Habsburg-Austria's division following death of Ferdinand I

During the reign of Maximilian II and especially following the brother's conflict & 30 years war, it was became evident to the most senior imperial Habsburg (Maximilian II, Ferdinand III & Leopold I) that the division of the realms weakened their hands in the terms of resources available to them. The line co-operated and contributed to their mutual defence but it probably would've been easier if the bulk of Austria passed to one line as there were less limits on the Archduke's authority compared to say Bohemia & Hungary-Croatia.

So I'm proposing a different division at Ferdinand I's death that would enhance the power base of the Emperor.

Maximilian II - Archduchy of Austria (Austria proper), County of Tyrol & Inner Austria ( Duchies Styria, Carinthia & Carinola etc)

Further Austria - divided between Ferdinand (OTL of Further Austria, count of tyrol) and Charles (OTL of Styria)

Specifically
Ferdinand - Landgrivate of Sundgau & Breisgau
Charles - County of Feldkirch & Bregenz (probably raise them to Landgrivates give Charles more prestige)

Now, this isn't as prestigious of the other brothers as OTL especially Charles but what do you all think? How would this affect Austria, Maximilian's reign and further beyond especially with his tolerance towards non-catholics (he didn't introduce the counter-reformation, while Charles did). Below are images of what I'm thinking for the division.

Image 1 - Red Ferdinand; Black Charles
Image 2 - Red Ferdinand; Blue Charles
 

Attachments

  • Division post Ferdinand I.jpg
    Division post Ferdinand I.jpg
    237.6 KB · Views: 235
  • Division post Ferdinand II.jpg
    Division post Ferdinand II.jpg
    207.6 KB · Views: 210

Vitruvius

Donor
I guess that could work if it's what Ferdinand wanted, but the portions allotted to the younger brothers are so small that it begs the question, why bother? I mean you can't really support a separate household, as a Prince, with such a small domain. The younger Archdukes would be poorer than the Electors, most of the Dukes and a great many counts and margraves. It probably makes more sense to just send one of them into the Church and then grant Tyrol and further Austria to the other and the main line can retain Inner Austria. Or conversely just have all the estates pass to Maximilian and just make the younger brothers governors with much more circumscribed powers. Of course then you'd have to figure out what to do with their kids in the next generation.
 
I guess that could work if it's what Ferdinand wanted, but the portions allotted to the younger brothers are so small that it begs the question, why bother? I mean you can't really support a separate household, as a Prince, with such a small domain. The younger Archdukes would be poorer than the Electors, most of the Dukes and a great many counts and margraves. It probably makes more sense to just send one of them into the Church and then grant Tyrol and further Austria to the other and the main line can retain Inner Austria. Or conversely just have all the estates pass to Maximilian and just make the younger brothers governors with much more circumscribed powers. Of course then you'd have to figure out what to do with their kids in the next generation.

I would imagine they'd learn to make due (though probably with a good amount of grumbling), their predecessors had (granted they ruled more territory that was lost to the Swiss) you do raise a fair point about the future generations.
I'd imagine they could serve as governors in Habsburg territories (as you suggested to supplement their income), be funneled to the church maybe even Electoral positions (replace the Wittlesbachs stranglehold on electorships in Cologne & Trier), develop military careers, become diplomats etc stuff other landless princes did.

As to why bother? To ensure the next Emperor would have a strong base to work from. Ferdinand probably felt that with how he apportioned the realms that Maximilian would've been just fine. Maximilian and his brothers worked well together, but this fell apart the following generation with Rudolf & his brothers; the same thing happened with Charles & Ferdinand, they worked well together but their kids didn't.

While hindsight is 20/20; if Ferdinand got a greater inclining to enmity between Maximilian & Philip, it might prompt him to give Maximilian an larger allotment to work with. Additionally at Ferdinand I's death Maximilian had 8 living kids, Ferdinand of Tyrol had 2 morganatic sons with Philippine wesler & Charles of Styria wasn't married. Maximilian had a greater need not even counting his emperoship.
 
Last edited:
Except Ferdinand I of Austria was entitled to a bit of the Austrian inheritance due to how traditionally inheritance was handled in the German Lands, in fact Charles V even gave him his share of the Austrian inheritance too (naturally Ferdinand also argued for his share in the Burgundian and Spanish inheritance, but that was denied, in not an unimportant part, due to inheritance traditions.
 
Except Ferdinand I of Austria was entitled to a bit of the Austrian inheritance due to how traditionally inheritance was handled in the German Lands, in fact Charles V even gave him his share of the Austrian inheritance too (naturally Ferdinand also argued for his share in the Burgundian and Spanish inheritance, but that was denied, in not an unimportant part, due to inheritance traditions.

Oh no, I'm not disputing that. I'm exploring other possible considerations, while attempting to maintain some trappings of inheritance traditions (most son's get something) but enhances the demesne of the eldest.

My referencing of Charles & Ferdinand was just to point out their good working relationship, overcoming the imbalance in inherited demesne. Same with Maximilian II -Ferdinand of Tyrol -& Charles of Styria (though that division is a lot more equal with lots of historical precedent); not so much by Maximilian II & Philip II and even more so by Rudolf II & his brothers.

Side note of partition by Charles V:
A part of me can't help but think it was a screw you to Ferdinand & Maximilian after they shot down his plan for Philip to become emperor after Ferdinand I (like he even went so far as to say let Philip be emperor in name only with Maximilian being King of Romans and the true authority in Germany and Ferdinand & Max 2.0 were like f**k that; he probably thought he'd keep Spain in the empire and they'd end up emperor again somehow)
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I meant why bother giving them anything at all if what you give the is so meager. I agree that the effect of the partition was problematic in the long run but I'm not sure it was just because Maximilian II and Charles II had too many sons. I think there was also an issue with some of the personalities involved, Rudolf's persistent melancholy and failure to marry weakened his rule, Matthias' reckless ambition made him a black Sheep and Leopold V was almost worse in that regard. Maybe the personalities could have been managed better if the relationship was more hierarchical with the Emperor on top and the younger brothers and cousins as governors serving only at his pleasure rather than the Emperor being first among equals among a group of co-sovereign Archdukes. That way the Head of the House could pick and choose among his competent and loyal relations for important posts.

That's basically how Spain operated during the early 1600s with the Cardinal Infante governing in the Netherlands, and ultimately how Austria worked when there was an extra brother like Leopold Wilhelm available. If you give the younger sons some independent territory then you've made them sovereign rulers to a certain extent but left them so poor that they will inevitably be clamoring for more territory which could cause problems if the Emperor can't easily depose them if they get out of line.
 
I meant why bother giving them anything at all if what you give the is so meager. I agree that the effect of the partition was problematic in the long run but I'm not sure it was just because Maximilian II and Charles II had too many sons. I think there was also an issue with some of the personalities involved, Rudolf's persistent melancholy and failure to marry weakened his rule, Matthias' reckless ambition made him a black Sheep and Leopold V was almost worse in that regard. Maybe the personalities could have been managed better if the relationship was more hierarchical with the Emperor on top and the younger brothers and cousins as governors serving only at his pleasure rather than the Emperor being first among equals among a group of co-sovereign Archdukes. That way the Head of the House could pick and choose among his competent and loyal relations for important posts.

That's basically how Spain operated during the early 1600s with the Cardinal Infante governing in the Netherlands, and ultimately how Austria worked when there was an extra brother like Leopold Wilhelm available. If you give the younger sons some independent territory then you've made them sovereign rulers to a certain extent but left them so poor that they will inevitably be clamoring for more territory which could cause problems if the Emperor can't easily depose them if they get out of line.

I see your point of view. Although that too would have it's pitfalls case in point, how micromanagement of Philip II & Philip III (or rather Olivares) for different reasons hobbled the positions of their family members that served as governors in the low countries. Not that my scenario would completely avoid this.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Yeah, there's no perfect solution. The other concern is that there is no back up line of the main line dies out if the younger sons don't start families of their own. Obviously a lesser concern given the number of children Ferdinand I and Maximilian II had but we saw how that ended OTL in the next generation.

Like I said, I think a lot comes down to the personalities, any solution will work better if the individuals are willing to cooperate and will suffer in times of family squabbles.
 
Oh no, I'm not disputing that. I'm exploring other possible considerations, while attempting to maintain some trappings of inheritance traditions (most son's get something) but enhances the demesne of the eldest.

My referencing of Charles & Ferdinand was just to point out their good working relationship, overcoming the imbalance in inherited demesne. Same with Maximilian II -Ferdinand of Tyrol -& Charles of Styria (though that division is a lot more equal with lots of historical precedent); not so much by Maximilian II & Philip II and even more so by Rudolf II & his brothers.

Side note of partition by Charles V:
A part of me can't help but think it was a screw you to Ferdinand & Maximilian after they shot down his plan for Philip to become emperor after Ferdinand I (like he even went so far as to say let Philip be emperor in name only with Maximilian being King of Romans and the true authority in Germany and Ferdinand & Max 2.0 were like f**k that; he probably thought he'd keep Spain in the empire and they'd end up emperor again somehow)

The demands of Charles V weren't realistic nor reasonable. Philip II might have been a candidate to become King of the Romans after Maximilian, but that would be about it. Besides it's not just the Austrian Habsburgs, the other Prince-Electors favoured a domestically based German House over one with its' main powerbase and focus outside the Empire. Since well both the Burgundian Lands (though by this point about as autonomous as the Lands of the Bohemian Crown) and the duchy of Milan meant that the Spanish Habsburgs still had a stake in the Empire.
The main concern of Charles V, and that's probably why he didn't make his daughter Mary (reigning) duchess of Burgundy and Sovereign Lady of (Burgundian/Habsburg) Netherlands, because apparently there were questions whether Maximilian II, her spouse, was a good Catholic or that he was a Crypto-Protestant.
Sure initially Ferdinand was disappointed about how the division of the Trastamara and Habsburg inheritances Charles V forced through. Granting the duchy of Milan to the Spanish branch and not the Austrian branch caused more bad blood too, especially given vital strategic importance it has for the defence of the Austrian Lands. The whole Mary & Maximilian II thing didn't help either. Besides Ferdinand had very loyally defended the interests of the whole dynasty in the Empire, now he needed to put the interests of his own larger Austrian branch before that of the Spanish branch.
So technically it wasn't a screw you to Ferdinand & Maximilian, but the other way around. The Spanish branch had already kept Burgundy (aside from the vast Spanish inheritance) and even added Milan, whereas the Austrian branch only started out with the Austrian Lands, and thanks to the brilliant marriage politics of Maximilian I of Austria ended up inheriting Bohemia and Hungary(-Croatia).
If anything the Austrian Habsburgs were like, so this is how you Spanish cousins repay us, moreover we're the only credible candidate to win the Imperial Election.
Charles V was concerned about the reformation, but since there was a ridiculously powerful Holy Roman Emperor the Papacy at first felt that these heretics in the lands of the Emperor were useful to take the Emperor down a peg too. The Emperor was arguing for a Council long before the Council of Trent (which had long overdue reforms) happened too late (since those were the kind of reforms, which could have helped to slow down the whole Reformation and Deo Volente keep the unity of the Holy Church (which was very dear to Charles V)). The spread of Protestantism was alarming for the devout* Catholic Charles V, whereas Ferdinand of Austria and his branch, also good Roman Catholics, not only by conviction, but also by necessity, were more pragmatic. It's that kind of pragmatism Charles V didn't like nor trusted.
 
Last edited:
The demands of Charles V weren't realistic nor reasonable. Philip II might have been a candidate to become King of the Romans after Maximilian, but that would be about. Besides it's not just the Austrian, the other Prince-Electors favoured a domestically based German House over one with its' main powerbase and focus outside the Empire. Since well both the Burgundian Lands (though by this point about as autonomous as the Lands of the Bohemian Crown) and the duchy of Milan meant that the Spanish Habsburgs still had a stake in the Empire.
The main concern of Charles V, and that's probably why he didn't make his daughter Mary (reigning) duchess of Burgundy and Sovereign Lady of (Burgundian/Habsburg) Netherlands, because apparently there were questions whether Maximilian II, her spouse, was a good Catholic or that he was a Crypto-Protestant.
Sure initially Ferdinand was disappointed about how the division of the Trastamara and Habsburg inheritances Charles V forced through. Granting the duchy of Milan to the Spanish branch and not the Austrian branch caused more bad blood too, especially given vital strategic importance it has for the defence of the Austrian Lands. The whole Mary & Maximilian II thing didn't help either. Besides Ferdinand had very loyally defended the interests of the whole dynasty in the Empire, now he needed to put the interests of his own larger Austrian branch before that of the Spanish branch.
So technically it wasn't a screw you to Ferdinad & Maximilian, but the other way around. The Spanish branch had already kept Burgundy (aside from the vast inheritance) and even added Milan, whereas the Austrian branch only started out with the Austrian Lands, and thanks to the brilliant marriage politics of Maximilian I of Austria ended up inheriting Bohemia and Hungary(-Croatia).
If anything the Austrian Habsburgs were like, so this is how you Spanish cousins repay us, moreover we're the only credible candidate to win the Imperial Election.
Charles V was concerned about the reformation, but since there was ridiculously powerful Holy Roman Emperor the Papacy at first felt that these heretics in the lands of the Emperor were useful to take the Emperor down a peg too. The Emperor was arguing for a Council long before the Council of Trent (which had long overdue reforms) happened too late (since those were the kind of reforms, which could have helped to slow down the whole Reformation and Deo Volente keep the unity of the Holy Church (which was very dear to Charles V)). The spread of Protestantism was alarming for the devout* Catholic Charles V, whereas Ferdinand of Austria and his branch, also good Roman Catholics, not only by conviction, but also by necessity, were more pragmatic. It's that kind of pragmatism Charles V didn't like nor trusted

If he only knew what would become of everything without that kind of pragmatism.......
 
If Charles V had given the Netherlands and Burgundy well Spain would have been better in the end because three big OTL problems would be missing: 1) the necessity to control and rule Netherlands and keep them away from the French, 2) the rebellions of Spanish Netherlands 3) thge Dutch republic
 
If Charles V had given the Netherlands and Burgundy well Spain would have been better in the end because three big OTL problems would be missing: 1) the necessity to control and rule Netherlands and keep them away from the French, 2) the rebellions of Spanish Netherlands 3) thge Dutch republic

France would have a hard time. I wonder if this would butterfly away the Spanish Armada to England.
 
I guess that could work if it's what Ferdinand wanted, but the portions allotted to the younger brothers are so small that it begs the question, why bother? I mean you can't really support a separate household, as a Prince, with such a small domain. The younger Archdukes would be poorer than the Electors, most of the Dukes and a great many counts and margraves. It probably makes more sense to just send one of them into the Church and then grant Tyrol and further Austria to the other and the main line can retain Inner Austria. Or conversely just have all the estates pass to Maximilian and just make the younger brothers governors with much more circumscribed powers. Of course then you'd have to figure out what to do with their kids in the next generation.

On these lands being rather poorer sources of income, I'm not so sure anymore. Granted there are smaller and less wealthy than the allotments these princes got OTL but I looked into what I could find on them on Wikipedia. For example, the Margraviate of Burgau which was given OTL to Charles morganatic son of Ferdinand of further Austria. Apparently said Charles had right to taxes on some relatively wealth entities such as the free city or nuremberg, the fuggers and the prince bishop of augusburg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles,_Margrave_of_Burgau). Likewise for the Landgraviate Sundgau & Breisgau; in Breisgau specifically Freiburg which was a Habsburg administrative centre and where I'm imagine Ferdinand would base his court. There is a record of Silver mining among other materials within that region that didn't end until the 20th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schauinsland#Mining_museum), though it appears to have begun dwindling about 200yrs prior (14th century). The region also stradles trade routes between Italy & the German parts of the Empire. I don't think the princes would be that poor so it may be more viable than previously thought.
 
Top