Charles V ruled over a humongous empire, controlling Spain, the

>>1888585
>If Charles had not been forced to fight the Turks could he have stopped the Reformation?

Probably not.

>If the Reformation had never started could he have defeated the Ottomans?

Probably not.

We're dealing with a still largely feudal monarchy, where the absent king (and Charles spent almost all of his rule in what's now Austria) has to rely on a bunch of people he's probably only met once in his life to carry out his policies, which they may or may not want to do. It's relatively easy to amass troops for a campaign, that's something that the state's "bureaucracy" knows how to do. Actually implement a radical religious change? Occupy and dismember a state whose values are radically opposed to yours even if you can beat them in battle? Much, much harder. Directing changes to the world like some grand strategy game wasn't how real life worked.

Blame the Eternal Frank

File: IMG_3680.jpg (220KB, 954x1008px)

220KB, 954x1008px

Charles V couldn't chew his food properly due to his deformed jaw, so he often had digestion issues. I learned to chew my food more thoroughly because of him and how he's my favorite monarch.

>>1888608
Both endeavors took up a large chunk of Charles's time. He had to raise his armies to battle protestants when he could have been fighting the Ottomans and vice versa. Could it have at least changed the balance of power or lessened the Turkish sphere of influence had he been undistracted by Protestant revolutionaries?

>>1888886

>Both endeavors took up a large chunk of Charles's time

So what? Charles's time is not the primary limiting factor. His ability to actually administrate his enormous realms which have enormously different interests are.

> Could it have at least changed the balance of power or lessened the Turkish sphere of influence had he been undistracted by Protestant revolutionaries?

Possibly, but it's impossible to determine for sure. Given that most of the troops employed in his Ottoman wars were Balkans and southern Germans, and not the same pool of mercanries he was using for most of his protestant campaigns, I don't actually think the outcomes would have been hugely different.

>>1888608
>(and Charles spent almost all of his rule in what's now Austria)
You are thinking of the Low Countries and even then you are wrong. He spend all his childhood in flandres, but as king he mostly remained in Spain.
I dont know if he ever spend much time in Austria proper or even set food into Vienna. His brother ruled Austria for him

>>1888782
Thanks Charles V!

>>1888585
you can never fully defeat the turks

>>1888585
He was the best friend of Willem van Oranje. Without him the Netherlands would never be the same.

>>1888782
Thanks Charles V!