Is Charles V Overrated?

I've noticed on this board that there seem to be a lot of Emperor Charles V fanboys and that he often figures well in the majority of scenarios involving sixteenth century Europe (generally at the expense of France).

I've never really understood this, as I've always considered him rather overrated. Much of his success can be attributed to luck (such as his fortuitous inheritances or the capture of François I at Pavia) and his policies were (at least IMO) rather unimaginative and mediocre, particularly in regard to the Empire. To be fair, it seems to me that German historians do tend to be far more critical than Spanish historians (for obvious reasons), and I have read more from the former than the latter.

I'm curious to hear the opinions of others here in regard to Charles V. It is, after all, entirely possible that I'm being overcritical.
 
Competent, but far from brilliant, IMHO. OTOH, given the cluster**** he inherited/ruled, holding it together at all deserves respect.
 
It is dificult to truly asses Charles V as a ruler, mainly because is career ended including many resounding success but many torough defeat too. As a whole is reign can be describe by the following:

Pro: colonising the gold-riche area of latin america, being an effective shield for Europe against the Ottoman Empire when it was at is peak and keeping peace in the Netherland.

Cons: Never manage too truly capitalise on is early victory's agains France and end up suffering big defeat against Henri II at the end of his reign, never truly manage to control the germans prince when given the chance and a bad crisis gestion at the outbreak of the reform.
 
OTOH, given the cluster**** he inherited/ruled, holding it together at all deserves respect.

This is true, and the series of 'fortunate' turns of fate that left him with the inheritance he had were definitely far more of a blessing than a curse.

Cons: Never manage too truly capitalise on is early victory's agains France and end up suffering big defeat against Henri II at the end of his reign, never truly manage to control the germans prince when given the chance and a bad crisis gestion at the outbreak of the reform.

I think that T.A. Morris had it right when he said that Charles was 'a hangover from an earlier age' who, though probably well meaning, approached his duties with 'mediocre intelligence'. The political climate of the first half of the sixteenth century was one that called for pragmatism and innovation, and Charles was often too unimaginative in his thought or too conservative in his ideals to do what was necessary.
 
The Spanish Empire is a mess. Truly colonies thousands of miles away are easier to manage than Spanish Europe. Lords disobey you and take a large cut of taxes.

And then you have the Holy Roman Empire. FYI theirs a picture of that in the dictionary for cluster&@$( It is the worst mess you could ever rule. Really if you inherit that thing you should kill yourself.

So all in all I'd give him an 8/10 because he ruled ok, but that was over the 2 worst empires to rule. I agree he's overrated it not by much.
 
He's not talked about much in schools over here other than being Catherine of Aragon's nephew and the one reason Henry couldn't have chopped her head off when he wanted to bang Anne Boleyn


From what I've read of him I have to conclude he was successful in keeping what he had at the start of his reign through to when he abdicated despite seemingly everyone trying to carve pieces of it away, that deserves respect if nothing else. But I wouldn't really mark him as a truly great leader, more of a successful and somewhat lucky one considering his poor health and his peaceful nature meaning he didn't try and take anything that would've broken his empire in the process like Alexander, Trajan, Napoleon and Aurangzeb did
 
I don't pretend to have any great knowledge of the man, but my view was that he performed well enough, in a very difficult situation, where someone better might have performed to a better degree but probably wouldn't have, given how complicated everything was.
 
If anything, Charles V was *unlucky.*

He started out hitting the bloodline jackpot (albeit at the price of badly inbred genetics, such that he could hardly chew his food), and had the misfortune to come to power a) at the precise moment of the Protestant Reformation, demolishing almost any chance he had consolidating control in Germany, and b) at the precise moment when the greatest Ottoman Sultan came to power.

Offsetting that were the riches of the conquistadors. But even with this wealth, it took considerable prudence and character for Charles V to hold on to his vast, disparate, unwieldy empire, because even the riches of Mexico and Potosi were not enough to fight the Turk, the Valois, Barbarossa and the Lutheran princes at the same time.

Charles of Habsburg is not great in the sense of an Alexander, a Trajan, a Basil II, a Genghis, or a Napoleon. He was smart, but not brilliant. But he ranks among history's very capable rulers, who achieved an impressive record in the face of considerable adversity.
 
It is dificult to truly asses Charles V as a ruler, mainly because is career ended including many resounding success but many torough defeat too. As a whole is reign can be describe by the following:

Pro: colonising the gold-riche area of latin america, being an effective shield for Europe against the Ottoman Empire when it was at is peak and keeping peace in the Netherland.

Cons: Never manage too truly capitalise on is early victory's agains France and end up suffering big defeat against Henri II at the end of his reign, never truly manage to control the germans prince when given the chance and a bad crisis gestion at the outbreak of the reform.

I don't think it's at all true that he failed to capitalize on his early victories against France. After the Peace of Cambrai he pretty firmly established the Spanish Habsburg hegemony in Italy which would last through most of the seventeenth century.
 
How did Trajan break the Roman Empire? From which TL are you posting?


More in the rationale behind it, as ascribed to by Cassius Dio, that he wanted to expand eastward and it ended up stretching the Roman armies too thin which inadvertently helped uprisings in Judea and Mesopotamia and his goal of conquering Parthia helped to undermine his original goals for the campaign in the east
 
Top