sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dutch Revolt, Fall of Antwerp

Netherlands Revolt DBQ WHUM

DOCUMENT A

Spanish Rule in the under Philip II Author(s): M. Constance, Sr. Source: The Catholic Historical Review , Vol. 14, No. 3 (Oct., 1928), pp. 365-422 Published by: Catholic University of America Press

Unfortunately, the new ruler had not inherited any of the statesmanship of his father. "Philip was bounded and isolated by mental limitations as irremovable as the Pyrenees, which shut in his native land. As King of alone, having only local problems to deal with, modest, cautious, painstaking and just, he might have been a happy and successful even a great monarch, but as leader of the conservative forces of Christendom, he was in a position for which his gifts unfitted him” (Hume, Philip of Spain 4). He failed to see the Netherlands in their political relations to other European countries. In his first great purpose of extirpating heresy at any cost, he did not take into consideration the forces that were working against him. "Religious unity had been entirely destroyed in the northern and western countries of . The Scandinavian States were wholly Lutheran. Protestant princes held power over the greater part of Northern . Even in the hereditary states of the House Austria, the emperors found their authority enfeebled by a nobility deeply infected by heresy” ( The Month , XXXVI, 1879 205). (390)

England and Germany gave material aid to the heresies of the . Elizabeth saw that to aid the heretics against the defender of (390) Christendom was the surest way to establish supremacy on the sea. The power of the Turk was another obstacle to Philip's success in his struggle with heresy. The one ally he had could not be depended upon, for the old enmities still existed between France and Spain. To conquer Philip II, then, was to bring about the downfall of Catholicism and the temporal power of the Church. And when that was accomplished, the greatness of the Spanish monarchy was at an end. The Netherlands, being the weakest part of the Spanish possessions in Europe, was the most vulnerable point of attack. (391)

The country was already infected by heresy. Its geographical position favored the spread of false doctrine. To a people ready for revolt against their prince, the restrictions imposed by him to prevent further infection were regarded as contrary to their liberties. There were leaders in the provinces shrewd enough to see the use they could make of the religious question to gain their own ends in political affairs. Neither Philip nor his father handled the question of heresy skillfully. Their measures served only to aggravate it; and Philip's policy in the Netherlands brought matters to a crisis. (391)

It was evident from the beginning of his reign that there was no sympathy between Philip and his new subjects. Even at the time of his first visit to the Netherlands he had not made a favorable impression on the people. He was never at home except in the company of his Spanish courtiers, who were so different from the Flemish nobility. Charles V had repeatedly warned his son that the counsels of these flatterers would one day cost him the Low Countries. Philip's haughtiness and reserve were in marked contrast to the free and easy manner of his father, who was before all things a Fleming. Charles V was at home in the Netherlands. He spent his happiest days there. Philip II was a foreigner, and could not leave the Netherlands soon enough. Charles consulted the Estates-General, and discussed with them the interests of the people. He respected, to some extent at least, their ancient privileges. Philip's last injunction to his sister, the Regent, was on no account to call a meeting of the National Legislature until he should return to the country. The Netherlands henceforth would be ruled by a foreigner and his council, residing in a foreign country, facts (391) which were sufficient proof that the ancient charters of liberty, so highly prized by the people of the Netherlands, were not even considered by Philip II. (392)

He failed to take into account the difference in character in his northern and southern subjects. Spain was an isolated country. The Netherlands were in the very heart of continental Europe. The history of the people of the Low Countries had been one long struggle for autonomy. Despite the repeated attacks on their liberties, they never gave up the struggle for self- government. Both nobles and common classes tried to maintain their privileges. (392)

If Philip II was King of Spain, he was not King of the Netherlands. He was only duke, count or lord of the various provinces. But he determined to rule his new subjects as he ruled the Spaniards, with an absolute sway, and by the same absolute means. His first interview with the Estates-General, which he convoked for the purpose of introducing the new Regent, , should have convinced him that this could not be done. The difference in character of the two nations must have been brought home to him when his subsidies were refused, unless he withdraw the Spanish forces from the Netherlands. "The royal ear had been little used to this strain of invective from the subject. For it was rare that the tone of remonstrance was heard in the halls of Castilian legislation." (392)

Philip II gave his Regent minute instructions regarding the government of the provinces. Having a mind for microscopic detail, very little was forgotten. His limitations to her jurisdiction show that he himself intended to rule the Netherlands (392) from his court in Spain. (393)

The revolt in the Netherlands, then, is in the first place, a political struggle between a free people and a ruler who would have unlimited power. For "It is not to be doubted but the liberty which people have long enjoyed, if it be intrenched upon or invaded, will cause insurrection. Nor is it unknown that the government of the Low Countries came very near the form of free cities, by the indulgence of their princes, who had made them by many and liberal charters, though not absolutely free States, yet more than common subjects." (393)

And these "more than common subjects," during the reign of Philip II served the purposes of a discontented nobility in the Netherlands. The ambitions of the noble aristocracy were thwarted under the ruling hand of a Spanish monarch; and both Spaniards and monarchs were odious to the nobility in the Netherlands. The nobles conspired with the Commons against their prince, not that the interests of the common classes might thereby be promoted, but that the private interests of the nobility might be secured. Many, among the poorer classes, were through ignorance, led astray by the heretics, who warned them that the King's aim was to destroy their liberties. All then joined forces to resist lawful authority. It was a nobleman, William of Orange, who prompted the people of the Netherlands not to suffer the remainder of the Spanish soldiery in the Netherlands. The subjections to the new bishoprics came likewise from the lords, who "were aggrieved that bishops should come in place of abbots, because being a degree higher, they would be far more potent, and therefore it would not only derogate from the lords temporal, but also from their liberty. Nor should they dare to speak freely in the great Council of Estates when those men were present." The nobles spread among the people rumors of the introduction into the Low Countries of the Spanish (393) Inquisition. The Common classes were aroused to opposition to the edicts of Philip II, and these, the very laws sanctioned by the Estates-General in the days of Charles V. Heresy could never have made such progress in the Low Countries had it not been for the assistance and protection of the nobility. Private hatred between the Spanish lords and the nobility of the Netherlands soon grew into open enmity and finally brought about the public ruin. (394)

In the beginning of Charles V's reign, the nobility of the Netherlands governed. They had the first places at court; the highest commands in the army were theirs; many of them were held in special favor by the emperor. They were satisfied as long as this policy was continued. But when Philip II came to rule, there was a decided change in favor of the Spanish nobility. The nobles of the Netherlands thought the king was indebted to them for their valiant services during the wars with France. They were not pleased with the places bestowed on them by the new ruler. They complained that the Spaniards had all the power with the king; that all important business concerning the government of the Netherlands was transacted with Alva, Ruy Gomez, and Count Feria, Philip's only cabinet councillors; that the Netherland nobles were admitted to the Council-Board to pass measures already concluded by the Spanish Council. This was not in keeping with the Emperor's promise of his son's bounty, nor what was due to their fidelity and service. To have foreigners in control of their affairs, and to be considered inferior to the Spaniards was beyond the endurance of the Netherland nobles. To rid themselves of this tyranny was their first object rather than the triumph of heresy, which ultimately accomplished that end. (394)

The heretics turned this state of affairs to their own account in the Low Countries. Money was needed by the impoverished nobles who found it difficult to maintain themselves on an equal footing with the wealthy Spanish lords. The heretical leaders promised money in abundance, especially to the governors of the provinces in order that they might avoid banishment or execution. Thus the nobility sacrificed the public good for their own private interests. The Duchess of Parma was then deprived of the loyalty of those who should have been her support. Her (394) cabinet council, as organized by Philip II, was of the true Spanish type, at least in its methods of procedure. It was dominated by the influence of Cardinal Granvelle. (395)

DOCUMENT B

Spain, Her Enemies and the Revolt of the Netherlands 1559-1648 Author(s): Geoffrey Parker Source: Past and Present , No. 49 (Nov., 1970), pp. 72-95 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society

Habsburg Spain was, in the sixteenth century, unquestionably the most powerful state in western Europe. The revenues, dominions and armies of the king of Spain were by far the largest of any European potentate. Yet the very dimensions and daunting resources of the empire excited enmity. Spain's three imperial holdings in Europe the Low Countries, much of Italy and finally Portugal brought her sooner or later into open conflict with three other powers: , France and the Ottoman Sultan. (73)

It is now a commonplace that the salient feature of the in Europe after 1559 was the total dependence political, military, financial - of all the component territories upon Castile. The wars of the 1550s had run the governments of Naples, Sicily, Milan and the Netherlands deep into debt. In the Low Countries, the state debt which in 1550 stood at a manageable 500,000 florins, rose steadily until in 1565 it reached a peak of 10,000,000 florins. The cost of paying interest on this debt and of financing the ordinary administration amounted to considerably more than the combined state revenues: the peace-time deficit on the current account amounted to 500,000 florins annually. (75)

In fact the budget of the Netherlands government after 1559 could only be balanced if the king consented to send special additional funds for that purpose from Spain. In this way, between 1561 and 1567, 2,854,846 (about 5 7 million florins) were sent from Spain to the Netherlands a quarter of it in 1567 to prepare for the duke of Alva. This total, although far from negligible, was not enough to offset the deficit and provide the government in with the funds necessary to preserve law and order. Between 1551 and 1556, by contrast, Spain sent 22,000,000 florins to the Netherlands in order to finance the war against France. Why could it not repeat the effort in the 1560s to forestall the deepening civil crisis? (76)

With the Ottoman fleet defeated and back in Constantinople, Philip II supervised with infinite care the drafting of the "Letters from the Segovia Woods" of 17 and 20 October 1565. He reaffirmed his support for the Inquisition and the "New Bishoprics"; he appointed only one new member to the Council of State, and at that he named the duke of Aerschot, a man known to be the personal enemy of Orange and Egmont; and he claimed that further time was required before a decision could be reached about the subordination of the Collateral Councils to the Council of State. He thus rebuffed the opposition on every point.

The king knew that his decisions would not be popular, but he can hardly have anticipated the amazing tempest which they provoked. (80)

DOCUMENT C

The Revolutionary Character of the Revolt of the Netherlands Author(s): Gordon Griffiths Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History , Vol. 2, No. 4 (Jul., 1960), pp. 452-472 Published by: Cambridge University Press

Rebels, who were called Beggars (Gueux), landed on the coast of and seized the town of The Brill on April 1. Thence they extended their sway over most of the towns of the two provinces within the space of a few months. Rebels gained temporary possession of towns in other provinces in the northwest and south, but the only permanent gains were in Holland and Zealand, and here the changes which were effected were carried out for the most part before the end of 1573. The movement, or "rising"-what the Dutch call the opstand - was described by Motley as a spontaneous rising of the whole people to liberate themselves from Spanish tyranny. The emphasis was placed on the foreign character of the enemy, with little hint that any antagonism among Netherlanders was involved. Catholicism was replaced by , but only in recognition of the attachment of the overwhelming majority to the true reformed religion. (455)

Within a short period after the conquest of each town, the church service was "reformed," and the old Catholic service forbidden. This happened despite the solemn promise of the Beggars to respect the , often exacted of them as a condition of the town's capitulation. In religion, then, change was complete, sudden, illegal and imposed by a minority upon the majority. (457)

DOCUMENT D

Family Allegiance and Religious Persuasion: The Lesser Nobility and the Revolt of the Netherlands Author(s): Sherrin Marshall Wyntjes Source: The Sixteenth Century Journal , Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer, 1981), pp. 43-60 Published by: The Sixteenth Century Journal

Finally, all of the witnesses who would later testify at de Wael’s trial could identify him only as a good Catholic, albeit one who went infrequently to church. He was violently opposed to the iconoclastic outbursts and raiding of convents. He had not originally intended to sign the Compromise, he said later, but had “partaken of drink” and signed after all. Although he was not a Protestant, much less Reformed, he listened to preachings outside of . Although he was not an iconoclast, he was present at several of the episodes in Utrecht. Although he disapproved of many of the actions of the Confederated nobles, they were his peers and drinking associates. Guilt by association, linked with the desire of the Crown to lay hands on his lucrative estate, brought about his death sentence and subsequent execution. (44)

In 1566, for many of the 186 men listed here, goals of family allegiance and religious persuasion were in accord. This is true whether the noblemen were Catholics who hated the foreign monarch or passionately committed (albeit frequently unsophisticated) protestants. Their acknowledged place in the system was being called into question, and their response was based on their local and familial interests. Only when they could recognize that their interests necessitated broader views and policies would the Revolt succeed. (52)

DOCUMENT E

Cities and Statemaking in the Dutch , 1580-1680 Author(s): Marjolein 'T Hart Source: Theory and Society , Vol. 18, No. 5, Special Issue on Cities and States in Europe, 1000- 1800 (Sep., 1989), pp. 663-687 Published by: Springer

Table 1. Approximate number of inhabitants of eight major cities.

City 1514 1622 1675 1795 13,500 104,900 200,000 217,000 14,300 44,800 65,000 31,000 Haarlem 13,500 39,500 37,000 21,200 5,200 19,500 45,000 53,200 11,700 22,800 22,500 13,700 5,500 15,800 22,500 38,400 10,900 18,300 22,500 18,000 Gouda 14,200 14,600 17,500 11,700

The sixteenth century was a period of rapid growth. It would take a couple of decades however, before the "north" had taken the position of the "south" or before an immigrant from would say: "Hier is Antwerpen selve in Amsterdam verandert." Despite considerable capitalist development, financial difficulties were great. Leiden remained in a state of for almost the whole century, while the financial burden for Delft was extremely large. The "renten," loans, that were issued by Holland during 1515-1534 were subscribed in a much larger amount outside the province. Characteristic for Holland was, however, what Tracy called the "financial revolution": After 1553 the character of the renten issue changed, the last remnants of a forced character disappeared and the revenue of provincial came to be administered by the province itself. As a result, a wide range of small rentiers developed in the Holland cities."' Financial revolution or not, the period of 1570 to 1590 was dominated by a general shortage of money in the north. The newborn state started out with a near bankruptcy: in 1581 it had to ask for a suspension of payments. Many thought that after the - regarded as the center of the revolt - the northern provinces could not hold out on their own. (666)

Although Amsterdam was probably not much larger than Leiden and Haarlem, it was the city with the largest capital resources and the strongest credit base, drawing much profit from the Baltic trade. Its financial resources were already extensive in the first half of the sixteenth century, which was reflected in the fact that Amsterdam issued renten independently of the five other great cities.' (667)

DOCUMENT F

The : What Kind of Revolution? Author(s): Herbert H. Rowen Source: Renaissance Quarterly , Vol. 43, No. 3 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 570-590 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America

Before I move on to analysis of its putative revolutionary content, it may be wise, in view of the limited knowledge of the Dutch Revolt, to sketch rapidly its course. Its setting was distinctive, the delta formed by the confluence of three rivers, the Rhine, Maas or Meuse, and . Here trade and shipping, industry and agriculture all developed in mutual encouragement to the highest level in Northern Europe. The Low Countries were a geographical entity, but that unity was only incompletely matched by the country’s political structure. The political unity given the region by its Burgundian and Hapsburg rulers from the late fourteenth century was limited; it extended beyond personal union only to the establishment of a handful of central institutions, the States General and the Collateral Councils. The provinces, all fixed upon their particular interests, found themselves serving the policy of a dynasty that ruled round the world. After the abdication of -born Charles V in 1555, his son, Philip II, reigned in the Low Countries, not, however, as king of Spain but as duke, count, or lord in each of the provinces. (571)

Even though the Low Countries played the key role, militarily and financially, bringing the long Hapsburg war against France to a triumphant close in 1559, it seemed to the Netherlanders that the benefits went to Spain while the burdens were left to them. During the half-dozen tears that followed, tension increased between them and their ruler who had returned to his native Spain. Philip obtained from the pope an ecclesiastical reorganization of the Low Countries which not only took the new bishoprics out of the jurisdiction of the French and German archbishops but placed them (571) under his aegis, rather than, as before, under that of the high nobility. Furthermore, he insisted upon rigorous rooting out of the heresies – Lutheran, Anabaptist, but most of all Calvinist – that flourished in the land. These measures offended the sensibilities of many of the nobility, whose Erasmian upbringing inclined them, if not quite to toleration, at least to mildness in matters of faith. Worse by far for the high nobility, however, was the king’s refusal to govern with them and through them, as his predecessors had done. That his half- sister, Margaret of Parma, served as his governor-general in Brussels was in accord with the practice of half a century that gave the country a regent of the ruler’s own blood. That she was also given a foreigner – the Franc-Comtois Granvelle – as her chief minister, who made policy for her without the participation of the magnates in the Council of State, was an insult and a threat to which they responded by refusing to participate in its work. Their strike was no idle gesture: provincial government was in their hands as stadholders, and most of the armed forces were under their immediate command. It was they who had to persuade the ever- reluctant provincial States to grant funds to the king’s government. Philip withdrew Granvelle to appease the magnates, but in 1565 adamantly refused to modify his religious policies as they beseeched him to do, or to convene the States General, as both magnates and Margaret urged. (572)

DOCUMENT G

"The Dutch Revolt Anatomized". Some Comments Author(s): I. Schoffer Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History , Vol. 3, No. 4 (Jul., 1961), pp. 470-477 Published by: Cambridge University Press

The Breaking of the Images is interesting, too, from another point of view: the vital role played by the masses. In 1938 Brinton wrote: "The masses do not make revolutions." Since then, Marxist and Marxist-inspired historians have done a great deal to give a different picture, and their thorough research and careful generalisations seem convincing. Masses made revolutions, they had their own wishes and ideas, they could drive the moderates to action or hasty retreat, and often they had a radical influence on the form of the revolution. Of course these masses needed a smaller group of more conscious and more articulate leaders. Those leaders would inspire the masses with zeal and devotion, channel their still unformed feelings of resentment and wrath towards some definite goal, and even during major actions of violence restrain the mob from indisciplined plunder and pillaging. The leaders came mostly from the lower middle-classes, craftsmen, small shopkeepers, the lesser clergy, Catholic or Protestant. These were economically better off, better educated perhaps, or at any rate somewhat more used to thinking in the abstract than their followers. Dissatisfaction and unrest were endemic in pre-revolutionary Europe. A great proportion of the population, in the cities and on the land, lived constantly on the verge of famine. An interruption of food supply, a failure of crops or a disturbance by war could make such an endemic situation an epidemic one. Any minor event was sufficient to hit hard, and speculation could drive prices to a height not justified by the situation of food stocks or supplies. In such circumstances riots and violence were the order of the day. When these riots coincided with political or ideological troubles, and when more articulate and conscious leaders could be found, such revolts became more general and could turn into revolution. (472)

The year 1566 was a year of famine and poverty in the Netherlands; the closing of the Sound had caused an abnormally high rise in corn prices. (473)

The Breaking of the Images showed the same pattern as many other mob actions. The action was inspired by secret Calvinist consistories, in which craftsmen and members probably played a major part. Convinced Calvinists, preachers mostly, became the leaders. The was well-disciplined – plundering was not allowed, and this restriction had some success in practice. The churches were robbed of all their ornaments and relics in a systematic way. In the Northern provinces some noblemen (e.g. Brederode) and the magistrates of the cities "purged" the churches on their own initiative to forestall mob action. It was an impressive demonstration of a fairly general feeling of wrath and hate against the old Church, not because all those who participated were convinced Calvinists but because they wanted to "clean" the Church of its vices of luxury, pomp and parasitism. Puritanism in the wider sense of the word was typical of such an initial revolutionary movement. (473)

There were more important considerations than Calvinistic religious zeal. The incidents in Vlissingen illustrate that initial support came even from Catholics. Discontent about the decline of trade under the scourge of the Seabeggars, dismay about the billetting of Spanish troops in the cities, and suspicion of Alba's taxation manoeuvres, played their parts, while local resentment against those in the cities who held power must have been rampant. (474)

DOCUMENT H

From King and Country to King or Country? Loyalty and Treason in the Revolt of the Netherlands Author(s): Alastair Duke Source: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Fifth Series, Vol. 32 (1982), pp. 113-135 Published by: Royal Historical Society

Philip was duly recognized in 1555 as duke of Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg and Gelre, count of , , Hainaut, Holland, and Namur and as lord of , Mechelen, Utrecht, and . The precise nature of this bond was defined by chartered privileges which the prince swore to observe when he made his state entry. It was the duty of the provincial states to resist any breach of these privileges. In Friesland and Gelre, which as latecomers to the were especially sensitive about their privileges, (113) the states appointed standing committees to watch over these. (114)

Charles had paid them [the provincial states] the compliment of sending as governors-general members of his family, whose modest households compensated in some degree for the long absences of the far more splendid imperial court. Those present at the ceremony in Brussels on 25 October 1555, when Charles V renounced his overlordship of the hereditary Netherlands in favour of Philip, could have been in no doubt about the affection of the nobles for their prince. (115)

It was precisely the Spanish character of the ruling dynasty after 1555 that the nobility of the Low Countries found hardest to stomach. According to the relation of a Venetian ambassador in 1557, the native nobility took a strong dislike to Philip because he preferred the Spanish way of life and took counsel only from Spaniards. (121)

DOCUMENT I

Bruegel and the Revolt of the Netherlands Author(s): Irving L. Zupnick Source: Art Journal , Vol. 23, No. 4 (Summer, 1964), pp. 283-289 Published by: College Art Association

The political events between 1559 and 1564 were of the sort to stir up any Netherlander. In 1559 Spain and France ended their stale-mated war on the excuse that it was necessary to stamp out heresy in both kingdoms. As an aftermath of the war, Philip II, in order not to jeopardize his subsidy from the colonies, agreed to insistent demands from the Netherlanders and withdrew the as he returned to Spain. He appointed his half-sister, Margaret, Duchess of Parma, as Governess of the Netherlands, giving her the job of persecuting the heretics. In many respects she was only the figure-head of Spanish oppression, since, in reality, the government was ruled by Granvelle's Council of State, which carried out the orders sent by Philip II. (283)

The situation took a turn for the worse in 1559, when Philip II, in order to strengthen his hand against religious dissidence, formed seventeen new bishoprics, appointing the new officials personally. This alienated both the nobility and the incumbent abbots; the former lost their usual sinecures, and the latter lost the wealthier posts and were relegated to a secondary position behind these politically powerful "new men." What is more significant is, that with this move, the Spanish Crown had united State and Church in the role of oppressors, also uniting those who fought for political, with those who fought for religious, freedom. Granvelle personally became symbolic of this unholy union, as head of the Council (283) of State, as Cardinal and Primate of the Netherlands, and as Chief Inquisitor; so that it was necessary for Philip II to recall him to Spain in 1564 in order to mollify the Netherlanders. (284)

During the period from 1559 to 1564, the Spanish Regent, Margaret, tried to steer a moderate course in spite of Philip II's reiterated demands for action. Her indecision and inaction encouraged mounting unity and strength among the dissidents. During the next three years, however, the pace increased; there were offensive, and counter-offensive moves, which ended this phase of the resistance in the defeat of the rebels. In 1565 and 1566, concessions were wrung from Margaret by a league of nobles who proudly took the name, "The Beggars." As 1566 drew to a close, Margaret began to exploit a religious rift among the nobles, and during the next year she crushed the Protestant forces in battle while the Catholics remained neutral. Finally, in 1567 the Spanish army returned to the Netherlands under the Duke of Alva, who was commissioned to institute a rigorous program against heresy and political unrest. (284)