AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

Aims

To Learn

Philips personal style of government About factions within Philip’s government and

his personal style towards them. The positives of faction – why encourage it? The negatives – problems it causes. The consequences of faction within the

government looking at one particular example the Perez Affair

To enable us to understand Philip’s changing approach towards

government and his personal role within it 1556-1598. AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of

government and its impact on government efficiency

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

PersonalRuler

Huge Empire ConsultasDemands for

AccurateInformation

Ambassador And courier system

ConsultedDifferentgroups

Work Load

Indecisive

Creates wrongatmosphere

Paper King

SpanishDominated

AlienatedProvinces

Lack ofaction

Attitude

Critics Slow moving Hamstrung by lack of

trust Obsessive desire to

control even the tiniest of details

Paper King

Defenders Best informed ruler of

Europe Use of formal and

informal Juntas (committees) to formulate policy

Use of Conciliar system – more delegation

A Prudent king – in the wise sense.

To what extent was Philip a ‘Paper King’? Yes Critics Personal Ruler – strong sense of personal

responsibility for people and empire World Empire = tremendous workload and a

growth in bureaucracy E.g. Court officials, councillors, ministers –

filled from ranks of aristocracy and letrados Slow moving, bureaucratic, hesitant in

decision making, restrictive – no one had whole picture

Secretaries dominance Blamed by contemporaries and historians

personally on Philip II

Government business had to pass his desk in form of consultas prepared by secretaries of various councils

Demanded accurate / regular information = illustrated by huge imperial archive at Simancas.

Regional governors ordered to make full reports on their advantages both civil and military

Ambassadorial network and courier system – finest in Europe - but more information for little benefit

Personally wanted all relevant information, consulted several different advisors or councils before issuing a decision

Advisors complained unable to determine between important and trivial

Long hours, reading despatches in his carriage, avalanche of paper

Overwhelmed by work led to neglecting important matters – e.g. 1566 Uprising in Netherlands

Urged to visit provinces personally to resolve crisis, heard contradictory advice from ministers – hesitated for months – eventually sending Alva – however already resolved by Margaret of Parma

Frequently changed his mind – created an atmosphere of double dealing and insincerity

Frustrated ministers/secretaries – failure to priorities/delegate – became distant, inaccessible – paper king

Obsessed with trivial matters – neglecting kingdom and people

PersonalRuler

Huge Empire ConsultasDemands for

AccurateInformation

Ambassador And courier system

ConsultedDifferentgroups

Work Load

Indecisive

Creates wrongatmosphere

Paper King

SpanishDominated

AlienatedProvinces

Lack ofaction

Attitude

Relationship with Castile and Provinces Criticised as being too Spanish –

stemmed from P2 background Spanish dominated courts and councils

– logic as Spain crucial to P2 Appointment of Spaniards in the

Monarquia alienated local elites e.g. Alva in Netherlands

Madrid 1561 – realisation fixed capital needed - organisational logic – potential centralisation alienated more distant subjects

Attitude

Travelled extensively before coming to the throne, but did not leave the Iberian Peninsula after 1559.

‘ It is neither useful nor decent to travel around ones dominions’

PersonalRuler

Huge Empire ConsultasDemands for

AccurateInformation

Ambassador And courier system

ConsultedDifferentgroups

Work Load

Indecisive

Creates wrongatmosphere

Paper King

SpanishDominated

AlienatedProvinces

Lack ofaction

Attitude

Consequences

The Paper King – too bogged down in paper work to effectively rule.

Slow bureaucratic system Alienated provinces due to Pro Spanish / Castilian

approach Micromanaging affairs – denying local

representatives and military commanders freedom of action when faced with changing circumstances e.g. Medina Sidonia 1588

Government enslaved to the pace at which Philip could process documentation that passed his desk.

Comment by colonies ‘ If death comes from Spain we would all live to a ripe old age’.

To what extent can Philip II be blamed for ineffective

government?

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

Two Main Factions

Toledo Faction Duke of Alva Hard line approach

towards monarquia particularly Netherlands

Favoured initially until Alva recalled from Netherlands 1573

Eboli Faction Prince Eboli 1572 Antonio Perez Federal attitude

towards Monarquia Autonomous states

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

Positives of Faction

Encouraged by Philip given his personal approach – withholding information, gaining varied views, untrusting

Belief that faction would lead to best personnel being brought into government by each faction so as to deliver effective government, which would be rewarded by patronage.

Defuse potential for individuals ability to dominate policy

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

Negative View

Damaging – energies spend on struggle / rivalry at expense of state business. E.g. Perez Affair

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

How did faction affect government in Spain 1556-1598?

Two Main Factions

Toledo Faction Duke of Alva Hard line approach

towards monarquia particularly Netherlands

Favoured initially until Alva recalled from Netherlands 1573

Eboli Faction Prince Eboli 1572 Antonio Perez Federal attitude

towards Monarquia Semi-autonomous

states

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

Positives of Faction

Encouraged by Philip given his personal approach – withholding information, gaining varied views, untrusting

Belief that faction would lead to best personnel being brought into government by each faction so as to deliver effective government, which would be rewarded by patronage.

Defuse potential for individuals ability to dominate policy

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

Negative View

Damaging – energies spend on struggle / rivalry at expense of state business. E.g. Perez Affair

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

Perez Affair

Sequencing Activity

AIM : Understand Philip II’s personal style of government and its impact on government efficiency

Consequences

1. Faction damaging could turn ugly inefficient government even to point of infighting within a

faction double dealing against Philip

Consequences

2. Fuelled ‘Black Legend’ view of Philip

Philips role in the murder? Perez ‘Defence Memorial’ Absolutism3. Revolt in Aragon 15914. Reinforced Philip’s distrust of those

around him5. Formulation of Juntas – reaction of

Perez affair and faction in general

Juntas

Informal Committees used by Philip to discuss policy

Consequences

Juntas had knock on effects – Decline of Council of State Recognition Philip unable to cope

alone Alienated outsiders Criticised as members had little

experience outside Spain

Personal Style

Paper King

Personal RulerUse of

Conciliar System

Untrusting

Encouraged Faction

Consequences Of

faction

Absolute Monarch?

To what extent can Philip II be blamed for

ineffective government?