Paper 3, Option 32: The Golden Age of Spain, 1474–1598 - 4 The campaign for orthodoxy, 1558–70 — Edexcel A-Level History
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Paper 3, Option 32: The Golden Age of Spain, 1474–1598 - 4 The campaign for orthodoxy, 1558–70 explained
Paper 3, Option 32: The Golden Age of Spain, 1474–1598 - 4 The campaign for orthodoxy, 1558–70 covers 3 specification points, including Autos da fé and the index of prohibited books,… and The Morisco 'problem’; the impact of Turkish….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Reasons for the drive for orthodoxy; the role of de Valdés; Charles’s letter to Juana in May 1558; the significance of the case of Archbishop Carranza and relations with the papacy; the impact of persecution on Protestantism, 1559–62: autos da fé and the index of prohibited books, 1558–59.
The drive for orthodoxy combined religious conviction with fears that Lutheran ideas threatened Spain's unity. Inquisitor General Fernando de Valdés spearheaded this campaign, using the threat of heresy to bolster the Inquisition's power. In May 1558, Charles V, having abdicated and retired, wrote to Juana, who was acting as regent for Philip II, urging severe action against heresy. The case of Archbishop Carranza of Toledo, arrested by Valdés in 1559, showed that even the highest churchman could be investigated, severely straining relations with the papacy. Persecution in 1559–62, marked by autos da fé and Valdés's index of prohibited books of 1558–59, largely suppressed organised Protestantism in Spain.
The reasons for the Great Rebellion 1568: the Morisco 'problem’; the impact of Turkish raids; the role of the Marquis de Mondéjar; the significance of the decrees reforming Morisco customs in Granada 1566–67.
The Great Rebellion of 1568 in Granada stemmed from the Morisco 'problem': a large, culturally distinct Muslim population that resisted assimilation. Turkish raids heightened fears of a fifth column, prompting Philip II to support hardline policies. This culminated in the decrees of 1566–67, which banned Morisco customs, language and dress, directly provoking revolt. The Marquis de Mondéjar, Captain General of Granada, attempted to enforce these decrees with moderation and warned against their severity, but his conciliatory tactics failed to prevent the uprising and he was replaced. The rebellion thus arose from religious intolerance, strategic insecurity and the failure of gradual reform.
The significance of the rebellion in Granada and the difficulty in securing its repression; the impact of the revolt on Spain in terms of economic damage and loss of life.
The rebellion in Granada (1568–71) was significant because it challenged Spanish authority and required a costly military campaign to suppress. Repression was difficult due to the mountainous terrain, guerrilla tactics and the rebels' local knowledge. The revolt caused economic damage: destruction of crops, disruption of trade and heavy military expenditure. Loss of life was severe, with thousands of Moriscos and Christians killed, and many Moriscos enslaved or deported. The rebellion thus had lasting demographic and economic consequences for Spain.
Your focus
- Explain the reasons for the campaign for orthodoxy in Spain, 1558–70.
- Analyse the significance of Fernando de Valdés, Charles's letter to Juana and the Carranza case for relations with the papacy.
- Evaluate the impact of autos da fé and the index of prohibited books on Protestantism in Spain, 1559–62.
Show all 9 objectives
- Explain the nature of the Morisco 'problem' in Granada.
- Assess the impact of Turkish raids on Spanish policy towards the Moriscos.
- Evaluate the role of the Marquis de Mondéjar and the significance of the decrees of 1566–67 in causing the Great Rebellion.
- Explain why the rebellion in Granada was significant for Spain.
- Assess the difficulties faced by Spanish forces in repressing the revolt.
- Evaluate the economic and human impact of the rebellion on Spain.
Paper 3, Option 32: The Golden Age of Spain, 1474–1598 - 4 The campaign for orthodoxy, 1558–70 exam tips
Marking Points
- Explains the reasons for the drive for orthodoxy, including religious conviction, fear of Lutheran infiltration and the desire to protect Spanish unity.
- Describes the role of Inquisitor General Fernando de Valdés in leading the campaign, issuing the 1559 Index, and prosecuting high-profile figures like Carranza.
- Explains the significance of Charles's letter to Juana in May 1558 as royal encouragement for rigorous action against heresy.
- Analyses the Carranza case as evidence that even senior churchmen faced investigation, and explains how it strained relations with the papacy.
- Explains how autos da fé and the index of prohibited books of 1558–59 contributed to the impact of persecution on Protestantism in 1559–62.
- Assesses the extent to which persecution suppressed organised Protestantism in Spain by the early 1560s.
- Explains the Morisco 'problem' as the presence of a large, unassimilated Muslim population in Granada, seen as a threat to religious and political unity.
- Assesses the impact of Turkish raids: they increased fears of Morisco collaboration with the Ottoman Empire, leading to harsher policies from Philip II.
- Evaluates the role of the Marquis de Mondéjar: his attempts to enforce the decrees with moderation, his warnings against hardline policies, and his subsequent replacement.
- Analyses the significance of the decrees of 1566–67: they banned Morisco customs, language and dress, acting as the immediate trigger for the rebellion.
- Shows how these factors interlinked: the decrees were a response to the 'problem' and Turkish raids, while Mondéjar's failure to suppress dissent contributed to the outbreak.
- Explains the significance of the rebellion: it was a major internal challenge to Philip II's authority and religious uniformity.
- Analyses the difficulty of repression: mountainous terrain, guerrilla warfare, and the need for troops diverted from other fronts.
- Assesses economic damage: destruction of agriculture, disruption of trade, and the cost of maintaining a large army.
- Evaluates loss of life: high casualties among rebels and soldiers, and the subsequent expulsion or enslavement of Moriscos.
- Shows how these impacts affected Spain: weakened economy, demographic loss, and a legacy of religious intolerance.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Name each element of the campaign explicitly, such as the letter to Juana, the Carranza case, autos da fé and the index, and explain its contribution.
- 💡When discussing relations with the papacy, show how the Carranza case created friction rather than treating it as a separate topic.
- 💡Use the 1559–62 chronology to frame the assessment of persecution's impact on Protestantism.
- 💡Link the four factors explicitly: show how the Morisco 'problem' and Turkish raids created a context in which the decrees were issued, and how Mondéjar's enforcement failed.
- 💡Use precise dates and names: 1566–67 decrees, Marquis de Mondéjar, 1568 rebellion.
- 💡Avoid narrative; analyse causation by weighing the relative importance of each factor.
- 💡Use specific examples: the Battle of the Alpujarras, the role of Don John of Austria, and the scale of casualties.
- 💡Link economic and human impacts to the broader Spanish context: the cost of empire and religious policies.
- 💡Analyse significance by considering short-term and long-term effects.
Common Mistakes
- Confusing Fernando de Valdés with Juan de Valdés: correct this by identifying Fernando de Valdés as the Inquisitor General who drove the persecution, not the reformist writer.
- Assuming the Carranza case was simply a personal dispute: correct this by linking it to wider tensions over royal and inquisitorial authority against the papacy.
- Claiming persecution eliminated all Protestant belief instantly: correct this by explaining that organised Protestantism was largely suppressed while isolated sympathies could persist.
- Error: treating the Morisco 'problem' as solely religious. Correction: it was also cultural, economic and political, involving distinct language, dress and customs.
- Error: claiming Philip II supported Mondéjar's conciliatory approach. Correction: Philip II backed the hardliners who issued the 1566–67 decrees, while Mondéjar was left to enforce them.
- Error: overstating Mondéjar's role as a cause. Correction: he was a moderating figure whose failure to prevent revolt led to his replacement, not the instigator of the rebellion itself.
- Error: underestimating the difficulty of repression. Correction: the terrain and guerrilla tactics made it a prolonged and costly conflict.
- Error: focusing only on loss of life. Correction: economic damage was also significant, including destruction of infrastructure and trade.
- Error: assuming the rebellion was quickly crushed. Correction: it took over two years to suppress, with major military effort.