The initial discussion of The Armada focuses on Garrett Mattingly’s language and style, and how it differs greatly from the other historical accounts assigned to the class. Professor Mead remarks that Mattingly is funny and does great things with language, which is how he gets people to pay attention to his writing on strategy. He weaves together literary references, jokes, historical facts and ironic humor, making all the players come alive.
A student asks whether this style of writing add subjectivity to the book. The student mentions a fairly dramatic scene about the execution of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots as an example of this subjectivity. Professor Mead answers that as a critical reader, one must have the ability to doubt everything. Because Mattingly often talks about what he believes people thought, we have to understand he’s making a lot of assumptions about the people within the book. Mattingly assumes that the players within are smart and know what they’re doing; this may not be correct, but it helps the historical mysteries to become more lucid.
Further discussion of the book reveals that its narrative aspect can lead students to believe that political science—and theories about politics—do not explain much or help us in understanding the full complexity of historical events. But one student remarks that the true narrative function of the book is to highlight grand strategy.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The Spanish Armada (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Talk then turns to Elizabeth. The class discusses how Elizabeth is like Fabius – she doesn’t allow her opponents large gains, uses delays, and attacks from the back. There is a real similarity between Fabian and Elizabethan tactics. Neither can directly confront the enemy because they might lose, so they try to delay action as much as possible. Professor Mead asks the class what other great thinker espouses these ideas. The answer is Sun Tzu.
The class continues discussing Elizabeth, noting that her personal history needs to be understood in order to analyze her Fabian tactics and general war strategies. She is sensitive about concubines (due to her mother Anne Boleyn’s ignominious death), so executing Mary Stuart is a bitter reality for her. Her mother is killed because of Elizabeth herself; Anne Boleyn promised Henry VIII a male heir to the throne, but instead Elizabeth, a useless female, was born. Thereafter declared a bastard and having lost all of her legitimacy, Elizabeth faces the constant tension of being killed because of the Boleyn household’s links with the Reformation. She herself is not strictly religious, but all of her life she has symbolized the Protestant faith. Her childhood is marred with succession issues and rumors of her being at the center of plots which she has noting to do with. She is to her half-sister Mary what Mary Stuart is to her.
Professor Mead notes that Elizabeth’s survival strategy during Mary’s reign involved delay, avoidance and most important of all, keeping away from commitment to any particular cause or person. She played for high stakes from a place of weakness—and she ultimately survives Mary. It is only natural that Elizabeth continued to rely on this strategy when she was queen; it worked for her before, and it could certainly work again. She would have used this strategy regardless of its wisdom at the time.
A student remarks that Elizabethan strategy was the right move, but that she was careless at times. Distracting Phillip by going to the south of France made sense. But her involvement in the Netherlands and keeping a relationship with Henry of Navarre were both unwise decisions.
Professor Mead then remarks that in operations at sea, a lot of things would have to go wrong for the English to lose. But on land, the English army is not very able. They don’t have good experience with peer competitors, and they lack the ability to put together forces to counter Spain on land. But if England did not put Spain in its place both by land and sea, then Spain would have grown in the next hundreds of years to be stronger than England. If they were to gain control of the Low Countries, they would be able to build up their navy and rule.
Professor Mead notes that this has parallels with many past historical situations. Although Athens was powerful at sea, it underestimated Sparta’s ability to fight on that front. As Sparta gained ground and found more resources, it was ultimately able to win at sea despite losing a number of sea battles. The lesson here is that a state must be able to fight on many fronts, despite weakness in a few, if it wants to deter the enemy for an extended period. Thus, England can’t give up on land because it is possible that they will later lose the sea – this is part of their strategic thought throughout the next 400 years of history. This makes the theatre in the Low Countries very important. England is forced to do something that it doesn’t want to do because the alternative could be worse.
Professor Mead continues, noting that there can be advantages to a contest you can’t win, because just showing up to that contest can still decrease your chances of defeat in the main theatre. It requires you to put money into a black hole, and although Elizabeth begrudged every penny she spent, she had an understanding of this strategic reality. For instance, to keep the Dutch in the war, a strong English presence was required, which allowed the Dutch to keep going. Here Elizabeth got more bang for the buck than it may have appeared at first glance.
Discussion now turns to Philip’s strategy. A student believes that his strategy was very hasty. For instance, communication between the Armada and Parma wasn’t worked out at all, and Philip sent out his fleet too quickly, before a proper strategy could be planned.
This focuses the class upon King Philip’s broader strategy – England played a much smaller role in his planning than Elizabeth believed. He was trying to do two or three things at once. He was both a long and short-term strategist.
First, a look at the Hapsburg strategy is necessary. The motto of the Hapsburg house was, “Others wage war, thou happy Austria, marry.” In other words, the Hapsburgs expand only through inheritance. They have a multigenerational marriage strategy. They inherited the Netherlands by marrying enough daughters into the house of Burgundy so that it would come over to them in time. Much of Europe was still under Salic law, which stated that succession couldn’t pass through a woman. Under this law they were able to create situations in which a Hapsburg was the oldest heir. And Philip II was the husband of Mary. If they had a son, that son would have been the heir to England, Spain and Portugal.
Professor Mead continues: At this point, Philip has just inherited Spain. Although the book rarely discusses it, Phillip’s main enemy is the Ottoman Empire – which has another hundred years before it’s defeated outside of Vienna. Up until the 1700s, the Ottoman Empire was arguably the greatest power in Europe.
Philip’s revenue is coming from Italy. He has a great deal of power in Genoa – banking power. The Genoese are feeding his fleets. He is constantly concerned about how he can maintain that flow of funds. He can get the treasure in, but the Ottoman problem occupies most of his attention. England is simply a small nuisance for Philip, who is playing a long game for control of Europe. He deals with England at this point only because he has a free hand; England doesn’t mean much to him on the grander scale of things, as Philip is the first person to rule a truly global empire. He rules the Philippines, Indonesia, all of Latin America including Brazil, half of North America, and the Cape of Good Hope. Naturally his vision of strategy and opportunities is very different from Elizabeth’s. His biggest enemy is not England but the Muslims: the Omanis, the Mughal empire, the Saffavids, and the Ottomans.
The Spanish also have the experience of suppressing demon worshippers and getting gold. This happens first in Mexico and then in Peru. And by this point they have more gold than anybody in the world. The Spanish have a certain idea of how the world works.
Professor Mead lectures further on Philip. Philip thinks that he understands the English – “I’ve been king of that place.” His knowledge of England is that Catholics and Protestants are at each other’s throats, and the Crown of England is very poor. There is a quarrelsome parliament that doesn’t give Queen the money she wants. Of course they can build ships, but he has a whole list of reasons to underestimate what the English can do. It wasn’t even so clear that England had the best navy at the time, either. Phillip controls one third of the world, so England doesn’t seem like such a large threat.
The class then begins to discuss grand strategy in Libya. Right now, the rebels are retreating and NATO has taken command. Qadhafi’s circle has splintered a bit, but we have also discovered that he has a great deal of gold, which is less vulnerable to banking sanctions and is a reliable source for financing war. That he has recognized this shows he has been planning for a long time.
Students debate what Qadhafi’s next move should be. One says that he must regain control of Benghazi as swiftly as possible. As for now, he has begun putting his armies in cities, and when there are big air raids Arabs are starting to see Western planes bomb Arab cities. He’s using that image to slowly gather support for moving Western forces out of the country. But is Qadhafi toast? It’s anybody’s guess; a student says that because the situation on the ground can change at any moment, Qadhafi is in a very precarious position. But what he can do is attack alliances; like using Turkey to break up NATO or threatening the Arab League. He can also use the identity of the rebels who are fighting him (they just came back from fighting Americans in Afghanistan) to pull America out of the game. He may try to highlight the presence of Islamic radicals amongst the rebels to further ensure America’s withdrawal, but he must do so through a secret channel like Wikileaks to ensure that no one knows the information is coming from him.
What should Obama do at this point? Students are divided—some say he should leave immediately and some say he should stay. If he leaves, the reasons for intervening in the first place will be delegitimized and his image will be tarnished. If he stays, it could drag on for a long time, and there are other revolts in the Middle East (Syria) that he should be more focused on. No conclusions are drawn about Obama except that, as always, he must weigh the costs and benefits of staying in Libya, and choose the most beneficial action—even though it may hurt him in the short term and have a steep political price.