Why was the unity of the Dutch Republic so short lived?

Authors Avatar

Why was the unity of the Dutch Republic so short lived?

Unity is a remarkable attribute for a country to possess; it induces stability, pride and prosperity. However the Dutch Republic has always been under scrutiny due to the fragility of its existence. Evidence for the divisions within the Republic are recurrent throughout the period, apparently “It was vital to know whether a Dutchman was an Amsterdammer or a Leidanaar or a Haarlemmer.” It is clear from this that the separate provinces retained their separate identities, was a type of unity possible in this manner?  And if so, was it this factor of detached unity alone, which prevented the Republic from maintaining any sort of unification? It is important to discover why the inhabitants of the republic never felt secure despite a largely prosperous and influential position within Europe, and furthermore, what factors affected the inability for, ultimately the Netherlands, but essentially the republic to unite and remain together.

        Established in 1579 and collapsing in 1795, the Dutch republic existed over two centuries within the Netherlands. Understanding the formation of the Republic is imperative in order to comprehend how unity or disunity occurred throughout its existence. The Union of Utrecht in 1579 was the starting point for the Republic, where the provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland, overijssel, Friesland and Groningen formed and alliance to oppose the Spanish rule. By 1555 the low countries were part of the Habsburg Empire and from 1566, when the iconoclastic revolt occurred, parts of the region were regularly dedicated to fighting the subjugation. This unification was not as Simon Schama suggested in his study The embarrassment of riches a result of a unique national identity, but instead a union of necessity in order to combat a common enemy. Marjolein C. ‘t Hart cites the “…cultural fragmentation…” as reason enough to dispel Schama’s theory. The Union of Utrecht was involved mostly the Northern provinces, whilst the Southern provinces chose instead to sign the Union of Atrecht, supporting Spanish rule. When the division between North and South is combined with the fact that at Utrecht no declaration of independence was made and neither was a congress formed to set up institutions to implement policies, it is clear that the Republic did not make it easy for prosperity via unity. However if the Republic could have instilled solidarity between the provinces, it would have been an even greater force in Europe that it proved to be. With trade booming and cities such as The Hague, Amsterdam and Antwerp being hugely successful in their function, potential existed for eminence. Nevertheless socially, politically and geographically these centres were divided. They all felt a strong sense of individuality and the many differing histories were not conducive to one united state.

Join now!

        The height of the so-called ‘Dutch Revolt’ probably came in 1585 when Dutch ships were banned from Spanish ports yet the angst towards the Spanish could be seen as early as 1566 during the iconoclastic revolt. The revolt is often put forward as proof of unity within the Dutch republic, because a nation was working towards a common goal: ousting the Spanish. Unfortunately, the odium of the disgruntled Dutch fostered an aversion towards centralisation. Phillip II of Spain had attempted to centralise the Netherlands via harsh methods of Catholicism and taxation, therefore although those opposing him shared the common aim ...

This is a preview of the whole essay