Why did Charles V Abdicate?

After a nearly forty year rule over an empire of unprecedented size and complexity, Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire abdicated his throne in 1555-6. His rein saw much adversity yet he had great success and during his rein, the empire grew and prospered. However, a series of political, militaristic and health problems culminated in Charles’s retirement. To explore these problems and to fully comprehend why Charles relinquished his power is the topic of this essay. By and large, Charles V was the most powerful leader in Europe during his rein (Cavendish 2006). His realm was described as â€Å"an empire which the sun never set on† and it encompassed about 1,500,000 square miles. A Habsburg in his teens, in 1516 he inherited Spain, which had been unified by his grandparents Isabella and Ferdinand. In 1519 he succeeded his paternal grandfather Maximilian I as Holy Roman Emperor (Cavendish 2006). He was Duke of Burgundy and Archduke of Austria and he also ruled the Netherlands, Bohemia, Hungary, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia. Ruling Spain meant ruling Spanish America and in Charles’s time Cortes took Mexico and Pizarro conquered Peru (Cavendish 2006). The wealth of Spain paid for his efforts to control Western Europe. Despite sizeable incomes from parts of the empire, Charles’s rein encountered monetary difficulties attributing to military defeats. Encircled by the Holy Roman Empire, France existed as the empires great rival and had three major conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire during Charles’s rein. The first began in 1521 against Charles’s nemesis Francis I of France and was highly successful, driving the French out of Milan and defeating and capturing Francis at the Battle of Pavia in 1525. There were three later conflicts where the outcome was less conclusive and France acted as a constant oppose to the empire. Another great rival of Charles’s were the Ottomans, who put pressure of the Holy Roman Empire’s Hungarian border and from piracy in the Mediterranean, especially in the 1530s. The predominately Islamic Ottoman Empire had a longstanding feud with the H. R. E. who was seen as the defender of Christendom (Claydon 2009). Charles the V is among the many rulers since ancient times who desired to create a neo-roman empire and as a Catholic, Charles hoped to unite all of Europe in a Christian empire of which he would be ruler. Unsurprisingly, the notion was met with fierce opposition. Not only did the French and the English prove resistant to the idea, but in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door at Wittenberg: Charles’s ambitions deteriorated on the Protestant Reformation. Not only a factor for political defeat, his staunch religious belief also be attributed to his decision to abdicate. When something went right he attributed it to God, his failure to unite Europe made Charles V feel unworthy and that God must surely want another ruler to extend the empire and destroy Protestantism and Islam. In addition to the great stress of battling a multitude of enemies, Charles had to bear loyalty problems from within the Holy Roman Empire. In 1520, the Comuneros in Castile demanded lower taxes, an end to Burgandian dominion of Castile. They would have preferred Charles’s mum, Joanna the Mad to rule (Claydon 2009). Charles’s brother Ferdinand, archduke of Austria and king of Bohemia and Hungary placed higher priority on defeating the Ottomans than on France and getting rid of Protestantism which were Charles’s goals. Charles failed to control Germany and the Princes saw Ferdinand as their actual ruler (Claydon 2009). In 1529, the Diet of Speyer saw the Lutheran princes protest Charles’s catholic policy in direct defiance of the empire. The princes of Germany also largely adopted protestantism which Charles abhorred and considered heresy. Another factor for his abdication is that by the 1550s that Protestantism in Germany would have to be tolerated. The Holy Roman Empire saw major finance problems during Charles’s rein. The cost of training and maintaining the armies of the H. R. E. were vast and Charles struggled to find the money (Claydon 2009). Charles had to cancel a successful campaign against France where victory was near due to funding problems. A large portion of the empire’s income was through taxes but in certain areas people highly resented taxes due to feelings of localism, for example, the Spanish resented paying for Charles’s efforts on the other side of Europe whilst the German states saw Charles as a ‘foreigner’ and resented his rule over them and considered their own Princes as supreme (Claydon 2009). A similar situation existed in Burgundy where the Flanders estates rejected a 1534 plan to be organised into an imperial ‘circle’ to provide regular taxes and troops. Also, Charles’s claim of Italy was not profitable because Italy was financially dependant and contributed little to the empire monetarily (Claydon 2009). After a series of unfortunate militaristic failures and chronic finance and loyalty problems, in about his mid-forties, Charles was afflicted by severe health issues, most notably agonising gout, as well as epilepsy and chronic indigestion which was caused by his Hapsburg jaw, a condition where the jaw is deformed and creates difficulty eating. It was common to his family line due to aristocratic inbreeding. Tests have been conducted on a finger of Charles’s (which was preserved separately from his body) by researchers at the University of Barcelona who have concluded that severe gout was the main cause of Charles’s abdication (Emery 2006). They concluded that anyone with a condition that severe could not work. Historically, gout is seen as a ailment of the very wealthy due to food that increase risk are red meat. Such lavish food was not available in great quanities to people of medium to little wealth. He suffered from a particular severe gout and many scholars think Charles V decided to abdicate after a gout attack in 1552 forced him to postpone an attempt to recapture the city of Metz, where he was later defeated. This incident appears to have acted as the straw that broke the camel’s back in Charles’s decision to exit power. By now, Charles faced a great variety of tribulations. The implications from Charles’s failed was efforts, money and loyalty problems suggest he lacked full control of his empire. He felt that if God wanted him as ruler, he would have had an easier time. Overall, despite numerous reasons that probably influenced his decision, like failed military efforts, loyalty issues and his unwillingness to tolerate Protestantism in the empire, Charles’s health afflictions causing increasing inability to meets the demands of being Emperor, appears to be the key factor in his abdication. His epilepsy, gout and chronic indigestion (caused by his Habsburg jaw) surely made an already stressful and life dominating role of ruling a vast empire overwhelming and the various problems he faced culminated in his abdication. Despite being only fifty-eight at the time of his death, Charles must have appeared a frail and crippled old man who could barely walk (in his later years, he was carried around in a sedan chair) or use his hands (Emery 2006). Not a desirable public image for a mighty Emperor. Peaceful retirement to holy surroundings must have seemed a welcome change to a life of constant travel, warfare and turmoil. Charles V’s abdication has been interpreted differently. While many condemned it an unsuccessful man’s admission of failure and escape from the world, contemporaries of the time thought differently. There is evidence that Charles himself had been considering the idea even in his prime. In 1532 his secretary, Alfonso de Valdes, suggested to him the thought that a ruler who was incapable of preserving the peace and, indeed, who had to consider himself an obstacle to its establishment was obliged to retire from affairs of state. Upon the finalisation of the abdication, St. Ignatius of Loyola had this to say: â€Å"The emperor gave a rare example to his successors . . . he proved himself to be a true Christian prince . . may the Lord in all His goodness now grant the emperor freedom. † By today’s standards, Charles’s abdication would be nothing extraordinary considering his ailments and the stressful job requirements of emperor. Charles abdicated as Emperor in 1556 in favour of his brother Ferdinand; however, due to lengthy debate and bureaucratic procedure, the Imperial Diet did not accept the abdication (and thus make it legally valid) until May 3, 1558. Up to that date, Charles continued to use the title of Emperor. Charles gave Burgundy, Spain and the American colonies to his son Philip II. He retired to the Monastery of Yuste, near Cuacos de Yuste. The monastery was expanded in 1556 to make room for the emperor and the fifty to sixty members of his entourage. Charles was occasionally visited by notable people, including his illegitimate son Don Juan de Austria, as well as his heir Philip II of Spain. Like many former men of power in history, Charles was deeply interested in politics and was routinely posted on the news of the empire in his retirement. Probably hoping for news that his successors had created a miraculous Christian unification of Europe! He lived his few remaining months on earth amid works of art, of which he had a keen appreciation (Titian was his favourite painter), amid the books which, as a cultured man, he studied and took pleasure in enjoying the music (Knight 2009). His health afflictions worsened and he died of malaria on September 21, 1558 (de Zulueta 2007, 107-9). He was buried in the monastery church, though his remains were transferred twenty-six years later to San Lorenzo del Escorial.