The revolt of the Netherlands: Spain's failure to regain control of the Netherlands

Résumé du document

The rebellion of the Netherlands against ruling Spain was, in the end, a success leading to complete independence in 1648, with the Treaties of Den Haag and of Westphalia. All the Northern provinces of the "Spanish Netherlands" became fully independent, forming the United Provinces. A major European power such as Spain didn't succeed in its attempt to re-establish its supremacy on a small country, strongly divided by distinctive local identities, religion and several other trends. Why did Spain fail to regain full control of its possessions? Was it to weak to do it or was the rebellion movement too strong and deeply rooted to be stopped and annihilated? What were the main errors made by the Spaniards in their struggle for supremacy in the Low Countries? Did Spain have any chances to crush the rebellion?

Extraits

[...] The north and southern armies united in the ‘Pacification of Ghent" which suspended all religious issues until the moment that the Estates-General could reach a religious agreement. Three years later, the Union of Arras enhanced the power of Spain in the South as the catholic provinces of today Belgium created an alliance to protect Catholicism. This underlines the absence of unity of the Netherlands during the conflict. Rebellious leaders such as William of Orange understood this in a quite accurate way. [...]

[...] The first major fact that undermined Spain's possibilities of victory war was the King of Spain himself. Indeed, Philip II was really intransigent concerning his power in the Netherlands. According to the King, his power on the Low Countries had to be total and couldn't be restrained in any way. For that reason, he didn't seek any compromise with the Estates-General and its opponents. At the beginning of the conflict and even long after it, a compromise could have been reached, but Philip II only envisaged his power on the Low Countries as absolute. [...]

[...] Why did Spain fail to regain full control of its possessions? Was it to weak to do it or was the rebellion movement too strong and deeply rooted to be stopped and annihilated? What were the main errors made by the Spaniards in their struggle for supremacy in the Low Countries? Did Spain have any chances to crush the rebellion? My purpose here is not to describe the Dutch revolt and the Spanish setbacks to crush it. This would be a boring description and would be useless. [...]

[...] The last permanent problem was that the Netherlands were a rich and densely populated country. For that reason, the rebellion could easily provide of a lot of resources. This aspect was quite important in the Spanish defeat, as Spain lacked money during the conflict and even went bankrupt, even if it was of course richer than the Netherlands, as it had often to fight on several fronts and couldn't only focus on the Dutch revolt. II) External causes of the Spanish failure If it true those permanent weaknesses were important in the Spanish failure, they can't fully explain this major defeat. [...]

[...] The brother of the king of France was chosen - the Duke of Anjou. This was a logical appointment as France had always been an enemy of Spain and Anjou was a strong catholic'[4]. He could have been accepted by the North and the South as well. In 1581, thirteen provinces out of seventeen offered their allegiance to Anjou. Nevertheless, Anjou wanted to marginalize the Estates-General and to rule in an absolutist way. In January 1583, he marched to Antwerp to assert his authority but his attack was unsuccessful. [...]