If Philip II of Spain, had made Lisbon his Capital, Would We Be Spanish Today?
- correio_da_historia

- 25 de ago.
- 4 min de leitura

There are moments in history when a country seems to be heading towards an inevitable destiny, only for us to discover, many centuries later, that this destiny depended on very specific political decisions, wars that could have ended differently and even events that took place hundreds of kilometres away... and the history of Portugal between 1580 and 1640 is one of the best examples of this reality.
When Philip II entered Portugal in 1580, following the dynastic crisis caused by the death of King Sebastian and the disappearance of Cardinal-King Henry, he did not encounter an insignificant territory that could simply be added to his domains without much attention. He found Lisbon, one of the great European cities, the centre of a maritime empire linking Portugal to Brazil, Africa and Asia, and he found a political elite that continued to defend its institutions and privileges.
Philip II understood the importance of Lisbon and remained in the city between 1581 and 1583, governing from there a monarchy that extended across several continents. The interesting question is therefore not to imagine a king who had never been to Lisbon suddenly discovering that the city existed... it is to understand why, having come to know it so well, he decided to return to Madrid.
Lisbon had enormous economic and maritime importance, but Madrid had another decisive advantage... it was the political centre from which the Habsburg kings had built their authority over Castile and a significant part of Europe. Philip II chose to maintain this centre of gravity, and Portugal remained united with the Hispanic Monarchy through a union of crowns, rather than simply being transformed into a Castilian province.
This distinction is fundamental, because during the Iberian Union Portugal retained much of its institutions, laws and administration, while also maintaining its overseas empire and a distinct political identity. The problem for the Portuguese arose when the monarchy began demanding greater resources and deeper integration of its different territories.
It was during the reign of Philip IV that the situation deteriorated.
The Count-Duke of Olivares sought to strengthen the military capacity of the Hispanic Monarchy and distribute more effectively among its different territories the costs of the wars Spain was fighting in Europe. Madrid's intention was clear... it was necessary to transform a composite monarchy made up of different kingdoms into a more coordinated and militarily powerful structure.
The difficulty lay in convincing the different peoples that what was being presented as a necessity for the monarchy was also in their own interests.
Catalonia reacted.
In 1640, the Catalan revolt forced Philip IV to concentrate military forces and resources in the region, at a time when Spain was also facing France and experiencing a particularly difficult financial situation. And it was in this same year, taking advantage of an exceptionally favourable situation, that the Portuguese conspirators moved forward in Lisbon.
On 1 December 1640, Portugal restored its independence and John, Duke of Braganza, became King John IV.
This is where Portuguese history contains an irony that deserves to be remembered more often... while the Portuguese were recovering their independence, the Catalans were fighting for their own political survival against the same Hispanic Monarchy.
The Catalan revolt does not, of course, explain the Portuguese Restoration on its own, because Portugal had its own political, economic and social reasons, an elite interested in recovering autonomy and a memory of independence that had remained alive throughout the sixty years of the Iberian Union. But the international situation was decisive, and Philip IV's difficulty in immediately concentrating forces against Portugal favoured the consolidation of the new Portuguese dynasty.
This is where the question about Philip II ceases to be merely a historical game.
If Lisbon had been chosen as the permanent centre of the Hispanic Monarchy, the political balance within the Iberian Union might have been different. A court established in Lisbon would have brought the Portuguese elites closer to the central government and transformed the city into a meeting point for the various parts of the monarchy. Portugal would have ceased to be merely one of the kingdoms governed by the Habsburgs and instead become the territory in which the very centre of the monarchy was established.
Could this have made a break in 1640 more difficult?
Very possibly, although it is impossible to say that it would have prevented it.
And here we must avoid the usual mistake of counterfactual history, which consists of turning a possibility into a certainty simply because the conclusion makes the article more interesting. We do not know whether Lisbon becoming the capital would have prevented the Restoration, just as we do not know whether the absence of the Catalan revolt would have guaranteed a Spanish victory. What we do know is that both circumstances could have significantly altered the balance of power.
The Portuguese Restoration was not a one-day operation. The proclamation of John IV was only the beginning of a war that would last almost three decades and require enormous diplomatic, military and financial resources. Spain did not immediately accept the loss of Portugal and only in 1668 formally recognised Portuguese independence.
It is precisely this duration that allows us to understand how Portuguese independence was far from being an automatic consequence of 1 December.
Portugal had to win its independence twice... first politically, when the conspirators overthrew Philip IV's authority in Lisbon, and then militarily and diplomatically, by managing to survive for decades the Spanish attempt to recover the kingdom.
And perhaps this is where the opening question finds its true answer.
If Philip II had chosen Lisbon as his capital, Portugal might have followed a different path.
Paulo Freitas do Amaral
Professor, Historian and Author




Comentários