I don't really have numbers and I'm just speaking from randomly searching the internet. But everytime I try to look up maps for the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century I tend stumble upon a great deal of maps from the low countries or maps made by people from the low countries. Is it just coincidence or were the dutch just better at producing maps and atlases? I know the dutch had their golden age in the seventeenth century but they're already big producers of navigational tools before that period. Or so it seems. It always seemed more logical to me that the English would be the ones who would be better at making maps since their naval prowess took off in the early sixteenth century (?). So am I right in thinking that the dutch were better map makers? If so why?
The Low Countries were wealthy, and had been wealthy since the 1400s, even though the development was highly uneven. Flanders was the first to rise, with an important textile and trade industry. Holland followed in the 1500s, with their fisheries, textile, and trade, in particular after the sack of Antwerp in 1585.
But even in the 1500s, that region had a high urbanization rate, in the 35-45% rate by 1500. Why was this so? There were many reasons. Weak nobility meant many free peasants. Reclamation of land meant these minor land owners could grow their holdings. Fishing, and in particular salting, provided a rich source of food. So the Low Countries in 1500 had many small to medium cities, but cities nonetheless. This is why urban industries were very well developed by that time, including printing, map-making, crafts, etc.
I disagree with England being a dominant naval power in the 1500s. England's rise as a naval power was much later about another 200 years in the making, after the rule of William III Orange and Mary.
The Jump-Start of the Holland Economy during the Late-Medieval Crisis, c.1350-c.1500 Bas J. P. van Bavel and Jan Luiten van Zanden, The Economic History Review, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Aug., 2004), pp. 503-532