WI: Trastamaras retain Spain, Hapsburgs stay in Germany

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Lost the game, May 13, 2019.

  1. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Firstly, I produced definite numbers of the imperial revenues with the reference and Castile's contribution of 2M+ ducats for 1540 is confirmed by a 2nd, source, "The Emperor Charles V" by Karl Brandi, so there is no reason to assume that other numbers are too wrong. I don't mind you producing the numbers (with the reference) contradicting to those I found but just saying that you looked somewhere and found something opposite without bothering to produce the numbers and references is not going to work because it looks as a show of disrespect. When you come with the numbers and sources, we can continue.
     
  2. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    It seems that you are confusing the modern borders with those of the early XVI century. Term the "Dutch" in a modern meaning does not apply to a big part of the Burgundian Netherlands inherited by the Hapsburgs which was not a part of the HRE. There was no reason for the population of the Flanders or Artois to see themselves as the Germans. Not to mention that even bigger part of the Provinces did not speak the Dutch. Now, taking into an account that before the Dutch Revolution the main part was Antwerp, the OTL companies would most probably shape up differently.

    So in the context of this specific conversation the "Dutch" was used just as a short for the "Population of the Hapsburg Netherlands".
    [​IMG]
     
  3. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    That's a well-known fact because this is how it did happen in OTL: Francesco II Sforza was supported by Charles V and after his death Charles took the Duchy. Of course, Francesco was holding the throne only due to Charles' support.

    Taking into an account that by the time this happened the French claim to the Naples ceased to exist for all practical purposes, there is no reason for Spain to get actively involved in the French/Hapsburg fight over Milan.
     
  4. isabella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    France’s main interest was in conquering North Italy but once they had secured Milan and the Duchy of Savoy they would have a perfect base for trying again to conquer Naples
     
  5. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    What they would do was quite different from what they could do. They already had Milan as their base during the wars of Charles VIII (when Lodovico was an ally) and Louis XII (when the French deposed Lodovico) and their Neapolitan adventures failed both times. With the Hapsburgs looking for an opportunity to get Milan (or to get French out of it), continuation of these adventures were impractical in OTL. They would be even less so in this TL because going South would mean inviting a new opponent. Even Francis I had enough brains to try to avoid such a situation.
     
  6. isabella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    If Austria is unable to fight France over Milan then Francis will feel free to try to take back Naples and without Spanish support Austria will be unable to fight France over Milan as they have already to keep France out of Burgundy.
     
  7. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    It was not that simple and the term "Austria" is anachronistic in this context so I assume that you are talking about the territories hold in that AH by the Hapsburgs. As an Emperor, Charles V had access to the German military resources (landsknechts), which provided him with a much more modern army that the French had. Plus, it could be almost taken for granted that as soon as one side is winning, there is Italian coalition trying to prevent it for getting too strong. With his finances being generally in a better shape than those of "Charles minus Spain" Francis or his successor could win in a long run but the war would be too exhaustive for starting a brand new one over Naples with an opponent who was growing his strength (both military and financial) by staying in a relative peace.

    As for the Burgundian Inheritance, it is mostly more of the same: an exhaustive war which may end up in a French favor because the Hapsburgs are going to run out of money first but in which France is still handicapped by the fact that, in general, the Hapsburgs have access to the better infantry. BTW, IIRC, fight in the Lorraine & the Low Countries started seriously after Milan was lost so it is not necessarily simultaneous war on two fronts.

    Anyway, the main problem of the early XVI warfare was that it was rather difficult to achieve a "Napoleonic" victory allowing to end a war by a single battle (unless you get lucky by capturing enemy's King but even then almost as soon as he is out, the war can restart). A great victory was routinely ending up with the sieges and occupation of the fortified castles and town and the big armies had been disappearing due to the diseases, needs to garrison the taken places and absence of the funds. So the critical question (to which I assume to referenced) is for how long in this AH the alt-Charles V (or whoever) is capable to finance a major war? IMO, for a much shorter period than in OTL but long enough to prevent Francis & Henry II from the further adventures.

    Actually, if we are completely free in our speculations all the way to assuming that between Louis XI and Henry IV France has couple kings with the brains, the whole strategy of the Hapsburg wars could be different with a stress upon the Northern/North-Eastern border of France (Lorraine, Alsace, French-Comte, Low Countries). This was pretty much happening under Louis XIII and Louis XIV (prior to the WoSS) and it did make a practical sense while Italy not too much. Of course, Milan of the early XVI was seductive by its wealth (which Lodovico Moro paraded for everybody to see) but Naples was not even too rich and none of them could be realistically integrated into France (but the people of that period did not see things that way and personal union was OK).
     
  8. Janprimus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Location:
    North Brabant, The Netherlands
    I found it in 'Karel V, keizer van een wereldrijk 1500-1558' by Wim Blockmans. It actually is partially confirmed by the attachment appendix-23. The Crown of Castille and the kingdom of Naples, seem to have had higher ordinary taxes. The main difference is the ordinary and extra-ordinary subsidies, which were much higher in the Habsburg Netherlands. It's an indication of a different tax system, Castille had a higher base, but less flexibility, whereas the Netherlands a lower base, but much more flexibility.

    In the period 1519-1553 2.9 million Dutch paid almost 21 million Castilian Ducats in subsidies, whereas 5.9 million Castilians paid 9.3 million Castilian Ducats in subsidies.
     
  9. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    OK, this seems realistic if we assume that in 1520 and 1540 the Netherlands had been paying much lower subsidies than in other years (see the data I posted earlier). However, this seeming does not include taxes because only in 1540 Castile paid close to 2M in taxes. Of course “Castile” includes not just taxes from the kingdom but also incomes from 3 knightly orders and income from the Church properties and the New World. So if we assume that Castile had been paying even 1M taxes annnually (which seems to be a gross underevaluation), then within period you mentioned it would pay 34M in taxes + 9.3M in subsidies = 43.3M.