Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire

[ArneHD]

My local history buff told me that this man (who was completely unknown to me before this) was the ruler who controlled the most land in history, due to the extensive marriage deals made by the Hapsburgs. Is this true? I didn't think that the Spanish and Portuguese controlled such a large colonial empire at the time?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

My local history buff told me that this man (who was completely unknown to me before this) was the ruler who controlled the most land in history, due to the extensive marriage deals made by the Hapsburgs. Is this true? I didn't think that the Spanish and Portuguese controlled such a large colonial empire at the time?

In principle, yes, because he was also the King of Spain at the same time, which had a large colonial empire in the New World.

 

[holy king]

the "empire in which the sun never sets" quote is also attributed to him.

In principle, yes, because he was also the King of Spain at the same time, which had a large colonial empire in the New World.

in fact he was king of spain long before he became holy roman emperor.

 

[Disenfrancised]

My local history buff told me that this man (who was completely unknown to me before this) was the ruler who controlled the most land in history, due to the extensive marriage deals made by the Hapsburgs. Is this true? I didn't think that the Spanish and Portuguese controlled such a large colonial empire at the time?

It was probably the second largest empire that had existed up till that time (after the Mongols, the first caliphate being somewhat smaller I think), though most of the New World lands that gave it such an expanse were nominally claimed at best. Certainly the territory in Europe was probably (sans Russia) the largest area owing fealty to a single man between the height of the Franks and the third Reich. Later in history however the Russian and British Empires (probably the Qing too) would be vastly more extensive (as would the later new world possessions of Spain on its own).

You lose Yeekin

 

[Yeekim]

My local history buff told me that this man (who was completely unknown to me before this) was the ruler who controlled the most land in history, due to the extensive marriage deals made by the Hapsburgs. Is this true? I didn't think that the Spanish and Portuguese controlled such a large colonial empire at the time?

Bollocks. He indeed was ruler of both Spanish and Habsburg empires, but their combined size never came anywhere near the size of British or Mongol empires. Even Russia was bigger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Wiki may not be the most reputable source, but brief glance at any map should make it clear that Spain/Holy Rome combined under him was/is nowhere near top of the competition.

EDIT: Disenfrancised, you bastard
EDIT 2: I ... will ... be back!

 

[sydhe]

Philip II may have controlled even more land than Charles V. Philip wasn't Holy Roman Empire, but he was king of Portugal and Spain, which means he had Brazil. Charles was never king of Portugal. The Dutch started picking off Portuguese possessions at some point, but Philip III also ruled both Spain and Portugal, as did Philip IV until the 1640 revolt of Portugal. The two empires theoretically controlled almost all the mainland Americas from Mexico down south, althought the reality was less than that. It was also more of a union of crowns than a union of empires.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Philip II had Portugal, but the portuguese crown fled to Brazil and moved the capital of Portugal to south america, so Philip II never had Brazil.

 

[Agarwaen]

Philip II had Portugal, but the portuguese crown fled to Brazil and moved the capital of Portugal to south america, so Philip II never had Brazil.

The royal family of Portugal only moved to Brazil in 1808, when Napoleon invaded Portugal. Between 1580 and 1640 Portugal and Spain were indeed united and so was Brazil and the Spanish possessions in the Americas.

edit: map with the territories of the Iberian Union:

Spoiler :

 

[Steph]

When Charles V died, the Spanish empire was only 4 millions km², to be compared with the 19 millions of the Spanish empire at its peak.

However, I think at the time of Charles V, his empire was the largest at this instant.

Not the largest in history.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

This map doesn't show any cities in North Africa that were controlled by Spain off and on, such as Oran, Algiers, and Tunis.

edit: map with the territories of the Iberian Union:

Spoiler :

 

[RavenKing]

The map is misleading without a legend. It shows the entire coast of British Columbia to be under Spanish rulle? control? In fact, so far as I know, Spain maintained for a brief time, a small post at Nootka Sound on Vancouver Island, and didn't have any presence whatsoever on the mainland. I'm not even aware if any explorers actually set foot on the mainland, although they certainly did chart the Gulf of Georgia. The lands remained under de facto control of the local First Nations people, despite any pretensions or claims that Spain might have had. I suspect that the same is true of the coast down to northern California. This map also suggests that the lands of the Mapuche in South America were under Spanish dominion, and I had thought that the Mapuche had successfully resisted Spanish control and only succumbed to the Chilean and Argentinian governments long after they achieved independence from Spain. I'm not sure what time period this map is supposed to represent exactly, but I don't think it's accurate for Charles V.

 

[aronnax]

Charles did not rule the largest empire in History at any given point. However you should give him credit in ruling over a large chunk of Europe at that time and was possibly the largest country within Europe of his time puting aside Moscovy and the Ottomans.

He ruled over Austria, Hungary, Naples, half of Hungary, Bohemia, both Netherlands. Milan, Luneburg, France-Comte, various North African cities and a bunch of tiny German States

 

[Steph]

You are forgetting the Spanish colonies.

 

[Arwon]

Charles V didn't rule as much land as Felipe II, III and IV, as already stated. Between 1580 and 1640, the crowns of Castile, Aragon and Portugal were all in personal union under the 3 Felipes. My guess is that the Portuguese lands were bigger than the HRE.

 

[aronnax]

You are forgetting the Spanish colonies.

I would hardly count marching 50 soldiers without any form of resistance to outposts at both ends of the countries, where no one lives, walks through regulary or even visit in the 16th century as a proper way to annouce control over it.

Nor is claming large swarths of near empty land, that is not officially claimed by any nation, that is hardly ever visited by anyone annexation.

I think the amount of land the Spanish controled, compared to claimed is very different.

Hence I left it out of the equation of excatly how much Charles V controlled.

Its like planting a flag at the north pole...

 

[Mirc]

He ruled over Austria, Hungary, Naples, half of Hungary, Bohemia, both Netherlands. Milan, Luneburg, France-Comte, various North African cities and a bunch of tiny German States

Bolded part WTH? How can he rule in the same time over a country and half of it? Doesn't the first one include the latter?
Just because I got used to correcting this kind of stuff:
Don't forget that at the time Transylvania was an autonomous province under the Crown of Hapsburg so you should not mention it as a part of Hungary at this time, but as another kingdom (princedom, in fact) that this guy ruled over.

 

[aronnax]

Bolded part WTH? How can he rule in the same time over a country and half of it? Doesn't the first one include the latter?
Just because I got used to correcting this kind of stuff:
Don't forget that at the time Transylvania was an autonomous province under the Crown of Hapsburg so you should not mention it as a part of Hungary at this time, but as another kingdom (princedom, in fact) that this guy ruled over.

You knitpickers are determined to note out these kind of typos arent you?

Translyvania was intergrated into the Kingdom of Hungary despite anysort of Autonomy. Hence when referencing the lands of the Kingdom of Hungary that was inherited by the Hasburgs, one refers to that block of land stretching from Croatia to Translyvania. So in true fact, Charles V claim to rule over Hungary which then was a complete entity currently lock in a dispute with the Ottomans. No need of Translyvania to be mentions, it was in hungary

 

[Mirc]

You knitpickers are determined to note out these kind of typos arent you?

Translyvania was intergrated into the Kingdom of Hungary despite anysort of Autonomy. Hence when referencing the lands of the Kingdom of Hungary that was inherited by the Hasburgs, one refers to that block of land stretching from Croatia to Translyvania. So in true fact, Charles V claim to rule over Hungary which then was a complete entity currently lock in a dispute with the Ottomans. No need of Translyvania to be mentions, it was in hungary

Actually it was ruled by its own prince at principality level, which means indeed that it's in fact a chain of 3 lines of nobility ruling it at the same time (and if you count the regional nobilities than you can get up to 5, in fact, but they were not labeled as "princes", obviously). Europe 1000-1700 was a weird place indeed. Of course, unlike the XXth century which was so simple and peaceful... Or the IXth, or the XVIIIth or the XIXth... Hmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania#Transylvania_as_an_Independent_Principality

he 16th century in Southeastern Europe was marked by the struggle between the Muslim Ottoman Empire and the Catholic Habsburg Empire. After the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent overran central Hungary (see Ottoman Hungary), Transylvania became a semi-independent principality where Austrian and Turkish influences vied for supremacy for nearly two centuries. It is this period of independence and Turkish influence that contributed to Transylvania being seen as exotic in the eyes of Victorians such as Bram Stoker, whose novel Dracula was published in 1897.[26]

note it doesn't just say autonomous, it even says "semi-independent". At the time of Charles V, it was under Hapsburg influence, Hungarian rulers did not even re-appear in it until 1571, IIRC. It makes equal (or maybe even more) sense to include it as an autonomous principality inside Austria, if you want.

In any case, we're going off topic.

 

[aronnax]

Actually it was ruled by its own prince at principality level, which means indeed that it's in fact a chain of 3 lines of nobility ruling it at the same time (and if you count the regional nobilities than you can get up to 5, in fact, but they were not labeled as "princes", obviously). Europe 1000-1700 was a weird place indeed. Of course, unlike the XXth century which was so simple and peaceful... Or the IXth, or the XVIIIth or the XIXth... Hmm...

In any case, we're going off topic.

Actually we are stillon topic, we are seeing if Charles V did rule such a huge area of land and without Translyvania, it would have been smaller...

What you are talking about is this right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania

Take a look at the map, it says at the abdication of Charles V which was in 1556. Translyvania became this semi-indepedant state, ruled by princes or whatever title they possessed under the Ottomans in 1571.

I believe these nobility you mentioned were the Bathory, Zápolya and Drăculeşti?

Nevertheless, at the time of Charles abidication, there was no semi-indepedant Translvyania.

 

[Tee Kay]

My local history buff told me that this man (who was completely unknown to me before this) was the ruler who controlled the most land in history, due to the extensive marriage deals made by the Hapsburgs. Is this true? I didn't think that the Spanish and Portuguese controlled such a large colonial empire at the time?

In any case Charles V got owned by Stalin, if you count the various European and Asian puppet states and de facto Soviet occupation zones.

I believe at the time of Charles V the Portuguese only effectively control the coastal regions of Brazil and Spanish rule did not extend over such a large area of the Americas as shown on the map. Portuguese/Spanish holdings in Africa and India were (back then) only coastal "trading" forts and their rule did not extend beyond the coastal strip (there were exceptions - Angola, Mozambique, Goa, Philippines). Definitely the Spanish did not hold such a large area of the West Coast of North America back then.