Hmmm. My first response was Of course one could sue for peace; then I started counting in my head. England didn't make peace until James took the throne; the Netherlands revolt took a break when a truce was signed in 1609; the Wars of Religion finished in 1593-1594, France and Spain signed a peace in 1598.
So yes, I agree with Ed's "Kristian's got it right. Once you get to a period where half the potential conflicts (and the clear majority of the LIKELY conflicts) could not be resolved by suing for peace, it no longer maked sense to include the mechanic in the game."
There was an extended truce in the Mediterranean between the Ottomans and Spain, whatever the conditions for the Austrian Habsburgs; without that, the Netherlands Revolt may well have been decisively concluded for the Rebels. Had the Ottomans concentrated efforts against Naples or Sicily, Philip would have let both the Netherlands and England stay on the back burner. The Portugese were absolutely crushed.
Which leads to another point: an Anglocentric view of the 16th century isn't, I have come to think, the correct one. Philip was willing to ignore Elizabeth's pinpricks and diplomatic endevours in Europe as long as they stayed unofficial. Placing a Catholic monarch on the throne wasn't germane to Spanish interests. Annexing Portugal, defending the Mediterranean, preventing Protestant Henry of Navarre from taking the French throne, thus guarding against French intervention in the Netherlands; all of these interrupted the fighting in the Netherlands at one time or another. It was the 1585 alliance with the rebel States that stirred him to action; and he would have been happy -- it is included in his instructions to the Armada - - even if he cowed England into withdrawing their intervention without a regime change.
Philip was correct in his estimations of his enemies strengths. England wasn't, and would never be during his reign, a threat to Spain. The Netherlands, however able to defend themselves they were, were unable to launch an offensive until the late 1500s. The Truce proceeded from a Spanish exhaustion of funds and the hope that treaties would exclude or limit Dutch trade interloping in the New World. The Spanish failed of this; the New World became the theater of conflict, the truce strictly limited to Europe.
And that is the final point against Anglocentric orientation: the English were tag-alongs in developing international trade. Let alone naval capabilities . . . I'm sure you realise I could keep going. Let it be a mercy that I do not.
- Last edited Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:18 pm (Total Number of Edits: 3)
- Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:05 pm