WI: Charles 1st/5th dies?

To clarify in case of questions, I'm talking about Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, etc., etc., from the early to middle 16th century.

Charles had many problems, including epilepsy, gout, couldn't chew food properly due to jaw deformations. Say any one of these things kills him before he becomes Holy Roman Emperor, so before 1519. What happens to his (IOTL) lands? What happens to the Americas? Who's elected emperor, and how do they lead?
 
Last edited:
To clarify in case of questions, I'm talking about Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, etc., etc., from the early to middle 16th century.

Charles had many problems, including epilepsy, gout, couldn't chew food properly due to jaw deformations. Say any one of these things kills him before he becomes Holy Roman Emperor, so before 1519. What happens to his (IOTL) lands? What happens to the Americas? Who's elected emperor, and how do they lead?

His brother Ferdinand I inherits his lands and probably is elected Emperor too (as he was a Habsburg). The big question here is if Ferdinand would still marry the daughter of the king of Hungary or if other bride would be considered more interesting.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
His brother Ferdinand I inherits his lands and probably is elected Emperor too (as he was a Habsburg). The big question here is if Ferdinand would still marry the daughter of the king of Hungary or if other bride would be considered more interesting.

I think he would still marry her, while the potential gain of Portugal was a major price the potential gain of Bohemia, Croatia and Hungary was a bigger one.
 
Were the other candidates (who were they?) better fits than Ferdinand would be for Holy Roman Emperor, and would he bribe the electors like Charles did? (I don't know how necessary Charle's bribe was though, so that may be irrelevant) Those are probably my biggest questions, I know he would become King of Spain. If by some chance Ferdinand were to not be elected, who would the new Holy Roman Emperor be, and how would this Emperor react to say the Italian wars and such?
 
The election's a shoe-in if Ferdinand wants it; if he doesn't, his hand-picked candidate will win. The question is, does he choose Spain or the HRE? There are no legal barriers to one man holding all the relevant titles but there are immense practical ones - the Spanish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are simply too big, complicated and far apart to be ruled by a single man at this point, hence Charles' having Ferdinand running the HRE after 1526 OTL.

I am away from my books right now so I would have to check dates and such. But basically, Charles had a very capable, very loyal younger brother to run the HRE for him when Charles "accepted" the Spanish throne. Ferdinand is a good deal smarter and a bit more moral than Charles - but he has no such Viceroy on hand, so what posessions does he let slip away?
 
I think he would still marry her, while the potential gain of Portugal was a major price the potential gain of Bohemia, Croatia and Hungary was a bigger one.

Well, the marriages didn't happen because they could get Portugal or Hungary (after all, nobody expected Louis II to die childless). Of course, while it was certainly a possibility, the unions were made for diplomatic reasons. And now Ferdinand's most important realm is Spain, and the Spanish were really concerned to have family and diplomatic ties with Portugal. Also, Portugal was richer and would probably give a better downry to Ferdinand than Hungary could, and that is still something to be considered.
 
Were the other candidates (who were they?) better fits than Ferdinand would be for Holy Roman Emperor, and would he bribe the electors like Charles did? (I don't know how necessary Charle's bribe was though, so that may be irrelevant) Those are probably my biggest questions, I know he would become King of Spain. If by some chance Ferdinand were to not be elected, who would the new Holy Roman Emperor be, and how would this Emperor react to say the Italian wars and such?

Bribes were incredibly necessary for winning the HRE post, even for a couple of centuries after the post became a Hapsburg family title. It was just the way that Germany, and indeed the world, worked. To be honest, they aren't called bribes anymore but the world still works that way. Look at things like the bidding for hosting the Olympics or the World Cup - it's a lot to do with a country's capability to host the event yes, but it's also about their ability to be gaudy and ostentatious and unnecessarily willing to spend money on decorations, and also on the expense and novelty/rarity of the goodies handed out to the decision-makers as thank you gifts. In the medieval/renaissance era, though, there were no people around debating the ethical nature of awarding prizes to those who spent most on winning votes, so the contenders could afford be more public and open about it.

Charles' rivals for the Imperial title were Francis II of France and Henry VIII of England. Henry spent a huge amount on bribes which should have been spent on his defensive project in England, and Francis spent even more but Henry was never going to be elected and Francis was an unpopular choice too so Charles never really had his election in question. The three Kings were the only candidates, though an interesting story is that Pope Leo X wanted Elector Frederick III of Saxony to stand for the position as part of the Papal political campaign to deny powerful rulers important positions, the better to secure Papal supremacy in Europe. This was, of course, the same time that Martin Luther was just beginning to be a nuisance, and the Pope's offer to Frederick was that Luther could be brushed aside and forgotten if he would stand for the Elector position - in return, the Pope would use his influence to secure the position. Obviously if this deal went through, Luther would subsequently create such a stir that he would ruin the whole Pope-being-lenient thing, but then Leo was being manipulative in his dealings anyway so you couldn't expect things to go swimmingly, but a Luther with Imperial patronage would have been interesting.

That said, by all accounts Frederick rejected the offer without a moment's thought. He had no interest in the Imperial title, and he was very much on Luther's side - he had just as much intention of cooperating with the Pope as Luther did (which is to say, none).


Something else to consider: Charles was 19 was he was elected Emperor. Frederick, I believe, would have been 16. Would certainly make for an interesting choice...
 
The election's a shoe-in if Ferdinand wants it; if he doesn't, his hand-picked candidate will win. The question is, does he choose Spain or the HRE? There are no legal barriers to one man holding all the relevant titles but there are immense practical ones - the Spanish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are simply too big, complicated and far apart to be ruled by a single man at this point, hence Charles' having Ferdinand running the HRE after 1526 OTL.

I am away from my books right now so I would have to check dates and such. But basically, Charles had a very capable, very loyal younger brother to run the HRE for him when Charles "accepted" the Spanish throne. Ferdinand is a good deal smarter and a bit more moral than Charles - but he has no such Viceroy on hand, so what posessions does he let slip away?

Well, the fact is, Charles didn't "accept" the Spanish throne, he inherited it. And while the title of Emperor was greater than king of Spain, it was still an elected office, while Spain and Netherlands he got due to his right of blood. So I think that Ferdinand would think himself more as a Spanish king than a German Emperor (even more considering that he was raised in Spain, while Charles was raised in Netherlands). IOTL Ferdinand of Aragon even wanted to give Spain to Ferdinand instead of Charles, but as Charles had primogeniture rights he gave up the idea.
 
Bribes were incredibly necessary for winning the HRE post, even for a couple of centuries after the post became a Hapsburg family title. It was just the way that Germany, and indeed the world, worked. To be honest, they aren't called bribes anymore but the world still works that way. Look at things like the bidding for hosting the Olympics or the World Cup - it's a lot to do with a country's capability to host the event yes, but it's also about their ability to be gaudy and ostentatious and unnecessarily willing to spend money on decorations, and also on the expense and novelty/rarity of the goodies handed out to the decision-makers as thank you gifts. In the medieval/renaissance era, though, there were no people around debating the ethical nature of awarding prizes to those who spent most on winning votes, so the contenders could afford be more public and open about it.

Charles' rivals for the Imperial title were Francis II of France and Henry VIII of England. Henry spent a huge amount on bribes which should have been spent on his defensive project in England, and Francis spent even more but Henry was never going to be elected and Francis was an unpopular choice too so Charles never really had his election in question. The three Kings were the only candidates, though an interesting story is that Pope Leo X wanted Elector Frederick III of Saxony to stand for the position as part of the Papal political campaign to deny powerful rulers important positions, the better to secure Papal supremacy in Europe. This was, of course, the same time that Martin Luther was just beginning to be a nuisance, and the Pope's offer to Frederick was that Luther could be brushed aside and forgotten if he would stand for the Elector position - in return, the Pope would use his influence to secure the position. Obviously if this deal went through, Luther would subsequently create such a stir that he would ruin the whole Pope-being-lenient thing, but then Leo was being manipulative in his dealings anyway so you couldn't expect things to go swimmingly, but a Luther with Imperial patronage would have been interesting.

That said, by all accounts Frederick rejected the offer without a moment's thought. He had no interest in the Imperial title, and he was very much on Luther's side - he had just as much intention of cooperating with the Pope as Luther did (which is to say, none).


Something else to consider: Charles was 19 was he was elected Emperor. Frederick, I believe, would have been 16. Would certainly make for an interesting choice...

OK, thanks for that. Actually, just minutes before you posted this, I remembered who his competition was, in Francis I and Henry VIII, though the Frederick III bit was new to me. :)

Just for discussions sake, drifting away from what I think is our consensus that Ferdinand would become Emperor. How could Francis, Frederick or Henry become Emperor become the Emperor, and what would they do with it? (as un-ASBish as possible) Francis seems to be the more likely choice and interesting,(to me) as that gains him much of his beloved Italy.
 
Last edited:
OK, thanks for that. Actually, just minutes before you posted this, I remembered who his competition was, in Francis I and Henry VIII.

Just for discussions sake, drifting away from what I think is our consensus that Ferdinand would become Emperor. How could Francis or Henry become Emperor become the Emperor, and what would they do with it? (as un-ASBish as possible) Francis seems to be the more likely choice and interesting, as that gains him much of his beloved Italy.

You're right, it was Francis the first, not the second.

In answer to your question: have no other candidates, simply enough. If any other Germans decided to go for the title considering the lack of strong opposition, they would definitely have lacked the resources to buy the votes. Francis would become the strong favourite for the position, Henry would probably need Francis to back out in order to win.

What would they do? Well Francis would use it to cement French royal influence over Germany. You could probably expect to see a handful of German territories "awarded" to Francis if their thrones became vacant, and Imperial policies would be seen to favour France - the Netherlands commercial ports would be penalised and disadvantaged in exchange for land trade and various measures favouring Normandy and the Seine, and there might well be efforts to consolidate Imperial power and possibility make the Imperial title hereditary considering the likelihood that the Germans would turn on the French after a few decades. You can also expect to see German troops marching in support of French claims in Italy, which could start a conflict akin to the Thirty Years War in the way that it would drag in countries from all over Europe to stop the French.

If Henry won the title he would probably go down in history as one of the most controversial rulers - he would likely attempt to sponge off Germany to suit his extravagant lifestyle while his lack of continental possessions would mean he would be somewhat detached from Imperial affairs - with no land in or near the Empire of his own, he would stand to gain little from any Imperial policies so he would likely make poor decisions based more on what seemed to be a good indication of a powerful Emperor rather than what would benefit Germany or his own country - thus his decisions would probably be more about "keeping the Princes in line" rather than enhancing trade and resolving conflicts. He would likely also use Germany to bodycheck France, which would win him some support but probably make him more unpopular as he dragged Germany into disputes it wasn't interested in. The chances of another English monarch being elected in succession would probably be zero, despite the bribes. Also, with no land in Germany Henry would spend most of each year in England, and thus would likely be unpopular as an absentee lord - I can't see him trying to give himself a token lordship as it just wouldn't be worth it and it would simply cause problems in the future.

One interesting thing is how he would handle Lutheranism, though. I'm betting that the King's Great Matter would still happen, and thus he would still turn against the Pope. How he would handle Luther, though, when he was first virulently against him and then strongly in favour of an Anglo-Catholic style Protestant Reformation would be interesting to see. Likely Germany would resultantly be far more Protestant, but Luther might well end up executed in the short term, and there would probably be religious turmoil over how Protestant or how Catholic states were allowed to be after his divorce...

Sufficed to say, in summary, that neither King would be a popular Emperor.
 
Think maybe Francis would restyle himself as a Charlemagne reborn kind of thing?

Also, it would make Henri II's marriage to Catherine de Medeci's marriage get interesting (if it still happens) with German Protestantism. After all, Catherine was the Pope's niece. If she becomes Queen of France like IOTL, then that could get interesting. (This is assuming that the Empire stays in French hands after Francis' death)
 
Last edited:
Think maybe Francis would restyle himself as a Charlemagne reborn kind of thing?

Not immediately, no. It would be a huge mistake. French designs on Germany are going to grow over time but the French can't admit to wanting to do it, they have to be subtle, otherwise it's essentially like ringing someone's doorbell and asking permission to rob their house - all he would be doing is alerting Germany to the danger. It would be stupid. He might make the jibe to courtiers, but he couldn't take it seriously for a while. He might start making it after a while, however, if he managed to promote an agenda something akin to the Universal Christian Kingdom, encouraging the Princes to all see themselves as vassals of Christianity's leading light, and to view France and Francis not as entities seeking to enhance their power at the expense of Germany but through it. It would require quite some diplomacy but it would be possible. It would require, however, having the Papacy support the French Imperial title connection, and having no major opponents in Europe (major meaning Spain and Poland here, England and such were still considered small fry in Germany) which would be no mean feat.

Also, it would make Henri II's marriage to Catherine de Medeci's marriage get interesting (if it still happens) with German Protestantism. After all, Catherine was the Pope's niece. If she becomes Queen of France like IOTL, then that could get interesting. (This is assuming that the Empire stays in French hands after Francis' death)[/QUOTE]
 
To clarify in case of questions, I'm talking about Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, etc., etc., from the early to middle 16th century.

Charles had many problems, including epilepsy, gout, couldn't chew food properly due to jaw deformations. Say any one of these things kills him before he becomes Holy Roman Emperor, so before 1519. What happens to his (IOTL) lands? What happens to the Americas? Who's elected emperor, and how do they lead?

My vote goes for a combination of two of those factors.

'...in a freakish, bizarre accident, the King of Spain had a grand mal attack during which he managed -the exact circumstances have never been completely explained(1)- to bite and chew his own face off. As a result of the horrifying injuries(2) he died three days later. '

'While his last words have traditionally been reported to be "Another Kingdom awaits me...", several historians have recorded diverging versions from the attending physicians(3):

"That didn't seem physically possible..."(4)

"I has a flavor... chikin flavor"(5)

"Castilian pronunciation is a bit harder than I first thought..."(6)

------

On a more serious note, the Revolt of the Comuneros might have a chance of putting Juana back in the throne of Castile, actually. Reports of her madness in OTL do sound like they might have been exaggerated for political gain.

------

(1) It just doesn't seem physically possible
(2) The extent and nature of which is left as an exercise for the reader. I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.
(3) The second half of (2) is pretty much the first half of the actual consensus report from the doctors.
(4) Hardly the most original saying, but worth including as it is pretty much the other half of the consensus report from the doctors. They probably wanted to knock it off early and go to the pub, and wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. After seeing what a mouth can do, I wouldn't blame them.
(5) Chicken Royale, presumably.
(6) The insistance of the Castilian nobles that the King had to learn the local language did backfire a bit. Well, rather a lot.
 
How well Francis does depends a fair bit on how nice Ferdinand decides to play. having a vassal that's significantly wealthier than you, with a little more land and troops, is always tricky; Ferd can be managed by keeping his attentions turned outward towards the Turks, but there's a real possibility for the two of them to tear the HRE apart, especially when Francis begins persecuting Luther and his followers (it's hard to imagine Ferdinand going Protestant himself, but he could definitely find it convenient to support Protestantism in order to get at Francis, or simply not spend Spain's revenue to finance the Counter-Reformation). I expect Francis could swallow all of Italy with the HRE either sidelined or actively helping him; the HRE throne almost certainly reverts to a Habsburg at his death though. They simply don't have any real competition left, if they have a spare adult male to take the job (King of Spain is the better job, although I cynically believe it has little to do with blood or upbringing and a great deal to do with Spain's gross revenues in this period).

Does Emperor Francis send any of his favorite (or least favorite) German subjects to Newfoundland or Canada? He has to be aware that he has little chance of passing the Imperial throne on to his descendants...but the Germans could be useful right now...
 
The butterflies might play a strange and cruel game, depending on when Charles dies

Maybe Germaine de Foix takes better care of herself, has more luck, and the son she bore to Ferdinand of Aragon in 1509 lives

Ferdinand of Habsburg thus inherits Castile but not Aragon; that would be fun!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I expect Francis could swallow all of Italy with the HRE either sidelined or actively helping him; the HRE throne almost certainly reverts to a Habsburg at his death though.

No he couldn't. He would probably continue the French Italian Wars and could win Milan, but he couldn't do better than that. Frankly, Italy was the bubbling cauldron of Europe in terms of how easy it was to make enemies by being even slightly territorially aggressive. I mean, when Venice managed to take about 1/3 of Milan's land in the 1470s (ish) they won themselves a coalition of just about every country in Italy opposing them, and consequently they were hammered. If France takes Milan, it's going to draw Spain, England, possibly some German opponents, maybe Portugal, all into the fight against France, and there comes a point when the French with their German troops will simply have to face up to the reality that they're facing a battle to hold on to that land. They might well win that battle, but Francis frankly will not be able to expand past that point.

Does Emperor Francis send any of his favorite (or least favorite) German subjects to Newfoundland or Canada? He has to be aware that he has little chance of passing the Imperial throne on to his descendants...but the Germans could be useful right now...

I doubt it. Colonial expeditions in the early phase were voluntary things, and in Francis' lifetime most of Europe was not amenable to colonialism anyway. The Spanish went off to conquer the Aztecs, but they did it because the Pope had just granted them the title to just about all of America. At this stage, European countries were still only interested in America if it gave them a route to trade with China, and now they knew there was a continent in the way it became less appealing. In addition, Newfoundland, which was "kind of known about" by European fishers who sailed there for the plentiful schools of fish, was a harsh and desolate land which wouldn't well-support a colony. For these reasons, it took decades for other countries to dabble with America, and when they did, state-sponsored/organised colonies just didn't happen until the 1630s when Georgia became a penal colony for England, but that was because there had by this point been several decades of successful colonial expeditions to excite rulers. It just wouldn't work out for Francis otherwise. In addition, the last thing he would want is a colony of Germans to potentially cause a load of trouble by disagreeing with French law in future and being too far away to easily put down...
 
The butterflies might play a strange and cruel game, depending on when Charles dies

OK, I'm going to say Charles has a stroke while on a boat and falls off in 1515. His mother at this point is co-ruler with him in Castille, and she hasn't inherited Aragon yet. At this point, Ferdinand is 12. Now, I'm unfamiliar with when an heir is old enough to accept the throne from a regent (or in this case, a co-position) but I think it's 16. So, if that's true, Ferdinand just becomes King of Aragon and Castille in 1519
Margaret of Austria was acting as a regent in Burgundy.
Maximillian I was the Holy Roman Emperor.

So, fast forward to 1519. Maximilian dies, and Ferdinand becomes just old enough (please correct me if I'm wrong about this) to inherit a dual-monarchy with his mother in Spain. What happens next?
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm going to say Charles has a stroke while on a boat and falls off in 1515. His mother at this point is co-ruler with him in Castille, and she hasn't inherited Aragon yet. At this point, Ferdinand is 12. Now, I'm unfamiliar with when an heir is old enough to accept the throne from a regent (or in this case, a co-position) but I think it's 16. So, if that's true, Ferdinand just becomes King of Aragon and Castille in 1519

You're slightly off, though maybe only in terminology. An heir accepts the throne immediately upon the death of his (or her) predecessor, no matter their age. Ferdinand could be crowned King while newborn if he was that age at the POD here. The coming of age wasn't the point at which an heir would take the throne, but the age at which he was able to start ruling without his regent effectively making his decisions. As I say, though...probably just a matter of terminology and not actually that different to how you understood it.

Contrary to popular opinion, the coming of age for a male was actually 14 - the age at which a lesser boy would also be promoted from page to a knight's squire and start learning to fight and to learn the manners of court life - though in reality most underage monarchs tended to have their age of gaining control deferred to 16 as they were better able to make decisions at that age. However there was no official coming of age, no ceremony of accession to manhood. Simply, the point at which a king (or queen) took the power from their regent was the age at which they told their regent that they now intended to take over the decision-making process. The regent would continue to be a trusted advisor, and probably would spend exactly the same amount of time per day in their ward's company for several more years but their relationship would change from one of the regent being able to override the king's opinion to merely advising him and deferring to his judgment - since few kings tended to rule by their own even a strong-willed and old/wise king would tend to spend hours listening to their closest advisors on every issue anyway. So really Ferdinand could take the throne when he wanted, 16 was simply the most common age.
 
You're slightly off, though maybe only in terminology. An heir accepts the throne immediately upon the death of his (or her) predecessor, no matter their age. Ferdinand could be crowned King while newborn if he was that age at the POD here. The coming of age wasn't the point at which an heir would take the throne, but the age at which he was able to start ruling without his regent effectively making his decisions. As I say, though...probably just a matter of terminology and not actually that different to how you understood it.

You're right, that's pretty much what I meant.

Contrary to popular opinion, the coming of age for a male was actually 14 - the age at which a lesser boy would also be promoted from page to a knight's squire and start learning to fight and to learn the manners of court life - though in reality most underage monarchs tended to have their age of gaining control deferred to 16 as they were better able to make decisions at that age. However there was no official coming of age, no ceremony of accession to manhood. Simply, the point at which a king (or queen) took the power from their regent was the age at which they told their regent that they now intended to take over the decision-making process. The regent would continue to be a trusted advisor, and probably would spend exactly the same amount of time per day in their ward's company for several more years but their relationship would change from one of the regent being able to override the king's opinion to merely advising him and deferring to his judgment - since few kings tended to rule by their own even a strong-willed and old/wise king would tend to spend hours listening to their closest advisors on every issue anyway. So really Ferdinand could take the throne when he wanted, 16 was simply the most common age

Well, I don't know how much they'd/he'd want a 14 year old running the Kingdom, so I'm going to leave it as Ferdinand ascends to the throne at 16. I think it'd be better if he was more prepared, which he would be at 16 rather than some earlier age.
 
Last edited:
Well, the fact is, Charles didn't "accept" the Spanish throne, he inherited it. And while the title of Emperor was greater than king of Spain, it was still an elected office, while Spain and Netherlands he got due to his right of blood. So I think that Ferdinand would think himself more as a Spanish king than a German Emperor (even more considering that he was raised in Spain, while Charles was raised in Netherlands). IOTL Ferdinand of Aragon even wanted to give Spain to Ferdinand instead of Charles, but as Charles had primogeniture rights he gave up the idea.
Actually he inherited the throne of Castille together with his mother and he was the heir of the king of Aragon, Ferdinand of Aragon wasn't dead and even remarried. About the accepting part, Charles V already proclaimed himself king of Castille when he was residing in the Burgundian Netherlands, before he travelled to Castille.
 
Top