To What Extent Was the Abdication of Charles I of Spain a Turning Point in the History of Spain?

To what extent was the abdication of Charles l of Spain the major turning point in the history of Spain?

The Empire’s division and accession of a foreign prince should have been a major turning point for the previously isolated Spain, yet it had little effect on Spain’s economy, unity or foreign policy. Among other events, the Conquest of Granada was by far the most significant. It unified Spain politically and religiously, and had a lasting impact for centuries to come.

Charles’ abdication (1555-1556) left Germany, ‘a distraction and an expense’, ^[1] in his brother’s^[2]  hands. Henceforth, Philip could focus on Spain – the new centre of his Empire – rather than the religiously conflicted Germany. As Kilsby persuasively argues, Philip’s ‘connection with Spain was therefore far closer than with any other part of the lands he was to rule.' ^[3] Unlike Charles, Philip was Spanish-born and so did not face Charles’ early problems. However, by his abdication, Charles was hardly a foreign ruler, he even retired to Spain; so Philip’s accession made little difference. Kamen corroborates Kilsby by saying: ‘no ruler could have been more Spanish [than Philip].’ ^[4] As a result, ‘Spain became the heart of an Empire.’ ^[5] By making Madrid, where Philip established his court in 1561, the hub of his Empire, Spain was no longer an addition of the Hapsburg Empire. However, the similarities between Philip and Charles far outweigh the differences. All Spanish monarchs from 1469 to 1556 were ardent Catholics; indeed, Philip’s bedchamber in the Escorial was behind the chapel altar. Similarly, they all mishandled finance. Ferdinand and Isabella’s Juros was detrimental to the economy in the long-term; Charles needed 1,000,000 ducats annually; Philip declared bankruptcy four times. Therefore, Charles’ abdication can hardly be considered a major turning point, as the only true difference was the fact that ‘unlike his father, Philip II was Spanish born and bred’ ^[6]and Spain became the centre of his empire.

Ferdinand and Isabella’s marriage in 1469 was a more significant impact it began the unification of Spain and turned Spain into an international power – something which lasted for centuries. McKendrick highlights the marriage’s importance by saying: ‘together, and only together, they imposed a unity on their country.’^[7] It was impossible to unify the country individually because their marriage signified the ‘union of the crowns’ – the alliance of the Kingdoms and the first step in uniting the whole Peninsula. However, it was a personal unification rather than a political one. Ferdinand was only the crown matrimonial of Castile and Isabella was the same for Aragon. With the end of their marriage, the alliance ended. Charles’ accession, on the other hand, cemented this union. Kilsby says: ‘Ferdinand was given little personal power in Castile’. ^[8] Similarly, Woodward argues that the marriage ‘in no way presaged the unification of the two kingdoms.’^[9] While Ferdinand and Isabella’s marriage might not have initially cemented the alliance, it was the turning point which made this unification possible; Charles would not have inherited both Kingdoms without it. The abdication, however, did little to affect Spain’s unification as it was previously unified by Charles’ accession. As Tracy cogently puts it, ‘as a unified nation, Spain was created by the marriage [of Ferdinand and Isabella]’.^[10][pic 1]

The Conquest of Granada (1492) was a major climacteric for Spain’s unification and religion. Previously, civil war had divided both country and nobility; yet, the Conquest ‘helped [to] bring some feeling of unity to the peoples of Castile and Aragon.’^[11] In order to retain the loyalty of the nobility, they ‘rewarded their subjects with newly acquired property, principally in Granada’^[12] such as the famous silk-farms. Therefore, the conquest both initiated and maintained the unification. However, the unification was not only political but it also helped to ‘forge religious unity’.^[13] The church had supplied a ‘cruzada’, ^[14]highlighting that the conquest was as much religious as political. The Reconquista, which had defined Spain for seven centuries, ‘ended with the fall of the last Muslim kingdom of Granada in 1492.’ ^[15] The end of the Reconquista firstly gave the monarchs the confidence to expel the Jews, bringing further religious unity; as Cathal says, 'to celebrate [the conquest], they [Ferdinand and Isabella] ordered all Spanish Jews to convert to Christianity by mid-year, then exiled the majority who refused'^[16] which brought the long-standing tradition of convivencia to an end. Secondly, it gave them the confidence to focus externally rather than on internal struggles. They began by funding Columbus’ voyage. The prestige from the conquest had earned them the title ‘The Catholic Monarchs’ and without which it seems unlikely that Spain would have grown into a European power. As Kamen says: 'After the Conquest of Granada and the expulsion of the Jews, the Catholic Kings moved to affirm themselves on the international scene.'^[17] Therefore, the Conquest of Granada was a massive turning point because, unlike the abdication of Charles I, it brought unity and allowed Spain to finally focus European politics; Charles’ abdication might have divided the Empire, but without the Conquest of Granada, there would not have been an Empire to divide.

Columbus’ discovery of America was a major economic ‘windfall’^[18], according to Lotherington and Hunt; in particular, the discovery of Potosi resulted in ‘enough [silver] to triple the existing silver resources of Europe’ ^[19]entering Spain between 1503 and 1660. This implies that the discovery of America had massive economic benefits for Spain. Indeed, ‘the increasing flow of silver coming to Spain from the New World boosted Spain's confidence.’^[20] However, even with American silver, ‘Philip was always short of money’, ^[21]which Lotherington blames on the fact that the money was ‘squandered instead of being invested for economic growth.’^[22] In order to support Philip’s foreign policy, the Spanish were ‘mortgaging the future to pay for the present.’^[23] The influx of silver, as Elliott says, ‘played an important part in the raising of prices’ ^[24]while Hunt says that ‘the silver which was unloaded in Spain had the effect of feeding inflation.’ ^[25] The treasure seems to have been detrimental to Spain. However, Woodward unconvincingly argues that the production and demand of goods ‘were more vital influences’^[26] as ‘the annual rate of inflation was 2.8% in 1501-62 but only 1.3% in 1562-1600 when the full impact of the American bullion was at its greatest.’^[27] The uncontrolled influx of silver must, however, have impacted Spain somewhat. Therefore, in terms of the economy and empire, America’s discovery ‘damaged mainland Spain more than it strengthened her.’^[28] This, while not positive, was a greater economic change than Charles’ abdication. However, in terms of the Empire, America increased ‘the number of fronts on which Spain was vulnerable’, ^[29]while the abdication entirely divided the Empire. Therefore, Charles’ abdication was a more significant turning point in terms of Empire. [pic 2]