To What Extent Do You Agree That Ferdinand And Isabella Laid The Foundations For A Spanish Golden Ag

When the conquistadors first began their exploration of the New World they became enraptured by rumours of El Dorado, the mythical City of Gold. Their hunt through the dense jungles of South America for such a paradise of a place seems comparable to historians' search through the annals of Spanish history for its legendary golden age. All enduring myths must contain some shreds of truth and Spain was certainly elevated to dizzying heights of world power, with a vast empire and a revered military force. Ironically, the stumbling block for Spain's Golden Age was the foundations laid by Ferdinand and Isabella as the vast majority of those that might have led to a Golden Age were unsuited to the needs of their successors and thus most of their hard graft was wasted. After the civil war that had preceded Isabella's ascension to the throne in Castile, the balance of the power of the Crown in relation to the power of the nobility needed readdressing. In this issue, Ferdinand and Isabella did not lay the foundations for a Golden Age, as their very personal style of government could not be utilised by those that came after them.

Although the amount of power the nobility of Castile had managed to accrue caused a problem for Isabella, the nobles of Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia proved a thorn in Ferdinand's side that no Catholic King managed to tease out. Due to the terms of the Aragonese Oath of Loyalty, nobles would only swear allegiance to their monarch if he respected their 'fueros', their constituted rights. Any attempt by the King to gain more power was seen as a breach of fueros and questioned by the Justiciar, and thus 'the fueros were a persistent barrier to action' in the eastern realms. It is for this reason that the bulk of Ferdinand and Isabella's attempts to increase the power of the Crown were limited to Castile and no real headway was ever made into enforcing royal authority in Aragon.

In Castile, Isabella dispersed with the power of the Cortes simply by not calling them. After cleverly using them to establish power and lend herself legitimacy she dispensed of them, calling them only when she needed to sedate the nobility or legitimise her actions. By not disbanding them completely, Isabella left herself with a means of controlling the perception of her actions, a practice that was continued throughout the reigns of the Catholic Kings. The Cortes and the nobility never again surged to the forefront, mainly due to the decisive action of Isabella in this period.

Isabella said once, 'I am an absolute ruler' and by not being hindered by the Cortes, she was certainly well on her way to becoming one. This said, there were some attempts made by the Catholic Kings to improve the Councillor systems in place in Castile. The Royal Council of Castile met daily and supervised the departments of the state meaning the government of Castile could run without the presence of the Monarchs, undermining Isabella's drive toward absolutism. Although Kamen called this 'ad hoc', and believes that councils were set up only when seen to be necessary with no thought of the bigger picture, the introduction of some sort of centralised system would prove invaluable for Charles and Philip in maintaining their huge empires.

Ferdinand and Isabella also employed the Royal Progress, travelling throughout their Kingdoms and carrying the power of the crown with them wherever they went. This proved a handy distraction for the nobility, for Court followed the Monarchs and thus, so did they. Also, by appearing to their subjects personally, Ferdinand and Isabella were investing the power of the Crown in their person, hearing people's grievances and intervening with town problems. This certainly took a step in the direction of personal monarchy, undermining progress toward a centralised government. It was this personal style that proved the first stumbling block for Charles I. Appearing in Castile in 1516 with no knowledge of Spanish culture, unable to speak the language and, looking, in the words of J. H. Eliot 'like an idiot' , he could not continue Ferdinand and Isabella's Royal Progress, or their ever present, personal rule, especially after becoming Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. The fact that Charles so often was absent, and had to rely on regents, such as Adrian of Utrecht, undermines Isabella's steps toward Absolutism, as Spain appears to have muddled through without Charles for the majority of the time.

Charles did attempt to improve upon the councillor systems put in place by Ferdinand and Isabella. He streamlined the Council of Castile, increasing the number of councillors who sat on the board because of their efficiency, although he continued to set up councils as they were needed, suggesting that his methods in this area were as 'ad hoc' as Ferdinand and Isabella's. Also, despite putting a Council of Finance in place in 1522, the interest on Charles' many loans was not taken into account and thus most of their calculations proved useless. Despite progressing from Ferdinand and Isabella's quite medieval style of personal government to something nearer a centralised, councillor system, MacDonald writes that 'it would be a misleading exaggeration to suggest that Charles' councillor system amounted to a modern style of government" .

This need for a 'modern style of government' was not taken up by Charles' successor either. Philip II was a thoughtful, quiet man, who returned to Ferdinand and Isabella's style of personal rule despite the huge size of his empire, and this led to his government becoming 'a by word for slow-moving, bureaucratic and hesitant decision making' . He was fanatical about acquainting himself with all of the facts before making a decision, leading to a lack of decisiveness in his ruling. The validity of MacKinnon's opinion of Philip's administrative system is supported by contemporary sources - one of Philip's own secretaries grumbled that 'decisions are taken so slowly that even a cripple could keep up with them' . Philip took all final decisions, but Lovett also accuses him of lacking insight and resolution and of 'dithering' . Perhaps this is the reason that Philip seems to have depended on his councillors to such an extent. In setting up the 'Junta Grande' in 1589, Philip surrounded himself with those whose advice he trusted and gave himself a safely net in case all should not go to plan. In this way, he was far removed from Ferdinand and Isabella's personal monarchy, for although the final decision always rested with Philip, Lovett's assertion that he was 'high minded, weak and devious' may suggest that the King was easily swayed by others. Cabrera de Cordoba, however, does not agree with Lovett, saying of Philip 'in him.was born constancy and firmness of purpose' . Although Cabrera is a contemporary source he was a former courtier and servant of Philip and thus must have been inclined to think well of his master, although his proximity to the monarch may make him a more reliable judge of his character than Lovett. Philip's desire for knowledge also led to him having an impressive databank at Simancas and he was probably better informed about events on the Continent than anyone else in Europe. Such knowledge though, was pointless when it did nothing to improve his government.