AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
Aims
To Learn
Philips personal style of government About factions within Philip’s government and
his personal style towards them. The positives of faction – why encourage it? The negatives – problems it causes. The consequences of faction within the
government looking at one particular example the Perez Affair
To enable us to understand Philip’s changing approach towards
government and his personal role within it 1556-1598. AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of
government and its impact on government efficiency
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
PersonalRuler
Huge Empire ConsultasDemands for
AccurateInformation
Ambassador And courier system
ConsultedDifferentgroups
Work Load
Indecisive
Creates wrongatmosphere
Paper King
SpanishDominated
AlienatedProvinces
Lack ofaction
Attitude
Critics Slow moving Hamstrung by lack of
trust Obsessive desire to
control even the tiniest of details
Paper King
Defenders Best informed ruler of
Europe Use of formal and
informal Juntas (committees) to formulate policy
Use of Conciliar system – more delegation
A Prudent king – in the wise sense.
To what extent was Philip a ‘Paper King’? Yes Critics Personal Ruler – strong sense of personal
responsibility for people and empire World Empire = tremendous workload and a
growth in bureaucracy E.g. Court officials, councillors, ministers –
filled from ranks of aristocracy and letrados Slow moving, bureaucratic, hesitant in
decision making, restrictive – no one had whole picture
Secretaries dominance Blamed by contemporaries and historians
personally on Philip II
Government business had to pass his desk in form of consultas prepared by secretaries of various councils
Demanded accurate / regular information = illustrated by huge imperial archive at Simancas.
Regional governors ordered to make full reports on their advantages both civil and military
Ambassadorial network and courier system – finest in Europe - but more information for little benefit
Personally wanted all relevant information, consulted several different advisors or councils before issuing a decision
Advisors complained unable to determine between important and trivial
Long hours, reading despatches in his carriage, avalanche of paper
Overwhelmed by work led to neglecting important matters – e.g. 1566 Uprising in Netherlands
Urged to visit provinces personally to resolve crisis, heard contradictory advice from ministers – hesitated for months – eventually sending Alva – however already resolved by Margaret of Parma
Frequently changed his mind – created an atmosphere of double dealing and insincerity
Frustrated ministers/secretaries – failure to priorities/delegate – became distant, inaccessible – paper king
Obsessed with trivial matters – neglecting kingdom and people
PersonalRuler
Huge Empire ConsultasDemands for
AccurateInformation
Ambassador And courier system
ConsultedDifferentgroups
Work Load
Indecisive
Creates wrongatmosphere
Paper King
SpanishDominated
AlienatedProvinces
Lack ofaction
Attitude
Relationship with Castile and Provinces Criticised as being too Spanish –
stemmed from P2 background Spanish dominated courts and councils
– logic as Spain crucial to P2 Appointment of Spaniards in the
Monarquia alienated local elites e.g. Alva in Netherlands
Madrid 1561 – realisation fixed capital needed - organisational logic – potential centralisation alienated more distant subjects
Attitude
Travelled extensively before coming to the throne, but did not leave the Iberian Peninsula after 1559.
‘ It is neither useful nor decent to travel around ones dominions’
PersonalRuler
Huge Empire ConsultasDemands for
AccurateInformation
Ambassador And courier system
ConsultedDifferentgroups
Work Load
Indecisive
Creates wrongatmosphere
Paper King
SpanishDominated
AlienatedProvinces
Lack ofaction
Attitude
Consequences
The Paper King – too bogged down in paper work to effectively rule.
Slow bureaucratic system Alienated provinces due to Pro Spanish / Castilian
approach Micromanaging affairs – denying local
representatives and military commanders freedom of action when faced with changing circumstances e.g. Medina Sidonia 1588
Government enslaved to the pace at which Philip could process documentation that passed his desk.
Comment by colonies ‘ If death comes from Spain we would all live to a ripe old age’.
To what extent can Philip II be blamed for ineffective
government?
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
Two Main Factions
Toledo Faction Duke of Alva Hard line approach
towards monarquia particularly Netherlands
Favoured initially until Alva recalled from Netherlands 1573
Eboli Faction Prince Eboli 1572 Antonio Perez Federal attitude
towards Monarquia Autonomous states
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
Positives of Faction
Encouraged by Philip given his personal approach – withholding information, gaining varied views, untrusting
Belief that faction would lead to best personnel being brought into government by each faction so as to deliver effective government, which would be rewarded by patronage.
Defuse potential for individuals ability to dominate policy
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
Negative View
Damaging – energies spend on struggle / rivalry at expense of state business. E.g. Perez Affair
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
How did faction affect government in Spain 1556-1598?
Two Main Factions
Toledo Faction Duke of Alva Hard line approach
towards monarquia particularly Netherlands
Favoured initially until Alva recalled from Netherlands 1573
Eboli Faction Prince Eboli 1572 Antonio Perez Federal attitude
towards Monarquia Semi-autonomous
states
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
Positives of Faction
Encouraged by Philip given his personal approach – withholding information, gaining varied views, untrusting
Belief that faction would lead to best personnel being brought into government by each faction so as to deliver effective government, which would be rewarded by patronage.
Defuse potential for individuals ability to dominate policy
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
Negative View
Damaging – energies spend on struggle / rivalry at expense of state business. E.g. Perez Affair
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
Perez Affair
Sequencing Activity
AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency
Consequences
1. Faction damaging could turn ugly inefficient government even to point of infighting within a
faction double dealing against Philip
Consequences
2. Fuelled ‘Black Legend’ view of Philip
Philips role in the murder? Perez ‘Defence Memorial’ Absolutism3. Revolt in Aragon 15914. Reinforced Philip’s distrust of those
around him5. Formulation of Juntas – reaction of
Perez affair and faction in general
Juntas
Informal Committees used by Philip to discuss policy
Consequences
Juntas had knock on effects – Decline of Council of State Recognition Philip unable to cope
alone Alienated outsiders Criticised as members had little
experience outside Spain
Personal Style
Paper King
Personal RulerUse of
Conciliar System
Untrusting
Encouraged Faction
Consequences Of
faction
Absolute Monarch?
To what extent can Philip II be blamed for
ineffective government?