4.1 Introduction

The late middle ages were a period of cultural and economic bloom in the Low Countries. A decentralized feudal structure developed, when higher lords granted fiefs to vassals. Cities obtained rights from higher and lower lords in processes of sub-infeudation. Authority was parceled out, when privileges and rights were granted to persons and organizations. The number of cities expanded rapidly. Most Dutch cities received their rights in the late middle ages. Dutch cities spawned new organizations like artisanal guilds, civic guards (schutterijen), rhetoric chambers (rederijkerskamers) and shipping companies (rederijen). The late medieval western world was a society of organizations. New organizations need to attract members from established ones. People moved from the countryside to the city in search for a better life. Mobility allowed people to remove traditional bonds. The expansion of fiefs and cities promoted discourse and trade. New governance models arose to achieve agreement. Knights obtained a voice at the lord’s table; burghers participated in city government. People with rights have a voice in contrast to subjugated people that have to obey orders. A monetized market economy arose that stimulated trade and investment. Financial markets emerged in the late middle ages in cities like Venice, Genoa and Amsterdam to invest in maritime companies. Liquidity increased, when equity shares could change ownership on newly created stock exchanges.

Decentralized government differs from central bureaucracy that makes people dependent on a single decision maker. But, a structure of autonomous political units is unsustainable, when agreement cannot be reached. Italian cities turned to violence, when emperors violated city autonomy. The genius of violence could not be put back into the bottle after the imperial army was defeated. Italian cities turned against each other; families fought for control of cities. Commerce desiccated, when violence took over from agreement. Personal competition intensified, when Italian cities came under single rule. Northern cities kept feudal institutions intact for two more centuries until they gave way to the nation state.

Cities in the Low Countries still operated in the feudal institutional framework. Knights and citizens turned into separate classes, when the knighthood was closed. Knights were a military caste with their own behavioral code. Cities developed their own laws and justice system. Knights were allowed to use violence in disputes with other knights. Chivalry regulated personal competition among knights.

Occidental feudalism differed from autocratic empires, because it granted rights of self governance that stimulated investment. Land was gained in the Low Countries by building dikes; windmills pumped the moors dry. Lords, cities and companies expected to receive positive returns on their investments. Capital gains could be incurred on financial markets. However, not all feudal assets were freely transferable. Fiefs could not be sold to non nobles, which reduced their value. Assets only gain value, when multiple bidders drive up price. Stock markets increase, when new investors appear on the scene. The same applies to real estate and other assets. The opposite happens, when the number of bidders decreases. Fiefs and castles lost their monetary value, when the ranks of the nobility were thinned in the Low Countries Mercenary armies replaced the mounted knight and his retinue, when canons came to dominate the battle field and made the horse-mounted knight obsolete. Nobles still played a military role in the Low Countries after 1300 as commanders of mercenary armies. But, this only applied to a few nobles.

The chapter describes how the feudal structure changed in the Low Countries at the end of the middle ages. Conflicts among nobles hampered discussion and agreement. But, conflicts in the Low Countries did not break up the feudal institutional fabric in the fourteenth and fifteenth century. Cities did not fall prey to single rule in this period as happened in Italy.

4.2 Feudal Governance

4.2.1 Governing the Empire

The Holy Roman Empire (962–1806) grew out of the kingdom of East Francia. The Frankish kings stopped Muslim expansion at Poitiers in 732. They increased their territories by subjecting the tribes that lived in Western Europe. Vassalage emerged in the ninth century Frankish empire, when Emperor Charles the Great granted territorial rights to vassals. Imperial appointees became members of the nobility and were allowed to elect the king. Charles the Great was the first Frankish king to be crowned emperor by the pope in 800. The Frankish Empire was split in three parts in 843 after the death of king Louis the Pious. West Francia became the French kingdom; East Francia the Holy Roman Empire. Lorraine was later absorbed by East and West Francia. The next king crowned emperor was Otto II in 962. His coronation started the Holy Roman Empire, which reached its territorial peak in 1050.

Frankish emperors and kings granted rights to vassals in the ninth and tenth century, when Norman, Saracen and Hungarian invasions plagued the continent. People depended on local lords and monasteries for their defense, which gave rise to local rule. Local lords obtained authority to speak law in their courts and levy tolls and taxes on crafts and trade (Slicher van Bath 1960, 57). Feudalism was a decentralized system with local lords holding rights and authority. Vassalage was also a personal bond between lord and vassal that could be revoked by issuing lords, if oaths of fealty were breached. Vassals lived from their domains by demanding a part of harvests. Forced labor was also used. Serfs and peasants were compelled to use the lord’s mill for their grain. Feudalism was a natural economy in its early stage. The natural economy of manor and serfs turned into a money economy from the twelfth century onwards, when the number of cities multiplied (Slicher van Bath 1960, 60).

Western feudalism had Roman origins, but was different in character. A Roman vassal had to promise obedience to his lord, who provided for his livelihood. The relationship between lord and vassal was that of master and servant. The commendation, wherein the Roman vassal put his fate in the hands of the lord was an act of subjugation (Slicher van Bath 1960, 40). Western European feudalism, by contrast, was based on equality of lord and vassal. It evolved towards this model in the Frankish period, when lord and vassal promised loyalty to each other. Vassalage became a reciprocal relationship based on equality (Slicher van Bath 1960, 41). The vassal received a beneficium (fief) that could be either a domain or an office. Vassals –in turn- could grant rights to cities and persons. Vassal rights became hereditary in the tenth and eleventh century, when sons of vassals could obtain the fief by pledging loyalty to the lord. Local lords had jurisdiction in their domain, which was a typical Western European institution (Slicher van Bath 1960, 46). The feudal court system was most widespread in France and Western Germany. It was less complete in Southern France and Italy. Feudal courts were lacking in Scandinavia and Friesland (Slicher van Bath 1960, 43).

The vassal was obligated to assist his lord with action and advice; auxilium and consilium. Slicher van Bath argues that West European feudalism emerged, because lords could not pay their servants money wages and had to reward knights by leases on land. Vassalage was introduced in England after 1066, when William the Conqueror established his power on the British Isles. Switzerland and Friesland had free peasants, who defended their freedom against lords that wanted to subjugate them in the peasant wars of the thirteenth and fourteenth century (Slicher van Bath 1960, 210).

Kings and emperors of the Holy Roman Empire were elected rulers. The election process of the first German kings was informal. There was no formal voting process, but German princes reached a consensus on who would be the next king. The election of kings and emperors became more exclusive over time, when a select group of princes elected the new king. The College of Prince-Electors was first mentioned in 1152. Their number was shrunk to 7 in 1257; three clerical electors (prince-bishops of Cologne, Mainz and Trier) and four secular prince electors (princes of Saxony, Brandenburg, Palatine of the Rhine and Bohemia). The title of prince elector became inheritable and elevated prince electors above other princes of the empire. The election rules were only formally recorded in 1357 in the Constitution of the Golden Bull. Formalization of the election procedure was prompted by the impossibility to reach consensus in the electoral college at several instances before 1357. Lack of agreement within the electoral college entailed the appointment of anti kings by opposition groups. Decisions were taken by majority vote and not by consensus under the regulations of the Golden Bull. However, this did not stop the election of another German anti-king in 1400.

Members of the electoral college had privileges that distinguished them from other nobles. They had the right to mint coins and exercise jurisdiction in appeal cases. The college of electors was widened in the constitutional reform of 1489. Grand Masters of knightly orders, barons and princes became members of the electoral college at that date.

The emperor gathered some of his vassals once a year in informal assemblies called Hoftage (court gatherings). The constitution of 1489 established the Reichstag (imperial assembly) as a formal institution of the empire with predetermined membership. The Reichstag counted princes, prince-bishops, barons and margraves among their members. Representatives of the free imperial cities also had seats on the Reichstag. Cities had only the right to advise before 1582.

We can observe a similar movement from consultation to representation in medieval England. The English Great Council was established in 1066 by William of Normandy. The council increased its authority, when the king signed the Magna Charta in 1215. The king required the approval of the royal council for all new laws after that date. No additional taxes could be imposed without the council’s consent.

Western vassals saw their incomes from the land increase, when productivity rose and tax revenues grew. The balance of power between lords and peasants shifted in the fourteenth century at the time of the Black Death. The value of land declined, when half the population died from the bubonic plague; leaving fewer hands to till the soil (Dyer 2005). Wages increased in real terms due to declining food prices. The power of the lord of the manor was diminished by labor and capital markets that reflected shifts of relative scarcity of land and labor.

Weber argued that occidental feudal society lacked legitimate authority. He held the view that only authority that commands is legitimate. Legitimate authority does not leave any discrepancy between command and execution, if orders are obeyed. Failure arises from bad execution of commands, in his view. Weber argued that contracts increase the likelihood that people behave as prescribed, but do not guarantee it. Granting rights to persons and organizations to draw their own plan does not fit his idea of legitimate authority. Occidental feudalism, based on agreement and pledges of loyalty, produced unexpected outcomes. Some manors and cities bloomed, while others fared less well. Uncertainty is at the heart of dynamic market economies. But, Weber ignored uncertainty of outcomes. Plans may fail to bear fruit for reasons within and beyond human control. But, absolute authority does not accept failure. This applied to Tokugawa Japan that forced defeated Samurai to commit suicide. Success and failure are absolute in autocracy. The defeated knight, however, could save his life by paying a ransom. Occidental feudalism developed limited liability that curtailed losses of unintentional failure. Occidental knights fought tournaments to prove their superiority. Defeated knights had to pay ransoms to victorious ones, but could regain their status in a next battle. Breaches of loyalty, however, were punished by removal from noble ranks.

Violence replaced agreement, when feudal rights and privileges were violated. This happened in Northern Italy, when emperors withdrew privileges from Italian cities. Cities allied in the Lombard League to preserve their rights. However, cities in Northern Italy became divided among factions that fought for supremacy. Germany and the Low Countries established institutions of informal and formal discourse to reach agreement and prevent (civil) war in the late middle ages. Feuds among nobles, however, emanated in the Low Countries in periods of disputed succession. City governments stayed out of feudal conflicts among nobles as much as possible.

4.2.2 Consultation and Representation

Occidental feudalism featured several forms of discourse. The first form was that of informal consultation. The king/emperor choose his own advisors and confidants to discuss matters in the Hoftage. Lower lords consulted some of their vassals at the lord’s court. Discussion at the feudal court was of an informal character. Vassals had a duty to express their opinion, but the emperor/lord did not need to heed their advice. This resembles modern systems of consultation, where executives listen to consultants, but are not compelled to act upon their advice. Consultants –on the other hand- are not liable for decisions taken by executives. We can also compare it to present day CEOs, who decide after listening to advisory boards, but are solely responsible for decisions. Informal discourse features organizations, whose members pursue a common goal. It differs from formal discourse in representative councils whose members represent different interests. Employers and unions represent different interests. Lords that wanted to raise taxes from cities represented opposite interests. Councils could reach agreement, when interests differed.

Informal consultation prevailed in the early days of the Holy Roman Empire. The emperor travelled around and consulted his vassals at the various castles and courts he visited on his journeys. Vassals and cities could be invited by the emperor to attend the Hoftage; attendance was a privilege and not a right. The Hoftage evolved from an informal to a formal advisory body over time. Formalization of discourse was completed, when the imperial Diet/Reichstag replaced the Hoftag in 1489. The Diet became the formal general assembly of the imperial estates. The vassal’s duty of counsel if asked evolved to the right of approval of imperial decisions to raise taxes and start wars. The imperial Diet convened at different locations before 1594. It only convened at Regensburg after that date. The character of discourse in the Holy Roman Empire changed as a consequence of these constitutional reforms. Informal discourse faded, when the emperor no longer sought advice from trusted persons, but required the approval of a formal council for his decisions. The power of nobles and cities in decision-making increased, when the emperor could no longer raise taxes without the Diet’s consent. His direct taxing authority was restricted to the domains under his direct control (Hausmacht).

The German King/Holy Roman emperor was elected, but it was a de facto hereditary position. The German king was elected by prince electors, but this did not arrest the rise of dynastic rule. We can explain this by the electoral procedures of the Holy Roman Empire. Electors could be persuaded to support dynastic succession. The electors used their positions to negotiate privileges with the next emperor. Hereditary positions of prince-electors supported hereditary imperial succession. The Hohenstaufen dynasty ruled as kings and emperors of the empire from 1138 till 1254. No king was appointed after the death of Frederick II’s young son in 1254. The Interregnum lasted till 1273, when a new German king was elected. Succession struggles emerged, when several pretenders to the imperial throne competed for the top job. Nobles were split into factions that could be played against one another. Succession wars erupted, when direct hereditary succession was impossible due to the absence of a legal (male) heir. Succession wars were also fought at lower levels of the feudal structure, when local lords died without a (male) heir or family members contested each other’s claims.

The first Habsburg emperor Frederick III was crowned in 1473. The Habsburg dynasty originated from Austria. It increased its Hausmacht mainly through marriage. The House of Habsburg obtained control of Austria, the Low Countries, Burgundy, Spain, Portugal, Hungary and Bohemia. The Habsburgs obtained direct control of Milan and Naples in the Italian Wars. Charles V of Habsburg (1500–1558) was the last emperor, who was crowned by the pope in 1530 after becoming German king in 1519.

Occidental feudalism originated, when kings and emperors appointed vassals to defend their territory. It led to a system, where people obtained (property) rights in return for their services. Occidental feudalism provided incentives to invest in people and structures. It resembled modern day entrepreneurial firms that give founders and employees equity shares in start-up firms. Everybody is paid out handsomely, if the enterprise is successful and loses its opportunity costs, if it fails. Start-up firms are not run along lines of representative democracy, but use informal discourse akin to feudal courts (Brouwer 2012, ch. 8). Informal discourse and risk (and profit) sharing arrangements work well, when the enterprise grows, but falter when expansion comes to a halt or turns into decline. Employees will demand fixed wages and banks fixed rates of interest on loans, if growth is no longer expected. The same happened when occidental feudalism stopped to expand. Territorial expansion of the Holy Roman Empire had allowed the granting of ever more fiefs to vassals. However, this changed, when territorial expansion came to a halt.

Vassalage became a closed shop and the nobility was closed to newcomers after 1300 in the Low Countries. Closure of the knighthood robbed lords from their capacity to reward people by giving them fiefs and noble titles. Personal competition for rank order among nobles strengthened, when the knighthood was closed. The emperor could reward nobles by promoting them to higher ranks. Counts could be promoted to dukes, which allowed them a seat in the imperial Diet. Dukes could become Grand Dukes or princes. Promotions were used to reward successful military commanders in Italy, where emperor and pope fought for hegemony. Brutal condottiere were rewarded by noble titles that confirmed their authority. Murder and conquest were condoned. The papal states increased their territories under popes Alexander VI and Julius II. Duchies and cities in Central Italy came under nominal papal control, but were run by local princes. Other parts of Italy came under Habsburg control, but were also ruled by local lords.

Market competition was replaced by personal competition for individual glory, when tyrants seized power of Italian cities. Citizens had first welcomed single rule that brought disputes in councils to an end. But, city tyrants lost popular support, when their misdemeanors multiplied. Florentine citizens attempted to restore the republic at several occasions. But, they failed to do so due to a lack of support from other cities. Large Italian cities annexed their smaller neighbors. Florence took control of Pisa in 1406. Venice ruled over its terra ferma containing Padua, Verona and other cities. France invaded Northern Italy in 1494, which signaled the start of the Italian wars that lasted till 1559. The siege of Florence (1529–1530) ended with the restoration of Medici rule and the end of the city republic. Italian cities declined, when violence prevailed over agreement. Italy differed from Northern Europe, where the feudal institutional framework remained intact. Northern European cities did not swallow their smaller brethren but cooperated to withstand aggression.

4.2.3 Nobles of the Low Countries

The nobility of the Low Countries evolved along a path that differed from Italy. Feudal relations between lord and vassal were kept intact. Lord and vassal were mutually dependent; lords depended on their vassals for (military) services, while the vassal depended on his lord to protect his rights. These rights could encompass rights to a certain domain, but also involved rights of jurisdiction, of levying tolls, of organizing markets, of coinage, of hunting and other rights. Offices were given to ministeriales, who served as chamberlain, bailiff and castellan and accompanied the lord on his campaigns. Ministeriales were recruited from the non-free; they could become free men and enter the nobility by obtaining a knighthood. Knight was the lowest noble title; below that of prince, duke, baron and count. The number of knights swelled, when new posts and offices were granted. Knights were supposed to behave as military officers; they were obliged to participate in crusades and tournaments. The first knightly orders were military orders like the Templars and Teutonic knights that participated in the Crusades. The Templars were crushed in 1307 on the orders of king Philip IV of France.

The nobility in the Low Countries was closed around 1300. The number of Northern nobles shrank after that date. The high rate of mortality among their ranks diminished their numbers. Many noblemen died in military campaigns before producing a heir. Surviving nobles inherited titles from deceased family members and came to control ever more fiefs. Geographically dispersed fiefs prevented nobles to live near their subjects. A new type of official arose that acted as replacement of absentee territorial lords.

New avenues of social ascent gained importance, when access to the nobility was closed. Monastic life constituted an alternative for social ascent. Monasteries were the main places of learning during the middle ages. Cities were also organizations that allowed people to ascend through commerce and learning; many cities established universities. Mercenary armies came to replace the equestrian knight and his entourage, when cannons and fire arms were introduced on the battle-field. Mercenary armies were paid from taxes. Cities became the most important generators of lordly revenues, when the middle ages proceeded. The right to impose taxes allowed kings and emperors to obtain loans from banking houses like the Medici and Fuggers.

Decentralization came to a halt, when no more rights were issued to vassals and cities. Centralization occurred, when ever more fiefs came under control of a single family. Lords of the Habsburg House expanded their territories through conquest and marriage. Face to face contact between lord and vassal disappeared, when lords resided in faraway places. Centralization of territorial control eroded the informal relationship between lord and vassal. Discourse changed character, when informal discourse gave way to formal discussion in councils. Lords had acted as a primus inter pares in informal discourse. He listened to his vassals before taking decisions. The position of emperors and lords in councils was less clear. His decisions required council approval. The question arose how to act, when approval was denied?

Feudal contractual rights needed to be renewed at times of succession. Vassals and cities had to renew their pledges of allegiance to the new lord. The interdependent relationship between lord, vassals and cities made periods of succession a time to renegotiate rights and duties. Population decline of the fourteenth century precipitated by the Black Death that undermined feudal revenues from lands forced kings and lords to turn to cities for funds. Their demand for higher taxes prompted city governments to demand more privileges. Cities did not have voting power in the imperial Diet. However, councils emerged in the provinces of the Low Countries, wherein city representatives had voting rights. Cities wanted to promote trade and prevent wars that hurt commerce. They differed from nobles, who lived by the sword.

4.3 The Dutch Provinces of the Low Countries

Present day Dutch provinces date back to medieval duchies and counties. The most important early fief in the Netherlands was that of the bishop of Utrecht. The first bishop of Utrecht was consecrated by the pope in 695. The secular authority of the bishop of Utrecht covered the present day provinces of Utrecht, Overijssel, Drente and the city of Groningen at the height of its power in 1024, when he became a prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire. Bishoprics were not hereditary, which made them attractive positions for younger siblings of noble families in the age of primogeniture. Bishops were no longer appointed by the German king/emperor since the Concordat of Worms of 1122 that annulled the emperor’s right of investiture. However, kings could invest bishops with secular authority and still had a say in bishop appointments. Things changed, when bishops were appointed directly by the pope after 1350. Direct papal appointment robbed the bishops of (military) assistance given by secular rulers. Secular authority of the bishops of Utrecht shrank, when they lost territory to Guelders and Holland.

The history of the Holland province dates back to 889, when the Frankish king enfeoffed Gerolf with a part of the present–day provinces of North and South Holland. Similar processes of infeudation that replaced tribal leaders by appointed vassals took place in other parts of Western Europe. Fiefs became hereditary after 887, when the Frankish king signed the Capitulare of Quierzy. Manors and castles became assets, when property rights were installed. Newly installed nobles built castles that fit their newly gained status. The castle building boom came to an end, when the ranks of the nobility were closed. The present day province of Zeeland belonged to the duchy of Flanders till 1256, when it befell on the count of Holland.

Guelders became a county in 1096, when Gerard III van Wassenberg was first mentioned as count of Guelders. The county was elevated to duchy in 1339 by the emperor. Guelders covered parts of the present day province of Limburg. The history of Brabant as a separate fief dates back to the eighth century, when it was part of the duchy of Lorraine and since 959 of Lower Lorraine. It became a duchy of the Holy Roman Empire in 1083. The history of Dutch counties and duchies is sketched below.

4.3.1 Holland

The House of Holland ruled these provinces for more than four centuries. The fief became a duchy of the Holy Roman Empire, when the empire extended its territory by suppressing Vikings and free peasants. The first lord of Holland Gerolf obtained his title from the Frankish king Arnulf of Kharintia upon killing Godfried the Viking in 885. Godfried was caught into an ambush by Gerolf’s men. Gerolf had been Godfried’s assistant until the betrayal. Gerolf’s successor Dirk I expanded his territory by taking the side of the Frankish kings in his suppression of revolting vassals. His son Dirk II further expanded territorial control through marriage. He also obtained three fiefs from king Otto III of Germany in 985 as reward for his services. The territory was further expanded by Dirk’s successor Aernout of Holland, who accompanied king Otto III to Rome for his coronation as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Aernout died in fighting the rebellious West Frisians. The authority of his successor Dirk III was contested by the bishop of Utrecht, who was supported by the emperor. Dirk III had illegally installed a toll in the river at Vlaardingen. The emperor forbade him to exploit the toll. But, Dirk won the battle of Vlaardingen in 1018 against the imperial troops and expanded his territory at the expense of Utrecht (Wikipedia, Dirk III of Holland). His successor Dirk IV, however, fared less well. He also wanted to expand his territory at the expense of Utrecht, but he found the emperor and his army on his way. He lost out to the emperor in 1046, who destroyed his castle at Rijnsburg. Dirk IV was ambushed and killed by the bishops of Utrecht, Liege and Metz in 1049. He was succeeded by his brother Floris I of Holland, who also wanted to expand his territory through war against Utrecht. But, he and hundreds of his men were killed by the viscount of Utrecht in 1061. Parts of his territory befell on Utrecht as a consequence of this defeat. His successor Dirk V was assisted by Flanders in his attempt to win his fiefs back.

We can note that incessant war between Utrecht and Holland did not contribute to expansion, since gains were often undone by subsequent losses. These fights were more about personal prestige than territorial gain. Losers had to recognize victors as their overlord. Dirk V defeated the Utrecht bishop and regained (part of) his territory.

His successor Floris II obtained the official title count of Holland from the bishop of Utrecht in 1101. He had to recognize the bishop as his overlord to obtain the title. The count of Holland thereby became the bishop’s vassal. The bishop gave him more territory as a reward for his demonstrated loyalty. Recognition did not mean subjugation in feudal times, since local lords had great autonomy and could grant rights to persons and cities. Floris II granted privileges to monasteries that were active in turning swamps into agricultural land. Increased food supplies as a consequence of these policies allowed the population of Holland to grow. Floris II became a rich man. He acted more as an entrepreneur than a warrior. Feudal wars were zero sum games, when the gains of one vassal came at the loss of another. Land expansion, however, increased production and allowed population growth.

Floris II was succeeded by Dirk VI of Holland (1121–1157), who was only 7 years old at the time of his father’s death. His mother acted as his regent. Dirk VI married Sofie of Salm, countess of Reineck and Bentheim. Dirk VI’s rule was not uncontested. He was enveloped in a feud with his younger brother Floris the Black, who contested Dirk VI’s rule with the support of his mother, who thought Floris the better candidate. The principle of primogeniture prevailed in this period. It differed from Salic law that was applied in earlier times, when possessions were distributed among all sons. Salic law contributed to dispersion of estates. Primogeniture promoted concentration and entailed feuds among brothers, if doubts were raised concerning the quality of the eldest son.

Floris’ claim was initially supported by the bishop of Utrecht and by Lothair, duke of Saxony; the half brother of his mother. Sofie supported Lothair in his revolt against emperor Henry V. Lothair prevailed and was elected king of the Germans in 1125. Lothair returned Leiden and Rijnland to Holland, which had been awarded to the bishop of Utrecht in 1064. Floris the Black ruled for a period of 2 years (1129–1131) after which date Dirk VI re-obtained his title and authority due to the intervention of Lothair, who changed sides, when he had been elected German king. He ordered the two brothers to share leadership of the duchy. Floris the Black led a revolt by Frisian and Kennemer peoples against Dirk VI. But, the revolt was suppressed and Floris’ authority dwindled, when he lost the support of the bishop of Utrecht. He was ambushed and killed near Utrecht by two vassals of the bishop. Lothair punished these vassals by razing their castles to the ground and banning them. Dirk VI prevailed in the conflict with his brother and succeeded in getting his candidate for bishop of Utrecht appointed. The above chain of events demonstrates the volatile character of occidental feudalism. Counts and bishops were engaged in battles for territorial control and status. Family members contested each other’s claims of succession. Imperial control was weakened in times of disputed kingship. Battles could be won, but conquests were transitory. Military defeat was not necessarily lethal, but breaches of loyalty inspired political murder at several occasions.

Dirk VI was succeeded by his son Floris III of Holland (1157–1190), who became entangled in a war with Flanders, which he lost. Floris III was captured and jailed by the Flemish. He had to recognize the count of Flanders as his overlord in the peace treaty of Bruges of 1167. Floris III stood at the side of emperor Barbarossa in his fight against the Italian cities. He accompanied Barbarossa on his expeditions into Italy in 1158, and 1176–78. His loyalty was rewarded by the emperor, who made him a member of the imperial nobility (rijksvorst) in 1177. His brother Boudewijn became bishop of Utrecht in 1178. Floris III participated in the third crusade at the side of Barbarossa and died in Antioch in 1190. Floris III was succeeded by Dirk VII of Holland (1190–1203), whose rule was contested by his younger brother Willem after he returned from the crusade where he had accompanied his father. Willem was supported by revolting West Frisians. But, his troops were defeated by an army led by Dirk VII’s wife.

Two emperors of the Holy Roman Empire vied for authority at the time; Henry VI and anti emperor Otto IV, who had papal support. Dirk VII choose the side of Henry VI, who allowed him to expand his authority over Utrecht. He organized to get his uncle Dirk of Holland appointed as bishop of Utrecht in 1196. However, emperor Henry VI died the next year. Dirk VII’s control of Utrecht brought him into conflict with the duke of Guelders in 1196, who wanted to take over Drente and Overijssel from bishopric rule. Dirk VII won the war, but he lost control of Utrecht in 1197, when a new bishop was appointed.

Dirk VII shifted allegiances repeatedly. He allied with Otto of Guelders in 1202 to attack Brabant that claimed Holland, Utrecht and Guelders. He destroyed the newly built city of ‘s Hertogenbosch in Brabant, but could not win the war. He was taken prisoner and had to pay a huge ransom to regain his freedom. Dirk VII had to recognize the duke of Brabant as overlord for the South of Holland and the bishop of Utrecht for the northern part.

Dirk VII did not have sons, but three daughters. He made female succession within the county of Holland possible. He was succeeded by his daughter Ada of Holland upon his death in 1203. Her status was, however, contested by her uncle Willem. Willem captured Ada and jailed her at the island of Texel and later moved her to England. Her husband Louis van Loon succeeded in getting her released. The county of Holland was partitioned between Willem and Ada at the 1206 Treaty of Bruges. Willem obtained the southern and Ada the northern part of Holland. But, Otto IV, the German king, made Willem count of Holland in 1208. Ada and her husband continued the fight. Ada’s husband Louis died from poison in 1218. Ada died childless in 1223. Willem ruled as Willem I of Holland. He participated in the fifth crusade, which brought him to Portugal, where many of his soldiers decided to stay upon obtaining rights to the land. Willem proceeded to the Holy Land and captured the city of Damietta. He died in Jeruzalem in 1222.

Willem I was succeeded by his son Floris IV (1222–1234), who expanded the territory of the county of Holland to the south through his marriage with Mathilde of Brabant. He had some disputes with the bishop of Utrecht, but also accompanied the bishop on his expeditions. He went on a crusade against the people of Northern Germany and died in a tournament at Corbie, France in 1234. Willem was succeeded by his son Willem II (1234–1256) as count of Holland and Zeeland. The bishop of Utrecht was his guardian until he reached adulthood in 1239. Willem II was elected (anti) king of the Holy Roman Empire in 1247. He fought against Flanders for the control of Zeeland. He bestowed upon himself the title king of Zeeland in his capacity of (anti) king of the Holy Roman Empire. He was killed in 1256 at Hoogwoud by West Frisians that revolted against him. The Frisians were unaware that they had killed the (anti) king and hid his body at a farm fire place.

Willem II left a 2 year old son behind, who succeeded him as Floris V (1256–1296). His uncle Floris de Voogd (1256–1258) and his aunt Aleid of Holland (1258–1263) obtained custody of the young Floris. Aleid was defeated at the battle of Reimerswaal by Otto II, count of Guelders in 1263, who became the next regent (1263–1266). Floris V was supported by the count of Hainaut, who was an enemy of the count of Flanders.

The bishop of Utrecht faced an uprising by nobles in 1274 led by Gijsbrecht van Aemstel and supported by West Frisian peasants. Floris V assisted the bishop in defeating the uprising. A peace treaty was made, wherein the nobles accepted defeat. Floris V obtained the domains of the rebellious nobles from the bishop in 1279. He defeated the West Frisians in 1282 and retrieved his father’s body from the Hoogwoud fireplace. He got South Zeeland in loan from the king in 1287, but this loan was contested by Flanders. Flemish nobles invaded South Zeeland. Floris arranged a meeting with the Flemish, but he was captured and only liberated after abandoning his claims on South Zeeland. He was initially supported by Edward I, king of England. But the king turned to the Flemish side in 1296, which prompted Floris to side with the French king. King Edward conspired with Gijsbrecht van Aemstel and three other nobles; the count of Flanders and the duke of Brabant were also involved in the conspiracy. The four nobles captured Floris and held him prisoner at the Muiderslot in the summer of 1296. Peasants wanted to liberate the count, who was thereupon killed by Gerard van Velsen; one of the nobles that held him captive. The House of Holland ended in 1299, when Floris’ son Jan I died at the age of 15.

Most members of the House of Holland were warriors that wanted to expand their powers by seizing land from rival nobles and free peasants Territorial control also expanded by drying the marshes. The creation of new land was mostly carried out by monasteries that obtained leases on the newly gained land. The history of the House of Holland points out that feudal loyalty did not prevent fights among vassals and family members. The emperor could decide in these conflicts, but his authority was weak, when kings and anti kings fought each other. Feudal loyalty was of a rather volatile and opportunistic nature. Imperial succession created opportunities to expand territorial control by supporting the winning candidate. This applied with the greatest force, when succession was disputed. Lords and vassals changed sides regularly. Free peasants also took sides in succession feuds. Defeat was used by the victorious party to obtain ransoms, territory and recognition of status from the losing side. We can argue that warfare was played by the rules of chivalry. Defeat did not mean death, but was limited to loss of property and status. Knights were captured and released on paying ransom that was provided by cities. However, vassals who revolted against the king/emperor were assassinated as happened to Dirk IV and Floris the Black. A vassal’s life was uncertain. Many lords of the House of Holland died in wars, crusades, tournaments or by a murderer’s hand.

Occidental feudalism was based on pledges of loyalty; vassals, who deceived their lord were guilty of high treason. They could escape death by fleeing to another county. Two of the three nobles –Gijsbrecht van Aemstel and Herman van Woerden- that abducted Floris V of Holland and caused his death spent the rest of their lives in exile. They lost all their titles and possessions. Gerard van Velsen, the main perpetrator, was captured, tortured and executed. Floris V’s death meant a serious breach of feudal loyalty. Many fiefs were confiscated after the killing. Treason was a capital crime and entailed death and loss of property. Feuds among nobles, however, were transgressions and less heavily punished.

The era of the House of Holland was a period of economic bloom. The counts of the House of Holland granted rights to many cities. Fewer city rights were granted after 1300. Lower lords continued to grant city rights, but these rights were of lesser weight. Foreign rule came to Holland after the House of Holland became extinct in 1299. Holland befell on the House of Avesnes/Hainaut (1299–1354), which was succeeded by the House of Bayern (Beierse Huis) (1354–1433) and by the House of Burgundy (1433–1482). The House of Habsburg ruled from 1482 till 1581.

4.3.1.1 The House of Avesnes/Hainaut (1299–1354)

The county of Holland befell on the House of Avesnes/Hainaut (Henegouwen) located in the North of France. The House of Avesnes obtained Holland in a personal union due to the marriage of Jan I van Avesnes with Aleida of Holland, a daughter of count Willem II. Their son Jan II of Holland/Avesnes became count of Holland and Zeeland from 1299 till his death in 1304. Jan II of Avesnes was succeeded by his son Willem III of Avesnes, who ruled Holland and Zeeland till 1337. His son Willem IV of Avesnes ruled as count of Holland and Zeeland until his death in 1345. Willem IV died childless in that year at Warns in a battle against the revolting Frisians. Willem IV was a fervent campaigner, who participated in three crusades against the Lithuanians and Prussians. He also travelled to the Holy Land. Willem IV was brother in law to Edward III, king of England. Willem allied with England against France, at the beginning of the 100 Years War. But, he soon changed sides to support the French king.

Willem IV granted privileges to cities that funded his campaigns. Cities were invited to participate in the count’s advisory council; the Hof van Holland (Wikipedia, Willem IV of Avesnes/Holland). The growing prosperity of cities made lords increasingly dependent on cities for their finances. More funds could be obtained by expanding city rights. Succession became a problem upon the death of Willem IV, who died in 1345 without leaving a heir. He was succeeded by Margaretha of Hainaut/Bayern; his oldest sister, who had married Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV, duke of Bayern. She appointed her 13 year old son Willem V as count of Holland and Zeeland in 1349. However, cities protested against Willem V, because Margaretha demanded a huge sum from the cities for his appointment. The succession troubles caused a rift among nobles. Some nobles, who were left out of the lord’s council united and supported Margaretha; they were called the Hoeken (Hooks). Several nobles and cities supported Willem and encouraged him to sever the ties with his mother and renege on the sum to be paid to him; they were called Kabeljauwen (Cods). Some battles were fought by the two factions before peace between mother and son was established in 1354.

Willem became count Willem V of Holland and Zeeland in 1354 and count of Hainaut in 1356, when his mother died. Willem V’s reign was of short duration. He was deposed, when he killed one of his vassals in 1358 during a royal banquet in an alleged bout of insanity. His younger brother Albrecht seized to the occasion and had Willem imprisoned at his castle at Quesnoyes (Hainaut), where he died in 1389. Albrecht took over as regent and in 1389 as count of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut. Albrecht became duke of Bayern/Straubing in 1347, when his father died.

4.3.1.2 The House of Bayern (1358–1433)

The House of Hainaut was replaced by the House of Bayern, when Willem V was deposed and his brother Albrecht; Margaretha’s third son took over. Albrecht acted as regent (ruwaard) for his brother during his captivity. Albrecht possessed a big castle in Bayern, but lived most of the time in the Hague, where he died in 1404. He was succeeded by his son Willem van Oostervant, who ruled as count Willem VI of Holland till 1417. Willem VI did not have sons. He was succeeded by his 16 year old daughter Jacoba van Beieren. But, her succession was contested by her uncle Jan van Beieren VI, the prince/bishop of Luik (Liege) in another episode of the Hook and Cod wars. The Hooks chose the side of Jacoba van Beieren, while Jan got the support of the Cods and of Roman king Sigismund. The king appointed Jan as duke of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut out of fear of too much French influence in Holland. Jacoba’s mother Margaretha of Burgundy, who was related to the French kings of the House of Valois supported her daughter and sought the support of her brother Jan the Fearless; the duke of Burgundy.

Jacoba married Jan IV, duke of Brabant and Limburg, in 1418. The marriage was arranged by the duke of Burgundy and obtained papal approval. Jan van Brabant, however, got into financial trouble. He gave Jacoba’s inheritance away to Jan’s successor; Filip the Good of Burgundy in 1420, who obtained custody of her possessions for a period of 12 years. Jacoba secretly left for England at the invitation of king Henry V. The marriage with Jan van Brabant was dissolved under English law. She then married Humphrey, duke of Gloucester and the king’s brother. However, her divorce did not obtain papal approval. Filip the Good (1419–1467) supported her former husband; Jan van Brabant. Jan died in 1425 from poisoning. Filip the Good reconciled with Jacoba van Beieren and concluded a treaty in 1428 (Zoen van Delft). The peace treaty allowed Jacoba to keep her titles of countess of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut. The treaty gave Filip the rights of succession to the counties, if Jacoba would die without leaving a heir. She was not allowed to marry without the approval of her mother, Filip and the three counties (Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut). Jacoba ran into financial trouble and ‘voluntarily’ gave all her titles to Filip in 1433. She married Frank van Borselen in 1432, who obtained the title of count of Oostervant from Filip the Good. Jacoba died from tuberculosis in 1436 at the castle of Teylingen near Sassenheim. She did not leave a heir, whereupon Filip the Good inherited her possessions.

Family and succession policies trumped military conquests in expanding territorial control. Lords, who obtained fiefs through heritage had a legal claim to these territories in contrast to military victories that could be undone. But, expansion achieved by military conquest was no longer undone after 1300.

4.3.1.3 The House of Burgundy (1433–1482)

Filip the Good was also duke of Flanders, Artois, Namurs and Luxemburg. He acquired the duchies of Brabant and Limburg in 1430 by inheritance from Filip of St. Pol, who had recognized him as his heir. Filip the Good greatly expanded control of the House of Burgundy in the Low Countries by these actions. He was engaged in the 100 Years War between France and England. He captured Joan of Arc, who was accused of heresy and brought to death in 1431.

The treaty of the Zoen van Delft of 1428 institutionalized new forms of discourse in the county of Holland. The advisory court council; the Hof van Holland, became a judicial court. The Estates of Holland was established as a representative council of Ridderschap (nobility) and large cities of Holland in that year. The Ridderschap had one seat in the Estates of Holland. The six large cities (Dordrecht, Haarlem, Delft, Leiden, Amsterdam and Gouda) had one each. Filip the Good wanted to centralize control over his expanded territories by installing new institutions that exceeded the level of county and duchy. He installed the Estates General of the Low Countries, which convened for the first time in Bruges in 1464.

Filip the Good was succeeded after his death in 1467 by his son Charles the Bold, who further expanded the Burgundy territories. Charles installed the Great Council of Mechelen in 1473, which acted as parliament and supreme judicial court of the Burgundy territories. The installation of the Great Council of Mechelen meant further centralization, which was disliked by the counties and duchies that saw their authority dwindle by these actions. Charles the Bold was a ferocious warrior. He fought the last battle between a city militia and a state army at the Battle of Brustem in 1467. Charles gave orders to kill all militiamen that fell into the hands of his army. 4000 men from Tongeren and Luik were killed. He destroyed the city of Luik in 1468 (Wikipedia, Charles the Bold). Charles the Bold died on the battlefield in Nancy in 1477.

Charles was succeeded by his daughter Mary of Burgundy. Several lords and cities rose to the occasion and declared themselves independent from Burgundy rule, when Mary took over. Mary had to grant privileges to be recognized as sovereign and receive financial and military assistance in her struggle with France. Mary signed the Great Privilege treaty in February 1477. The Great Council of Mechelen was abolished by the Great Privilege. Counties and duchies regained their judicial rights and non-inhabitants were excluded from taking offices. Dutch was recognized as an official language in the Great Privilege. Several duchies and cities obtained Great Privileges of their own to strengthen local authority. Mary was pressed to grant these privileges because her financial and military position was weak. This changed, when she married Maximilian I of Habsburg, arch duke of Austria in August 1477. Mary died in 1482 from a fall from her horse.

4.3.1.4 The House of Habsburg (1482–1581)

Mary was succeeded by her son Filip the Handsome. His father Maximilian acted as his regent until Filip reached adulthood in 1494. Maximilian of Habsburg was elected German king in 1486 and was crowned emperor by the pope. Filip the Handsome did not recognize the Great Privilege after taking power in 1494. He (re)established the Great Council of Mechelen on a permanent basis in 1504 thereby undoing the Great Privilege. Filip the Handsome was lord of Holland, Zeeland, Brabant, Limburg, Flanders, Artesia, Hainaut, Luxemburg and Burgundy. He acquired the Spanish throne by his marriage to Joanna of Castilia, daughter of the Spanish Catholic king and queen. Filip became king of Spain in 1506 after Joanna’s brother, who was the only male heir to the throne, had died. Filip the Handsome died later that year under mysterious circumstances. Rumors had it that he was poisoned by his adversaries.

Filip the Handsome was succeeded by his son Charles V. His grandfather Maximilian acted as his regent until he reached the age of 16 in 1516. Charles V was crowned Holy Roman emperor by the pope in 1530. He expanded his territories in the Low Counties. He obtained the bishopric of Utrecht in 1528, when he bought the secular rights from the bishop, who only had religious authority after that date. Charles V became duke of Guelders in 1536, when the treaty of Grave was signed upon the defeat of the duke of Guelders at the battle of Heiligerlee. Charles V also acquired control of Overijssel and the city of Groningen in the treaty. He had already obtained authority over the Friesland province in 1524 as another consequence of the Guelders Wars. Charles V now controlled all 17 provinces of the Low Counties. He established the 17 provinces as a unified political entity by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549. A pragmatic sanction was an edict promulgated by the emperor, which had the force of fundamental law. The 17 unified provinces would be inherited by one heir and not be dissembled upon his death. His large possessions prompted him to appoint place holders (stadhouders) to rule in his name in counties and duchies. Charles V abdicated in 1556.

He gave Spain and the Low Countries to his son Philip II. His younger brother Ferdinand got the rest of his possessions encompassing Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia. The House of Habsburg was now split in a Spanish and an Austrian branch. The Spanish Habsburgs ruled the 17 provinces of the Low Countries till 1581, when the Northern provinces separated from Spain during their 80 years war of independence.

4.3.2 Factious Fights in Holland

War was the core business of nobles. Vassals could expand their territory by fighting Vikings and free peasants. But, the end of territorial expansion did not alter the military character of knighthood. Wars were fought among nobles for territorial control. But, war did not provide much lasting results, when gains were soon reversed by opposite movements. Marriage policies were more successful in expanding control. Centralization largely resulted from the absence of direct legal heirs. Counties and duchies were given to daughters, uncles, aunts and nephews and nieces, when direct heirs were lacking. However these successions often did not run smoothly, but were contested. Disputed successions triggered several wars among nobles in the county of Holland that became known as the Hook and Cod conflicts mentioned above.

4.3.2.1 Hook and Cod Conflicts (1345–1354)

The first round of the Hook and Cod wars ignited, when count Willem IV of Beieren died in 1345 without leaving a heir. He had granted many privileges to cities in exchange for loans. His heirs were, however, unable to repay his debts. Holy Roman emperor Louis IV appointed his wife Margaretha of Hainaut/Beieren as Willem’s successor, who appointed her 13 year old son Willem as count of Holland (and Zeeland). However, she asked a sum of 15,000 florins plus an annual fee of 6000 florins from the cities. Cities and nobles repudiated the terms of succession in Geertruidenberg in 1349. They wanted to renege on the conditions imposed by Margaretha. Nobles allied in two factions; Kabeljauwen (Cods) and Hoeken (Hooks). Four nobles concluded the Kabeljauwse Verbondsakte (Cod agreement) in 1350; Jan I van Egmont, Gerard van Heemskerk, Jan IV van Arkel and Gijsbrecht II van Nijenrode. They supported Willem V on the condition that he would forego his fees. Other nobles signed the Hoekse Verbondsakte (Hook agreement) and supported Margaretha. Willem was abducted by the Hooks in 1351, but was soon liberated. Nobles commanded the Hook and Cod armies. Most large cities did not take sides. Small, lordly cities, however, became entangled in the conflict.

Several sea battles were fought between Hooks and Cods (Battle of Zwartewaal and Battle of Veere) and several city castles were besieged (Medemblik, Geertruidenberg). The castle of the lord of Brederode (near Haarlem) was destroyed by the Cods. The favored military tactic during the Hook and Cod wars was to beleaguer castles and force their inhabitants to surrender, if they wanted to forego death from starvation. Large cities –apart from Delft- stayed out of the factional strife. The Cod faction supporting Willem prevailed militarily in this round of the Hook and Cod wars. But, the war ended, when Willem made peace with his mother in 1354. The Hook nobles that had fled Holland and lived in exile were allowed to return after the peace agreement was concluded.

Hook and Cod commanders fought to improve their position at the expense of the losing side. However, the war ended in a net economic loss for the nobles. Castles and other possessions of Hook commanders were either destroyed or acquired by Cod nobles. Hook commander Filips van Polanen lost his castle at Geertruidenberg to the Cod faction. Dirk van Brederode –another Hook commander- was captured at Zwartewaal. He could only regain his freedom by paying a ransom. Another Hook commander; Philips IV of Wassenaer died in captivity. Some nobles from the Cod party gained something, but their gains turned out to be transitory. The four nobles that had signed the Kabeljauwse Verbondsakte did not gain much from their military victories. Gijsbrecht II van Nijenrode besieged the Hook castle of Brederode (near Haarlem) in 1351. However, so little was left of the castle after the siege that it could not be saved and was demolished. Jan IV van Arkel, another signee of the Cod Pact, had to return some possessions after the peace. Jan I van Egmont was the only signatory that gained from the feuds. He obtained a high office, when he was appointed stadhouder of Holland and Zeeland by Willem V.

Willem V granted privileges to cities and nobles that had supported him in the succession feud. However, these privileges were not recognized after Willem made peace with his mother. Willem argued that these privileges were not freely granted. He was supported by the pamphlet de cura republicae et sorte principantis by Filips van Leiden; a jurist (Wikipedia, Hoekse en Kabeljauwse Twisten).

Nobles as a class did not benefit from the conflict. We can argue that Willem and his mother revoked the benefits granted and penalties imposed on cities and nobles to discourage them to participate in further fights. Commanders only marginally benefitted from victory. Losers were re-installed in their rights after peace was concluded. The castle of Brederode was rebuilt in 1354, when the lord of Brederode regained his rights (Wikipedia, kasteel Brederode). Positions taken in the conflict were reversible; nobles, who moved to the other side, when the odds changed could benefit from such moves. Taking sides in the succession conflict was not considered a fatal breach of feudal codes. Nobles had a duty to advise their lord. But, people with a voice could also take sides in disputed successions. Losers were not eliminated, but could rejoin noble ranks by pledging loyalty to the new lord.

Combat came naturally to knights. These feudal conflicts resembled the tournaments of these days. War was used by nobles as an alternative to negotiation. The Hook and Cod feuds were limited wars that were fought for economic gains and not for extinction of the enemy. No definite change in the balance of power between lords and cities occurred in these feuds; there were only losses of lives and goods.

4.3.2.2 Arkel Wars 1401–1412

Another episode of feudal combat erupted in Holland and Zeeland, when Albrecht van Beieren’s son Willem van Oostervant intrigued against Jan V van Arkel. Jan van Arkel V, an important vassal holding several fiefs, was a member of the count’s informal council; the Hof van Holland. He gained Albrecht’s confidence and became his main advisor. But, Jan van Arkel V was heavily despised by Albrecht’s son Willem van Oostervant, who raised doubts about his loyalty. Willem van Oostervant suggested to his father that Jan van Arkel complotted against him. Trust was further shaken, when Aleid van Poelgeest, Albrecht’s mistress, was killed in the Hague in 1392. Hook nobles were suspected of committing the crime. Albrecht took revenge on the alleged Hook killers of his mistress and several castles of Hook nobles were razed to the ground, when relatives of Aleid and her companion Willem Cuser were allowed to take revenge on the alleged perpetrators.

Willem van Oostervant became an outright enemy of Jan van Arkel V after his father fell ill in 1401. An episode of feudal conflict ensued that became known as the Arkel wars. Jan van Arkel wanted to secede from Holland to install his own county. He attacked the city of Oudewater in 1401 and burnt the castle of Giessenburg, also located in Holland. Holland joined forces with Utrecht, Guelders and the cities of Dordrecht, Gouda and Oudewater to counter the Arkel attacks. A compromise was designed in 1404 to end the conflicts, but was not accepted by Willem van Oostervant, who had succeeded his father upon his death in the same year. Willem became count Willem VI of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut and duke of Bayern/Straubing. Jan V van Arkel was lord of the city of Gorinchem, but its citizens no longer supported him, when Holland troops plundered the Arkel territories. They asked for lordship of Holland, whereupon Jan van Arkel besieged his own city. The anti Arkel alliance prevailed in 1415. The allied forces destroyed the Arkel castles of Everstein and Hagestein. Jan van Arkel V lost all his rights and possessions. He was captured and jailed in Gouda in 1415 and died in captivity in 1428. The Arkel castle in Gorinchem was thoroughly destroyed and never rebuilt. The Arkel possessions befell on Holland and Guelders.

Jan V van Arkel’s rebellion constituted a severe violation of the feudal code that could not be repaired. His sons could not regain their noble status by pledging loyalty to the count of Holland. One of his sons tried to regain the city of Gorinchem, but was killed. The Arkel family disappeared completely from the ranks of the nobility. The Arkel wars differed from the Hook and Cod wars that allowed defeated lords to re-enter noble ranks.

4.3.2.3 Hook and Cod Conflicts II (1417–1428)

Hook and Cod conflicts flared up again in 1417, when Jacoba van Beieren succeeded her father Willem VI as countess of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut. Her reign was contested by her uncle Jan van Beieren (John the Pitiless) with the support of German emperor Sigismund. The Hooks supported Jacoba and the Cods Jan van Beieren. Again, female succession created difficulties and was contested by male family members. Jacoba was impaired, because she was a widow at the time of her succession and, therefore, lacked the military support of a spouse. She had been married to Jan, prince of Touraine, who died in 1417, a few months before the death of her father. She married Jan IV of Brabant in 1418.

Several cities were beleaguered in this round of the Hook and Cod wars. Jan van Beieren obtained several military victories. He took the city of Rotterdam in 1418 and of Leiden in 1420 with Cod help. Jacoba’s husband, Jan IV of Brabant, turned against his wife in 1420, when he left the Hook party that supported Jacoba and moved to the Cod party. He sold the succession rights to Filip the Good, duke of Burgundy, who appointed Jan van Beieren as count of Holland and Zeeland. Jacoba thereupon annulled the marriage. She married Humphrey, duke of Gloucester and brother of king Henry V in 1423. Humphrey and Jacoba and a few thousand English mercenary forces landed in 1424 on the continent and took control of parts of Hainaut. The conflict changed course, when Jan van Beieren was poisoned by his enemies in 1425. Jacoba re-asserted her rights, but was captured by Filip the Good and imprisoned at Ghent in 1425. Humphrey had left for England at the time. Jacoba and her chamber maid managed to escape from captivity with the help of two Hook nobles. Jacoba and her maid both dressed in man’s clothes fled the castle, where the two nobles awaited them with horses. She was brought to Schoonhoven that was on the Hook side at the time.

Filip’s army consisted of feudal retainers and municipal militia from Dordrecht, the Hague and Dordrecht. Jacoba was assisted by 1500 English troops. Jacoba and her Hook supporters obtained some victories against Filip the Good. The Hooks won the battles of Schoonhoven and Alphen a/d Rijn. However, Jacoba lost the battle at Brouwershaven to Filip, who was personally present on the site. Hook commander Willem van Brederode supported Jacoba by beleaguering the city of Haarlem. But, the siege was ended, when Jacoba left for Alphen a/d Rijn and Gouda. Filip the Good entered Haarlem after Jacoba had left and annulled the treaty Jacoba had concluded with the city. Jacoba lost the siege of Gouda to Filip in 1428, which meant the end of her power. Willem van Brederode commanded the Hook troops at the battle of Gouda. The Brederode castle was destroyed for the second time in 1426 by Cod soldiers. Jacoba was forced to reconcile and sign a treaty; the Zoen van Delft (Kiss of Delft) in 1428. Humphrey married one of Jacoba’s ladies in waiting in the same year. Jacoba married Frank van Borselen, a high nobleman from Zeeland, in 1432 and died in 1436 without leaving a heir.

The Hook and Cod wars were limited wars. Positions were reversible in these wars. Nobles were captured for ransom after losing a battle. This happened to Floris III van Haamstede, who was Jacoba’s commander at the battle of Brouwershaven. He lost his possessions, but was re-instated in all his rights by Fillip the Good after paying a sum of 3600 French crowns. Other nobles, who fought on Jacoba’s side, were re-installed, when they pledged loyalty to Filip the Good after the Zoen van Delft of 1428. Hook commanders were not removed from noble ranks; nobles and cities could be pardoned after paying a sum. Willem van Brederode was reinstalled; the Brederode castle was rebuilt. The only one to gain from these feuds was Philip the Good, who could expand his territorial control. He inherited the counties, when Jacoba died childless in 1436. Outcomes of succession wars were ultimately decided by marriage, births and deaths of ruling families. Victory or defeat in combat was less decisive. Nobles, who joined either the Hook or Cod side played by the book of chivalry that was designed for a warrior caste. Women needed support from a powerful husband or family member to succeed. Jacoba van Beieren was betrayed by two husbands, which undermined her position.

Feudal conflicts flared up in periods of disputed succession, when local lords wanted to gain by supporting one or the other candidate. However, vassals hardly obtained any gains from these conflicts. They lost out to higher lords that extended their territorial control and power. Nobles that took sides in succession conflicts did not commit acts of treason. Nobles that participated in these conflicts could be re-installed and recoup their possessions, if they pledged loyalty to the new lord. The limited character of feudal conflicts like the Hook and Cod wars curbed the consequences of defeat, but also of victory. Winning nobles were not allowed to seize possessions of losers. Succession feuds bore some similarity to melee tournaments, wherein opposite parties fought each other to obtain monetary rewards. Captured knights could be freed by paying a ransom.

But, feudal conflicts took on features of unregulated war, when unfounded allegations of disloyalty and other shady tactics were used to remove contenders as happened in court intrigues and the Arkel wars. Feuds among family members to eliminate rivals for the top job also were not played by the book of chivalry. Contenders were annihilated to obtain control of counties and duchies, resembling the bloody practices of fifteenth century Italian city rulers. Unregulated competition for power entailed the elimination of rivals by assassination in past and present.

Warfare became an enterprise of mercenary armies in the late middle ages. Mercenary armies broke the ties between vassals and their retinues of soldiers that fought wars in times, when the mounted knight in armor prevailed. Cavalry was replaced by infantry in the late middle ages. Nobles acted as commanders of mercenary armies instead of leading regiments of peasants and citizens of their domain. Mercenary commanders acted in an entrepreneur-like fashion. They had to pay their soldiers out of their own pockets or obtain a loan. McNeill argues that warfare in Europe between 1300 and 1600 was driven by market incentives (McNeill 1982). Soldiers entered mercenary armies for economic reasons.

The outcomes of feudal feuds were increasingly decided by access to finance. Willem Eggert (lord of Purmerend) funded Willem VI of Holland, which allowed him to defeat Jan van Arkel V. Filip the Good and Maximilian of Austria, who had deep pockets, defeated less wealthy contenders. They could obtain loans to pay their mercenary armies and buy succession rights.

Cities were the main sources of feudal incomes. However, this did not contribute to city power. Citizens had to endure sieges and battles that were fought among nobles. Dutch cities did not fight each other; they did not lose control of cities to condottieri as had happened in Northern Italy. City government was maintained in the Low Countries. But, cities became increasingly entangled in factional feuds among nobles in Holland and Zeeland. The Hook and Cod wars were not fought to overthrow the authority of the counts of Holland, but to change existing distribution arrangements.

4.3.3 The Duchy of Brabant; a Different Model

Advisory councils like the Hof van Holland did not prevent the emergence of feudal conflicts in the county of Holland in the fourteenth and fifteenth century. The county of Brabant was more successful in organizing discourse to prevent violence. The history of the duchy of Brabant differs from Holland county. The present-day Dutch province of North Brabant belonged to a larger Brabant duchy that encompassed the lands of Flemish Brabant, Waals Brabant, Antwerp, Brussels and the present day Dutch provinces of North Brabant and parts of Limburg. Brabant was ruled by the lords of Lower Lorraine that controlled the larger part of present day France before 1128. Brabant emerged as a political entity in 1085, when Godfried I, duke of Lower Lorraine and count of Leuven, became the first count of Brabant in that year. Godfried I was succeeded by his son Godfried II in 1139. His son Godfried III took over in 1142 and ruled until 1187. He was succeeded by his son Hendrik I, who was elevated to the rank of duke of Brabant by emperor Frederick Barbarossa in 1190 as a reward for his father’s defense of Jeruzalem against Saladin in 1183. Hendrik I obtained the right of female succession in 1204, at a time, when he only had daughters. He was eventually succeeded by his son Hendrik II of Brabant in 1235.

Several Brabant cities obtained city rights in the twelfth and thirteenth century. Brugge obtained city rights in 1128; Gent in 1178; Leuven in 1211 and Antwerp in 1221. Cities had become ever more important as providers of lordly income and asked more rights in return. Hendrik II wanted to facilitate the succession of his son Hendrik III. He, therefore, signed a treaty in 1248, a few days before his death, that gave new privileges to cities. Hendrik III followed his father’s example and also granted new privileges two days before he died in 1261.

The dukes of Brabant stimulated court culture. Hendrik III acquired fame as a minstrel and poet. Hendrik IV, his oldest son, was still under age at the time of his father’s death. His mother acted as his regent. She convinced him to give up the duchy in 1267 on behalf of his brother, because of his alleged mental retardation. Again, mothers and other family members intervened in successions to promote their favored son.

Hendrik’s younger brother became duke Jan I of Brabant. He gained control of Limburg by buying the right to inherit the county. The cities of Brabant provided financial support in his quest to obtain Limburg. Jan I died in 1294 during a tournament. He inspired as a knight, who lived up to the knightly ideal of courtly love and valor. He was an accomplished minstrel. He was succeeded by his son Jan II of Brabant, who continued the tradition of preparing his succession by signing the Charter of Kortenberg in 1312;1 month before his death. The charter stated that no new taxes could be imposed without the consent of nobles and cities. New taxes could only be levied in specified cases; taxes could only be raised, when the duke’s sons obtained knighthood; his daughters married or to pay ransom, when the duke was held captive. The Charter of Kortenberg also prescribed that justice should be fair and that city rights should be recognized by the duke.

The charter called for the establishment of a council; the Estates of Brabant. The Estates had 14 members; 4 nobles and 10 representatives of the large cities of the duchy. The city of Leuven had three representatives; the city of Brussels also had three. The cities of Antwerp, ‘s Hertogenbosch, Tienen and Zoutleeuw had each one representative on the council. The Estates of Brabant was a permanent institution that convened every 3 weeks at the abbey of Kortenberg. Its purpose was to monitor the enforcement of existing rights and privileges; suggest improvements and appoint new council members. The Charter of Kortenberg also allowed the right to resist the sovereign (recht van verzet), when he did not comply with the charter and violated existing rights. Jan II was succeeded by his son Jan III, who signed the Waalse Charters (Wallonian Charters) in 1314 that extended the rights of cities.

The dukes of Brabant wanted cities to accept their authority by extending their rights. However, family members contesting succession and a lack of legitimate (male) heirs, posed a greater threat to orderly succession than cities. This had happened in the county of Holland on several occasions. It would also happen in Brabant. Jan III died in 1355 without leaving a legitimate son. He was succeeded by his daughter Johanna of Brabant. Johanna’s second marriage was to Wenceslaus of Luxemburg, who became duke of Brabant together with his wife. Wenceslaus and Johanna were only recognized as duke and duchess by the cities of Brabant, when they signed de Blijde Inkomst (Joyous Entry) in 1355. The text of the treaty was written by an alliance of cities of Brabant (Verbond van Brabantse Steden). The treaty stated that the sovereign could not enter into war without the cities’ approval. The same applied to the levying of new taxes. The charter also had a clause that acknowledged the cities’ right of resistance. The Blijde Inkomst was signed by the duke and duchess upon their arrival in Brussels. The Blijde Inkomst of 1355 established a tradition in Brabant that continued until the Napoleonic Wars.

However, the treaty became a dead letter, when a war of succession erupted in 1356. The dukes of Guelders and Flanders, who were sons in law of the deceased Jan III of Brabant, contested the right of Johanna to the duchy. Johanna and Wenceslaus had to give up Antwerp and Mechelen to the count of Flanders at the Peace of Aat in 1357. The peace treaty of Aat stipulated that the duchy would go to Flanders, if Johanna would die without leaving a heir. Johanna died childless in 1406 and the duchy befell on Margaretha van Male; duchess of Flanders. Antoon of Burgundy, the second surviving son of Margaretha van Male and Philip the Bold, took over as duke of Brabant in that year with the consent of the Estates of Brabant. Antoon made his Blijde Inkomst in 1406. He appointed a chancellor as main official; a position similar to that of prime minister in a monarchy. The chancellor acted as chairman of the meetings of the Estates of Brabant. But, the fact that the chancellor was appointed by the duke and not chosen by the Estates weakened the authority of the Estates. Antoon died in 1415 at the battle of Azincourt, where he fought on behalf of the French king in the 100 Years War. The duke was not dressed in his proper armor, when he arrived hastily on the battle-field. He was taken captive and executed together with his men by the English, who were unaware of his high ransom value.

Antoon installed some new institutions in Brabant; a central comptroller (Rekenkamer) and a general council (Raadkamer). He was succeeded in 1415 by his son Jan IV of Brabant (and Limburg), who was still under age at that time. He ruled under regency of the Estates of Brabant till he turned 14 in 1417. Jan’s succession was opposed by German king Sigismund. But, the Estates of Brabant supported his candidacy, which turned out to be the stronger force. Jan IV became count of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut, when he married Jacoba van Beieren in 1418. The Estates of Brabant took Jacoba’s side, when she left Jan in 1420. Jan IV was deposed as duke of Brabant and his younger brother Filip of Saint-Pol was installed as ruwaard (regent). But, Jan IV regained his ducal right in 1421 after granting new privileges to the cities of Brabant and Limburg. The authority of the Estates of Brabant was further strengthened, when Jan IV signed the New Regiment in 1422 that expanded their rights. Jan IV of Brabant died in 1427 under suspicious circumstances. He was succeeded as duke of Brabant by his brother; Filip of Saint-Pol, who died childless in 1430. The duchy of Brabant went to his nephew Filip the Good of Burgundy upon his death. Jan had recognized the duke of Burgundy in 1426 as heir to the duchy of Brabant in case of extinction of the family line. The Estates of Brabant recognized Filip the Good as duke after they had obtained more privileges. The duchy of Brabant now fell under Burgundy rule. Filip the Good made his Joyous Entry (Blijde Inkomst) into the duchy of Brabant after promising the Estates semi autonomy.

Brabant nobles did not divide themselves in factions to fight wars of succession as their counterparts in Holland did. Nobles and cities concluded alliances to defend their rights against the duke. They demanded privileges in exchange for their recognition of ducal authority. Two models to exploit succession applied by cities and nobles can be discerned. The Holland model involved factional strife among nobles, while the Brabant model involved agreement. However, the two models led to the same result. Both Holland and Brabant came under control of the House of Burgundy in the early fifteenth century. A lack of direct heirs in both Holland and Brabant was the main cause of increased central power.

4.3.4 Succession Wars in Guelders

The history of Guelders bears greater resemblance to the Holland than the Brabant model. Gerard II van Wassenberg became the first count of Guelders in 1096. The county grew in size by both war and marriage in the next centuries. Count Otto II of Guelders (1215–1271) granted rights to many cities. But warfare took its financial toll. Count Reinout I (1255–1326) was financially ruined after the Battle of Woeringen in 1288. He had to lease the county to his father in law; the count of Flanders from 1288 till 1293 (Wikipedia, Reinout I). He was imprisoned by his son on allegations of insanity in 1318. Reinout II acted as regent until his father’s death. He was elevated to the rank of duke by emperor Louis IV in 1339.

Guelders had its equivalent of the Hook and Cod wars. Conflicts between the Bronckhorsten and the Van Heeckerens, two noble families of the region, led to war on several occasions. The first round of conflicts erupted between Reinald III of Guelders and his younger brother Eduard. Their father Reinald II had died in 1343, when Reinald III was 11 years old. His mother Eleonara became regent. Eleonora was the daughter of king Edward II of England and Isabella of France. Edward II was murdered in 1327 by his wife and her lover Roger Mortimer.

Reinald II became estranged from his wife Eleonora, when he believed rumors that she was a leper. Eleonora, however, went to the city of Nijmegen, where Reinald convened and undressed herself in front of the council to demonstrate her good health. Reinald II and Eleonora reconciled in 1343. Reinald II died shortly afterwards and Eleonora became regent. Her regency ended in 1347, when Reinald III reached adulthood. However, his succession was contested by his younger brother Eduard. Reinald was supported by the Bronckhorst family that possessed several fiefs within the duchy. But Reinald shifted allegiance and moved to the side of the Heeckeren family, whereupon the Bronckhorsten came to support Eduard. Several castles and cities were attacked during the first round of the conflict that lasted from 1347 till 1350. Reinald III did not make himself popular, when he attacked and set fire to the city of Tiel. More than 100 people who had hid in Saint Walburgis church were killed by the fire. A truce was concluded in 1352. Rule of the duchy was divided between Reinald and Eduard. But, fights soon flared up again and Reinald was imprisoned by his brother in 1361, who took control of the duchy. Eduard was killed 10 years later and Reinald regained power in 1371 upon his brother’s death. Reinald III died a few months later without leaving a heir. Two of his sisters, Machteld and Maria, fought to become duchess of Guelders upon his death. Machteld was supported by the van Heeckerens, while the Bronckhorsten were on Maria’s side. Maria won the succession and her son, Willem III of Gulik became the next duke of Guelders in 1379.

A new round of the Guelders conflicts erupted in 1423, when Reinald IV of Guelders and Gulik died without leaving a legal heir. Roman king Sigismund argued that the fiefs befell on him. He offered the duchy to Arnold of Egmont, grandson of Johan of Gulik, as the closest heir of Reinald IV for 14,000 florins. However, Arnold did not manage to collect the required sum. Sigismund then offered the duchy to Adolf of Gulik-Berg; another relative of the late duke. Adolf could pay the required sum and was recognized as duke by Sigismund. However, the Estates of Guelders rejected Adolf and supported Arnold, who had obtained the confidence of the Estates by enlarging their privileges. The succession troubles triggered a new round of the Guelders wars. Arnold prevailed and ruled as duke of Guelders from 1423 till 1465, when he was captured by his son Adolf with the assistance of Filip the Good. But, Arnold’s authority was restored in 1467 by Filip’s successor, Charles the Bold of Burgundy. Arnold now threw his son Adolf into prison. Problems were not over after that date. Arnold ran into financial difficulties, which prompted him to pledge the rights to the duchy to Charles the Bold for 300,000 Rhenish florins. The Estates of Guelders, however, recognized his son Adolf as heir upon Arnold’s death in 1473. Charles the Bold thereupon occupied the cities of Nijmegen and Zutphen. Adolf was captured and jailed at Hesdin. He was liberated by the Flemish upon the death of Charles the Bold in 1477 and recognized by the Estates of Guelders as duke. He died in 1477 as commander of the Flemish troops.

His son Karel (1467–1538) was captured by Charles the Bold at the siege of Nijmegen in 1473. Karel was raised at the Burgundian court and fought as a young knight in the armies of Maximilian of Austria against revolting Flemish cities and the French. He was captured by the French and raised at the French court, which made him hostile against Burgundy. He was released from French captivity in 1492 and recognized by the Estates of Guelders as duke upon his return. Karel was defeated by Filip the Handsome in 1504, who banned him to Spain. But, he escaped from captivity and returned to Guelders in 1505. He was recognized as duke of Guelders by the House of Habsburg in 1513. Karel died in 1538 without a heir and the duchy befell on the duke of Kleef (Wikipedia, Karel van Gelre). Duke Willem III of Kleef subjected himself to Charles V in 1543, which made Guelders part of the Habsburg empire.

The troubles in the duchy of Guelders can be understood as a struggle between two families, who jumped to the occasion, when succession troubles emerged. They wanted to strengthen their privileges by making their candidate duke of Guelders. Family members contested rule of the duchy and imprisoned each other on several occasions. Foreign rulers, who intervened in the troubles liberated and captured candidates. Karel of Guelders was held captive at various royal courts that vied for his allegiance.

Nobles attacked cities and did not hesitate to burn them down. The city of Zwolle was burnt in 1324 and 1361. The city of Tiel was also burnt down. Cities had nothing to gain from the conflicts, but much to lose. Nobles expected to gain status and wealth, if their candidate won. Their losses were limited; neither the Heeckeren nor the Bronckhorst family lost their noble status in the troubles. Some castles were burnt down and some nobles lost their lives. But, the Guelders nobility as a group succeeded to extend its power. Both the Heeckeren and Bronckhorst families were councilors to the lords of Guelders, who kept a small permanent council and a larger council that convened irregularly. This latter council resembled the Hofraad of the counts of Holland. However, the council of Guelders consisted only of nobles; cities were not represented. The cities of Guelders allied in 1343 to intervene in the succession of Reinald II, but the nobles refused to join the alliance. This differed from the situation in Brabant where nobles and cities cooperated.

Guelders nobles were assembled in four different Ridderschappen (knighthoods of Zutphen, Nijmegen, Roermond and Veluwe). Only nobles with noble ancestors on both the father’s and the mother’s side possessing a recognized castle could join a Ridderschap. The four knighthoods of Guelders played an important role in the duchy, while the importance of cities was limited. Cities of Guelders were only represented in the Guelders Landdagen (Estates of Guelders) that first convened in 1418. The Landdagen did not have much authority as they only convened once a year. This differed from the council of Kortenberg in Brabant that met every 3 weeks.

All members of the Ridderschap could participate in the meetings of the Estates Council; they outnumbered the number of city representatives in the Estates. The nobility kept the upper hand in Guelders and dominated politics. This differed from Brabant and Holland, where cities outnumbered nobles in their Estates councils. However, the end game was identical in all three cases. The lords of Burgundy and later of Habsburg acquired control of Holland, Brabant and Guelders.

4.3.5 The Bishopric of Utrecht

The bishop of Utrecht fought several wars against the rebellious Drente people and against lords of Holland and Guelders. These wars did not only cause occasional defeats that shrank the bishop’s territory, but also emptied his coffers. He had to lease the whole bishopric in 1348 as collateral to a loan to pay his debts. Financial distress prompted the bishop of Utrecht to sign a constitution in 1375; the Stichtse Landbrief. The constitution made the bishop install a council consisting of members from the clergy, the Ridderschap of Utrecht and several large cities within the bishopric. The city of Utrecht was dominant within the council. Utrecht seemed to follow the Brabant model of discourse and agreement. But, feuds and rebellions emerged at several occasions. Bishop David of Burgundy, a bastard son of Flip the Good, got entangled in a civil war with cities and nobles. David was bishop of Utrecht from 1456 till 1496. A civil war (1481–1483) erupted, when his authority was contested by Engelbert of Kleef. Engelbert, who was supported by clergy and citizens, established himself in the bishop’s palace. However, he was removed from the palace by emperor Maximilian of Austria, who besieged the city. A large part of the old city was destroyed by Maximilian’s army. David was succeeded by Frederick IV of Baden as bishop of Utrecht.

Filip of Burgundy, another illegitimate son of Filip the Good and half-brother of David of Burgundy, became bishop of Utrecht in 1517. Filip was not very effective as a military commander and lost Drente and Overijssel to Guelders during his reign (1517–1524). He was succeeded by Henry of the Palatine. Another rebellion forced the bishop to call in Habsburg help in 1527. The end of the bishop’s secular powers came, when he sold his territorial rights to emperor Charles V. Again, the House of Burgundy/Habsburg had prevailed.

All provinces of the Low Countries were under control of the House of Habsburg in the early sixteenth century. Succession troubles contributed to centralization of control. Lords from the Houses of Bayern. Burgundy and Habsburg could extend their territorial control in these conflicts due to their large coffers that allowed them to hire mercenary armies and buy succession rights. Filip the Good acquired Brabant, Namen, Luxemburg, Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut by force. Charles V mainly established authority over Utrecht, Drente, Friesland, Groningen and Guelders by buying heritable rights from financially distressed lords. The 17 provinces of the Low Countries were all under Habsburg control after Charles acquired Guelders in 1543.

4.4 Centralization and Discourse

The closure of the nobility marked the end of decentralization through granting rights to individuals and cities. No more large cities were founded in the fourteenth century. Nobles fought each other, when their ranks were closed. Holland nobles combated their peers in several rounds of the Hook and Cod wars. The same happened in Guelders. Losses exceeded gains in these conflicts, when lords were captured and castles were destroyed. Peaceful competition was replaced by a negative sum game to seize territory. Centralization of control proceeded, when the Houses of Avesnes/Burgundy and Habsburg took over from local rulers. Informal discourse between lord and vassal was impeded, when proximity disappeared. Formal estate councils of nobles, cities and clergy arose in Brabant and Utrecht in the fourteenth century. Formal councils had been established in most counties and duchies of the Low Countries around 1500. Only large cities were represented in the newly founded provincial Estates. Small, lordly cities were represented by nobles organized in Ridderschappen. Formal Estates replaced informal feudal councils.

Willem II of Holland (1234–1256) installed the Hof van Holland; an advisory council consisting of nobles and clergy. Floris V expanded the council with lower nobles and city officials. The Hof van Holland was an informal council that convened at different locations, when summoned by the count. It was based on consultation and not on representation. The Hof van Holland also acted as an appeal court.

The character of discourse in the Low Countries changed, when formal councils were established. The first charter establishing a formal council was signed in 1312 in Kortenberg. The Charter of Kortenberg was renewed in 1356, when Johanna van Brabant succeeded her father Jan III as duchess of Brabant. Brabant differed from Holland and Guelders where feudal conflicts divided nobles in factions, which delayed the establishment of representative councils in these provinces. Utrecht had its own charter; de Stichtse Landbrief of 1375 that described the rights and duties of the bishop towards nobility, clergy and large cities (Utrecht, Amersfoort and Rhenen) of the province. The bishop had hit hard financial times, when he signed the treaty. His predecessor had to be released from captivity by paying a ransom.

But, strengthened central control allowed rulers to bypass councils and curb city rights. The authority of the Estates of Utrecht was reduced by Charles V after he obtained the bishopric in 1528. The power of the guilds was also curbed. Charles V forbade Utrecht city guilds to appoint their own directors when he took power (Amsenga 2006).

Formal councils appeared in Holland (and Zeeland) in 1428, when the Hook and Cod conflicts between Jacoba van Beieren and Filip the Good ended with the Zoen van Delft. The peace treaty entailed the foundation of the Raad and the Estates of Holland. The Raad had nine members. It acted as a higher legal court that stood above local courts. The Estates of Holland counted seven members. The nobility (Ridderschap) was represented by one member that casted the first vote. The six large cities of Holland; Dordrecht, Haarlem, Delft, Leiden, Amsterdam and Gouda had one vote each. The Raad and Estates of Holland convened, when summoned by the lord.

The Estates of Guelders -like those of Holland- only arose in the fifteenth century. The first meeting of the Estates of Guelders took place in 1423. The installation of the council emanated from a pact that was concluded in 1418; the Verbondsakte van Steden en Ridderschap (Union of Cities and Knighthood). The Estates of Guelders convened once a year in one of the four main cities of the duchy; Nijmegen, Zutphen, Roermond and Arnhem from 1423 till 1584.

Burgundy and Habsburg lords installed an Estates General of the Low Countries, when they acquired control of ever more provinces. Provincial Estates that had emerged in preceding centuries limited the lord’s central grasp of his territories. An Estates General would allow the lord to discuss matters in a single council. Filip the Good installed the first Estates General in 1464 in Bruges. Charles the Bold installed the Grote Raad van Mechelen (Great Council of Mechelen) in 1473 that acted as a central judicial court for the Burgundy territories. But, the various provincial Estates resisted such centralization and reversed it in 1477 after Charles death. His successor, Mary of Burgundy, had to sign the Great Privilege to be recognized by the Estates General. The provincial Estates were re-installed and justice returned to local courts. The Great Privilege allowed the Estates General to convene at their own initiative. But, the Great Privilege was soon revoked, when Mary married Maximilian of Austria and was annulled upon Mary’s death in 1482. The contractual nature of occidental feudal society eroded, when the Houses of Burgundy and Habsburg breached agreements made by their predecessors. Their increased territorial authority and military and financial powers allowed them to ignore contracts made by councils of cities and lower nobles.

Several political writers argue that a strong central state is required to keep the peace and achieve progress. Failed states emerge, when the political center loses control. Centralization is considered a positive force in this narrative, since it reduces violence. However, centralization allowed lords to violate rights of vassals and cities in the late medieval Low Countries. Violence did not end, when Burgundy rule was established over the Low Countries in the early sixteenth century.

4.4.1 Revolting Cities in Flanders

Cities were the most important source of revenues in Burgundy and Habsburg times. Nobles (and clergy) were exempt from paying taxes, which put the burden on cities. Cities preferred to pursue their interests by agreement instead of by the sword. However, several Flemish cities revolted against their lords. Flanders was the most prosperous part of the Low Countries in the fourteenth and fifteenth century. Flemish cities rose against kings and emperors on several occasions, following the example of Italian cities. Flemish city militias defeated the French army in 1302 at the Battle of the Golden Spurs. The Flemish militiamen killed several French knights; they did not feel bound by knightly codes of chivalry and ransom payments. City guilds obtained more judicial rights as a consequence of the victory.

The Ghent War (1379–1385) refers to the revolt by the city of Ghent against the centralization policies of the count of Flanders, who wanted to curb city jurisdiction. The count wanted to try ever more cases before his court instead of schepenen courts. Several other Flemish cities joined the Ghent revolt and the count and his army had to withdraw in 1382. A compromise was concluded in 1385, when Philip the Bold wanted to be recognized as count of Flanders (Wikipedia, Ghentse Opstand).

Another revolt arose in 1449, when Filip the Good wanted to raise taxes on salt and flour. He also claimed the right to appoint city officials. However, the city of Ghent refused to accept his demands. Filip the Good declared war on the city in 1453 and prevailed against the city militias.

Flanders came under Habsburg control in 1477, when Mary of Burgundy married Maximilian of Austria. Maximilian acted as regent for their 4 year old son; Filip the Handsome upon Mary’s death. Maximilian did not honor the Great Privilege, which brought him into conflict with the Flemish cities of Bruges and Ghent. The cities did not want to recognize Maximilian’s regency under these conditions and asked for the installation of a regency council under control of the Estates General. Maximilian was forced by the Flemish cities that refused to support his war efforts to make peace with France (Peace of Atrecht 1482). But, Maximilian took up arms against France, when king Louis XI died in 1483. The cities of Flanders opposed the war that hindered their trade with England and increased taxes. They sent an envoy to Maximilian to discuss the matter, but the envoy was imprisoned. This triggered the Vlaamse Opstand (Flemish Insurgence) that lasted from 1483 till 1492. The insurgent city militias were defeated by Maximilian and his mercenary army. Maximilian’s regency was recognized in 1485 at the Peace of Sluis. But, the insurgency flared up, when cities protested against Maximilian’s high taxes. Maximilian was imprisoned for 4 months at Bruges in 1488. He was only released on promises to recognize city autonomy. However, he did not honor these promises once released.

Maximilian was elected German king in 1486. Flemish cities lost French support in 1489 which led to their defeat against Maximilian, who annulled many privileges of the city of Bruges upon his victory. Twenty five citizens of Bruges were executed. The city was forced to tear down its walls. These events severely hurt the prosperity of Bruges.

Flemish cities took up arms against Burgundy and Habsburg lords to preserve their rights. But, city militias eventually lost out in conflicts with mercenary armies. Emperors and kings that violated rights ended discourse and started wars. But codes of chivalry did not apply in fights with city militias. Citizens were killed instead of taken hostage. Maximilian was taken hostage by Ghent, but broke his promises upon release. Conflicts between citizens and lords were not foreseen in the chivalry code. Civic culture of a merchant class and knightly culture of a warrior class collided on several occasions in Flanders. Knights and emperors prevailed in these conflicts. The feudal institutional fabric was seriously damaged by these insurgencies. Mercenary armies were paid by taxes and loans granted on the basis of expected tax revenues. Cities thus paid the mercenary armies that attacked their cities and killed their citizens. The relationship between cities and lords was based on the lord’s promise to respect city autonomy. The relationship broke down, when centralization increased the lord’s authority. Centralization ultimately turned against the cities that created the surpluses that fed the lord’s war chest.

Maximilian’s mercenary armies fought against France that also claimed authority of Flanders. The war ended in 1493 with the Peace of Selcis. Burgundy rights to the Low Countries were firmly established at this peace. Maximilian’s son Filip the Handsome was installed as duke of Burgundy in 1496 after his father was elected Holy Roman Emperor. Filip the Handsome died in 1506. Maximilian became regent on behalf of Filip’s son Charles V, this time on the request of the States General. Maximilian appointed his daughter Margaretha of Austria as landvoogd (regent) of the Low Countries in 1506 until Charles came of age. Conflicts with cities continued under Charles V. Citizens of Ghent disturbed the inauguration of Charles in 1515. Charles V attacked Ghent in 1540, when it revolted against the higher taxes he imposed on the city to fight his wars with France and Italy. The city was occupied and 19 mayors of the city were executed (Wikipedia, Repressie van Ghent).

Flemish city militia’s were not up to the armies of Burgundy and Habsburg lords that were increasingly funded by loans from German and Italian banking houses. Charles V left a debt of 30 million ducats behind, when he died in 1558, more than five times annual royal revenue (Martines 2013, 229).

4.5 Institutional Reform

Both Filip the Good and Charles V installed institutions for discourse. Filip the Good installed the Estates General of the Low Countries in 1464. But, its status was unclear. It was installed as a mere advisory council to the sovereign as had been the role of former informal councils. Members of the Estates General, however, wanted to act as representatives and not as advisors. The authority of the Estates General was limited; the council did not have legal, judicial or executive powers. It could only convene, when summoned by the lord. Its main power rested in the right to approve (new) taxes. The members of the Estates General consulted their constituencies before approving (or rejecting) these taxes. However, lords avoided the Estates as much as possible and applied physical force to suppress cities that revolted against new taxes and violations of city rights.

Cities that had obtained self government in the days of feudal decentralization opposed the reduction of their right to appoint officials. They also did not want to spend their incomes on armies that curbed their rights and hurt their trades. The installation of provincial Estates and Estates General did not solve these conflicts, since these councils were often bypassed by Burgundy and Habsburg lords. We can interpret the late middle ages as a clash of two different cultures. Nobles wanted to fight, while citizens favored trade and commerce. Cities aimed for agreement through discussion in councils, while lords wanted to impose their will on cities by military force.

4.5.1 Councilors and Bureaucrats

Centralization prompted Habsburg lords to appoint executives to replace them in their absence. These replacements were called stadhouders (place holders) or regents. Stadhouders were usually recruited from the nobility. They could be dismissed at will by the lord in contrast to vassals, who had inheritable rights. Stadhouders could not decide on their own, but had to await instructions from the lord. Centralization spurred bureaucratization and the rise of an administrative elite. Organizational autonomy of vassals declined, when centralization proceeded. Lords of the manor, who had commanded their own regiments of peasants and citizens in earlier days either became commanders of mercenary armies or lost their military function. Some could move up the hierarchy by becoming stadhouders. Bureaucratization took the upper hand; command prevailed over agreement.

Northern European cities were heavily taxed and their autonomy was diminished in Habsburg times. Cities were reluctant to fund the lord’s mercenary armies that attacked their cities. The perverse situation emerged, that cities had to pay lords for taking away their rights. Estate councils could not stem the tide. The Estates General of the Low Countries was only summoned by the lord, when he wanted to raise money. City revolts were brutally suppressed. The commander of the rebelling army of Ghent was decapitated on Maximilian’s orders and leaders were executed in 1453 (Wikipedia, Vlaamse Opstand). The suppression of city revolts did not follow scripts of limited feudal war among nobles. Codes of chivalry did not apply to citizens that revolted against their lord. Lords and vassals belonged to the same noble class and were bound by knightly codes of conduct. Citizens only possessed rights within city walls, but not in conflicts with powerful lords. Councils could not solve the conflicts that arose between cities and lords in the era of mercenary armies. Rulers wanted to raise ever more taxes to fight their wars; cities wanted to preserve their rights and expand trade. But, military power prevailed over contractual rights and commercial interests. Discourse was silenced by the sounds of clattering weaponry. Noble commanders of mercenary armies did not seize control of cities as happened in Italy. Nobles were not allowed to live within the walls of large cities in the Low Countries. However, city rights were weakened, when centralization proceeded. Vassal power declined, when higher lords could obtain loans from bankers to pay mercenary armies. The era of regulated feudal conflict among nobles came to an end, when mercenary armies arrived on the scene; a single opinion prevailed.

Centralization eroded feudal institutions of consultation among lord and vassals. Filip the Good (1396–1467) attempted to revive the old days of courtly dialogue at a central level. He established a new advisory council; the Order of the Knights of the Golden Fleece in Bruges in 1430 at the occasion of his marriage to Isabella of Portugal. The order was recognized by the pope, which made it a Catholic Order. The Knights of the Golden Fleece were recruited from among the highest nobles. The order counted 24 knights at its installation in 1430. The number was expanded to 30 in 1433 and to 50 in 1516. Knights of the Golden Fleece were appointed for life. The position was not hereditary. The knights should be consulted by the lord before going to war and could give advice on other occasions. The order had its own judicial system. The duke of Burgundy as Grand Master of the order was also subject to this judiciary. The duke decided when to summon the knights to convene. The Order of the Golden Fleece convened 11 times under the rule of Philip the Good. These sessions took several days. His successor Charles the Bold summoned the order only twice. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, summoned the order only once.

The attempt to revive informal discourse with a select group of advisors did not bring the expected results. The order did not have any formal rights and the duke could ignore its advice. Such consultation might have worked in the days, when lords depended on their knights. But, relations between lord and vassal had weakened, when mercenary armies took over from regiments that fought under the lord’s banner. Lords were no longer interested in advice, but requested unconditional approval of their plans. They used councils to legitimize their decisions. Competition among nobles became more intense in the era of mercenary armies. Commanders and stadhouders did not have hereditary positions, but were appointees.

4.5.2 Charles V and Institutional Reform

Bureaucratization and centralization proceeded under Charles V. He installed three Collateral Councils of an advisory nature in 1531. The councils emerged out of the Great Council of Mechelen that was installed by Charles the Bold in 1473. The Great Council was replaced by three councils that each specialized in some aspect of government. The Raad van State (Council of State) was an advisory council that advised the lord in cases of international and domestic policies. The first Council of State consisted of 10 nobles and 2 clergymen. Not all 12 members were permanent members of the Council of State. Permanent members had greater influence and resided at the lord’s court on a permanent basis. Non permanent members only appeared, when summoned.

The Geheime Raad (Secret Council) controlled the judiciary and supervised provincial and local institutions. It also had legislative and administrative tasks. The Secret Council counted six till nine councilors and convened on a daily basis under chairmanship of the lord. It was an ambulant institution that travelled with the lord. The Raad van Financieen (Financial Council) was also an advisory council. It counted six members; three nobles and three jurists. The Financial Council prepared the bedes (financial requests) to the Estates General.

The installation of the three Collateral Councils furthered bureaucracy and reduced the importance of Estate councils. Representative Estates councils were only consulted by the lord, if he deemed it fit to convene them, while the new collateral councils were of a permanent nature. Collateral councilors were mainly recruited from among the university trained nobility. The Secret Council was equipped with an extensive support staff of secretaries. The new institutions acted as governing institutions of the Low Countries. Council members could influence policy-making, but were dependent on the lord, who could dismiss members of the Collateral Councils at will. Rights evaporated and discourse lost meaning, when dissident views could be suppressed. The rise of an administrative elite indicated the growing central powers of Habsburg rulers in the Low Countries.

4.6 The Reformation

Charles V was confronted with the Reformation that began in 1517, when the Augustinian monk Maarten Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the church of Wittenberg in Germany. Luther could not agree with some practices of the Catholic Church; especially the sale of indulgences that allowed people to escape eternal punishment by paying a certain amount of money to the Church. Payment of indulgences fitted in with the practices of the times, when monetization had penetrated all realms of life and allowed revolting nobles to regain their freedom. But, Luther argued that sinful humans could only be saved by God’s grace and not by making payments to the Church. Other religious groups –Mennonites and Calvinists- were also critical of the alleged superficial nature of traditional religious life. They drew a larger following than Lutherans in the Low Countries.

Luther was excommunicated by the pope in 1520, when he refused to withdraw his objections. He explained his ideas in 1521 at a meeting of the Diet that convened in the city of Worms. His refusal to return on his steps made him an outlaw of the Empire. Luther began his own church in 1524. Many German nobles adopted the new ideas and joined Luther’s church. It was attractive for them to do so, because Luther allowed Protestant nobles to replace Catholic bishops as lord of the realm. The Diet of Speyer of 1526 allowed local lords to decide the religion of their territory. This decision wanted to establish religious peace, but triggered wars of religion that determined political life for more than 100 years to come. Rulers endowed with religious authority had absolute authority in contrast to feudal lords that obtained their authority from the emperor.

German nobles that had shifted to Lutheranism came together in the Schmalkaldic League to expel catholic bishops and lords by force. Charles V was occupied fighting the Turks, but he returned to Germany and defeated the Protestant armies in 1547 in the first episode of the Schmalkaldic War. The war flared up in 1552. Charles V now had to flee the Lutheran forces. He concluded the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 to end religious war and abdicated a year after signing the treaty. The Peace of Augsburg confirmed the decisions taken by the 1526 Diet of Speyer that allowed German nobles to decide the religion of their domain. The principle of cuius regio, eius religio allowed local rulers to choose either Lutheranism or Catholicism as the religion of their territory at the exclusion of other religions (Cantoni 2014). The ruler also controlled the properties of the church. Each domain got a state religion as a consequence of this principle. People were forced to adhere to this religion. They could only keep their faith by moving to a province where their religion prevailed. However, they had to renounce all their possessions and pay a sum to obtain permission to leave. The right of the ruler to decide religion turned out to be an unfortunate decision. Authority based on religion was absolute; challenging it was equal to heresy. Religion provided the rationale for absolute nation states.

Jean Bodin (1530–1596), a professor of law at Toulouse, published his main work on sovereignty in 1576. He advocated sovereignty defined as absolute monarchical authority as a means to end the wars of religion that ravaged France in his days. Monarchs should have absolute power to end discussion and let their view prevail. Rights and discourse in councils lost meaning under absolute rule. Dissidents could be persecuted and their possessions seized. Assemblies no longer convened. The French assembly was not summoned for more than 150 years by the French kings. The Council of the Realm of the kingdom of Denmark/Norway was abolished in 1660, when absolute monarchy was installed. The end of discourse implied that sovereign rulers could only be removed by war and revolution. Room for compromise was narrowed and force was the main way to change political order in absolute states. The Reformation and its aftermath gave more authority to local rulers, but their absolute authority ended discourse and triggered wars of religion. Dissidence became a crime.

4.6.1 The Inquisition

Organizations could make their own special laws in feudal Europe. Rules differed among cities, monastic orders and guilds. Some consider general laws and a central judiciary superior to local rules and judges. Medieval citizens often preferred city judges to judgment by lords and their officials. The social distance between nobles and citizens did not make them equal before the law. Nobles and citizens constituted separate classes with their own cultures and behavioral codes. Courts that do not regard people as equal can be more harsh than justice by peers. But, peer justice can be more arbitrary, if peers are considered rivals.

The choice between special and general laws and judges also played a role in the prosecution of heresy. The papacy developed Canon law and judicial institutions of its own in the late middle ages. The Inquisition was installed to try heresy cases. It had to cooperate with secular courts in cities and counties. Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire made heresy a civil offense. Heresy was prosecuted by secular judges until the Church established Inquisition tribunals. The first Episcopal Inquisition tribunal was installed in the Languedoc in 1184. The Papal Inquisition was installed in 1229. Dominican monks acted as investigators and judges of inquisition tribunals that prosecuted Cathars and Waldensians in Southern France and Northern Italy. Torture was allowed in 1252 to elicit confessions. Inquisition tribunals limited themselves to investigation and judgment; execution of penalties was left to secular authorities.

Medieval inquisitions were decentralized courts that differed from place to place. City government could refuse to carry out judgments of inquisition courts (Wikipedia, Medieval Inquisition). The city of Venice kept the Inquisition out of the city until the sixteenth century.

Thomas Madden argued in his book on the Medieval Inquisition that the inquisition saved many people from unfair trials by local lords. Inquisition tribunals of trained judges and interrogators conducted more fair trials than lords of the manor (Madden 2004). The Medieval Inquisition has a better reputation than its Roman successor. The Roman Inquisition was installed in 1542 at the time of the Reformation. Inquisition tribunals used anonymous accusations and elicited confessions by torture to get people convicted, which gave the Inquisition its bad reputation. The archives of the Vatican were opened in 1998 for investigation of inquisition proceedings. Researchers found that one percent of people brought before inquisitorial tribunals were executed. The Spanish inquisition became known as the most repressive of its kind. However, this only applied to the period of the Reformation and not to the Medieval Inquisition (Madden 2004). The Spanish Inquisition operated in the Low Countries in the sixteenth century and in the Southern provinces thereafter. The Spanish Inquisition brought 1300 people of the Low Countries to death under Charles V, mainly Mennonites.

4.7 The Revolt in the Low Countries

4.7.1 Failing Communication

Charles V was succeeded by his son Filip II in 1556 as king of Spain and lord of the Low Countries. Filip II was a devout Catholic. He installed the Spanish Inquisition in the Low Countries. But, this did not stop the spread of Calvinism that expanded in the Low Countries after 1560 especially in the Southern part, where many covert Calvinist communities arose.

Filip II left for Spain in 1559. He appointed his half-sister Margaretha of Parma as his replacement (landvoogdes) in the Low Countries during an extra ordinary meeting of the Estates General. Margaretha was a recognized bastard daughter of emperor Charles V. Margaretha published measures against heretics on posters (plakkaten) that were spread over the Low Countries. She was assisted by the three Collateral Councils. The Council of State counted three permanent members in 1559; Granvelle, Vigilius and Berlaymont. Three other members; Willem, prince of Orange; Lamoral, count of Egmont and the count of Horne had joined the Council of State shortly before Filip’s departure. The prince of Orange and the counts of Egmont and Horne were high nobles that had been appointed stadhouder by Charles V and Filip II. All three were members of the Order of the Golden Fleece. Willem of Orange –like Granvelle- was also a member of the Secret Council.

Granvelle’s position as most trusted advisor of Filip II and Margaretha in 1559 evoked the envy of other nobles. Granvelle, a jurist, did not belong to the old feudal nobility. His father had obtained a noble title from Charles V for his work as chancellor in France. The only way to enter the nobility in those days was by a decision of the emperor. Granvelle’s star had risen quickly. He became cardinal and archbishop of Mechelen. The prince of Orange and the counts of Egmont and Horne protested against Granvelle’s influence. They sent a letter to Filip II in 1561, wherein they demanded Granvelle’s dismissal. Nine high nobles formed a League (League of the Big) in 1562 that sent more letters to Filip II demanding Granvelle’s removal. Some high nobles like Berlaymont and Filips III of Croy did not join the protests. The protesting nobles held Granvelle responsible for the installation of the Inquisition and harsh measures taken against Protestants. Orange, Egmont and Horne stopped attending the meetings of the Council of State in 1563, when Filip did not act upon their demands. The League repeated their demands, whereupon Filip called Granvelle back to Spain in 1564. The three nobles attended the meetings of the Council of State after an 8 months stoppage (Groenveld et al. 1983, 89).

The Council of State sent De Lamoral, count of Egmont, to Spain in 1565 to ask Filip to elevate the status of the Council of State above that of the other two collateral councils. They also demanded greater leniency towards Protestants. However, Filip II was occupied by his war against the Ottomans and did not respond to the requests of the high nobles. He sent a letter to Margaretha in October 1565 after his victory on the Ottomans, in which he ordered her to combat Protestantism with more fervor. A decision on the status of the Council of State was postponed. Willem of Orange and the counts of Egmont and Horne resigned as stadhouders after the letter to Margaretha became known (Letter from the Segovia Woods). They also threatened to stop attending the meetings of the Council of State again. Other nobles of the Council of State did not adopt their radical course (Groenveld et al. 1983, 90).

The high nobility had faltered in their attempts to change Filip’s mind. Members of the low nobility now tried to influence Filip to assuage his policies. They concluded a Union of Nobles (Eedverbond der Edelen) in 1565 to protest against the Inquisition and the harsh decrees that were posted in cities and villages. They wrote a petition (Smeekschrift der Edelen), wherein they asked for leniency towards Protestants and abolition of the Inquisition. They offered the petition to Margaretha in 1566. They also asked her to summon the Estates General to discuss their demands. Margaretha was not unwilling to compromise with the nobles. She promised to plea with Filip II to summon a meeting of the Estates General to discuss matters.

4.7.2 The Iconoclasts

Discussion between nobles and sovereign was hampered by the long distance that prevented face to face communication with Filip II. Margaretha as stadhouder could not decide without consulting Filip. She was prepared to mediate. But, the plea of the lower nobles fell on deaf ears, when the Beeldenstorm (Iconoclastic Fury) raged over the Low Countries in 1566. The fury started on August 1st 1566 in Steenvoorde; a district in East Flanders (now located in the Northern part of France) after preacher Sebastiaan Matte had made a sweeping sermon. Some of his infuriated audience went to the nearby abbey of Saint Laurentius and destroyed the interior of the cloister church. Their example found many followers in Flanders and Brabant. Calvinist preachers orchestrated destruction of church interiors by small armed groups. The preachers argued that man cannot make and worship pictures of God. The Fury reached the cities of Antwerp and Ghent in late August 1566. However, some cities –like Brussels- defended themselves against the iconoclasts and were spared the fury. The iconoclasts reached the Northern provinces of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht in the same year. Calvinists seized churches for their own services after demolishing its interiors (Groenveld et al. 1983, 98). Nobles, who acted as lords and stadhouders were reluctant to stop the fury, which raised the anger of Filip II, who accused them of negligence.

The iconoclastic fury of the Low Countries was not a novel phenomenon. The first iconoclastic eruptions took place in the 1520s in Germany. They spread to England, when king Henry VIII divested from Rome and installed his own English Church. The process of separation began in 1531 and ended in 1543, when Henry VIII was recognized as the supreme head of the Church of England by the Act of Supremacy (Whittock 2009, 267). The Catholic Church and all its religious houses in England and Wales had then been dissolved. The destruction of monasteries put an end to institutions that had dominated much of medieval life in England. Monastic land was distributed among small local landowners. Henry VIII’s successor Edward VI, intensified the religious revolution. A widespread removal of religious images occurred under his reign (1547–1553). All over the country statues, ancient rood screens and stained-glass windows were smashed or removed (Whittock 2009, 269). The fury of the Low Countries followed foreign examples. Iconoclasts could act with impunity, when they were not stopped by lords and cities.

4.7.3 The End of Discourse

Attempts by both high and low nobles to moderate Filip II’s stance towards the Reformation by sending and handing petitions had faltered in 1566. Estates councils were not summoned to reach compromise. The high nobles of the Council of State refused to congregate, when their demands were not met. They acted akin to lords, who refused to summon the Estates; the tables were turned, when council members refused to attend meetings. However, the Beeldenstorm had not exhausted all possibilities to reach compromise. Willem of Orange and some lower nobles concluded an agreement with Margaretha in August 1566, when the Beeldenstorm was at its height. The piece, called the Accord, stated that Margaretha would not use force to quell the riots and that protestant preachers could continue their sermons. But, the situation changed, when Calvinists seized power in the city of Valenciennes in Hainaut (Groenveld et al. 1983, 99). Margaretha’s army besieged the city and the Calvinists were defeated in the Battle of Oosterweel in March 1567. The battle was fought between Calvinist nobles called Geuzen and Margaretha’s army that was commanded by Filip of Lannoy, lord of Beauvoir. The Geuzen were commanded by Jan van Marnix, a nobleman who had drawn the first draft of the petition of the lower nobles of 1566. He died in the battle of Oosterweel.

Defeated Geuzen were not treated as nobles, but as rebels. Geuzen commanders were executed by hanging or other methods of capital punishment. Knightly codes no longer applied in times of religious war. This differed from earlier feudal conflicts, when nobles could return within their class by showing remorse and paying ransom. Opinions were not lethal in those days. But, religious conflict did not provide room for discussion and restoration of former privileges. The religious troubles were seen as attempts to overthrow political order and install a new one based on absolute authority.

Discourse became obsolete and chivalrous codes no longer applied in religious wars. A complete turnover of power and the installation of state religion by force was the main modus operandi of absolute states based on religion. This had happened in Constantinople in 1453, when the Ottomans replaced Eastern Christendom by Islam. It happened in Spain in 1492, when the Catholic Kings removed Moors and Jews and installed Catholicism as state religion. It happened in England, when Henry VIII made Protestantism state religion. The installation of state religion implied a move towards absolute authority that ruled out limited conflict. Kings and princes had absolute authority based on religion. The theory of the divine right of kings fitted ideas of sovereignty that derived from an authority higher than man.

Dissident movements had existed within the Catholic Church before the Reformation. The Cathars, Waldensians and Franciscans of the twelfth century and the reformist Modern Devotion of the fourteenth century pursued more spiritual modes of religion. But, these movements were either repressed or absorbed within the Church and had not entailed the creation of state churches and religions. The Reformation, however destroyed the political and religious unity of the Middle Ages. Charles V’s decision of 1555 to let princes decide which religion would prevail in their territories triggered the 30 Years War that fragmented the Holy Roman Empire into princedoms and nation states.

4.7.4 The Arrival of Alva

The position of the counts of Egmont and Horne and prince Willem of Orange had become precarious after the battle of Oosterweel. The count of Egmont was a military commander, who became knight of the Golden Fleece in 1544. He was appointed stadhouder of Flanders and Artesia by Charles V in 1555. The count of Horne was also a prominent noble; stadhouder of Guelders and knight of the Golden Fleece. Willem, prince of Orange and duke of Nassau, was governor of Antwerp. Willem had inherited the princedom of Orange in Southern France that belonged to the Holy Roman Empire. Willem of Orange was raised at the Court of Charles V to prepare him for high positions within the empire (Wikipedia, Willem van Oranje). He was a confidant of the emperor, who leaned on his shoulder during his abdication in 1556. Willem became Filip II’s advisor and confidant, when he succeeded his father as king of Spain and lord of the Habsburg Low Countries. Willem became knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece in 1556 and was appointed stadhouder of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht before Filip II left for Spain in 1559 and Margaretha of Parma was appointed as his replacement. Willem of Orange was a Catholic at the time. He became familiar with Lutheranism through his marriage to the daughter of the Lutheran Prince-Elect of Saxony. Filip II suspected the three high nobles of encouraging the trouble making Geuzen. Their lax attempts to chase the iconoclasts away were taken as evidence of their support. Willem of Orange fled to Nassau in Germany after the battle of Oosterweel. The counts of Egmont and Horne decided to stay. They pledged oaths of unconditional loyalty to Filip II on the request of Margaretha. However, this did not save them.

Filip II decided to pursue a harsh policy against the rebels. He sent the duke of Alva to restore order in the Low Countries after the Beeldenstorm had wrought havoc. Alva arrived in Brussels in August 1567 (Groenveld et al. 1983, 102). Margaretha abdicated as landvoogdes, when she heard of Alva’s appointment that dissolved her authority as Filips II’s replacement in the Low Countries. Alva succeeded her as landvoogd. He installed a new court; the Raad van Beroerten (Council of Troubles); a divestiture of the Great Council and the Secret Council to persecute iconoclasts. The Council of Troubles did not act as a tribunal of the Spanish Inquisition, but was a secular court. The counts of Egmont and Horne were arrested by Alva. He had invited them to a meeting to discuss the situation, but they were imprisoned and brought before the Council of Troubles on accusation of high treason. They were convicted and publicly executed in June 1568 on the market in Brussels. Many lower nobles that had signed the petition of the low nobles were also arrested and decapitated. Others fled into exile, while their possessions were confiscated.

The executions signaled the end of contractual feudalism. The counts of Egmont and Horne were both knights of the Golden Fleece and should have been judged by their peers. Moreover, they had not engaged in acts of violence and had pledged loyalty to the king. The Order of the Golden Fleece never convened anymore after these executions. Feudal institutions were irreparably compromised by the events. Absentee rulers ignored councils and executed officials whose opinions they disliked. Promises were not kept and dissident high nobles were tried as criminals. The Order of the Golden Fleece as an elite order of nobles turned out to be a dangerous trap for its members.

4.7.5 Willem of Orange and the Geuzen Armies

Sovereigns increasingly bypassed Estates councils to raise taxes. This procedure was continued by Alva, who imposed new taxes in 1569 without asking the consent of the Estates General. The most hated tax was a 10 % sales tax (de 10de penning). Alva needed these taxes to pay his army of mercenary soldiers of more than 67.000 men. No central taxes had been imposed before that time; all taxes had been local. The Estates General opposed Alva’s 10de penning. Their protests had some success. Alva changed the tax into a bede (request) of 2 million guilders for 2 consecutive years instead of a permanent tax (Groenveld et al. 1983, 106).

Willem of Orange had fled to his ancestral castle at Dillenburg/Nassau in 1567, when his noble companions were arrested and executed. Willem wanted to establish a second recognized religion in the Low Countries, similar to France where Huguenots co-existed with Catholics at the time. Willem of Orange had not left the Catholic Church at this date. He wanted to achieve freedom of religion in the Low Countries, but he found Alva on his way. Willem of Orange became the leader of the revolt against Spain in the following years. He and his brother Louis of Nassau planned for war, while Willem was at Dillenburg. Their mercenary armies attacked the Low Countries in 1568 on three different places, but were defeated by Alva. Moreover, the expeditions had emptied Willem’s coffers and he could no longer pay his mercenary soldiers. German princes had not supported him and the people of the Low Countries had not risen in protest against Spain.

Willem’s only support came from the Watergeuzen; a group of lower nobles that had fled to England to escape prosecution. Willem allowed the Watergeuzen to equip 24 ships and invade Holland in 1572. Willem of Orange –being a prince of the Empire- was authorized to assemble his own army and appoint commanders. His activities as supreme commander were in accordance with feudal law (Groenveld et al. 1983, 108). Many lower nobles in exile had joined the Geuzen after the events of 1567. Willem appointed Willem II van der Marck, lord of Lumey, as his lieutenant and commander of the Geuzen fleet. He allowed Geuzen commanders to capture and loot Spanish ships by giving them kaperbrieven (licenses of piracy). The Watergeuzen lacked regular sources of income. Willem of Orange could not afford to pay them, which undermined his authority with the Watergeuzen, who largely did as they pleased. They lived from piracy, loot and plunder.

Willem of Orange launched another attack on the Habsburg Netherlands in May 1572. An army commanded by his younger brother Louis of Nassau besieged the city of Bergen (Mons) in Hainaut. He had obtained support from the French Huguenots. However, he lost this support, when thousands of French Huguenots were massacred at the Bartholomeus night of August 24th 1572 on behalf of French king Charles IV. The Dutch revolt took a more gruesome character after this date. Willem of Orange captured the city of Roermond, where his men killed some priests. He advanced into Brabant, where some cities opened their gates to his army. However, he did not succeed to liberate his besieged brother at Bergen, who was forced to surrender to Alva in September 1572. Willem depended now completely on the Geuzen armies to fight the Spanish troops.

The Watergeuzen had been chased away from the English seaports in 1572 that were their home base and sought a new place to stay. The North Western winds made them end up at the city of Brielle (Groenveld et al. 1983, 111). They landed at the seaport of Brielle on April 1st 1572 and took the undefended city by surprise. De Watergeuzen under command of Willem van der Marck (1542–1578) removed local city government and burnt some priests on the market in Brielle. The nearby city of Gorcum took the Geuzen side. The Watergeuzen went on a rampage and killed 19 monks at the Gorcum monastery (martyrs of Gorcum). Willem II van der Marck became shadow stadhouder of Holland on behalf of Willem of Orange, who was in exile.

The States of Holland were appalled by the atrocities committed by Willem van der Marck and his men and appointed a commission to investigate the transgressions. Coornhert, a humanist writer, reported on the events. Willem van der Marck was indicted by the Estates of Holland later in the year for the atrocities he had committed. This applied particularly to the murder of Cornelis Musius, prior of the Agatha convent of Delft, in December 1572. Musius was a good friend of Willem of Orange, who often resided at the convent. Willem van der Marck was captured in 1573, jailed, released and captured again (Wikipedia, Cornelis Musius). He went into exile on his home ground near Lieges. He converted to Catholicism shortly before he died under suspicious circumstances (probably from poisoning) in 1578 (Wikipedia, Willem van der Marck, lord of Lumey).

Geuzen leaders, who operated on land were equally brute. Diederik van Sonoy (1529–1597) pillaged the village of Ransdorp, north of Amsterdam, and killed 19 Franciscan monks in 1572. He captured Alkmaar and executed several priests. Diederik Sonoy was one of the lower nobles that had signed the 1566 petition. Willem of Orange did not condemn Sonoy for his killings and appointed him governor of Enkhuizen in 1572. Sonoy installed his own court in Enkhuizen, that was nicknamed Bloedraad (Blood Council) by the people due to its cruel sentences. Sonoy turned against the House of Orange later on. He died from natural causes.

The atrocities committed in France during the Bartholomeusnight triggered the plunder of churches in the Low Countries. Saint Bavo church in Haarlem was stripped by the Geuzen, whose commander Wigbolt Ripperda was appointed governor of the city. He defended the city of Haarlem against the Spanish and was decapitated on Haarlem city square in 1573, after the surrender of Haarlem to Spanish forces (Wikipedia, Wigbolt Ripperda).

Geuzen leader Lodewijk van Boisot, lord of Nijvel (1530–1576) drowned, while beleaguering the city of Middelburg. He had been appointed lieutenant admiral of Holland and Zeeland by Willem of Orange. Barthout Entens (1539–1580), vice-admiral of the Watergeuzen beleaguered the city of Dordrecht and looted monasteries and churches. He was killed in the siege of the city of Groningen, while defending the city against the Spaniards.

Willem Blois van Treslong (1529–1594) became admiral of Holland and Zeeland. He, however, fell from grace in 1985, when a dispute emerged on how to relieve Antwerp. He was captured and jailed, but released and rehabilitated in 1591 (Wikipedia, Geuzenleiders). Geuzenleaders were promoted to official positions by William of Orange. However, their fate was precarious. Many Geuzenleaders died in battle; were imprisoned or lost Willem of Orange’s support. None of them obtained a hereditary position; they were treated as bureaucrats and not as feudal lords by Willem of Orange and the States General. They obtained bureaucratic positions, but not hereditary rights.

Most inhabitants of the Low Countries rejected the cruel ways of the Geuzen. The population did not rise in revolt against the Spanish. The Calvinists could only succeed by using violence and sowing terror. This applied to the Geuzen and Calvinist groups that stirred uproars in cities to take over government. Calvinists in Enkhuizen and Vlissingen revolted against officials loyal to the Spanish case and forced them to resign. Geuzen took over and installed Calvinist preaching in cities where they took power. The city of Dordrecht was taken by the Watergeuzen in 1572.

Large cities like Amsterdam and Middelburg, however, could not be easily forced. Amsterdam had its own city militias that prevented attacks. The situation in 1572 resembled that of 1566, when the fury raged; cities with strong city militias prevented iconoclasts and radical Calvinists to take over their cities, while others succumbed to terrorist tactics employed by small armed groups (Groenveld et al. 1983, 114).

4.7.6 The States Councils in a New Role

Willem of Orange led the revolt of dissident nobles against Filip II and appointed shadow governors on his behalf in cities and provinces. He himself acted as shadow stadhouder after being condemned by Filip II. The official stadhouder of Holland and Zeeland was his adversary. Filip II had appointed Maximilian, count of Boussu, as stadhouder of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht after Willem of Orange’s departure to Dillenburg in 1567. Boussu fought the Geuzen on behalf of Filip II (Wikipedia, graaf Boussu). Boussu called for an emergency meeting of the States of Holland and Zeeland in 1572 to discuss the situation. A radical step was taken by the city of Dordrecht, when the city summoned an alternative meeting of the States of Holland and Zeeland in Dordrecht in the same year. This was a revolutionary act, since only Filip II or his stadhouder was entitled to summon the States to convene. The assembly also surpassed its authority, when it took decisions without consulting the sovereign (Groenveld et al. 1983, 114). Provincial States as advisory councils never had executive functions. The alternative assembly of 1572 turned the States of Holland and Zeeland into an executive council, when it dismissed Boussu and appointed Willem of Orange stadhouder of the two provinces. They gave their decision a legal veneer by pointing out that Willem had been stadhouder on behalf of Filip II before 1567. Boussu was imprisoned in 1573 and released in 1576, when he changed to the Orange side. He died in Antwerp in 1576.

A new Dutch Reformed Church (Nederduits Hervormde Kerk) was founded by exiles at the Synod of Emden in 1571. It represented an orthodox version of Calvinism that had gathered only a small following in the Low Countries at the time. Willem of Orange converted to Calvinism and attended the Calvinist Church in Dordrecht for the first time in December 1573. The number of cities with a seat in the States of Holland expanded during the revolt. Rotterdam, Gorcum, Schiedam, Schoonhoven and Brielle became members of the States of Holland in 1572. These cities were under Geuzen control after being conquered by Geuzen commanders. Geuzen leaders did not honor agreements made with city governments. They destroyed monasteries and churches and killed priests and monks after entering cities. The States of Holland condemned Geuzen atrocities and started an investigation, which led to Lumey’s arrest. They did not legitimate conquests of brutal commanders. The States wanted to install religious freedom and allow Catholics to hold their services.

Alva moved up north after his victory at Bergen. Alva and his son Don Fabrique moved into Holland and his troops wrought havoc in the city of Naarden. Alva forced the city to surrender in December 1572. His troops killed many inhabitants of Naarden in what is called the Naarden massacre. Catholics as the natural allies of Alva were no longer allowed to practice their religion in Holland and Zeeland after the massacre. Calvinism became the official religion of Holland and Zeeland, although it was practiced by only a small minority at the time (Groenveld et al. 1983, 115).

Alva’s mercenaries also committed atrocities in Zutphen and Mechelen. Many cities in Brabant and Guelders opened their gates for Alva’s troops after these acts. Only Holland and Zeeland continued to resist. Alva’s son Don Fabrique besieged the city of Haarlem that had to surrender in July 1573 after a 7 months siege. Wigbolt Ripperda, Lancelot van Brederode and several Haarlem councilors were decapitated by the Spanish. The Brederode castle was destroyed by Spanish troops and never rebuilt. Don Fabrique besieged Alkmaar in 1574. But, he could not conquer the city that was defended by Diederik Sonoy and his Geuzen army. Sonoy stopped the Spanish attack by inundating the fields around the city, which forced the Spanish troops to withdraw. A Dutch saying has it that victory began at Alkmaar.

Alva left the Low Countries in 1573. He was replaced by a new landvoogd; Luis de Requesens, who was governor of Milan before moving to the Low Countries. The new landvoogd also refused to negotiate with the rebels and continued the armed struggle. De Requesens was expected to be more moderate than Alva. But, De Requesens was a military man and not a diplomat. He did not want to enter negotiations with –in his eyes- rebels and heretics (Groenveld et al. 1983, 119). Holland and Zeeland continued the war. De Requesens continued the siege of Leiden that was started by Alva. The Spanish were forced to retreat in 1574, when the lands around Leiden were flooded by puncturing the dikes. De Requesens continued the war and took the city of Zierikzee in 1575. The Spanish troops dominated on land, but Holland and Zeeland controlled the water ways, which allowed them to relieve Alkmaar and Leiden.

The war in the Low Countries and the struggle against the Ottomans had emptied the Spanish coffers and Spain defaulted on its debt in 1575. Filip had defaulted for the first time in 1557. Loans of Genoese bankers were changed into government bonds (juros) in that year. Spain also defaulted on its debts in 1560, 1575 and 1596. Debt was restructured by converting short term asientos into long term juros at these occasions. New creditors came to the fore after banking houses in Florence and Augsburg went bankrupt by the defaults. Bankers expected their gambles to pay off, but lost their money (Martines 2013, 232). Genoese bankers that had stepped in limited their exposure to asientos in 1627, when they foresaw another bankruptcy. The number of outstanding asientos dropped from 12 million ducats in 1627 till 1 million in 1654, reflecting Spain’s narrowing room for financial maneuver (Ferguson 2001, 141).

The continuing war had also emptied Dutch coffers. The States of Holland had to postpone all interest payments on their debt in 1575, which meant a de facto default. But, De Requesens’ financial troubles were greater. He had been unable to pay his mercenaries for 3 years. De Requesens was forced to summon the States General in 1574 to ask for more funds. Spanish mercenary soldiers did no longer obey their commanders and took to mutiny. The city of Antwerp suffered greatly, when 4500 Spanish soldiers occupied and terrorized the city for months. The same happened in Maastricht (Groenveld et al. 1983, 120).

Mercenary soldiers no longer obeyed their commanders and wrought havoc in cities, when they were not paid. War as a negative sum game disappointed investors that had reckoned on profits from victory. The insurgency of the Low Countries did not have regular funding. It depended on contributions made by states sympathetic to their goals. France and England contributed to the Dutch cause at some points in time. However, Willem of Orange had to turn to unconventional methods, when he was unable to pay his mercenary soldiers. Persecuted lower nobles that lived on piracy and looting continued the fight. Geuzen leaders were military entrepreneurs that lived on spoils from war. Novel tactics like inundating the lands around cities contributed to the success of the insurgents. But, the cities rejected Geuzen tactics. Their representatives in States councils sought non-violent peaceful ways to attain freedom of religion.

4.8 Attempts to Establish Peace

4.8.1 Pacification of Ghent

The States of Flanders and Brabant used Spanish financial troubles to ask for negotiations with revolting Holland and Zeeland to come to an agreement with Spain (Groenveld et al. 1983, 120). De Requesens was now convinced that agreement and not war was the best way to move forward. However, he could not decide without instructions from Filip II. Peace negotiations started in March 1575 in Breda between representatives of Willem of Orange and De Requesens. The southern provinces demanded freedom of religion, the withdrawal of Spanish troops and more authority for the States General. They took a moderate stance in religious matters that was shared by the larger part of the population. Freedom of religion meant that Catholicism would be the official religion, but Calvinists would not be persecuted.

De Requesens wanted to reach agreement. Holland and Zeeland, however, could not accept his definition of religious freedom and broke up the deliberations in July 1575. These two provinces had de facto separated from Spain, when they appointed Willem of Orange as their stadhouder in 1572 and installed Calvinism as official religion. Negotiations with De Requesens as representative of Filip II would force them to recognize De Requesens as stadhouder, which they refused to do.

The States of Holland and Zeeland wanted to legitimize their government by appointing a foreign monarch to replace Filip II. But neither the duke of Anjou (French dauphine) nor queen Elizabeth from England were prepared to risk Filip II’s wrath by accepting the invitation. A new monarch was sought, because the States of Holland and Zeeland did not feel entitled to take sovereignty upon themselves. They sought a new (Protestant) sovereign to replace the Catholic king and give their ‘shadow’ government a legal status.

The States of the southern provinces attempted to renew peace negotiations with Holland and Zeeland, but their attempts faltered, when De Requesens died abruptly in March 1576. The Spanish mercenary soldiers continued their plunder after his death. The Council of State took over as temporary landvoogd, when De Requesens died. The States of Brabant convened on their own initiative. Brabant wanted to expand the authority of the States General and weaken the authority of the Council of State. However, Filips II announced in June 1576 that he would neither allow negotiations nor a summoning of a collective meeting of the States General.

The members of the Council of State were unexpectedly arrested in September 1576 in Brussels, allegedly on orders of the States of Brabant. The move was planned to force the Council of State to summon the States General –except Holland and Zeeland- to convene. The captured members of the Council of State did as asked. However, only members of the States of Hainaut and Flanders responded to the request. Some members of the Council of State were released and a new meeting was summoned. Members of the southern provincial States (with the exception of Luxemburg and Limburg that had stayed loyal to Spain) gathered in Brussels. Utrecht followed suit. They contacted Willem of Orange to commence peace negotiations with Holland and Zeeland that started in Ghent in October 1576. Agreement was reached within a few weeks and a treaty was signed by the representatives of all 17 provinces of the Low Countries on November 8th 1576. The Pacification of Ghent treaty built on the failed peace negotiations of Breda that wanted the Spanish troops removed and the status of the States General enhanced. The question of religious freedom was not solved, but would be discussed in a collective meeting of the provincial States. The existing situation would be continued until a decision was reached. People of different faiths were free to move and trade where they wanted under the terms of the Pacification of Ghent. Protestants were not allowed to disturb public order and harass Catholics. Confiscated goods would be returned to their owners and heretics would not be persecuted (Groenveld et al. 1983, 126). These measures were expected to reduce tension and end aggression. The moderates seemed to have won. However, Filip II still needed to agree to the terms of the Pacification of Ghent.

The king sent his half brother Don Juan of Austria –the hero of the battle of Lepanto of 1571- to the Low Countries. He was instructed to follow a moderate course and re-establish pre 1555 situation and privileges. Catholicism would be re-installed as the official religion. Don Juan arrived in Brussels in November 1576. But, the States General only wanted to recognize Don Juan as landvoogd, if he approved the Pacification of Ghent. Don Juan, however, did not want to be so pressed. A pact between him and the States General was only agreed upon after German intervention in February 1577.

The First Union of Brussels or Eeuwig Edict (Eternal Edict) stated that the States General would recognize Don Juan as landvoogd, if he confirmed the Pacification of Ghent and his troops left the Low Countries. He would receive 600,000 pounds for the withdrawal. The States General –in return- agreed to maintain Catholic religion everywhere and always. They also agreed that the States General could only be summoned by the landvoogd. Filips II agreed to the Eeuwig Edict. However, the agreement forced the States of Holland and Zeeland to revoke their prohibition of Catholicism, which was non-negotiable to them. The deputies of Holland and Zeeland refused to sign the agreement. Holland and Zeeland had now separated themselves from the other 15 provinces. They withdrew their members from the States General in Brussels in February 1577 after the terms of the Eeuwig Edict had become known (Groenveld et al. 1983, 129).

4.8.2 Willem of Orange’s Campaigns

Willem of Orange strengthened his position by the conquest of some Northern cities that were either in Spanish hands or loyal to Spain. Utrecht joined the Orange side in 1577 and Willem of Orange was appointed stadhouder of Utrecht in that year.

Spanish troops had moved to Luxemburg in 1577 in accordance with the Eeuwig Edict. But, the Spanish violated the Eeuwig Edict by attacking the Southern city of Namen in July 1577. Don Juan’s aggressive move pressed the southern provinces to decide whether they would join Holland and Zeeland and fight Don Juan or keep to the terms of the Eeuwig Edict? They decided to walk a middle road by denouncing Don Juan and recognizing Matthias, brother of the German emperor and Filip’s nephew, as landvoogd. Willem of Orange was appointed as Matthias’ lieutenant. Holland, Zeeland and all other provinces joined the southern provinces in this strategy and signed the Generale Unie (General Union) in December 1577 that reconfirmed the Pacification of Ghent. Calvinism was the only allowed official religion in Holland and Zeeland. Willem of Orange was recognized as stadhouder of Holland and Zeeland by the other provinces. However Filip II did not agree with these terms of the agreements made by the States General. Filip II’s financial situation improved considerably after the Battle of Lepanto of 1571 against the Ottomans. The Turkish sultan was prepared to sign an armistice. Filip II sent new Spanish troops to the Low Countries. These armies conquered some cities, whereupon the city of Leuven opened its gates to the Spanish troops. Other cities in Flanders, Limburg and Hainaut followed suit. Calvinists in several cities thereupon stirred unrest to incite the population to rise against the Spanish. A new wave of terror broke loose in the spring of 1578 akin to the iconoclast fury of 1566 (Groenveld et al. 1983, 131). Calvinists founded the Ghent Republic (1577–1578), when they took over city government by force. Filip III of Croy –stadhouder of Ghent- was imprisoned. Willem of Orange resided in Antwerp at the time, but did not intervene to stop the Calvinists. English and Scottish mercenary soldiers sowed terror in Ghent and surroundings. They captured Kortrijk, Ieper, Brugge and other cities. Looting was the norm for these mercenaries (Wikipedia, Gentse Republiek). Calvinist preaching was made mandatory in all cities under control of the Ghent republic, which violated the terms of the Pacification of Ghent.

The city of Amsterdam pursued a policy of restraint against the Calvinists. The iconoclast movement reached Amsterdam in August 1566, but the city government had moved and stored away many church possessions before the iconoclasts reached the city. All churches were closed to tame the fury. The Calvinists were offered a church to administer their services. However, Alva seized the city of Amsterdam shortly after. Calvinists needed to flee and their properties befell on the city. Amsterdam moved to the Orange side, when the Geuzen armies approached the city in December 1577. City government entered into negotiations with Willem of Orange. The city wanted to maintain Catholicism as official religion, while other religions would be tolerated. A Treaty of Satisfaction was signed between parties in February 1578. However, the agreement was not acceptable to members of the Dutch Reformed Church. They deposed Catholic city government in a coordinated action in May 1578; the Catholic magistrates were moved out of Amsterdam and a Reformed vroedschap (city council) was installed. Monasteries were taken and Catholic churches were given to Protestants. The Catholic churches lost their possessions during the Alteration of May 1578. Catholicism was forbidden and Catholics were excluded from offices in Amsterdam government (Zeven Eeuwen Amsterdam, 3).

Don Juan died suddenly from the plague in October 1578 together with many of his men (Groenveld et al. 1983, 133). He suggested on his death bed that his cousin Alexander Farnese, duke of Parma and son of Margaretha of Parma, should succeed him. Alexander was appointed landvoogd by Filips II a few weeks later. Alexander Farnese besieged the city of Maastricht, which was forced to surrender in the summer of 1579. The provinces of Artesia and Hainaut started negotiations to make peace with Spain. Alexander was eager to collect the lost sheep back into the Spanish herd and promised amnesty and new privileges for all cities that accepted Spanish authority. Alexander’s leniency seemed to be more effective than the harshness of his predecessors. However, he would soon meet with serious Calvinist opposition from Willem’s brother Jan van Nassau.

4.8.3 Unions of Utrecht and Atrecht

Willem of Orange wanted to make his brother Jan van Nassau stadhouder of Holland and Zeeland after he left for Brussels as Matthias’ lieutenant in 1578, when the Generale Unie was concluded. Jan van Nassau was a fierce Calvinist and not interested in religious peace at all. He wanted to separate the radical Calvinist provinces from the more moderate ones. But, the States of Holland refused to appoint him as stadhouder. Willem then appointed Jan as stadhouder of Guelders.

Jan van Nassau wanted to unite the northern provinces in a Calvinist Union that would cooperate with a German Union of Calvinist counts (Wetterauer Gravenverein). He assembled members of several northern provincial States in September 1578 in Arnhem to discuss his plans. But, the States of Guelders and representatives of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht and Overijssel were unwilling to adopt his plan. The States of Utrecht thereupon sent their attorney Floris Thin to Willem of Orange to discuss a new Union of the Northern provinces. Members of the Union of Utrecht would share defense and finance and allow freedom of religion. A state army would be installed, paid by the allied provinces. Orthodox Calvinists of Holland and Zeeland, however, rejected freedom of religion. They wanted Calvinism installed as official religion in their provinces. The negotiations continued and representatives of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht and Friesland agreed upon a preliminary text in December 1578 that would be presented for approval to the provincial States. However, provincial States –apart from Holland and Zeeland- were reluctant to sign the Union of Utrecht that would bring them into conflict with Spain. Jan van Nassau and four nobles signed for Guelders without the approval of the States of Guelders. Utrecht and Friesland were hesitant, but signed the Union in January 1579, when Alexander Farnese and his army were advancing to the northern provinces (Groenveld et al. 1983, 136). Groningen, Drente and Brabant followed suit. The cities of Ghent, Amersfoort, Mechelen, Antwerp and Breda also signed the Union of Utrecht. All decisions with respect to military defense and new allies would be taken unanimously by the members of the Union of Utrecht. The religious question was solved by deciding that provinces could decide in religious matters within their territories. This implied that Holland and Zeeland would remain exclusively Calvinist. Willem of Orange, however, refused to sign the Union of Utrecht. He wanted to keep the 17 provinces together instead of separating them. But, the separation of the northern provinces became permanent, when the southern provinces refused to appear at an extra ordinary meeting of the States General in April 1579.

The provinces of Hainaut and Artesia signed the Union of Atrecht (Arras) on January 6th 1579; they wanted to reach peace with Spain. Artesia, Hainaut and French Flanders signed a peace treaty with Spain on the 17th of May 1579 (Tractate of Atrecht), wherein they recognized Alexander as landvoogd. The southern provinces wanted neither Calvinist domination nor war; they separated from the North by signing the Tractate of Atrecht. Catholicism became the official religion of the southern provinces. The German emperor undertook a last attempt to reconcile the 17 provinces and organized a conference in Cologne in the summer of 1579, wherein representatives of Filips II and the States General participated. However, no agreement was reached after months of deliberation (Groenveld et al. 1983, 138). The views of Filips II and the Calvinists were too far apart. Failed negotiations brought back war. Alexander Farnese marched into Northern Brabant and Filip II put a ban on the life of Willem of Orange, whom he held responsible for the troubles in the Low Countries.

4.8.4 Separation from Spain

The provinces of the Union of Utrecht continued their search for a new monarch after Matthias of Austria had left the Low Countries in 1581. The States General of the provinces of the Union of Utrecht reached agreement with the duke of Anjou in January 1581 to succeed Matthias as sovereign on behalf of the States General. Holland and Zeeland, however, were opposed to the appointment of the Catholic French duke. They did not recognize the duke and maintained Willem of Orange as stadhouder and sovereign. Other provinces and cities recognized Anjou.

The recognition of Willem of Orange and Anjou implied the abandonment of Spanish authority. The States General dismissed Filips II as their sovereign in the Plakkaat van Verlatinge (Poster of Abandonment) of 26 July 1581. The provinces of Brabant, Guelders, Holland, Zeeland, Friesland, Utrecht, Mechelen and Flemish Flanders signed the Plakkaat van Verlatinge. The decision was made in a normal session of the States General in Antwerp. The States General based their decision on the argument that a monarch was divinely appointed, but could be abandoned by his subjects, if they disagreed with his policies. They referred to the Charter of Kortenberg and the Blijde Inkomst (Joyous Entry) charters to support their right of resistance. Subjects do not need to follow every order of the monarch; they have a right of resistance against tyrannical rulers. States councils can dismiss the ruler and replace him by a new one. Sovereignty was not absolute in the view of the signatories of the Poster of Abandonment, but needed approval from representatives of cities and nobles. The Poster of Abandonment resembled the posters that were distributed by Margaretha of Parma and other landvoogden installed by the Spanish king. The States General copied the decree like style of the Spanish to communicate their separation from Spain. The policy of religious moderation and compromise with Spain had failed at this point. The northern provinces had concluded many pacts, but were now on the brink of full-scale war with Spain.

Radical Calvinists in Holland and Zeeland had prevented a compromise at several occasions. Moderate nobles and citizens had lost out to radical Calvinists at this point. The Northern provinces had chosen the side of the revolt, when the differences turned out to be unbridgeable. The Pacification of Ghent had become a dead letter at this point (Groenveld et al. 1983, 140).

Filip II’s finances improved substantially, when ships with gold and silver from Latin America arrived in Seville. He sent more money to Alexander Farnese, who presented his military plans to Filips in January 1581. A division within the 17 provinces had appeared by now. Alexander controlled Luxemburg, Limburg and Namur. Hainaut, Artesia and French Flanders were added to Spanish dominion by the Union of Atrecht. Alexander wanted to march further up North into Brabant and Flemish Flanders that were controlled by the northern States General (Groenveld et al. 1983, 142). Several cities (Kortrijk, Breda, Doornik, Lier, Oudenaarde en Linove) moved to Alexander’s side in 1583 before he started his military operations. Several coastal cities surrendered to him in 1584. He continued his march into Brabant. Brussels, Mechelen, Ieper, Brugge and Ghent fell in his hands. Antwerp was besieged by Farnese in 1584. The city surrendered in 1585 after a 14 months siege. Farnese had occupied the surrounding countryside to stop food and other necessities reaching the city. Farnese applied similar scorched earth tactics as the Geuzen had applied to force Spanish soldiers to withdraw from Northern cities by inundation. Many citizens were willing to move to the Spanish side to free themselves from Calvinist radicals and prompted city governments to surrender (Groenveld et al. 1983, 144). They promised loyalty to Filips II and Catholicism, whereupon Alexander reinstated city privileges. Calvinists had to leave the city and sell their possessions during a 4 year period. The institutions of Charles V were reinstalled in the provinces under Spanish control. The three Collateral Councils and the Great Council of Mechelen were re-instated. Provincial States councils continued to function, but the States General of the southern provinces rarely convened.

The States General of the northern provinces, in the meantime, awaited the arrival of the duke of Anjou. He was appointed landvoogd in 1581, but first travelled to Britain to ask for Queen Elizabeth’s hand in marriage before arriving on their shores in 1582. Anjou was assisted by the Council of State, wherein Willem of Orange played a dominant role. The States General of the northern provinces, however, came in conflict with Anjou, who demanded huge sums to keep a luxurious court (Groenveld et al. 1983, 145). Anjou wanted to make his military mark by invading the city of Antwerp in January 1583. But, his soldiers were pushed out by citizens, who quickly organized to repel the invaders. 1500 French soldiers lost their lives in the attack. Anjou’s attack on Bruges also failed. He was more successful in Dunkirk and some other cities. Anjou returned to France in June 1583, where he died 1 year later. The cities he had conquered quickly fell into Alexander’s hands after his departure. The States General of the Northern provinces wanted to appoint Willem of Orange as landvoogd upon Anjou’s departure. But, Willem turned the offer down. He had been forced to leave Antwerp in 1583, where he was accused of surrendering the city to the troops of Anjou. He moved to Middelburg and later to the Hague.

Filip II’s ban on Willem inspired several attacks on his life. Willem of Orange was killed on July 10th 1584 by Balthasar Gerardts, a French nobleman. The States General of the northern provinces appointed Willem’s son Maurits of Orange as chairman of the Council of State and stadhouder of Holland and Zeeland after his death. Maurits was seconded by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, who was appointed landsadvocaat in 1586. Landsadvocaat was the highest official position of the States of Holland. Van Oldenbarneveldt was a son of a merchant from the city of Amersfoort (near Utrecht). He studied law in Leuven, Cologne, Heidelberg and Padua. He converted to Calvinism while in Heidelberg. He became raadspensionaris of the city of Rotterdam in 1576 and landsadvocaat in 1586.

The northern provinces had run out of money and were unable to continue fighting Alexander Farnese in 1584. Blockading the entrance to the harbor of Antwerp to obstruct the city’s maritime trade was the only military action left to them. Many Flemish merchants migrated to the northern provinces after the blockade.

The French were unwilling to provide further assistance to the Northern provinces by sending another ruler after Anjou’s departure. The States General now turned to queen Elizabeth of England for help. A Dutch delegation led by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt, asked the queen to become their monarch. Elizabeth refused, but she sent the count of Leicester together with his troops to the Low Countries. The States General gave Leicester great mandatory powers by making him landvoogd. Queen Elizabeth also provided financial assistance. She promised an annual sum of 126,000 pounds to the northern provinces (Groenveld et al. 1983, 150). Elizabeth received a lease on the cities of Vlissingen and Brielle that allowed her to control access to the rivers Schelde, Maas and Rhine. This was all written down in the Treaty of Nonsuch of 1585. Elizabeth did not strive for independence of the Low Countries. She did not favor revolts that removed incumbent monarchs, but wanted to bring the Northern provinces back under Spanish authority with religious freedom and a government of their own, as described in the Pacification of Ghent (Groenveld et al. 1983, 150). Elizabeth’s moderate stance was, however, not shared by Leicester, who arrived in the Hague in December 1585. The States General vacated their own quarters to lodge the count, but he preferred to reside in Utrecht where he found support from radical Calvinists. Leicester was not the moderate person Elizabeth thought he was, but a radical Protestant. Leicester issued a ban on trade with Spain and the southern provinces. He wanted to stop the grain trade between northern and southern provinces to weaken the south. His radical ideas and trade ban brought him into conflict with city merchants. A dispute arose among Calvinist radicals and moderates. Leicester expelled all moderate officials from their posts in the summer of 1586. Leicester and radical Calvinists argued that Leicester as landvoogd had obtained his mandate from the people, which gave him sovereignty. The Calvinist position implied that a sovereign chosen by the people could exert absolute rule and remove the opposition. The merchants and cities argued against this idea of absolute sovereignty. The moderates explained their position in a treatise; the Deductie or Corte Vertooninge of 1587 written by Francois Francken, raadspensionaris of the city of Gouda. He argued that sovereignty rests with the people, but the exercise of this authority rested in the hands of the States councils. Francken argued that this situation had existed for 700–800 years, since Charles the Great had been crowned emperor in 800. Occidental medieval emperors and kings could not decide without consulting their vassals, which placed de facto authority at the States councils. Executive authority, therefore, rested with this representative body. The moderates preferred discourse to absolute rule. But, radical Calvinists wanted to impose their (minority) view by force.

Leicester’s position weakened, when military successes stayed out. His position became untenable, when van Oldenbarneveldt revealed that Leicester conducted secret peace negotiations between northern and southern provinces. Leicester lost Calvinist support and left for England in December 1587. The republic of the 7 united provinces was established in 1588. No foreign ruler would be sought anymore, but the States General of the northern provinces would govern from now on.

4.8.5 The End of Feudalism

Cities and nobles obtained rights under feudalism. Rights issuance created a decentralized governance structure that furthered economic competition among lords and cities. An open access society emerged that allowed people to ascend socially by entering new organizations. The nobility was closed in 1300, when the knight’s military role became obsolete. Nobles competed for positions as commander and administrator after that date. Bureaucracy replaced informal discourse among nobles, when the Hausmacht of Burgundy and Habsburg lords expanded and large territories came under their control. Stadhouders were appointed that ruled on behalf of the king. Centralization eroded the feudal social fabric based on close contacts between lord and vassals. Cities continued to grow and flourish during the middle ages; they preferred peace to war. New forms of formal discourse in councils emerged that gave cities a voice. But, councils had little authority and could easily be ignored by ever more powerful lords. Lords turned against cities that refused to pay more taxes in the late middle ages.

Filip II appointed landvoogden to replace him, when he had left for Spain. However, these appointees had to await instructions before they could take decisions. Central bureaucracy came to replace the decentralized feudal model, wherein lords and cities had great autonomy. Nobles and cities in the Low Countries revolted against the attack on their privileges by an expanding central bureaucracy. Institutions installed by Filip the Good and Charles V could not stop the revolt. Feudal discourse broke down, when petitions fell on deaf ears and compromise was excluded. The feudal institutional fabric was destroyed, when Filips II and Alva broke feudal contracts and knightly codes of honor. Persecuted nobles took to arms and assembled Geuzen armies that operated on behalf of Willem of Orange; the leader of the revolt. Geuzen armies spread terror and forced cities to choose the side of the revolt. Religious differences could not be solved by compromise, but only by military force. Discourse comes to an end, when differences of opinion are unbridgeable. War changed character, when feudal skirmishes were replaced by wars for total control of cities and regions. Defeated vassals were re-instated after paying a sum in earlier days. Religious disputes, however, could only be solved by the annihilation or removal of adversaries. The victorious party was supposed to possess the truth, while members of the defeated party lost their voice, possessions and often their life. Absolute sovereignty appeared in the aftermath of religious war. Freedom of thought and expression disappeared, when rulers decided what people could think and say in absolute nation states based on state religion.

4.9 Conclusions

The feudal institutional fabric became brittle, when centralization proceeded in the Low Countries. Peace was destroyed, when nobles fought factious fights in contested successions. War between feudal lords in Northern Europe was of a limited character and could be resolved within the feudal code. But, trust between lords and vassals disappeared, when agreements were broken and rights and privileges were pushed aside by ever more powerful lords. Mounted knights were replaced by mercenary soldiers; cities had to pay the bill in the late middle ages. Cities became objects of exploitation for powerful lords, who needed loans to pay their mercenary armies to attack cities. Cities could not raise loans, since their pledges to raise more taxes were incredible. Italian cities were seized by military commanders that established single rule. Northern cities kept commanders out, but their rights were violated by ever more powerful lords. States councils could not stop the tide of rising absolute authority. The unity of the Holy Roman Empire was shattered to pieces by the Reformation. Rulers increased their autonomy by taking on religious authority. Imperial authority waned, when nation states based on religion emerged.

The Low Countries seceded from Habsburg Spain. Willem of Orange allowed disgruntled nobles to take leadership of Geuzen armies that forced cities to take their side. Cities were crucial in the revolt. Both Spanish and Geuzen commanders beleaguered cities to force them to surrender. Cities, however, preferred to solve disputes by agreement. The States General stopped Geuzen terror, when the seven provinces had separated from Spain. Geuzen leaders that had committed atrocities were accused and condemned by the States. Geuzen commanders were prevented to turn into city tyrants as Italian condottieri had done. However, moderate city government could not stem the tide of religious fervor during the revolt. Several treaties were drawn, but they were aborted either by Filip or by the States of Holland and Zeeland. The differences between these radical Calvinist provinces and the Spanish king could not be resolved by agreement, but only by force. The Northern provinces separated from the South, when several southern provinces and cities recognized Spanish authority. The Northern provinces declared independence in 1581, which triggered a long war of independence with Spain.