What if the Dutch, at that time under the Union of Brussels that spanned both the southern and northern Netherlands, had managed to defeat the Spanish forces hassling them at the Battle of Gembloux, in 1578?
IOTL, the battle had significant consequences for the history of the Low Countries -- after this Spanish victory, the provinces on the border with France (Wallonia) signed the Union of Arras and declared for the Habsburg Spanish king Philip II. As a response, the Protestant rebels of the northern provinces signed the Union of Utrecht, which would eventually develop into the Dutch Republic.
Had the Dutch managed to defeat the Spanish in such a decisive battle, could the Union of Brussels be preserved? Could William the Silent become its head of state if he lives longer?
Oh, and one more very important question: Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, was personally present at the battle. If the Dutch manage to kill him, he would be succeeded by his very young son Ranuccio as Duke of Parma. Considering that Ranuccio would be tutored by a regency and that he was dynastically very close to the Portuguese throne, how does this affect the Portuguese Succession Crisis, assuming that Sebastian still dies in Morocco?
 
What if the Dutch, at that time under the Union of Brussels that spanned both the southern and northern Netherlands, had managed to defeat the Spanish forces hassling them at the Battle of Gembloux, in 1578?
IOTL, the battle had significant consequences for the history of the Low Countries -- after this Spanish victory, the provinces on the border with France (Wallonia) signed the Union of Arras and declared for the Habsburg Spanish king Philip II. As a response, the Protestant rebels of the northern provinces signed the Union of Utrecht, which would eventually develop into the Dutch Republic.
Had the Dutch managed to defeat the Spanish in such a decisive battle, could the Union of Brussels be preserved? Could William the Silent become its head of state if he lives longer?
Oh, and one more very important question: Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, was personally present at the battle. If the Dutch manage to kill him, he would be succeeded by his very young son Ranuccio as Duke of Parma. Considering that Ranuccio would be tutored by a regency and that he was dynastically very close to the Portuguese throne, how does this affect the Portuguese Succession Crisis, assuming that Sebastian still dies in Morocco?
For your first question: Losing the battle of Gembloux was not the decisive reason for the union of Atrecht but it was influential. In the Pacification of Gent it was agreed that only in Holland and Zeeland there would be religious freedom for the calvinists, but in the other regions the catholic faith would be the only one allowed. There were however sizable calvinist minorities in Flemish and Brabantian cities. Those minorities distrusted magistrates, who were installed during the reign of Alva and the catholic clergy, who refused an oath of loyalty. After the battle they came in action. In Gent and Brussel they started to take over churches during a second iconoclasm and in other cities (including Atrecht!) they even took direct control of the local authority. This was a direct violation of the pacification and it drove the deeply catholic regions into the hands of the Spanish.
I see the result of the battle of Gembloux as the catalyst of these political developments, because suddenly there was this militairy threat that sharpened the already existing division.
If the Staten Generaal would have won the battle, it would have more time to try to solve the division over religious freedom. But there's no guarantee this would succeed, because the existing Union under the Pacification of Gent was at that point not sufficient to last.
For your second question: Allesandro Farnese was not the governor at the moment of the battle of Gembloux. He was only a luitenant general. The governor was at that time Don Juan, who died at the end of the same year and at his deathbed appointed Farnese as his succesor, later confirmed by the King himself. I don't think Philips Ii would appoint Farnesses son as governor(this is not a hereditary title), but would pick another person he thinks capable.
For your third question: William of Orange was also only a luitenant general to the governor appointed by the staten generaal, the habsburger Matthias of Austria. After that governor had lost it's original purpose, the Staten Generaal appointed the brother of the French King, the duke of Anjou. William wasn't a viable choice, because the choices were diplomatic (Matthias to appease Filips Ii and Anjou to get French support).William supported even initiated these choices. He knew he was of too low birth and to insignificant to be considered.
 
For your second question: Allesandro Farnese was not the governor at the moment of the battle of Gembloux. He was only a luitenant general. The governor was at that time Don Juan, who died at the end of the same year and at his deathbed appointed Farnese as his succesor, later confirmed by the King himself. I don't think Philips Ii would appoint Farnesses son as governor(this is not a hereditary title), but would pick another person he thinks capable.
?
I did not claim Alessandro was the Governor at the time of the battle.
 
Top