I didn't realize that the victors at Lepanto were the same 'Spanish Armada" that attacked the Netherlands and England, and was eventually defeated.
The Armada was “defeated” mostly by a violent storm that swamped its ships, and by Philip’s choice of an inexperienced officer to command the expedition. England’s victory was not the result of superior naval tactics, like those it employed centuries later at Trafalgar, but by a series of blunders on the part of the Spanish, coupled with plain good fortune.
The weather was against them. I wonder who is in charge of that.
No the ships were entirely different.
Lepanto was fought between fleets of oared galleys, with auxiliary masts and sails.
The Armada campaign was fought between fleets of sailing ships, although the Spanish brought a few oared warships up from the Med. These didn’t fare well in the choppier waters off the west coast of Europe. The English Channel can be plenty choppy, and don’t even get me started on the North Sea and the Bay of Biscay.
Generally, the Spanish fleet did well as long as they kept to their natural habitat in the Med.
Against the English — a seafaring race as they never tire of reminding us — they fared poorly, but not as poorly as some of the propaganda of the time might suggest. The 1588 campaign was a disaster for the Spanish, but the Spaniards subsequently rebuffed various English aggressions against their commerce.
Unlike the Napoleonic period, England never enjoyed maritime dominance during the Elizabethan period. Power, certainly, but it was a closely contested fight all the way.