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.
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.