Geoffrey Parker's magnificent biography of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V is an exemplary work of fine scholarship, supported by full references, and written in clear, fluent prose, which in a fast moving narrative tells how the young heir to the German empire, the kingdoms of Spain and Castile's American settlements, Naples and Milan, and the Netherlands, where he was born, a Habsburg archduke in 1500, became, by his multiple inheritances, the ruler of Europe's largest empire, and how he ultimately, despite his admirable efforts and personal charisma, failed to reconcile the several parts of this whole, leaving at his abdication in January 1556 an impossible inheritance for his son, Phillip II, in Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy, and to his brother Ferdinand in Germany a nation permanently divided upon confessional lines.
Charles V was a product of his inheritances, and throughout his long reign, from his emancipation by his grandfather in 1515 to his abdication forty years later, everything he did was conditioned by the dynastic imperative of holding onto that to which he was born, and, accordingly, he must be regarded, along with his contemporaries Francis I and Henry VIII, as at heart a medieval king, who regarded his subjects bound to him by his family title and personal bonds and not national identity, rather than an exemplar of the administrative, national kingship which was to develop later in the early modern period, and towards which his son Philip provides a failed transitional figure, unable to reconcile his Spanish, Netherlandish, and Italian dominions or accept the emergence of national, confessional states. Philip II, while not, as Henry Kamen has shown, the recluse of El Escorial of popular belief, did however become the prisoner of an increasingly unwieldy bureaucratic monarchy largely because he could not manage the multiple inheritances his father left him, nor his enormous debts, and it is that which provides the evidence of the ultimate failure of Charles V's imperial vision, although that it lasted so long can in part be explained by the personal settlement upon his inheritances that the emperor spent much of his reign imposing. However, that settlement was a hark back to the Middle Ages and one soon shown to be out of date by the aspirations of the Habsburgs' subjects.
Charles V's character lies somewhat between those of his more politically and religiously adaptive imperial predecessor and grandfather, Maximilian, and brother, Ferdinand, who succeeded him as emperor, and his more stubborn and doctrinaire son, and while he was capable of more politique actions than Philip, particularly in his preparedness to reach temporary accommodations with Lutherans for short term imperial aims, he, like his Spanish successor, was too willing to support the Inquisition and exploit the financial resources of Spain to its long term detriment, while clinging to a too narrow late medieval Catholicism and dogmatism that precluded the compromises with Protestants in Germany that were necessary to maintain the Empire, and which Ferdinand sensibly recognised at Augsburg in 1555. However, unlike Philip, who was born in Valladolid and educated as a Spanish Infanta, Charles was born and brought up in the Netherlands as a French speaker in the tradition of the great fifteenth century duchy of Burgundy to which, after his father's early death, he was heir. And so, while Philip II is easily identified within the narrow framework of sixteenth century Spanish, inquisitional Catholicism, his father, despite his retirement to and burial in Yuste, remained a more Burgundian, indeed European, figure, always recognising that his primary inheritance was the Burgundian Netherlands (and never ceasing to claim French Burgundy, lost in 1477), with a chivalric and cultural loyalty to that great late 'middle kingdom', exemplified by the seriousness with which he took the Order of the Golden Fleece, while, as he succeeded to the rule of the Spanish kingdoms, the Empire, and Naples and Milan, unlike the more narrow Philip, he was also successful in broadening his cultural and linguistic understanding. His vision, for all its faults, was both more attractive and more realistic than that of his son. If there is one major difference between Charles and Philip, it is that the former always understood that the Netherlands remained the key to maintaining his empire, while his son's failure to understand this, and his spending insufficient time in the north learning about his Dutch and Flemish subjects, was a principal cause of the Revolt of the Netherlands, which was to ultimately destroy Habsburg Spain's pretensions as a great power. Of course, it is historically nonsensical to blame Charles for events after his death, but it was his decision to make of his surviving son a Castilian prince, and, while himself considering that the dynastic union of Spain and the Netherlands might not be sustainable after his death, to never make provision for separation of the two or put in place a devolved structure of government in the Netherlands, which would satisfy the local needs of the people, while maintaining their loyalty to a Habsburg emperor or king absent in Spain (or Germany or Italy). Charles, in his unwillingness to deal with the existential threats to his empire, failed to construct a political settlement which would outlast him, and built an empire whose only real union was in its dynastic connection through his personal rule, which meant that when he died, and with him died his charismatic leadership, bolstered by the Imperial title as the recognised leader of Catholic Christendom, so too did the Habsburg imperial condominium, regardless of Philip's efforts, who from the very beginning in 1558 did not even attempt to contest his uncle's claim to the Empire or his right of succession thereto (he never sought election as King of the Romans, for which the Family Compact provided). The empire of Charles V was, therefore, always a temporary political construct built upon the inheritance and the agency of the emperor himself, without structural permanence, and his reign was not just the apogee of Habsburg power, but also the point of hubris from which nemesis would ensue, slowly during the reign of his hardworking son, but quickly thereafter.
However, despite all these structural flaws, Charles V was successful in managing his empire as long as he was in charge: his failures were more historical than personal, and due to his need, and indeed preference, to seek temporary solutions to what were permanent problems. Parker's Charles is an attractive and engaging personality, when considered within the mores of his age, but in the end the task which he inherited and to which he dedicated his active life was beyond him, yet that is because it was almost certainly beyond any man, since no ruler of his time could have permanently maintained Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and large parts of Italy within a single political structure, while the confessional disputes caused by the Reformation would take two centuries, and huge political, social, and intellectual change, to be settled. Charles V as a man and emperor was a man of great flaws and ultimate failures, but, nonetheless, as Parker's superb biography reveals, he was also one of the great figures of European history, and the towering figure of his age, eclipsing popes, Francis I and Henry VIII, and, unfortunately for Spain and the Netherlands, Philip II.