John III of Spain?

Just a thought here, hoping to get an interesting discussion. Let's say John of Asturias (1478-1497) survives and becomes a king. What would the ramifications be?
1. Without her son's death Isabella could maybe live a couple years longer but John still inherits. What would be the changes in Castile? I read about a plague that devastated the country in those years and in the beginning changes wouldn't be that big but over time how would a Castile look like without fighting wars in the Netherlands and elsewhere across Europe? Their finances, government etc.
2. Any changes for the expanding empire in the Americas? Probably the conquistadors still destroy Aztec and Inca Empires and provide Spain with enormous wealth? Could it be used better than OTL?
3. Effect on the kingdom of Aragon and on Naples (and Sicily)? Probably without Spanish resources used in Germany and NL Spain they could use them better in Italy against the French or they could take cities in North Afria like Tunis, Oran and Algiers, though hardly anything in the hinterlands of those cities, but it would be helpful to prevent the raids.
4. No Communero and Germanie revolts like OTL
5. Ferdinand II of Aragon doesn't marry Germaine of Foix so she never becomes governor of Valencia and with someone else Valencia could keep more of its Catalonian culture.
6. Any changes about Cisneros? His rise to power is mostly butterflied away, or not?
7. Philip the Handsome and Joanna don't go Spain, Philip lives on to become Emperor, though not without difficulty. He could live into the 1530s so how would he rule the Empire? Also with a POD in 1497 OTL Charles V and Ferdinand I could be born somewhat different. I was thinking what could've happened if Philip and Joanna had three surviving sons (also named Charles, Ferdinand and say...Frederick?)
8. Charles V, maybe a little different than OTL, but still raised in Ghent and has a strongly Catholic disposition, becomes Emperor later on just in time to struggle with the Protestants. He lacks the resources from Spain though the Habsburg-Trastamara alliance lives on due to marriages between Philip and Joanna on one side and Juan and Margaret on the other. Without Spain he focuses mostly on Germany. Instead of Ferdinand he marries Anna of Bohemia and Hungary. Louis II doesn't necessarily die on Mohacs but could live, though I planned to have Hungarian Jagiellons die out quickly and possibly see a succession conflict between the Polish Jagiellons and the Habsburgs over Hungary and Bohemia, although a couple decades later, maybe in 1540s or 50s. Suleiman still attacks Hungary and Charles has to fight him as well but John Zapolya is butterflied away as a king with Louis surviving. Ferdinand could get Inner Austria (Sytria, Carinthia and Carniola) and the third son could get Habsburgs lands in Swabia
9. Any changes in Germany involving Protestans and the War of the Schmalkaldic league and the Treaty of Augsburg? Can Charles win without the whole Spanish army or would he lose badly?
10. Changes involving France and England? Probably Spain and Austria keep their alliance directed against France hoping to prevent their conquests in Italy but could battles like Marignano and Pavia gone differently? And what about Henry VIII at this time?
So, go ahead!
 
A bump and another thought...Without Philip and Joanna going to Castile thez never sign the Males Intercursus pact with Henry VII, although that was never enforced and with all these events counted above the sack of Rome is probably butterflied away and maybe the Pope annuls the marriage of Henry VIII causing England to remain mostly Catholic at least for the time being
 
Well, Interesting ideas. I think that:

1. Without her son's death Isabella could maybe live a couple years longer but John still inherits. What would be the changes in Castile? I read about a plague that devastated the country in those years and in the beginning changes wouldn't be that big but over time how would a Castile look like without fighting wars in the Netherlands and elsewhere across Europe? Their finances, government etc.

the survival or no of Isabella was independent of the survival of her son because her health was getting worse day by day (on 18 June 1504 in Segovia she was caught by a violent fever; in August he had returned exhausted from tertian fever; etc.);
even without the Spanish (Habsburg) Empire and its greatness that initially concealed the backwardness of Spain but that, then, worked the ruin not only of that country, but also of the (south) Low Countries and of Italy (Rodney Stark), Spain (probably) would never have risen to the status of a great power in reason of its essential fragility of resources and of a sound economic basis ("Spain never declined because it never rose", Henry Kamen);
(probably) without the enormous increase in fees imposed by Charles V, Castile would not regressed to an absolutist state, but its Cortes would have continued to exert some influence as in Aragon, but it would not have been avoided the Castilian centralization to the detriment of the more realities weak; "Spain continued to be a nation of impoverished peasants, dependent on imports not only for manufactured products but even for sufficient food. Spanish agriculture was hampered by poor soil [...] by the very strange institution known as the Mesta [migratory flocks of millions of sheep that moved across Spain from summer pastures in the north to winter pastures in the south, and then back, making it impossible to farm along their routes, which covered huge areas] [and by] geography [that] made it difficult [...] to carry on domestic commerce. [...] As for manufacturing, Spain had little, and most of what dit exist soon perished when the flood of gold and silver from the Americans allowed far greater feliance on imports. Nor did Spain develop much in the way of an indigenous merchant class, its commercial life remaining in the hands of foreigners, most of then from Italy" (Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, 2007, p.167); replacing Charles V and Philip II with John III and his son I do not see much change in this scenario: Spain would no longer have dominion over the Netherlands and the resulting wars there and in Germany, but could open up new fronts of war, such as in Italy or Morocco, or in the conquest of the Mediterranean coasts of Africa or in the supposed to a new Crusade against the Turks, with similar results to the OTL;

3. Effect on the kingdom of Aragon and on Naples (and Sicily)? Probably without Spanish resources used in Germany and NL Spain they could use them better in Italy against the French or they could take cities in North Afria like Tunis, Oran and Algiers, though hardly anything in the hinterlands of those cities, but it would be helpful to prevent the raids.

5. Ferdinand II of Aragon doesn't marry Germaine of Foix so she never becomes governor of Valencia and with someone else Valencia could keep more of its Catalonian culture.

Interesting would be the changes for the political action of Ferdinand II of Aragon; in OTL with the death of his wife, rapid political changes did not promise anything good for him, who ran the risk of being isolated (the english marriage of Catherine with the Prince Henry; signs of restlessness in Castile, where it was feared a civil war while Philip of Burgundy tried to meddle in Spanish affairs [for Ferdinand even more dangerous after the rapprochement between the Habsburgs and the King of France (first Treaty of Blois, 22 September 1504)] and that was amassing twelve thousand armed men to enter in Castile in agreement with Louis XII, who finally hoped to beat the ancestral enemy with the support of the Duke of Burgundy;...); now, with a direct succession with John III (in Castille) all this would not be any more... Ferdinand leaves the throne of Aragon to his son, while continuing to advise him? Or remain on the throne and continues the war in Italy? in the meantime Franco-Habsburg alliance was cracked in winter...

7. Philip the Handsome and Joanna don't go Spain, Philip lives on to become Emperor, though not without difficulty. He could live into the 1530s so how would he rule the Empire? Also with a POD in 1497 OTL Charles V and Ferdinand I could be born somewhat different. I was thinking what could've happened if Philip and Joanna had three surviving sons (also named Charles, Ferdinand and say...Frederick?)
8. Charles V, maybe a little different than OTL, but still raised in Ghent and has a strongly Catholic disposition, becomes Emperor later on just in time to struggle with the Protestants. He lacks the resources from Spain though the Habsburg-Trastamara alliance lives on due to marriages between Philip and Joanna on one side and Juan and Margaret on the other. Without Spain he focuses mostly on Germany. Instead of Ferdinand he marries Anna of Bohemia and Hungary. Louis II doesn't necessarily die on Mohacs but could live, though I planned to have Hungarian Jagiellons die out quickly and possibly see a succession conflict between the Polish Jagiellons and the Habsburgs over Hungary and Bohemia, although a couple decades later, maybe in 1540s or 50s. Suleiman still attacks Hungary and Charles has to fight him as well but John Zapolya is butterflied away as a king with Louis surviving. Ferdinand could get Inner Austria (Sytria, Carinthia and Carniola) and the third son could get Habsburgs lands in Swabia

I doubt that Philip the Handsome would have lived so long because of his lifestyle, his disorder, excess, alcohol... and probably he would have died during the Italian Wars, or against Venice for the control of Gorizia, or during the Guelders Wars against Charles of Egmond (1467–1538).

Interesting would be the "new" Emperor Charles V: he would have had a much more "Burgundian character", interested in creating a strong domain and a strong Hapsburg influence in the Low Countries (Guelders Wars against Charles of Egmond, with the annexions of Duchy of Guelders, Bishopric of Utrecht, etc., and against William the Rich of Jülich-Cleves-Berg) and on the Rhine (wars against William the Rich of Jülich-Cleves-Berg and Antoine of Lorraine), or as a new front in the wars against France, while in the meantime his grandfather Maximilian handled to extend Hapsburg sphere of influence towards the east (the Habsburg-Jagiellon mutual succession treaty in March 1506 [against the "Rákos resolution" of the Hungarian Diet, declaration of the idea of a national kingdom was against the Habsburgs], further confirmed by the terms of the First Congress of Vienna in 1515).
A resized Emperor Charles V (without Spain) would have resized the permanent "invidia penis" of the frivolous, selfish, irresolute, vacillating, François I of France? The Imperial election of Charles V was "obvious": for the Fuggers, closely linked to the Habsburg, in particular to Emperor Maximilian, who had given them the exclusive control of silver extraction from the Tyrolean mines and in Salzburg, to which the collection of the taxes had been added and the possibility of carrying out financial activities on behalf of the imperial crown, in their German interests the election of another who was not a Habsburg was a tangible and concrete danger for the great benefits and business gains. But in this new scenario probably Charles and François would probably have come to a peace agreement in the Italian Wars, planning a north Italy's partition... After all, the Habsburgs were more interested in the "Domini di Terraferma" of Venice, François in Piedmont, and the Milanese could have been divided. Without interests in Spain, and therefore without his stays there (1517-1520; July 1522-July 1529), his actions against Luther, his heresy and the Protestans would have been (probabily) more tenacious, concluding also a victorious war against the Electors and German princes rebel, who supported the Protestant Reformation not for religious purposes but for (their) political interests.
Two other chapters would have be interesting.
The marriage of this "new" Emperor Charles V: There would be no interest in a marriage with Isabella of Portugal, who would have more reason to marry the son and heir of John III, as well as there would be no interest in a marriage with Anne Jagiellonica of Hungary (although the death of King Vladislaus II was predictable, because he had suffered a apopletic stroke (dead on 13 March 1516), Emperor Maximilian had no the crystal ball to predict that the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia would have passed effectively to his heirs: a marriage with his second grandson Ferdinand is much more credible in order to create a possible second East-European dynastic line compared to central-European/Burgundian of Charles V; and I do not see how the survival of John of Spain can prevent from Louis II of Hungary being killed during the Battle of Mohács...); interesting would be an English marriage, or French to seal the peace, or Spanish for the economic interests (forexample the Spanish wool had progressively replaced English wool as source for the Flanders cloth industries).
The second chapter concerns Joanna of Castile, mother of Charles V. In this new scenario she could have taken two completely different ways: or become the "Empress Mother", a sort of novel St. Helena, pious and devout, completely enveloped by the cult of the her deceased spouse, and grey eminence in the her son's policy (she was an extremely clever woman, politically determined and resolute), or, precisely because of the clever and curious mind, a novel Renée of France or Elizabeth of Denmark, Electress of Brandenburg (1485-1555), fascinated by the Reformed or Calvinistic doctrines, becoming an important refuge for heretics but also a serious problem for her son Emperor.

10. Changes involving France and England? Probably Spain and Austria keep their alliance directed against France hoping to prevent their conquests in Italy but could battles like Marignano and Pavia gone differently? And what about Henry VIII at this time?

Finally a reflection on Henry VIII at this time. Who was the real pillar of English politics before the schism? The Cardinal Wolsey. In 1515 there was no longer in England an ecclesiastical greater than or equal to him. He can be considered the true author and first responsible for the Anglican schism; in internal politics, Wolsey promoted the extension of the jurisdictional powers of the Chancellery and, above all, made the close union of ecclesiastical jurisdiction with the civilian (Consolidation of monarchical power through a progressive bureaucratic centralization and the dissolution of parliament) in his own hands, but upon his death, that passed on to those of Henry VIII, who, having Royal supremacy and spiritual power in his hands and with a Parliament of strong anticlerical tendencies, materially put it into effect the schism; in foreign policy, he tried to make England the determining factor in the balance of powers in Europe, but, breaking with the peaceful tradition of Henry VII and following the same lines of the papal politics, when broke out in the war between the Emperor Charles V and François I (1521), Wolsey initially engaged England against France (Anglo-Imperial alliance concluded with the Treaty of Calais (or Gravelines) on 10 July 1520), then, changing sides, against Charles V (1528), and so, the subsequent peace of Cambrai (1529) marked the failure of Wolsey's policy, leaving diplomatically isolated England. Inside, then, manifested both the hostility of the people (because of the numerous taxes imposed to subsidize the wars) and much of the nobility (opposed to his strong and unlimited power; as legato a latere lifetime (since 1524), Wolsey had attracted against himself the hostility of the anti-papal Parliament and of the English clergy), to which they went join the hostility of the new favorite Anne Boleyn and her circle (Wolsey, fearing that the divorce and the new marriage of the king would benefit the anti-clerical party, solicited in various ways the deferment of the case to Rome, assisted in this by Cardinal Campeggi, legato of the pontiff), and the question of the divorce of the king... obviously impossible, because in Rome it was thought impossible to dissolve (consider null and void) a marriage between brother-in-law and sister-in-law for which a previous Pope had granted a dispensation precisely for this reason. The attack to ecclesiastical annuities and benefits, the confiscation of goods, territories and properties, and the dissolution of monasteries and convents, served to stimulate revenue in royal treasury; the replacement of ecclesiastical officials with other seculars strengthened the royal power over the nation. If Henry VIII had had a sort of Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges or of Concordat of Bologna, with which guarante to himself not only of nominate appointments to benefice (archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors) But above all of to collect all the income that the Catholic Church made in England and the huge sums sent to Rome with the tithes (“When he [the king] wanted ecclesiastical money, his methods need not even be devious”, Owen Chadwick), favoring a sort of Anglican "Gallican Church", many of the reasons for the schism would fail.©
In this scenario, with a resized Emperor Charles V and, consequently, a papal policy not bipartite (Charles V - François I), but tripartite (Empire/Burgundy - France - Spain), probably Catherine of Aragon would have been convinced to retreat in a monastery, maybe asking herself the dissolution of the marriage (along the lines of Joan of France, first wife of (future) King Louis XII), surely, however, not in favor of a new marriage of the king with his bitch, but with a new princess, maybe a Catherine's niece.
In this scenario, It would also change the history of the Church (no Reform? an in advance Catholic Reform? an a most incisive Fifth Council of the Lateran without Giovanni de' Medici as Pope Leo X? a stronger reaction against Luther and then the others heresies?) and of the Papacy, with probably different results also in the conclaves... Wolsey elected as an alternative Adrian VI or Adrian VII in 1523?



 
Last edited:
Just a thought here, hoping to get an interesting discussion. Let's say John of Asturias (1478-1497) survives and becomes a king. What would the ramifications be?
2. Any changes for the expanding empire in the Americas? Probably the conquistadors still destroy Aztec and Inca Empires and provide Spain with enormous wealth? Could it be used better than OTL?
3. Effect on the kingdom of Aragon and on Naples (and Sicily)? Probably without Spanish resources used in Germany and NL Spain they could use them better in Italy against the French or they could take cities in North Afria like Tunis, Oran and Algiers, though hardly anything in the hinterlands of those cities, but it would be helpful to prevent the raids.
4. No Communero and Germanie revolts like OTL
5. Ferdinand II of Aragon doesn't marry Germaine of Foix so she never becomes governor of Valencia and with someone else Valencia could keep more of its Catalonian culture.
6. Any changes about Cisneros? His rise to power is mostly butterflied away, or not?
7. Philip the Handsome and Joanna don't go Spain, Philip lives on to become Emperor, though not without difficulty. He could live into the 1530s so how would he rule the Empire? Also with a POD in 1497 OTL Charles V and Ferdinand I could be born somewhat different. I was thinking what could've happened if Philip and Joanna had three surviving sons (also named Charles, Ferdinand and say...Frederick?)
8. Charles V, maybe a little different than OTL, but still raised in Ghent and has a strongly Catholic disposition, becomes Emperor later on just in time to struggle with the Protestants. He lacks the resources from Spain though the Habsburg-Trastamara alliance lives on due to marriages between Philip and Joanna on one side and Juan and Margaret on the other. Without Spain he focuses mostly on Germany. Instead of Ferdinand he marries Anna of Bohemia and Hungary. Louis II doesn't necessarily die on Mohacs but could live, though I planned to have Hungarian Jagiellons die out quickly and possibly see a succession conflict between the Polish Jagiellons and the Habsburgs over Hungary and Bohemia, although a couple decades later, maybe in 1540s or 50s. Suleiman still attacks Hungary and Charles has to fight him as well but John Zapolya is butterflied away as a king with Louis surviving. Ferdinand could get Inner Austria (Sytria, Carinthia and Carniola) and the third son could get Habsburgs lands in Swabia
9. Any changes in Germany involving Protestans and the War of the Schmalkaldic league and the Treaty of Augsburg? Can Charles win without the whole Spanish army or would he lose badly?
10. Changes involving France and England? Probably Spain and Austria keep their alliance directed against France hoping to prevent their conquests in Italy but could battles like Marignano and Pavia gone differently? And what about Henry VIII at this time?
So, go ahead!

2. Perhaps, perhaps not. The wheels were already in motion by the time Karl V came to the Spanish throne, so unless Juan's survival drastically alters his parents' attitude towards rule in the Americas I don't see much of that changing. Spain making better use of the wealth is always possible. However, I don't know if we'll get so much a Borbon Reform movement going, but I'm sure it's a case of Juan can take a look at the much smaller Portugal or the larger France next door and think that they might be on to something.

3. The Spanish crusading zeal is pretty strong after the Reconquista and all, so Juan is going to have to turn that somewhere when he comes to power. Africa makes the most sense. I'm not sure if Fernando will still take Naples. Probably, just to keep it out of French hands, although Juan might feel differently about it. The Neapolitan royals are his family after all. In fact, he might make use of the daughters (Giulia and Isabella) and cousin (Giovanna) in a similar fashion to what Karl V did OTL, just slightly earlier.

4. Probably

5. Not necessarily. He married Germaine because he hated his son-in-law. Now, Fernando can't sidestep Juan of course, but that doesn't mean that Fernando is not going to attempt to increase his influence in Navarra all the same.

6. No idea

7. I'm with Urbanus on this one. In most TLs that I've seen postulating either Juan or Miguel de la Paz surviving, Philipp usually ends up biting the bullet quite literally. The two ways he could go - 1) fighting France for his Burgundian Inheritance, or 2) fighting whoever in Italy for trying to increase Habsburg hegemony there. Now, a rather interesting take was in one TL where a surviving Philipp seizes the Iron Crown of Lombardy and carries it back to his capital at Brussels to be included amongst the Imperial regalia.

8. Karl could marry Anne, Ferdinand maybe marrying a Polish princess. Or Ferdinand and Anne still marry, Karl marries his original intended, Mary Tudor or Louis XII manages a son and he marries Claude instead.

9. For the foreseeable future the Trastamaras and the Habsburgs are bound together by common interest - they both don't like the French. However, such a situation is fluid. Fernando wasn't particularly faithful to his alliances, and Juan might not be either. In fact, if he has anything of his dad's genius for statecraft, he might turn into a new Spider King.

10. As said, Louis XII might have a son, he might not. Catalina of Aragon might still marry Arthur, or she could be married off elsewhere (although this is unlikely). England's situation is fluid. Arthur might survive. Or he might not. If he survives, it sets into motion a whole separate set of dominoes falling. As to Marignano and Pavia, they're happening ten to twenty years after the POD (namely Juan surviving), which means that they would be unlikely to even be fought at the same locale, even if they do have a similar result.
 
I've read about the Mesta and apparently even a number of high ranking noblemen were involved with it, making it harder to remove. But since Isabella already started with centralization of power in Castile maybe John continues in her footsteps and in the process comes in conflict with the Mesta ranchers? Since he can't outright dissolve it and the sheep business was important to a lot of people he can at least limit their privileges make some other useful measures.Over time the combined effects of low income from wool and weakening of the Mesta could render it ineffective and the peasants gradually switching to other branches of agriculture though over a longer period and certainly not all of them would do so. Another problem is the weak Spanish manufacture that is outclassed by other countries and once gold and silver are brought back from America that is also going further down the drain. Trade is going to stay in Italian hands although a stronger Spain in the Mediterranean could be useful as they would have more resources to combat the Berber pirates. I believe they could be successful in taking Tunis and Algiers and also fighting against the pirates that would make fishing and trade in the western Mediterranean safer and more profitable, bringing an even higher influx of goods from Italy, although that would stimulate the Spanish manufacture even less.
Philip could predecease Maximilian and Charles still inherits the Empire, although different. As for the Guelders Wars the Habsburgs could win decisively without Charles having to go to Spain and trouble himself with other problems. If William the Rich tries to claim anything later one he's likely defeated.
In Aragon Ferdinand will probably keep the throne until his death as well as the crown of Naples and upon his death everything goes to Juan. Now, the situations in Italy and England are very complicated. Louis XII and Ferdinand II could make a deal like OTL in Granada and divide Naples and likely they quarrel over the spoils after they win, leading to a war between the French and Ferdinand so Gonzalo de Cordoba would crush the French. But it's more complicated when the War of the Cambrai League starts. Suppose della Rovere still becomes Pope and most things go as OTL with France eventually becoming too powerful in Italy and Habsburgs and Trastamaras joining against them. I don't think any plans about carving up Italy would've worked. A lot also depends on the outcome of battle like the already mentioned Marignano and Pavia; and also if Maximilian Sforza was captured and/or dies childless. If he avoids capture he can still pursue his claims to MIlan. Who could he marry?
And as for England things are too complicated. Arthur dies so Henry VIII inherits but the fact that with a POD this early he can surviving sons and never having to split from Rome but I couldn't guess much about England's future in case they try their version of Gallicanism
 
Top