Talk:Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

problem with the picture
When you hover your mouse over hyperlinked text in an article, it normally shows a picture of that thing (from the article that you will be taken to when you click on it). If you do it for Charles V, it shows a picture of his signature. I don't know how this works, but is there a way of identifying the "primary picture" for an article so that it will appear in the future? I think we can all agree that it should be the main picture at the top of the article that is shown? Nate Hooper (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Charles I
I don’t see anything mentioning that he reigned in Spain as Charles I. Orson12345 (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is rather retrospective - I don't think Charles would have thought himself, or was addressed, as "King of Spain". The official change came much later, I think. King of Spain bypasses the issue entirely. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "King of Spain" was used informally since the dynastic union of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, who are considered the first king and queen of Spain, altough you are right to say that this title was officially adopted only with the Nueva Planta Decrees of 1707-1717 when Aragon was legally merged into Castile. The thing here is that Charles V was called "Charles V" (as HRE emperor) rather than "Charles I" as king of Spain/Castile-Aragon (or "Charles I of Austria" or "Charles II of Burgundy" for that matter) due to another reason: the primacy of the Imperial title among monarchical titles (and this is something Charles V in particular valued a lot). And note that he was called Charles V even in Spain; in fact, the Spanish sources themselves mention the nomenclature of Charles I very rarely.


 * That being said, this article now actually mentions the nomenclatures of "Charles I of Spain (or Castile/Aragon)" and also the other titles ("Charles II of Burgundy", "Charles I of Austria") three times. So now the situation is well-explained. Barjimoa (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Even in the coin shown on the right, it does not say King of Spain, it goes King of the Spains, i.e. of the different kingdoms existing in the historic Roman Hispania, the Iberian Peninsula, now becoming a political project. Charles was indeed king Charles I of Aragon and Castile, not in Navarre, where he was known as Charles V of Navarre. Officialy King of Spain did not exist until about 1868. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it didn't exist as an official title. I was just saying that some authors, like Machiavelli, already called Charles's grandfather Ferdinand of Aragon "King of Spain". (BTW, I'm pretty sure Charles was "Charles IV" in Navarre, not the Fifth). Anyway, I was just pointing out to Orson that "Charles I" is in fact mentioned in the article so his request was already satisfied.Barjimoa (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks all, interesting - King of Spain needs an introductory section explaining all this. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Titles
In the titles section, it says that Charles was King of Hungary and Croatia. This is not true as far as I know.Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have not found a source talking about this yet. But it was likely one of the titles he claimed/used in the early phase of his reign, before Ferdinand gained it. After Maximilian I's invasion of the region in the 1490s, there was a treaty between the Habsburgs and the Jagiellons, that allowed Vladislaus II to actually rule as King, but Maximilian could use that title too - later he functioned more and more as kind of an "overlord" to the rulers there. Charles would have inherited the situation in 1519. Deamonpen (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for looking into that. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Even after Ferdinand assumed the title (1526-7), Charles V continued to use it and retained this "overlord" claim. He did the same with the Austrian territories (when he invested Ferdinand with them in 1521-2) and with the title of King of Germany (after Ferdinand assumed it in 1531). For example, if you read the testament of 1554, you'll see that Charles V styles himself as "Archduke of Austria", "king of Germany", and "king of Hungary, Dalmatia, and Croatia".Barjimoa (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense.
"Germany" did not exist in the 16th century, rather a Roman Empire of the German nation. The Netherlands were part of this empire. You should correct that. Hendry Duane (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The Kingdom of Germany existed since the 9th century. Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Germany did not exist in the early Middle Ages, but rather a conglomerate of different tribes. Rather, there was a Holy Roman Empire ("das Reich"), to which the suffix "German Nation" was later added. Nowadays, Germany is only understood to be Germany, but not Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, northern Italy, Rome, parts of Belgium, France, Croatia, Poland, etc. What do you think Germany should be? In any case, the distinction between the Netherlands and Germany is bullshit for the time of Charles V. "Germany" has only existed since 1871. No one would ever think of calling Wales or 16th-century Scotland part of England. Those are antiquated ideas. The "Germans" of the Middle Ages first call themselves Franks, then Saxons, Alemanni and only relatively late "Teutsche". First of all, the word thiutisk means very little. The term "Kingdom of Germany" is a distortion of historical facts. It is nonsensical to classify a cosmopolitan space in this way.--Hendry Duane (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)--Hendry Duane (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion:
 * Was there a Kingdom of Germany? Yes, there was. Certainly, it was not very centralized during the Middle Age, but it was a common situation in the Middle Age. We don't say that England or France in the Middle Age was just "a conglomerate of different tribes". It was not the whole Empire itself, but only part of it. You are right that it was composed of what are now parts of other nations, particularly the Netherlands, thus later there would be blurring lines.
 * Charles V's empire existed in the sixteenth century, thus the Renaissance. Recent scholars who are interested in the Imperial Reform, which happened around this time, tend to use the word "German" to denote the territories that the Reform targeted (Imperial Netherlands, Bohemia, Italian territories etc... were generally treated differently concerning the matters of taxing, jurisdiction etc, although the Netherlands were included in the Kreis reform)
 * The Habsburgs basically wanted to a keep a certain distinction (not total separation) between the lands they directly ruled and German territories as well.
 * Whaley:
 * "This process of segmentation of the larger Reich, of differentiation between the periphery and the German lands, is most graphically illustrated in the south. The Italian territories, for example, had been a major part of the Hohenstaufen Empire. Some parts, such as Venice at the end of the fifteenth century, went their independent ways. Yet other parts still remained. Savoy, the duchies of Milan, Modena, and Parma, together with the Republics of Genoa, Lucca, Pisa, Florence, and Siena, continued to regard the emperor as their overlord. With the exception of Savoy, however, none was represented at the Reichstag; and none at all was included in any of the regional institutional structures (Reichskreise) developed in the early sixteenth century.The rituals of enfeoffment (often accompanied by substantial monetary tributes and bribes) continued to be played out at the accession of a local dynasty or of an emperor."
 * Wilson:
 * "The institutions created through imperial reform were pri­marily intended to regulate how the German kingdom was governed, not the wider Empire, since the Burgundian and Italian lords had already been excluded from the process of choosing the German king by the ­mid-­fourteenth century. Thus, constitutional change combined with the distribution and management of Habsburg possessions to sharpen the distinctions between Germany, Italy and Burgundy. The reforms delineated the extent of what had been the German kingdom by identifying which imperial fiefs enjoyed the status of imperial Estate, allowing them to participate in common institutions, notably the Reichstag, whilst also requiring them to contribute men and money through now more formalized systems for distributing shared burdens [...] Connections across the Empire’s eastern frontiers were also direct personal unions similar to that with Hungary under Sigismund between 1410 and 1437. Neither he nor the Habsburgs tried to integrate their other kingdoms within the Empire as the Staufers had attempted with Sicily after 1194. The Habsburgs acquired Bohemia and Hungary in 1526 after several decades of relying on their own possessions to ­sustain their control of the Empire. They had no incentive to include Bohemia or Hungary in the framework created since the 1490s, because this would have exposed them to interference from the other imperial Estates. Instead, they developed their own institutions to manage what was, effectively, a parallel ­dynastic-­territorial empire and which gave them an overwhelming superiority of resources, in turn allowing them to retain an almost unbroken grip on the imperial title over the next three centuries."
 * That is the specific context. I don't think that these scholars would deny that a large number of "Dutch" people or people who lived in regions which are now Danish (parts of them subjected to Imperial laws, others were not) thought that they shared the same community with the "Germans" or considered themselves "culturally German", either.
 * -Deamonpen (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All of this is highly problematic. Also the huge linguistic difference between Low German and High German does not allow one to speak of a "Germany". Most northern Germans spoke in the Middle Ages like people in the Netherlands today. Dutch is a German dialect. An Englishman would probably have understood a real North German around 1500 better than a South German would have understood a North German. The comparison with the Reichstag also lags behind. In fact, ambassadors from the northern Italian cities have repeatedly appeared at the Reichstag. Princes often did not take part, but the small nobility of the empire and the imperial cities did. I think that whoever felt German was German. But that wasn't important. The large political framework was important. And that was the "Reich", not a "Germany". Especially the difference between Protestant and Catholic "Germany", the notorious weakness of the Habsburgs in Bohemia and in the Reich should not lead to speaking of a "Germany" in the sense of a nation. In the Middle Ages, the term German nation also referred to Poles, Scandinavians and Czechs, so it is a very unreliable term. The fact that "foreigners" could be elected kings also speaks in favor of not speaking of a "Germany". I remind you of Richard of Cornwall. Charles V was not a "German", nor was he a "Spain". He resided most of the time in more or less French speaking Belgium, which was definitely part of the Empire. The "Germany" you are speaking about is the construct of the language nationalism of the 18th/19th century, but not a cultural or political reality in 16th century.--Hendry Duane (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I highlighted the texts to show you their reasoning. The fact is that both authors are talking about Germany in their works - this Germany was distinguished from other parts of the Empire like Italy.
 * One case of Richard of Cornwall being elected in the thirteenth century does not mean that there was not a Germany - it is like saying that Eastern European countries electing or accepting a monarch of Austrian, French or German origins means that these countries do not exist. Also, whether Charles V was a German or not is not the matter here. The important thing is that by the 16th century, the electors had a perception of "being German" (and considered that an usual requirement for becoming the Emperor).
 * "The Golden Bull did not specify that the emperor had to be a German, but by 1519 all involved in the election except, initially, Francis I’s adherents assumed that it was traditional for him to be German, although they might disagree on whether Charles V qualified as a German."
 * Frederick Crofts
 * And Charles V's "German blood" and him being a Burgundian/Dutch prince (despite the fact that at this point, the Burgundian Circle was already organized as part of the Empire) were not enough to convince many that he was a German either.
 * The requirement generated by the propaganda campaign that the new emperor must be a German prince. It was easy to counter the outrageous arguments made in support of Francis I's German qualifications — the original brotherhood of the Frankish and Germanic peoples and the alleged origins of the French royal dynasty in Frankfurt — with the more comincing Habsburg claims. As a Burgundian and French native-speaker, Charles’s prospects might not have seemed good in this respect. It could, however, at least be claimed convincingly of him that he stemmed from 'the most noble German blood'. As the Archbishop of Mainz, Albrecht of Brandenburg, argued persuasively, if no German Elector or prince could be found, then Charles was the next best thing.
 * Whaley
 * This is basically similar to a modern person, who has German parents or grandparents or great-grandparents, trying to claim German citizenship, albeit also with aspirations for a very high office. By the way, it is possible for a foreign citizen to become an elected official in modern Germany. Also EU citizens (if they have resided in Germany for a certain period and are registered at the local citizens’ office — not all foreign citizens) can vote in local elections in Germany as well.
 * this is completely wrong. An example: A Prussian citizen could not become a Bavarian minister around 1860. A Catholic could not have a career at the Protestant University of Tübingen around 1840. Why? Because Germany didn't exist. It was purely a cultural term.--Hendry Duane (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone will say that this will make modern Germany non-existent, although in the view of people from countries that functions as more closed political entities and with a heightened sense of "national sovereignty", this might be very strange.
 * The fact that Italian localities had some representation (not full rights) at the Reichstàg does not contradict Whaley's and Wilson's point that there were differences between the core lands (Germany) and the periphery either.
 * If you find any of these problematic, please cite some respectable historians/authors who have different opinions. In that case, even if I or the other users do not agree with them, it is possible to add one or two sentences that recognize the differences in perception between scholars. To the best of my knowledge, the view you are trying to promote is a strand of older research, that was also affected by 19th century nationalism. Wilson and Whaley on the other hand are among the most notable scholars working on the HRR/Medieval and Early Modern Germany.
 * -Deamonpen (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * German-language research uses the term "Germany" rather sparingly. Nobody would speak of the "German kingdom" nowadays, but rather of the East Frankish Empire for example. The term "German" appears relatively seldom in the sources and corresponds only very inadequately to the ideas of the inhabitants of the Reich at that time. The term "Reich" ("Empire") is definitely better. It was also a kingdom of many tongues. You just have to remember that Germany is a very young nation, younger than the American for example. The idea of ​​a culturally and politically completely unified Germany does not even correspond to the imagination of the citizens after 1871. Even then, people were first "Prussians", "Bavarians", "Wuerttembergs" and only then citizens of a "Reich". The term Reich contains a corporative idea that cannot be grasped from the state-national-ethnic point of view alone. A Flemish is not a Walloon. But Walloons and Flemings were part of the "Reich". The Dutch, Flemings and Limburgs are economically, culturally and historically closer than Limburgs and Bavarians. A Sundgauer speaking French was of course not French, but part of the Empire. A resident of Friborg in Switzerland was not a Swiss or Frenchman, but also part of the Empire. A Zuricher was part of the empire. On the other hand, a Transylvanian or East Prussian speaking German was not part of the Reich. It is therefore nonsensical to use the term Germany uncritically. The Reich is something different than Germany. It's kind of like saying Ireland, Scotland, Canada and Wales are part of the "Kingdom of England". From the outside perspective, there is no uniform term for "Germans". The French call the Germans "Allemands", the Arabs "Franks", the Italians use the correct term, the British use a very vague collective name ("Germans"). This alone shows that it is impossible to speak of "Germany" in the pre-modern era.--Hendry Duane (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I never deny that names and structures do mask complicated cultural and political realities, and that borders were not always clear (they still are not). But it is not right that researchers only talk about the East Frankish Kingdom and not Germany:
 * "1032/33 fiel Burgund an die deutschen Könige, die fortan über drei Königreiche herrschten: Deutschland, Italien, Burgund."
 * Bernd Schneidmüller, with the context being the Salian era
 * "Aber nicht nur auf dem Boden des ehemaligen Fränkischen Reiches, wo im Hochmittelalter aufgrund des bereits im 10. jahrhundert zugunsten der ottonisch—salischen Herrschaft einset- zenden Konzentrationsprozcsses schließlich nur noch der westfränkisch—französische Monarch und der über drei Königreichc (nämlich Deutschland, Oberitalien und Burgund) gebietende Kaiser als gesalbte Herrscher übrig blieben, nicht nur im karolingischen Kemeuropa entfaltete der kirchliche Weiheakt bei der Thronerhebung seine Wirkung, sondern auch an der bereits christlichen oder allmählich erst christlich werdenden Peripherie, wie ein knapper und keinesfalls vollständiger Überblick zu demonstrieren vermag."
 * Erkens
 * "984, beim Usurpationsversuch Heinrichs, des 'Zänkers', waren es Große aus dem Imperium, nicht allein aus Deutschland gewesen, die im Zusammenspiel mit den Kaiserinnen sowie mit der sich um die Ottonen gruppierenden Familie der nachkarolingischen Könige dem Sproß des Kaiserhauses die Herrschaft erhielten."
 * Hagen Keller
 * Did the emperors themselves see Germany as a land/kingdom/territory separated from other lands in the empire? Apparently in their imagery, this was the case.
 * Again, I suggest that in cases like this, it will be easier to make additions or amends if you propose some specific authors...etc
 * Imho, denying the existence of the Kingdom of Germany or a German identity is basically the results of:
 * 19th century nationalists (German, French, English...) having no understanding of decentralized systems and overemphasizing power politics. To these people, a decentralized, flexible system was simply a mess that made people depending on them weak.
 * Prussian propagandists and anti-German or anti-Austrian propagandists having diverse interests in making anything preceding Bismarck's empire worthless.
 * Idealists affected by the dream/ideal of universal rulership (such as that of Charles V) mixing the Spanish Empire, the Habsburgs' dynastic Empire and the H.R.R. together.
 * ...etc.
 * I think the reality has/had many layers. The Frankish tribes existed, the Empire existed, the ideal/philosophy of universal monarchy (as well as the structures that were built to support that dream and contributed to the idea/foundation of Europe/EU/internationalism), but Germany and Burgundy and Italy also existed (although, somewhat like in the Mandala systems in South and Southeast Asia, sometimes it was hard to locate the border)...etc
 * Certainly, Otto III's Germania is different from the Salian Germania, from Maximilian's Germania, from Bismarckian Germany, from the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. But the thing is the concept existed and was not invented by linguists or anyone else.
 * -Deamonpen (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the problem, the problem is that Germany is on the one hand an external assignment, on the other hand it only marks a very vague cultural Germanic language community. The average German of the 15th century did not see himself as a "German". He was not a "German", but a resident of the "Reich". The German language does not actually know the word German outside of ancient Roman literature. The correct term is "Deutscher". A "Deutscher" is just a man from the "folk". It's a bit like calling the British "residents of Albion". The title "Kingdom of Germany" is nonsense because this title did not exist in pre-modern times. The title is: "Sacrum Imperium Romanum". The addition "Nationis Germanicae" only appeared on the threshold between the late Middle Ages and early modern times, when the empire essentially extended to the area of ​​the German-speaking area. In 1486, this titulature became part of the Landfriedensgesetz of Emperor Friedrich III. used. This addition was first officially used in 1512 in the preamble to the farewell to the Reichstag in Cologne. The Latin word natio did not have a completely uniform meaning until the 18th century; the intended community of origin could sometimes be narrower, sometimes wider than the "people" in the modern sense. The addition of "German nation" does not make the Holy Roman Empire into the nation state as we know it. Until 1806, the official designation of the empire was "Holy Roman Empire", often written as SRI for "Sacrum Romanum Imperium" in Latin or "H. Rom. Rich" or similar was abbreviated to German. In addition, designations such as German or Teutsches Reich and Teutsch- or Germany are also used in modern times. ''Only the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss of 1803, the Rhine Confederation Act and the declaration of dissolution of Emperor Franz II of 1806 officially use the German or "German Empire" and "Germany" for the Holy Roman Empire. Germany in your sense is a construct of scholars and universities. It is a linguistic problem because the term "German kingdom" semantically simulates identities and political realities that did not exist. You can't compare apples to pears.--Hendry Duane (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Germany was regnum Teutonicorum (official), or Germania (romanticized by the rulers) like shown in the Germania (personification) article.
 * Have you read the authors I have mentioned above at all?
 * How do you know the way the average person in those times thought? In those times, many people were illiterate.
 * The fact that the Empire was associated with "Nationis Germanicae" later is a totally different matter. By the way, here you too show that late 15th century-early 16th century people had a concept of Germanness, whether it referred to the Kingdom or the Empire. So why do we need to avoid the term "German" just because some people might perceive it as implying a full-fledged nation state, whether this is right or wrong (also, modern historians like Whaley and Brady Jr. are saying that the imperial reform in late 15th and early 16th centuries was the beginning of the Early Modern German Nation)? By the way, no other European kingdom or empire in Charles V's time was the equivalent of a modern nation state, even if the Empire might be a bit more decentralized than France. Early modern states/polities were just... early modern states, not modern nation-states.
 * "Durable forms, however, do not have fixed content. The feudal rites following the forms of the past, and their present significance lay in the fact that the Imperial princes lacked the legitimacy of kings. In the Empire the growth of sovereign states out of twin roots in aristocratic status and seigneurial power was by no means so inevitable or so direct as a state-centered historiography would like to believe. The acts of the Diets display a typically early modern mixture of dynastic particularism and aristocratic corporate consciousness, spiced with personal loyalty to the king, which politically acted sometimes as the rival and sometimes the partner of the Crown. The Empire did not differ fundamentally in this respect from the kingdoms of F rance, where the aristocratic element was not overcome by the Crown until the age of Louis XIV, and England, where it overcame the Crown in the same era."
 * Thomas Brady Jr.]
 * Do we need to retrospectively use a different term for Queens Margaret I of Denmark and Elizabeth I of England, lest some people think that the term denoted the exactly same functions and powers that the modern queens possess?
 * Again, please provide some sources. If a respectable source says that: "Actually, Germany or Germanness never existed in pre-modern times", this opinion can be added to the article (alongside the view that is currently presented by the article)
 * -Deamonpen (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What must not be overlooked is that diets usually only attracted a small part of the empire. Many imperial estates stayed away from them. There was also no central financial administration. Many princes did not take part in the emperors' expeditions to Rome. There were areas close to the king and areas far from the king. But that is not primarily relevant. It is important that Germany did not exist either conceptually or as an identity. One was part of the Sacrum Imperium. The German nation was not legally relevant. The Reichskreise are just one argument for not speaking of a Germany, because ultimately they meant the weakening of a central authority. But as I said: It's about a language problem. One should not give a title to an entity if that title did not exist or only existed very late. Germany was more of an object of identification for Protestants. while the Catholics, quite anti-Teutonic, regarded themselves as the children of Rome. The German-language Wikipedia is actually sufficient as a source https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnum_Teutonicum#cite_note-2--Hendry Duane (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this narrative: if something was decentralized, it never existed.
 * By this line of thinking, some will say that modern Western nations do not exist, because they lack the level of centralized control China and Russia have.
 * Also, certainly and especially at the beginning, the term Regnum Teutonicum was not always used to describe the same realm. Let us not forget though, that the name France itself was once used only for the Paris region/Ile-de-France. Why this exceptionalism for Germany? Which sentence in that German wiki article states that Germany never existed either as a concept or a political reality in pre-modern times?
 * The very name 'France' signified, in the provinces , nothing more than the Ile - de - France . 'France' in its modern sense was a concept confined to the intellectual and political elite.
 * In the earlier times (Ottonen-Staufer), it was often the Poles or the Italians, especially those who saw themselves as victims, who identified themselves as non-German or non-Teutonic (same with Pope Gregory VII mentioned in the German wiki article about the Regnum Teutonicum). The German rulers on the other hand had an interest in highlighting their "Romanness", because late Carolingian tradition dictated that imperial dignity was associated with Italian kingship (see pg.5) Those were normal conquerors' tactics.
 * I have never seen anyone who asks to remove the word "Roman" from articles "because it has always been used to denote different things".
 * Also, which monarch in Charles V's time or the whole medieval time absolutely commanded the forces of his/her princes and nobles?
 * Aside from your particular view of decentralized political entities, some of your specific arguments are simply wrong.
 * The Hofkammer and financial administration
 * There was central financial administration, from the time of Charles's direct predecessor, his grandfather
 * Müller: "After the Chancery, the financial administration [Schatzkammer, Railkammer, Hofkammer and others was most in significance. Everything that needed financial expenditure fell under its responsibilities: law courts, public finances. the military. care of royal property, maintenance of royal castles, implementation of royal instructions. Especially influential was the Innsbruck Chamber under Paul von Liechtenstein, which was frequently entrusted with affairs that did not concern the territory, but Maximilian as German king. Here. too. the area of the competence between the different offices and their officials overlapped; members of the Chancery were often concerned with questions of finance, as were other servants [Diener] in Maximilian’s vicinity. Yet, the many efforts to reform the different institutions of administration proved a need for better defined duties"]
 * Certainly, there was resistance and it did not always function smoothly. But you cannot say that it did not exist.
 * It was reorganized under Charles V's direct predecessor, aka his brother:
 * Berenger: "Hofkammer: literally, ‘chamber of the court’ or chamber of accounts; it was created in 1527 by Ferdinand I to control the chambers of accounts of the different Estates of the monarchy; it played the role of minister of finances Within the monarchy until 1848"
 * Evans: At the same time, his ‘Austrian’ institutions, the Court Chamber (Hofkammmer), Aulic Council (Hofmt), and newly established War Council, became Fully—fledged imperial ones. Henceforth Ferdinand enjoyed greater authority to introduce uniform models of government, especially to tighten the financial grip on Bohemia, which yielded over half his revenue, and to employ foreign experts in the Chamber there.
 * Imperial diet
 * It was also under Maximilian I that the Reichstag/Imperial diet became the all-important forum for negoatiation between the Emperor and the Estates:
 * Neuhaus: "Der Reichstag war das bedeutendste und — zu- sammen mit dern Reichskammergericht und den Reichskreisen — dau-erhafteste Ergebnis der sogenannten Reichsreform an der Wende vom 15. zum 16. Jahrhundert. In den Anfangsjahren der Regierungszeit Maximilians I. verfestigte er sich im Zuge des Ringens urn eine stärker monarchisch-zentralistische oder stärker ständisch-föderalistische Ausgestaltung des Reiches zu dessen oberster Rechts- und Verfassungsin stitution, ohne daß es dafür eine gesetzliche Grundlage oder einen formalen Einsetzungsakt gegeben hätte. Er entwickelte sich zeitweise zum wichtigsten, nicht zu umgebenden Ort reichspolitischen Geschehen und — trotz der tiefgreifenden konfessionellen Gegensätze seit der Zeit Karls V. — zum Garanten der Einheit des Heiligen Römischen Reiches über drei Jahrhunderte hinweg."
 * Imperial circles
 * The imperial circles, or Reichskreise, were devised by Maximilian to collect the money he needed to finance his army and combat the administrative impotence at local level. The regional leagues and alliances with imperial cities that he promoted, while serving the purpose of protecting peace and commerce, also served his centralizing ambitions. Certainly, later his dynasty never fulfilled this vision due to many factors, but are you telling me that at the beginning, he did all of this to make the imperial authority weak? Even without fulfilling this purpose, the circles helped to define the Early Modern Reich because they functioned.
 * Putten: "Devised by Emperor Maximilian I in 1500 and expanded from six to ten in 1512, these regions combined principalities, cities, and other entities within a single territorial boundary. The Reichskreise functioned as the most important executive organs for implementing imperial decisions. They collected imperial taxes, organized the imperial army, executed imperial court rulings, and were responsible for the supraterritorial management of coinage and finance throughout the empire. In Merian’s city atlas, the Reichskreise become the defining territorial regions that together constitute the empire. A map of Germany prefaces the entirety of the corpus in the first volume and each individual volume starts with a man of the Kreise"
 * Angermeier: "Sah er darum in der Frage seiner höchsten Gerichtsgewalt im Unterschied zu seinem Vater seit 1495 noch lange eine Möglichkeit, sich durch Modalitäten bei der Gerichtsbestellung, beim Gerichtsort und schließlich mit einer konkurrierenden Hofgerichtsbarkeit seine hergebrachten königlichen Rechte zu bewahren, so verlegte er sich bezüglich der exekutorischen Vollkompetenz für Reichsfrieden und Reichskrieg durch eine pragmatisch erscheinende Lösung letztlich doch auf die ungeteilte Wahrung seiner alleinigen militärischen Hoheit beim Truppeneinsatz sowie bei der Planung und Durchführung aller Maßnahmen. Permanent sind demgemäß alle seine Reformpläne darauf ausgerichtet, mit Hilfe einer Einteilung des Reiches in verschieden einsetzbare Kreise am Ende die oberste Militärgewalt sowohl im Reichsganzen wie über die Territorien hinweg zu behalten."
 * You can add that in early documents, Regnum Teutonicum does not always refer to a Kingdom of Germany, but that would be more suitable for the English Regnum Teutonicum article, or History of Germany. Here, we are talking about the era of Charles V.
 * It was exactly during the late 15th-early 16th centuries that the German national identity strongly developed and associated itself with the existence of the Reich, with the important roles of Maximilian, Conrad Celtis, Heinrich Bebel, Martin Luther...etc and Charles V himself. See for example, 'Whaley, Enenkel and Ottenheym, Smith
 * At this point, I find this conversation frustrating, so I will probably not reply further unless there is another editor who is interested in this matter. Thanks.
 * -Deamonpen (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion in this form is nonsensical. I'll put it very simply: In English-speaking countries, the French aren't called "Gauls", the British aren't called "Albions", the Spaniards aren't "Iberians", the Italians aren't "Appeninians", the Greeks aren't "Helens", the Americans are not "Indians", but "die Deutschen" are "Germans" (auf Deutsch: "the Germanic people"). This foreign designation is nonsense because it is purely a scholarly construction, a designation by foreigners (mainly Italians and British). The Dutch word "Duits" denotes the "German", the English word "Dutch" just does not denote the "German". It is the same word. Germans and Dutch knew by 1500 that they were residents of the Empire, but no one knew that this area would one day be called "Germany". They were "Duits"="teutsch", but not German. A Walloon, on the other hand, was not "Duits", but part of the Empire. It would therefore have made no sense to make everyone Germanic/"duits"/"teutsch". The article reveals a lack of feeling for the language and complete ignorance of the sense of identity of the past. It is not disputed that a political entity existed on German soil, but only contemporary terms should be used.--Hendry Duane (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this is problematic. You are problematic, though. Like someone already told and educated you. The Kingdom of Germany existed since the 9th century. The dutch were basically low Germans just like the Habsburg dynasty, quite obviously, are ethnic Germans. 2A02:8108:9C0:1B5D:7C22:58C1:8C6:38EF (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this is problematic. You are problematic, though. Like someone already told and educated you. The Kingdom of Germany existed since the 9th century. The dutch were basically low Germans just like the Habsburg dynasty, quite obviously, are ethnic Germans. 2A02:8108:9C0:1B5D:7C22:58C1:8C6:38EF (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sack of Rome
Did Charles v lead the sack of Rome? Which pope was in power during the sack of Rome? Leo c or clement vii? 173.75.251.128 (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the Sack of Rome (1527)? The pope was Pope Clement VII. He was imprisoned by Charles V, and later had to ally himself with his jailer. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Empire of Charles V
That article seems to be basically redundant with this one. I think the Empire of Charles V article is actually better structured - it gives an overview of Charles's life and travels in a way that this article really doesn't. But I think there's stuff covered in this article and not there. I'd suggest some sort of merge if anyone has time to actually edit these two texts together. john k (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it clearly is a WP:FORK, despite the creator's protests (on talk there). That was an odd thing to do in 2019 frankly. But this is already too long at 199 K raw bytes, and that is a further 100 K.  There certainly is "stuff covered in this article and not there", and "there" is rather short on refs, though it seems well-informed. The refs are also very unclearly stated; I suspect quite a lot are pretty old, though dates are not given. We might rename that Reign of Charles V, bring some early life stuff over here, if it is better, and shorten some of the politico-military aspects of the reign here.  Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some older sources, but also some very recent ones, like Parker's biography, only a few years old (cited a lot in this article, as well). My main problem with this article, going back almost to its first creation, is that it does not provide a chronological overview of Charles's life, but deals with it almost entirely topically. john k (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)