Dutch Independence - when?

Hi everybody,

the independence of the United Netherlands from the Holy Roman Empire
was acknowledged by the Peace of Westfalia in 1648, certainly not least
because of Swedish pressure.

But since when did the Netherlands actually seek independence?

The obvious answer, 'with the Declaration of Independence of 1581', seems to
be wrong to me, because it declares freedom from the Spanish king as lord of
the land, but not their removal from out of the Empire
(which constituted a relationship on a higher level).

It may be noted that during the 30 Years War, the Roman Emperor Ferdinand II.
stayed neutral on purpose for roughly a decade as regards the Spanish-Dutch conflict,
all family pressure notwithstanding.

So when did the independece become the strategy of choice in the Netherlands:

i) Still with the declaration, as there was no support to expect from being part of the HRE,
ii) When they had accomodated Friedrich V. of Palatine, relative of Willem of Oranje, outlawed in the Empire, in 1620:
Then breaking up was inevitable,
iii) When the Emperor broke his neutrality and attacked the Netherlands in the late 1620s?


To put my question more directly:
What do you think was the lastest point in time when the United Netherlands would still
have embraced the status as an independant state of the Empire,
once the Emperor had negated his Spanish relatives' claim?
 
Last edited:
The Act of Abjuration in 1581.

The Dutch had the idea that if a King was negligent in duty to his subjects, said subjects could fire him.
 
The United Provinces had been running independent of anybody long enough in 1620 that they had their own colonies. I'd veer towards the 1581 Act of Abjuration.
 
I'd go even earlier. The Union of Utrecht charter, signed in January 1579, united the northern provinces of the Netherlands as an independent entity. Though the Oath of Abjuration absolved them of loyalty to the Spanish Crown.

And, in a way, Spanish recognition happened earlier than the Peace of Westphalia. The Twelve Years' Truce from 1609 to 1621 was de facto recognition of the Dutch Republic as a unified, coherent, political entity.
 
If you want to know when exactly the Netherlands decided to leave the empire, I don't think there is an exact answer. The reason the Dutch left the HRE is was because they were wealthy and strong enough to simply don't need it anymore. The HRE had nothing to offer to the Dutch. The Netherlands never had been important for the empire anyway, during the middle ages it had been a relatively unimportant border area. It was influenced a lot by France (certainly the south, but also areas like Holland), so the Dutch didn't realy care that much about the HRE anyway. I also believe that the fact that the Netherlands had decided to become a republic was a reason to just abandon the HRE. If you want the Netherlands remaining inside the HRE you must prevent them from becoming wealthy and strong, which would probably mean losing the war of independence against Spain.

If you mean when did the Dutch decide to become independent from Spain? The act of Abjuration would be the best option. Before that the Dutch were just trying to gain more autonomy within the Spanish kingdom. This does not imediately mean that the Netherlands wanted to become independent. At first they asked England and France* to become their rulers. They decided they did not want any conflict with Spain, so they just sent some incompetent fools (Anjou and Leicester) to help the Dutch. Both screwed up so badly that the Netherlands decided to become independent.

*I am uncertain if the Dutch actualy asked the French king to become their ruler, they most certainly asked him for help.
 
Seems like a clear thing ...

The United Provinces had been running independent of anybody long enough in 1620 that they had their own colonies.

Other Imperial Princes (later) had a moonlighting job as King of England or Poland.
Why then not have colonies?
You are arguing that Independence from Spain was felt and lived much earlier.
But being part of the Empire does not negate such autonomous behavior.

I'd go even earlier. The Union of Utrecht charter, signed in January 1579, united the northern provinces of the Netherlands as an independent entity. Though the Oath of Abjuration absolved them of loyalty to the Spanish Crown.

And, in a way, Spanish recognition happened earlier than the Peace of Westphalia. The Twelve Years' Truce from 1609 to 1621 was de facto recognition of the Dutch Republic as a unified, coherent, political entity.

Seems quite convincing. But again: This is argument for the independence from Spain, right?

_________________________

In spite of my ranting:
I suppose that a Dutchman of 1600 may have reacted similarly to you -
If you fight for Independence from Spain, why then subordinate to the Emperor?
As they were able to achieve independence, staying in the Empire would only make
sense if they would have had hope to gain economic advantages or political influence on
other states from it, both rather unlikely.



So let me ask my question in a different way.
Suppose that in 1582, the Prince-Archbishop of Mainz would have invited a representant
of the Netherlands to the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, in the rank of an Imperial City
(as there was no prince or imperial count at its head).
Would they have come?


[If you wonder why he should have done that? There are two major possibilites:
- The Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs have fallen apart over some trifle as decent dynasties do,
- the tensions and rivalry between the Austrian Habsburgs and the other Catholic Imperial States
have grown as large as it was in OTL 50 years later.
Either way would require a PoD just a couple of years before.]
 

Susano

Banned
The independance of the Dutch from the Empire was a result of the political situation at the end of the 30 Years War. It would have made no great difference, really, if they had stayed within or without the Empire, seeing how powerless it had become. There certainly was no desire either way in the Netherlands. It was just... political circumstances.

The Union of Utrecht and the Abjuration had nothing at all to do with the HRE.
 
The independance of the Dutch from the Empire was a result of the political situation at the end of the 30 Years War. It would have made no great difference, really, if they had stayed within or without the Empire, seeing how powerless it had become. There certainly was no desire either way in the Netherlands. It was just... political circumstances.

The Union of Utrecht and the Abjuration had nothing at all to do with the HRE.

True, the Dutch had just fougth 80 years against Spain for their independence. Because in Germany they decided to make peace after 30 year, the Dutch decided to make peace with Spain too. At the same time they decided to get rid of the HRE, mainly just because it was possible. They didn't feel any conection to the HRE anyway, the HRE didn't care about the Netherlands either, so both decided to split. Basicly the same thing happened in Switserland. I can imagine that if the 30 year war had ended earlier or later that when the Dutch made peace, they just would care about the HRE anymore and would officialy remain part of the empire (up to the point the emperor decided to get involved in Dutch afairs. At that point the Dutch would leave).
 
At the same time they decided to get rid of the HRE, mainly just because it was possible. They didn't feel any conection to the HRE anyway, the HRE didn't care about the Netherlands either, so both decided to split. Basicly the same thing happened in Switserland. I can imagine that if the 30 year war had ended earlier or later that when the Dutch made peace, they just would care about the HRE anymore and would officialy remain part of the empire (up to the point the emperor decided to get involved in Dutch afairs. At that point the Dutch would leave).
There certainly was no desire either way in the Netherlands.

This is quite convincing. I mostly expected it that way.

For the AH side, this also implies that if there was the chance of a powerful
supporter inside the Empire, the Netherlands would have accepted him.

(The city of Bremen, struggling for its own status both against the Emperor and Sweden,
the Count-Palatine of the Rhine, osracized and on the run,
and even the Elector of Brandenburg, first maveuvering diplomatically and then completely domineered by Sweden
did not turn out powerful IOTL.)

Surprisingly, the Spanish-Dutch conflict and the actual Thirty Years War exhibited
minimal interference. Surprisingly also for the war parties of that time.
So this is also a nice field for AH speculations.
________________________________________________________________________


Because in Germany they decided to make peace after 30 year, the Dutch decided to make peace with Spain too.

The official acknowledgement of the Netherlands split off from the Empire was a Swedish postulation.
The Swedish leaders at that time had the ambition to create an order of their taste
in Central Europe (rather than achieving a promising position and weakening their enemies).
This order included the acknowledgement of the de-facto status of the Netherlands and Switzerland.


It would have made no great difference, really, if they had stayed within or without the Empire, seeing how powerless it had become.

The fall of imperial power is (mostly) due to the Swedish political restructuring and Liguist interference.
Dutch indepence has related reasons.
So, if the common cause were skipped, the consequence may be so as well ...
 

Susano

Banned
Thats kidna reversed causality, though isnt it? Just because the Dutch remain imperial doesnt mean theres less French-Swedish meddling, its the other way round... Besides, of course the weakening of imperial power had the support of most imperial estates (logcially, as they were gaining power that way), so even without the French and the Swedes I dont think after the disastrous 30 Years War said weakening of imperial power could have been avoided. You would have to avoid the 30 Years War entriely, but that would leave the religious situation in the Empire unsolved...

Now, I personally dont describe to the theory that the post-Westphalian Empire was a living corpse. The Empire mostly stood an united front against the French aggressions of the late 17th century. It was only in the 18th century, when the Imperial idea died that the Empire became truely meaningless, at least IMO. The inclusion of the Netherlands would have certainly made no difference in that, though.
 
Now, I personally dont describe to the theory that the post-Westphalian Empire was a living corpse. The Empire mostly stood an united front against the French aggressions of the late 17th century. It was only in the 18th century, when the Imperial idea died that the Empire became truely meaningless, at least IMO.

Really? I thought that the larger states, like Brandenburg and Bavaria followed their own policies, while just the smaller states followed the emperor.
 

Susano

Banned
Really? I thought that the larger states, like Brandenburg and Bavaria followed their own policies, while just the smaller states followed the emperor.

Welll... the difference as I see it was that in the 17thc entury Emperor and Empire were still taken seriously. The Emperor had no possibility anymore to command states (or at leats not the larger ones), but he was still respected as Emperor, as were the other imperial institutions. Thus, they still played a role in politics, despite teh lack of real authority. That only showed in the 18th century, when the Empire became totally worthless. As said, a good example for that are the wars - whereas in the late 17th centur wars (Devolution War, War of the Grand Alliance etc) the Empire mostly stood united, the 18th century had the alliance lines running right through the Empire...
 
Pretty much what Susano said.
In addition, the reason most of the smaller states came to ally with the Emperor and the Empire through much of the post-Westphalian world was because of either Austria's immense military power, or the military potency of Austria's allies. Which, up until the War of the Spanish Succession, included Bavaria, and up until the War of the Austrian Succession included Prussia. In addition to the (very, very large) Prince-Bishoprics that were usually on Austria's side.
 
Top