WI Charles V divides his possessions differently?

[Janprimus]

Inspired by some other threads:

Upto 1548 Charles V considered to divide his empire differently. For example in 1548 Charles V considered giving the Burgundian Circle (including the titular duchy of Burgundy, the Burgundian Habsburg Netherlands and Franche Comté) to his daughter Mary and his nephew Maximilian II (eldest son of his brother Ferdinand) upon their marriage (or they would have been governor until the death or abdication of Charles V, at which point they would have actually inherited it), probably with the provision that it if their marriage remained childless, the Burgundian Circle was to return to the Spanish Habsburgs.

Reasons for doing this were that these regions were vunerable for foreign invasions and influences; and that ruling these regions from Spain was hard and not popular in these regions.

This division would split the areas of intrest into the regions south of the Alps (Spanish Habsburg) and north of the Alps (Austrian Habsburgs) (Assuming that Mary and Maximilian will at least have one son ITTL.)

What would have been the result of this alternative division?
Would the Austrian Habsburgs, which were much more pragmatic in religious matters (compared to their Spanish cousins), have been able to keep the Burgundian Circle intact?
And if so, would the revenues from these regions have helped in their struggle against the Ottoman Empire (earlier restoration of the Hungarian kingdom?) or would they have to divert too much to counter any French treat?
And finally what would have been the impact on the European wars of religion of that era?

 

[Gonzaga]

Do you have any idea of why he didn't do it IOTL? After all, it seems like the most sensible option he had.

Also, sorry for divertir a little bit the topic, but this different division of Charles' possessions remembered that he also thought about giving the Burgundian lands or Miland to the Valois, following the Peace of Crépy: http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/cmh/cmh203.html#078

"...On both sides the territory occupied since the truce of Nice was to be restored. Francis was to renounce all claims to Naples, Flanders, and Artois ; the Emperor did not insist on the restitution of the duchy of Burgundy. The rivals were to co-operate for the restoration of unity in the Church, and against the Turks. Charles was to give to the Duke of Orleans either his eldest daughter with the Burgundian lands, or the second daughter of Ferdinand with Milan. If the Netherlands were given, Charles was to retain the supreme dominion for his life, and Francis was to renounce his rights to Milan and Asti, which were, however, to revive in case there was no issue of the marriage. If Milan were given the Emperor was to retain effective hold on the duchy until a son was born ; and the gift was declared to be a new fief, not dependent on hereditary rights of the House of Orleans. The King in return was to give a handsome appanage to his son in France. As soon as either of these transfers took place Savoy was to be evacuated, and the questions of right between the King and the Duke were to be decided by arbitration. These public conditions were supplemented by a secret treaty, by which the King was required to aid in procuring a General Council, to give help against the German Protestants, and to assist the Emperor to a peace or durable truce with the Turks. The Dauphin shortly afterwards made a solemn protest before witnesses against the treaty as contrary to the fundamental interests of the kingdom..."

And apparently it only didn't happen because the Duke died first:

"...The decision of Charles between Milan and the Netherlands as the marriage gift of the Duke of Orleans had at length been made in March, 1545. Milan was to be given with the second daughter of Ferdinand, but the death of the Duke of Orleans in September relieved Charles of this necessity..."
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]

 

[Janprimus]

1 Do you have any idea of why he didn't do it IOTL? After all, it seems like the most sensible option he had.

Also, sorry for divertir a little bit the topic, but this different division of Charles' possessions remembered that 2 he also thought about giving the Burgundian lands or Miland to the Valois, following the Peace of Crépy: http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/cmh/cmh203.html#078

"...On both sides the territory occupied since the truce of Nice was to be restored. Francis was to renounce all claims to Naples, Flanders, and Artois ; the Emperor did not insist on the restitution of the duchy of Burgundy. The rivals were to co-operate for the restoration of unity in the Church, and against the Turks. Charles was to give to the Duke of Orleans either his eldest daughter with the Burgundian lands, or the second daughter of Ferdinand with Milan. If the Netherlands were given, Charles was to retain the supreme dominion for his life, and Francis was to renounce his rights to Milan and Asti, which were, however, to revive in case there was no issue of the marriage. If Milan were given the Emperor was to retain effective hold on the duchy until a son was born ; and the gift was declared to be a new fief, not dependent on hereditary rights of the House of Orleans. The King in return was to give a handsome appanage to his son in France. As soon as either of these transfers took place Savoy was to be evacuated, and the questions of right between the King and the Duke were to be decided by arbitration. These public conditions were supplemented by a secret treaty, by which the King was required to aid in procuring a General Council, to give help against the German Protestants, and to assist the Emperor to a peace or durable truce with the Turks. The Dauphin shortly afterwards made a solemn protest before witnesses against the treaty as contrary to the fundamental interests of the kingdom..."

And apparently it only didn't happen because the Duke died first:

"...The decision of Charles between Milan and the Netherlands as the marriage gift of the Duke of Orleans had at length been made in March, 1545. Milan was to be given with the second daughter of Ferdinand, but the death of the Duke of Orleans in September relieved Charles of this necessity..."

Obviously I agree with you that this seems to be a sensible option, that's one of the reasons why I'm posting this thread.

Firstly this probably has the same reason why Charles V changed his mind and wanted Philip II to be future elected king of the Romans and not his nephew Maximilian II (eldest son of Ferdinand). IIRC this is related to the religious developments in the Empire. Charles V was idealistic about the unity of the empire and the (catholic) church. Charles V saw the reformation as a treat to these ideals, and he probably started to believe that the best guarantee to restore the unity of the church and empire was a new Spanish emperor. When this didn't happen, it seems that made the definite decision to give everything, that was his to give, to his son Philip II. (However he also might have had some other reasons.)

Secondly I also knew about this option, however giving the Burgundian inheritance to a second son of the king of France and his Habsburg bride seems undesirable, because 'Burgundy' and the king of France were rivals since the murder of John the Fearless. And the duchy of Milan was imperial territory, so this probably will lead to some opposition in the empire.

And I have to admit that giving these regions to a second son of the king of France is not the option I personally prefer.

 

[Valdemar II]

Inspired by some other threads:

Upto 1548 Charles V considered to divide his empire differently. For example in 1548 Charles V considered giving the Burgundian Circle (including the titular duchy of Burgundy, the Burgundian Habsburg Netherlands and Franche Comté) to his daughter Mary and his nephew Maximilian II (eldest son of his brother Ferdinand) upon their marriage (or they would have been governor until the death or abdication of Charles V, at which point they would have actually inherited it), probably with the provision that it if their marriage remained childless, the Burgundian Circle was to return to the Spanish Habsburgs.

Reasons for doing this were that these regions were vunerable for foreign invasions and influences; and that ruling these regions from Spain was hard and not popular in these regions.

This division would split the areas of intrest into the regions south of the Alps (Spanish Habsburg) and north of the Alps (Austrian Habsburgs) (Assuming that Mary and Maximilian will at least have one son ITTL.)

What would have been the result of this alternative division?
Would the Austrian Habsburgs, which were much more pragmatic in religious matters (compared to their Spanish cousins), have been able to keep the Burgundian Circle intact?
And if so, would the revenues from these regions have helped in their struggle against the Ottoman Empire (earlier restoration of the Hungarian kingdom?) or would they have to divert too much to counter any French treat?
And finally what would have been the impact on the European wars of religion of that era?

I think they would be able to keep it together, the Dutch revolution had two primary reason, the first one was the agressive stance against Protestants, the second was the attempts to centralise the government and limit the estates power, so the Habsburg succed in pissing both the Protestants off but also the elite in general. A Habsburg regent in the Netherlands would be much better to divide and rule, than the Spanish ones whom was rather tonedeaf about the local traditions and autonomy.

 

[Gonzaga]

I think they would be able to keep it together, the Dutch revolution had two primary reason, the first one was the agressive stance against Protestants, the second was the attempts to centralise the government and limit the estates power, so the Habsburg succed in pissing both the Protestants off but also the elite in general. A Habsburg regent in the Netherlands would be much better to divide and rule, than the Spanish ones whom was rather tonedeaf about the local traditions and autonomy.

If the Burgundian lands go to Maximilian, would they be kept by the Emperor or would he divide the territory among his sons? IOTL while Bohemia and Hungary were kept intact the Austrian territories were divided among the descendents of Ferdinand. So, could we see one son receiving the French Comte, for example, while other gains the Netherlands?

 

[Janprimus]

If the Burgundian lands go to Maximilian, would they be kept by the Emperor or would he divide the territory among his sons? IOTL while Bohemia and Hungary were kept intact the Austrian territories were divided among the descendents of Ferdinand. So, could we see one son receiving the French Comte, for example, while other gains the Netherlands?

Well the Burgundian Circle did border a rival (France) and was quite wealthy, this are two reasons to keep these regions intact for the emperor.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

This is one of my favorite topics - but I am still wondering as you do.

What would have been the result of this alternative division?

I agree that the Austrians may prove more reasonable in dealing with the Dutch Protestants. Even when the emperors follow the counter-reformation (which I suppose will still take place) it makes a difference that these Germans understand the Dutch much better than the Spaniards not only linguistically, but also culturally.

This will also imply that the Netherlands will not acquire colonies in Spain's shadow, quite possibly none at all. Side-effect: Slower development of early capitalism ...

The conflict with France, however, will prevail; perhaps it will mitigate the French neurosis of having Spain on either side - although this idea seems to be overemphasized since the 19th century.
I have no idea how the different responsibilities will change their mutual prospects in this conflict.
But it seems that an Austrian Burgundy under an Austrian emperor makes things slightly easier.

A lot depends on the relationship between the two Habsburg branches will remain so (in dynastic relations) extraordinarily good as IOTL. I don't see a reason why they shouldn't, but this is a crucial point.

 

[Janprimus]

This is one of my favorite topics - but I am still wondering as you do.




I agree that the Austrians may prove more reasonable in dealing with the Dutch Protestants. Even when the emperors follow the counter-reformation (which I suppose will still take place) it makes a difference that these Germans understand the Dutch much better than the Spaniards not only linguistically, but also culturally.

This will also imply that the Netherlands will not acquire colonies in Spain's shadow, quite possibly none at all. Side-effect: Slower development of early capitalism ...

The conflict with France, however, will prevail; perhaps it will mitigate the French neurosis of having Spain on either side - although this idea seems to be overemphasized since the 19th century.
I have no idea how the different responsibilities will change their mutual chances.
But it seems that an Austrian Burgundy under an Austrian emperor makes things slightly easier.

A lot depends on the relationship between the two Habsburg branches will remain so (in dynastic relations) extraordinarily good as IOTL. I don't see a reason why they shouldn't, but this is a crucial point.

Personally I'm not convinced that they wouldn't acquire colonies, they probably wouldn't rival Spain (although even this could change); but it is likely that they will compete with countries such as France, England and Portugal for colonies.
Besides the OTL VOC, Dutch East India Company, and WIC, Dutch West India company, were chartered companies and during the time of the OTL Austrian Netherlands, Austria tried to set up the Ostend Company to trade with the West and East Indies.
ITTL the Austrian Habsburgs might be willing to stimulate the traders in the Habsburg Netherlands to form a united trade company, although this might happen at a later point than in the OTL; this also depends on the trade policies of other European nations and trade companies.

 

[ImperialVienna]

Maximilian II was very sympathetic to Protestantism in his youth and continued to show Protestant inclinations even after he reaffirmed his Catholicism. His sympathy was well known, so much so that Ferdinand upon assumption of the Imperial Throne promised Paul IV that he would ensure Maximilian would not succeed him if his son converted.

So then what happens if a sympathetic Maximilian, who by all accounts wanted to convert to Protestantism and would have done so had politics not gotten in the way, is placed as the Monarch of the Protestant Low Countries.

There is an elephant in the room that I'm ignoring in this scenario unfortunately, Maximilian was inclined toward Lutheranism, while the Burgundian Circle to my knowledge was more influenced by Calvin. I have a feeling however likely some form of reconciliation could easily be found, with either Maximilian accepting Calvinism, or some sort of agreement being reached effectively declaring religious tolerance (and by religious tolerance I mean one could be Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, and perhaps Jewish).

 

[Valdemar II]

Maximilian II was very sympathetic to Protestantism in his youth and continued to show Protestant inclinations even after he reaffirmed his Catholicism. His sympathy was well known, so much so that Ferdinand upon assumption of the Imperial Throne promised Paul IV that he would ensure Maximilian would not succeed him if his son converted.

So then what happens if a sympathetic Maximilian, who by all accounts wanted to convert to Protestantism and would have done so had politics not gotten in the way, is placed as the Monarch of the Protestant Low Countries.

There is an elephant in the room that I'm ignoring in this scenario unfortunately, Maximilian was inclined toward Lutheranism, while the Burgundian Circle to my knowledge was more influenced by Calvin. I have a feeling however likely some form of reconciliation could easily be found, with either Maximilian accepting Calvinism, or some sort of agreement being reached effectively declaring religious tolerance (and by religious tolerance I mean one could be Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, and perhaps Jewish).

Lutheranism was mostly rooted out in the Burgundian inherience in the 1530ties, but when the state allowed it to exist like in Gueldres under William the Rich it got large popular support. The hierarchical Lutheranism doesn't thrieve in hostile states, while the more buttom-up was much more succesful in making inroads in those states (through usual only among the more well off and educated groups). If Maximilian put his support or even a neutral position behind Lutheranism, it will spread as a bushfire, simply because it will take over the Catholic structur (at least if it happens early enough*).

*The farther after the Counter-Reformation the harder it get.

 

[Janprimus]

Maximilian II was very sympathetic to Protestantism in his youth and continued to show Protestant inclinations even after he reaffirmed his Catholicism. His sympathy was well known, so much so that Ferdinand upon assumption of the Imperial Throne promised Paul IV that he would ensure Maximilian would not succeed him if his son converted.

So then what happens if a sympathetic Maximilian, who by all accounts wanted to convert to Protestantism and would have done so had politics not gotten in the way, is placed as the Monarch of the Protestant Low Countries.

There is an elephant in the room that I'm ignoring in this scenario unfortunately, Maximilian was inclined toward Lutheranism, while the Burgundian Circle to my knowledge was more influenced by Calvin. I have a feeling however likely some form of reconciliation could easily be found, with either Maximilian accepting Calvinism, or some sort of agreement being reached effectively declaring religious tolerance (and by religious tolerance I mean one could be Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, and perhaps Jewish).

First of all the Low Countries weren't completely protestant, OTL both protestants and catholics didn't like Philip II, but they also didn't trust each other (which became worse, because of actions from radicals (from both sides)), the Dutch revolt had religious and political components. This difference had consequences for the development of the Dutch revolt.
Second of all Maximilian probably could declare religious tolerance, however I doubt that he would convert if this means that he isn't going to be the next emperor. If Paris is well worth a mass, this will also apply to the crown of the Holy Roman Empire.
Although once Maximilian II is emperor, he could have taken different actions.

 

[Janprimus]

Lutheranism was mostly rooted out in the Burgundian inherience in the 1530ties, but when the state allowed it to exist like in Gueldres under William the Rich it got large popular support. The hierarchical Lutheranism doesn't thrieve in hostile states, while the more buttom-up was much more succesful in making inroads in those states (through usual only among the more well off and educated groups). If Maximilian put his support or even a neutral position behind Lutheranism, it will spread as a bushfire, simply because it will take over the Catholic structur (at least if it happens early enough*).

*The farther after the Counter-Reformation the harder it get.

Well IIRC Protestantism also spread to the Austrian Hereditary Lands, but many of those regions were converted back to Catholicism during the Counter Reformation. Even the Bourbon kings of France descendents from the Huguenot, who converted to Catholicism, Henri IV, eventually declared Protestantism illegal (revocation of the edict of Nantes by Louis XIV).
So if the house of Habsburg stays Catholic, there is a chance that during the Counter Reformation that some regions could return to Catholicism.

 

[Valdemar II]

Well IIRC Protestantism also spread to the Austrian Hereditary Lands, but many of those regions were converted back to Catholicism during the Counter Reformation. Even the Bourbon kings of France descendents from the Huguenot, who converted to Catholicism, Henri IV, eventually declared Protestantism illegal (revocation of the edict of Nantes by Louis XIV).

Austria was only reconverted after the 30 Year War where large part of the Lutheran nobility and burgher class relocated to depopulated Protestant states, and until the Maria Theresa they hadn't gotten rid of hidden Lutheranism in the country side. Of course the difference was that in Austria the noble and burgher estate stood unified in their Lutheranism against the catholic Habsburgs.

So if the house of Habsburg stays catholic, there is a chance that during the Counter Reformation that some regions could return to Catholicism.

I agree especially if the early Habsburg are hostile toward Protestantism, but if they convert to Lutheranism, the entire state will likely go Lutheran. Of course the consequenses of a Lutheran "Wallonia" and Franche-Comte are going to be quite interesting, especially with the exception of Montbéliard we didn't see any French speaking Lutheran areas, and with these areas we may get a large French speaking Lutheran intelligensia.
A interesting aspect are the focus on preaching in the languages of the people, which would freeze the linguistic borders in "Belgium", and lay a pressure to change the adminstrative language to German/Dutch in Flandern and Brabant. thing which are quite interesting are whether they decide to use Luthers bible or they produce a "Dutch/Flemish/Low Franconian" bible, if that happen we may see that bible become in common use in much of the Rhineland. Making "Dutch"* the dominating language of a much large area.

*linguistic it would likely be close to Flemish than modern Dutch, thanks to the stronger position of Flandern and Brabant versus the Northen dialects.

 

[Janprimus]

Austria was only reconverted after the 30 Year War where large part of the Lutheran nobility and burgher class relocated to depopulated Protestant states, and until the Maria Theresa they hadn't gotten rid of hidden Lutheranism in the country side. Of course the difference was that in Austria the noble and burgher estate stood unified in their Lutheranism against the catholic Habsburgs.



1 I agree especially if the early Habsburg are hostile toward Protestantism, but if they convert to Lutheranism, the entire state will likely go Lutheran. Of course the consequenses of a Lutheran "Wallonia" and Franche-Comte are going to be quite interesting, especially with the exception of Montbéliard we didn't see any French speaking Lutheran areas, and with these areas we may get a large French speaking Lutheran intelligensia.
A interesting aspect are the focus on preaching in the languages of the people, which would freeze the linguistic borders in "Belgium", and lay a pressure to change the adminstrative language to German/Dutch in Flandern and Brabant. thing which are quite interesting are whether they decide to use Luthers bible or they produce a "Dutch/Flemish/Low Franconian" bible, if that happen we may see that bible become in common use in much of the Rhineland. Making "Dutch"* the dominating language of a much large area.

*2 linguistic it would likely be close to Flemish than modern Dutch, thanks to the stronger position of Flandern and Brabant versus the Northen dialects.

Firstly that is why I said if the House of Habsburg stays Catholic, you're probably right that if the house of Habsburg goes Lutheran (or even Calvinist) the state might end up Lutheran.

Secondly not necessarily that much, Flanders and Brabant already had a large influence on the formation of the Dutch language during the era of the Valois Dukes of Burgundy (Burgundian Netherlands). And when the troops of 'the lord of the Netherlands', who also was 'king of Spain', (re-)conquered the Southern Netherlands during the Dutch revolt (80 Years' war), large groups of protestants from Brabant and Flanders migrated to the Northern parts, most of them moved to Holland.

 

[Janprimus]

I would like to add one more question. What would have been the effect on the empire (the balance of power in the empire, the position of the Austrian Habsburgs, the authority of an Austrian Habsburg Emperor (would this have been improved, when compared to the OTL))?

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

Of course the position of the Emperor would improve significantly.

IOTL, he had the Spanish king as a vasall for the Burgundian heritage.
Having a vasall whose main job is a throne elsewhere is always cumbersome,
and in this case (thinking OTL-like) the emperor even has a strong dynastic tie to him and mustn't be too adversarial.
(ITTL, this would be still true for Milano, but let's ignore Italy for a while.)

Moreover, the emperor would control a large and wealthy piece of land as his very own, which also makes for a much better position in relation to the princes.


This may even (but needn't) lead to a then successful attempt to make the imperial crown hereditary and centralize the Empire - at least, Germany - a bit ...

 

[Gonzaga]

(ITTL, this would be still true for Milano, but let's ignore Italy for a while.)

Not necessarily. While Milan was acquired by the Habsburgs as a fief of the Emperor, it only was given to the Spanish branch because it was an strategical connection between Southern Italy and the Netherlands (the "Spanish Road" passed through it). If the Austrian branch receives the Burgundian inheritance then Milan becomes quite useless for Spain, and probably would be give to the Austrians as well.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

If the Austrian branch receives the Burgundian inheritance then Milan becomes quite useless for Spain, and probably would be give to the Austrians as well.

Oh, that makes sense. I didn't know that.

But that will even strengthen the imperial position in Italy - also against France.

 

[Janprimus]

Not necessarily. While Milan was acquired by the Habsburgs as a fief of the Emperor, it only was given to the Spanish branch because it was an strategical connection between Southern Italy and the Netherlands (the "Spanish Road" passed through it). If the Austrian branch receives the Burgundian inheritance then Milan becomes quite useless for Spain, and probably would be give to the Austrians as well.

Not necessarily, ITTL the duchy of Milan might stay with the Spanish Habsburg as a kind of compensation for the fact that a part of the inheritance of Philip II was given to his sister and his brother in law.
It might very well be useless although it does strenghten the position of 'Spain' on the Italian peninsula, which was a traditional Aragonese (after all 'Spain' is unification of the crowns of Castille and Aragon) policy.
Furthermore 'Spain' giving up the Burgundian Inherintance and the duchy of Milan IMHO seems to be too much to ask. An other option would be to give the Austrian Habsburgs the duchy of Milan, but at this point it doesn't seem reasonable and realistic to give the Austrian Habsburg the Burgundian Inheritance and the duchy of Milan.

 

[Gonzaga]

Not necessarily, ITTL the duchy of Milan might stay with the Spanish Habsburg as a kind of compensation for the fact that a part of the inheritance of Philip II was given to his sister and his brother in law.
It might very well be useless although it does strenghten the position of 'Spain' on the Italian peninsula, which was a traditional Aragonese (after all 'Spain' is unification of the crowns of Castille and Aragon) policy.
Furthermore 'Spain' giving up the Burgundian Inherintance and the duchy of Milan IMHO seems to be too much to ask. An other option would be to give the Austrian Habsburgs the duchy of Milan, but at this point it doesn't seem reasonable and realistic to give the Austrian Habsburg the Burgundian Inheritance and the duchy of Milan.

Maybe, but still the most sensible option would be give it to the Austrians. I mean, Milan only had strategical value due to the link with the Burgundian lands. Without it, it just becomes a isolated duchy that is a source of conflict with the French. The main Aragonese insterest was in Southern Italy, not the Northern half, and if Milan goes to Austria it might help to strenght the Emperor's power in Italy.
I'm not saying that Spain wouldn't get Milan, but probably the most sensible option would be give it to the Austrians too.