WI: Charles V divides his titles differently

[p0lish_runn3r]

So irl Charles V had a MASSIVE empire in both Europe and the Americas due to the bedroom diplomacy of his predeccessors. Before he died he decided to partition his empire between his brother and son. Basically all of the empire went to his son, Phillip, while Austria (and the HRE crown) Went to his brother, Ferdinand. Spain would go on to carelessy ruin its economy, lose to the Dutch, and the territorial cutting measures Charles took were rendered mute anyways when Portugal was added to Phillip's lands in 1580. So WI Charles had given more land to Ferdinand. I'll say he give all the lands in the HRE (The Netherlands, France Comte, and Milan) to Ferdinand while Spain, Naples, and the Americas remain with Phillips (and later Portugal). How does this affect colonization, the HRE (now like 1/3rd of it is directly in Habsburg rule), the 80 years war, and overall the long term survival of Habsburg rule.

Maybe they make it to today?

 

[Jürgen]

Let Philip II fall down some stairs in 1644, leaving Charles with only daughters. In that case he would support his nephew and son-in-law Maxillian II inherent the Burgundian Inheritance. While his nephew Ferdinand II could get the Spanish Inheritance (and marry the widow of Philip) and his nephew Charles II get Further Austria.

 

[Food-Oh_Koon]

Spain, Two Sicilies, Southern Burgundy and Milan for the Spanish Crown... While Austria retains the Netherlands? I am unsure about what the POD would need to be... but I feel like this could work to keep the Dutch within the HRE.. I do not have much knowledge on this topic, so if anyone would help to find such a POD, it'd be much appreciated

 

[AltoRegnant]

I feel like the Dutch revolt would still happen; it was due to religious tensions that wouldn't go away, and in fact the protestant Dutch would conflict with the Diet of Augsburg, i.e that the prince of the realm would choose the faith. The Austrians might be able to beat the dutch in the revolt, or they might not. It wouldn't last 80 years since the Austrians would actually be able to cross the empire (which spain couldn't with france) and it wouldn't be a naval war, but protestant powers might take issue

 

[Gwyain]

I feel like the Dutch revolt would still happen; it was due to religious tensions that wouldn't go away, and in fact the protestant Dutch would conflict with the Diet of Augsburg, i.e that the prince of the realm would choose the faith. The Austrians might be able to beat the dutch in the revolt, or they might not. It wouldn't last 80 years since the Austrians would actually be able to cross the empire (which spain couldn't with france) and it wouldn't be a naval war, but protestant powers might take issue

Ferdinand is suspected of having Protestant sympathies, and at the very least was much more tolerant than the Spanish Hapsburgs were. If the Netherlands falls to Ferdinand instead of Phillip, there is a very good chance no revolt happens.

With that said however, getting an Austrian Hapsburg Netherlands is actually remarkably difficult. The Low Countries were Charles birthright, and I mean than more than anywhere else was. The man was born there and he became lord of it at the age of six when his father died. Charles becoming Emperor was a difficult feat owing to being merely the grandson of the Emperor, and Spain was as much an accident as anything deliberate. Giving the Austrian territories and Kingdom of Rome to his brother made since as Ferdinand was already King of Bohemia and Hungary, and he was already regent of Austria and as such well known to the Electors. Giving up the Netherlands though would have been nearly unthinkable to Charles, the place was his home more than anywhere else was.

If what you want is the Netherlands to be separate from Spain, I think it is far easier to just avoid Hapsburg inheritance of Spain.

 

[isabella]

Charles had destined all his lands to the line of his brother or son much before his abdication (Austrian lands were given to Ferdinand when he married Anne of Bohemia and Hungary, while the elective crowns of Bohemia and Hungary arrived in the family directly to Ferdinand whose election as King of the Romans and future Holy Roman Emperor was an agreement with the Prince Electors). The imperial fief of Milan was assigned by the Emperor to his son Philip since 1540, while the Netherlands were given to him when he married Mary I of England.
Butterfly Mary’s reign in England and is likely who Karl will leave the Netherlands to his daughter Maria and her husband Maximilian.

 

[p0lish_runn3r]

Ferdinand is suspected of having Protestant sympathies, and at the very least was much more tolerant than the Spanish Hapsburgs were. If the Netherlands falls to Ferdinand instead of Phillip, there is a very good chance no revolt happens.

With that said however, getting an Austrian Hapsburg Netherlands is actually remarkably difficult. The Low Countries were Charles birthright, and I mean than more than anywhere else was. The man was born there and he became lord of it at the age of six when his father died. Charles becoming Emperor was a difficult feat owing to being merely the grandson of the Emperor, and Spain was as much an accident as anything deliberate. Giving the Austrian territories and Kingdom of Rome to his brother made since as Ferdinand was already King of Bohemia and Hungary, and he was already regent of Austria and as such well known to the Electors. Giving up the Netherlands though would have been nearly unthinkable to Charles, the place was his home more than anywhere else was.

If what you want is the Netherlands to be separate from Spain, I think it is far easier to just avoid Hapsburg inheritance of Spain.

I mean Burgundy had been in a union with Austria before under Charle's grandfather so I don't see that as impossible, plus geographically its easier to get to the low countries from Austria than it is from Spain since France isn't in the way like King said. I really am curious how Ferdinand might handle the Dutch. On one hand he was more tolerant than his Nephew and Brother and might allow them to exist due to the Peace of Augsburg, but on the other hand he could easily just march an army over to the Netherlands if he chose too.

Charles had destined all his lands to the line of his brother or son much before his abdication (Austrian lands were given to Ferdinand when he married Anne of Bohemia and Hungary, while the elective crowns of Bohemia and Hungary arrived in the family directly to Ferdinand whose election as King of the Romans and future Holy Roman Emperor was an agreement with the Prince Electors). The imperial fief of Milan was assigned by the Emperor to his son Philip since 1540, while the Netherlands were given to him when he married Mary I of England.
Butterfly Mary’s reign in England and is likely who Karl will leave the Netherlands to his daughter Maria and her husband Maximilian.

Yeah thanks I forgot about the situation with Milan.

 

[Aguss]

Charles can always have a surviving second son, and his second son or his brother Ferdinand (in case Charles's second son inherits Austria and the Imperial Crown) could have the Duchy of Burgundy which includes Burgundy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the Charolais.

 

[BlueFlowwer]

Infante Ferdinand surviving to adult age and being sent to the Low Countries at a young age to be educated by his aunt Mary would be good.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

These scenarios have been proposed before, and the really big change is always transfer of the Netherlands to the Austrian branch. And it has to be admitted that this would have made geographical sense and benefited both branches, as the Spanish branch later added Portugal and wound up losing half the Netherlands anyway, and would have benefited from being able to focus more on the Mediterranean and the Americas. And though they would have had to combat English and French pirates, there would have been no need for Spain to try to go to war with or invade England, and no means for the Austrian branch to do so even if the English still stirred up trouble in the Netherlands.

Though this wasn't considered at all, one way to make things "fairer" to Felipe would have been to break up the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was really three (four if you count Bohemia) kingdoms, Germany, Italy, and Burgundy (the Netherlands), and the imperial title was always associated with Italy. The election was really for the King of Germany, its just that the elected King of Germany was always King of Italy as well and therefore Emperor. Have some clever lawyer point this out to Charles, and maybe he decides to crown Felipe, who was already King of Milan, King of Italy, while Ferdinand becomes elected King of Germany but gets the Netherlands fiefs, while Felipe gets the titles of Emperor as well as King of Jerusalem.

Again, this was never seriously considered, but it was possible to do it this way, and there are long term implications with the association of the King of Castille (and Aragon) with the Kingdom of Italy and the Roman Empire. It would affect any future Hapsburg succession crisis, and if the French Revolution is not butteflied away, the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire is completely changed.

 

[isabella]

Charles can always have a surviving second son, and his second son or his brother Ferdinand (in case Charles's second son inherits Austria and the Imperial Crown) could have the Duchy of Burgundy which includes Burgundy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the Charolais.

Ferdinand received Austria years before Charles was married and also his election as future Emperor happened when Philip had less than 5 years...
A surviving Ferdinand or John of Spain who will inherit Burgundy would be a very good thing...

 

[p0lish_runn3r]

These scenarios have been proposed before, and the really big change is always transfer of the Netherlands to the Austrian branch. And it has to be admitted that this would have made geographical sense and benefited both branches, as the Spanish branch later added Portugal and wound up losing half the Netherlands anyway, and would have benefited from being able to focus more on the Mediterranean and the Americas. And though they would have had to combat English and French pirates, there would have been no need for Spain to try to go to war with or invade England, and no means for the Austrian branch to do so even if the English still stirred up trouble in the Netherlands.

Though this wasn't considered at all, one way to make things "fairer" to Felipe would have been to break up the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was really three (four if you count Bohemia) kingdoms, Germany, Italy, and Burgundy (the Netherlands), and the imperial title was always associated with Italy. The election was really for the King of Germany, its just that the elected King of Germany was always King of Italy as well and therefore Emperor. Have some clever lawyer point this out to Charles, and maybe he decides to crown Felipe, who was already King of Milan, King of Italy, while Ferdinand becomes elected King of Germany but gets the Netherlands fiefs, while Felipe gets the titles of Emperor as well as King of Jerusalem.

Again, this was never seriously considered, but it was possible to do it this way, and there are long term implications with the association of the King of Castille (and Aragon) with the Kingdom of Italy and the Roman Empire. It would affect any future Hapsburg succession crisis, and if the French Revolution is not butteflied away, the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire is completely changed.

Very cool angle. Reminded me of this map of a medditeranean kingdom

https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/029/183/284/large/francisco-morales-cardenas-mediterranean-kingdom-map.jpg?1596715072

 

[Gwyain]

I mean Burgundy had been in a union with Austria before under Charle's grandfather so I don't see that as impossible, plus geographically its easier to get to the low countries from Austria than it is from Spain since France isn't in the way like King said. I really am curious how Ferdinand might handle the Dutch. On one hand he was more tolerant than his Nephew and Brother and might allow them to exist due to the Peace of Augsburg, but on the other hand he could easily just march an army over to the Netherlands if he chose too.

Burgundy was only under Maximillian for 4 years until Mary died, and it was only Jure uxoris through Mary. As soon as she died Burgundy was Phillip's. Maxi may have been regent during his son's youth, but the union was never real. Once Phillip died, it was Charles'. Charles giving up his inheritance to his brother is extremely unlikely, again, its where he was born and Dutch was his first language. Honestly, Charles is more likely to give up Spain than he is Burgundy.

These scenarios have been proposed before, and the really big change is always transfer of the Netherlands to the Austrian branch. And it has to be admitted that this would have made geographical sense and benefited both branches, as the Spanish branch later added Portugal and wound up losing half the Netherlands anyway, and would have benefited from being able to focus more on the Mediterranean and the Americas. And though they would have had to combat English and French pirates, there would have been no need for Spain to try to go to war with or invade England, and no means for the Austrian branch to do so even if the English still stirred up trouble in the Netherlands.

Though this wasn't considered at all, one way to make things "fairer" to Felipe would have been to break up the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was really three (four if you count Bohemia) kingdoms, Germany, Italy, and Burgundy (the Netherlands), and the imperial title was always associated with Italy. The election was really for the King of Germany, its just that the elected King of Germany was always King of Italy as well and therefore Emperor. Have some clever lawyer point this out to Charles, and maybe he decides to crown Felipe, who was already King of Milan, King of Italy, while Ferdinand becomes elected King of Germany but gets the Netherlands fiefs, while Felipe gets the titles of Emperor as well as King of Jerusalem.

Again, this was never seriously considered, but it was possible to do it this way, and there are long term implications with the association of the King of Castille (and Aragon) with the Kingdom of Italy and the Roman Empire. It would affect any future Hapsburg succession crisis, and if the French Revolution is not butteflied away, the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire is completely changed.

Charles has absolutely no right to do that. The Electors would never stand for, the Italian Princes would never stand for it, the Pope would never stand for it. The reason it was never considered is because it could not happen. This isn't about "fairness" or what makes since based on geography, its about inheritance. Phillip is never going to get the Empire, in part due to practical reasons, but the Electors would never vote for someone so foreign when there is a respectable German available, and Phillip considered himself a Spaniard first and foremost.

If Charles wants the Empire to remain Hapsburg - and he does - Ferdinand is the only choice. Ferdinand is already King of Bohemia and Hungary in his own right and regent of Austria for Charles, which makes him well known to the Electors, and makes him the optimal choice for the Empire. Between the fact that Hungary and Bohemia are adjacent to Austria, and Austria is the Hapsburg centre of power in the Empire, Austria going to him makes since, but that is the only territory Charles would ever give up to his brother instead of his own son, and Ferdinand in no way expects more. Phillip will always inherit the bulk of Charles' titles, there's no way around it.

Again, if the goal is a separate Spain and Netherlands, it is far easier to have Charles not inherit Spain in the first place.

 

[Janprimus]

@Gwyain: Though Karel V spoke Dutch, in pretty sure that French was the first language of Charles V . He later learned to speak Castilian as well, though perhaps never as good as French or Dutch.
The transfer of the 'Burgundian Inheritance' (the Low Countries (including Artois) and Franche Comté) to the Austrian branch would most likely have been as dowry for Mary (only daughter of Charles V), when she married Maximilian (eldest son of Ferdinand of Austria). The only alternative would have been a longer living Philip the Handsome, who could have made up a will to divide the lands between his sons.

Also by having Ferdinand of Austria elected as King of the Romans, he became formally (he already was it de facto) became regent* of the Empire for his elder brother Holy Roman Emperor. *= in the sense that he was his brothers (and dynastic) representative in the Empire.

IMHO the duchy of Milan, as a later addition, is the odd one out. It would have worked for both branches. I really doubt, that Charles V would have deprived Philip II of the duchy Milan, if he already would have given away 'the Burgundian Inheritance' as a dowry for Mary.
Now if Ferdinand of Austria in an ATL already is Holy Roman Emperor, archduke of Austria, duke of Burgundy and lord of the Netherlands, and Charles I (OTL Charles V) rules over the Crowns of Aragon and Castille, then the reverse of OTL could happen, since the Holy Roman Emperor is the feudal overlord of Milan.

 

[p0lish_runn3r]

Burgundy was only under Maximillian for 4 years until Mary died, and it was only Jure uxoris through Mary. As soon as she died Burgundy was Phillip's. Maxi may have been regent during his son's youth, but the union was never real. Once Phillip died, it was Charles'. Charles giving up his inheritance to his brother is extremely unlikely, again, its where he was born and Dutch was his first language. Honestly, Charles is more likely to give up Spain than he is Burgundy.


Charles has absolutely no right to do that. The Electors would never stand for, the Italian Princes would never stand for it, the Pope would never stand for it. The reason it was never considered is because it could not happen. This isn't about "fairness" or what makes since based on geography, its about inheritance. Phillip is never going to get the Empire, in part due to practical reasons, but the Electors would never vote for someone so foreign when there is a respectable German available, and Phillip considered himself a Spaniard first and foremost.

If Charles wants the Empire to remain Hapsburg - and he does - Ferdinand is the only choice. Ferdinand is already King of Bohemia and Hungary in his own right and regent of Austria for Charles, which makes him well known to the Electors, and makes him the optimal choice for the Empire. Between the fact that Hungary and Bohemia are adjacent to Austria, and Austria is the Hapsburg centre of power in the Empire, Austria going to him makes since, but that is the only territory Charles would ever give up to his brother instead of his own son, and Ferdinand in no way expects more. Phillip will always inherit the bulk of Charles' titles, there's no way around it.

Again, if the goal is a separate Spain and Netherlands, it is far easier to have Charles not inherit Spain in the first place.

🤔 ig the habsburgs are sort of destined to lose Spain b/c of inbreeding anyways. Ok so lets say then that the the Trastama line continues in spain while the Habsburgs are left with only the lands in the HRE then (Burgundy, Milan, Austria, Bohemia, & Hungary). I think there would there then be no need for a division then, so all of it goes to Phillip. Possibly would Ferdinand keep just Bohemia and Hungary?

 

[Gwyain]

@Gwyain: Though Karel V spoke Dutch, in pretty sure that French was the first language of Charles V . He later learned to speak Castilian as well, though perhaps never as good as French or Dutch.

You might be right about that. Wikipedia notes that both French and Dutch were his native languages, which is I think the most accurate description, and is far more useful than arguing his first language. Either way of course, Charles was certainly a polyglot.

The transfer of the 'Burgundian Inheritance' (the Low Countries (including Artois) and Franche Comté) to the Austrian branch would most likely have been as dowry for Mary (only daughter of Charles V), when she married Maximilian (eldest son of Ferdinand of Austria). The only alternative would have been a longer living Philip the Handsome, who could have made up a will to divide the lands between his sons.

Also by having Ferdinand of Austria elected as King of the Romans, he became formally (he already was it de facto) became regent* of the Empire for his elder brother Holy Roman Emperor. *= in the sense that he was his brothers (and dynastic) representative in the Empire.

IMHO the duchy of Milan, as a later addition, is the odd one out. It would have worked for both branches. I really doubt, that Charles V would have deprived Philip II of the duchy Milan, if he already would have given away 'the Burgundian Inheritance' as a dowry for Mary.
Now if Ferdinand of Austria in an ATL already is Holy Roman Emperor, archduke of Austria, duke of Burgundy and lord of the Netherlands, and Charles I (OTL Charles V) rules over the Crowns of Aragon and Castille, then the reverse of OTL could happen, since the Holy Roman Emperor is the feudal overlord of Milan.

I was just thinking the same thing about Milan, it really is the oddball. Unlike Burgundy which was Charles' birthright, Milan came to the family as a lapsed fief of the empire. I can see a strong case for it going to the Austrian branch for that reason, and its certainly near the Austrian centre of power as well.

On further thought to the topic, there might be another ways to obtain the OP's request. Have Ferdinand be Charles' regent in Spain instead of the HRE. He was born and raised there, and didn't actually learn German until he went to the HRE anyways. You can then have Charles be the one to marry Anne of Bohemia, resulting in him being King of Bohemia and Hungary (as well as Emperor and King of the Spains). If Charles still splits his titles between his brother and his children (which isn't a guarantee anyways if he has more children with Anne, he might split his realm solely between his kids), then Ferdinand can become King of Spain and Charles' son can have the higher title of Emperor, along with all the Imperial lands plus Hungary. The end result is a Hapsburg Spain and HRE (with the Netherlands), but doesn't require Charles granting extra titles to his brother over his son.

🤔 ig the habsburgs are sort of destined to lose Spain b/c of inbreeding anyways. Ok so lets say then that the the Trastama line continues in spain while the Habsburgs are left with only the lands in the HRE then (Burgundy, Milan, Austria, Bohemia, & Hungary). I think there would there then be no need for a division then, so all of it goes to Phillip. Possibly would Ferdinand keep just Bohemia and Hungary?

Despite the popular view of inbreeding = bad, its a lot more complicated than that. All inbreeding does is increase the probability of common alleles being passed on, but that doesn't inherently mean they'll be deleterious. Genetics is ultimately all about probability, and the genetic dice may roll different ways in a different scenario. Furthermore, Charles II is almost 200 years down the line, there is plenty of time for different marriages to occur in the first place, the Spanish propensity for intermarriage does not have to occur at all, especially with ~200 years of alternate history to work with.

 

[Janprimus]

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that would work. Ferdinand only got a chance of inheriting Bohemia and Hungary, since at the time of his marriage with Anne, his brother in law Louis II was still alive. Moreover IOTL Charles V basically kept all the most valuable possessions for his own branch. The Spanish Kingdoms together with 'Burgundy' were the big price, it makes no sense whatsoever to leave Spain to his younger brother Ferdinand. 'Burgundy' (the Low Countries and Franche Comté) is another matter, but that would also mean that Ferdinand would be the Habsburg candidate for the position of Emperor. Problem with that is, is that the only people with the sway to bring Charles V to such a decision, Maximilian of Austria, Ferdinand of Aragon and Philip the Handsome are dead by the time this question matters.

 

[Gwyain]

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that would work. Ferdinand only got a chance of inheriting Bohemia and Hungary, since at the time of his marriage with Anne, his brother in law Louis II was still alive. Moreover IOTL Charles V basically kept all the most valuable possessions for his own branch. The Spanish Kingdoms together with 'Burgundy' were the big prize, it makes no sense whatsoever to leave Spain to his younger brother Ferdinand. 'Burgundy' (the Low Countries and Franche Comté) is another matter, but that would also mean that Ferdinand would be the Habsburg candidate for the position of Emperor. Problem with that is, is that the only people with the sway to bring Charles V to such a decision, Maximilian of Austria, Ferdinand of Aragon and Philip the Handsome are dead by the time this question matters.

I agree, and you've highlighted the big issue in this post. Spain and Burgundy are too valuable, and Charles is going to leave the best for his son. The irony is that in the long run I think the more valuable titles will be the empire, particularly with the low countries attached to it. I'm just not sure how else to fulfill the OP's request without losing Hapsburg Spain though.

 

[p0lish_runn3r]

I was just thinking the same thing about Milan, it really is the oddball. Unlike Burgundy which was Charles' birthright, Milan came to the family as a lapsed fief of the empire. I can see a strong case for it going to the Austrian branch for that reason, and its certainly near the Austrian centre of power as well.

On further thought to the topic, there might be another ways to obtain the OP's request. Have Ferdinand be Charles' regent in Spain instead of the HRE. He was born and raised there, and didn't actually learn German until he went to the HRE anyways. You can then have Charles be the one to marry Anne of Bohemia, resulting in him being King of Bohemia and Hungary (as well as Emperor and King of the Spains). If Charles still splits his titles between his brother and his children (which isn't a guarantee anyways if he has more children with Anne, he might split his realm solely between his kids), then Ferdinand can become King of Spain and Charles' son can have the higher title of Emperor, along with all the Imperial lands plus Hungary. The end result is a Hapsburg Spain and HRE (with the Netherlands), but doesn't require Charles granting extra titles to his brother over his son.

oh man having Phillip in control of a land with a large protestant population would be... fun

I mean giving Austria to Ferdinand makes sense b/c he was pretty much ruling it anyways on behalf of Charles. Maybe if Ferdinand is govener of the Netherlands instead and then Austria given to him since its next to Bohemia and Hungary. Or some key ally of Ferdinand is govener instead. Charles had some disagreements with Mary of Hungary who was the govener so maybe she gets sacked for a pro-Ferdinand supporter?

 

[isabella]

Wait one moment: Ferdinand ruled Austria on his own since 1521 when Charles leaved all the lands (and the title of Archduke of Austria) in his favor for making him a worthy husband for Princess Anne of Bohemia and Hungary. Spain had South Italy and colonies who alone would be more valuable than everything else and they will go to Philip.
The only things about you can do something are Burgundy/Netherlands (who would go to a younger son of Charles, if he had one, or can be inherited by Maria instead of Philip, if the latter NEVER married Mary of England) and Milan (who can stay independent if the Sforza’s line survive). Likely the best way for taking away some lands from Philip is having both his younger brothers, Ferdinand and John survive so one will inherit Burgundy and the other will be given Milan, leaving Philip with only the Spanish inheritance