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.
>>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.
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.
>>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?
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.