleet.
None of them were successful, but the German high seas fleet ad no influence on the war from that point on. It did show weaknesses ad strengths of various design paradigms, so it was a test of technology. In that test, the Germans won, but just barely.
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 14:11 |
Bit like one person is getting himself together whilst the other dives in, inflicts a couple of bruises then runs like hell before his opponent kills him. He then makes sure never to come anywhere near his oppopnent again
Edited by Peteratwar - 27-Jan-2009 at 14:13
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 21:28 |
Originally posted by Peteratwar
before his opponent kills him. |
proove pls.
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 08:39 |
Simple, the German Fleet took one look at the Grand Fleet bearing down on them and fled as fast as they could back to their base. They knew perfectly well they couldn't stand up to the British Fleet in full force and would be destroyed if they did. The British could trade battleship for battleship and in the end the German Fleet would be wiped out and the British Fleet would still have a large number of Battleships.
Edited by Peteratwar - 28-Jan-2009 at 08:41
|
|