How did Personal Unions Centralize?

bumping for interest

>>3259367
RNG or bird mana

>>3259367
But they didn't restructure them into singular realms. They continued to have different laws, tax codes, rights, important duties, trade regulations, and parliaments where applicable. The holding of multiple crowns was just that, holding multiple crowns. At no point did the crowns centralize into one united state. It would take until the sweeping changes of the French Revolution for states to begin sweeping aside this feudal order and move towards centralized, modern nation states.

>>3259367
>Spain and the Hapsburg dynasty are both strong examples of it happening

But they're not. Habsburg Spain was massively decentralized. There were at least 5 polities that you can consider an independent nation with the only link being sharing a monarch. And that's only for Iberia. The only serious attempt by the spanish Habsburgs happened under Philip IV and resulted in half of the peninsula conspirating and/or actively trying to secede. Portugal was lost and for a time the catalans tried to pledge loyalty to France. All attempts of centralism were cancelled.

It is only under the Bourbons that centralization starts to kick in, inspired by the french example. And even that is mostly because the first spanish Bourbon had the excuse of punishing those lands who sided against him during the Spanish War of Succession.

To expand on my curiosity of the subject of personal unions; I'm playing a game of D&D where my character, through fortune and battle, sits with three crowns of very different kingdoms. The DM is a fellow history nerd and we were discussing the sort of steps that would need to be taken to prevent this union from falling apart, and perhaps ultimately centralizing.
Eastdale* - Large, rural population and the nobility are former generals landed after its conquest.
Southdale* - Medium, slightly more urban population. Nobility are centuries entrenched.
Waywold - Small, highly urbanized population with smaller villages dotting the countryside. Older nobility with decent centralization.

*Used to be a single kingdom of the Eastdale until previously split for better administration.

So I thought I might learn from history before taking actions here.

>>3261022
Funny. Not too big a fan of EU4, but funny. (For exactly the reason of mana.)

>>3261043
I know that the Hapsburgs ultimately had to concede power to the Hungarian nobility to maintain their Empire, resulting in Austria-Hungary, but they did manage to centralize their realm enough through the centuries that their various personal unions would ultimately become the Austrian Empire (as feeble and broken as it was).

>>3261100
I would like to be clarify that statement; I meant that Spain's unification of the Leonese, Castillian, and Aragonese crowns was one good example of multiple crowns being held and ultimately unified. The Hapsburg dynasty's success in holding together Bohemia, Austria, Croatia, and Hungary was a second, distinct example.

Thank you for your response, though. I'm certainly going to look up Philip IV and see if I can figure out where he failed. Though, I suppose that asking "what did the Bourbons do right?" would extend my original question.

Denmark-Norway
1380-1536: Danish monarch elects his chosen men to key positions in Norway
1536: The Norwegian council of the realm is disbanded as the Norwegian archbishop (one of the major characters in the council and Norwegian politics) fights the protestant reformation.
1536-1660: Norway has no political body ruling it, the Norwegian laws go into decay.
1660: Danish monarch establishes absolutism in Denmark and Norway, they become a unitary state with one body of law and administration.

>>3262345
>Eastdale* - Large, rural population and the nobility are former generals landed after its conquest.
>Southdale* - Medium, slightly more urban population. Nobility are centuries entrenched.
>Waywold - Small, highly urbanized population with smaller villages dotting the countryside. Older nobility with decent centralization.

Each kingdom should have factions who fear that their existing privileges will be lost (or will be rendered more susceptible to loss) if the kingdoms are unified...
- The militaristic nobles of Eastdale have the privilege of maintaining their own private armies.
- The urbanite nobles of Waywold have state-enforced monopolies on sectors of trade. (For example, the Duke of Skyrach is the only person who is allowed to trade ink (or authorize other people to trade ink). If anyone attempts to trade ink without Skyrach's permission, Skyrach can call in the King to shut him down.)
- The nobles of Southdale are exempt from most royal taxes, and are content to sit quietly on their ancient estates, watching their coffers slowly grow.

When held in personal union, these three kingdoms are totally separate politically, and the king must negotiate with them separately. If the king revokes privileges from the nobles of Eastdale and they rise in revolt, the nobles of Southdale and Waywold will refuse to help him subjugate those of Eastdale (because they know that the same power could be brought to bear against them in order to erode their own rights), and they have no obligation to do so.

However, if they merged into one, the king would be able to play these factions off of each other politically and military, and slowly remove their privileges.

t. non-historian who follows the development of the MEIOU & Taxes mod for EU4

>>3262479
Also:
- The king wants to merge all three kingdoms under the laws of the Kingdom of Southdale--but the nobles of Eastdale care about armies more than about taxes, and the nobles of Waywold don't care if they have to pay taxes when they've got monopolistic profit margins. Neither of those two kingdoms wants to be unified underneath Southdale, because they prefer their own kingdoms' laws.

>>3262448
Hm... So working to undermine the legalistic underpinnings of the non-primary crowns would allow me to centralize authority to one of them by effectively abolishing the other two. That would achieve the goal if I can get it to work.

>>3262479
So, if I'm understanding you right, you think the key is being able to play them off of each other, to weaken then without hurting myself, thus allowing me to leverage my strength against their privileges. Hm... that seems plausible, and I think I have an idea of how to accomplish it; tariffs. I rule both kingdoms and thus would be able to siphon gold from both sides, building my own power base whilst weakening theirs. Though, something could be said for the opposite to help create a stronger merchant class to aid me against the nobility.

Though, I suppose I could also subscribe to the CK2 approach (assuming your familiar based on that last comment); have a demesne big and developed enough to be able to handle revolts personally.

Though, it still leaves me wondering what legal actions I can take to achieve this effect. In the campaign, we're currently fighting an external threat, and can't afford to weaken my levies before taking to the battlefield. For now, I think I'll start by copying the Hapsburgs with something akin to the Pragmatic Sanction.

Question for you, specifically, though, anon; Is M&T2 any good? I can't stand vanilla EU4, but it looks to be significantly different.

>>3262520
>Is M&T2 any good?
I haven't played EU4+M&T in many months, in favor of CK2+HIP. Generally, though, I'm starting to think that M&T is a bit too bloated, though I used to think that it was okay (if a little slow for my liking).
>>>/vg/gsg for other opinions.