Maximally Successful Dutch Revolt?

[Workable Goblin]

What sorts of PoDs or changes would be necessary for the Dutch Revolt/Eighty Years War to result in the independence of a united Netherlands in the 16th or early 17th centuries? Moreover, what would the effects of such a maximally successful revolt be, both in the short-term and the long-term?

As far as "how" goes, my inclination as a decided non-expert is to think that several factors are necessary. First, the rebels need to be more militarily successful. Obviously, if the Spanish are not capable of effectively contesting their control over the Low Countries, then they are more likely to be able to win independence more quickly than occurred in OTL. Second, the religious conflict within the Low Countries needs to be suppressed, at least until after the war is over. Any united Netherlands at this time is clearly going to have a lot of Catholics and a lot of Calvinists, and there's no way to get there without having them fight together (as proven IOTL). Third, probably the Spanish need to be less competent. In some respects they were incompetent, obviously, in inflaming the revolt in the first place, but their military leaders seemed to be able enough, and Parma at least had the diplomatic skills to exploit (2) instead of just condemning Catholic and Calvinist alike to death.

I suppose the most obvious approach, to me anyway, would be to delay the start of the revolt somewhat, from the 1560s into the 1570s or even the 1580s. This might result in a stronger Calvinist position in the southern provinces, so making them more rebellious, and perhaps might rob Spain of some of its stronger leadership or lead them to become engaged elsewhere. If you combine this with a bit of luck on the part of the rebels, they might quickly overthrow royal government in the Low Countries and present Spain with a fait accompli; even if it decides to try to reconquer the place, it's at least plausible that the Dutch will be able to prevent it. But like I said, I am not an expert or especially knowledgeable in this subject.

As for longer-term effects, I have to imagine those would be large. The Dutch Republic exerted a lot of effort in trying to conquer the Austrian Netherlands IOTL, both because they were relatively wealthy and populated and because they had large fortification systems to provide buffers against the French. Here they just...have them from the beginning. This makes me suspect that they might be more adventurous in Europe, since they have a stronger position and don't need to worry so much about defending their southern flank. Overseas, they might also be more successful, given that they again have more men, more money, more ports, just more stuff going on. More enduring Dutch colonies in the Americas, or an even stronger Dutch presence in the Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, and East Asia? Likewise, this will have major effects on England, which fought with and against the Dutch on a number of occasions in this period. The Dutch will, again, be stronger and richer, which will have effects on English politics and English decision-making. But again, I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure exactly how this will play out.

 

[raharris1973]

I suppose the most obvious approach, to me anyway, would be to delay the start of the revolt somewhat, from the 1560s into the 1570s or even the 1580s. This might result in a stronger Calvinist position in the southern provinces, so making them more rebellious,

Can we say its a consensus position that Calvinism was getting stronger in the whole of the Netherlands against the the countervailing trend of the Counterreformation, also picking up steam at this time? If it is delayed long and Counterreformation mojo is running strong, maybe that runs against rebels.

perhaps might rob Spain of some of its stronger leadership or lead them to become engaged elsewhere.

Netherlands issue aside, was Spain's chore list getting longer as we moved from the 1560s to the 70s or 80s?

And what about precious metal intake from the Americas? I think that first started to become massive in the 60s, so it was probably still growing in the 70s and 80s. To the extent the revolt was about taxes, maybe if revolt doesn't happen in the 60s, tax burdens aren't worsened and indeed lighten in following decades, making revolt less likely or widespread.

I'm just making guesses here myself.

 

[Minchandre]

I recently read that the Dutch rebels made an awesome ship called the Finis Belli that was intended to end...well, end the war. The ship held "an impressive deployment of cannons" and a thousand musketeers, and was protected by thick iron plating. So that's on my mind.

The vessel almost immediate ran aground in the shallow waters of the Scheldt (whose name it turns out actually means "shallow"). The loss of this vessel is said to have broken the rebels' will, causing them to soon after abandon the city for Amsterdam.

Considering the import of Antwerp in the Lowlands, I wonder if a successful siege of Antwerp (by the Finis Belli being more reasonable, or never being built, of the Dutch succeeding in their attempts to fire the Spanish bridges, maybe they could have held onto Antwerp.

OTL, the fall of Antwerp was following by a major resurgence by the Dutch (in part because the Spanish were also involved in the French Wars of Religion), who seized large portions of Brabant and Liege back from the Spanish. Antwerp is both strategic and rich; if the Dutch keep it, maybe they could push outward into Flanders as well. However, in the early 1600s, Spain signed peace with both the French and the English and was able to push a counter-offensive, pushing the Dutch back to more-or-less modern borders.

Maybe with a good position in Antwerp, the Dutch could have pushed far enough fast enough while the Spanish were still bogged down in other wars. The problem is that while I'm they could probably take the entire coast, and probably most of Flanders in general, things bog down as they move into what is now Wallonia. The terrain gets rougher and the people both more Catholic and less Dutch. I don't think it's reasonable for the Dutch to actually take any of the land in the Ardennes. The question then is how to get them winning enough for the Spanish to sign that land over despite still holding it securely, and I can't think of any good way. Maybe extend Spanish involvement in France and against England, but now we're talking changes that are way past the scope of the Lowlands.

 

[Workable Goblin]

The question then is how to get them winning enough for the Spanish to sign that land over despite still holding it securely, and I can't think of any good way.

Well, this is why I suggested an earlier PoD, generally speaking. Either to make that land more Calvinist and thus inclined to support the rebels or so that they end up being very successful during the general revolt phase and the Spanish not successful in retaking the land. Then the Spanish wouldn't "hold it securely," except for Luxembourg. The prospect of the northerners conquering it didn't really seem all that realistic to me.

Can we say its a consensus position that Calvinism was getting stronger in the whole of the Netherlands against the the countervailing trend of the Counterreformation, also picking up steam at this time? If it is delayed long and Counterreformation mojo is running strong, maybe that runs against rebels.

Maybe, but that will also take time to get going. I wasn't suggesting delaying it a century, after all, only five or ten years.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

Well, this is why I suggested an earlier PoD, generally speaking. Either to make that land more Calvinist and thus inclined to support the rebels or so that they end up being very successful during the general revolt phase and the Spanish not successful in retaking the land. Then the Spanish wouldn't "hold it securely," except for Luxembourg. The prospect of the northerners conquering it didn't really seem all that realistic to me.


Maybe, but that will also take time to get going. I wasn't suggesting delaying it a century, after all, only five or ten years.

Religion is not the thing that unites the revolt, resistance against imposed taxes and efforts to centralize are. This started as a revolt of conservatives.
The trouble with making the Calvinists stronger is that it increases the change of this becoming more a civil war then a revolt against the policies of the Habsburgers. The threat of Calvinists (20 % of the population at their strongest spots) taking over local governments everywhere was what drove a large part of the catholic elites out of the moderate camp(80+% at the start of the conflict) back into the hands of the king. In the years after 1576 William of Orange just didn't control the radicals enough to let them back off. Now these radicals where strong and influential enough to keep the revolt going in parts of the low countries, but they will never be strong enough to keep it going in the whole. In the North Calvinists remained a minority until deep into the 17th century and even then it remained at absolute max 60 %.

 

[bpbruce]

Maybe a Dutch Drake to loot the Spanish silver flow from the Americas and singe Spain's beard with attacks on harbors in Spain. Give the Spanish things to do at home.

 

[Parma]

make the "Pacificatie van Gent" of 1579 succeeed. This would create a kind of Swiss confederation....

Surviving nobles like Egmont and Horne would help as well I think.

Containing the relative small number of extremist, that are the Calvinist, would benefit as well.

Keep a major city, Antwerp, partof the rebel side. As soon as Amsterdam take the lead in the rebel teritory, only the interest of Amsterdam will count. Amsterdam switched sides very, very late in the civil war period of the 80years war

 

[Xavier]

As far as "how" goes, my inclination as a decided non-expert is to think that several factors are necessary. First, the rebels need to be more militarily successful. Obviously, if the Spanish are not capable of effectively contesting their control over the Low Countries, then they are more likely to be able to win independence more quickly than occurred in OTL. Second, the religious conflict within the Low Countries needs to be suppressed, at least until after the war is over. Any united Netherlands at this time is clearly going to have a lot of Catholics and a lot of Calvinists, and there's no way to get there without having them fight together (as proven IOTL). Third, probably the Spanish need to be less competent. In some respects they were incompetent, obviously, in inflaming the revolt in the first place, but their military leaders seemed to be able enough, and Parma at least had the diplomatic skills to exploit (2) instead of just condemning Catholic and Calvinist alike to death.

Correct on all 3 IMO. Personally, I always thought that the Duke of Alva deserves a statue in The Netherlands, while the leaders of the Calvinist city republics deserve one in Spain. With their heavy-handedness and religious extremsism, both did more to help the other side than their own.

As for longer-term effects, I have to imagine those would be large. The Dutch Republic exerted a lot of effort in trying to conquer the Austrian Netherlands IOTL, both because they were relatively wealthy and populated and because they had large fortification systems to provide buffers against the French. Here they just...have them from the beginning. This makes me suspect that they might be more adventurous in Europe, since they have a stronger position and don't need to worry so much about defending their southern flank. Overseas, they might also be more successful, given that they again have more men, more money, more ports, just more stuff going on. More enduring Dutch colonies in the Americas, or an even stronger Dutch presence in the Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, and East Asia? Likewise, this will have major effects on England, which fought with and against the Dutch on a number of occasions in this period. The Dutch will, again, be stronger and richer, which will have effects on English politics and English decision-making. But again, I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure exactly how this will play out.

The effects would be nothing short of gargantuan. A whole 17 provinces would have over twice the population and nearly twice the wealth. It would also have 3 large, wealthy provinces in Flanders, Brabant and Holland, rather than just one superwealthy one. Keeping that southern flank safe does require solid good relations with France, which loses the whole "surrounded on all sides by dastardly Habsburgers" reason to go fight in the Southern Netherlands, but if France ever sees an opportunity to grab some clay...

I recently read that the Dutch rebels made an awesome ship called the Finis Belli that was intended to end...well, end the war. The ship held "an impressive deployment of cannons" and a thousand musketeers, and was protected by thick iron plating. So that's on my mind.

The vessel almost immediate ran aground in the shallow waters of the Scheldt (whose name it turns out actually means "shallow"). The loss of this vessel is said to have broken the rebels' will, causing them to soon after abandon the city for Amsterdam.

Considering the import of Antwerp in the Lowlands, I wonder if a successful siege of Antwerp (by the Finis Belli being more reasonable, or never being built, of the Dutch succeeding in their attempts to fire the Spanish bridges, maybe they could have held onto Antwerp.

OTL, the fall of Antwerp was following by a major resurgence by the Dutch (in part because the Spanish were also involved in the French Wars of Religion), who seized large portions of Brabant and Liege back from the Spanish. Antwerp is both strategic and rich; if the Dutch keep it, maybe they could push outward into Flanders as well. However, in the early 1600s, Spain signed peace with both the French and the English and was able to push a counter-offensive, pushing the Dutch back to more-or-less modern borders.

FTR, there is nothing shallow about the Scheldt in Antwerp, it wouldn't have been the biggest port on the North Sea if it was. Also, that claim appears on the EN wiki, but has no sources, the French wiki, which does use a source for the etymology, says it means brilliant/beautiful river.

On to the actual siege of my hometown: Yes, not overloading the Finis Belli would have been nice. Same for not starting a feast too fast when a temporary breach was made in the Spanish lines.

For maximum succes though, I believe the Siege of Antwerp to come too late. In fact, someone like the Duke of Parma, capable on the battlefield, but also a pragmatic diplomat, should be avoided at all costs on the Spanish side. Once such a man is in charge it becomes extremely difficult to keep the (overwhelmingly Catholic) nobles & Walloons in the revolution. IOW, kill off Parma (not ours) and keep Don Juan alive instead. Finding a way to turn the Battle of Gembloux in a victory for the Netherlands would be nice too, but that probably requires lots of little POD's, though not having the leaders off for a wedding would be a good start...

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

The effects would be nothing short of gargantuan. A whole 17 provinces would have over twice the population and nearly twice the wealth. It would also have 3 large, wealthy provinces in Flanders, Brabant and Holland, rather than just one superwealthy one. Keeping that southern flank safe does require solid good relations with France, which loses the whole "surrounded on all sides by dastardly Habsburgers" reason to go fight in the Southern Netherlands, but if France ever sees an opportunity to grab some clay...

It will still take a herculean effort to build up a stable united government for the area, and that will take quite some time. In any timeline going for this i would say that to achieve this there must be setbacks, not life threatening but severe enough so people will accept the necessity of compromises, that allow some level of centralisation. A French threat can serve this purpose partly, certainly for Brabant and Flanders, but Holland must also be kept on board. Maybe by a naval threat, disrupting the Baltic sea trade?

Edit: Politically this United Provinces would consist of 5 areas that need to be bound together: Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Zeeland, Wallonia and the Eastern provinces.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I recently read that the Dutch rebels made an awesome ship called the Finis Belli that was intended to end...well, end the war. The ship held "an impressive deployment of cannons" and a thousand musketeers, and was protected by thick iron plating. So that's on my mind

Wait, that sounds like an ironclad sailing ship. How that could have massive ramifications for naval doctrine, right? And with the coal reserves in belgium, could such a netherlands being the industrial revolution over a century earlier to make the class work out better?

 

[Workable Goblin]

A French threat can serve this purpose partly, certainly for Brabant and Flanders, but Holland must also be kept on board. Maybe by a naval threat, disrupting the Baltic sea trade?

An Anglo-French alliance seems promising to me, especially because it did actually happen (more or less).

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

An Anglo-French alliance seems promising to me, especially because it did actually happen (more or less).

This would be especially true with a united Netherlands, England would feel it's navy and commercial interests and even their homeland threatened by this awesome new country, while France would essentially see it's Burgundian rival emerge in a different form and different religion but still the same existential threat. In fact, with the fact the Spanish and Portuguese colonies are also threatened by the Dutch alongside them wanting to assert more dominance on the Baltic trade (to the detriment of Denmark and/or Sweden), we could see a Great Northern War situation where they could end up dismembered by the powers surrounding them.

Of course this necessarily dosen't have to happen, the Dutch would be smart enough to strike a deal with the French for ease of trade and neutrality, which could lead to the French focusing more on Germany and Italy again without the threat of the North, while the Dutch are free to strike everywhere in the world without having to worry about French desires to erase their independence.

Also worth mentioning the effect this will have on Spain, they'll have lost their most rich province as well as the Burgundian Inheritance dating all the way back from the times of Charles V, it would've been a big loss in prestige and further make them look like a moribund empire, something that the other powers would definitely take advantage of (potential renewed Italian wars between the French or the lost of colonies to other emerging powers? Not to mention the Portuguese wanting their independence early now that the Dutch did it so wonderfully and they'll want to protect their holdings.)

 

[Parma]

Religion is not the thing that unites the revolt, resistance against imposed taxes and efforts to centralize are. This started as a revolt of conservatives.
The trouble with making the Calvinists stronger is that it increases the change of this becoming more a civil war then a revolt against the policies of the Habsburgers. The threat of Calvinists (20 % of the population at their strongest spots) taking over local governments everywhere was what drove a large part of the catholic elites out of the moderate camp(80+% at the start of the conflict) back into the hands of the king. In the years after 1576 William of Orange just didn't control the radicals enough to let them back off. Now these radicals where strong and influential enough to keep the revolt going in parts of the low countries, but they will never be strong enough to keep it going in the whole. In the North Calvinists remained a minority until deep into the 17th century and even then it remained at absolute max 60 %.

Spot on.
According to most history books with only the general story of the 80 years war it seems like religion was the cause of rebelion, this was not the case.
As mentioned by H. Flashman the cause was taxation, centralisation, conservative opposition against this centralisation.

Social unrest was a large part as well a factor of the rebelion. Flanders,w ere the rebelion started, was a dense urbanist area, were most people made their income in the industry. They were paid in monney. Due to a climate event some were else on the planet there were several crop failures which made the price of food dramaticly increase. Combined with an economic crisess, with raising unemployement and you will have a perfect storm.

An other overlooked factor is the high literacy rate of this part of Europe. Nearly all men and women in much of the Seventeen Provinces had a basic level of reading and writing especially in Flanders, Brabant, Zeeland and Holland.
Religous prosecution and the very hars treatment of herretics, was only a cathalist. Remember most cities were not larger than 3000 to 10,000 souls and most people knew each other. Hearing screams of your neighbour who is beiing tortured in the cellar of the cityhall and later seeing this neighbour burned alive at the town square ,does something with you.

Also a much made error is that it was a rebelion form the Norhtern Provinces, this is false. The Calvinist extremist, with the iconoclast fury started deep in the South of Flanders.
Due to a series of events the Calvinist only could overtrow the authorities in Holland and Zeeland for a longer period and keep their power, against the military might of the Habsburg armies, mainly due to the geography. In Flanders most Calvinist coups failed or ended in pure religous extremist, Calvinist, terror before it colapsed or ended by force.

 

[UnaiB]

@pompejus

 

[Workable Goblin]

Spot on.
According to most history books with only the general story of the 80 years war it seems like religion was the cause of rebelion, this was not the case.
As mentioned by H. Flashman the cause was taxation, centralisation, conservative opposition against this centralisation.

Of course, you can see why I asked questions instead of posting a timeline then. This kind of thing is quite useful to me, I am (as I said) not an expert and don't know what I don't know.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

Of course, you can see why I asked questions instead of posting a timeline then. This kind of thing is quite useful to me, I am (as I said) not an expert and don't know what I don't know.

To add to the understanding of the religious situation: The criticism of the elites in the seventeen provinces was directed against the active persecution politics of the Habsburgers pre revolt. For many not so much out of sympathy for the calvinists and the other protestant denominations, but because it was done by the inquisition of the central state (not the Spanish inquisition, btw) and that the active persecution created unrest in the cities. Although there was a constant demand for more moderation and requests to solve it by leaving the issue to local authorities, most of the local authorities were not for allowing the protestants free profession of faith.
This opinion was shared by the Calvinists in the places they took over, no active persecution and no free profession of faith (for the catholics, limited profession for Lutherans and Anabaptists.) Only later there came a more tolerant policy, where profession was allowed if it at least wasn't in public. Catholic churches were setup in private houses, not recognizable from the outside. Local law enforcement only took sometimes action when they felt there was a public order issue, but this almost always resulted in just a warning or a small penalty. Again local governments were more concerned in avoiding local unrest than in pushing the religion.

 

[Xavier]

It will still take a herculean effort to build up a stable united government for the area, and that will take quite some time. In any timeline going for this i would say that to achieve this there must be setbacks, not life threatening but severe enough so people will accept the necessity of compromises, that allow some level of centralisation. A French threat can serve this purpose partly, certainly for Brabant and Flanders, but Holland must also be kept on board. Maybe by a naval threat, disrupting the Baltic sea trade?

Edit: Politically this United Provinces would consist of 5 areas that need to be bound together: Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Zeeland, Wallonia and the Eastern provinces.

Sadly, yes, that is a big problem for any more succesfull 80YW scenario, the (1)7 provinces were stubbornly protective of their local rights to downright moronic proportions considering the size of some of their adversaries. OTOH, the Northern Netherlands got rid of all that in just 1 generation of French Revolution-fueled centralisation. So the right kind of conflict providing the right amount of pressure for a full generation some time after independence might do the trick.

An Anglo-French alliance seems promising to me, especially because it did actually happen (more or less).

And this would certainly provide pressure, but quite possibly too much of it. The Low Countries would definitely need a powerfull ally that can keep a sizable part of the French army occupied in that scenario.

Otherwise, a fairly quick (10-20 years in this context) total victory over Spain (not necessarily with a peace treaty) could leave them in a good position to take a much more active role in an ALT 30YW, which as an added bonus provides an opportunity for expansion as well (easier with monarchical personal unions than outright annexations by a republic). It does provide less of an existential threat than an Anglo-French alliance, but if we go with the personal unions, those lands could provide an alternate powerbase for the ruler, which can also help with any centralisation attempts.

Wait, that sounds like an ironclad sailing ship. How that could have massive ramifications for naval doctrine, right? And with the coal reserves in belgium, could such a netherlands being the industrial revolution over a century earlier to make the class work out better?

Eh, not really. There is a reason the damn thing ran aground after all. It was essentially an unwieldy and overloaded floating battery.

 

[Parma]

Let the rebels win at Gemblours 1578. But this mean the State army of amateurs defeat the primier league army of Flanders in order to do so you will need a lot of POD's

 

[Parma]

AltoRegnant said:
Wait, that sounds like an ironclad sailing ship. How that could have massive ramifications for naval doctrine, right? And with the coal reserves in belgium, could such a netherlands being the industrial revolution over a century earlier to make the class work out better?

Eh, not really. There is a reason the damn thing ran aground after all. It was essentially an unwieldy and overloaded floating battery.

The oars men on the Rebel galleys were protected by wood, whihc was moslty sufficient against muskets, crossbows and light swivel guns.

Fin de la guerre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Religion is not the thing that unites the revolt, resistance against imposed taxes and efforts to centralize are. This started as a revolt of conservatives.
The trouble with making the Calvinists stronger is that it increases the change of this becoming more a civil war then a revolt against the policies of the Habsburgers. The threat of Calvinists (20 % of the population at their strongest spots) taking over local governments everywhere was what drove a large part of the catholic elites out of the moderate camp(80+% at the start of the conflict) back into the hands of the king. In the years after 1576 William of Orange just didn't control the radicals enough to let them back off. Now these radicals where strong and influential enough to keep the revolt going in parts of the low countries, but they will never be strong enough to keep it going in the whole. In the North Calvinists remained a minority until deep into the 17th century and even then it remained at absolute max 60 %.

So maybe nerfing the Reformation in the Netherlands would be the way forwards? If you can still get the provinces to revolt over increased centralisation and taxation, they'd have a greater chance of sticking together without the religious differences.