AHC/PC: All Netherlands remains fairly content under Spanish Crown till at least 1640

Could Spain have averted the Dutch Revolt for a few more generations?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 62.5%
  • No

    Votes: 15 37.5%

  • Total voters
    40
Depends. If they are united wi Austria but not with Spain, then probably not. That wouldn't be in the HRE's power.

Of course if Maximilian II became King of Spain as well as HRE, he would have the power. But in that case the Netherlands wouldn't have the clout that I envisaged, being still part of a much larger Empire.
Sorry, I was going back to the OP and concessions being made by Spain to the Netherlands to prevent the revolt. I.e. we will tax you more heavily, but in return you can trade freely within all of the King's domains.
 
So the POD has to be a less sentimental Charles V. He could not have know it, but I'm not sure that Charles did his descendants a favour.

The revolt of 1568 as we know it is unlikely to have happened if the Netherlands went to Maximilian. However, what were the chances of there being another revolt which would have lead to the northern Netherlands breaking away and becoming something like the Dutch Republic as we know it?

Charles V did contemplate on giving the Burgundian Inheritance to his daughter Mary and her husband (the son of Ferdinand) and cousin Maximilian II. Maximilian II supposed Protestant sympathies did not help in Charles V going through with it.

Which probably changes the history for the HRE/Germany beyond recognition and by extension the rest of Europe. E.g. with Burgundy the Austrian Hapsburgs become the dominant power within the HRE/Germany and if there is a 30 Years War or something like it they probably win. Which in turn might mean they might not attempt to conquer Hungary from the Turks. Or if they do its easier for them because they have more resources.

Whether the Habsburgs would win in the HRE, if they still have a dynastic claim on Hungary and now they have additional resources from the Burgundian lands, then they would still go for Hungary, if they get the chance. ITTL the Ottomans would probably still have the initial upper hand, but the Habsburgs would be stronger, so should be in a better position to repel or even prevent treats to Vienna and would be capable of going on a counter offensive sooner.
 
Last edited:
Charles V did contemplate on giving the Burgundian Inheritance to his duaghter Mary and her husband (the son of Ferdinand) and cousin Maximilian II. Maximilian II supposed Protestant sympathies did not help in Charles V going through with it.
A perverse thought.

If Charles had given the Burgundian Inheritance to Maximilian II and he really did have Protestant sympathies would the Netherlands remained loyal and the rest of his territories rebelled against him?
 
Whether the Habsburgs would win in the HRE, if they still have a dynastic claim on Hungary and now they have additional resources from the Burgundian lands, then they would still go for Hungary, if they get the chance. ITTL the Ottomans would probably still have the initial upper hand, but the Habsburgs would be stronger, so should be in a better position to repel or even prevent treats to Vienna and would be capable of going on a counter offensive sooner.
I also thought that if the Spanish Hapsburgs did not have the distraction of the Dutch Revolt they would be able to support their Austrian cousins by fighting the Turks in the Mediterranean.
 
A perverse thought.

If Charles had given the Burgundian Inheritance to Maximilian II and he really did have Protestant sympathies would the Netherlands remained loyal and the rest of his territories rebelled against him?
Possible, but the Dutch revolt was also largely, like most political events, about money and power.

Charles V had wanted power from the Dutch states, but the people he in turn empowered in Spain were largely Dutch/Burgundian. As such, while there was grumbling, the most important people in the Netherlands didn't mind too much (being the ones who stood to benefit in Spain) so there were some small uprisings but nothing major.

Philip II wanted power from the Dutch states, but he in turn empowered Spaniards in the Netherlands - especially note the Duke of Alva who messed things up beyond salvation after the mostly-localized (became local) Margaretha of Parma got things back under control with support of the Dutch high nobility. He had a ton of power so he got close to victory, but never got things entirely suppressed, and the rest is history. The Spanish also noticed and tried a few more times with effectively granting a viceroy the ability to divide power with the locals as necessary, but by that point there was an independent Netherlands to compete with.

So if Maximilian brings his seat to Brussels and grants power to the Dutch(-ish) high nobility he'll be safe, but if his only difference with Philip is not suppressing protestants, he still runs a massive risk of unrest and a serious Dutch secession.
 
Possible, but the Dutch revolt was also largely, like most political events, about money and power.

Charles V had wanted power from the Dutch states, but the people he in turn empowered in Spain were largely Dutch/Burgundian. As such, while there was grumbling, the most important people in the Netherlands didn't mind too much (being the ones who stood to benefit in Spain) so there were some small uprisings but nothing major.

Philip II wanted power from the Dutch states, but he in turn empowered Spaniards in the Netherlands - especially note the Duke of Alva who messed things up beyond salvation after the mostly-localized (became local) Margaretha of Parma got things back under control with support of the Dutch high nobility. He had a ton of power so he got close to victory, but never got things entirely suppressed, and the rest is history. The Spanish also noticed and tried a few more times with effectively granting a viceroy the ability to divide power with the locals as necessary, but by that point there was an independent Netherlands to compete with.

So if Maximilian brings his seat to Brussels and grants power to the Dutch(-ish) high nobility he'll be safe, but if his only difference with Philip is not suppressing protestants, he still runs a massive risk of unrest and a serious Dutch secession.
That was a joke. I wasn't expecting serious answers. Thanks.
 
I have never understood why Charles V gave the Netherlands to Philip II in the first place. Geographically it makes more sense to me that they should have gone to Maximilian along with France Comte and Milan. It looks tidier and more balanced on a map for Philip's European territory to consist of the his father's Mediterranean territories while his cousin inherits the lands that were part of the Holy Roman Empire.

I thought it was largely to do with trying to ensure that the Spanish military would be tied into supporting Habsburg policies in the Empire while also assuaging vassals that he wasn't getting overly powerful.

Actually one of the very interesting things about all this is that a very different reaction to something like the Bohemian revolt would take place. OTL Leagues and so forth were quite common but the example of the Dutch caused Saxony and the Habsburgs to basically go 'not again' and go straight to massive military force. Potentially a much more conciliatory approach might be taken here, or at least a slower response, which could lead to the traditional rights of religious autonomy being retained.
 
I thought it was largely to do with trying to ensure that the Spanish military would be tied into supporting Habsburg policies in the Empire while also assuaging vassals that he wasn't getting overly powerful.

@NOMISYRRUC: in many proposals and ideas, including proposed dowries for an Infanta and/or Archduchess for a marriage with a younger son of the king of France, which should receive a serious amount of French appanages, it usually was Milan or the Burgundian Inheritance. Philip II became duke of Milan in 1540, a territory the Austrian branch also had desired. In 1548 Mary, daughter of Charles V, married Maximilian II, son of Ferdinand I of Austria, giving Mary and thus jure uxoris Maximilian II the Burgundian Inheritance would have helped to reconcile the Spanish and the Austrian branches. This would mean, that just like later with Isabella and Albrecht, if the marriage would remain childless or their line dies out, only Austrian Habsburgs descended from Mary could inherit, otherwise it would return to the Spanish branch.

Actually one of the very interesting things about all this is that a very different reaction to something like the Bohemian revolt would take place. OTL Leagues and so forth were quite common but the example of the Dutch caused Saxony and the Habsburgs to basically go 'not again' and go straight to massive military force. Potentially a much more conciliatory approach might be taken here, or at least a slower response, which could lead to the traditional rights of religious autonomy being retained.

That would depend on a lot of things, the Dutch revolt initially was against representatives of their monarch, in Bohemia they denied, what the Austrian Habsburgs saw as their Birth Right. It also screwed with Cuius Regio, Eius Religio. I'm not sure the reaction would be completely different, the Austro-Burgundian Habsburg goal would still be to bring Bohemia back into the fold, and ITTL they won't hesitate to enforce an undisputed hereditary succession either. Religiously it could be a bit milder, though IOTL many of the Bohemian revolt also had a different religion; you could still see certain Protestants leave for purely political reasons.
 
Last edited:
That would depend on a lot of things, the Dutch revolt initially was against representatives of their monarch, in Bohemia they denied, what the Austrian Habsburgs saw as their Birth Right. It also screwed with Cuius Regio, Eius Religio. I'm not sure the reaction would be completely different, the Austro-Burgundian Habsburg goal would still be to bring Bohemia back into the fold, and ITTL they won't hesitate to enforce an undisputed hereditary succession either. Religiously it could be a bit milder, though IOTL many of the Bohemian also had a different religion; you could still see certain Protestants leave for purely political reasons.

Even with the Peace of Augsburg, the traditional response to this sort of thing had been mediation and compromise, with violence basically being used to set out how strong each side was and how balanced the compromise should be- it's worth remembering that the Austrian Estates had essentially gone behind the Habsburg's back and set up a joint policy of religious toleration some years previously. And Bohemia was, IIRC, either explicitly exempted from CRER or effectively so due to the pre-existing agreements around the Hussite churches.

The Dutch disrupted this- suddenly the option of outright independence seemed possible to both sides, so they reacted accordingly. Sans that example and influence, I can well imagine that the Bohemian Estates would still have come together to establish a joint council- effectively pooling their resources to get a better position rather than divide and rule- and they would definitely still have been eager for religious tolerance, but I don't think they'd have gone so far so soon in electing a new monarch for the Crown of Bohemia.

This has important consequences- the Saxons are more likely to view it as a purely internal manner and not necessarily be so inclined to intervene, the Habsburgs will likely take a more conciliatory approach in keeping with earlier conflict resolution, and the Hussite, Unitarian etc. lower classes will be more supportive of the revolt if it looks less like a bunch of Calvinists trying to take over by inviting in a Calvinist monarch.

I can't see an end outcome which doesn't have the Habsburgs in charge. What I can see is a compromise in which the Bohemians agree to, for example, automatic hereditary succession, but in return for retaining the joint Estates and that the previous religious establishment remains in place. At that point some figures may leave, but it's more likely to be in the realm of 'the firebrands at the top being forced out' rather than even a mass excursion of the populace.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
...but can we keep Spain and Netherlands together for a lengthier period? Variations where the Habsburgs spin off the land to the Austrian branch or a local branch doesn't address the OP.
 
...but can we keep Spain and Netherlands together for a lengthier period? Variations where the Habsburgs spin off the land to the Austrian branch or a local branch doesn't address the OP.
Correct. Sorry for starting that. However, before I address the OP is a possible long term result of the Charles V leaving the Netherlands to the Austrian Branch that the Low Countries are now part of Germany, speaking dialects of German instead of Dutch, Flemish and French?

AFAIK the Revolt of 1568 started because Philip II asked the Netherlands for money to fight a war against the Ottoman Empire which the Netherlanders thought was nothing to do with them. So with the POD of 1520 there is nearly half a century for a combination of:
  1. Prevent the war with the Ottoman Empire from happening in the first place;
  2. Make it easier for Charles V and Phillip II to get more money out of their Mediterranean lands, particularly Aragon and The Two Sicilies. AFAIK it was harder for the Crown to tax these parts of the Monarchia than Castile, which forced disproportionately high taxes to be imposed there, which damaged the Castilian economy and therefore the ability of Spain to maintain its position as Europe's greatest power in the long term.
  3. Make Charles V and Phillip II better economists so that Castile is richer, which means that Phillip II doesn't have to ask the Netherlands for the money in the first place.
 
...but can we keep Spain and Netherlands together for a lengthier period? Variations where the Habsburgs spin off the land to the Austrian branch or a local branch doesn't address the OP.
IIRC Spain declined as a world power because she was fighting more enemies than she could cope with. If the Dutch Revolt is delayed until at least 1640 that removes one enemy. Does that give the Spanish Hapsburgs the resources to defeat Elizabethan England, France, the Ottomans in the Mediterranean and stamp out the protestants in Germany?
 
If the Netherlands remains under Spanish control and without a revolt, the likelihood of Portugal revolting against the Habsburgs is also much lower. IOTL one of the major reasons for the revolt was the rescinding of the truce with the Netherlands in 1621. This made it so that the United Provinces attacked and occupied Northeastern Brazil, and attacked or blockaded Portuguese factories in the East. The result of this was that the Portuguese nobles and mercantile class began to see the entanglement of Spain's wars as an albatross around Portugal's commerce. Unlike nobles in many parts of Europe, those in Portugal were largely dependent on the colonial empire for their wealth, and Lisbon in particular suffered after attacks on Portuguese shipping from 1621 onwards. The request of Portugal to send troops to assist in the Catalan revolt was a major issue, but things might play out differently.

With a content Netherlands, the Antwerp will probably remain paramount as Northern Europe's principal port, and making it a major hub of trade with Baltic grain, naval stores, and furs passing through here, along with goods from the Indies and Castilian and English wool, Brazilian sugar, copper from Germany. Amsterdam would be relegated to the position of a smaller port, serving mostly Holland. The Habsburgs would have to have a somewhat enlightened policy of tolerance for the Netherlands, as it would be a very cosmopolitan region, with the major European banking houses based there.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Now, for the hard part. Presuming Reformed faith will gain a serious following in the Netherlands, and assuming the proudly Catholic identity of Spain, how can conflict over that issue be avoided, elided, negotiated, put-on-ice, whatever?
 
With a content Netherlands, the Antwerp will probably remain paramount as Northern Europe's principal port, and making it a major hub of trade with Baltic grain, naval stores, and furs passing through here, along with goods from the Indies and Castilian and English wool, Brazilian sugar, copper from Germany. Amsterdam would be relegated to the position of a smaller port, serving mostly Holland. The Habsburgs would have to have a somewhat enlightened policy of tolerance for the Netherlands, as it would be a very cosmopolitan region, with the major European banking houses based there.
AFAIK (and I'm not that sure in the first place) the Dutch Republic played an important role in the development of capitalism as we know it through the development of joint stock companies and central banks.

If the above statement is correct, does delaying the Dutch Revolt or avoiding it completely prevent or at least delay the development of capitalism as we know it? E.g. do the English have something to base the Bank of England on, which AFAIK was copied from the Bank of Amsterdam.
 
IIRC Spain declined as a world power because she was fighting more enemies than she could cope with. If the Dutch Revolt is delayed until at least 1640 that removes one enemy. Does that give the Spanish Hapsburgs the resources to defeat Elizabethan England, France, the Ottomans in the Mediterranean and stamp out the protestants in Germany?
When I wrote the above I envisaged the resources released from no having the Dutch Revolt to put down being spread evenly between each of Spain's remaining enemies.

However, what would the result have been if the resources were concentrated and used to defeat the remaining enemies one at a time? What would the list of priorities be? My guess is that everything would all be concentrated on France because in addition to fighting Spain directly the French were supporting the German protestants and the Ottomans.

I also guess that England would not be on the list at all because AFAIK Elisabeth's support for the Dutch Rebels was the reason behind Spain starting the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585-1604. Therefore if there was no Dutch Revolt to support the war as we know it could not have happened.
 
Top