CH: Charles I vs Charles V

I know, I know, it´s the same guy, Charles, known as Charles I for the spaniards and Charles V to the germans. I was wondering... how could you manage to make Charles mostly a german king with all his power based in germany as it was in his first period, and how could this affect to spain and colonies. I think that is a kind of a confrontation because there are a few things and reasons that actually made Spain the centre of Charles power.
That is the challenge, you got to defeat the causes of Charles "spanification".
 
Well, It´s possible that Charles is only known as "I" in Spain. I think should I ask first:
Charles, a german or a spanish king?
 
Why not just have Charles not be king of Spain as well as the stuff in Germany? He was hardly the first guy in line to take the throne at birth.
 
Well Charles was mostly Francophone (but he knew other languages, like Dutch and he learned Spanish too), so Charles instead of Carlos, Karel or Karl seems right.

For the Belgians and Dutch he is known as Karel V (obviously Charles V in the Francophone parts of Belgium).

Finally to answer jmrioi: he was a Burgundian king. ;)
 
Why not just have Charles not be king of Spain as well as the stuff in Germany? He was hardly the first guy in line to take the throne at birth.

Yeah, I could do so, but that surely means a francowank. Spain literally purchase the imperial crown for Charles. I doubt if any candidate could really oppose Francis without castilian gold. The marriage policy of the Catholic kings always sought to encircle France. With Francis emperor, France has broken the siege
 
Actually the Gold (as in loans) of the German Fugger banker family bought Charles V his imperial crown. Furthermore at the time towns in the Low Countries were wealthy and particular Antwerpen was huge European financial center.

Besides in terms of structural relative contributions Castille did not pay the largest relative share. However the debt position at times was such that gold from the Americas ended up with the lenders of the loans.
 
Last edited:
Finally to answer jmrioi: he was a Burgundian king. ;)

Well, spanish king of the House of Burgundy, king of Castille, Aragon, emperor, blablabla.. and so many things. He was a spanish king but wasn´t a spanish king in his first years, a king who brought foreigners to positions of privilege in Spain, a non spanish speaking king. I wonder how could he manage to crush the rebellions that erupted in Castille staying a foreigner to the spaniards
 
Actually the Gold (as in loans) of the German Fugger banker family bought Charles V his imperial crown. Furthermore at the time towns in the Low Countries were wealthy in particular Antwerpen was huge European financial center.

Besides in terms of structural relative contributions Castille did pay the largest relative share. However the debt position at times was such that gold from the Americas ended up with the lenders of the loans.

This.

It's also important to remember that the Americas did not really start to become all that profitable until the mass exploitation of the Mexican silver mines in the 1540's (despite all that's made of the gold plundered by Cortes before that time).
 
This.

It's also important to remember that the Americas did not really start to become all that profitable until the mass exploitation of the Mexican silver mines in the 1540's (despite all that's made of the gold plundered by Cortes before that time).
Sorry, I used to express myself (I don´t know how to say that in english) incorrectly. Of course, Mexico didn´t bought the imperial crown for Charles, I was trying to say that Castilla was the most contributed to the coffers, actually, that share you talked about, that means Castile pays the debts with the Fugger, that means Castile pays the imperial crown for Charles.. but again, I don´t know how to express myself in english so.. (I even don´t really know if I express myself correctly in this post!! jeje)
back to this ... an interesting question:

would the Fugger support the "no king of Castile and Aragon" against Francis?
 
Last edited:
If Charles's mother wasn't insane, she could have ruled the Spanish kingdoms until her death in 1555. Charles himself died in 1558, so his Spanish reign would be short and (probably) insignificant. There's no impediment to him still succeeding his paternal grandfather as HRE in 1519 (even if his father had still been alive).
 
@ jmrioi:

Well that would still mean that Charles rules the Burgundian and Austrian Circle in the HRE and the especially the Low Countries were one of the wealthiest regions in Western Europe. In other words Charles had more sources of income than his Spanish domains, in fact per capita the contribution in the Burgundian Netherlands was higher. Though eventually IIRC the area with highest taxes was the duchy of Milan.

Furthermore now the Habsburgs can even more convincingly play the 'German' dynasty card with the German prince electors; and it also will be much more likely that Charles will be more able to stay in the empire ITTL. IOTL Charles V was never able to stay long enough anywhere in all the lands he ruled.
 
Last edited:
What if Burgundy was advanced to the level of a Kingdom, but still got inherited by the Hapsburgs? Perhaps Charles makes more of an effort to get Dijon and Franche Comte back, as well making him focus on Germany mainly.
 
What if Burgundy was advanced to the level of a Kingdom, but still got inherited by the Hapsburgs? Perhaps Charles makes more of an effort to get Dijon and Franche Comte back, as well making him focus on Germany mainly.

Don't see why. Becoming a king would mean a lot to Charles the Reckless, but Charles V has plenty of crowns.

Also, this has a generation for butterflies to run around in (Charles V was born in 1500, the obvious POD for Burgundy to be a kingdom would be in 1473).
 
Top