Why didn't the Spanish Empire conquer or annex France?

A total conquest of France by the habsburgs would still mean an endless train of long sieges with no local support. That makes it a near impossibility. The English 150 years before didn't succeed either.

So that leaves the to me more interesting question: "How did the Manchus do it?" I don't know enough of chinese history.

They were sort of invited and took advantage of chaos. This would work only in an ATL Wars of Religion.
 
As soon as Spain attacks France, France allies with England and English forces now press Spain on 2 fronts (Britanny and the Netherlands)

I did get "Britanny" part. If you are talking about Brittany, how exactly Spain can be pressed there?

Then, of course, goes an obvious question about ability of Henry VIII to do too much of a "pressing" on two fronts without having any serious army.


Spain only has a finite number of highly-trained effective first class troops.

While Henry has .... none?


It also fails to secure command of the sea.

Why? Henry was, of course, building a navy but was it capable of defeating the Spanish navy in a decisive way?
 

RousseauX

Donor
A total conquest of France by the habsburgs would still mean an endless train of long sieges with no local support. That makes it a near impossibility. The English 150 years before didn't succeed either.

So that leaves the to me more interesting question: "How did the Manchus do it?" I don't know enough of chinese history.
Massive peasant rebellion toppled the Ming dynasty, a Ming general invited them in and worked with them to take over China. Then the Ming traitors basically lost the post-war power struggle and revolted but got crushed.
 
The Manchu, whose polity had only about 10 to maybe 15 million people, conquered the whole Ming realm.
This isn't a very good comparison. Manchuria was small but their armies were mostly Han in composition and a lot of Ming generals rallied to them. Within France, there were very few people with enough power to challenge the king and even less who would consider defecting to the Spanish.

I would say that the Spanish didn't conquer France because they could barely hold their existing European territories together. The war in the Low Countries was a huge drain on resources while the army was in constant revolt. Combine that with obligations to their Austrian allies in Germany and policing the seas to protect their global empire, and you have a defense budget that's stretched so thin that the Spanish couldnt afford an enterprise so massive as a fight to the finish with France.
 
Last edited:

Posts 2 and 3 were follow-ups on Post 1

Spain could not subdue France once France was in an alliance with England unless Spain could decisively defeat England
 

Kaze

Banned
Two reasons:
.
1. The Reformation, the Counter-reformation, and Thirty Years War tore apart Charles V's dream of a Germanic Empire. Then to top it all off - the Ottomans had decided to march on Vienna - laying siege to it. So the Haspburgs had a divided focus - wars with France, England, the Protestants, Italian freedom fighters (secretly paid by #2), war in the the low countries, piracy (some in payment of #2), etc.
2.
Then there is Richelieu and Mazarin.
The Spanish and Austrian politics at the time were not prepared for the realpolitik of the Grey Eminences - establishment of a secret service branch (spies, assassins, and informers in every court in Europe), creating alliances, forging treaties (there is even an account where Richelieu without consulting the King signed a secret treaty with the Turks, the contents of which were not revealed until after his death), and disposing of said alliances when there was need. Mazarin continued his teacher's policy of Machiavellian politics.
 
Posts 2 and 3 were follow-ups on Post 1

Spain could not subdue France once France was in an alliance with England unless Spain could decisively defeat England

Why would anybody bothered with subduing England in the early XVI and why would it be a prerequisite to anything?

At that time England did not have a powerful standing army (and in the army he raised in 1544 only 10% had firearms), and it did not have an excessively big navy: in 1513 - 24 ships, 1st two-decker launched only in 1514; in the Battle of the Solent French had 200 ships vs. 80 English. And, on the top of the above, the kingdom was not too rich.

So how exactly could he prevent (unrealistic anyway) Spanish conquest of France?
 
Two reasons:
.
1. The Reformation, the Counter-reformation, and Thirty Years War tore apart Charles V's dream of a Germanic Empire. Then to top it all off - the Ottomans had decided to march on Vienna - laying siege to it. So the Haspburgs had a divided focus - wars with France, England, the Protestants, Italian freedom fighters (secretly paid by #2), war in the the low countries, piracy (some in payment of #2), etc.
2.
Then there is Richelieu and Mazarin.
The Spanish and Austrian politics at the time were not prepared for the realpolitik of the Grey Eminences - establishment of a secret service branch (spies, assassins, and informers in every court in Europe), creating alliances, forging treaties (there is even an account where Richelieu without consulting the King signed a secret treaty with the Turks, the contents of which were not revealed until after his death), and disposing of said alliances when there was need. Mazarin continued his teacher's policy of Machiavellian politics.

I would dispute the assertion that they weren't prepared for realpolitik, I think that's more a problem of the Spanish branch than the Austrian branch (see Ferdinand I and Maximilian II, although the Spanish branch that is the focus of this thread, I wanted to make that distinction); and then further attempts were difficult to co-ordinate. For example, the attempts at an Austro-Persian alliance unlike the Franco-Ottoman which was rather successful at dividing the energies of both Spanish and Austrian branches of Habsburg, the Austrians and Persians basically never co-ordinated successfully so there was also a situation where the Ottomans would be at was with the Habsburgs, peace out and then at war with the Persians, peace out and then back to the Austrians. Unlike the Franco-Ottoman where even when they didn't exactly co-ordinate they'd attack the Habsburgs almost simultaneously. Agreed on other points, although I have some faith in Melchior Klesl had he been given more time to pursue his agenda, even better if he was in a position of influence earlier with an heir to Matthias I avoiding the Styrian branch entirely. I know this is a constant theme of the forum and Austrophiles on the thread but separating the Empire (at least everything north of Milan or Naples) and Spain would've made things a lot easier on both parties and been a greater counter balance to France than OTL.

Outright conquest of France beggars belief but weakening it severely is possible. Points to strike the Fronde, Wars of Religion (no outright intervention, focus on the Dutch as opposed to trying to get Isabella Clara on the throne). Before then Charles V at one point intended to wrest Provence from France and almost achieved it (I think) but the guy with the claim died, as mentioned previously Normandy and maybe Brittany to England (Aquitane is too far away IMO) (Side note, I wonder why the Habsburgs didn't take Calais and Boulogne up to the Canche, that make for a very nice border, maybe swap Calais with the English and give them lands in France they might've conquered if things went well for them)
 
Last edited:
Outright conquest of France beggars belief but weakening it severely is possible. Points to strike the Fronde,

Any assumption that after the Battle of Rocroi it was realistic for Spain to do something seriously nasty to France is unrealistic. Anyway, Spain still was at war with France at the time of Fronde (all the way to 1659) and if it did not do anything of the kind it was not due to the lack of trying. Spain was also fighting in Italy and still battling the revolt in Portugal and the French-backed Catalan Revolt and any of those areas had been of a higher importance than invasion of France. Actually, they got into the French territory twice but without too much of success. Most of the fighting on the northern French-Spanish border was a standard inconclusive strategic dancing between Turenne on French side and Don Juan of Austria and Conde on Spanish until addition of the English contingent (with an explicit purpose to conquer Dunkirk) made it possible for Turenne to win a decisive victory in the Battle of the Dunes. The rest was Spanish-French fighting in Italy and Catalonia with Spanish success in both cases.

Wars of Religion (no outright intervention, focus on the Dutch as opposed to trying to get Isabella Clara on the throne).

They had been focusing on the Dutch. The main reason why they got involved in France was to prevent France to help the rebels (ditto for the whole issue with England). Parma marched into France only for a short time and his main purpose was to prevent the Catholic League from collapsing if Paris surrenders to Henry of Navarre. Isabella Clara was not even a serious side show being rejected by the Catholic party.


Before then Charles V at one point intended to wrest Provence from France and almost achieved it (I think)

Actually, the whole enterprise failed miserably.


but the guy with the claim died, as mentioned previously Normandy and maybe Brittany to England (Aquitane is too far away IMO)

Of course, Henry VIII wanted to get them and Charles was very generous with the promises which would cost him nothing (one may only wonder why he did not promise Henry China as well). However, when Francis was Charles' prisoner and Henry came with his "you did promise!", he was advised to take a hike and not in the very polite terms.


(Side note, I wonder why the Habsburgs didn't take Calais

From Henry?

and Boulogne up to the Canche,

How about "because they had to capture it first"?
 
Any assumption that after the Battle of Rocroi it was realistic for Spain to do something seriously nasty to France is unrealistic. Anyway, Spain still was at war with France at the time of Fronde (all the way to 1659) and if it did not do anything of the kind it was not due to the lack of trying. Spain was also fighting in Italy and still battling the revolt in Portugal and the French-backed Catalan Revolt and any of those areas had been of a higher importance than invasion of France. Actually, they got into the French territory twice but without too much of success. Most of the fighting on the northern French-Spanish border was a standard inconclusive strategic dancing between Turenne on French side and Don Juan of Austria and Conde on Spanish until addition of the English contingent (with an explicit purpose to conquer Dunkirk) made it possible for Turenne to win a decisive victory in the Battle of the Dunes. The rest was Spanish-French fighting in Italy and Catalonia with Spanish success in both cases.



They had been focusing on the Dutch. The main reason why they got involved in France was to prevent France to help the rebels (ditto for the whole issue with England). Parma marched into France only for a short time and his main purpose was to prevent the Catholic League from collapsing if Paris surrenders to Henry of Navarre. Isabella Clara was not even a serious side show being rejected by the Catholic party.




Actually, the whole enterprise failed miserably.




Of course, Henry VIII wanted to get them and Charles was very generous with the promises which would cost him nothing (one may only wonder why he did not promise Henry China as well). However, when Francis was Charles' prisoner and Henry came with his "you did promise!", he was advised to take a hike and not in the very polite terms.




From Henry?



How about "because they had to capture it first"?
On the county of Boulogne and Calais, I mentioned a territorial swap provided things went well (exact quote "give them lands in France they might've conquered if things went well for them") for the Habsburgs so that addresses your last comment, it's not like Boulogne hadn't been capture before (For example, it was occupied by Henry VIII during the Italian wars and returned to France in 1550) I concede on the points regarding the Fronde etc
 
Nobody wants a reconstituted WRE in the 15th century. This huge Spanish empire is going to really only survive because the Pope threatens to excommunicate anyone who rebels and the state puts down any protestants for literally multiple centuries.
 
On the county of Boulogne and Calais, I mentioned a territorial swap provided things went well (exact quote "give them lands in France they might've conquered if things went well for them") for the Habsburgs so that addresses your last comment, it's not like Boulogne hadn't been capture before (For example, it was occupied by Henry VIII during the Italian wars and returned to France in 1550) I concede on the points regarding the Fronde etc

The main problem with the swap idea is that it implies a major Spanish conquest somewhere along the French Atlantic coast to the South of Calais and Boulogne. Fighting close to the coastal area did happen in 1558 when the French took Calais and started advancing to Brussels but had been defeated at Gravelines. This defeat forced Henry II to make a peace with Phillip II (Peace of Cateau-Cambresis) after which Phillip married Henry's daughter and commander of his army, Duke of Savoy, Henry's sister. As you can see, the bloodthirstiness of the fighting sides was quite limited and major territorial priorities laid elsewhere. The English interests (even if the English fleet proved to be useful at Gravelines) had been completely ignored in the peace territorial arrangements. They did not even get Calais back.

300px-San_Quintin.png
 
oh never mind with this one, I feel like I'm discussing something completely different from everyone else, somehow
 
And the Mongols with population of 1 - 2 millions conquered China and many other places. But to do things of the kind you need either an opponent who is already falling apart or an overwhelming military advantage or, preferably, both. Charles had none of the above.

The Spanish couldn't conquer Portugal or Holland, so I am a bit skeptical of this uber empire.
 
The Spanish couldn't conquer Portugal or Holland, so I am a bit skeptical of this uber empire.

You touched a very important point. At least as far as I can explain behavior model of Charles V and Phillip II, none of them had been into the conquests (lands of the pagans and Muslims is a different issue): both of them had been fighting for the possession of the lands that were legitimately their (Milan, Burgundian Inheritance, Portugal in Phillip's case). The problem was with the rivaling claims or with the coalitions that wanted to prevent them for taking what is their. The final peace with France just settled this issue. In the case of the Netherlands Phillip was trying to suppress a revolt of his subjects and he occupied Portugal only after he became a legitimate successor of the deceased king.

The English adventure was a little bit different but, let's face it, he was thoroughly provoked by the years of English piracy and even then agreed to the schema (and Alexander Farnese, who was anything but a witless fanatic, agreed with the reasoning) as the only way to prevent English help to the rebels in the Netherlands: English troops had been fighting there on the rebels' side which by any general standards was an act of aggression. Religious component was just a nice ideological icing on the cake: he was tolerating Elizabeth for quite a while notwithstanding her Protestantism.

And, as far as the Spanish might is involved, Charles was heavily dependent on the German contingents (mostly Protestants) which could or could not materialize in each specific case. Phillip inherited the superb Spanish infantry but he also inherited a huge state debt which would be difficult to repay even if he did not inherit war with France. During his reign he was forced to declare a bankruptcy 5 times and his troops rarely, if ever had been paid on time and fully (hence their reputation for looting). Quite obviously, he could not maintain an army of the size that would be adequate even for just defeating the Dutch rebels.

He did score some successes against France but the field armies in all these cases had been relatively small and absolutely inadequate for a major conquest. Besides, on both sides the "feudal component" (troops raised by the nobility) was big enough to create financial hardships for the noble class: before revolt in the Netherlands the local nobles had been complaining about being financially ruined by the royal service.

France, was just on the 1st stages of creating a semblance of the modern army (Henry II created the 1st infantry regiments) but its economy was much stronger than one of Spain.
 

Vuu

Banned
Unless France becomes a failed state so Spain can pull a Manchu/Mongol, difficult. They could nibble the edges
 

Maoistic

Banned
The Spanish couldn't conquer Portugal or Holland, so I am a bit skeptical of this uber empire.
Portugal was annexed through a military-enforced dynastic union, and it wasn't until well into the 17th century that Portugal regained its independence. You may be right about Netherlands though, but seeing how the Spanish occupied and reoccupied it again for practically a century (can't exactly say the same about Holland, which could attack Spanish colonies but not Spain itself, unless I'm missing something), it was practically reconqured and reannexed several times, and seeing how much of the wealth acquired by Spain in the Americas was siphoned into the Low Countries ("Spain had the cow but didn't stay with the milk", to paraphrase Eduardo Galeano), it is not surprising that the Dutch quickly developed the necessary infrastructure to resist Spain and obtain its independence, supported by foreign allies like England too of course.
 
The Manchu, whose polity had only about 10 to maybe 15 million people, conquered the whole Ming realm. I think that Spain with Charles V could have conquered France or at least force it into a kind of union, whether dynastic or otherwise, like Spain did with Portugal and England (with Mary the Catholic). But my question is why the Spanish/Habsburg didn't do it, or even try it for that matter, since it seems they didn't even try it in the first place.

The Ming Empire was having a great deal of internal turmoil for decades before the Manchu took over. The Ming capital, Peking was lost to rebel forces which then fought with Manchu forces.
 
Top