Replies

I believe the reference is to the mid-16th century war in the Netherlands, where the protestant Dutch revolted against the rule of Catholic Spain.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, because ultimately Spain *lost.* This website, The Revolt of the Spanish Netherlands, explains it in detail. Basically Spain wasn't able to fight on three fronts at once (England, where they seriously lost to the English navy; the Netherlands, and fighting the Turks in the Mediterranean as well.) As the article puts it,

In 1606, Albert [of Austria] agreed to treat the north as an independent state which would be called the United Provinces. In March 1609, a twelve year truce was agreed between the Catholic south and the Protestant north. This truce allowed the United Provinces to trade with Spain and the West Indies and the state did not have to guarantee freedom of worship for Catholics. The truce also gave the United Provinces international recognition. This was not a de facto peace treaty as Spain wanted better treatment for the Catholics in the United Provinces. The truce was due to end in 1621 and when it did it was not re-newed and the war re-started, but as part of the Thirty Years War. By 1621, the United Provinces was a rich state while Spain had never recovered from the financial chaos brought on by both Charles V and Philip II. The Treaty of Munster of 1648 confirmed the 1609 cease-fire - by which time Spain was a third-rate European power while the Dutch were one of the richest European states with a professional army to match.

But before the split of the Netherlands, Spain ran a 30-year campaign of terror and brutality in Holland. In the North they were seen as occupiers and ultimately were driven out.