How did England's defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 change the course of history? PLEASE HELP!!!!?
599443
In 1588 the most powerful, best-organised, best-equipped army in Europe - the Spanish 'Army of Flanders' - had almost crushed the Dutch revolt in the northern provinces of the Spanish Netherlands. Their commander, the respected and feared Duke of Parma was poised ready to embark his troops to cross the narrow end of the North Sea.\n\nThey would land in the Deal - Sandwich area. England's land defences were poor: troops were hastily recruited volunteers with little equipment or training; there were no modern fortifications, and Henry VIII's 50-year old coastal castles were already vulnerable to modern guns. It is likely that the battle-hardened Spanish troops with their powerful artillery would have swept through Kent overwhelming the opposition, and have captured London within a week.\n\n\nfor more info\nhttp://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/span-armada.htm\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada
296659
Not entirely sure what you mean by "change".  If you mean how the world was changed by the war and its legacy, I would say the technological advances that it triggered.  Advances in medicine, computers, nuclear power (and, of course, weapons).  Developments in powered flight also led to consumer aviation.  Then there were developments that weren't technological in the obvious sense, like advances in logistics and organisational structures: feeding, supplying and organising an enormous army fighting on the other side of the world is no mean feat.\n\nThe list is pretty long (see source below).\n\nThe end of European Imperialism was a pretty important legacy of the war, too.\n\nIf you're asking about the most important event, D-Day and Hiroshima must be up there.  I personally think the Nazis' decision to bomb London rather than concentrating on destroying the RAF may have been what lost the war for them more than anything else (though you could argue that the decision to attack Russia was pretty fateful).  If Britain had been knocked out of the war, it is doubtful that anyone else would have been able to prevent them dominating the continent.
313279
OY.  Um, the English Renaissance (circa late 1400's) or the beginning of the Italian Renaissance (circa 1350).\n\nOkay, Old English 450-1066.  450 marks the Invasion of the Romans.  1080, the Battle of Hastings and thus the French influence.  \n\nMiddle English 1066-1449 --- French influence via the Normans.  (by the way, Chaucer is the main man when it comes to Middle English --- you can see it in the way he uses French in his works --- and while it may be possible, I highly doubt anyone has done a translation of CT into Old English --- esp considering the French words had no way of existing pre-French invasion.)\n\nModern English 1450-2006  --- Discovery of the New World, and more importantly, the printing press which stabilized literature.\n\nSo, the English spoken during the Renaissance is the same as now.  HOWEVER, you're sitting there thinking, like hell it is, and you'd be right.  It has evolved, changed and so forth.  \n\nShakespeare's English is what they spoke during the Renaissance.  He will be your best bet; however, keep in mind, the rhythm he writes in is not always what was spoken.  The iambic pentameter was a fancy way to write, and a stylized way to speak, very difficult to achieve, naturally.  \n\nThat being the case, you're going to find a lot of poetry from the Renaissance and not a lot of prose.  \n\nIn college consider taking Old English and Middle English courses to see how the English language developed. The direct answer is that we speak very similarly to the way they spoke then.  The changes aren't as drastic as in the first two periods (have you ever read Beowulf in Old English---it's a bear and not many people can do it).\n\nSo, until you get into some upper division English courses (or even MA and PhD work) start by picking up a Norton Anthology of English.  You can find them hella cheap on the internet.  It doesn't have to be the latest edition.  The works don't change, just the way they're ordered in the text and some commentary about the work---maybe a shred of new info.  I bought my fifth edition recently for about 5 bucks; however, the 8th is currently selling (the complete set) for about $130.  \n\nKey notes to help you further.  The beginning of Modern English used thou, thee, and thy much more.  That is like tu versus usted i espanol.  Tu is informal whereas usted is formal.  Take the popular "Our Father" for example.  Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.  Thy kingdom come, thy will be done...\n\nThy is a show of closeness and familiarity.  If the scholars/monks translated it as [your] it would show a rigid formality uncommon in a father/child setting.  \n\nIf I can be of any further assistance, let me know.
318611
How do we regain our democracy in 1983??\n\nWell the military who had taken the government fought and lost a war against England for the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands.\nAlso the Argentine economy was ill managed and people were tired of living in a non democratic country.\n\nSo the army lost the political power and they called elections
871078
It definitely would be a different world.  I'm not sure if it would be better.\n\nThat little country touched every continent.  But so did other countries.  France, Dutch, Portugal, Spain.  It's just England was stronger at that time.\n\nIf not them  one of the other ones would have.
112996
For once, these seas have broken the Turkish fleet apart, as they once broke apart the Armada, defeated as much by the storms of Scotland and Ireland as by the wiliness of Sir Francis Drake. \n\nThe Turkish fleet was defeated partly due to the weather, and the storm passed after it was defeated.
540105
if the "undefeatable" armada hadn't been defeated, the english would never have had enough control over the seas to have traveled so freely to colonize the americas. the spanish would have gotten there first and claimed those areas for their own.
760152
untitled document  \nThe Elizabethan era was characterized by a renascent interest in the arts, long ... that have partners within their own class, such as the matches made in the ...www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/essaycontest/mok.
365358
Battle of Hastings (1066) - William the conqueror)\nBattle of Bouvines (1214) - England lost most parts of France\nMagna Charta (1215)\nFoundation of the Church of England - Henry VIII\nColonisation of America - Mayflower (1612)\nIndependence war with America (1775-83)\nVictorian Age (1832–1901)\nWW I, WW II, Winston Churchill, "Thatcherism" - war with Falkland islands
849318
There is alot of information on English agriculture on the web (including this free ebook you can download at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16594).  Here is a link to what I found doing a simple websearch on the matter http://www.ask.com/web?q=History+of+english+agriculture&o=ie7&l=dir\n\nThat should be more than enough help for you.\n\nGood Luck!!!
56550
Religous music changed A LOT over this period.  Maybe you could focus on the way the music has changed and tie it to the political and cutural facts.
389441
OK, well Columbus wasn't working for the British, look that up on wiki if you don't know that.  secondly with the help of the French we kicks some British ass, look up American revolution on wiki
206346
Consider who was most important in society in the Restoration, and what was starting to happen to them as you got closer to Romanticism.  If you need an audio-visual hint, compare music from both eras and paintings from both eras.  How are they different?  What does that tell you about how how society was changing?
965028
I will only help if I can be cited in the essay.  \n\nThere was a triangle of trade.  Manufactured goods would be sent to Africa.  From Africa, slaves were sent to the Caribbean or North America.  Then from the Caribbean or North America goods such as Rice, Sugar, Tobacco, Rum, and Cotton were shipped back to England.\nThat is what I learned in history but for a detailed explanation check out the site below:
532182
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/battle_hastings_1066/1066.html\n\nTry this link
473888
there is a great book to read about this:\n\nthe city at the center of the world\n\nessentially, the duke of york, the king of england's  brother, thought that controlling the port of new amsterdam would be advantageous to english colonial aspirations and business.  he sailed a navy and army there and the dutch settlers refused to help governor peter stuyvesant fight the english because stuyvesant had been such a tyrant.\n\nthe english took over and changed the name to new york, after the duke of york.  hopefully someone will come along and provide you with more details.
264331
To a very large degree, it changed them by ending them. The spaniards invaded and conquered large portions of North and South America. They held the nobility for ransom, killed untold numbers of people, introduced smallpox (which the natives had no resistance to), plundered every natural resource they found useful, and enslaved the populace. In fact, the Spaniards (and other europeans) killed so many of the natives (mostly via european diseases), they stopped having enough slaves to work their mines, and started having to import african slaves.