Ferdinand and Isabella, also referred to as the ‘Catholic Monarchs’ married in October 1469 and began the dual monarchy from then on. The marriage of these two powers was significant in itself; it marked the beginning of a new era, one where supposedly these two kingdoms would unite and become stronger. The idea of unity and strength within Spain has been coined by many as ‘A Golden Age’, however historian Henry Kamen states that even though their ‘innovations… justify admiration’ they do not deserve to be accredited with the ‘creation of a new state’. Ferdinand and Isabella had many achievements throughout their reign, most notably their religious successes in Granada and with the Inquisition. However, it becomes increasingly evident that a Golden Age is something of an unachievable nature for any empire, not just the Spanish kingdom as it refers to an ‘idyllic, often imaginary past time of peace, prosperity, and happiness’. This is referring to a time of perfection which is impossible for any nation due to the multitude of factors and issues that are ever-present in a kingdom, for example political, economic, social and religious.
The main political element of the Catholic Monarchs reign and the foundations they laid in attempt at creating a Golden Age was their marriage- the union of Crowns. This was the beginning of a co-operative reign that in theory should unite all the kingdoms of Spain and hopefully increase Spain’s dominance on the world stage. The marriage between the Catholic Kings was unfavourable to Aragon as Castile as a whole was a far stronger kingdom; this displays an element of disunity between the kingdoms. It is impossible to argue that Ferdinand and Isabella laid the foundations for the Golden Age to a greater extent, when high levels of balance between the two of them didn’t exist. Highly acclaimed historian Henry Kamen argues against this and suggests that the monarchs were balanced in power. Kamen asserts that the ‘Tanto Monta’ (prenuptial agreement between Ferdinand and Isabella) ‘emphasises the equal balance between the sovereigns’, therefore implying that Ferdinand and Isabella were evenly matched as political partners. This viewpoint is limited in its validity as Castile as a kingdom was far stronger and wealthier, however, Ferdinand contributed greatly throughout the Italian Wars and proved to be a strong and effective leader by gaining the territory of Naples. J.H Elliott, a historian well known for his works on Spanish history and the recipient of a variety of awards for his work (including the ‘Balzan Prize for History (1500-1800)’ and the ‘Prince of Asturias Prize’) argues against Kamen’s viewpoint in his book ‘Imperial Spain 1469-1716’. Similarly, to Kamen, Elliott highlights how the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella was ‘regarded as a union of equals’. The key word in this statement is ‘regarded’, once Ferdinand and Isabella are explored in further depth it becomes clear with contextual knowledge that the two monarchs and their kingdoms were ‘markedly divergent in size and strength’. More broadly, it is evident that this statement by Elliott is valid; Aragon was noticeably weaker than Castile as entity. Castile had far more flexibility and greater freedom as a kingdom, whereas Aragon’s power of the Crown was restricted by the privileges and power of the aristocracy. Both historians are highly respected in their field and there is evidence that they are both experienced in Spanish history at this time. Elliott has the slight upper-hand as he was knighted for his service to history and is better known than Kamen. In theory, Kamen’s statement regarding the equal balance should’ve been correct; the intention of the sovereigns was to have a balanced kingdom. However, Elliott’s viewpoint is far more valid as it acknowledges both sides of the situation. He begins by explaining how the union was ‘regarded’ as equal and then continues to express the reality of the situation and that was that these partners were ‘dissimilar’ and unevenly matched in terms of strength and size of their kingdoms. Kamen’s interpretation fails to account for the clear difference between Aragon and Castile and their strength, whereas Elliott covers it in detail. Ferdinand and Isabella’s active involvement in government enhanced their own power, in particular because Isabella controlled the appointment of treasury officials, the mastership of military orders and the major ecclesiastical promotions in Castile. From 1475, Ferdinand was also empowered to appoint royal officials. Ferdinand and Isabella chose royal secretaries, who became increasingly important in the late medieval period. Secretaries such as Hernando de Zafra and Luis de Santangel could represent the crucial point of contact between the sovereigns and the Royal Council. The use of councils as a way of establishing order and royal authority is a strength of Ferdinand and Isabella’s and helped in working towards a stronger Spain. The methods used by Ferdinand and Isabella continued on into the reigns of Charles I and Philip II; it is evident that the Catholic Monarchs were essential in maintaining Spain even after their deaths. In terms of foreign policy and international successes, Ferdinand excelled in the first Italian War (also referred to as Charles VIII’s war), a series of conflicts that continued on into the reign of his successors Charles I and Philip II. With the assistance of the Holy League alliance formed to fight against France, he managed to defeat Charles VIII and expand his empire by taking the Kingdom of Naples. Spanish involvement with the Americas began as a result of Isabella sponsoring Christopher Columbus when neither Portugal, France or England would. Columbus wrote a letter to Ferdinand and Isabella when he arrived back from America on March 15th, 1493. He announced that he had ‘discovered many islands inhabited by numerous people’ and that ‘possession of all of them’ was taken. This letter from Christopher Columbus himself effectively confirms the idea that a big part of Ferdinand and Isabella’s foreign policy was to expand the empire through the discovery of the New World. This letter was distributed amongst the kingdom as soon as it was received and it can be argued that Columbus knew this- his intended audience of the letter was not only Ferdinand and Isabella but also the empire. Therefore, he would’ve portrayed himself and his expedition in the best light possible. This deduces the sources reliability and Columbus is an extremely biased source to take information from. However, this doesn’t decrease the usefulness of the source as it displays Columbus’s and the monarch’s intentions with America and that was to colonise it and use it to their advantage for resources and wealth. The discovery of America augmented the size of the Catholic Monarch’s empire notably and increased the nations abundance of natural materials and wealth. The wealth received from monopolising on the gold and silver brought back from America enabled Spain to increase their military spending, which in turn made Spain the most powerful nation in Europe. This directly impacted Philip II’s ability to be able to assemble the Spanish Armada and attempt to invade. This attempt unfortunately failed, however it can be argued that Ferdinand and Isabella were mainly responsible for the military strength of Spain for generations to come because of their riches from America. On the other hand, this was only the beginning of the expansion of the empire under Ferdinand and Isabella. The size and strength of the empire would later become a problem for Charles I and in turn Philip II, as debts rose because the Crown could not afford to support all of their territories and also extinguish rebellions and uprisings. The prime example of this being the Dutch Revolt against the rule of Roman Catholic Habsburg King Philip II. Debts inherited from his father alongside the sheer size of the empire meant that he fell further into financial crisis and therefore it became impossible to sustain control over the Northern provinces of the Netherlands. Losing these territories was a huge failure for Philip, however he is not solely to blame and the irresponsibility of Ferdinand and Isabella in expanding the empire contributes greatly to the defeat. Therefore, it can be argued that Ferdinand and Isabella couldn’t have possibly laid the foundations for a Golden Age as their actions had major negative repercussions in future reigns. The definition of a ‘Golden Age’ must be questioned in this case. It is clear that Ferdinand and Isabella made progress through uniting the crowns, discovering new territories and increasing royal authority. However, alongside more territory comes extra pressures such as finances and uprisings and this is an unavoidable problem for any monarch. If a Golden Age is even achievable it is unlikely that Spain ever earned that status.
During Ferdinand and Isabella’s reign there was a clear sense of urgency in enforcing religious conformity. Spain’s population was the most heterogeneous in Europe and there were significant non-Christian communities, for example Muslims and Jews. For Isabella, this was a huge problem, she was a devout Catholic who was extremely pious- far more than Ferdinand. The Inquisition was introduced into both Aragon and Castile, to deal with conversos of all religions. It began in 1478 and intended to maintain orthodoxy and it replaced the original medieval inquisition. After decrees in 1492 and 1502 the regulation of faith was intensified and cracked down on people who were suspected to be practicing any religion that wasn’t Catholicism. A letter written by Ferdinand to the Count of Aranda on 31st March 1492 clearly displays the viewpoint of both monarchs. The letter states that the Holy Office of the Inquisition was put in place because ‘Christians are endangered by contact and communication with the Jews’; this clearly anti-Semitic view displays the deep desire of the monarchs to achieve a Christian nation. The fact that the letter is from Ferdinand’s perspective means that the source is one of extreme value and he (alongside Isabella) was the person in charge of implementing the Inquisition and enforcing it. His reasoning behind it is simple, that Jews pose a threat to Christianity as a whole and this is why in his opinion, they must be expelled or in more severe cases executed. This is supported by the fact that 150,000 people were prosecuted and approximately 3000-5000 people were executed in the name of the Inquisition. As this source was a letter, it is likely that Ferdinand wasn’t expecting anyone but the recipient (the Count of Aranda) to read it. It can be argued that this a very honest statement; Ferdinand wasn’t attempting to be politically correct, in fact this is perhaps the one of the most truthful opinions we could get from the King. It can be argued that the Inquisition didn’t lay the foundations for the Golden Age as a huge proportion (the Jews and Muslims) of the population were being mistreated at the request of the monarchs. This discrimination continued on throughout Charles I and Philip II’s reign and even further, as the Inquisition didn’t end until 1834. On the other hand, from Ferdinand and Isabella’s perspective this was a step in the right direction as their overall aim was to achieve an Orthodox Christian state and for them that was a huge element of creating a ‘Golden Age’ of prosperity. However, the Inquisition did little to encourage peace. In addition, another religious factor of Ferdinand and Isabella’s reign which perhaps contributed to the perceived ‘Golden Age’ was the Conquest of Granada. The Granadan War began in 1482 and ended in 1491 with the defeat of Granada and annexation of Castile. According to historian John Edward ‘they ended Muslim rule in Spain and they also affirmed the country’s Catholic identity’. This is a valid statement as the Conquest of Granada was a huge success for Ferdinand and Isabella and it reaffirmed their status as ‘Catholic Monarchs’. They proved that they were able to protect their faith even it meant war. Despite this being a victory for the monarchs it was extremely expensive and sent the kingdom into further debt. Additionally, the victory over Granada wasn’t solely down to the strength of the Catholic monarchs; there was division amongst Granada and they were crippled by internal conflict whilst the Christians remained united. This may show how Ferdinand and Isabella didn’t defeat Granada purely on their own merit, however, it does show unification amongst the Christians in Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella were strongly supported in this campaign, the military and Santa Hermandad provided large contributions (both of money and men), this aided the monarchs greatly and led to their victory. They were supported and backed by the Pope at the time and he allowed them to collect taxes on the clergy usually given for crusades. Developing on the role of religion during Ferdinand and Isabella’s reign many things were put in place to increase the prevalence of the church. A religiously unified kingdom was a politically unified one; there is a direct correlation between unity within a kingdom and the quality of it. Therefore, it can be argued that the high levels of religious unity helped foster a more prosperous nation. The monarchs reduced military power in the church, they controlled church taxes and received money from them, Isabella’s confessor reformed monasteries which reduced corruption and they recruited archbishops. Indulgences were also banned in order to further reduce the corruption within the church and the kingdom by decreasing the link between money and morality. The monarchs had a unique power over the Catholic church and also the church had an extremely strong power over the population, this resulted in a rather united kingdom and supports the idea that perhaps Ferdinand and Isabella created a ‘Golden Age’ of some kind. Perhaps they formed a more balanced kingdom, rather than one that only experienced prosperity or strife. I would argue that Ferdinand and Isabella had many religious successes during their reign, the most significant obviously being the Inquisition and the Conquest of Granada. These two factors and also the decrease in corruption in the ecclesiastical community of Spain contributed to elements of prosperity in Spain. However, the issues surrounding the Inquisition and how it mistreated a large fraction of the population in order to achieve their own religious goal is a clear drawback of Ferdinand and Isabella. These people experienced little to no affluence. Therefore, it is illogical to claim that they laid the foundations for a Golden Age, but it can be stated that many improvements were made by the Catholic Kings.
As well as political and religious factors to Ferdinand and Isabella’s reign there were also economic aspects too. First of all, an important way in which Ferdinand and Isabella held their position of power was by increasing their income. Perhaps, the most significant economic element of Ferdinand and Isabella’s reign is the monopoly on Gold and Silver from America. This gave Spain complete control on the prices charged on these products and therefore allowed Ferdinand and Isabella to increase their income hugely. This is an aspect of their economic policy that worked towards laying the foundations for the Golden Age. Furthermore, Finances were extremely poor at the beginning of their reign, due to the 1470 civil wars that had made it difficult to collect taxes from regular income. Moreover, Ferdinand and Isabella didn’t have official tax collectors, they accepted lump sum payments from tax farmers (people who paid for the right to collect taxes). The Catholic monarchs had what is known as a peripatetic government (one that didn’t reside in one specific place) and this benefited their economic status as well as their reputation with the citizens of each of their territories. They did not pay out large sums for luxuries and household items like many European monarchs were famous for doing. However, a designated sum of money was necessary in order to appear powerful and royal to their subjects. Their sensibility with expenditure pleased their people, the money they spent went on the army, the courts and the ambassadors who were in control of their foreign policy; these were all essential spending’s that would benefit the country. Sources of income were the military, the Hermandad, papal grants and loans, but most of the income came from huge sums of money from the Castilian Cortes- amounting to almost 300 million maravedis between 1500 and 1504 alone. Tax collection also became far more efficient under Ferdinand and Isabella. The most obvious sign of attempts at economic unity was the so-called ‘double excelente’ which was a gold coin with both Ferdinand and Isabella’s heads on it, on buildings they had both of their symbols which represented the union of their two kingdoms. Economic disunity is a clear indicator that Ferdinand and Isabella didn’t lay the foundations for a Golden Age as it increases the likelihood of economic failure in the reigns of successors. This is substantiated by the sheer size of the debt inherited by Charles and it was only made worse by his spending on all of the conflicts he engaged in. Philip furthered the extent of the financial crisis with his overseas adventurism and domestic policies. A contemporary source describing Charles’ advice given to his son Philip II highlights how it was essential to ‘have a special fare for finance which is today the most important department of State’. Charles was very much aware of the poor state of Spain’s finances and it can be argued that Ferdinand and Isabella were a lot to blame, as a main focus of theirs failed to be economic unity. In response to this he attempts to assist his son in improving Spain’s economy. However, it seems that Philip either failed to follow his father’s advice or that it was too late for Philip II to rectify his finances as Ferdinand and Isabella had set an irresponsible precedent. It can be argued that this source is extremely valuable as it is direct speech from Charles I. It gives an insight into the opinion and viewpoints of this monarch and it emphasises how finances were becoming an increasing problem for Spain, therefore making it ‘the most important department of State’. As this source was an exchange between Charles and Philip it seems likely that it is as reliable as it is valuable. The intended audience was only Philip and therefore Charles would’ve been more truthful rather than trying to appear in a certain light. This adds value to the source as it is an honest account of Charles’ viewpoint on finances in Spain and as King he was an appropriate person to comment on such matters. There was plenty of economic disunity during Ferdinand and Isabella’s reign. Their first problem was the lack of one coinage system, there were three different ones and despite attempts to fix the exchange rate by making one Castilian gold ducat equal to a Valencian gold excelente which also equalled one Catalonian gold principat, they still carried on with all three different coins in circulation. Customs were another issue for the Iberian Peninsula. There were internal barriers operating in Aragon whereas there were none in Castile. This meant that merchants had to pay tolls (fees) when entering or leaving, no attempts were made to change this and trade between the kingdoms remained restricted- something which wouldn’t be expected of a ‘unified’ kingdom. The economy of Castile was far more prosperous than Aragon’s, wealth and success was not divided equally between the two. Castile’s prosperity was mainly down to their wool trade and the fact that they traded with Northern Europe (mostly Bruges). The Aragonese economy was based on Mediterranean trade with the East and it was going into a rapid decline. This displays the inequitable balance between Ferdinand and Isabella mentioned earlier and again supports the idea that it is out of the question to suggest that Ferdinand and Isabella fully laid the foundations for a Golden Age. Despite, all the negativity surrounding Ferdinand and Isabella and the failing economic unity, J.H Elliott describes the change from Castilian rulers not even being able to run their own country to the monarchs ‘vast empire thousands of miles away’ as one of ‘the greatest royal acheivements’. This is extremely complimentary of Ferdinand and Isabella and sheds light on the successes they experienced during their reign. Their empire was of a phenomenal size and economic disunity and the failure to incorporate the kingdoms finances into each other’s doesn’t take away from the huge achievement of acquiring such a large empire. I would argue that through exploration of the economic factors of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella laid the foundations of the Golden Age to a lesser extent. There is clear evidence that Ferdinand and Isabella improved aspects of the economy throughout their reign, however, the levels of disunity were too extreme to be able to suggest that Ferdinand and Isabella economically succeeded. The repercussions of Ferdinand and Isabella’s actions on Charles and Philip, most significantly the large debts, outweigh the positive factors and therefore display how Ferdinand and Isabella failed to lay the foundations for a Golden Age.
To conclude, I would argue that Ferdinand and Isabella laid the foundations for the Golden Age to a lesser extent. There is evidence that substantiates the opposing view (that a Golden Age was created) like successes in Granada, implementing the Inquisition which lasted into Charles and Philip’s reign and monopolising on Gold and Silver from the New World. Nevertheless, a Golden Age is an unattainable feat for any monarch or leader as alongside an expanding empire, which is desirable in modern Europe, comes political, economic and religious strife. There is no way in which Ferdinand and Isabella could have secured prosperity in every aspect of their empire. It is apparent that the Catholic Monarchs achieved far more prosperity than any of the monarchs of the Spanish Empire and for this they must be praised. The collaborative reign between Ferdinand and Isabella allied Castile and Aragon, expanded the empire, conquered Granada and increased their income through the discovery of Silver and Gold in the Americas. These are all positive elements of their reign that proceeded to benefit Charles and Philip in years to come, however it can be argued that the successors of the Catholic Kings undid a lot of their success. Most notably, the peripatetic government ran by Ferdinand and Isabella declined as a consequence of Philip’s centralised administration in Madrid and resentment from the territories surged as a result. This arguably displays how Ferdinand and Isabella loosely laid an under-structure for a Golden Age and that it was not only their faults but also the downfalls of Charles and Philip that never allowed for an age of prosperity.