How important were the Low Countries to the Spanish economy? How much better would the Spanish have fared (relating to their decline) if the Dutch revolt had been crushed?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Dutch were very important. Decline of Spain is connected to the raise of Netherlands.
I think second part of your question is not luckily put. IMO, Spain had no chances to subdue Netherlans because of strong economy of Low Lands, hostility of England and France. Even if they would be successfull in reconquering the area, both France and England would have united to throw them off. In fight against three strong countries Spain had no chance. Anyway this is what happened historically.
But had Spain agreed with Netherlands somehow it might have kept the land even against France and England. In that case no decline would happen since agreement with dutch would be possible only if Spain would be more open and innovative than she was.
I think second part of your question is not luckily put. IMO, Spain had no chances to subdue Netherlans because of strong economy of Low Lands, hostility of England and France. Even if they would be successfull in reconquering the area, both France and England would have united to throw them off. In fight against three strong countries Spain had no chance. Anyway this is what happened historically.
But had Spain agreed with Netherlands somehow it might have kept the land even against France and England. In that case no decline would happen since agreement with dutch would be possible only if Spain would be more open and innovative than she was.
In fact Spain did crush the first revolt in 1568, then it had little popular support and the mercenary troops of Willian of Orange were no match for the royal troops of the Duke of Alva. However, after 4 years of despotic ruling by Alva a new rebellion with lots of popular support did succeed.
The Low Countries were very imprtant to the Spanish economy, it was the market of Spanish wool, and the supplier for raw materials for ship building. As for the what if of an Spanish Low Countries, say that after Alva crushed first revolt another more conciliatory governor was sent, the consequences for the Sapnish military would have been very positive.
1) The Dutch revolt consumed from 1572 to 1609 2/3 of the Spanish goverment revenues every year, the public debt high rocketed costing more and more in interests every year and forcing 3 bankrupcies
2) The heavy cavalry of the Low Countries was an esential part of the Spanish armies, specially when facing French armies, all Spanish defeats in the field of battle up to Rocroi (1643) can be attributed to a dismal performance by the heavy cavalry units.
Antoher, more radical sceanrio could be as follow. In 1568 Phillip II was projecting to come back to the Low Countries (He had spent the first 3 years of his goverment in Brussels) at the time his kingdom wasn´t called the "Spanish Empire" but the "Monarchia", a name that comprised every territory, including not only Iberian, but Italian and "Burgundian", what about a Monarchia ruled from Brussles instead of from Madrid? a universal empire ruled from the heart of Europe...
The Low Countries were very imprtant to the Spanish economy, it was the market of Spanish wool, and the supplier for raw materials for ship building. As for the what if of an Spanish Low Countries, say that after Alva crushed first revolt another more conciliatory governor was sent, the consequences for the Sapnish military would have been very positive.
1) The Dutch revolt consumed from 1572 to 1609 2/3 of the Spanish goverment revenues every year, the public debt high rocketed costing more and more in interests every year and forcing 3 bankrupcies
2) The heavy cavalry of the Low Countries was an esential part of the Spanish armies, specially when facing French armies, all Spanish defeats in the field of battle up to Rocroi (1643) can be attributed to a dismal performance by the heavy cavalry units.
Antoher, more radical sceanrio could be as follow. In 1568 Phillip II was projecting to come back to the Low Countries (He had spent the first 3 years of his goverment in Brussels) at the time his kingdom wasn´t called the "Spanish Empire" but the "Monarchia", a name that comprised every territory, including not only Iberian, but Italian and "Burgundian", what about a Monarchia ruled from Brussles instead of from Madrid? a universal empire ruled from the heart of Europe...
I will split your question in two: How important were the low countries to Philip 2 and could he have held them?
On the first question. The impact on the Spanish economy was very slim, although there was enough trade going on. However the military significance like the above poster said was quite important, not only the cavalry, but also for strategy. France always had to face a two side front. Another point of importance for Philip was the border with Germany for hopes of gaining the imperial title (which failed btw). For the rest the Netherlands (especially current Belgium) were just a source of income for Philip, but not for Spain itself. However later on due to the rise of Holland it could have become its major economic base.
On the second question: I doubt Philip could have held the lands. There was a major conflict about how the government should work between the nobles and the civil servants (who were backed by the king) which started under Philip le Bon of Burgundy.
The nobles wanted to be responsible for the government and were needed for the military, while the king wanted a more centralised government run by administrators of his own choosing. Charles V could handle this tension due to the respect he got from the nobles, while Philip wasnt really liked by them. He couldnt speak french (the language of the nobles) very well let alone dutch. He didnt enjoy their favorite passtimes (like hunting and drinking) and he showed that he didnt trust them.
Furthermore one of his main policies was to restructure the clergy. This policy was really resented by the nobles. First of all to get a position a certain degree of learning in theology was needed. This meant that many nobles couldnt become abbot and stuff like that anymore, for which their families had delivered one for ages. Second it meant restructuring the bishoprics in the Netherlands with one archbishop. Also meant to curb their influence. The appointed archbishop on top of that was a servant of Philip (Granvelle) who wasnt of noble descent.
On top of that in the 1560 there was an economic decline causing food shortages and the persecution of protestants was resented.
The nobles at first tried to further their influence by "sneaky" means and letters of protest. But when the Netherlands started riotting and trashed many catholic churches, a complete revolt started as the nobles had to choose sides. The higher nobility (all of them were catholic) chose for the king, while some others chose to flee. The revolt was subdued by the nobles, but Philip swore revenge for the humiliation and sent the duke of Alva with the strict instruction to punish all involved.
He did so quite successfully, but made 3 strategic erros:
1 He instituted 2 major taxations (IMO this was the major mistake)
2 He executed 2 high nobles who were loyal to the king
3 He didnt take into account the renegade nobles and only concerned himself with William of Orange's armies.
William of Orange raised a couple of armies to invade the Netherlands, but all attempts failed, however through his alliance with the renegades ("guesen") he captured towns in Holland later on, which they held against the spanish.
However as I said the situation was already bad, so IMO he would have lost control anyhow and you might argue that at least he kept the south.
On the first question. The impact on the Spanish economy was very slim, although there was enough trade going on. However the military significance like the above poster said was quite important, not only the cavalry, but also for strategy. France always had to face a two side front. Another point of importance for Philip was the border with Germany for hopes of gaining the imperial title (which failed btw). For the rest the Netherlands (especially current Belgium) were just a source of income for Philip, but not for Spain itself. However later on due to the rise of Holland it could have become its major economic base.
On the second question: I doubt Philip could have held the lands. There was a major conflict about how the government should work between the nobles and the civil servants (who were backed by the king) which started under Philip le Bon of Burgundy.
The nobles wanted to be responsible for the government and were needed for the military, while the king wanted a more centralised government run by administrators of his own choosing. Charles V could handle this tension due to the respect he got from the nobles, while Philip wasnt really liked by them. He couldnt speak french (the language of the nobles) very well let alone dutch. He didnt enjoy their favorite passtimes (like hunting and drinking) and he showed that he didnt trust them.
Furthermore one of his main policies was to restructure the clergy. This policy was really resented by the nobles. First of all to get a position a certain degree of learning in theology was needed. This meant that many nobles couldnt become abbot and stuff like that anymore, for which their families had delivered one for ages. Second it meant restructuring the bishoprics in the Netherlands with one archbishop. Also meant to curb their influence. The appointed archbishop on top of that was a servant of Philip (Granvelle) who wasnt of noble descent.
On top of that in the 1560 there was an economic decline causing food shortages and the persecution of protestants was resented.
The nobles at first tried to further their influence by "sneaky" means and letters of protest. But when the Netherlands started riotting and trashed many catholic churches, a complete revolt started as the nobles had to choose sides. The higher nobility (all of them were catholic) chose for the king, while some others chose to flee. The revolt was subdued by the nobles, but Philip swore revenge for the humiliation and sent the duke of Alva with the strict instruction to punish all involved.
He did so quite successfully, but made 3 strategic erros:
1 He instituted 2 major taxations (IMO this was the major mistake)
2 He executed 2 high nobles who were loyal to the king
3 He didnt take into account the renegade nobles and only concerned himself with William of Orange's armies.
William of Orange raised a couple of armies to invade the Netherlands, but all attempts failed, however through his alliance with the renegades ("guesen") he captured towns in Holland later on, which they held against the spanish.
However as I said the situation was already bad, so IMO he would have lost control anyhow and you might argue that at least he kept the south.
I agree with most of what mullender said.
In the economics side, the Low Countries were not very important for spanish economy, they were the markets for castilian wool but this trade did continue after dutch independence, on the strategic side however, they were crucial as they kept France surrounded and Paris within easy reach of spanish tercios.
I think the wisest decision would have been to give independence to them under a habsburg prince but this solution was not possible since the conflict was not only nationalistic but also religious and to give in to heresy was unthinkable for Spain.
And a last thing, the dutch war is generally considered as a spanish defeat, I don´t think it was so, it was a tie because we kept Flanders and the southern part of the kingdom (of course we ruined ourselves doing it, but....
)
In the economics side, the Low Countries were not very important for spanish economy, they were the markets for castilian wool but this trade did continue after dutch independence, on the strategic side however, they were crucial as they kept France surrounded and Paris within easy reach of spanish tercios.
I think the wisest decision would have been to give independence to them under a habsburg prince but this solution was not possible since the conflict was not only nationalistic but also religious and to give in to heresy was unthinkable for Spain.
And a last thing, the dutch war is generally considered as a spanish defeat, I don´t think it was so, it was a tie because we kept Flanders and the southern part of the kingdom (of course we ruined ourselves doing it, but....
)
The most obvious significance the Dutch had on the Spanish economy was in the ruinous expense the Spanish went to in trying to suppress the revolt.
Philip II of Spain tried to impose an Early Modern system of government (rationalized using a bureaucracy) and a Medieval system of religion on an area uniquely suited to Medieval government (due to wildly varying languages, traditions, and terrain divisions) and an Early Modern system of religion (due to a large merchant class, heavily urbanized culture, a heavily traveled population due to dependence on fishing and seaborne trade). Philip II never understood his Dutch subject, and they never understood him.
That doesn't mean suppressing the revolt was inevitable. Philip II was unlucky in that the English supporters of the revolt included gifted leaders like Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake. Had Philip had less spirited opposition to the Armada, England could have easily been disabled as a Spanish opponent, and Spanish control of the seas around the Low Countries would have doomed the Dutch, who were heavily dependent on grain imports.
Philip's religious bigotry (completely in tune with the times) and inability to use any personal diplomacy and graceful concessions inspired the Dutch to fanatical resistance. A more gifted monarch could have defused the revolt. Interestingly, Philip II was very sensitive to the different traditions of the various regions of Iberia (Aragon, Portugal, Catalonia, etc.) and did an excellent job of keeping the nobility and the locals reasonably content.
Had the revolt been suppressed, the retention of the Dutch provinces would have been a great boon to Spain. Antwerp would have kept its status as the greatest port in Europe, and the availabily of Dutch manpower and shipping would have made Spain the premier naval power in the Atlantic.
Philip II of Spain tried to impose an Early Modern system of government (rationalized using a bureaucracy) and a Medieval system of religion on an area uniquely suited to Medieval government (due to wildly varying languages, traditions, and terrain divisions) and an Early Modern system of religion (due to a large merchant class, heavily urbanized culture, a heavily traveled population due to dependence on fishing and seaborne trade). Philip II never understood his Dutch subject, and they never understood him.
That doesn't mean suppressing the revolt was inevitable. Philip II was unlucky in that the English supporters of the revolt included gifted leaders like Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake. Had Philip had less spirited opposition to the Armada, England could have easily been disabled as a Spanish opponent, and Spanish control of the seas around the Low Countries would have doomed the Dutch, who were heavily dependent on grain imports.
Philip's religious bigotry (completely in tune with the times) and inability to use any personal diplomacy and graceful concessions inspired the Dutch to fanatical resistance. A more gifted monarch could have defused the revolt. Interestingly, Philip II was very sensitive to the different traditions of the various regions of Iberia (Aragon, Portugal, Catalonia, etc.) and did an excellent job of keeping the nobility and the locals reasonably content.
Had the revolt been suppressed, the retention of the Dutch provinces would have been a great boon to Spain. Antwerp would have kept its status as the greatest port in Europe, and the availabily of Dutch manpower and shipping would have made Spain the premier naval power in the Atlantic.
The importance of the Low Countries for the sea strategy of Spain can´t be stressed enough, Spanish shipyards badly needed the raw supplies sold in the Low Countries, besides, any project of an England invasion would have been much more easy using the ports of the Low Countries.
Do you really think that the english help was so important for the dutch? I think that england was only an irritant, at least militarily and that the dutch won their war alone.
That´s because you don´t take into account the religious side of the conflict, Felipe II handled well the anexion of Portugal and the sensibilities of other regions because there was no threat of heresy. If the revolt of the Low Countries had been about nationalism or noble power it would had been well handled but, as it was also about religion Felipe II couldn´t negotiate, the consertavion of catolicism was of paramount importance to him, he once said that he preferred to lose all his kingdoms than to give up his defense of religion.
England was very helpful just because of blockade of La Manche. Spain had to think about pssible invasion of Elisabeth and decided to sent Armada. Money put in that might have been used in Netherland instead. England all the time supported Dutch rebels what was very important in 1580's when Phillipe was so close to subdue Netherlands .
I think that there was another factor in decline of Spanish economy during the war. Dutch served as a trade agents throughout the Spanish empire and were so important in cash and goods flow that even in 17th cen. Dutch had the right for business journeys inside Iberian Peninsula (no other merchants were allowed). There was mutual economic agreement between different parts of the Empire (whio wasn't exactly Spanish one at the beggining of 16th cen) that ws broken later in a pity of Spain who lost definitely more than Netherlands.
Englands help was useful, but not really of major importance. England supported the rebels, but always in a sly and ineffective way. Analogue to the way several countries supported Iraq and/or Iran during their war.
There were three moments in which Englands role was crucial:
1 Elisabeth decided that the "geuse" (kinda kapers with letters of William of Orange) ships werent allowed in english harbours anymore to avoid conflict with Spain. The result was that the geuse fleet invaded Holland and captured several towns, initiating the succes of the revolt.
2 The Armada made the duke of Parma stop his succesful campaign in Brabant, giving the dutch the time needed for relief.
3 After William of Orange was assassinated we got the duke of Leicester as viceroy (dont know the proper word at the moment). In one year he made to many enemies and was kicked out.
BtW like someone else also stated the war had very little effect on trade with Spain. The dutch for example traded weapons with Spain and the souther provinces (still loyal to Spain) during the whole war. One of the reasons the duke of Leicester got kicked out was that he wanted to abolish the weapon trade with Spain.
From Low Countries to the Spain and viceversa
And Spain bought ships to Nederlands in the 1600, when the forests were in Spain.
And Liege had the Curtius, experts in weapons, which sales were to both sides (later one brother Curtius went to Madrid, with another flemish-wallons: Loewe(furs), Van der Goten (gobelins), Stuyck(idem), Sibert (glass), Scheppers(pottery), Jean Vallin(clocks), Jennin Cocquart, Hans de Evalo, Claudio Gribelín, Hans Fent ,Fernando van Ceulen (idem), ...
And Spain bought ships to Nederlands in the 1600, when the forests were in Spain.
And Liege had the Curtius, experts in weapons, which sales were to both sides (later one brother Curtius went to Madrid, with another flemish-wallons: Loewe(furs), Van der Goten (gobelins), Stuyck(idem), Sibert (glass), Scheppers(pottery), Jean Vallin(clocks), Jennin Cocquart, Hans de Evalo, Claudio Gribelín, Hans Fent ,Fernando van Ceulen (idem), ...
I agree. I wanted to underline that hostile England was a big obstacle for Spain to reconquer Netherlands. Elisabeth would give more money had she realised that Dutch were in bad shape. Spain always had to take into consideration that England may join the war. Direct help was indeed not a great effort. But let's see what would be the situation if Felipe would use english harbors.
I would even say that Dutch trade flourished while at war in Spain but it was a one-way profit. Netherlands were becoming richer while Spain was becoming poorer in exchange. And the income of Dutchmen was not returned as the taxes to the treasury of the empire like earlier.
But that only goes after the first part of the war in the 1590's, 1600's, before that the rebelling provinces werent doing good economically (especially the previous rich regions in the south like Flanders were doing bad due to famines, battles, taxes and armies running around the countryside.). But the tax thing is definately true as every penny taxed in the Netherlands was either going to the spanish army or the rebels.
[edit] Just forgot that Philip tried to stop dutch trade by capturing all vessels in his ports (around 1600), this had a devestating effect on Spanish economy (as the dutch traded baltic products and food to the spanish), so he had to reverse the decision. So the impact of Holland on Spain's economy before the war was smaller than during.
THe Low Countries were important to the Economies of the Iberian peninsula because Antwerpen was the financial centre of the Atlantic economic system in the early 16th Century. But it was more important to the Portuguese than to the Spanish. The Portugueses expansion was in fact financed from Antwerpen.
The real economic significance of the Low Countries to Spain was of course that after the revolt they became an unending drain.
The real economic significance of the Low Countries to Spain was of course that after the revolt they became an unending drain.