Can Spain keep the Netherlands?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

With a POD of 1500, can the Spanish empire keep its possessions of the Low Countries until at least 1700 or so? Bonus points if you can keep it until modern day.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I'd wager it could be done, namely by recognizing the sovereignty of the local aristocracy and the relative autonomy of the several provinces. Charles V's attempts to centralize power without asking for the consent of the aristocracy caused many of them to become protesdtant in the first place. It eventually caused Dutch resistance against Spanish rule.

Having more respect for age-old local sovereignty would remove all the grievances of the Dutch leaders, likely leading to the majority staying catholic & loyal. The Dutch leader William of Orange, raised at the court of Charles V, would almost certainly stay loyal.
 
I'd wager it could be done, namely by recognizing the sovereignty of the local aristocracy and the relative autonomy of the several provinces. Charles V's attempts to centralize power without asking for the consent of the aristocracy caused many of them to become protesdtant in the first place. It eventually caused Dutch resistance against Spanish rule.

Having more respect for age-old local sovereignty would remove all the grievances of the Dutch leaders, likely leading to the majority staying catholic & loyal. The Dutch leader William of Orange, raised at the court of Charles V, would almost certainly stay loyal.

Centralization and regional sovereignty going back and forth had been a factor in the Low Countries since the duke of Burgundy managed to unite them.
Yes Charles V did centralize them a bit more, but 'as one of them', he was born in Gent and raised in Mechelen and he occasionally still held court in Brussel.
Philip II OTOH took centralization one step further, he wanted to rule the Low Countries from Spain, and he never lived up to his promise to the Estates General to visit the Low Countries occasionally, in fact he never did so after he made that promise.
Naming Spaniards (after than perhaps family members) to represent did not sit well with the loyal local Nobility.

The execution of the counts of Egmont and Horne was another serious error of judgement.

Also the Dutch Revolt in many ways had more than one aspect. One of political grievances shared by Protestants and Catholics alike; and Religious grievances. These latter grievances and how various groups reacted on these would ultimately split a united Protestant and Catholic revolt.
 
Might not solve everything, but a fatal accident for Philip II (preferably before Don Carlos was born) could help a lot.
 
I think it could be done fairly easily, if Philips II did not sent the duke of Alba but a man with far more diplomatic skills. If he sent some one like Parma duke of Farnese thinks would be different. Further if 'centralization' plans were implemented with more slower and with more tact and as last, less foreign influence how to rule the Provinces. The aggressive prosecution of heretics was also a big catalyst for the rebels.
 
I agree that Phillip II is the guy who messed things up, not Charles V so much. On the other hand, Charles V did issue the homologatiebevel (Order of homologation? I'm not sure of the English term.) - which caused much resentment among the local aristocrats. Despite the tendency towards centralization having been an issue for much longer, the aristocracy was used to being plied, bribed, consulted and generally respected. Charles simply ordered them to write doen their local legal codes and send them to his officials for approval.

The problem was, as janprimus points out, not yet the issue of foreign influence, but a general resentment towards centralization being forced. It didn't matter is Charles was raised in the Low Countries; he still caused great resentment by ordering the aristocracy around without consulting them, as was standard practice.

Still, fixing Phillip II's many, many faults could still have mended things. But if you want all resentment out of the way, prevent the homologatiebevel altogether.
 
@ Widukind: it may not have been liked, but it did give Charles a bit more natural authority in this region, which was totally lacked by his 'foreign raised' son. In other words it did give Charles a bit more political credit.
OTOH what might have helped is keeping the elite more involved in governing the region. It won't address all issues, but it would lower support amongst those most influential.

Actually Philip II had far fewer flaws, Dutch historical myth ascribes to him. Just compare it with the Spanish view of Philip II, which for them was one of their greatest monarchs.
That being said this doesn't mean he didn't have flaws.
Apparently he was 'control freak' would wasn't good at delegating, but at the same time he worked incredibly hard and he was a sober and religious man.
It's true that he wasn't the most religiously tolerant man, only few really were in those days. However his actions proved to be counterproductive, instead of strengthening a Counter Reformation (a valid goal for a Catholic monarch), he achieved the opposite.

Even when the Burgundian Netherlands somehow would have become tolerant, it at best would have mirrored the Dutch Republic, though in this case the elite would be Catholic and Protestants were allowed to keep their religion as long as it wasn't noticeable and in some cases paid extra taxes or bribes. Like how in the Dutch Republic Catholics were tolerated and it was tolerated (gedoogd;)) they had Clandestine Churches; but until the Batavian they were de facto second rate citizens.

(The Generality not having representation in the Estates General, also affected the Protestants there.)
 
Parma doesn't invade England and proceeds to conquer all of the Netherlands. Parma doesn't get called off to march to France and conquers all of the Netherlands. Really there are tons of PoDs in general.
 
Janprimus;9253122That being said this doesn't mean he didn't have flaws. Apparently he was 'control freak' would wasn't good at delegating said:
That was part of the problem.

I recall a letter to the Times, by someone who had once been an instructor at Sandhurst. According to him, they divided the cadets four ways, firstly into the intelligent and the stupid, and each of these into the industrious and the lazy.

The intelligent and industrious were trained to be staff officers, to see to all the minutiae that the CinC would never find time for.

The intelligent and lazy were groomed for the highest command. Their intelligence would enable them to see the big picture while their laziness would stop them getting bogged down in details which should properly be left to staff officers.

The stupid and lazy could of course never attain the top, but were ok for most subordinate roles, so long as they had a martinet over them to keep them up to the mark.

Finally, when this was done, they could deal with the stupid and industrious, who had to be weeded out before they could do irreparable harm. Philip II strikes me as being in this category - a man who worked hard at getting it wrong.
 
Top