Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
With the recent four hundredth anniversary of the sailing of the Spanish Armada came a virtual flood of new works concerning the great invasion fleet and the English ships that opposed it. While it would seem that there would be little new to say about such a heavily researched subject, there is one aspect of this momentous year that has been received relatively short shrift by historians of the period, the national mobilization of England to meet the threatened invasion. Often referred to as the Great Muster of 1588 because one of its most important elements was the muster of the militia to fill the ranks of the army, it was an administrative feat of massive scope that involved months of preparation, extensive military planning, and precise timing. Because these arrangements were never tested in battle, however, the effectiveness of this effort is hard to judge, and its importance is often missed by historians. While Garrett Mattingly devoted an entire chapter of his well known work on the Armada year to events on land, he found the queen's visit to the army at Tilbury after the departure of the Armada more important, or at least more interesting, than the actual state of the nation's defense. More recently, Geoffrey Parker has used the discovery of a large quantity of siege equipment on an excavated armada wreck as a jumping off point for his article “If The Armada Had Landed.” Approaching the issue from the standpoint of a historian of the Army of Flanders, and leaning heavily on continental sources, he adheres to the view that England was totally unprepared for fighting on land if the Spanish had succeeded in landing troops on the island. While this view reflects the common opinion of both nineteenthand twentieth-century historians on the subject, a careful review of English sources, particularly the surviving muster records, military papers, and coastal surveys, leaves a good deal of doubt concerning the accuracy of Parker's judgment. It is the purpose of this article to examine the English side of the story of the Great Muster of 1588, by illustrating the extensive defensive preparations that were organized to face the Spanish threat.
1 Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe, The Spanish Armada (Oxford, 1988), pp. 89–92 Google Scholar; Boynton, Lindsay, The Elizabethan Militia (London, 1967), pp. 126–164 Google Scholar is the most detailed account of the preparations, and led me to question the veracity of more recent judgments while also providing an introduction to the sources; Mattingly, Garrett, The Armada (New York, 1984), pp. 309–11Google Scholar; Martin, Colin and Parker, Geoffrey, The Spanish Armada (London, 1988), pp. 267–77Google Scholar; Parker, Geoffrey, “If the Armada had Landed,” in Spain and the Netherlands, 1559–1659 (London, 1979), p. 139 Google Scholar; Friel, Ian, in Armada, 1588–1988, The Official Catalogue of An International Exhibition to Commemorate the Spanish Armada (London, 1988), pp. 125–28Google Scholar, correctly sees the more extensive scale of English preparations than previously accepted.
2 Motley, John Lothrop, History of the United Netherlands, Vol. 8, 1588–90 (New York and London, 1900), p. 384 Google Scholar; SirOman, Charles, A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1937), p. 374 Google Scholar.
3 Acts of the Privy Council, vol. 15, 1587–1588, ed. Dasent, John R., (London, 1897), pp. 310–11Google Scholar; Davies, D. W. in the introduction to SirWilliams, Roger, Actions in the Low Countries (London, 1618, reprint Ithaca, N.Y., 1964), p. 24 Google Scholar; Evans, John X., in the introduction to The Works of Sir Roger Williams (Oxford, 1972), pp. 31–32 Google Scholar; The Complete State Papers Domestic, 1547–1625, Pt. 5, Reign of Elizabeth, 1586–1592 (Sussex, 1978), 12/208/42Google Scholar.
4 A.P.C., 15: 278–79; Bruce, John, Report on the Arrangements which were made, for the internal defence of these Kingdoms, when Spain by its Armada, Projected the Invasion and Conquest of England (London, 1798), App. 5, p. 29 Google Scholar, is a letter from the earl of Sussex to the Lords of Council in November 1587 announcing the completion of Portsmouth's earthworks; Colvin, H. M., Rameseur, D. R., Summerson, John, The History of the King's Works, 4 vols. (London, 1975) 4: 519–23Google Scholar describes the extensive work done on the fortifications of Portsmouth between 1584 and 1587, noting that by 1587 Sussex found the works there to be “in good forme” and “servisable”; Green, Emmanuel, Preparations in Somerset Against the Spanish Armada (London, 1888), p. 103 Google Scholar; Rowse, A. L., Tudor Cornwall (London, 1941), p. 394 Google Scholar.
5 A.P.C., 15: 351, 355 discuss fortifications for Harwich; A.P.C., 15: 404 discusses the work at Yarmouth: Manship, Henry, History of Great Yarmouth (1619)Google Scholar, quoted in O'Neil, B. H. St. J., “A Plan of the Fortifications at Yarmouth in 1588,” Norfolk and Norwich Archeaological Society 27, 1 (1942): 5 Google Scholar; S.P. Domestic, 12/205/58.
6 Colvin, , History of the King's Works, 4: 381 Google Scholar; Hale, J. R., Renaissance War Studies (London, 1983), p. 77 Google Scholar.
7 A.P.C., 15: 212–14; A.P.C., 16: 39; Colvin, , History of the King's Works, 4: 403–05Google Scholar lists the fortresses to be repaired in the 1583–84 period. There would have been no need to repair these positions and install new gun platforms at a total cost of £8,950 unless they were to be manned: Burghley, William “Lord Burghley and the Spanish Invasion,” American Historical Review 2 (1896): 7 Google Scholar, is reprint of a memorial from the British Library's Vespasia MS. Written by Burghley in February of 1588, it lists among the expenses anticipated £4,000 for “the incress of soldiors in the forts in Kent and Plymouth.…” Since the Lord Treasurer had been watching the situation in the Henrician fortifications for thirty years, these are surely the forts he meant; S.P. Domestic, 12/218/1, is a November 1588 pay report for “soldiers in the castles” of Kent and Sussex, while 12/219/5,6 are lists of ordnance in these castles.
8 Lindsay Boynton, The Elizabethan Militia, pp. 141–42; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Salisbury Preserved at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, 8 vols. (London, 1898) 5: 468 Google Scholar.
9 Boynton, , Elizabethan Militia, pp. 127–28Google Scholar; Colvin, , History of the King's Work's, 4: 403 Google Scholar; S.P. Domestic, 12/163/5,41,42.
10 Bruce, , Arrangements, pp. 32–33 Google Scholar; William Camden, History of Elizabeth I (4th ed.; London, 1688: reprint New York, 1970), p. 406; Colvin, , History of the King's Works, 4 Google Scholar, disputes claims for Richard Popinjay as the cartographer for this commission (see Boynton, , Elizabethan Militia, p. 128 Google Scholar), pointing out that Edmund Yorke, Robert Adams, and Paul Ive were the chief cartographers for the government during the war years.
11 Palmer, Thomas, A Survey by Sir Thomas Palmer Knight and Mr. Walter Covert, Esq., Deputie Lieutennts of Her Maties Countie of Sussex, of all the Places of Descente Alongste the Sea Coast of the said Shire (1587; 1870 reprint edited and commented upon by M. A. Lower)Google Scholar, shows that in many shires local officials undertook this survey themselves and forwarded the information to Burghley; S.P. Domestic, 12/200/56confirms that this was the process, at least in 1587; Skelton, R. A. and Summerson, John, A Description of Maps and Architectural Plans in the Collection made by William Cecil, Lord Burghley Preserved at Hatfield House (London, 1971), p. 27 Google Scholar, describes Burghley's annotated 1579 copy of Saxton's Atlas as a sort of master book of defensive planning.
12 A.P.C., 15: 252–54; Harland, Keith, Papers of the Lancashire Lieutenancy, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1859) 2: 79 Google Scholar; H.M.C., Somerset Manuscripts (London, 1898), p. 4 Google Scholar; S.P. Domestic, 12/205/35–42.
13 Bruce, , Arrangements, App. 27, p. 135 Google Scholar, reprints a government list of 1588 that shows 87,281 men Trained and Untrained in England, and 45,408 of the same available in Wales for a total of 132,689 men. Murdin, William, Collection of State Papers Left by William Cecil, Lord Burghley, vol. 2 (London, 1740–1759), pp. 608–09Google Scholar, reprints the same list, attributed to the Harleian MSS. in the British Library; P.R.O., Calendar of Letters and State Papers Relating to English Affairs preserved in, or originally belonging to, the Archives of Simancas, vol. 4, Elizabeth, 1587–1603, ed. Hume, A. S. (London, 1899: reprint Liechtenstein, 1971), p. 298 Google Scholar. While the reports of the double traitor, Antonio De Vega, must be viewed skeptically, in 1588 he seems to have been relaying accurate military information to Spain, for they consistently match English estimates. In this case he informed Philip that “they have over 120,000 men in arms.…”
14 A.P.C., 15: 269; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 104 Google Scholar; Goring, J. and Wake, J., eds., Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers (Gateshead, 1975), pp. 48–49 Google Scholar; Noble, W. Mackerth, Huntingdonshire and the Spanish Armada (London, 1896), p. 16 Google Scholar, reprints a June 27, 1588 letter to the Lords-Lieutenant; S.P. Domestic, 12/206/9, 12/209/42.
15 Bruce, , Arrangements, App. 24, pp. 116–117 Google Scholar reprints a July 12 letter from Sir Thomas Scott in Kent, indicating that Kent's untrained bands had recently been rearmed with muskets and calivers; McGurk, J. N., “Armada Preparations in Kent and Arrangements Made After the Defeat,” Archeaologia Cantiana 85 (1970): 71 Google Scholar; H.M.C., Somerset MSS., p. 6; S.P. Domestic, 12/205/42,12/209/118, Leighton's orders for Norfolk here include instructions that the untrained men be equipped “with such number of weapons as in the Trained souldieres are,” and specifically was ordering “some store of muskets to be gotten.”
16 A.P.C., 16: 220–21; Boynton, , Elizabethan Militia, pp. 155–156 Google Scholar; Read, , Mr. Secretary Walsingham, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1925) 3: 315 Google Scholar, discusses last minute attempts to buy extra arms and armor in Holland; H.M.C., Salisbury MSS., 8: 332, is a rather curious warrant from Lord Burghley permitting the export of twelve pieces of cast iron ordnance to Holland at the same time; S.P. Domestic, 12/210/46.
17 A.P.C., 15: 295–98; Camden, , History of Elizabeth I, p. 406 Google Scholar; Great Britain, Privy Council, Advice Touching the Means Fittest to be Obtained for Defence of the Realm, November 27, 1587 (Folger Library MSS., V.B. 151) ff. 51–55; H.M.C., The Manuscripts of the Right Honourable F. J. Foljambe ofOberton, Pt. 1, Book of Musters, 1588, Fifteenth Annual Report,Appendix, pt. 5 (London, 1897), p. 29; Harland, Lancashire Lieutenancy, 2: 128.
18 Bruce, , Arrangements, App. 9, p. 11 Google Scholar. This is a letter from her majesty to the Lieutenants explaining her reasons for appointing experts; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 34–35; B. H. St. J. O'Neil “The Fortification of Weybourne Hope in 1588,” Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological society 27,2 (1940): 255, indicates that Thomas Leighton was accompanied to Norfolk by a draftsman who signed his work “E. Y.” This was probably Edmund Yorke.
19 Ibid., p. 251; Leighton's full report for Norfolk is in S.P. Domestic, 12/209/118, and his report on the orders issued to Dorsetshire is in S.P. Domestic, 12/210/8.
20 S.P. Domestic, 12/206/1 is Walsingham's explanation of the actions taken by himself and Burghley in preparing the defenses of the nation.
21 C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 190 Google Scholar, reports that Leicester's return on December 19 “was well received by her majesty, but badly by the public”; H.M.C., Salisbury MSS., 3: 297–98 is a letter from Leicester to the queen in November 1587, thanking her for leave to return to England; Van Metern, Emmanuel, A True Discourse of the Succeeding Governors and Civil Wars in the Netherlands, trans. Churchyard, T. and Robinson, R. (London, 1602; reprint New York, 1968), p. 102 Google Scholar.
22 Evans, John X., in The Works of Sir Roger Williams (pp. 29–31)Google Scholar explains Leicester's difficulties with Williams; P.R.O., Calendar of Stale papers, Foreign Series, vol. 20, 1585, ed. Lomas, S. C. and Hind, A. B. (London, 1936), p. 8 Google Scholar, documents his quarrel with Norris; the lack of state papers concerning Leicester's activities between December and June 1588 suggest inactivity, while the profusion of recommendations from Norris to Burghley makes it clear who was the government's chief advisor on land defense.
23 Camden, , History of Elizabeth 1, p. 406 Google Scholar; Burghley, “Lord Burghley and the Spanish Invasion,” p. 95; Prothero, G. W., ed., Select Statutes and other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James 1 (4th ed.; Oxford, 1913), pp. 83–86 Google Scholar, “An Act against Jesuits, Seminary Priests and other like disobedient persons.”
24 Privy Council, Letter to Sir William More, Justice of the Peace for Surrey, ordering the disarming of recusants, signed by nine members of the council, April 27, 1585 (Folger Library MSS., L.B. 215)Google Scholar; A Copy of Papers Relating to Musters, Beacons, subsidies, Etc. in the County of Northampton, ed. Wake, J. (Kettering, 1926), p. 5 Google Scholar.
25 Privy Council, Letter from Sir William More containing a list of recusants (Folger Library MSS., L.B. 245)Google Scholar; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 64 Google Scholar; Murdin, , State Papers Left by Cecil, 2: 605 Google Scholar; Read, , Walsingham, 3: 298 Google Scholar; S.P. Domestic 12/208/40, 58.
26 A.P.C, 15: 361–362, 331; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 108 Google Scholar; Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers, p. 47; Hakluyt, Richard, Voyages and Discoveries, ed. Beeching, Jack (Harmondsworth, 1987), p. 316 Google Scholar.
27 Harland, , Lancashire Lieutenancy, 2: 186–87Google Scholar.
28 P.R.O., Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, Reign of Elizabeth, vol. 22, 1588, ed. Wernham, R. B. (London, 1950), p. 91 Google Scholar; H.M.C., Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Ancaster, Pre-served at Grimsthorpe (London, 1893), pp. 233–34Google Scholar: H.M.C., Report on the Manuscripts of the Earl of Ancaster, Preserved at Grimsthorpe (London, 1907), pp. 159–60Google Scholar.
29 C.S.P. Foreign, 21: 106 Google Scholar.
30 Ibid., pp. 40, 91.
31 P.R.O., Calendar of State Papers Foreign Series, Reign of Elizabeth, 1587–1588, 21: 470 Google Scholar for Captain William Brown's request to return home; on June 13 Sir Francis Vere wrote to Walsingham, “no man shall enter more willingly into that action than myself…” (ibid., pp. 482–83); for Edward Norris' June 30 request to return home (p. S31); for the request of William Thomas, the master gunner at Flushing, to do the same (pp. 533–34).
32 H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 31; S.P. Domestic, 12/209/86.
33 A.P.C., 15: 428; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 33; Leslie, J. H., “A Survey, or Muster, of the Armed and Trayned Companies in London, 1588 and 1599,” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 4, 16 (1925): 64–67 Google Scholar, reprints the London Muster certificate of 1588.
34 A.P.C., 16: 32–33, 40; C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 241, is Lope De Vega's March 28 report that Norris had begun drilling the London troops, which were not ready yet, but soon would be: ibid., p. 298 is a May 17 report from the same source describing the London Bands as being well armed and drilled.
35 A.P.C, 15: 414; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 45–46; Murdin, , State Papers Left by Cecil, 2: 607 Google Scholar; Walker, G. Gould, The Honourable Artillery Company (London, 1926), p. 20 Google Scholar.
36 Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 109 Google Scholar; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 36; H.M.C., Somerset MSS., 4 shows this order being given to Somerset in February; the Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers include a letter with this order, but it is not dated until June 15, probably due to that shire's late muster returns.
37 Bruce, , Arrangements, App. 9, p. 11 Google Scholar; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 110 Google Scholar; S.P. Domestic, 12/209A73.
38 S.P. Domestic, 12/212/35, 40, are both letters from local officers in Kent to Burghley making a case for defending the beaches: S.P. Domestic, 12/209/106, shows Kent's traditional deployment; H.M.C., Salisbury MSS., 4: 459; McGurk, , “Armada Preparations in Kent,” p. 83 Google Scholar.
39 S.P. Domestic, 12/209/51 gives instructions for the concentration of local forces at various ports, if threatened by the enemy; S.P. Domestic 12/209/118, is a complete copy of Leighton's orders to Norfolk; 12/210/8 is a a complete copy of Norris's orders to Dorsetshire; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 103 Google Scholar, indicates similar orders were issued to Somerset, but does not reprint them fully.
40 H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 35; Digges, Thomas, A Brief Discourse What Orders were Best For Repulsing of Forraine Force if at any time they should invade us by Sea in Kent, or Elsewhere (London, 1590; reprint London, 1801), pp. 16–17 Google Scholar. Digges is often mistakenly quoted as a supporter of rushing down to the sea in numbers. He says, “I am farre off from allowing of any confused disorderly running to the seaside to encounter a select trained well disciplined Enemie invading” (p. 6). He instead calls for a middle position with certain shire forces delaying the enemy while a larger army is gathered and the countryside cleared of supplies.
41 Advice touching the means fittest for Defence of the Realm, 1587, f. 53; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 110 Google Scholar includes excerpts from the same document as issued to Somerset.
42 Digges, , A Brief Discourse, p. 12–13 Google Scholar.
43 Advice touching the means fittest for Defence of the Realm, 1587, f. 53 Google Scholar; Camden, , History of Elizabeth 1, p. 406 Google Scholar; Digges, , A Brief Discourse, p. 4–5 Google Scholar; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 36; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 110 Google Scholar.
44 S.P. Domestic, 12/209/118, 12/210/8; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 110 Google Scholar.
45 Parker, , “If the Armada had Landed,” p. 140 Google Scholar.
46 Noble, , Huntingdonshire and the Armada, 10, 17 Google Scholar; Harland, , Lancashire Lieutenancy, p. 205 Google Scholar; S.P. Domestic, 12/210/24; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 108–09Google Scholar.
47 Digges, , A Brief Discourse, pp. 16–17 Google Scholar.
48 H.M.C, Foljambe MSS., p. 36; Bruce, , Arrangements, App. 10, p. 19 Google Scholar, says “with suche expedition, as your horsemen may, as well as at all tymes geve them alarum and keep them wakinge, as also from straying and foreging in the country”; Harland, , Lancashire Lieutenancy, 1: 39 Google Scholar.
49 Oman, , Art of War, p. 515 Google Scholar.
50 Bruce, , Arrangements, App. 65, p. 256 Google Scholar, is a reprint of Burghley's memorial of February 1589, discussing improvements that could be made in future musters. This item concerns the increase of responsibility for keeping light horsemen upon the Justices of the Peace; McGurk, , “Armada Preparations in Kent,” p. 90 Google Scholar.
51 O'Neil, , “Fortifications of Yarmouth,” p. 6 Google Scholar.
52 Mattingly, , The Armada, p. 344 Google Scholar; Colvin, , History of the King's Works, 4: 604 Google Scholar.
53 Bruce, , Arrangements, App. 11, pp. 54–55 Google Scholar reprints a list of expenses (£1,470) in January of 1588 for a chain at Upnor, the modernization of fortifications at Gravesend, and other measures to defend the mouth of the Thames, signed by William Winter and John Hawkins; Hakluyt, , Voyages and Discoveries, p. 316 Google Scholar, says “on both sides of the river fortifications were erected.”
54 State Papers Relating to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada, anno 1588, ed. Laughton, John K., 2 vols. (London, 1894) 1: 298–99Google Scholar; Noble, T. C., The Names of Those Persons Who Subscribed Towards the Defence of the Country at the Time of the Spanish Armada, 1588 and the Amounts Each Contributed, with Historical Introduction (London, 1886), p. 19 Google Scholar; Mattingly, , The Armada, p. 344 Google Scholar; The fact that A.P.C., 16: 206 deals with the gathering of pioneers to aid Leicester on July 30 lends credence to the view that his engineering projects were incomplete.
55 Harland, , Lancashire Lieutenancy, 2: 203–05Google Scholar; O'Neil, , “Fortifications of Yarmouth,” p. 4 Google Scholar.
56 S.P. Domestic, 12/211/20, 34 are copies of the queen's letter calling for the noble's bands; S.P. Domestic, 12/205/67, says that a select group of the nobility was warned to prepare contingents for her majesty's defense as early as November 1587; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 43–44 is a detailed list of contingents provided by members of the queen's court; Noble, , Huntingdonshire and the Armada, p. 15 Google Scholar; Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers, p. 60; Read, , Walsingham, 3: 316 Google Scholar points out that Walsingham himself ordered a new set of armor on July 15, apparently intending to lead his large contingent.
57 H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 57; McGurk, J. J. N., “The Clergy and the Militia, 1580–1610,” History 60 (1975): 203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 298 Google Scholar; P.R.O., Calendar of State Papers in the Archives of Venice relating to English Affairs, vol. 8, ed. Brown, Horatio F. (London, 1894), p. 374 Google Scholar, quotes a Venetian dispatch of August 11 that estimates 60,000 men were concentrated in the ports alone. This reflects the arrangements laid out in S.P. Domestic, 12/209/51 & 12/213/84.
59 A.P.C., 16: 137–38; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 45; Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers, pp. 52–53; H.M.C., Somerset MSS., p. 5.
60 S.P. Domestic, 12/211/73, 74; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 45–46; Murdin, , State Papers Left by Cecil, 2: 611–14Google Scholar.
61 Camden, , History of Elizabeth I, p. 405 Google Scholar; H.M.C., Foljambe, MSS., p. 58.
62 S.P. Domestic, 12/210/8.
63 H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 48, orders that “No other person be suffered to assemble together besides the ordinary bands, and that good order be given to see watches be kept in every thoroughfare town,…” arresting “vagabonds, rogues and suspected persons…”; S.P. Domestic 12/209/49, 12/211/2, 65; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 110 Google Scholar; Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers: p. 54; H.M.C., Somerset MSS., p. 5, mentions the appointment of Provost Marshalls to arrest vagrants.
64 Digges, A Brief Discourse.
65 Digges, Thomas, A Briefe and True Report of the Proceedings of the Earl of Leycester for the relief of the Towne of Sluce (London, 1590)Google Scholar, passim; Van Metern, , Civil Wars in the Netherlands, p. 101 Google Scholar.
66 H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 58; McGurk, “Armada Preparations In Kent, pp. 86–87.
67 A.P.C., 16: 179, dates Leicester's commission on July 25 (August 4); S.P. Domestic, 12/213/21 dates this event on July 23; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 49–51, does not date this document, but cites Leicester's acknowledgment of its receipt as July 24. I have therefore accepted the earlier date.
68 Bruce, , Arrangements, Apps. 16 & 15 Google Scholar, confirm this assumption, in that both letters indicate Burghley's concern for this sensitive area, and both reveal Norris's close supervision over troop deployment there; The title of Digges pamphlet, A Brief Discourse What Orders Were Best For Repulsing of Forraine Force if at any time they should invade us by Sea in Kent, or elsewhere, clearly shows that Kent was the anticipated target of the Leicester faction, as does the inclusion of the Kent county forces in Leicester's command; McGurk, , “Armada Preparations in Kent,” pp. 80–81, 88 Google Scholar, provides figures illustrating the deployment of the Kent militia; C.S.P. Venetian, 8: 377 Google Scholar, also shows that the invasion was generally expected in Kent, though it overestimates the strength of English forces there.
69 A.P.C, 16: 171; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 56–58; Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers, p. 61; H.M.C., Somerset MSS., p. 6.
70 S.P. Domestic, 12/211/74–76, are lists of the “Army to make head against the Enemy in Western Ports,” distinct from Leicester's and Hunsdon's forces, dated June 1588; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 45–46; Murdin, , State Papers Left by Cecil, 2: 611 Google Scholar.
71 S.P. Domestic, 12/210/8, establishes Weymouth as the rendezvous point, while the lists of pro-visions, pioneers, equipment, carriages, and other necessaries make it clear that there would be an extensive baggage train there.
72 Ibid., 12/209/118; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 109 Google Scholar, reprints orders for Somerset that anticipate “sudden Hurly Burlies…,” which seems to be a quote from Leicester; H.M.C., Salisbury MSS., 4: 459, demonstrates that in at least one place local forces rushed down to the shore on the first firing of the beacons.
73 A.P.C., 16: 189, 202, 232; Bruce, , Arrangements, App. 115, pp. 304–05Google Scholar.
74 H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 55–56; Green, , Preparations in Somerset, p. 109 Google Scholar; Northamptonshire Lieutenancy Papers, p. 61; Wake, Joan (Muster, Beacons and Subsidies, p. 98)Google Scholar states that Northamptonshire troops entered Hunsdon's pay at Islington on August 2, precisely the date anticipated in the Foljambe MSS., p. 56.
75 H.M.C, Foljambe MSS., p. 53–57, are Hunsdon's commission and orders; page 57 shows forces available to him as of August 2 as 9,000 London militia, 3,883 foot raised by the clergy (See also McGurk, “Clergy and the Militia,” p. 203), 1,448 foot raised by the court, for 14,331 foot total. There are also 2,169 horsemen accounted for here, giving Hunsdon 16,500 men beyond incoming militia units. When Wake, Joan Musters, Beacons and Subsidies, p. ci)Google Scholar asserts that Hunsdon actually commanded 1,200 men, she is basing this upon the record of pay issued to incoming militia units. None of the forces accounted for above would have been included on such lists.
76 A.P.C, 16: 171; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 48, lists 6,000 troops that were to join Leicester's command “At Stratford Bow” on August 8.
77 A.P.C, 16: 204; S.P. Domestic, 12/213/27.
78 Bruce, , Arrangements, Apps, 24 & 25 Google Scholar; S.P. Domestic, 12/211/30; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 49: C.S.P. Spanish, p. 393.
79 C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 250, Philip H's secret supplementary instructions for Medina Sidonia; C.S.P. Venetian, 8: 377; Parker, “If the Armada Had Landed,” p. 142.
80 Motley, , History of the United Netherlands, p. 384 Google Scholar; Parker, , “If the Armada Had Landed,” p. 142 Google Scholar.
81 H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 48, for Tilbury, and p. 57 for London.
82 S.P. Domestic, 12/213/38; C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 298 Google Scholar.
83 A.P.C, 16: 196; S.P. Domestic, 12/213/75; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., pp. 51–52; Leicester's army was clearly given precedence over Hunsdon's in the assignment of experienced officers, its staff including Sir Roger Williams, Sir John Norris, Sir Thomas Leighton, and even Frederigo Giambelli as trench master. These were the best military men England bad to offer.
84 C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 372 Google Scholar; Davies, D. W., Sir Roger Williams, Actions in the Low Countries, pp. 28–29 Google Scholar; S.P. Domestic, 12/213/27.
85 Bruce, , Arrangements, p. 45 Google Scholar, assumes that Norris intended to be at the Dorsetshire muster at Wey-mouth, though there is no mention of this in the corresponding document (App. 24), and this would remove Norris from the center of the fighting. Norris' orders to Kent in July, however, illustrate his recognition that this was the vital spot, and it is likely he wanted to oversee deployment in that area, especially considering his differences of opinion with local authorities. Regardless of his whereabouts, it is clear that Norris was running errands for the council throughout late July (S.P. Domestic, 12/210/39, 12/211/30, 12/213/21).
86 Aske, James, Elizabeth Triumphatus (London, 1588; reprint New York, 1969), pp. 18–20 Google Scholar; Mattingly, , The Armada, p. 348 Google Scholar.
87 S.P. Domestic, 12/213/55; Hale, J. R., in the Introduction to Sir John Smythe, Certaine Discourses Military (London, 1590; reprint Ithaca, N.Y., 1964), pp. 32–33 Google Scholar.
88 S.P. Domestic, 12/213/55; Motley, , History of the United Netherlands, pp. 390–91Google Scholar.
89 C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 370, and Parma to Philip II, C.S.P. Venetian, 8: 382–83. This letter from Parma to the Venetian Ambassador in Rome, dated August 12, explains his movements on the 8th and 9th.
90 C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 372 Google Scholar, De Vega reports on August 10 that the bridge “has been built,” implying that it was in operation; Noble, , Persons Who Subscribed, p. 19 Google Scholar, agrees with this, based on the tapestries that once hung in the House of Lords. These are now burned, however, and it should be noted that they were based on Robert Adams' drawing, found in Pine, John, The Tapestry Hangings in the House of Lords, Representing the Several Engagements Between the English and Spanish Fleets in the Ever Memorable year 1588 (London, 1753)Google Scholar, and this does not definitively depict the bridge as complete.
91 Parker, , “If the Armada Had Landed,” p. 139 Google Scholar; Colvin, , History of the King's Work's, 4: 481 Google Scholar.
92 A.P.C, 16: 195; H.M.C., Foljambe MSS., p. 56
93 Aske, Elizabethan Triumphatus, passim; C.S.P. Spanish, 4: 393 Google Scholar; Camden, , History of Elizabeth I, p. 416 Google Scholar; Christy, Miller, “Queen Elizabeth's Visit to Tilbury in 1588,” English Historical Review 34 (1919)Google Scholar; passim; Hakluyt, , Voyages and Discoveries, p. 316 Google Scholar.
