This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Military history: Maritime / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Shipwrecks Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None England Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is a mixture of legend, English 19th century historians and true facts. The Revenge fought "only" against 4 Spanish warships galleons because Admiral Alonso del Bazán couln´t use more of his ships, being the English ship completely surrounded: one on each side, firing at point-blank (The "San Felipe" and the much samaller "San Bernabé")and trying to board her, one across her stern ("La Ascensión") and another across her bow(...) The rest of the Spanish fleet, 55 ships, sailed around without a gap to get into the fight. The Spanish captains were so anxious in capturing the famous "Revenge" that two ships collided heavily and sunk afterwards, one ("La Ascension") very damaged after the heavy fire from the Englih ship.(...) The "Revenge" surrended at dawn after "only" ten hours battle (Grenville seriously wounded by a musket shot in the head and only 60 crew survivors, most wounded) with more than 800 cannon shots impacts, 2 metres of water in her hull and the admiration and respect of the whole Spanish fleet.

==And the storm...== there were no storm at all!, the Treasure Fleet sailed by protected by the Armada soon after.You can read it at the complete Treasure Fleet voyages records on the web. --Ruben (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list some websites?--Charles A 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

This flawed history article will not revised because some people have to pump up their own jingoism. --Scipio-62 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you go to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com which provides a thorough and well-referenced account of the Battle of Flores. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to accept the traditional narrative, albeit that Grenville was as much an incompetent as a hero, and that Revenge probably engaged five ships rather than the traditional fifty. Even so; an awe-inspiring episode by any standards.

The Article states that 'Revenge' carried 46 guns 'on a single gun-deck'- I beg to differ. There is a depiction of a compatible ship contained in the 'Fragments of ancient English shipwrighty'. There may be only one FULL covered gundeck, but the guns are in fact arranged on two decks, with some guns located afore and aft, as well as in the bulkheads on the main deck. As for the "tale"- the 'Revenge' effectively challenged an entire fleet, allowing the remainder of the English fleet- which was far from fit for any fight- to escape. Grenville must have been aware that he would be fighting them one by one- but that goes under the heading 'tactics': The idea is, after all, to find a way to attack a superior enemy with an inferior force. But he must have also been aware that his ship would sustain damage, and that- with the damage mounting- it would be likely that he would have to fight ship after ship without being able to disengage. Brave, but ultimately suicidal- and not simply a story, either. The truth is as always somewhere in the middle...213.94.146.59 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have The Last Fight of the Revenge, but am taking too long to get around to editing this article. The book pretty much portrays Grenville as a courageous, arrogant nutter. But what's most interesting is the account of the Spanish preparations for battle: they came within an ace of destroying the English fleet, and were frustrated by sailing delays caused by faulty rigging on their new super-galleons. The Revenge was snared probably because of necessary delays in getting the crew back on board. There was no sacrifice - the English fleet had just evaded the Spanish pincer movement, and Grenville saw he was trapped and tried to charge out. The account of his fight is interesting - mixture of in-your-face cannon fire and nervous sniping. I'll get around to this, I swear.--Shtove 20:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, only 20 guns were on the gun deck. For an excellent and more complete description of Revenge, go to http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/renaissance/revenge/revenge.aspx This article should be revised to include a description of the "race-built" galleon, which Revenge surely was.

Other points:

Matthew Baker's first name is spelled with a double t. (See my discussion in Mathew Baker) Also the Revenge of 1577 did not carry the designation HMS, because that designation was not used until after the Restoration in 1660, and she was sunk long befort that. I understand Wikipedia prefers to 'backdate' this designation for consistency purposes, but it should be clarified early in the main article.Tvbanfield 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some basics - added an infobox and introduced a structure. The discussion of "race-built" has also been addressed, but by the use of appropriate wikilinks. I couldn't care less how Mathew Baker spelled his name, and in all likelihood, he spelled it both ways, and many more besides. The HMS prefix is clarified in the introduction. What this article really needs is some facts backed up with references. Thanks to Tvbanfield for the pointer to militaryhistoryonline.com. Shem (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article sounds hokey to me. For example the author states the following paragraph:

"Out-gunned, out-fought, and out-numbered fifty-three to one",[3] when the end looked certain Grenville ordered Revenge to be sunk. His officers could not agree with this order and a surrender was agreed by which the lives of the officers and crew would be spared. After an assurance of proper conduct, and having held off dozens of Spanish ships, Revenge at last surrendered, becoming the only English ship to be captured by the Spaniards in that Elizabethan conflict. The injured Grenville died of wounds two days later aboard the Spanish flagship.

There were no English sailors to authenticate the account stated above. The rest of the English fleet cut and ran, rather than fight the Spanish warships. Giving me great doubt about constant boasts by English historians that the Royal Navy ruled the waves after the 1588 defeat of the Armada. Moreover, I have read many accounts of captured English sailors being impressed as laborers on Spanish ships during the Anglo Spanish war of 1585-1604. Meaning that the Spanish navy and her privateers, like the Dunkirkers, captured many English ships and not just the Revenge. It appears that jingoistic English historians refuse to acknowledge those facts out of their own chauvinistic pride. I ask this author of this article to please correct the historical account with a more balanced story.--Charles A 03:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

I think you are labouring under a misaprehension, each article does not have a single author but has been written by dozens or even hundreds of different editors. Essentially anybody can add stuff to articles, so long as it conforms to ceirtain standards and is backed by reliable sources. I'm not an expert on the Elizabethan age, so you may well be right in your criticism of this article. If you can produce some sources you could change this article yourself. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It my suspicion that the crux of this mistated story originated from Baron Tennyson's poem on the subject that many lazy historians laughably mistook for historical fact. While its more than ligitimate to celabrate Vice Admiral Richard Grenville's courage while fighting the Spanish, I'm at a loss as to why its is necessary inject a fairy tale about this subject rather than consult Spanish naval archives that most likely have this battle more accurately described.--Charles A 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Charles A, why don't you dig into your supposed Spanish archives and improve the article? Shem (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice! Read the following link below:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.elgrancapitan.org/foro/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D14600&ei=MBjcSZ68JZbqlQfyxs3vDQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522%2522richard%2Bgrenville%2Bfue%2522%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D10

Please note that the grammar will be sub par due to it being google translation from a Spanish language article. Its interesting to note that other Royal Navy warships did indeed exchange fire with the Spanish fleet and received damage before escaping by guise of night. I'm sure that the Revenge would escaped if it had an opportunity. It is highly implausible that the HMS Revenge engaged 52 Spanish ships simultaneously given that it would have damaged of Spanish warships from friendly fire alone. The account listed above states it was just four. --Charles A 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

This isn't an archive; it is a web forum! You haven't added to the article, only to the article talk page. You need to sign your comments - and if you look at the top of your own talk page you will find instructions on how to do so. Shem (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did sign. Just read above. It states "Charles A". --Charles A 20:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Charles A - I've highlighted for you before the policy on reliable sources. If you want to make changes to the article you need to provide some. I'm not an expert on the period, but common sense suggests you are right and that the Revenge actively engaged a handful of ships rather than 52.

With regard to point about signing. You need to type four of these ~ at the end of each post. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Price of ship is set to 4000 pounds. Claiming this to be 1.2 million today is wrong. You cant even build this ship today for that price using modern manufacturing methods, and a relevant price would be one that relates to UK GDP or a person's salary. Rodnebb (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]