In what ways, and to what extent, does the concept of Spain's 'Golden Age' apply more appropriately to the reign of Philip II than to the whole period 1474-1598? Explain your answer

Authors Avatar

In what ways, and to what extent, does the concept of Spain’s ‘Golden Age’ apply more appropriately to the reign of Philip II than to the whole period 1474-1598? Explain your answer by reference to similarities and differences you detect between the periods before and after the accession of Philip II.

The epithet ‘Golden Age’ is arguably over-simplistic, in that it implies an epoch of universal success, and thus leads to a tendency to mythologize and idealise a period. It would be naïve to suggest that any age could be entirely ‘golden,’ for successes in one sphere are almost always counterbalanced by failures in another. In a heterogeneous society such as Spain, comprised of divergent and often oppositional political, economic and religious groups, the concepts of ‘success’ and ‘failure’ become ever more intermingled; what benefits some will inevitably have negative consequences for others.

Whilst such complexity renders the concept of a ‘Golden Age’ dependent upon historiographical interpretation, the result of which, as Kamen states, may be to a degree dependent upon ‘one’s political and moral views,’ it does not render it a useless term.  A ‘Golden Age’ can most simply, and probably most usefully, be defined just as a relatively prolonged and continuous period in which a nation experienced concurrent successes in a variety of fields, and of which one judges that these successes outweighed any failures.

Arguably, the principal determinant of whether a certain point in time there was ever a ‘Golden Age’ in Spain must therefore be the extent to which there were at any point numerous accomplishments in the domains most fundamental to the development of the nation - principally foreign policy, the economy, political control and the imposition of religious belief.

In order to establish to what extent Philip’s reign was alone the elusive ‘Golden Age,’ it is necessary to examine his fortunes in these four areas, which were fundamental to Spain’s experience throughout the whole period. A comparison of his successes and failures to the fortunes of earlier rulers should ultimately identify to what extent Philip’s accession in 1556 prefigured fundamental and positive changes that differed significantly enough from prior reigns to allow his reign to be the sole ‘Golden Age.’

The most common factor cited as evidence of a Spanish ‘Golden Age’ is the almost meteoric growth of Castile as a territorial and military power, with the reign of Philip II often perceived as the height of Spanish imperialism. Yet Castile’s late-sixteenth century dominance in foreign policy was ultimately little more than an illusion, as after 1516 she did not gain any territory and never actually experienced a prolonged period of military success.

Join now!

With regard to Spanish territorial growth, Philip’s reign was not a ‘Golden Age,’ but the continuation of stagnation that had occurred under his father. Here, the key turning point was the accession of Charles, who subjugated Spanish foreign policy interests to his other campaigns, and thus ended the territorial ‘Golden Age’ of  Ferdinand and Isabella, in which Aragon annexed Naples and Castile gained sole control of the Americas.  Despite gaining prestige under Charles and Philip from her association with the amassed glories of the Habsburg crown, Spain, Kamen highlights,  ‘never annexed any territory.’  Whilst Castile was the dominant kingdom ...

This is a preview of the whole essay