To what extent was Spain’s financial weakness the main reason for the success of the Dutch revolt?

Traditionally revolts correlated with the seasons but the Dutch Revolt resulted not from famine but from the want for religious and political freedom which Philip would not allow. Philip refused to let Protestantism survive in his territory, he envisioned himself as the last Catholic crusader in a Europe falling to the Protestant domino effect, however, suppression became unattainable igniting the revolt. This revolt by the United Provinces was then successful, this is the case because of Philip II alienation and lack of respect for the nobility, Philip not taking advantage of the revolts weaknesses and lastly Spain’s lack of funds for her armies fighting the revolt. I am going to argue in this essay that Spain’s financial weakness was not the main reason for the success of the revolt. Further to that in this essay I would argue that the main reason was Philip II’s poor leadership.

Firstly, one could argue that the main reason for the success of the Dutch revolt was because of Spain’s lack of money. Revolts are extremely expensive things to deal with when they are militarised. Philip, decided to turn to the military to solve the problem very quickly in the case of the Dutch revolt. This meant he spent a huge amount of money on the military effort because it went on for so long (some call it the Eighty Years War). This lack of finance in turn led to serious problems for Philip. One of these problems being the Sack of Antwerp. The principal cause of the sack was the delay in payment due to the soldiers by Philip II. Spain had recently declared bankruptcy, and 400,000 florins intended as payment to the troops were seized by the government of Elizabeth I when ships containing the florins sought shelter from a storm in English ports. The Spanish soldiers, angry at fighting without rest or pay against the Dutch rebels, had already sacked Zierikzee and Aalst, causing the fifteen loyal provinces (Holland and Zeeland were in the hands of the rebels) to come together in States-General with the purpose of removing the mercenaries from the Netherlands. This was directly caused by the Spanish soldiers deciding to find for themselves their belated pay, by looting Antwerp. Therefore one could argue the lack of Spanish funds was one of the main reasons as to why the revolt was successful as it united the provinces against the Spaniard mercenaries.

However, one could also argue that the problem was not the lack of money it was in actual fact more deep rooted than that. If Philip had not been so brash and had thought through exactly what he was doing he could have dealt with the situation in a very different way. My point here is that if Philip had, had the leadership skills in the first place to restrain himself from resorting to the military, money wouldn't have been a huge problem for him. Instead of using the military at great expense, Philip should have used propaganda to subdue cities and listened and respected what the Netherlanders wanted. This lack of leadership skills led to the lack of money and therefore led to the revolt succeeding.

Secondly, although united the rebels for a long time lacked a secure command structure. Historically and geographically different provinces had been ruled by different rulers and had never been united before and often different leaders were indecisive and lacked control over their armies and providences. Philip failed to attack this as the 'Dutch virtually had no independent funds for war...[they had to] obtain the willing support of all cities and providences'. Through propaganda or kindness Philip could have subdued important cities and providences and defeated the Dutch rebels without taking to the battlefield. William of Orange did not address this issue until around the 1580's, the chance for Philip to end the revolt soon passed. No doubt this was an opportunity missed, the Spanish failed to win the hearts and minds of the people, partly because they were out done by Calvinist propaganda. This lack of propaganda and failure to take advantage of the rebels weaknesses essentially boils down to the inefficiency of Philips rule as he didn't delegate any powers to councils, he had to make all the decisions himself. This meant that because he was in Spain making decisions on the Netherlands all his decisions came too late, as a message to and from the Netherlands and Spain would take months. This meant that regardless as to whether Philips decisions were right or not, they were always late.

Thirdly, to add to my previous point, popular unrest to an extent stimulated Spanish failure and granted the rebels success. Support for the rebels came from two sides, from Calvinist supporters and the oppressed peasants and townsfolk. The cities remained sympathetic to the rebels, sometimes failed sieges such those in 1568 and 1572 although unsuccessful caused local alarm and friction towards the Spanish presence, it was a reminder that the rebels were fighting for them. The Spaniards themselves created a lot of friction which their commanders failed to address, as although provinces under Alva's control were ruled with an iron fist Spanish troops were indisciplined and there were numerous sources that reported the ‘harassment of inhabitants by wandering bands of soldiers'. Conditions caused food shortages in rural areas and cities, Spanish soldiers plundered property, livestock and grain which kept them fed but bred pro-rebel feelings. This lack of discipline can be blamed on the lack of finance which would give more weight to the argument that lack of finance was the main reason for the success of the Netherlands revolt. However, one could also argue the blame for the lack of discipline can be lain at Philip’s doorstep. This is because it was his decision to send Alva of all people to deal with the situation. Philip shouldn't have sent anyone let alone Alva, the most violent unforgiving military leader in Spain. From this evidence we can see that granted the lack of money didn’t help the situation but that the situation was created and worsened by Philip’s terrible and uninformed leadership.

Lastly, Philip’s alienation of the Stadtholders and nobility in the Netherlands meant the unguided revolt with only low politics. Turned into a fully functioning revolt with a dangerous, always successful mix of high and low politics. Philip’s and therefore Alva’s policies unlike those of Charles V did not rule with the nobilities interests at heart and instead used the Netherlands for Spanish interests. Higher taxation (for example the Tenth Penny Tax) and greater governmental control brought outcry from the nobility and merchants. Further to that his strict policy on religion (no religious toleration) brought much greater support to the rebellion from protestants. This all furthered the success of the revolt in the Netherlands and one could argue that this was all because of Philips lack of leadership skills and the fact that Philip was trying to lead from so many hundreds of miles away.

In conclusion, we can see that Spain’s lack of money when fighting the revolt was a reason as to why the Netherlanders were successful in rebelling but that really it was not the main reason. Philip II not taking advantage of the weaknesses of the revolt and Philip also losing the propaganda battle and therefore making everyone in the Netherlands much more likely to be pro-revolt were also reasons as to why the revolt was successful. However, I would argue the reason that ties and embodies all three reasons is that Philip’s poor leadership led to the success of the Netherlands revolt. We must bare in mind, Philip was trying to rule from hundreds of miles away and in that day and age that was almost impossible. However, that decision to rule from so far away and not delegate powers exemplifies Philip II’s lack of leadership skills. It was this problem that was the main reason as to why the revolt in the Netherlands was successful.