Historyzine 007: 1702, Admiral Rooke attacks Cadiz

Subscribe to podcastWindows: iTunes 1-click subscribe

In this episode we explore the phrase to gird your loins. We examine the case of Admiral Byng

who was executed to encourage the others and we interview Tony Cox of the Binge Thinking History Podcast.
There’s a shout out for a splendid forum at http://historum.com. I hope to meet up with some of you on there.

In our section on the War of the Spanish Succession we continue to follow the events of 1702. We follow Admiral Rooke into Cadiz and then ponder the black-hearted treachery of Max Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria.

If you wish to comment on the podcasts then please visit the website, historyzine.com or visit the contact page and leave me an email using the contact form there.

This entry was posted in Historyzine and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Historyzine 007: 1702, Admiral Rooke attacks Cadiz

  1. Wilder says:

    Great show.

  2. anna says:

    Another good show !!!!!

  3. Benny says:

    Congratulations for the show – Love the reviews and the era you chose.

    PS: Looking forward for 1706 and the conquest of Madrid by the Portuguese army. I’ll wonder how Britsh historians view this event.

  4. jimmowatt says:

    Hiya Benny
    Glad you enjoyed it.
    It’s viewed as mostly a bit of a mistake.
    The maritime powers and their allies made some questionable decisions in Spain during this war.
    More work should have been done on propaganda as far as Spain was concerned. Difficult though as the Spanish considered most of us as evil heretics come to destroy the Catholic faith and to carve up the Spanish empire.

  5. Benny says:

    Thanks for your reply, Jim.

    From my point of view, our participation, albeit sucessfull, was considered as a direct consequence of international pressure.

    Portugal wasn’t really interested on playing a part on a conflict so close to its borders and having to chose between going to war with its more powerful neighbor or having its vital sea trade routes to Brazil, Africa or India threatened by the naval powers.

    Benny
    Lisbon, Portugal

  6. jimmowatt says:

    Yes, there was considerable pressure applied and comment is often made that the Portugal wasn’t as enthusiastic about the struggle as the maritime powers had hoped. They had seen the magnificent and valiant struggle to gain their independence and had hoped that the same ferocity would be in evidence during this struggle with Spain.
    The maritime powers did offer favourable trading status and my view is that Portugal did quite well being part of that relationship but I wonder what your view is. Would Portugal have benefited more from throwing in their lot with the twin crowns?

  7. Benny says:

    I’m not quite sure if I agree with your lack of ferocity statement. Afterall, we still managed to march an army all the way to Madrid and proclaim a heir to the throne, which looks to me like quite an achievement. But to tell you the truth, besides the Peninsular operations, I don’t really know much about the war and perhaps I’m overemphasizing the importance of that operation. Of course that that is beggining to change thanks to your great podcast!

    Anyway, and to better answer your question, we just need to remember what happened during the Napoleonic era, when Portugal decided that it was better to fight a terrible and costly war against Spain and France (!) than giving up its colonial trade with Brazil, Africa and Great Britain.

    Whenever Portugal had to choose between an alliance with a Continental or a Maritime power, we always thought that our interests were best suited with the Maritime option, that represented the assurance of open trade routes, vital for our independence.

    Benny

    Lisbon, Portugal

  8. Robert Scott says:

    Jimmy …..

    2 months … nothing new?

    Running out of Steam?

  9. jimmowatt says:

    Goodness me no.
    I absolutely adore doing these podcasts and desperately, desperately want to do another one really soon.
    I have 1703 in the pipeline but life stuff is tripping me up left right and centre.
    It is most frustrating.
    Come hell or high water this next one will happen soon.
    I’m planning it as a prelude to the Battle of Blenheim.
    1703 is a year where not a great deal of progress is made but it all shows why Marlborough, Eugene, Heinsius and the Margrave of Baden make the decision they do in 1704 to ravage Bavaria and then take one the French at the Battle f Blenheim.
    So
    1703 is a strange and bitty year but absolutely key in understanding what happens in 1704.
    I’m really looking forward to the next 3 podcasts as I’ll sketch out 1703 in this next one, then the march to Blenheim in the one after and then the Battle of Blenheim itself in the one after that. It should be a lot of fun.
    Oh, hello Robert, by the way
    A long time since we chatted.
    You must let me know what you’re up to lately.
    Also one of the things I’d like to do is a history chat over skype with a few people discussing some historical issue.
    You up for it?
    A topic might be moments in history you consider as fulcrum points.
    I get quite excited about these.
    Good to hear from you Robert

  10. Robert Scott says:

    Jim….

    Glad to hear there is more coming I have been enjoying these Podcasts and thought I might have fallen a bit behind ….

    I am definately up for a skype call ( keep me posted ) … I had skype on my old comp but it ran like crap I recently built a 64 bit box so if skype has a 64 bit build I’ll give it another try ….

    “A topic might be moments in history you consider as fulcrum points.”
    I’d have to go with the civil war in America – so much changed as a result of this …. but I’d be inclined to lean toward the beheading of John the Baptist …… ( how odd is that )

  11. Daveross says:

    Jim, Jan 09

    Although I’m months out of date but I am now on episode 007.

    Just a question about the Admiral Byng. I might be totally incorrect but you referred to his promotion to Lieutenant at age 19. Your pronounciation was “Left”tenant as apposed to Loot tenant.

    I think that in the British army Lieutenant is left but in the Navy its Loot.

    This is just in case you upset somebody.

    Keep up the good work.

  12. thebiglieutenantski says:

    Daveross, I admire and appriciate your dedication to higlighting injustices in regards to pronunciations, Dude, i must concur with you.

    Jim,….love the show, keep it up!!!!!

  13. jimmowatt says:

    This is a strange one. I’ve been casting about on the net looking at the different pronunciations and there doesn’t seem to be a concensus of opinion. The largest weight of opinion seems to go with the navy existing in a world of its own pronouncing the word l’tenant more or less missing out the oo or eff sound. I should imagine the effect would sound something like letenant.
    Are there any British navy types out there who could tell us how they’ve heard the word pronounced?

Leave a Reply