How did Spain get so much land in Europe? How come didn't

Spain and the Ottomans? They're pretty far from each other.

>>618038

A lot of it was either brought in via Hapsburg inheritance (Low countries, France-Comte) Or was just conquered. The Tercios were probably the best soldiers in Europe in their day.

>>618038
Mostly due to Charles V having Habsburg and Burgundian ancestry.

>>618038
>How did Spain get so much land in Europe?
Dumb question, start over.

>>618044
The Ottomans had land in North Africa, Balkans and Anatolia.

Spain had lands in Iberia, Italy and Central Europe. Just look at the map.

Knowing realpolitik, I can only imagine the amount of distrust and tension between the two of them.

>>618053
So at some point the Spanish were married to Hapsburgs, the Hapsburgs got 404'd and the Spanish inherited it all?

>>618081
More like, spanish dynasty 404d
Habsburg inherited Spain

>>618081

The dynastic relations get extremely complicated, but no, not really.

The Spanish marry into the Hapsburg line in the late 1400s, and the territories that used to be part of Burgundy get lobbed into that branch of the family for reasons I don't fully remember anymore.

Their relatives held onto significant chunks in central Europe. Go look up Charles the 5th if you want to see how he divided his realms up, he was the one who was basically king of everything.

>>618081
>Knowing realpolitik
It's seems you don't

>>618098
you what mate

do you even intuitive wellian geopolitics bro?
do you even theory of territorrial geographic influence?
u lil scrub mate, i'll wrek the shit out of your heartland policies

File: Otto_Fürst_von_Bismarck.jpg (587KB, 1287x1773px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1287x1773px

>>618107
All I need to know I learned it from him

Fight him IRL faggot

>>618081

>Knowing realpolitik, I can only imagine the amount of distrust and tension between the two of them.

They quite literally fought numerous wars. Ever hear of Lepanto?

you are talking about a time where it is not as much "Spain" having it, as it is a particular dynasty

File: Einhard_1521.jpg (512KB, 890x1305px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 890x1305px

Spain didn't. The Habsburgs did.
How they did:
>Frederick III married Eleanor of Portugal
>Eleanor has ties with Isabella of Portugal, mother of Charles the Bold
>Frederick III therefore pursues a marriage between his son Maximilian and Charles's daughter Marie
>Charles dies, Marie beckons Maximilian save her from the violent Dutch burghers, they get married
>They have a son, who's taken hostage by the Dutch for most of his childhood, Marie dies in a hunting accident
>Maximilian inherits the Netherlands, after disastrous encounters with the burghers, and consolidates his position there
>Receives his son, Philip, back and proceeds to marry him to Joanna of Castile, who then give birth to Charles (V)
>Philip, who would have been the next in line for all of these territories, dies, then Maximilian dies, and a bunch of Spanish aristocracy dies too
Only by this lucky sequence of events was Charles V born into the largest, relatively centralized, dynastic empire (not referring to the >Holy>Roman) in Europe in centuries. Through the fleeting period of Spanish military dominance in Europe, the Italian wars were ultimately more victorious for the Habsburgs than the French, although with rather petty results for a petty series of wars.

>>618128
I thought that both the HRE except for Bohemia and Austria were pretty uncentralized just like Spain.

>>618131
Firstly
>(not referring to the >Holy>Roman)
Secondly, Charles V's rule was the largest, RELATIVELY centralized, dynastic empire. That is to say, a lot of de jure rule, and for Europe at the time, quite a bit of de facto rule for a single man.

>>618119
I didn't learn this at school. All I know is that I was playinh EU4 some other day and noticed how Spain had so much land in Europe. And here we're now.

>>618116
this idiot is retarded. he risked to destroy germany in his conquest. never he considered the possibility of whatever naiton even interfering within his campaing, that he simply just went full retard in plain late 19th century europe. great britain, russia and denmark just to mention a few could just have said "nope, not letting you become a power" and even further destabilize german lands.

>>618135
>H
>R
>E

Between peasant uprisings, the league of ausburgs, bunch of swabian and swiss shit, robber knights and near independent electors i'd say the relatively is something of an overstatement.

Sure the Burgundian Kreit was centralized and I suppose Spain more so than the HRE but overall his possessions where nowhere near French or English levels, though I reckon he attempted to centralize with his Reichkamergericht.

>>618038
>How did Spain get so much land in Europe?
Hapsburg won control of Spain, not the other way around
>How come didn't the Ottomans seem to give a fuck?
They did but they were a more like a horde, conquer and rape for Islam
>Why didn't they just kill each other?
They did, but Austria did (see 1683)

>>618145
>Between peasant uprisings, the league of ausburgs, bunch of swabian and swiss shit, robber knights and near independent electors i'd say the relatively is something of an overstatement.
Are you retarded?
I have literally said twice I'm not referring to the Holy Roman Empire, I'm referring to Charles V's dynastic empire, learn to read.

The Peasants War demonstrated the localized decentralization of Imperial Cities, that posed more of a threat to individual lords and the Electoral Princes than it ever did to the Emperor himself.

The Swabians were literally fighting against the Swiss to the benefit of centralization, only the Swiss stand as a testament to the long-term fracturing of a large portion of the empire off to de facto autonomy.

The Swiss and the electors are the proof of HRE decentralization, not those other things.

>>618145
Now that you say it, I realize I forgot to ask another question.

How was the elector system in the HRE?

Was it basically some 5 or 10 important provinces deciding who would be emperor next?

How did it work? Could an emperor be relected? Did the electors have to elect someone outside the elector group?

Pls explain.

File: kaiser-wilhelm-ii.jpg (96KB, 500x773px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x773px

>>618138
>this idiot is retarded.
he was a genius, this guy was retarded
>he risked to destroy Germany in his conquest.
see Ems dispatch and why he almost jump out of a window to stop Prussia from capturing Vienna and taking Bohemia, also 1864 was nothing to worry about
>great britain, russia and denmark just to mention a few could just have said "nope, not letting you become a power" and even further destabilize german lands.
Britain didn't gave a fuck since the heir to the German throne was marry with the daughter of Victoria
Russia was a joke, they failed to industrialize and their army was incapable of stopping Prussia, also add revolts every years for anything and Crimea war
Denmark see above and >Denmark >Power
>that he simply just went full retard in plain late 19th century europe.
3 small and short wars?

>>618172
Wilhelm is more of a tragedy than a retard, desu

>>618172
faggot

>>618138
>I learn my history from EU4 and /his/
>Bismarck is the retard

>>618176
"You English," he said, "are mad, mad, mad as March hares."

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Daily_Telegraph_Affair

>>618038

I cannot be sure if troll.

>>618081
>Spain
>Central Europe
The fuck?

>>618202
"Spain" did not have lands in Central Europe. The Habsburgs did.

>>618204
Sure as fuck were enough Spainiards running around in the Low Countries, REEEEEEEEE

What's correct /his/?

The Hapsburg empire of the Spanish empire?

>>618212
Spanish, as it continued under the Bourbons for long enough.

>>618171
The Golden Bull of 1356 fixed the college at 7 electors, there were changes in later centuries but the position of emperor was effectively heriditary after Frederick III.

>>618212

Neither, unless you're using the term "Spanish Empire" to refer to Spain and her colonial possessions.

The Hapsburgs were a dynastic conglomeration, not an empire,

>>618171
>Was it basically some 5 or 10 important provinces deciding who would be emperor next?
The German provinces 'decided'.
The Bohemian Elector was largely honorific, and absolutely honorific once the Habsburgs absorbed the region.

>Was it basically some 5 or 10 important provinces deciding who would be emperor next?
Let's put it this way. Martin Luther once said Maximilian was, as the Holy Roman Emperor, a 'king of kings'. That was not necessarily a statement of praise, so much as it was a commentary on the meaning of being a >Holy>Roman>Emperor. A clearer way of saying it would be 'prince of princes'. Meaning that emperorship was usually given to the strongest prince of the Holy Roman Empire, and not necessarily decided in a diet for the sake of practicality.

What the Electoral Princes decided on was matters of state. Often completely in spite of the what the Emperor desired, unless the desire was mutually felt by Princes and Emperor.

Emperor's usually reigned until they died. There were wars of succession and emperor's deposed, but typically, once an emperor gained emperorship/kingship (emperorship gained through different means over time, kingship being king of the 'romans' (germans)). It was a largely honorific clusterfuck.

Essentially
>a collection of princes
>top prince got the throne
>throne rarely meant anything without strong ambition by the guy on it, and meant little to nothing after the 30 Years War
>diets (parliament) would usually be a stalemate if the emperor's desires didn't match those of the electoral princes

Speaking of which, here's another important fact to keep in mind, the 30 Years War did more to destroy the de facto unity of the Empire than Napoleon's dissolution did. From 1648-1806, it was more of a farce than it had ever been before.

>>618214
what the fuck?

the Bourbons come later, after the Mr Chin died without heir and the war of Spanish Succession was won by them

>>618216
>The Hapsburgs were a dynastic conglomeration, not an empire,
The domains of Charles V are often referred to as his 'empire' by historians.

>>618221
The Spanish Empire kept existing after the Habsburgs kicked the bucket.

>>618233
See my question again

Also the Spanish Empire cease to exist since Naples and the Netherlands cease to be Spanish

The only empire left was the colonial one

>>618243
>The only empire left was the colonial one
Still an Empire

>>618243
The concept of "colony" is different in the 16th century than in the 19th century, though.

>>618038
Naples came with aragon, Austria gave low countries to Spain (both were hapsburg at the time)

Ottomans DID give a fuck. There were practically endless naval conflicts in the mediterranean. The conquistadors were successful in america partly because they had already been killing brown people their entire life.

The spanish naval buildup in the mediterranean to fight muslims was what gave them power over the new world and it being wiped out in a freak storm while attempting to invade england let the other euro powers colonize.

>>619063
>The spanish naval buildup in the mediterranean to fight muslims was what gave them power over the new world and it being wiped out in a freak storm while attempting to invade england let the other euro powers colonize.
Mediterranean and Atlantic sailing are different, and Castile had already a long experience in Atlantic navigation, which continued after the Anglo Spanish War (which ended like twenty years after the Spanish Armada btw).

>How come didn't the Ottomans seem to give a fuck?
There is a whole history of conflict between Habsburgs and Ottomans, are you serious? Ottomans cared so much they went as far to include this in a peace treaty in 1533 after Mohacs.

>Ferdinand was to be considered as the King of Germany, and Charles V as the King of Spain, and they were equal to the Grand Vizier of Ottoman Empire. Moreover, they were banned to count anyone as 'Emperor' except the Ottoman Emperor.

>>619063
>Ottomans DID give a fuck. There were practically endless naval conflicts in the mediterranean. The conquistadors were successful in america partly because they had already been killing brown people their entire life.

Spanish lost most of their military campaigns in Mediterranean against Ottomans. It was Venetians that won Lepanto, Venetians also unfortunately lost most of their military campaigns in Mediterranean against Ottomans as well.

The reason Spanish were successful in Americas was because they were veterans of Italian war and the best disciplined, trained and led soldiers in the Europe at the time. They were also quite smart about how they approached natives outside of battles but that's another topic.

>>619088
They had the experience but not the raw numbers to stop France and England.

I'll concede that papal authority being weakened (and thus the bull being ignored) from the reformation didnt help either

File: El Camino Español.jpg (375KB, 1600x1110px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1600x1110px

i love the anglo/protestant propaganda and envy.

They despise Spain achievements, saying it was all because of the hapsburgs heritage.

while naples,sicilly, sardinia and all the north african enclaves (where we shed a lot of blood against the turk and the moor) were conquered, mantained and defended with spanish manpower.

The struggle in Belgium and italy against dutch/french was confronted exclusively by spaniards or mercenaries hired with castillian gold.

so please stop with meme, we should be proud to have achieved all that with cancers like those hapsburgs german beggars that leeched from us.
if only we have had an iberian dinasty...

>>619268
Habsburgs were the worst thing to happen to Spain.

It is because of them Spain's riches were spent waging useless wars in Europe and paying for the failure that is HRE.

>>618038
You could better say, how come Austria had so much land
That image is kinda wrong in that Austria was the senior branch of Habsburg and Spain the junior
some around 1500 give or take, Charles V of Habsburg became the king of Spain via some marriages, which I dont fully remember, and with him came the Austrian dominions; which were Italy, Burgundy and the Low Countries
Naples was acquired by Charles V later on I think, but of that I am not sure

>>619482
Charles V was born as King of Spain, he didn't "become" the King of Spain. He was basically half Spanish, quarter French and quarter Austrian.

File: Empire-Roman-Emperor-Charles-V.jpg (267KB, 665x458px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 665x458px

Charles V was the closest a man had ever been to uniting Europe since Charlemagne himself.

Had things taken another course, his heir could have also been king of England and Portugal, effectively putting all of Western Europe under his control except for France.

>>619105
This is true.

Venetians were like Foundation. They had shitty resources but made it count on naval scale.

Spanish fleets were always under the command of Venetian knowhow.

Also: Venetian assassins killed Fatih (Mehmed II) right before he started his Taranto campaign to capture First Rome as well.

Venetians are the most underrated rivals the Ottomans ever had.

Most people assume Spanish, Germans or Holy Leagues saved Europe on a couple of occasions, but in reality Venetian handrubbers masterminded the early setbacks to Ottoman hegemony.

If Mehmed II lived another 20 years, He WOULD have conquered Calabria and Sicily 99.9%.

t. Turk

>>619754
Venetians are also the reason the Eastern Romans fell when they did by kicking their legs out from under them, 100% ensuring that the whole region would fall to the Turks.

>>619765
Partly because of their rivalry with Genoese (who were allied to Byzantium), that is true.

But Turkish conquest of Istanbul could never be stopped. It was manifest destiny for them.

>>619775
Reminds me of that guy that pushes you into the road then drags you back to the pavement while yelling "saved your life" before the car hits you Tbh.

>>619575
His grandaughter, Isabella Claura Eugenia, was elected Queen (Regnant) of France, but after Henry of Navarre converted to catholicism they ignored her.

>>618038
>How come didn't the Ottomans seem to give a fuck?

Spain was literally the main enemy of the Ottomans, you idiot. Read about the battle of Lepanto or about Charles V vs Suleiman.

>>618211
That's because locals, germans and italian troops were shitty and the Habsburgs were literally desperate to send at least just another spaniard more to fight in the Netherlands. Which was a logistical nightmare, of course.

>>618212
Empire of Charles V for the OP's picture. Spanish empire for everything that came after that since it was continued by the Bourbons for quite a time. Also the austrian Habsburgs were a secondary power when the spaniard ones were a thing.

>>619482
dude read a book or something to hide your ignorance, you sound like a retarded child.
Italy was part of his aragonese heritage while the duchy of milan was taken away from Francis I

Spain and Ottomans were permanently at war.
Moors (Turgus Reis and thah kind of pirates) raided the mediterranean coast and kidnapped like 1 million people.

Hell, even Cervantes (don quixote author) was kidnapped and spent years at an algerian prison.

One of the main reasons of sailing to the new world was the chaos in the mediterranean for trade.

>>619105
kek most of the fleet were spaniards and the main admiral was Juan de Austria the king´s bastard brother.

but you can wank with the venetian heroes if you want.
History is what it is

>>620027
It was Venetian galleases and crew that won Lepanto.

See Preveza for what happens otherwise.

>>619482
Wow you are so ignorant.

>>619268
>we should be proud to have achieved all that with cancers like those hapsburgs german beggars that leeched from us.
>i love the anglo/protestant propaganda and envy.
Well done.

>>618212
Spanish