ABOUT THE SPANISH NAVY FACTION

[Fernando]

I totally agree with captain Gual . Spaniard faction is unbalanced .

Just remember that the game is set between 1770-1830.

You can see some action where Spaniards has victories . Look at this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_9_August_1780

One of the major loss from the Uk . Ant the Spaniard commander was 74 years old .

 

[Bob D]

I’m sorry, but you are joking aren’t you? Yes it was economically a great win, but militarily not: I am sure you can easily replicate that victory (if you have enough ship models), given that the only British warships present (one first rate and two frigates) had already sailed away (with 8 of the merchantmen), so the fleet engaged by the Spanish only consisted of merchants (and Indiamen are just merchants, albeit powerful ones). It doesn’t sound like there was a battle anyway: just a few shots fired before the Brits realised they had no hope. Even if the 3 warships had stayed, the Spanish would win the game easily, with 31 ships of the line and 6 frigates, according to that article!!

Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan of the Spanish  – my wife is Ecuadorean, surname Fernández de Córdova, so you might guess her heritage 🙂 – and the Spanish did win their share of battles, but this is a very poor example!

Saludos

—Bob

 

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Bob D.

[Vetrarbreytin]

>Spain was amongst the most powerful empires of those days. If you are lacking of “better” examples, have you ever heard of the battle of Cartagena de Indias in 1741 ? One of the greatest victories ever made in the Age of Sail history. At the time of Black Seas, Spain was but a shadow of its former self but still can’t be too much marginalised!

[Bob D]

That was a land engagement, a siege that failed primarily due to disease, and was outside the time window of Black Seas, which in any case is a naval game. While important, it was hardly “one of the greatest victories ever made in the Age of Sail history”: sieges in that period failed more often than not, especially in the Carib and the Americas; Spain repeatedly tried and failed to besiege Gibraltar during the 1700s, due to the fleet’s inability to seal it off from sea supply; and Nelson failed to take Tenerife in 1797. While I agree that the Spanish fleet should not be marginalized, the navy was struggling to catch up after the neglect of the 1600s. Spanish ships were very well built, and their crews undoubtedly fought honourably and courageously, but the battle fleet lacked the experience and tactical verve and aggression of their contemporary opponents. I think that is what the game is trying to represent.

[Vetrarbreytin]

You’re arguing semantics ! Was there no ship involved in that siege ? Did any action take place on land ? Was it not a strategic AND a military victory ?

When you speak of war, how can you not take into account attrition, diseases, environment, topography, weather (specially about naval war ? Like don’t you care about wind, storm, swell,  etc.?). If you keep ignoring these points every time, how would you ever be able to quote any example of military victory strictly won by “pure strengths overwhelming one each other” regardless of these parameters.
<p style=”text-align: left;”>Concerning Cartagena, some historians  estimate until fifty years after that battle (Anglo-Saxon historians consider it as a battle by the way while German, Spanish, French or  Italian ones as a siege) the repercussions for the Royal Navy and its strategic situation in the Caribbean and New World theatre. So I must disagree, that’s everything but a anecdote.</p>
I was pretty sure you would invoke the argument that it was out of Black Seas period so I can also cite the naval battle during the siege of Valletta which is still a siege but involving naval troops. And at last, if sieges / blockades / or just land as strategic location hadn’t been representative of the Age of Sail, Black Seas would’ve never represented and included them in the game with scenarios, islands, forts, martello towers, etc. That’s just of course my humble opinion.:)

[invisible officer]

Semantics?

We are concerned with the era 1770 – 1830. So a any action of 1741 is …. . My old German university teachers woud have said: “Thema verfehlt, Setzen . Sechs.”  (Wrong Topic, sit down, worst note possible) And same those at my Oxford time.

Worse. It was a siege. Intended to win a town. Fought at the coast and in harbor. It was not the Spanish ships that did much harm. Used as floating batteries they had small effect.  Two scuttled and one captured by RN. Most RN losses in the weeks are caused by disease, some by coastal batteries. The RN had to burn ships for lack of crew.

Typical Caribean situation. On sea the RN Crew was healthy, closing the Islands they died like fleas. There was a reason why for  some 300 years  many British army officers sold their commissions if the Regiment was told to go to the deadly Islands. And OR mutinied.

That was a strategic fact. Caused by nature, not caused by any Spanish clever action. And Spaniards too died on feaver.  All men new to that part of the world paid a high price. It was the 5- 20 % survivor group that could stay. Getting more or less immune.

 

 

So no special Spaniard rule but a local one. In Caribean area you loose men to illness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob D]

@vetrarbreytin Sure Black Seas has islands, batteries and Martello towers. But it does not represent the land forces that did 99.9% of the fighting at Cartagena – you’d need Black Powder or some equivalent for that. But dude, if you fundamentally believe the Spanish are misrepresented in the Black Seas rules, simply adjust them to your taste and enjoy the game! That is, after all, the whole and only point 🙂

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Bob D.

[Dr Dave]

It is as you all say “a game”. But – if you dare to look it up – I’d point you to the near comical circumstances surrounding the loss of the Hermenegildo and the Real Carlos, two first rate vessels… it really is Superb!

The awful fact is that The Royal Navy held the Spanish navy in utter contempt – this is not my view – it is the view of the RN from over 220 years ago – sorry.

Between 1793 and 1815 the Royal Navy lost 166 warships to all comers (including weather, accidents and wrecks). This figure should be compared to the numbers captured or destroyed by the Royal Navy – a total of 1201 – including 712 French, 172 Dutch and 196 Spanish! The remainder being American, Russian, Danish and Turkish. The action between the Royal Navy brig HMS Speedy (14 guns) and the Spanish frigate “El Gamo” (36 guns) – offers a prime example of the Royal Navy defeating a superior Spanish vessel.

The Spanish Navy was generally speaking, and sadly, the worst Navy afloat at this time.

As for the OP regarding the miss-spelling of the Santissima Trinidad – ask Warlord to reprint it?

[Vetrarbreytin]

@Bob D “if you fundamentally believe the Spanish are misrepresented in the Black Seas rules, simply adjust them to your taste and enjoy the game! That is, after all, the whole and only point ” you are interpreting my words. I’m fine with the rules. Just a bit jaded by this constant Spanish-bashing -no one here denies its weaknesses from 1770 to 1830- and wanted to support those who try to set the record straight. The initial posts were pointing stricto sensu interesting facts that go beyond BS. In the end this is a game, as you said, but still we can quote some historical facts that remind some people Spain used not to be the fool of the European village ; so am I quite entertained by the quite despising, if not disappointing, reactions against that country.

[Bob D]

I do not see any Spanish bashing here. Nobody is bashing Spain because it is Spain, they are simply stating the historical record which was that, over the period of this game, the Spanish navy was a shadow of its former self and performed very poorly. I would add that this also applies to the domestic Army, but NOT to the colonial army which by all accounts performed well, e.g. during the US Revolutionary War and in defending their colonies against the Brits, e.g. in Argentina. Spain attempted to restore the fleet during the 1700s and built excellent ships, which were highly prized by the RN when they captured them; but their economic state and lack of sea time (hence experience and confidence) put them at a massive disadvantage even before a battle began. I think Ticio summarised this very simply and very well in the post at the bottom of page 1.

The original poster was quite rightly, and through the use of evidence, querying the choice of Spanish admirals in Black Seas, pointing out the mis-spelling of the Santísima Trinidad, and querying the malus assigned to Spanish ships, leading to asking who would want to play them. That was answered further down by having bigger ships etc. and I will personally play the Spanish without hesitation. If I think the malus is unjustified in a particular (but likely rare) case I will not use it.

Unfortunately, Fernando jumped in saying that the Spanish faction is unbalanced, and citing a completely ridiculous case as ‘evidence’. You joined the party by quoting a siege, which also does not prove anything beyond the fact that European troops serving in the tropics tended to be decimated by disease. If you think I am bashing Spain, I am truly not: I am just bashing you two 🙂 (And I mean that lightheartedly, so please smile).

Nobody can doubt that Spain three centuries before was THE preeminent land and naval power due to superior training, innovation, leadership, experience and confidence; but, during the period covered by the game, the Spanish Navy (and domestic army) was in very poor state due precisely to the loss of those qualities

Cheers

—Bob

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Bob D.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Bob D.

[Nat]

ps – for what its worth if Cunningham had been the british admiral as a Brit I would have liked it!  How about we see/ hear about the lesser known leaders in these historical based games?  (look at waterloo – everyones heard of Sir Auther Wellesley (but not by his name!), some of picton & Prince of Orange but what about about general Hill?  commander of a full Corp!)

[Dr Dave]

“ps – for what its worth … look at waterloo – everyones heard of Sir Auther Wellesley”

Uhhh. It’s “Arthur”

[Nat]

@Dr Dave…. I’m also dyslexic (and dyspraxic) so spelling isnt my strong point!

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Nat.

[Author]

Posts