Impossible Victories: From Boabdil to Cervera's Fleet

Scenarios Where Victory Was Impossible: From Boabdil to Cervera

Some defeats can be avoided with a change of plan. Others are written before the battle begins. The central question in this historical discussion is simple: what scenarios made victory impossible even before the first shot? The short answer: several, and well-documented.

The most cited case is that of Boabdil, the last Nasrid king of Granada. The phrase attributed to his mother —weeping like a woman for what he could not defend like a man— summarizes a judgment repeated by historiography for five centuries. However, the analysis here is more nuanced: the kingdom was isolated, without effective aid from North Africa, while the Catholic Monarchs had overwhelming numerical and logistical superiority. He had no way to win, the initial argument suggests.

Did Boabdil have any real chance against the Catholic Monarchs?

No, according to most analyses. The Nasrid throne was plagued by internal dispute: his uncle, known as El Zagal, controlled Baza, Guadix, Málaga, and Almería, and was considered a better military strategist. The Catholic Monarchs exploited this division to eliminate El Zagal first, then besiege Granada. Meanwhile, Boabdil did absolutely nothing as his uncle's possessions fell, according to the most critical version.

The figures discussed are telling. During the siege of Málaga, Ferdinand commanded 20,000 cavalry, 50,000 infantry, and 8,000 support troops against 15,000 defenders. At Vélez-Málaga, El Zagal’s Nasrids had 1,000 horses and 20,000 soldiers. The conclusion is that Christian contingents were clearly superior, though not invincible on the battlefield.

Comparisons with other historical sieges reinforce the argument. Byzantines resisted in Constantinople with about 7,000 men against 140,000 Turks, inflicting triple casualties on the enemy. Boabdil, conversely, had about 20,000 soldiers against no more than 80,000 Christians. Who had it tougher? Who showed more courage? The answer is uncomfortable for the Nasrid king.

Cervera’s Fleet in Santiago de Cuba: Could Defeat Be Avoided?

The second major impossible scenario is naval, in 1898. Admiral Cervera’s fleet left Santiago de Cuba to face the US Navy under desperate conditions. Better honor without ships than ships without honor, was the justification at the time. Orders came from the government, and ships could not be captured without fighting.

The problem was logistical before tactical. Coaling was slow and heavy, and keeping vessels active would have required a merchant fleet with predefined meeting points, logistics beyond Spain’s capabilities at the time. Operating from Puerto Rico solved nothing: Americans would have blocked the port anyway. And there was England, whose role in the conflict is mentioned as decisive.

Force comparison was devastating. In 1907, just nine years later, the US deployed sixteen battleships plus escorts on a world tour. In 1906, during the Algeciras Conference, they sent eight battleships to the Mediterranean. For every ship Spain could field, the US could field five more. They had something Spain lacked: shipyards and economic power.

Pelayo and Carlos V: Would They Have Changed Anything in Cuba?

A common hypothesis is that Spain had two modern ships that did not intervene: the Pelayo, nicknamed 'The Solitary', with nearly 10,000 tons displacement and 105 meters length, armed with two 320mm guns, and the Carlos V. Both were assigned to protect Spanish coasts.

Counterarguments are strong. Pelayo was already obsolete, and Carlos V was merely a protected cruiser with no relevant antiestéticatures, also unprepared. García-Hontoria cannons were outdated and could not compare with modern ones. When a flotilla was created with these ships to send to the Philippines, it was clear they had no chance in Cuba.

The underlying problem was structural: Spain had a fleet on paper, but economic shortcomings meant poor training and low combat effectiveness. Sending those ships to Cuba would have meant losing them irretrievably. That is why they were not sent.

Russian Fleet at Tsushima and Other No-Win Scenarios

The Russian fleet’s circumnavigation of Eurasia to Tsushima is another example of an impossible mission. It was remarkable that, given the era’s capabilities, almost all arrived. The final result was inevitable before sailing.

In the same category fall the 7th Cavalry at Little Bighorn —Custer went there to die, it is said— or Cervera’s fleet. Contemporary scenarios are also mentioned: fighting the New World Order, where control is total and 80% of the population acts like NPCs; or Hacienda, which always wins, although it is recalled that Xavi Alonso won his lawsuit.

The list closes with everyday situations that also seem impossible to win: reporting noise complaints against neighbors with a newborn, playing ping pong against a wall, or Spain’s position in Western Sahara, where it is argued there is no scenario where it looks good.

---

The discussion moves to technical details: Could the US fleet cross the Atlantic? Were their Indiana-class battleships reliable? It is noted that two nearly capsized en route to attack San Juan de Puerto Rico, and that in that attack they fired 4,000 shells without damaging the fort. The conclusion is that, even for the winning side, victory was not guaranteed by material quality.

What if history had been different with another decision? That is the lingering question. Because if anything demonstrates this review, it is that some defeats can be avoided, while others are scripted before anyone picks up a weapon.