What do you think?
Rate this book
腓力二世传
本书是西班牙历史上最著名的国王腓力二世的传记。自16世纪以来一直未被公开的大量档案材料改写了西班牙最著名国王曾在世间留下的印象。本书考察了腓力二世漫长的王储时期，他的三个主要爱好（工作、娱乐和宗教），以及他在统治时期面临的主要政治、军事和个人挑战。本书还对腓力二世领导失败的原因提供了新的见解：他的帝国是否因太大而无法驾驭，或者具备不同才能和气质的君主是否会表现更好？这些问题将从本书中找到答案。
676 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2014
90 people are currently reading
1039 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Parker
98 books171 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 - 30 of 58 reviews
February 4, 2024
My rating may drop upon further reflection, as the epilogue goes out of its way to spoil its own triumphant party. The Philip who emerges in Parker’s study is a man both austere and ambitious, someone always a bit uncomfortable in their own skin. Inheriting a global empire, Philip was an uber bureaucrat, perpetually drowning in a sea of memos and contracts. He delegated, forming committees, but micromanaged their findings and recommendations. Philip felt he was chosen by God to act as a steward.
Consanguinity is never a good plan for the long game. The monarch in question suffered from the practice, even if its political consequences provided a measured stability. There remains a virtual stadium of skeletons in these royal closets. Much as his father Charles V locked away his own mentally ill mother, Philip II imprisoned his own son and heir Don Carlos for similar instability.
Just after his second wife Mary Tudor died, he asked her half sister Elizabeth if she was interested. There are doubtless political and religious incentives to consider, but the palpable consequences of such maneuvering are uncomfortable. Oh, Philip also married his niece. The big events of the time are afforded context; we go from Lepanto to the Armada with Philip pondering the meaning of manifest destiny and whether he still enjoys divine favor.
Philip left the world an old man. The Spain he left was broke from his eternal wars. He burned heretics and had political enemies killed, he was insecure but felt his course and cause to be the just one.
Consanguinity is never a good plan for the long game. The monarch in question suffered from the practice, even if its political consequences provided a measured stability. There remains a virtual stadium of skeletons in these royal closets. Much as his father Charles V locked away his own mentally ill mother, Philip II imprisoned his own son and heir Don Carlos for similar instability.
Just after his second wife Mary Tudor died, he asked her half sister Elizabeth if she was interested. There are doubtless political and religious incentives to consider, but the palpable consequences of such maneuvering are uncomfortable. Oh, Philip also married his niece. The big events of the time are afforded context; we go from Lepanto to the Armada with Philip pondering the meaning of manifest destiny and whether he still enjoys divine favor.
Philip left the world an old man. The Spain he left was broke from his eternal wars. He burned heretics and had political enemies killed, he was insecure but felt his course and cause to be the just one.
September 30, 2022
This was slow, poorly organized and full of sexism, racism and colonialist nonsense.
Theres a lot of info here but it's very poorly organized.
This author is overly wordy.
Theres a lot of info here but it's very poorly organized.
This author is overly wordy.
April 25, 2017
Phillip II of Spain ruled over what was arguably the world's first transoceanic empire-at its height, Spain controlled southern Italy, the entirety of the Iberian peninsula, the Low Countries, and a colossal overseas empire stretching across the globe, including the Americas and portions of India. He had access to immense mineral wealth from the Peruvian silver mines, a huge military made up of hardened veterans, and many able and competent civil servants. And yet, in many respects, Phillip was a failure, despite his many triumphs against the Ottoman Empire and, in the early decades of his rule, the French. His reign saw the permanent loss of the Netherlands, the destruction of the Invincible Armada at the hands of Francis Drake, and the expenditure of so much wealth and human life in futile wars, which so weakened the Castilian economy that within fifty years Spain would be eclipsed by France as the preeminent European hegemon.
What went wrong? According to Geoffrey Parker, the Spanish Empire was not predestined to fail, despite the difficulties inherent in managing a global empire with many enemies. Indeed, within Phillip's life, slightly changes in the way events unfolded could have led, for example, to him conquering England or crushing his rebellious Dutch subjects. However, Phillip's flaws as a ruler contributed to his empire's blunders. An obsessive micromanager who was often unwilling to trust his subordinates, he attempted to command complex military operations occurring hundreds of miles away from Madrid, an impossible task that often left his commanders hamstrung. Phillip's obsessive nature also led him to waste tremendous amounts of time on irrelevant minutia, for example devoting countless hours in designing his magnificent palace complex at El Escorial while the situation in the Netherlands spiraled out of control. Phillip, for all of his genius at administration, was ultimately a flawed, and at times tragic figure.
Parker is skilled writer and an excellent historian. One is not likely to find such an readable biography about this time period , particularly in English.
What went wrong? According to Geoffrey Parker, the Spanish Empire was not predestined to fail, despite the difficulties inherent in managing a global empire with many enemies. Indeed, within Phillip's life, slightly changes in the way events unfolded could have led, for example, to him conquering England or crushing his rebellious Dutch subjects. However, Phillip's flaws as a ruler contributed to his empire's blunders. An obsessive micromanager who was often unwilling to trust his subordinates, he attempted to command complex military operations occurring hundreds of miles away from Madrid, an impossible task that often left his commanders hamstrung. Phillip's obsessive nature also led him to waste tremendous amounts of time on irrelevant minutia, for example devoting countless hours in designing his magnificent palace complex at El Escorial while the situation in the Netherlands spiraled out of control. Phillip, for all of his genius at administration, was ultimately a flawed, and at times tragic figure.
Parker is skilled writer and an excellent historian. One is not likely to find such an readable biography about this time period , particularly in English.
January 22, 2024
Philip II holds the particular distinction of being simultaneously one of the potentially most boring people in history, a royal bureaucrat who endlessly laboured behind his desk, and one of the most fascinating ones, as his long reign involved him in decisions that still influence our world today. I have always felt some sympathy for him, sympathy for an underdog, because his reputation was blackened by writers and historians almost from his lifetime to today. We have to recognise, however, that Philip II was, by modern standards, definitely guilty of religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, various acts of obvious illegality, and above all of continuing wars that were the disaster of his time and exhausted his kingdoms. He remains both important and somewhat mysterious.
He poses a difficult challenge to a biographer, in many ways. One of them was the sheer volume of the written legacy of a king who ruled by paperwork, putting his signature — "Yo el Rey" — often to hundreds of documents per day, documents which he corrected, annotated, and commented on. The proud motto of his reign was "Non Sufficit Orbis", the World Is Not Enough, but for Philip II, his existing possessions were far more than he could cope with. Parker fairly criticises his unwillingness to delegate, which exhausted him and slowed down the entire governmental machine, but Philip's complex empire was ultimately united in himself only: Government officials of Castile held no authority in Portugal, Aragon had its own laws and constitution, the Low Countries resented their foreign viceroys, his Italian fiefs were almost as unruly, and the distant colonies in the Americas and the Pacific were almost beyond oversight. His presence was often required to function as the symbol of government, and Parker equally takes him to task for not returning to the Low Countries to resolve conflicts in person.
When central authority emanated from the person, even from the body of the king, the burden of duty on him became crushing. Philip II did not feel equal to the task, dutiful and hardworking though he was. As a deeply religious man, he too often made relying on a miracle his plan B, if not his plan A. The consequences were frequently disastrous.
Geoffrey Parker has spent a vast amount of time investigating the archives left behind by Philip II, and his biography paints a very convincing picture. It is, perhaps, rather unsympathetic to its subject, as even its title indicates. Parker is a skeptic who critically examines the king, his decisions and his failings, at arm's length. Especially his failings, which were numerous. Due to the complexity of the era and the long reign of Philip II, choices had to be made, and often one gets the feeling that although it is already quite bulky, this book could have been ten times as long. The author had to prioritise and he did so effectively, so that the reader gets a reasonably complete picture of the monarch without drowning in detail. But I often found myself wishing for a bit more.
In particular, the boundaries of the power of Philip II merit further study. It is fascinating how the king could sometimes act as the quintessential absolute monarch, explicitly recognising no worldly authority above his own, even when overruling the constitution; but in other cases was forced to seek redress for both major and minor wrongs in court, to personally testify, and to engage in complex negotiations to work across the legal systems of his different domains. He could and did ultimately resort to violence — when and if he could afford to.
The book does not stick to chronological order, except in broad outlines, which can be a bit confusing, when a chapter relies on persons who died or were dismissed in the previous one. The choice for thematic chapters works to keep the story manageable, so it can be consumed in digestible bites. But it is also engaging enough to keep the reader hooked.
He poses a difficult challenge to a biographer, in many ways. One of them was the sheer volume of the written legacy of a king who ruled by paperwork, putting his signature — "Yo el Rey" — often to hundreds of documents per day, documents which he corrected, annotated, and commented on. The proud motto of his reign was "Non Sufficit Orbis", the World Is Not Enough, but for Philip II, his existing possessions were far more than he could cope with. Parker fairly criticises his unwillingness to delegate, which exhausted him and slowed down the entire governmental machine, but Philip's complex empire was ultimately united in himself only: Government officials of Castile held no authority in Portugal, Aragon had its own laws and constitution, the Low Countries resented their foreign viceroys, his Italian fiefs were almost as unruly, and the distant colonies in the Americas and the Pacific were almost beyond oversight. His presence was often required to function as the symbol of government, and Parker equally takes him to task for not returning to the Low Countries to resolve conflicts in person.
When central authority emanated from the person, even from the body of the king, the burden of duty on him became crushing. Philip II did not feel equal to the task, dutiful and hardworking though he was. As a deeply religious man, he too often made relying on a miracle his plan B, if not his plan A. The consequences were frequently disastrous.
Geoffrey Parker has spent a vast amount of time investigating the archives left behind by Philip II, and his biography paints a very convincing picture. It is, perhaps, rather unsympathetic to its subject, as even its title indicates. Parker is a skeptic who critically examines the king, his decisions and his failings, at arm's length. Especially his failings, which were numerous. Due to the complexity of the era and the long reign of Philip II, choices had to be made, and often one gets the feeling that although it is already quite bulky, this book could have been ten times as long. The author had to prioritise and he did so effectively, so that the reader gets a reasonably complete picture of the monarch without drowning in detail. But I often found myself wishing for a bit more.
In particular, the boundaries of the power of Philip II merit further study. It is fascinating how the king could sometimes act as the quintessential absolute monarch, explicitly recognising no worldly authority above his own, even when overruling the constitution; but in other cases was forced to seek redress for both major and minor wrongs in court, to personally testify, and to engage in complex negotiations to work across the legal systems of his different domains. He could and did ultimately resort to violence — when and if he could afford to.
The book does not stick to chronological order, except in broad outlines, which can be a bit confusing, when a chapter relies on persons who died or were dismissed in the previous one. The choice for thematic chapters works to keep the story manageable, so it can be consumed in digestible bites. But it is also engaging enough to keep the reader hooked.
April 21, 2024
It's hard to think of a historical figure that would be more fascinating than Philip II. Parker concludes that the king was obsessive and simply couldn't rule effectively because of the size of his kingdom. An interesting analysis, albeit one that could have been drawn earlier.
The author did a good job in presenting relevant writings of the king, they give an insight in his personal thoughts. The religious believes of the king were known to me, but the court politics were not. Parker reconstructs several days at the Spanish court with attention for workload, conspiracies and gossip. Quite interesting, but mostly also quite political.
The biography is mostly focused on politics, which makes for quite a challenging read if you're more curious about social or environmental causes. Sometimes the author allows himself to note something like the extremely bad weather that influenced Philip's actions, but such insights are unfortunately rare. The author also doesn't follow up on such interesting causes that could have added some more depth to the book.
If you're planning to read this biography, be prepared for a lot of political facts and letters that guide the story. The chronology is a bit all over the place, but I think the organization in topics does make sense since they reflect on different aspects of Philip's character.
The author did a good job in presenting relevant writings of the king, they give an insight in his personal thoughts. The religious believes of the king were known to me, but the court politics were not. Parker reconstructs several days at the Spanish court with attention for workload, conspiracies and gossip. Quite interesting, but mostly also quite political.
The biography is mostly focused on politics, which makes for quite a challenging read if you're more curious about social or environmental causes. Sometimes the author allows himself to note something like the extremely bad weather that influenced Philip's actions, but such insights are unfortunately rare. The author also doesn't follow up on such interesting causes that could have added some more depth to the book.
If you're planning to read this biography, be prepared for a lot of political facts and letters that guide the story. The chronology is a bit all over the place, but I think the organization in topics does make sense since they reflect on different aspects of Philip's character.
January 13, 2025
Over the years I've been a great enthusiast for the writings of Geoffrey Parker, but for assorted reasons I didn't get to this work until more than 10 years after it was published. Call this a commentary on how it seemed more logical to read Parker's biograph of Charles V first, a certain lack of availability in Northern Virginia where I've been living until recently (ca. 2023), and an unwillingness to make this book an inter-library loan.
So, having finally gotten around to putting in the effort, I think this is a good study, but perhaps not a great one. What Parker does best is illustrating how Philip's character and upbringing did not produce a man who was really up to the task at hand; that is running a polity which required lots of hands-on interaction in regards to only those jobs that Philip could do as monarch, and then ruthlessly delegating everything else. Even in his lifetime Philip was notorious for becoming bogged down in the minutia of his job, a commentary on what Parker sees as a man possessed of obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Still, one might also see an intelligent man who realized that he had an unmanageable task, and who embraced hope as a strategy.
Playing with counter-factuals though, Parker believes that Philip did have a chance of buying time for the conglomeration of lands chance had stuck him with. For one, it's unfortunate from the Habsburg perspective that Charles V did not make the Low Countries the problem of the Holy Roman Empire, leaving Philip with the Mediterranean World and the lands across the ocean as his brief. Two, when events in England and said Low Countries really required Philip's hands-on presence, the man was nowhere to be found. The one key point in Parker's view is that Philip needed Mary Tudor to live 5-10 years more and, barring that, to have better stage-managed Elizabeth Tudor's enthronement, and making sure she appreciated that marriage to an appropriate consort was a condition of ascension to being monarch.
I also have to note that this book is an abridgement of a much-longer book written in Spanish, and there are times when it really does feel like an abridgement. Still well-worth reading though.
So, having finally gotten around to putting in the effort, I think this is a good study, but perhaps not a great one. What Parker does best is illustrating how Philip's character and upbringing did not produce a man who was really up to the task at hand; that is running a polity which required lots of hands-on interaction in regards to only those jobs that Philip could do as monarch, and then ruthlessly delegating everything else. Even in his lifetime Philip was notorious for becoming bogged down in the minutia of his job, a commentary on what Parker sees as a man possessed of obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Still, one might also see an intelligent man who realized that he had an unmanageable task, and who embraced hope as a strategy.
Playing with counter-factuals though, Parker believes that Philip did have a chance of buying time for the conglomeration of lands chance had stuck him with. For one, it's unfortunate from the Habsburg perspective that Charles V did not make the Low Countries the problem of the Holy Roman Empire, leaving Philip with the Mediterranean World and the lands across the ocean as his brief. Two, when events in England and said Low Countries really required Philip's hands-on presence, the man was nowhere to be found. The one key point in Parker's view is that Philip needed Mary Tudor to live 5-10 years more and, barring that, to have better stage-managed Elizabeth Tudor's enthronement, and making sure she appreciated that marriage to an appropriate consort was a condition of ascension to being monarch.
I also have to note that this book is an abridgement of a much-longer book written in Spanish, and there are times when it really does feel like an abridgement. Still well-worth reading though.
July 14, 2020
Emperor, Geoffrey Parker’s recent biography of Charles V, left a deep impression, so I couldn’t wait to read Imprudent King too. This deals with Philip II, the emperor’s son, the king of Spain, ruler of one of the biggest empires the world had ever seen. Though written several years before Emperor, Imprudent King can be regarded as its historical sequel.
Charles V and his son Philips II ruled over most of mainland Europe for most of the 16th century. Their rule witnessed and played a crucial role in the rise of and fight against Protestantism (Luther), the emergence of globalism and colonialism (Columbus) and the break-up of the Netherlands (Willem van Oranje). If I was thumbscrewed to pick and name a favourite century in history, this ‘d be the one.
In the southern part of the Low Countries (which is where I live) the old emperor Charles V is still regarded with a certain kindness. The old man’s legacy lives on in folktales, traditions and beer. Philip II, however, is our bogey man, evil incarnate, the alien ruler who together with his cruel lieutenants (such as the Duke of Alba) and marauding soldiers wreaked havoc in our homelands and ultimately destroyed them.
I was secretly hoping this study might bring some nuance to the man’s grim reputation, but I can’t really say that it did. Philip II was a religious fanatic and a control freak. There’s nothing likeable about him.
In a fascinating epilogue Parker argues that the mighty king's disturbed psychology and obsessive-compulsive behaviour stems from his troubled childhood. The same epilogue lists the great what-ifs of his rule. A minor twist here or there and our world would have been very different. A Roman-Catholic England, the United Netherlands…it really was a close call.
Imprudent King provides a challenging thesis, reversing the traditional nickname of Philip II ("the Prudent"), but it is quite boring at times. There’s much focus on the military history, without much psychology or care for the common people who suffer because of it. In the end I found myself just checking Wikipedia to get the facts summarized…and that’s never a good sign, is it?
While the elements of evaluation and speculation in the epilogue are quite fascinating, the bulk of the book is rather dry stuff. Why? Why was Emperor such a good read and why did I find Imprudent King rather boring in comparison? Geoffrey Parker’s academic achievement is equally formidable in both cases, maybe he has become a better writer? That’s quite possible, but another explanation lies in the very subjects of these biographies. At heart, Filip II, the scourge of the Low Countries, was a very, very dull bureaucrat. The horror, the horror!
The Spanish Fury in Antwerp, anonymous (1576-1585), MAS Antwerp
Charles V and his son Philips II ruled over most of mainland Europe for most of the 16th century. Their rule witnessed and played a crucial role in the rise of and fight against Protestantism (Luther), the emergence of globalism and colonialism (Columbus) and the break-up of the Netherlands (Willem van Oranje). If I was thumbscrewed to pick and name a favourite century in history, this ‘d be the one.
In the southern part of the Low Countries (which is where I live) the old emperor Charles V is still regarded with a certain kindness. The old man’s legacy lives on in folktales, traditions and beer. Philip II, however, is our bogey man, evil incarnate, the alien ruler who together with his cruel lieutenants (such as the Duke of Alba) and marauding soldiers wreaked havoc in our homelands and ultimately destroyed them.
I was secretly hoping this study might bring some nuance to the man’s grim reputation, but I can’t really say that it did. Philip II was a religious fanatic and a control freak. There’s nothing likeable about him.
In a fascinating epilogue Parker argues that the mighty king's disturbed psychology and obsessive-compulsive behaviour stems from his troubled childhood. The same epilogue lists the great what-ifs of his rule. A minor twist here or there and our world would have been very different. A Roman-Catholic England, the United Netherlands…it really was a close call.
Imprudent King provides a challenging thesis, reversing the traditional nickname of Philip II ("the Prudent"), but it is quite boring at times. There’s much focus on the military history, without much psychology or care for the common people who suffer because of it. In the end I found myself just checking Wikipedia to get the facts summarized…and that’s never a good sign, is it?
While the elements of evaluation and speculation in the epilogue are quite fascinating, the bulk of the book is rather dry stuff. Why? Why was Emperor such a good read and why did I find Imprudent King rather boring in comparison? Geoffrey Parker’s academic achievement is equally formidable in both cases, maybe he has become a better writer? That’s quite possible, but another explanation lies in the very subjects of these biographies. At heart, Filip II, the scourge of the Low Countries, was a very, very dull bureaucrat. The horror, the horror!
The Spanish Fury in Antwerp, anonymous (1576-1585), MAS Antwerp
December 4, 2014
A great example of a great biography. Parker is at his finest in this new book on his favourite topics: early modern Spain and Philip II. He is truly the leading contemporary expert on the subject. This book gives us both a personal story of a king as a human with fears, errors, and hopes and a management analysis. Parker’s conclusion is very convincing: the king suffered from obsessive-compulsive syndrome that led to a very inefficient management of his empire. Though hard-working, Philip procrastinated by spending time on issues of minor importance, organised abundance of reports that gave him information overload, and, most of all, he failed to delegate tasks. Multiplied by religious hope for miracles and intransigence, such leadership was doomed to breed troubles, but we can’t help but feel a pity for such a great mind, which was lost in the labyrinth of his own creation.
September 2, 2022
Best remembered for the Spanish Armada and often forgotten as a king of England (or consort depending on how you look at it). This was a very interesting life which presented wonderfully in this biography.
February 2, 2017
This is a very readable biography of king Philip II of Spain, who felt his own work to coincide with the work of God. Written by a specialist who seems to know everything, but is still able to write a coherent story that really centres around the man, this is a stunningly impressive work. Defending the Catholic faith seems to have been Philip's overriding objective, and he sacrificed everything to it, even when all money was spent. His faith sent tens of thousands of soldiers to their deaths, and cost Spain (and the Netherlands!) dearly, with the 1588 Armada as the most depressing example. But his faith also gave us the Escorial, one of the most splendid works of art in existence, which is a tribute to Philip's micromanagement skills. The same skills that had such disastrous consequences outside the world of architecture.
July 29, 2025
Mesmo que não concorde com os “what if’s” históricos que aparecem de vez em quando, ou com os ocasionais comentários que roçam o protótipo de uma psicanálise a Filipe II, a grande vitória desta biografia é o cruzamento de centenas de fontes manuscritas. Tem uma dedicação ao estudo (quiçá obsessão) invejável. Mas peca por não pegar muito além das ações-reações do círculo das figuras políticas.
March 24, 2015
This is an important book on a King who certainly in England has had a very bad name. He married poor Mary Tudor and was at a minimum party to her persecution of Protestants and the martyrdom of some 300 mostly humble folk. From about 1570, he supported the Papacy in seeking Elizabeth Tudor's overthrow which culminated in the Enterprise of England or the Spanish Armada as pretty well all English people know it. The King's industry was legendary but of course, Philip did justify the old saw that if death came from the King of Spain, we'd all be immortal. In other words, no delegation and no ability to distinguish the trivial from the important. What the book does describe is his humanity towards his family but his parallel ruthlessness towards those who incurred his displeasure. It is a good biography which is important n bringing a maybe even the) central figure in 16th century Europe to life.
July 6, 2022
Filips II – Een onmachtig koning, is een zeer uitgebreide biografie, die een goed beeld schetst van wie nu eigenlijk Filips II echt was. In de geschiedenisboeken komt hij over als een brute, koele man, maar als je dit boek leest wordt dat beeld wel wat verzacht.
Je kunt dan ook wel stellen dat het een goed leesbare biografie is. Koning Filips II van Spanje, die zijn eigen werk zag als het werk van God. Het verdedigen van het katholieke geloof lijkt het belangrijkste doel van Filips te zijn geweest, en hij heeft er heel veel aan opgeofferd, geld of geen geld, het vechten voor het Katholieke geloof ging boven alles . Zijn geloof stuurde tienduizenden soldaten de dood in en kostte Spanje, Nederland een vele andere landen een hoge prijs.
Dit boek van professor Geoffrey Parker is enorm. Hij beschrijft ons, met een correcte en zeer kritische blik het leven van een complexe man, vol vreemde gewoonten, hij durft het zelfs aan om Filips II af te schilderen als obsessief en zeer netjes, extreem intelligent maar bovenal een eenzaam man.
Een goede biografie die gebruikmaakt van documenten die nog nooit eerder zijn gebruikt, het zijn er bijzonder veel die geraadpleegd werden, door een auteur Geoffrey Parker, die bijna zijn hele leven geboeid is door Filips II. Deze overvloed aan originele documenten stelde de auteur in staat om voortdurend de koning zelf te citeren, om zo een beeld te vormen van een man met toch wel een complexe geest.
Filips II regeerde 55 jaar over een gebied verspreid over de gehele wereld, een periode waarin er slechts zes maanden zonder oorlog waren. Als je daarover nadenkt, is dat moeilijk voor te stellen. Naast de historische feiten, maakte de auteur een analyse van de persoonlijkheid van Filips II. Best wel gewaagd, omdat haast niet te doen is aan de hand van documenten. Daarbij kun je je afvragen of dat meerwaarde heeft voor de beeldvorming van Filips II.
Het is een boek wat je niet zo maar even leest, het heeft op momenten meer weg van een studie. Als je er echt in geïnteresseerd bent , hou dan zeker een notitieblok bij de hand. Er komt heel veel informatie op je af. Het boek heeft dan ook een hoog educatief gehalte.
Samengevat : Een leerzame biografie van een man die naar onze maatstaven op momenten behoorlijk monsterlijk was, en wiens overtuigingen waren dan de gemiddelde man/ vrouw noem maar op. Het boek laat ons ook de beleidskant zien van het enorme rijk dat hij leidde.
Het is echt een boek voor historici en/of liefhebbers die van Geschiedenis houden.
Je kunt dan ook wel stellen dat het een goed leesbare biografie is. Koning Filips II van Spanje, die zijn eigen werk zag als het werk van God. Het verdedigen van het katholieke geloof lijkt het belangrijkste doel van Filips te zijn geweest, en hij heeft er heel veel aan opgeofferd, geld of geen geld, het vechten voor het Katholieke geloof ging boven alles . Zijn geloof stuurde tienduizenden soldaten de dood in en kostte Spanje, Nederland een vele andere landen een hoge prijs.
Dit boek van professor Geoffrey Parker is enorm. Hij beschrijft ons, met een correcte en zeer kritische blik het leven van een complexe man, vol vreemde gewoonten, hij durft het zelfs aan om Filips II af te schilderen als obsessief en zeer netjes, extreem intelligent maar bovenal een eenzaam man.
Een goede biografie die gebruikmaakt van documenten die nog nooit eerder zijn gebruikt, het zijn er bijzonder veel die geraadpleegd werden, door een auteur Geoffrey Parker, die bijna zijn hele leven geboeid is door Filips II. Deze overvloed aan originele documenten stelde de auteur in staat om voortdurend de koning zelf te citeren, om zo een beeld te vormen van een man met toch wel een complexe geest.
Filips II regeerde 55 jaar over een gebied verspreid over de gehele wereld, een periode waarin er slechts zes maanden zonder oorlog waren. Als je daarover nadenkt, is dat moeilijk voor te stellen. Naast de historische feiten, maakte de auteur een analyse van de persoonlijkheid van Filips II. Best wel gewaagd, omdat haast niet te doen is aan de hand van documenten. Daarbij kun je je afvragen of dat meerwaarde heeft voor de beeldvorming van Filips II.
Het is een boek wat je niet zo maar even leest, het heeft op momenten meer weg van een studie. Als je er echt in geïnteresseerd bent , hou dan zeker een notitieblok bij de hand. Er komt heel veel informatie op je af. Het boek heeft dan ook een hoog educatief gehalte.
Samengevat : Een leerzame biografie van een man die naar onze maatstaven op momenten behoorlijk monsterlijk was, en wiens overtuigingen waren dan de gemiddelde man/ vrouw noem maar op. Het boek laat ons ook de beleidskant zien van het enorme rijk dat hij leidde.
Het is echt een boek voor historici en/of liefhebbers die van Geschiedenis houden.
October 2, 2021
¿Cuánto sabemos de verdad sobre los demás? Aún más complejo: ¿cuánto sabemos sobre nosotros mismos? Esas preguntas, y los juicios que conllevan sus respuestas, son las que han llevado al historiador e hispanista (a saber lo que significa en realidad este vocablo) Geoffrey Parker a pasar media vida tras la vida del rey Felipe II de las Españas (y de muchos sitios más que no vamos a detallar aquí.) Un rey dueño de un imperio, y un imperio tan extenso que la hipérbole: nunca se pone el sol, sólo genera visos de pura realidad.
No sé si hubiese querido ser Felipe II; puede que ni siquiera Carlos I, su padre. Puede que, aunque regentes en una época de maravillas, hubiese si quiera querido vivir en ese período de tiempo. Sabiendo lo que sabemos, el S. XVI está tan lejano de nosotros casi tanto como la Antigüedad, y si bien en lo básico los hombres no hemos cambiado en nada, en lo exterior, en lo que nos rodea, en riqueza de conocimiento y empobrecimiento de las fuentes, mucho se ha mimetizado la vida desde entonces hasta ahora.
La labor del profesor Geoffrey Parker es ingente. Nos retrata, con una mirada acertada y muy crítica, quizá en exceso (por lo que ya he dicho, nuestra mirada jamás se podrá adaptar a los ojos del S. XVI, aunque podríamos hacer un esfuerzo), la vida de un hombre complejo, lleno de maniáticas costumbres, incluso llega a aventurarse retratándolo como obsesivo y muy pulcro, huidizo, parsimonioso hasta la quietud de acción, inteligentísimo rallando en lo brillante (pero sujetado por todas las limitaciones humanas), y solo, por sobre todas las cosas, solo.
Ser rey no debe ser algo bueno. De hecho, ser presidente de gobierno tampoco (cómo involucionan nuestros gobernantes nada más llegan al poder comparados a cuando se marchan por la puerta de atrás). Tener el poder absoluto debe ser un castigo más que una gracia. Un peso con atractivos, pero una carga sin duda. Felipe II (y cuantos monarcas ha parido la Historia, que son muchos) es un buen ejemplo de ello.
Un hombre más familiar de lo que se cree, más español de lo que se cree, que sostuvo todo un imperio en años convulsos, que contribuyó a ese desorden y que dilapidó, como muchos otros en esos tiempos y en los de ahora, oportunidades de oro, y mucho oro y sangre y vidas. No cuento con que haya un soberano que salga indemne de un análisis tan detallado y hermoso y extenso como el que Geoffrey Parker hace del monarca hispano: todos tienen defectos, los propios y los de su tiempo, y debemos juzgarlos (¿debemos juzgarlos?) con la mirada de ese tiempo.
En toda la biografía del profesor Parker puede que éste sea el único lastre: parece ofendido por sus hallazgos sobre la personalidad real, quiero decir decepcionado de sus errores, aunque jamás comete la imprudencia de exaltarlos ni de opacar sus virtudes. Tras siglos de leyendas diseñadas por reinos no afines y que se han creído a pies juntillas por todos, incluido los descendientes de sus súbditos, es hora de que la primera monarquía más poderosa de la Era Moderna se limpie de esas impurezas prestadas y que se muestre como ha sido, que acepte como propios aciertos y errores, y se libere de cualquier manipulación o estratagema. Y tienen que ser los británicos, y los franceses y los norteamericanos quienes pongan las cosas en su sitio, los españoles siguen sintiendo una extraña vergüenza de todo ello, una especie de honor mancillado, que les impide ver grandeza y virtud, errores y caídas en el arco de la Historia de su país, de la vida de sus gentes y de la vida de sus gobernantes. Pero ésa es otra historia.
Años más tarde de su publicación el autor mismo se da cuenta de este hecho, cosa que lo engrandece todavía más. Un libro novelado, o la novela de una biografía que atesora miles de conocimientos de un rey prolijo pero nada tonto, que dejó poco tras de sí (como su propio padre; como muchos otros que le precedieron), quizá deseando que la Historia lo juzgase por sus obras, que hablan a gritos, más que por sus justificaciones (de las que sin embargo están hechos incluso los más grandes hombres), escapa al escalpelo del Historiador. Pero quizá no del Escritor.geoffreyparkerii560 Marguerite Yourcenar supo introducirse, convertirse quizá, en el emperador Adriano basándose en los pocos legajos que quedaron (por motu propio) sobre su vida. Acertó en el tono, en el discurso, en la reconstrucción de un tiempo y un espacio vital únicos. Pero ella era escritora, no historiadora. Artista, sabía que juzgar a un personaje no la llevaría más que a la crítica fácil, a la violación de ese lazo púdico y eterno que la ató intelectual y sentimentalmente al emperador romano. Con Felipe II, con Carlos I, puede que ocurra lo mismo. Imitando quizá al romano hispánico, ambos borraron muchas huellas de su propia vida, y esas lagunas, que los historiadores consiguen rellenar, quizá necesiten del alambique del artista para poder ser insuflados de vida, para poder ser entendidos, con los ojos del S. XXI, sin ser sojuzgados, para bien o para mal. En el fondo, puede que así debamos ver la Historia: sin ignorar sus faltas, sin alabar sus aciertos, sin juzgar con nuestros ojos los ojos de quien vieron el mundo de otra manera. El Arte ocuparía aquí el lugar de la Ciencia, o más bien, junto a la Ciencia establecerían las columnas sobre las que se debería aposentar la Historia, y así dejarla libre de toda manipulación o mancillamiento. Quién sabe.
Pero mientras ese tiempo llega, gracias a historiadores tan acertados como Geoffrey Parker, podemos disfrutar y conocer y limpiar de falsa imaginería un hombre fascinante como pocos, que gobernó un mundo que ya no existe, y con el que se topó quizá de forma más accidental de lo que pudiésemos pensar; un mundo en constante cambio frente a la actitud inmovilista del ser humano, que se resiste a ellos. Un hombre complejo pero fascinante, que se llamó Felipe y que vio la luz y también la muerte en el S. XVI de las Españas, período que aún hoy se llama Siglo de Oro. Casualmente como la época romana que regalaron los empradores Trajano y Adriano, ambos españoles hasta Marco Aurelio, de origen también español… Cosas de la vida, y de la Historia. Pero ésa, es otra historia.
No sé si hubiese querido ser Felipe II; puede que ni siquiera Carlos I, su padre. Puede que, aunque regentes en una época de maravillas, hubiese si quiera querido vivir en ese período de tiempo. Sabiendo lo que sabemos, el S. XVI está tan lejano de nosotros casi tanto como la Antigüedad, y si bien en lo básico los hombres no hemos cambiado en nada, en lo exterior, en lo que nos rodea, en riqueza de conocimiento y empobrecimiento de las fuentes, mucho se ha mimetizado la vida desde entonces hasta ahora.
La labor del profesor Geoffrey Parker es ingente. Nos retrata, con una mirada acertada y muy crítica, quizá en exceso (por lo que ya he dicho, nuestra mirada jamás se podrá adaptar a los ojos del S. XVI, aunque podríamos hacer un esfuerzo), la vida de un hombre complejo, lleno de maniáticas costumbres, incluso llega a aventurarse retratándolo como obsesivo y muy pulcro, huidizo, parsimonioso hasta la quietud de acción, inteligentísimo rallando en lo brillante (pero sujetado por todas las limitaciones humanas), y solo, por sobre todas las cosas, solo.
Ser rey no debe ser algo bueno. De hecho, ser presidente de gobierno tampoco (cómo involucionan nuestros gobernantes nada más llegan al poder comparados a cuando se marchan por la puerta de atrás). Tener el poder absoluto debe ser un castigo más que una gracia. Un peso con atractivos, pero una carga sin duda. Felipe II (y cuantos monarcas ha parido la Historia, que son muchos) es un buen ejemplo de ello.
Un hombre más familiar de lo que se cree, más español de lo que se cree, que sostuvo todo un imperio en años convulsos, que contribuyó a ese desorden y que dilapidó, como muchos otros en esos tiempos y en los de ahora, oportunidades de oro, y mucho oro y sangre y vidas. No cuento con que haya un soberano que salga indemne de un análisis tan detallado y hermoso y extenso como el que Geoffrey Parker hace del monarca hispano: todos tienen defectos, los propios y los de su tiempo, y debemos juzgarlos (¿debemos juzgarlos?) con la mirada de ese tiempo.
En toda la biografía del profesor Parker puede que éste sea el único lastre: parece ofendido por sus hallazgos sobre la personalidad real, quiero decir decepcionado de sus errores, aunque jamás comete la imprudencia de exaltarlos ni de opacar sus virtudes. Tras siglos de leyendas diseñadas por reinos no afines y que se han creído a pies juntillas por todos, incluido los descendientes de sus súbditos, es hora de que la primera monarquía más poderosa de la Era Moderna se limpie de esas impurezas prestadas y que se muestre como ha sido, que acepte como propios aciertos y errores, y se libere de cualquier manipulación o estratagema. Y tienen que ser los británicos, y los franceses y los norteamericanos quienes pongan las cosas en su sitio, los españoles siguen sintiendo una extraña vergüenza de todo ello, una especie de honor mancillado, que les impide ver grandeza y virtud, errores y caídas en el arco de la Historia de su país, de la vida de sus gentes y de la vida de sus gobernantes. Pero ésa es otra historia.
Años más tarde de su publicación el autor mismo se da cuenta de este hecho, cosa que lo engrandece todavía más. Un libro novelado, o la novela de una biografía que atesora miles de conocimientos de un rey prolijo pero nada tonto, que dejó poco tras de sí (como su propio padre; como muchos otros que le precedieron), quizá deseando que la Historia lo juzgase por sus obras, que hablan a gritos, más que por sus justificaciones (de las que sin embargo están hechos incluso los más grandes hombres), escapa al escalpelo del Historiador. Pero quizá no del Escritor.geoffreyparkerii560 Marguerite Yourcenar supo introducirse, convertirse quizá, en el emperador Adriano basándose en los pocos legajos que quedaron (por motu propio) sobre su vida. Acertó en el tono, en el discurso, en la reconstrucción de un tiempo y un espacio vital únicos. Pero ella era escritora, no historiadora. Artista, sabía que juzgar a un personaje no la llevaría más que a la crítica fácil, a la violación de ese lazo púdico y eterno que la ató intelectual y sentimentalmente al emperador romano. Con Felipe II, con Carlos I, puede que ocurra lo mismo. Imitando quizá al romano hispánico, ambos borraron muchas huellas de su propia vida, y esas lagunas, que los historiadores consiguen rellenar, quizá necesiten del alambique del artista para poder ser insuflados de vida, para poder ser entendidos, con los ojos del S. XXI, sin ser sojuzgados, para bien o para mal. En el fondo, puede que así debamos ver la Historia: sin ignorar sus faltas, sin alabar sus aciertos, sin juzgar con nuestros ojos los ojos de quien vieron el mundo de otra manera. El Arte ocuparía aquí el lugar de la Ciencia, o más bien, junto a la Ciencia establecerían las columnas sobre las que se debería aposentar la Historia, y así dejarla libre de toda manipulación o mancillamiento. Quién sabe.
Pero mientras ese tiempo llega, gracias a historiadores tan acertados como Geoffrey Parker, podemos disfrutar y conocer y limpiar de falsa imaginería un hombre fascinante como pocos, que gobernó un mundo que ya no existe, y con el que se topó quizá de forma más accidental de lo que pudiésemos pensar; un mundo en constante cambio frente a la actitud inmovilista del ser humano, que se resiste a ellos. Un hombre complejo pero fascinante, que se llamó Felipe y que vio la luz y también la muerte en el S. XVI de las Españas, período que aún hoy se llama Siglo de Oro. Casualmente como la época romana que regalaron los empradores Trajano y Adriano, ambos españoles hasta Marco Aurelio, de origen también español… Cosas de la vida, y de la Historia. Pero ésa, es otra historia.
September 16, 2025
This is a very fine biography of Philip II, indeed it is essential reading if you wish to understand this monarch who dominates so much of the history of this period - at the time far more than his contemporary and one time sister-in-law Elizabeth I of England - but he will always suffer, in English speaking countries and even in Spanish speaking ones, for both his reputation (even if people have never read or heard of Schiller's 'Don Carlos' it is, like the 'Black Legend' embedded in our cultural DNA). This makes Philip a difficult subject because they find it impossible to look at his counter-reformation Catholicism, which inspired so many of his actions, with anything but disgust. I have no time for counter-reformation or post Vatican II Catholicism but I don't read history expecting to find people with views corresponding to mine. If every historical character who failed to live up to my, or societies, current standards of acceptable behavior then I would read no history. Accepting history within its context doesn't mean excusing or justifying only not expecting too much from our ancestors.
Because the author has had access to so many documents previously never consulted the book is a must, even if you read Kamen's biography this was one has to be consulted as well.
Because the author has had access to so many documents previously never consulted the book is a must, even if you read Kamen's biography this was one has to be consulted as well.
September 28, 2019
¡Fantástica lectura! Una buena biografía que aprovecha documentos nunca antes usados, miles de ellos, para presentar a un personaje digno de examinar muy de cerca. La abundancia de documentos originales permite al autor citar continuamente al rey mismo, lo que permite adentrarse en una mente sin duda compleja.
El rey gobernó durante 55 años de un territorio extendido por toda la tierra, período durante el que solamente hubo seis meses sin guerra. Además de la narración histórica, el autor presenta un análisis de la personalidad de Felipe II. Entre las facetas más interesantes está la de su estilo administrativo y que es un tema digno de estudio para cualquiera interesado en el ejercicio del poder.
El rey gobernó durante 55 años de un territorio extendido por toda la tierra, período durante el que solamente hubo seis meses sin guerra. Además de la narración histórica, el autor presenta un análisis de la personalidad de Felipe II. Entre las facetas más interesantes está la de su estilo administrativo y que es un tema digno de estudio para cualquiera interesado en el ejercicio del poder.
March 28, 2019
A comprehensive but albeit rather dry and dull account of the life of Philip II of Spain. I dutifully plodded on and in the end felt quite enlightened although there was no joy in the process as with some other better written non-fiction books. Despite the book being a mighty tome, the events happened and decisions taken were missing a wider outlook both in terms of international and internal affaires, which could have helped to explain them. I, then, read a biography of Philip's father Charles V, a much more engaging book that helped to close some of gaps.
August 11, 2020
A good historical study. Humanizes a man who was pretty monstrous by our standards, and whose beliefs are far different from those of a modern person. It also shows us the policy side of the vast empire he ran. The story of the Spanish Empire and it's overly worked king have great bearing for how world powers conduct themselves today.
September 19, 2016
Not the greatest narratve I've read but nevertheless enjoyable. Perhaps there was too much nitty gritty for me at time - Philip's incontinence at the end for example.
I will continue to read Geoffrey Parker for his take on 17th century Europe though mayb enot any more biographies.
I will continue to read Geoffrey Parker for his take on 17th century Europe though mayb enot any more biographies.
April 27, 2018
Link to my review of this book:
https://flhwnotesandreviews.com/2018/...
https://flhwnotesandreviews.com/2018/...
March 24, 2019
Geoffrey Parker's treatment of Philip II was quite well done and extremely easy to read making his life fly by. Parker clearly wishes to make the argument that Philip II was an extremely hardworking king who was always working on paperwork for his kingdom and the issues that was faced for Spain, mostly consisting of religion, finances and war but failed to address the important issues of his reign correctly and appropriately, instead relying on God to deliver him from his troubles.
Philip wished to see Spain as primarily Catholic and had little issue with doing what was necessary to rid the country of protestants or anyone who was seen as corrupt. He carried this policy into the Netherlands where Philip was their sovereign and this created a tremendous amount of conflict within Brussels and the other cities as for many, the Netherlands were meant to be a safe haven for those who were not catholic in England and France, acting as a safe place for their beliefs to be practiced. Philip would try for some time to carry this policy into England where he burned many protestants with the assistance of Mary Tudor - his second wife for a short period.
Parker actually criticizes Philip II deep devotion to god, while it was normal for the 16th century for rules to be extremely devout, Philip and his immediate family circle took these measures to an extreme and firmly held the belief that whatever military conquest Philip pursued he would be victorious as God would support Spain as Philip was a devout subject who was doing everything in his power to please God. Parker argued that this was extremely naive of Philip as he not only ignored his advisors and commanders such as the duke of Alba who would criticize him for his lack of vision in military affairs and being unrealistic - believing that God would deliver them, instead of focusing on sound military logistics and tactics.
Parker again criticizes Philip that while he was a tremendous administrator, dealing with constant paperwork and being very efficient and competent with the matters he had to deal with, he focused all too much of his time on unimportant matters, such as Escorial (Royal Spanish Palace) instead of on crucial matters that had to be dealt with.
Parker does praise Philip II on the tremendous amount of problems he faced during his reign and gives him just credit for the fact that he nearly pulled it off- having wars on multiple fronts with little money to do so with. He arguably set the precedent in renaissance Europe for managing an empire, the likes which had not been seen since the Roman empire or Genghis Khan, especially when much of his land was overseas and not readily accessible. This in itself made his job as king that much more difficult but would ultimately set the example for the English and French for when they themselves would become empires.
Parker does not do a very good job of discussing the Dutch Revolt, giving it a sweeping drive by of why it took place but did not delve too much into the issue of the taxations which the people had to bare to help Philip pay his debts which were left over from his ancestors, most notably his father who had very expensive wars. This was rather disappointing but Parker clearly had set out to focus not on the dominions of Spain and how they existed during his reign, but instead focused entirely on Philip and the problems he faced with his family and paid fleeting attention to domestic affairs.
All in all the book wasn't took bad, I became more familiar with Philip but was not terribly impressed with Parker's depth of research, though I do largely agree with his argument.
Philip wished to see Spain as primarily Catholic and had little issue with doing what was necessary to rid the country of protestants or anyone who was seen as corrupt. He carried this policy into the Netherlands where Philip was their sovereign and this created a tremendous amount of conflict within Brussels and the other cities as for many, the Netherlands were meant to be a safe haven for those who were not catholic in England and France, acting as a safe place for their beliefs to be practiced. Philip would try for some time to carry this policy into England where he burned many protestants with the assistance of Mary Tudor - his second wife for a short period.
Parker actually criticizes Philip II deep devotion to god, while it was normal for the 16th century for rules to be extremely devout, Philip and his immediate family circle took these measures to an extreme and firmly held the belief that whatever military conquest Philip pursued he would be victorious as God would support Spain as Philip was a devout subject who was doing everything in his power to please God. Parker argued that this was extremely naive of Philip as he not only ignored his advisors and commanders such as the duke of Alba who would criticize him for his lack of vision in military affairs and being unrealistic - believing that God would deliver them, instead of focusing on sound military logistics and tactics.
Parker again criticizes Philip that while he was a tremendous administrator, dealing with constant paperwork and being very efficient and competent with the matters he had to deal with, he focused all too much of his time on unimportant matters, such as Escorial (Royal Spanish Palace) instead of on crucial matters that had to be dealt with.
Parker does praise Philip II on the tremendous amount of problems he faced during his reign and gives him just credit for the fact that he nearly pulled it off- having wars on multiple fronts with little money to do so with. He arguably set the precedent in renaissance Europe for managing an empire, the likes which had not been seen since the Roman empire or Genghis Khan, especially when much of his land was overseas and not readily accessible. This in itself made his job as king that much more difficult but would ultimately set the example for the English and French for when they themselves would become empires.
Parker does not do a very good job of discussing the Dutch Revolt, giving it a sweeping drive by of why it took place but did not delve too much into the issue of the taxations which the people had to bare to help Philip pay his debts which were left over from his ancestors, most notably his father who had very expensive wars. This was rather disappointing but Parker clearly had set out to focus not on the dominions of Spain and how they existed during his reign, but instead focused entirely on Philip and the problems he faced with his family and paid fleeting attention to domestic affairs.
All in all the book wasn't took bad, I became more familiar with Philip but was not terribly impressed with Parker's depth of research, though I do largely agree with his argument.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 14, 2025
A concise and compelling portrait of an absolutely rancid monarch. And when I say concise, I mean I could have done with 300 more pages.
Philip II was always, to my knowledge, Mary Bloody Mary's deadbeat husband. As it turns out, he was SUCH a deadbeat that he repeatedly claimed to be too ill to visit her even when he was stationed in the Netherlands (a mere boatride away). But that's hardly why I dislike the man. It's just a small bit of grit in the meat.
No, Philip II was a deeply messed up person. No, not because he micromanaged everything, not because he married his niece (well... not just because of that anyway), and not because of his full endorsement of religious persecution... wait no. That's definitely one of the reasons.
What I mean to say is: he wasn't rancid just by our modern standards. No no no. This guy was terrible. On a lot of levels. Yes of course he was human, but he was decidedly a tyrant, well aware of the de jure limitations on his power, well aware of the paper trail he would have to be careful not to leave behind, well aware of plausible deniability, and VERY MUCH aware of how he wanted to be seen vs how he truly desired to act.
Parker is both fair and altogether too kind in his assessment of Philip. For example, after the brutal extrajudicial murder of Juan de Escobedo on Philip's orders (supposedly because of concerns that E was plotting a coup with Philip's half brother, Don Juan de Austria), Don Juan conveniently dies of camp fever or typhus a few months later. Parker makes no further conjectures, not even the slightest allusion to any theories that Don Juan may very well have died of non-natural causes, particularly in light of an actually recorded instance (that Parker does recount) wherein Philip ordered a political prisoner's death and also ordered that the prison make up an account of the man's long illness followed his pious, natural death.
Not to mention Philip's very disturbing provisions made for his last single daughter, whom he planned to have exiled to a fortress or the very same palace his own mother was confined to, in the event she remained unmarried at the time of his death. Luckily she married with a 2-3 years to spare. Close shave. And this was a daughter that he actually liked. I'm not even going to talk about Don Carlos.
If the book is missing anything (and it does cover A LOT), I wish it had covered more about Antonio Pérez post-exile/escape, and also a LOT more about Philip's influence in Latin America and the Philippines. Maybe accounts of the atrocities would have been too difficult to stomach, but their absence is felt, and it lets Philip off the hook to ignore it all.
Recommended if you are interested in the period, the king, or even just the fascinating mingling of bureaucracy and monarchy. Tyranny in the 16-17th centuries really wasn't all that different, at its core, than other later forms of the same.
Philip II was always, to my knowledge, Mary Bloody Mary's deadbeat husband. As it turns out, he was SUCH a deadbeat that he repeatedly claimed to be too ill to visit her even when he was stationed in the Netherlands (a mere boatride away). But that's hardly why I dislike the man. It's just a small bit of grit in the meat.
No, Philip II was a deeply messed up person. No, not because he micromanaged everything, not because he married his niece (well... not just because of that anyway), and not because of his full endorsement of religious persecution... wait no. That's definitely one of the reasons.
What I mean to say is: he wasn't rancid just by our modern standards. No no no. This guy was terrible. On a lot of levels. Yes of course he was human, but he was decidedly a tyrant, well aware of the de jure limitations on his power, well aware of the paper trail he would have to be careful not to leave behind, well aware of plausible deniability, and VERY MUCH aware of how he wanted to be seen vs how he truly desired to act.
Parker is both fair and altogether too kind in his assessment of Philip. For example, after the brutal extrajudicial murder of Juan de Escobedo on Philip's orders (supposedly because of concerns that E was plotting a coup with Philip's half brother, Don Juan de Austria), Don Juan conveniently dies of camp fever or typhus a few months later. Parker makes no further conjectures, not even the slightest allusion to any theories that Don Juan may very well have died of non-natural causes, particularly in light of an actually recorded instance (that Parker does recount) wherein Philip ordered a political prisoner's death and also ordered that the prison make up an account of the man's long illness followed his pious, natural death.
Not to mention Philip's very disturbing provisions made for his last single daughter, whom he planned to have exiled to a fortress or the very same palace his own mother was confined to, in the event she remained unmarried at the time of his death. Luckily she married with a 2-3 years to spare. Close shave. And this was a daughter that he actually liked. I'm not even going to talk about Don Carlos.
If the book is missing anything (and it does cover A LOT), I wish it had covered more about Antonio Pérez post-exile/escape, and also a LOT more about Philip's influence in Latin America and the Philippines. Maybe accounts of the atrocities would have been too difficult to stomach, but their absence is felt, and it lets Philip off the hook to ignore it all.
Recommended if you are interested in the period, the king, or even just the fascinating mingling of bureaucracy and monarchy. Tyranny in the 16-17th centuries really wasn't all that different, at its core, than other later forms of the same.
October 2, 2024
#TudorNonfictionChallenge hosted by @cha_ye on StoryGraph
I listened to this book with Audible.
Brief Summary: The life and reign of Philip II, King of Spain and later Portugal. By examining primary sources in Philip's hand as well as his courtiers and ambassadors a portrait of a 42 reign (of Spain) impacted the political and cultural landscape of sixteenth-century Europe.
Thoughts: My biggest complaint with this book is that the events discussed are not chronological. I imagine that if I had read the hardcover book this might have been a bit easier to follow as the author frequently references back to previous chapters and it would have been easier to return to review. That being said this biography is a huge undertaking. It encompasses the entirety of Philip's life, his four marriages, and all of his political career. Therefore, Parker should be commended on not only undertaking all of that work but writing a coherent book.
Before reading this work I could count on one hand the number of things that I knew about Philip II and I probably couldn't have gotten up to five. The most interesting aspect of this book is that Parker was able to paint a picture of the complicated man that Philip was. He was driven by his religious convictions, but he also seems to have micromanaged things to the point of being detrimental at times. Parker does provide an interesting analysis of Philip at the end, which is hard given that current psychological theory is not entirely applicable to the societal dynamics of the past. However, learning about Philip's early life it becomes clear that there was trauma and strategies that he developed as a way to cope with the stress of his position.
If you are someone interested in history, particularly sixteenth-century Europe this is a must-read.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Child death, Death, Incest, Infertility, Infidelity, Mental illness, Miscarriage, Xenophobia, Islamophobia, Medical content, Grief, Religious bigotry, Death of a parent, Murder, Pregnancy, War, and Pandemic/Epidemic
Moderate: Genocide, Forced institutionalization, Colonisation, and Classism
I listened to this book with Audible.
Brief Summary: The life and reign of Philip II, King of Spain and later Portugal. By examining primary sources in Philip's hand as well as his courtiers and ambassadors a portrait of a 42 reign (of Spain) impacted the political and cultural landscape of sixteenth-century Europe.
Thoughts: My biggest complaint with this book is that the events discussed are not chronological. I imagine that if I had read the hardcover book this might have been a bit easier to follow as the author frequently references back to previous chapters and it would have been easier to return to review. That being said this biography is a huge undertaking. It encompasses the entirety of Philip's life, his four marriages, and all of his political career. Therefore, Parker should be commended on not only undertaking all of that work but writing a coherent book.
Before reading this work I could count on one hand the number of things that I knew about Philip II and I probably couldn't have gotten up to five. The most interesting aspect of this book is that Parker was able to paint a picture of the complicated man that Philip was. He was driven by his religious convictions, but he also seems to have micromanaged things to the point of being detrimental at times. Parker does provide an interesting analysis of Philip at the end, which is hard given that current psychological theory is not entirely applicable to the societal dynamics of the past. However, learning about Philip's early life it becomes clear that there was trauma and strategies that he developed as a way to cope with the stress of his position.
If you are someone interested in history, particularly sixteenth-century Europe this is a must-read.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Child death, Death, Incest, Infertility, Infidelity, Mental illness, Miscarriage, Xenophobia, Islamophobia, Medical content, Grief, Religious bigotry, Death of a parent, Murder, Pregnancy, War, and Pandemic/Epidemic
Moderate: Genocide, Forced institutionalization, Colonisation, and Classism
March 5, 2023
review à edição portuguesa:
Escrever opiniões sobre biografias obriga sempre a uma boa dose de inventividade. Isto porque não nos adianta dizer que gostamos ou não da história. Ela aconteceu assim, e não ter acontecido de outra forma não é responsabilidade do autor. Portanto, há que focar na escrita e na forma como os dados foram coligidos. A nível de escrita, ela é bastante fluída e entusiasmante, e se há uma quota de importância na vida de Filipe que torna este livro empolgante, também é mérito de Parker a capacidade de nos deixar agarrados ao livro.
Apesar das 560 páginas, uma parte delas são preenchidas com imagens e gráficos que ajudam à compreensão da história, bem como as fontes do autor no final do livro. Notei um extensivo trabalho por parte de Parker em desbravar arquivos em busca de informação, mas sobretudo a coerência na inserção de citações onde elas vêm mesmo consolidar as ideias do autor.
A tecer alguma crítica, posso apenas dizer que preferia que a obra fosse contada de forma cronológica do princípio ao fim; nalguns momentos, por conta da divisão em capítulos, notei que o autor voltava atrás no tempo e tornava a avançar, mas não foi algo que se repetiu amiúde. O livro está bem conduzido pela voz audaz de um autor muito bem documentado, que soube trazer informações dúbias e sensacionalistas sem alimentar teorias. Muito restrito aos factos, Geoffrey Parker soube transmitir uma imagem clara de quem foi o primeiro dos nossos Filipes, permitindo à minha imaginação tratar do resto.
https://noticiasdezallar.wordpress.com
Escrever opiniões sobre biografias obriga sempre a uma boa dose de inventividade. Isto porque não nos adianta dizer que gostamos ou não da história. Ela aconteceu assim, e não ter acontecido de outra forma não é responsabilidade do autor. Portanto, há que focar na escrita e na forma como os dados foram coligidos. A nível de escrita, ela é bastante fluída e entusiasmante, e se há uma quota de importância na vida de Filipe que torna este livro empolgante, também é mérito de Parker a capacidade de nos deixar agarrados ao livro.
Apesar das 560 páginas, uma parte delas são preenchidas com imagens e gráficos que ajudam à compreensão da história, bem como as fontes do autor no final do livro. Notei um extensivo trabalho por parte de Parker em desbravar arquivos em busca de informação, mas sobretudo a coerência na inserção de citações onde elas vêm mesmo consolidar as ideias do autor.
A tecer alguma crítica, posso apenas dizer que preferia que a obra fosse contada de forma cronológica do princípio ao fim; nalguns momentos, por conta da divisão em capítulos, notei que o autor voltava atrás no tempo e tornava a avançar, mas não foi algo que se repetiu amiúde. O livro está bem conduzido pela voz audaz de um autor muito bem documentado, que soube trazer informações dúbias e sensacionalistas sem alimentar teorias. Muito restrito aos factos, Geoffrey Parker soube transmitir uma imagem clara de quem foi o primeiro dos nossos Filipes, permitindo à minha imaginação tratar do resto.
https://noticiasdezallar.wordpress.com
October 20, 2018
This is a thorough account of the life of Philip II, which is essentially based on the thesis that Philip was an obsessive compulsive personality whose inability to delegate, micromanagement of subordinates, obsession with hard work despite ineffectiveness as well as other such Freudian traits led to "imprudent" decisions throughout his reign. Parker also argues that Philip's religious fanaticism prevented him from pursuing reasonable policies, further contributing to his lack of "prudence." This is a convincing thesis and Parker lays out a significant degree of evidence to support it. However, this thesis is not weaved effectively throughout the book and much of the book focuses on mundane details of Philip's life that are unrelated to the thesis. This makes the book a bit of a turgid affair. Parker lacks the skill for narrative possessed by other great historians of the period, such as Roger Crowley. Overall, if you are really interested in this period of Spanish history, I would recommend this, especially as a companion to Maltby's Rise and Fall of the Spanish Empire.
October 21, 2022
Dit boek, Filips ll, heeft mij zo geëntertaind en is elke cent waard. Ja, ik noem het entertainment want Filips ll en zijn uitspraken zijn goud waard om nog maar te zwijgen over hoe zijn hof eigenlijk over hem dacht. Ik heb meermaals met een lach op mijn gezicht gezeten. Ook het gevoel van pure verontwaardiging was mij niet vreemd tijdens deze lees.
Natuurlijk zitten er ook alles behalve leuke momenten tussen zoals de tachtigjarige oorlog maar het is toch vooral Filips ll en zijn persoonlijkheid die centraal staan in dit dik boek. Een bom aan informatie, heerlijk. Een boek dat trouwens helemaal niet dik aanvoelt, ik had kunnen blijven lezen eigenlijk.
Een boek vol wist-je-dat-je’s, daar zit de auteur natuurlijk ook voor iets tussen, het is niet elke auteur gegeven om boeiend en verhalend te schrijven. Geoffrey Parker slaagt daar voor mij met glans in. Ik leerde weer wat bij, ik was heel de tijd door geboeid en leerde Filips ll beter kennen. Dit boek is je lees-uren meer dan waard.
Natuurlijk zitten er ook alles behalve leuke momenten tussen zoals de tachtigjarige oorlog maar het is toch vooral Filips ll en zijn persoonlijkheid die centraal staan in dit dik boek. Een bom aan informatie, heerlijk. Een boek dat trouwens helemaal niet dik aanvoelt, ik had kunnen blijven lezen eigenlijk.
Een boek vol wist-je-dat-je’s, daar zit de auteur natuurlijk ook voor iets tussen, het is niet elke auteur gegeven om boeiend en verhalend te schrijven. Geoffrey Parker slaagt daar voor mij met glans in. Ik leerde weer wat bij, ik was heel de tijd door geboeid en leerde Filips ll beter kennen. Dit boek is je lees-uren meer dan waard.
April 7, 2023
A really interesting biography and a well-rounded portrait of one of the early modern period’s most influential figures.
My main criticism is that I would have liked to hear more about his participation in colonialism in South America and Mexico; while the book did mention the countries in question, there is no mention of the genocide of the indigenous people going on at this time under Phillip’s watch, which I regard as distinctly erasing and rather unconscionable.
Otherwise, this is an excellent text. The contents of Phillip’s vast archives made documenting his thought and working processes very much possible. I don’t particularly agree with his occasional forays into psychoanalysis; as an autistic person, I recognise many of Phillip’s traits of executive dysfunction and intense anxiety about elements out of control and I am fairly sure he was in fact neurodivergent, potentially autistic and ADHD.
My main criticism is that I would have liked to hear more about his participation in colonialism in South America and Mexico; while the book did mention the countries in question, there is no mention of the genocide of the indigenous people going on at this time under Phillip’s watch, which I regard as distinctly erasing and rather unconscionable.
Otherwise, this is an excellent text. The contents of Phillip’s vast archives made documenting his thought and working processes very much possible. I don’t particularly agree with his occasional forays into psychoanalysis; as an autistic person, I recognise many of Phillip’s traits of executive dysfunction and intense anxiety about elements out of control and I am fairly sure he was in fact neurodivergent, potentially autistic and ADHD.
August 3, 2025
This must be one of the worst history books I’ve read this year. The author is clearly overwhelmed by the amount of primary material and focuses on utterly idiotic minutia whilst ignoring the broader history. There are detailed anecdotes about Philip’s teenage level of Latin, the time he fell off a horse, the time he didn’t want to eat his food as a toddler - all of which go nowhere. What’s worse, the actually important events - his marriage to Mary or his excommunication by the Pope(!) for instance - are glossed over and presented with minimal context. The author is literally more interested in the crib Philip and Mary set up than the political or historical implications of their wedding.
I should have known from the unwieldy length that this would be crap. Sadly, I was proved right - a myopic and pointless book.
I should have known from the unwieldy length that this would be crap. Sadly, I was proved right - a myopic and pointless book.
November 9, 2024
This book gives a nice overview of the life and rule of Philip II. The book has a strong emphasis on the later part of his life, especially the conflict with England. By contrast, things like the Americas, the church, the conflict with the Ottoman Empire, and the interior politics of Spain are a bit neglected.
I liked that the book contains a lot of quotes from (translated) original sources. That gives a good feeling for the time and mindset of these people.
I did not like that the epilogue tries to (literally) psychoanalyze Philip, that was kind of unnecessary in light of the facts already established in the main text. I do really really like the title of the book, it’s a nice pun, and the meaning is clear.
I liked that the book contains a lot of quotes from (translated) original sources. That gives a good feeling for the time and mindset of these people.
I did not like that the epilogue tries to (literally) psychoanalyze Philip, that was kind of unnecessary in light of the facts already established in the main text. I do really really like the title of the book, it’s a nice pun, and the meaning is clear.
February 19, 2023
A decent-sized book describing the life of Prince and King Philip, very interesting to read in contrast with the biography of my Pater Patriæ, Willem van Oranje.
Philip mostly seems a man who was ruling his many possessions through papers from a desk. A man who worked tirelessly, but understood his work-ethic wore himself out, but could not seem to cut himself lose from it.
Although he is always depicted as very religiously devoted, the author does not explain the basis for his zeal. Next to that, as a younger prince, Philip is described as not too religiously zealous, so it would have been extremely interesting to read where this change came from.
Philip mostly seems a man who was ruling his many possessions through papers from a desk. A man who worked tirelessly, but understood his work-ethic wore himself out, but could not seem to cut himself lose from it.
Although he is always depicted as very religiously devoted, the author does not explain the basis for his zeal. Next to that, as a younger prince, Philip is described as not too religiously zealous, so it would have been extremely interesting to read where this change came from.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews