What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dutch Revolt
Parker, Geoffrey
336 pages, Paperback
First published August 25, 1977
9 people are currently reading
297 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Parker
97 books172 followersGeoffrey Parker is Andreas Dorpalen Professor of European History and an Associate of the Mershon Center at The Ohio State University. He has published widely on the social, political and military history of early modern Europe, and in 2012 the Royal Dutch Academy recognized these achievements by awarding him its biennial Heineken Foundation Prize for History, open to scholars in any field, and any period, from any country.
Parker has written or co-written thirty-nine books, including The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the rise of the West, 1500-1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1988), winner of the 'best book prize' from both the American Military Institute and the Society for the History of Technology; The Grand Strategy of Philip II (Yale University Press, 1998), which won the Samuel Eliot Morison Prize from the Society of Military History; and Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century (Yale University Press, 2013), which won the Society of Military History’s Distinguished Book Prize and also one of the three medals awarded in 2014 by the British Academy for ‘a landmark academic achievement… which has transformed understanding of a particular subject’.
Before moving to Ohio State in 1997, Parker taught at Cambridge and St Andrews universities in Britain, at the University of British Columbia in Canada, and at Illinois and Yale Universities in the United States, teaching courses on the Reformation, European history and military history at both undergraduate and graduate levels. He has directed or co-directed over thirty Doctoral Dissertations to completion, as well as several undergraduate theses. In 2006 he won an OSU Alumni Distinguished Teaching Award.
He lives in Columbus, Ohio, and has four children. In 1987 he was diagnosed as having Multiple Sclerosis. His latest book is Imprudent King: A New Life of Philip II (Yale University Press, 2014).
Parker has written or co-written thirty-nine books, including The Military Revolution: Military innovation and the rise of the West, 1500-1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1988), winner of the 'best book prize' from both the American Military Institute and the Society for the History of Technology; The Grand Strategy of Philip II (Yale University Press, 1998), which won the Samuel Eliot Morison Prize from the Society of Military History; and Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century (Yale University Press, 2013), which won the Society of Military History’s Distinguished Book Prize and also one of the three medals awarded in 2014 by the British Academy for ‘a landmark academic achievement… which has transformed understanding of a particular subject’.
Before moving to Ohio State in 1997, Parker taught at Cambridge and St Andrews universities in Britain, at the University of British Columbia in Canada, and at Illinois and Yale Universities in the United States, teaching courses on the Reformation, European history and military history at both undergraduate and graduate levels. He has directed or co-directed over thirty Doctoral Dissertations to completion, as well as several undergraduate theses. In 2006 he won an OSU Alumni Distinguished Teaching Award.
He lives in Columbus, Ohio, and has four children. In 1987 he was diagnosed as having Multiple Sclerosis. His latest book is Imprudent King: A New Life of Philip II (Yale University Press, 2014).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
Read
December 18, 2019 there is always a tendency among historians to assume that major events must have major causes whereas, in reality, small beginnings often have large consequences (p16)
In Contrast to C.V. Wedgwood's William the Silent which was a 'great man' view, rather top down, with hints that what the great man needed above all was a truly great woman , this a more democratic book, Parker stresses that the three revolts of the Netherlands (1566, 1572, and 1575) each had its own distinct causes, and he stresses the diversity among the provinces which had only been brought together into a political block by the Holy Roman Emperor (and Duke of Burgundy ) Charles V, a few decades before the revolts began.
For instance Parker describes the region as encompassing four languages, over 700 law codes (mostly in Brabant), three million or so people, yet having only four bishoprics, and a very low level of illiteracy. Unfortunately for Philip II, the region was united in the false belief that they had paid more than their fair share for the recent war with France (brought to an end in 1559) - however ,as one notices in politics, a popular opinion can trample over any mere fact.
The first revolt (1566) arose from a background of high food prices and unemployment. With Calvinists funding gangs or teams of iconoclasts to wander around smashing images (that people could be hired to do this and the lack of opposition let alone the absence of arrests of image breakers gives some sense of the unpopularity of the traditional Church, even if, as Parker points out, the number of actual card carrying Protestants of any flavour was small at that time. The second was a reaction to the clamp down that followed. The third followed from the long term struggle of the King of Spain's finances to come close to match his political ambitions.
The popular reaction was in a dynamic with the position of the small numbers of nobles who suffered from having an absentee ruler. In Parker's account the nobles come across as a type who needed tickling under the chin and stroking behind the ears and to be called 'my dear cousin' by their ruler on a regular basis otherwise they'd go off in a strop and sulk with hundreds of armed, irritable followers. While sulking they'd get tangled up in wider popular discontent. The government reacted after the first revolt by stripping rebellious nobles of their lands and titles which left them no course of action other than violence and opposition to regain status.
In reaction to the first revolt, the gouty Duke of Alva (shownhere overseeing the massacre of the Innocents, which gives some idea of how popular he was in the Netherlands), brought thousands of Spanish troops with him, to pay for them all, he devised a new system of taxes, which was not greeted with universal joy, and he tried to implement a plan to increase the number of bishoprics which were to have a dedicated inquisitorial team to crack down on heretics. With non-payment of the new taxes, a crack down on religious practice and some thousand odd people executed for their role in the first revolt when piratical supporters of the exiled prince of Orange descended on the northern coast they were able to seize and hold some towns, including the strategically important (for the cheese trade) centres of Edam and Gouda- Alva was distracted by Spanish political engagement with the series of religious civil wars in France. Both the first and second revolts saw failed military incursions by the exiled nobles along the land frontier, by on this occasion William retreated to join his supporters in Holland and Zealand. Here they were able to hold out as during the 1570s, rebellion in Spain, and sea war with the Ottoman Turks in the Mediterranean limited the resource that could be sent to the Netherlands even though the 1572 St. Bartholomew's day massacre in the short term stopped Calvinist support from France for the rebels.
The third rebellion was occasioned by the 1575 bankruptcy of Philip II. Unpaid soldiers - years in arrears, went on the rampage. The States-General united and raised its own troops to restore order, under the influence of William of Orange, who was as smooth politically as he was unsuccessful as a general. Later with finances on a firmer footing the rebellion assumed the form that I remembered, the steady drumbeat of sieges, as at first Philip II's nephew the Duke of Parma captured town after town, until he was diverted in the 1590s to intervene in the French civil war at which point the Dutch struck back, recapturing territory. At the beginning of the Seventeenth century the two sides eventually reached a truce in 1609 by parking the contentious issues . Peace was only reached in 1648. Some have described the Dutch revolt as the first world war and since others have described the seven years war as a world war this means we are now waiting for world war V, which is good news for those worried about world war III since it now turns out that one has already been fought.
An interesting point in Parker's account is that the Netherlands became Calvinist by default, more traditional views of the revolt of the Netherlands saw it as primarily driven by righteous Calvinist resistance against evil Catholics (**cough, cough** Motley's Rise of the Dutch republic). Politics during the 2nd and 3rd revolts led Orangists/Calvinists to purge Catholics from town councils and government. Also the defining issue was finance, warfare although the sport of kings and pastime of princes was beyond their ability to pay for, although on the other hand in extreme circumstances people could be squeezed and mobilised to fund substantial amounts of money. War gave rise to refugees but also new opportunities, rising population made it profitable to drain new lands in the north and all those soldiers needed guns and armour, beer and bread, carts and artillery,so there was money to be made in supply and even opportunities in international finance to transfer funds from Spain to the north. Calvinism gave an identity and also an international web of support from France, Scotland and England - however this also meant that the conflict was never to be contained in one region but had to be resolved internationally. The rise of Calvinism (what ever that may have actually meant to worshippers who may well not have been expert in Calvin's teachings) pushed out Lutheranism and restricted Anabaptists to the lower classes, except in Friesland (but then everything is different in Friesland).
Coverage of the later stages of the fighting is less detailed than that of the earlier stages of the revolt. I found most interesting the introduction on the diversity of the low countries and the end section that addresses consolidation, state formation and the creation of normalcy in both the United Provinces and the Spanish controlled south. There is a nice study of the interplay of religion and financial capacity in the conflict throughout. It is slightly weaker on motivations, which have to be inferred, on the Dutch side particularly for the political Elite to maintain the struggle. Largely narrative in style with some more analytical passages, but the book is not a blow-by-blow account. It is not a 'great man' or 'greatwoman' account either, but then I feel the great person approach to history (and by extension to politics) is dangerous for our brains as it sets us up to imagine ourselves as barefooted Cinderellas, suffering unjustly at the hands of abusive siblings, but hark! Down the 'pike comes thundering on a steed all burning bright, the great man who will seize us up on to the saddle and with roving hand upon our thigh, gallop off to a certain future. Stop that metaphor, before it with stealing fingers creeps further up! Better to rethink and face our leaders past and present as flawed and as inclined to burp and sweat as ourselves, pushed at times in to circumstances in which they may shine or be shown to be tarnished. For this reason alone I find this book trumps the still readable aforementioned Wedgwoodian effort even though it suffers from an absence of Erasmus and Hugo Grotius, who imprisoned, had himself smuggled to freedom in an empty chest of books.
In Contrast to C.V. Wedgwood's William the Silent which was a 'great man' view, rather top down, with hints that what the great man needed above all was a truly great woman , this a more democratic book, Parker stresses that the three revolts of the Netherlands (1566, 1572, and 1575) each had its own distinct causes, and he stresses the diversity among the provinces which had only been brought together into a political block by the Holy Roman Emperor (and Duke of Burgundy ) Charles V, a few decades before the revolts began.
For instance Parker describes the region as encompassing four languages, over 700 law codes (mostly in Brabant), three million or so people, yet having only four bishoprics, and a very low level of illiteracy. Unfortunately for Philip II, the region was united in the false belief that they had paid more than their fair share for the recent war with France (brought to an end in 1559) - however ,as one notices in politics, a popular opinion can trample over any mere fact.
The first revolt (1566) arose from a background of high food prices and unemployment. With Calvinists funding gangs or teams of iconoclasts to wander around smashing images (that people could be hired to do this and the lack of opposition let alone the absence of arrests of image breakers gives some sense of the unpopularity of the traditional Church, even if, as Parker points out, the number of actual card carrying Protestants of any flavour was small at that time. The second was a reaction to the clamp down that followed. The third followed from the long term struggle of the King of Spain's finances to come close to match his political ambitions.
The popular reaction was in a dynamic with the position of the small numbers of nobles who suffered from having an absentee ruler. In Parker's account the nobles come across as a type who needed tickling under the chin and stroking behind the ears and to be called 'my dear cousin' by their ruler on a regular basis otherwise they'd go off in a strop and sulk with hundreds of armed, irritable followers. While sulking they'd get tangled up in wider popular discontent. The government reacted after the first revolt by stripping rebellious nobles of their lands and titles which left them no course of action other than violence and opposition to regain status.
In reaction to the first revolt, the gouty Duke of Alva (shownhere overseeing the massacre of the Innocents, which gives some idea of how popular he was in the Netherlands), brought thousands of Spanish troops with him, to pay for them all, he devised a new system of taxes, which was not greeted with universal joy, and he tried to implement a plan to increase the number of bishoprics which were to have a dedicated inquisitorial team to crack down on heretics. With non-payment of the new taxes, a crack down on religious practice and some thousand odd people executed for their role in the first revolt when piratical supporters of the exiled prince of Orange descended on the northern coast they were able to seize and hold some towns, including the strategically important (for the cheese trade) centres of Edam and Gouda- Alva was distracted by Spanish political engagement with the series of religious civil wars in France. Both the first and second revolts saw failed military incursions by the exiled nobles along the land frontier, by on this occasion William retreated to join his supporters in Holland and Zealand. Here they were able to hold out as during the 1570s, rebellion in Spain, and sea war with the Ottoman Turks in the Mediterranean limited the resource that could be sent to the Netherlands even though the 1572 St. Bartholomew's day massacre in the short term stopped Calvinist support from France for the rebels.
The third rebellion was occasioned by the 1575 bankruptcy of Philip II. Unpaid soldiers - years in arrears, went on the rampage. The States-General united and raised its own troops to restore order, under the influence of William of Orange, who was as smooth politically as he was unsuccessful as a general. Later with finances on a firmer footing the rebellion assumed the form that I remembered, the steady drumbeat of sieges, as at first Philip II's nephew the Duke of Parma captured town after town, until he was diverted in the 1590s to intervene in the French civil war at which point the Dutch struck back, recapturing territory. At the beginning of the Seventeenth century the two sides eventually reached a truce in 1609 by parking the contentious issues . Peace was only reached in 1648. Some have described the Dutch revolt as the first world war and since others have described the seven years war as a world war this means we are now waiting for world war V, which is good news for those worried about world war III since it now turns out that one has already been fought.
An interesting point in Parker's account is that the Netherlands became Calvinist by default, more traditional views of the revolt of the Netherlands saw it as primarily driven by righteous Calvinist resistance against evil Catholics (**cough, cough** Motley's Rise of the Dutch republic). Politics during the 2nd and 3rd revolts led Orangists/Calvinists to purge Catholics from town councils and government. Also the defining issue was finance, warfare although the sport of kings and pastime of princes was beyond their ability to pay for, although on the other hand in extreme circumstances people could be squeezed and mobilised to fund substantial amounts of money. War gave rise to refugees but also new opportunities, rising population made it profitable to drain new lands in the north and all those soldiers needed guns and armour, beer and bread, carts and artillery,so there was money to be made in supply and even opportunities in international finance to transfer funds from Spain to the north. Calvinism gave an identity and also an international web of support from France, Scotland and England - however this also meant that the conflict was never to be contained in one region but had to be resolved internationally. The rise of Calvinism (what ever that may have actually meant to worshippers who may well not have been expert in Calvin's teachings) pushed out Lutheranism and restricted Anabaptists to the lower classes, except in Friesland (but then everything is different in Friesland).
Coverage of the later stages of the fighting is less detailed than that of the earlier stages of the revolt. I found most interesting the introduction on the diversity of the low countries and the end section that addresses consolidation, state formation and the creation of normalcy in both the United Provinces and the Spanish controlled south. There is a nice study of the interplay of religion and financial capacity in the conflict throughout. It is slightly weaker on motivations, which have to be inferred, on the Dutch side particularly for the political Elite to maintain the struggle. Largely narrative in style with some more analytical passages, but the book is not a blow-by-blow account. It is not a 'great man' or 'greatwoman' account either, but then I feel the great person approach to history (and by extension to politics) is dangerous for our brains as it sets us up to imagine ourselves as barefooted Cinderellas, suffering unjustly at the hands of abusive siblings, but hark! Down the 'pike comes thundering on a steed all burning bright, the great man who will seize us up on to the saddle and with roving hand upon our thigh, gallop off to a certain future. Stop that metaphor, before it with stealing fingers creeps further up! Better to rethink and face our leaders past and present as flawed and as inclined to burp and sweat as ourselves, pushed at times in to circumstances in which they may shine or be shown to be tarnished. For this reason alone I find this book trumps the still readable aforementioned Wedgwoodian effort even though it suffers from an absence of Erasmus and Hugo Grotius, who imprisoned, had himself smuggled to freedom in an empty chest of books.
October 25, 2019
Good narrative, well documented and amenable.
Parker is able to find a way to describe historical events of such paramount importance for Spain, the Netherlands and Europe as a whole in a balanced way, always avoiding manichaean portrayals of events and actors as many people are used to. Although some crucial events (i.e. Sack of Antwerp by Felipe II's Army) are described in a general way and without getting too much into details (where the Devil is), the exhaustive coverage of the economics, demographics and politics of the conflict is pretty impressive.
Parker is able to find a way to describe historical events of such paramount importance for Spain, the Netherlands and Europe as a whole in a balanced way, always avoiding manichaean portrayals of events and actors as many people are used to. Although some crucial events (i.e. Sack of Antwerp by Felipe II's Army) are described in a general way and without getting too much into details (where the Devil is), the exhaustive coverage of the economics, demographics and politics of the conflict is pretty impressive.
March 27, 2022
This is not an intraductory read, but quite entertaining for an academic one. Great humor suiting the late 16th century.
August 14, 2019
The Dutch Revolt follows the period of time in the 1500s and early 1600s when the country we know now as The Netherlands broke away from rule by the Spanish/Hapsburg Empire. While I'm sure this was covered in my AP European History class, as an adult I'd completely forgotten that at one point the Dutch were ruled by the Spanish, or that the entire existence of Belgium as a separate country from The Netherlands is due in part to the outcome of this war. It seems pretty remarkable to me that we hardly talk about how 200 years before Americans rose against tyrannical rule by the British monarchy, the Dutch did the same thing, also in part because they were seeking freedom to practice whatever religion they wanted, and relief from heavy taxation going back to an empire.
While I sincerely appreciated (re)learning these facts, unfortunately The Dutch Revolt is quite dry and academic in nature. Parker conveys the information, but does not make any attempt to bring it to life for the reader, or even explain the background of certain historical figures who pop up throughout the wars. I can only recommend this book if you really want to learn in intricate detail about the topic at hand.
While I sincerely appreciated (re)learning these facts, unfortunately The Dutch Revolt is quite dry and academic in nature. Parker conveys the information, but does not make any attempt to bring it to life for the reader, or even explain the background of certain historical figures who pop up throughout the wars. I can only recommend this book if you really want to learn in intricate detail about the topic at hand.
December 4, 2022
I found this book by looking for "the best" books on the Dutch revolts, and finding it recommended. It is a great history (it covers economics, military, and political aspects of the wars from the Spanish and Dutch side). It is fairly astounding how much the Dutch accomplished given all that they faced, and this book does a good job of not aggrandizing either side, but explaining how everyone came to their decisions.
I found it to be extremely informative on the outlines of the war and the way things were from about 1550 to 1650. While not present in the book directly, it is also interesting to see how elements of revolutions to come (English Civil War, American and French revolutions) are present, even if there is no true repetition of history. The Dutch only slowly became an (oligarchic) republic, and fought hard for the ability to keep their provinces in charge of their localities.
I found it to be extremely informative on the outlines of the war and the way things were from about 1550 to 1650. While not present in the book directly, it is also interesting to see how elements of revolutions to come (English Civil War, American and French revolutions) are present, even if there is no true repetition of history. The Dutch only slowly became an (oligarchic) republic, and fought hard for the ability to keep their provinces in charge of their localities.
September 5, 2023
Oh the nostalgic sensation towards books written in How-To-Distinguish-3-and-9 font...
And, how can one not love a historical serious(-ass) book where an Englishman is quoted to have said "By God, I think the Devil shits Dutchmen"
And, how can one not love a historical serious(-ass) book where an Englishman is quoted to have said "By God, I think the Devil shits Dutchmen"
October 7, 2022
Detailed and correct description of what we know about this period. Pleasent to read.
May 23, 2023
A comprehensive history on the Dutch Revolt--I found it to be informative and insightful.
May 7, 2024
This is a good introduction to the Dutch Revolt and an interesting corrective to some standard perspectives in the Netherlands about our own history. It sets the stage rather well, gives some background information about the Netherlands in this era and then presents the events in chronological order.
The interesting bit is the way in which the author integrates the Revolt(s) into the European politics of 16th and 17th centuries. In high school the Revolt tends to be presented as an age of national heroism. Parker shows how much luck was involved in the survival of the Dutch Republic. The power politics between France, the Spanish Empire and England played an incredibly important role in the succes and failure of most of the military campaigns. The argument that 'the revolt' actually consisted of three smaller revolts similarly undermines national mythology. Normally the revolt is imagined to be one large and cohesive war of (religious and/or national) liberation instead of a succession of shorter conflicts which started for various reasons.
While the book starts of quite well, it does drag on a bit. The writing is dry and encyclopedic rather than argumentative. Also some of the information and perspectives presented in this book are a bit dated and possibly not entirely accurate. For example his appraisal of the role of William of Orange in the 1580's is still overly optimistic. I've read elsewhere that William had lost most of his popularity by that point because of his moderate positions and that his modern reputation is mostly a consequence of his martyrdom. Similarly his treatment of urban politics (which he deems decidedly oligarchic) is probably true by the mid 17th century, but possibly more questionable in the earlier era (see: Maarten Prak, Citizens Without Nations for a treatment of all the different actors and tools which existed in urban politics in the early modern era https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...).
The interesting bit is the way in which the author integrates the Revolt(s) into the European politics of 16th and 17th centuries. In high school the Revolt tends to be presented as an age of national heroism. Parker shows how much luck was involved in the survival of the Dutch Republic. The power politics between France, the Spanish Empire and England played an incredibly important role in the succes and failure of most of the military campaigns. The argument that 'the revolt' actually consisted of three smaller revolts similarly undermines national mythology. Normally the revolt is imagined to be one large and cohesive war of (religious and/or national) liberation instead of a succession of shorter conflicts which started for various reasons.
While the book starts of quite well, it does drag on a bit. The writing is dry and encyclopedic rather than argumentative. Also some of the information and perspectives presented in this book are a bit dated and possibly not entirely accurate. For example his appraisal of the role of William of Orange in the 1580's is still overly optimistic. I've read elsewhere that William had lost most of his popularity by that point because of his moderate positions and that his modern reputation is mostly a consequence of his martyrdom. Similarly his treatment of urban politics (which he deems decidedly oligarchic) is probably true by the mid 17th century, but possibly more questionable in the earlier era (see: Maarten Prak, Citizens Without Nations for a treatment of all the different actors and tools which existed in urban politics in the early modern era https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...).
February 23, 2026
Very engaging and approachable read while not watering down the facts to make it so.
June 11, 2020
Originally published in 1977, the research of Geoffrey Parker on the Dutch Revolt against the Spanish king Philip ll remains a great achievement. Highly recommended!
August 21, 2012
Uitgebreide studie naar de eerste helft van de tachtigjarige oorlog en zijn oorzaken. Met veel aandacht voor sociaal-economische achtergronden en de Spaanse visie op de opstand van de Nederlanden. Hoewel droge (bijvoorbeeld demografische ) informatie bevattend, vooral spannend geschreven.
Nauwgezet wordt beschreven hoe het lot van de Nederlanden telkens aan een zijden draadje hangt en door min of meer toevallige processen heen en weer geslingerd wordt tussen onafhankelijkheid en bezetting. Helaas komen de jaren 1580-1609 er een beetje bekaaid van af en over de jaren 1609-1648 wordt nauwelijks gerept. Desondanks informatief en mooi geschreven.
Nauwgezet wordt beschreven hoe het lot van de Nederlanden telkens aan een zijden draadje hangt en door min of meer toevallige processen heen en weer geslingerd wordt tussen onafhankelijkheid en bezetting. Helaas komen de jaren 1580-1609 er een beetje bekaaid van af en over de jaren 1609-1648 wordt nauwelijks gerept. Desondanks informatief en mooi geschreven.
Read
January 4, 2014Fantastic.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews