Me gusto que Carlos permitio a su hermana María aconsejarlo en las labores de gobierno, ella aprendio mucho de su tia margarita quien tambien fue una buena diplomatica
It is sad that Charles' health is declining. If his wife was still alive, his later years would have been less painful. Only if Isabella had lived long enough to see her children's weddings and birth of the grandchildren while caring for aging Charles.
JY L yes, poor Carlos. I, too, think that if Isabel had lived longer than she did, life would've been easier. Although, do you think Carlos would still have abdicated if Isabel had lived longer than she did? I think he probably would've because his health would still have declined due to his gout and it would've given him and Isabel more time to spend together in peace. Once you have gout, you have it; there's no cure for it, but it can be managed. Unfortunately, back then, they didn't have the advanced medication for managing gout that we have today, so I can't imagine just how painful Carlos's gout must've been!
Other than having a common sovereign at the time, was there any type of Government structures of the various Hapsburg territories? For example, how united were the various Spanish territories in areas such as currency, legal system, national security? I understand Charles desire for unity, but how unified was the territories were the various lands? The Roman Empire at least had a single Emperor (at least until Constantine), a single Senate, common language and army.
My understanding stufying history in Spain is that The Habsburg territorries were united under the same king however the empire (meaning the germany part of things) had a different legislation, language and coin but Spain and the american side had the same legal system, official language ( though technically no native language was forbidden) and coin with the american being just another province of the crown. Legally each province had their own councils with some such as the condados catalanes, aragon, navarra and some territories in latin america having different privileges depending on their power. this last part has been a source of conflict all over spanish history i would there say for milenia. Or at least that is what they teach us in high school
Your question structure seems to show that you are viewing that complex historical scenario through kind of modern lenses. OK, let's divide all that into three units roughly to gain an acceptable approach to the situation in simpler terms, 1- the Spanish Monarchy (Charles was the king of Spain as Charles I. That means he rightfully ruled over all the territories in the Iberian Peninsula except Portugal, the kindom of Sicily, the Kingdom of Naples, Sardinia, the Duchy of Milan, and the territories in America plus some other minor entities. He inherited all this from his mother, Queen Joana I), 2- the so-called Holy Roman Empire (he became emperor as Charles V by election through the mostly German prince-electors, as was the tradition), and 3- Flanders (that comprised what today are Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and some German and French lands. He inherited this directly from his father Philip I). So, he inherited #1 (Monarchy of Spain) and #3 (Flanders), and was elected in the case for #2, mainly because of the prestige his grandfather Maximilian had because he'd been the Emperor before, and a lot of money. Flanders and Spain plus annexed territories were usually more manageable and politically stable. The empire was actually a headache because it was composed with 10 so called circles (larger regions) each of which comprised numerous other political and administrative eneven units. The so called Reformation complicated things even further. When Emperor Charles died he was convinced that ruling everything was just not viable, not even desirable. That is why he gave the most valuable parts (bigger Spain and Flanders) to his son Phillip, and the Empire to his brother Ferdinand to create a separate dinasty.
The kingdoms in themselves had little centralization let alone the whole Habsburg Lands, the crown of Castile was decently centralized and would soon force Charles to recognize it as his most important land despite the low countries/ Italy being richer and the Empire being a higher title, Aragon wasn't only not united with Castile but it wasn't even united within it self, it kingdoms had their own rules and courts, Barcelona recognized Charles only as a count not a king or emperor
No sé si esta serie muestra las cosas precisamente como era en la historia. Fernando fue nombrado rey de romanos ya en 1530, así heredero en el Imperio. Por toda la situación en Europa - los turcos en media Hungría (cuya rey era Fernando!) y al lado de Austria (también dominio de Fernando) y acechando al Imperio, los franceses que se sentían amenezado de que un soberano tenía casí todos los territorios al lado de Francia y por esto siempre en guerra contra Carlos, y los príncipes protestantes en el Imperio que tenían tantos conflictos con Carlos pero también tenían una relación algo mejor con Fernando - y por que Fernando ya había sido "el sustituto" de Carlos en el Imperio cuando él estaba ausente, administrando todas las cosas, a mí me parece que sólo cabe un decisión razonable: que el sucesor de Carlos en el Imperio sea Fernando. Y la familia de Fernando, ya que Maximiliano y todos los hijos de Fernando (y él tenía muchos) nacieron y vivían en esta parte de Europa, mientras Felipe nunca antes había dejado Espana y sólo hablaba espanol bien.
I read that Charles was stubborn and even headstrong (especially regarding religious matters) whereas Ferdinand was flexible and heard other's opinion. He was more tolerate to the Reformation and Protestants than Charles, thus gained support from German princes and nobles. As described in the series, Charles tried to put Philip on the imperial throne but he could not make it because the Germans preferred Ferdinand to the totally foreigner Philip. So Charles had to give up his dream of the unified empire after his death.
I think that dividing his empire and giving the Holy Roman Empire to Ferdinand and his family was the only logical and reasonable decision that Charles could make. Just like Charles couldn't be everywhere and couldn't take care of all the bussiness he had at one time in his several domains, Philip would have faced the same problem. Charles mostly ruled through representants and regents like Margaret of Austria, Mary of Austria, Isabella of Portugal, Archduke Ferdinand, and than the children of Charles. Not to mention the Indies and several governors and viceroys. Charles had too much territories for one man, and it totally exhausted him, as he said at his abdication, and it also made his life very hard and difficult, depriving him of the company of his most beloved ones: his wife, his children.
i would actually take it a step further and said that Charles still left too many imperial possessions in Phillip's hands. I would say that at the very least, Ferdinand should also have received Milan for it's wealth and strategic position. However, even the low countries would have been better served in the Austrian branch, that proved through Ferdinand and his successors to be more skilled and accustomed to imperial politics. Phillip could still have counted himself blessed with Spain, Sicily and Naples, and if Naples had been officially incorporated into the Empire, Phillip could also boast the title of imperial prince. Such a separation would have served the branches in their respective problems (Austria and the Ottomans) (Spanish and the French)
About the Low Countries, I also agree. That would be better to belong to the Austrians, because of its closeness to the Holy Roman Empire, and also because of religious matters. Ferdinand and his successor were much more tolerant and understanding towards Protestantism than the true Spanish Philip. Maybe they would have handled the religious situation in the Low Countries better, and it's possible that the revolt and then the bloody suppress of it by the Duke of Alba would have never happened.
Why are they arguing about the succession in the first place? Carlos is the Emperor, it's just natural that his son- Felipe II should succeed him, not his brother Ferdinand.
It wasn't that simple. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a simple hereditary state, Charles himself was elected, against many opponents (like the King of France, Henry VIII, Frederick of Saxony, etc.) Charles had too much territories to rule (about half of Europe and Spain's territories in America as well), everyone could see that. Ferdinand had been his deputy in the Holy Roman Empire for decades, he acted in Charles's place (so de facto he ruled the empire for many years already), and in 1530 Charles named Ferdinand his heir in the empire (King of the Romans). Philip wasn't educated to rule the Holy Roman Empire, wasn't known there, he was considered completely a stranger, for he lived all his life in Spain. He also didn't speak German, only Spanish. Charles was very much advised by everyone to leave the Empire to Ferdinand and not Philip.
Plus Charles caused this dispute between Ferdinand and Charles by sending Ferdinand to the HRE of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Burgundy (eastern part/aka France Comte) when he first came to Spain. Ferdinand was born in Spain like his sister Catalina but was threatened by the fact that the Castilians, Aragonese, Navarrese, Leonese, and the Granadines may have wanted both Ferdinand and Catalina instead of him and his son Charles(Carlos).
Bueno no iban a ponerlos como se veían en realidad, lo que si veo es que el equipo de maquillaje los envejeció bastante bien a los actores ya que para ser jóvenes ya eran padres y según la serie habían pasado años 😅
bajo mi opinión, aquí la serie no es muy fiel a la realidad histórica, porque María de Hungria , hermana de Carlos y Fernando, fue la que encabezó y abiertamente el aprtido felipista para la candidatura del imperio. Felipe siempre tuvo el apoyo de su tía Maria como candidato al imperio frente a su hermano Fernando y su sobrino Maximiliano.
Charles V bankrupted himself by buying Flemish tapestries and split the Habsburg empire into two halves. The Eastern part was economically unviable, militarily impossible to defend and would ultimately collapse. The western half was given to the halfwit Philips. In the end, Philips bankrupted it because he failed to understand what inflation meant and because he thought that imposing taxes in the Netherlands while strangling their trade at the same time was a good idea. Somehow there are people that think Charles V was a good ruler.
Actually there are many historians who rather think Charles a good ruler than a bad ruler. His reign was much more complex than that. Splitting was actually very good, it would have been a disaster to leave the entire empire to Philip. But, as his only son, it was also impossible to leave him out of the succession. So, not leaving the entire empire to him was the best solution possible. Ferdinand managed as well as anyone could, we were glad to have our king as an emperor. He was already Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary and King of Bohemia since the 1520s. Leaving the Holy Roman Emperor title to him and strengthening his position in Central Europe was a very logical solution. It was basically already decided in 1530 when Charles made him King of the Romans (Emperor's successor title), so there wasn't many new things about Charles's decision to split the empire in 1555. Also, severe Habsburg family conflicts would have arised (probably) if Charles had suddenly decided to leave everything to Philip. When Ferdinand was already embedded in those territories as Charles's deputy and likely successor. Btw that Eastern part did not collapse for a long time, it existed under Habsburg rule longer than the Western part. If the two parts had remained under one ruler, with all those different, diverse and dispersed territories, it would have surely collapsed much much earlier.
@@andrepettersson175 the great problem is that the monarchs in the absolutism had enourmous power and sometimes abusive. Was normal to arrive the parlamentarism or in the worst scenario the republic to avoid the tiranny.
@@Lily1127channel Charles V's mistake was handing Northern territories like Milan and the Netherlands to Felipe instead of Ferdinand, they were geographically too far from Iberia to defend effectively. The other was wasting Felipe's time by marrying him to the older (and stuck in England) Mary Tudor, Felipe would be better off with anyone who could have been Regent at home like his mother (the Portuguese infanta Maria was a wiser choice, although the risk of inbreeding would still be there).
@@andrepettersson175el sacro imperio romano hasta 1806 cuando Francisco de lorena abdico para no dejarselo a Napoleón, y Austria/Hungría hasta 1918 cuando perdieron la primera guerra mundial el último emperador fue carlos l de austria un sobrino de Francisco José
Why would he follow be inspired by such uncivilized country that only existed since 1299 ad.... Meanwhile the holy Roman Empire is 600 years older then the ottomans 🤡 lol..... He was inspired by the hre.... Plus the ottomans were heavily inspired by Europeans in general, the fact they were surprised by European eating tables says lot about them..... They used to hire European architects and painters and scientists to do the job in the otto-women Empire...... Now go drink your milk
![Margaret of Austria | Habsburg Princess [ENG SUB]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xsxTOvOvMlo/mqdefault.jpg)
Me gusto que Carlos permitio a su hermana María aconsejarlo en las labores de gobierno, ella aprendio mucho de su tia margarita quien tambien fue una buena diplomatica
It is sad that Charles' health is declining. If his wife was still alive, his later years would have been less painful. Only if Isabella had lived long enough to see her children's weddings and birth of the grandchildren while caring for aging Charles.
JY L yes, poor Carlos. I, too, think that if Isabel had lived longer than she did, life would've been easier.
Although, do you think Carlos would still have abdicated if Isabel had lived longer than she did? I think he probably would've because his health would still have declined due to his gout and it would've given him and Isabel more time to spend together in peace. Once you have gout, you have it; there's no cure for it, but it can be managed. Unfortunately, back then, they didn't have the advanced medication for managing gout that we have today, so I can't imagine just how painful Carlos's gout must've been!
Other than having a common sovereign at the time, was there any type of Government structures of the various Hapsburg territories? For example, how united were the various Spanish territories in areas such as currency, legal system, national security?
I understand Charles desire for unity, but how unified was the territories were the various lands?
The Roman Empire at least had a single Emperor (at least until Constantine), a single Senate, common language and army.
All of them are probably held in personal unions with one another.
My understanding stufying history in Spain is that The Habsburg territorries were united under the same king however the empire (meaning the germany part of things) had a different legislation, language and coin but Spain and the american side had the same legal system, official language ( though technically no native language was forbidden) and coin with the american being just another province of the crown. Legally each province had their own councils with some such as the condados catalanes, aragon, navarra and some territories in latin america having different privileges depending on their power.
this last part has been a source of conflict all over spanish history i would there say for milenia.
Or at least that is what they teach us in high school
Your question structure seems to show that you are viewing that complex historical scenario through kind of modern lenses. OK, let's divide all that into three units roughly to gain an acceptable approach to the situation in simpler terms, 1- the Spanish Monarchy (Charles was the king of Spain as Charles I. That means he rightfully ruled over all the territories in the Iberian Peninsula except Portugal, the kindom of Sicily, the Kingdom of Naples, Sardinia, the Duchy of Milan, and the territories in America plus some other minor entities. He inherited all this from his mother, Queen Joana I), 2- the so-called Holy Roman Empire (he became emperor as Charles V by election through the mostly German prince-electors, as was the tradition), and 3- Flanders (that comprised what today are Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and some German and French lands. He inherited this directly from his father Philip I). So, he inherited #1 (Monarchy of Spain) and #3 (Flanders), and was elected in the case for #2, mainly because of the prestige his grandfather Maximilian had because he'd been the Emperor before, and a lot of money. Flanders and Spain plus annexed territories were usually more manageable and politically stable. The empire was actually a headache because it was composed with 10 so called circles (larger regions) each of which comprised numerous other political and administrative eneven units. The so called Reformation complicated things even further. When Emperor Charles died he was convinced that ruling everything was just not viable, not even desirable. That is why he gave the most valuable parts (bigger Spain and Flanders) to his son Phillip, and the Empire to his brother Ferdinand to create a separate dinasty.
The kingdoms in themselves had little centralization let alone the whole Habsburg Lands, the crown of Castile was decently centralized and would soon force Charles to recognize it as his most important land despite the low countries/ Italy being richer and the Empire being a higher title,
Aragon wasn't only not united with Castile but it wasn't even united within it self, it kingdoms had their own rules and courts, Barcelona recognized Charles only as a count not a king or emperor
Aqui comenzaron los desacuerdos entre los habsburgo que terminaron por dividir el imperio de carlos V.
No sé si esta serie muestra las cosas precisamente como era en la historia. Fernando fue nombrado rey de romanos ya en 1530, así heredero en el Imperio. Por toda la situación en Europa - los turcos en media Hungría (cuya rey era Fernando!) y al lado de Austria (también dominio de Fernando) y acechando al Imperio, los franceses que se sentían amenezado de que un soberano tenía casí todos los territorios al lado de Francia y por esto siempre en guerra contra Carlos, y los príncipes protestantes en el Imperio que tenían tantos conflictos con Carlos pero también tenían una relación algo mejor con Fernando - y por que Fernando ya había sido "el sustituto" de Carlos en el Imperio cuando él estaba ausente, administrando todas las cosas, a mí me parece que sólo cabe un decisión razonable: que el sucesor de Carlos en el Imperio sea Fernando. Y la familia de Fernando, ya que Maximiliano y todos los hijos de Fernando (y él tenía muchos) nacieron y vivían en esta parte de Europa, mientras Felipe nunca antes había dejado Espana y sólo hablaba espanol bien.
I read that Charles was stubborn and even headstrong (especially regarding religious matters) whereas Ferdinand was flexible and heard other's opinion. He was more tolerate to the Reformation and Protestants than Charles, thus gained support from German princes and nobles. As described in the series, Charles tried to put Philip on the imperial throne but he could not make it because the Germans preferred Ferdinand to the totally foreigner Philip. So Charles had to give up his dream of the unified empire after his death.
I think that dividing his empire and giving the Holy Roman Empire to Ferdinand and his family was the only logical and reasonable decision that Charles could make. Just like Charles couldn't be everywhere and couldn't take care of all the bussiness he had at one time in his several domains, Philip would have faced the same problem. Charles mostly ruled through representants and regents like Margaret of Austria, Mary of Austria, Isabella of Portugal, Archduke Ferdinand, and than the children of Charles. Not to mention the Indies and several governors and viceroys. Charles had too much territories for one man, and it totally exhausted him, as he said at his abdication, and it also made his life very hard and difficult, depriving him of the company of his most beloved ones: his wife, his children.
i would actually take it a step further and said that Charles still left too many imperial possessions in Phillip's hands. I would say that at the very least, Ferdinand should also have received Milan for it's wealth and strategic position. However, even the low countries would have been better served in the Austrian branch, that proved through Ferdinand and his successors to be more skilled and accustomed to imperial politics. Phillip could still have counted himself blessed with Spain, Sicily and Naples, and if Naples had been officially incorporated into the Empire, Phillip could also boast the title of imperial prince. Such a separation would have served the branches in their respective problems (Austria and the Ottomans) (Spanish and the French)
About the Low Countries, I also agree. That would be better to belong to the Austrians, because of its closeness to the Holy Roman Empire, and also because of religious matters. Ferdinand and his successor were much more tolerant and understanding towards Protestantism than the true Spanish Philip. Maybe they would have handled the religious situation in the Low Countries better, and it's possible that the revolt and then the bloody suppress of it by the Duke of Alba would have never happened.
He is the Suleman of the habsburgs
Suleiman was a Turkish sultan. The enemy of hasburg's family
@@sandrasarmientolopez5101 I mean that just like Suleman was the greatest ottoman sultan the Charles v was greatest habsburg emperor
@@surriyajabeen2646 Charles V was incompetent, he was the reason Germany could never unite
@@Reichsritter No, that was Martin Luther
@@Reichsritter Beside he wasnt tht interest in Germany
Fernando esta guapo
Sí, muy guapo 😀
Why are they arguing about the succession in the first place? Carlos is the Emperor, it's just natural that his son- Felipe II should succeed him, not his brother Ferdinand.
It wasn't that simple. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a simple hereditary state, Charles himself was elected, against many opponents (like the King of France, Henry VIII, Frederick of Saxony, etc.)
Charles had too much territories to rule (about half of Europe and Spain's territories in America as well), everyone could see that. Ferdinand had been his deputy in the Holy Roman Empire for decades, he acted in Charles's place (so de facto he ruled the empire for many years already), and in 1530 Charles named Ferdinand his heir in the empire (King of the Romans). Philip wasn't educated to rule the Holy Roman Empire, wasn't known there, he was considered completely a stranger, for he lived all his life in Spain. He also didn't speak German, only Spanish. Charles was very much advised by everyone to leave the Empire to Ferdinand and not Philip.
@@Lily1127channel thank for pointing that out to her
The Holy Roman Emperors are elected.
Plus Charles caused this dispute between Ferdinand and Charles by sending Ferdinand to the HRE of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Burgundy (eastern part/aka France Comte) when he first came to Spain. Ferdinand was born in Spain like his sister Catalina but was threatened by the fact that the Castilians, Aragonese, Navarrese, Leonese, and the Granadines may have wanted both Ferdinand and Catalina instead of him and his son Charles(Carlos).
Their jaws look too normal.
Bueno no iban a ponerlos como se veían en realidad, lo que si veo es que el equipo de maquillaje los envejeció bastante bien a los actores ya que para ser jóvenes ya eran padres y según la serie habían pasado años 😅
bajo mi opinión, aquí la serie no es muy fiel a la realidad histórica, porque María de Hungria , hermana de Carlos y Fernando, fue la que encabezó y abiertamente el aprtido felipista para la candidatura del imperio. Felipe siempre tuvo el apoyo de su tía Maria como candidato al imperio frente a su hermano Fernando y su sobrino Maximiliano.
Charles V bankrupted himself by buying Flemish tapestries and split the Habsburg empire into two halves. The Eastern part was economically unviable, militarily impossible to defend and would ultimately collapse. The western half was given to the halfwit Philips. In the end, Philips bankrupted it because he failed to understand what inflation meant and because he thought that imposing taxes in the Netherlands while strangling their trade at the same time was a good idea. Somehow there are people that think Charles V was a good ruler.
Actually there are many historians who rather think Charles a good ruler than a bad ruler. His reign was much more complex than that.
Splitting was actually very good, it would have been a disaster to leave the entire empire to Philip. But, as his only son, it was also impossible to leave him out of the succession. So, not leaving the entire empire to him was the best solution possible. Ferdinand managed as well as anyone could, we were glad to have our king as an emperor. He was already Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary and King of Bohemia since the 1520s. Leaving the Holy Roman Emperor title to him and strengthening his position in Central Europe was a very logical solution. It was basically already decided in 1530 when Charles made him King of the Romans (Emperor's successor title), so there wasn't many new things about Charles's decision to split the empire in 1555. Also, severe Habsburg family conflicts would have arised (probably) if Charles had suddenly decided to leave everything to Philip. When Ferdinand was already embedded in those territories as Charles's deputy and likely successor.
Btw that Eastern part did not collapse for a long time, it existed under Habsburg rule longer than the Western part. If the two parts had remained under one ruler, with all those different, diverse and dispersed territories, it would have surely collapsed much much earlier.
The eastern half didn't collapse, the Habsburgs ruled from Vienna for 200 years after the last Spanish Habsburg had died.
@@andrepettersson175 the great problem is that the monarchs in the absolutism had enourmous power and sometimes abusive. Was normal to arrive the parlamentarism or in the worst scenario the republic to avoid the tiranny.
@@Lily1127channel Charles V's mistake was handing Northern territories like Milan and the Netherlands to Felipe instead of Ferdinand, they were geographically too far from Iberia to defend effectively. The other was wasting Felipe's time by marrying him to the older (and stuck in England) Mary Tudor, Felipe would be better off with anyone who could have been Regent at home like his mother (the Portuguese infanta Maria was a wiser choice, although the risk of inbreeding would still be there).
@@andrepettersson175el sacro imperio romano hasta 1806 cuando Francisco de lorena abdico para no dejarselo a Napoleón, y Austria/Hungría hasta 1918 cuando perdieron la primera guerra mundial el último emperador fue carlos l de austria un sobrino de Francisco José
From i know, Charles did that because he was inspired by Ottoman Empire, large unified empire ruled by single absolute monarch.
He took most of his inspirations from Charlemagne, including in this.
Keizel Harf Nonsense, the Holy Roman Empire had never been such
Why would he follow be inspired by such uncivilized country that only existed since 1299 ad.... Meanwhile the holy Roman Empire is 600 years older then the ottomans 🤡 lol..... He was inspired by the hre.... Plus the ottomans were heavily inspired by Europeans in general, the fact they were surprised by European eating tables says lot about them..... They used to hire European architects and painters and scientists to do the job in the otto-women Empire...... Now go drink your milk
@@arnauuu1 are you saying that the holy Roman Empire didn't exist 🐷🤡🤡 if yes I would like to congratulate you for having no education nor brain
@Hope Logan he wouldve also shown bravery and decided to meet suleiman in battle. but he didnt, because he doesnt follow the ottoman. XD