Talk:Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Titles in lead

Looking at the edit history, I see there's been some back and forth reverting on the question of Charles's titles (e.g. whether to call him "King of Germany", "King of Italy", "King of the Romans", "Duke of Burgundy", "Lord of the Netherlands"...). I'd like to make the suggestion that we are, on the whole, listing too many titles in the intro. This is the most relevant guideline I could find, from MOS:BIO:

The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

How do reliable sources commonly describe Charles? 1911 Britannica seems like a good place to start. The first paragraph describes him as "Roman emperor" and "king of Spain" (those are the only titles - it also indirectly describes him as head of the house of Habsburg, and as having inherited the Habsburg Netherlands and Burgundy). The only other title I can find ascribed to him in the article is "king of Portugal".

As for the Catholic Encyclopedia, they similarly lead off with the titles "Emperor" and "King of Spain". The titles "King of Castile" and "King of Aragon" are mentioned later on, in paragraphs 2 and 3, respectively.

All that is to say, maybe there are RS that do describe Charles as, say, "King of Italy", but it doesn't seem like he's commonly identified with that title in RS, thus per MOS:LEADREL, it seems more appropriate to give this information in the body (i.e. at § titles) rather than in the intro. (Also, I'd really like to get the length of the intro down, and this would help.) Colin M (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is far too much - was he actually, formally, "King of Spain" for example? The most important realms need to be in the lead, but others could come in when he inherited or acquired them, as eg "Duke of Milan" does. The lead is somewhat repetitous & could be tightened. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph is currently too long and gets distracted with stuff like Klein-Venedig and El Dorado. I think the first sentence should state that he was Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain and head of the House of Habsburg. The next sentences should briefly expand on this, stating that as emperor he ruled Germany and northern Italy; that Spain consisted of several peninsular kingdoms and an expanding colonial empire, as well as the Italian kingdoms of Naples and Sicily; and that his Habsburg possessions included Austria, Burgundy and the Netherlands. The first paragraph should end with the Reformation, Magellan, Italian Wars, that sort of thing. The rest of the lead is then a chronological synopsis of his life (as now). I believe Charles V himself used "King of Spain" as a title to indicate all his Spanish realms, but I'd have to check to be sure.

As an aside, the significance of an emperor become duke of a duchy within his empire is not apparent unless you know something about the HRE, so I'd save Milan for the body of the article, where it's importance can be explained. Srnec (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That's where it is now, as I said. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Formally speaking, he was not "King of Spain". Philip II was the one to officially establish the "Monaquia Hispanica" and was Prince of Spain since his birth. But I don't know if that is the issue. The issue is that the appellation "King of Spain" does not include more than Spain itself, and this guy ruled half of W.Europe. Barjimoa (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the problem with Charles v. He had four inheritances: Austria, Castille, Aragon, and Burgundy. In his biography he uses the title Lord of the Flanders (Flanders meant all of the habsburg netherlands at the time) more often than Duke of Burgundy (in both cases he is techincally referring to the status of Prince).

The title "King of Spain" did techincally not exist so he never officially used it. Certainly not in in his autobiography, so it's kind of an anachronistic claim (he names his son Prince of Spain tho). But he was called unofficially by some "King in Spain" "King of the Spain" "King of the Spains", but that title did not include his castilian territories in the Americas or Klein-Venedig (for that he used king of the Indies like Isabel of Castile) or the Aragonese two sicilies (Naples and Sicily) because it was a composite monarchy in personal union. The titles King of Germany and King of Italy existed and he used them, but these did not correspond to kingdoms in the modern sense (see the various Holy Roman Emperors for this). The title he used the most was that of Holy Roman Emperor to which he was elected as head of the House of Austria /Habsburg(his autobiograhy is named Emperor Charles V)

So, one way to put is "Holy Roman Emperor + King of Castile and Aragon + Prince/Lord of the Habsburg netherlands/Low countries.

Because the way he constructs his biography seems to be "I was first Prince then King then Emperor" by virtue of his four inheritances without giving much emhpasis to the nations ruled.

But when he did focus on the areas of his jurisdiction (like in his letter to Francis I of France) he said "Emperor of the Romans, King of Germany, King of Italy, King of the Spains, King of the Indies etc etc"

So for me we are left with two choices because he styled in two of these ways:

1)"Holy Roman Emperor + King of Castile and Aragon + Prince of the habsburg netherlands" if we follow his inheritances. (De Jure he was this)

2)"Holy Roman Emperor + King of Germany + King of Italy + King of Spain+ King of the Indies + Prince/Lord/Duke (interchangeable) of the Habsburg netherlands" if we follow the other reasoning.

I prefer this second choice.

All the minor titles we can exclude them of course. Barjimoa (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

In short, What I mean is that

1)as Holy Roman Emperor he was King of Italy and King of Germany.

2)King of the crowns of Castile and Aragon is kind of the same thing as saying: King of spain + indies + two sicilies. But King of Spain alone does not include the crowns possessions outside Spain.

3)Lord/Duke are two interchangeable forms for the principality inherited by his father. Barjimoa (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that what he described himself as is totally irrelevant, and that we should follow secondary sources. Emperor and king of Spain it is then, and the broader implications and detail of these titles and the patrimonies they brought with them can come later. ——SerialNumber54129 09:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

But no "King of Spain" alone because it's reductive (you exclude other important titles) or anachronistic (if you assume that Spain included Naples and the Netherlands which is wrong). Nor we can just say "Holy Roman Emperor" as many books do.

If you put it you have to add also the Indies and the Two Sicilies. Also when sources of the 1500s and 1600s list him as King (instead of just Charles V, Emperor) they have always Germany and Italy as in the titles section.

If we don't want a long list, then the best it's to stay with the current form.

The point is this: he "ruled" the low countries as Duke of Burdungy, the area of Spain/Indies/Sicilies as King of the crowns of Castile and Aragon, and Italy and Germany as Holy Roman Emperor. I don't know which is the best way to put it. If by the area ruled (unofficial title) or by the inheritance (official title).

We have to be careful in not cause confusions, because not all his dominions were Spanish or held as Holy Roman Emperor. Barjimoa (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

We will not be mentioning the Indies or Italy in the opening sentence, and sources from the 16th / 17th c. are primary. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 10:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so your position is to keep the opening sentence as it is then. There's a typo in your previous comment because you wrote that you agreed with me and I was just re-making my point. Barjimoa (talk)

Perhaps it's a basic mistake to focus on titles, none of which actually have the clear meaning those unfamiliar with European history in the period (so probably most of our readers) might think. We might do that in a seperate section below the lead. In the lead we should just say that he was HRE and mostly through inheritance the direct ruler of large parts of Spain, the Low Countries, Germany and Italy. The titles of "king" of Italy, Germany and Spain are especial traps, potentially misleading in one way or another (the ones he formally held didn't mean much, the one that was meaningful he didn't actually hold). Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a solution. I'm open to it. I have made a proposal below, but yours is better maybe. I agree, it's problematic.Barjimoa (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It would give a decent cut to the length of the lead, and allow more room below to say what the titles meant in reality. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. It contains the appellation most commonly given to him in RS and, as you say, I think it gives a clearer introductory overview to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. Colin M (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

User:Srnec, User: Johnbod, User:Colin M, User: Favonian,

Inspired by the discussion above. Also, I've arranged stuff in chronological order, since the article doesn't do that and instead covers the individual areas. Removed many repetitions and added important stuff. This is my proposal.

1st paragraph: who he was and what he ruled

Charles V[a] (24 February 1500 – 21 September 1558) was Holy Roman Emperor (1519–1556), King of Castile and Aragon (1516–1556), and Duke of Burgundy (1506-1555). As head of the House of Habsburg, he ruled the Low Countries, Spain and southern Italy, the Austrian hereditary lands, and had Imperial sovereignity in Germany and northern Italy. In addition to the Habsburg dominions in Europe, his reign encompassed both the long-lasting Spanish and the short-lived German colonizations of the Americas. The personal union of his European and American territories, spanning over nearly 4 million square kilometres, was the first collection of realms labelled "the empire on which the sun never sets".[2][3][4][5][6]

2nd paragraph: why he was that and ruled what he had

Born in Flanders in 1500 to Philip the Handsome (son of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor and Mary of Burgundy) and Joanna the Mad (daughter of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon), Charles inherited all of his family dominions at a young age due to the premature death of his father and the mental illness of his mother. As Duke of Burgundy from 1506, he inherited the Burgundian Circle including the Habsburg Netherlands and areas around the eastern border of France. As a grandson of the Catholic Monarchs, in 1516 he became King of Spain jointly with his mother as well as ruler of the Castilian West Indies and the Aragonese Two Sicilies. As the head of the House of Austria from 1519, he obtained the Archduchy of Austria in Central Europe and was elected Holy Roman Emperor. His personal domains remained mostly loyal to him, except for four dangerous rebellions quickly put down: the Revolt of the Comuneros in Castile, the Revolt of the Brotherhoods in Aragon, the revolt of the Arumer Zwarte Hoop in Frisia, and, later in his reign, the Revolt of Ghent.

Paragraph 3: facts in Europe

Charles V revitalized the medieval concept of the universal monarchy of Charlemagne and became the object of hostilities from many enemies who opposed the idea of a European hegemony.[7] [8]

Therefore, Charles spent most of his reign defending the integrity of the Holy Roman Empire from the Kingdom of France in the Italian Wars, the Ottoman Empire in the struggle to halt the Turkish advance into Europe, and the Lutheran princes in the context of the Protestant Reformation. Charles declared Martin Luther an outlaw at the Diet of Worms (1521), but could not prevent the Sack of Rome (1527) and the formation of the Schmalkaldic League (1531). Successes against the Turks came with the Siege of Vienna (1529) and the Conquest of Tunis (1535), but he was unable to prevent the Ottomans expansion and the naval activity of the Barbary pirates after the Siege of Pest (1542) and the Algiers expedition (1541). In Italy, Charles V became Duke of Milan in 1535 after defeating Francis I of France at the Battle of Pavia (1525) and entering an agreement with the Pope at the Congress of Bologna (1530). However, France refused to accept the hegemony of Charles V and often supported the Protestant Leagues and formed alliances with the Ottomans.

paraphraph 4: about the Americas

In order to finance the Imperial wars, Charles V increased the influx of silver from the Americas to Spain (his chief source of wealth) and caused long-term consequences on the economy. Between the 1520s and 1540s he ratified the conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires by the conquistadores Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro, the expedition of Ferdinand Magellan, and the establishment of Klein-Venedig in search of the legendary El Dorado. Following catholic complaints, Charles V issued the New Laws to prevent the exploitation and mistreatment of the Indios by the colonizers.[9] The employement in Europe of his main military assets (Tercios, Landsknecht and Condottieri) became more and more expensive and inflation led to the so-called Price revolution.

Paragraph 5: resignation

Forced to concede the Peace of Augsburg to the Lutherans, Charles V abandoned his multi-national project by abdicating in 1556 and dividing his hereditary and imperial domains between the Spanish Habsburgs headed by his son Philip II of Spain, who received the Spanish empire, and the Austrian Habsburgs headed by his younger brother Ferdinand, who was Archduke of Austria in Charles' name since 1521 and the designated successor as Emperor since 1531.[10] The Duchy of Milan and the Habsburg Netherlands were left in personal union to the King of Spain, but remained part of the Holy Roman Empire. The two empires would remain allies until the extinction of the male line of the Spanish branch of the Habsburgs. Charles then retired to a monastery in Extremadura, where he died in 1558: he had spent 28 years in the Habsburg Netherlands, (primarily Brussels), 18 years in Spain (notably Toledo and Valladolid), 9 years in Germany proper and 3 years on travel.[11] Barjimoa (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Info appearing only in lead

I've just tagged the article with {{Lead extra info}}. Some examples of information mentioned in the lead which is not in the body:

• Charles V revitalized the medieval concept of the universal monarchy of Charlemagne. Only appearance of the term "universal monarchy" in article. Charlemagne mentioned once in body in a different context ("In popular culture" section)
• In 1521, Charles V was named defensor fidei by Pope Leo X No other mentions of defensor fidei (or synonyms) in article
• The two empires would remain allies until the extinction of the male line of the Spanish branch of the Habsburgs.
• the Revolt of the Brotherhoods in Aragon No other instances of "brotherhood" in article, and couldn't find any other mentions scanning ctrl+f results for "revolt" or "aragon".
• Charles V relied on... the flows of south American silver to Spain (his chief source of wealth) only appearance of "silver" in article

Those are just some examples I found - not intended to be an exhaustive list.

The intro is, IMO, currently too long, at five sizeable paragraphs. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends no more than four paragraphs. (I previously tagged it with {{Lead too long}}, but Barjimoa removed the template without explanation). Anyways, moving some of this information from the intro into the body seems like a win-win: it will cut down the length of the intro, and bring it more in line with MOS:LEAD (Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.) Colin M (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for a source about the defensor fidei. I'm pretty confident that Pope Leo X made Charles V difensor fidei in 1521, the same year of the diet of worms and when he made Defensor of the church Henri VII of England. In fact there was a meeting between Charled V and Henri VII on that common ground. Barjimoa (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I"ve found a source. Turns out Henri VII was the one made defensor of the faith and Charles V was made defensor of the church (although the two things were kind of the same thing of the time but it's better to use the correct terminology) Barjimoa (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

See Defender of the Faith - it was Henry VIII, in 1521. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, i've changed it with the correct information. He gave to Henri Defender of the faith and to Charles defender of the church. Barjimoa (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps some stuff appears only once because I merged informations that were repeated (like the division between spanish and austrian habsburgs was at the beginning and the end + the "universal monarchy" thing originally appeared three times as "European hegemony" and "universal monarchy"). Flows of silver to Spain appeared also as flows of resources to Castile. I've tried to stuff the facts into 5 paragraphs (modelling it after Napoleon that has 5 paragraphs). I've tried my best. It's hard because the article is not in chronological order but arranged geographically. So the only place with the chronological facts (inheritance + initial rebellions + political design + wars + abdication) is the lead and they are a number of facts. Barjimoa (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It is actually nuts that the article itself doesn't have a chronological account of Charles's life. Isn't that what biography articles are supposed to do? Especially given the peripatetic nature of his reign, it's particularly important to get a sense of where he was at any given time, and what problem he was focused on. john k (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Navarre

following the conversation in January '19, the question is simple: why do you forget the kings of Navarre ? -- --213.37.188.125 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)