That's all very well but it does not tell us how powerfull Spain was compared to other countries at the time.Carolus III said:
Spain in EU3
- Thread starter unmerged(50643)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I also very much doubt that Spain already had conquered West Sahara and Equatorial Guinea by the end of the 16th century.Earl Uhtred said:
Earl Uhtred said:
I think Spain had Florida and California during the reign of Felipe II, but I remember Spain had few colonists. At least in California, in Florida I'm not sure.
Registered said:
Spain during the reign of Felipe V won every wars that it had, but it had few wars
. We won the Kingdom of Naples against Austria, the city of Parma, etc.During the reign of Carlos III we helped Americans in the Independence War, for example.
If Spain had been a first rate power then her alliance with France would have made the war of the Spanish succession a foregone conclusion, wheras in actuality they only got Carlos's chosen heir because perfidious Albion made a seperate peace; not to mention the fact that Spain lost the Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Milan, Sardinia, Sicily, Gibraltar and Minorca. Also during this war Madrid was at one point captured by a Portuguese army hardly something a first rate military power would have suffered.
Additionally the Spanish army of the war of the quadruple alliance in 1718 was described as 'an unpaid, unclothed, unofficered and undisciplined parcel of wretches'
Also don't get hung up on the names of the tech groups. Militarily Spain raced ahead of the rest of Europe during the 1500s but started losing their advantage when the reforms of Maurice of Nassau (1592) spread through western Europe. As such the Spainish land technology should be advancing faster than anyone else during the 16th century, but afterwards their rate of advance should be slower to enable everyone else to more or less catch up in time for the thirty years war. This can best be done by moving them from the best tech group to an inferior one as Spain didn't change its open-mindedness greatly during this period.
Additionally the Spanish army of the war of the quadruple alliance in 1718 was described as 'an unpaid, unclothed, unofficered and undisciplined parcel of wretches'
Also don't get hung up on the names of the tech groups. Militarily Spain raced ahead of the rest of Europe during the 1500s but started losing their advantage when the reforms of Maurice of Nassau (1592) spread through western Europe. As such the Spainish land technology should be advancing faster than anyone else during the 16th century, but afterwards their rate of advance should be slower to enable everyone else to more or less catch up in time for the thirty years war. This can best be done by moving them from the best tech group to an inferior one as Spain didn't change its open-mindedness greatly during this period.
He took Naples yes (in alliance with France let's not forget). But only after he had lost it, Spain's other Italian posessions and the Spanish Netherlands during the war of succesion. Claiming that he never lost a war is simply false.Carolus III said:Spain during the reign of Felipe V won every wars that it had, but it had few wars
So did the Dutch Republic, that does not mean that the Republic was a great power at the time.Carolus III said:
He took Naples yes (in alliance with France let's not forget). But only after he had lost it, Spain's other Italian posessions and the Spanish Netherlands during the war of succesion. Claiming that he never lost a war is simply false.
He didn't lost never Naples. Naples was in the influence of Spain from this war to the Italian Unification, 140 years after that, more or less
So did the Dutch Republic, that does not mean that the Republic was a great power at the time.
Yes, but I don't speak many English and I can't say everithing that Carlos III or Felipe V did.
He didn't lost never Naples. Naples was in the influence of Spain from this war to the Italian Unification, 140 years after that, more or less
So did the Dutch Republic, that does not mean that the Republic was a great power at the time.
Yes, but I don't speak many English and I can't say everithing that Carlos III or Felipe V did.
I copy this from Wikipedia, I don't read it, but if you like, you can read it :
Charles III of Spain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Charles III, King of Spain
Spanish Royalty
House of Bourbon
Charles III (January 20, 1716 – December 14, 1788) was king of Spain 1759–1788 (as Carlos III de Borbon), King of the Two Sicilies 1735–1759 (as Carlo VII), and Duke of Parma 1732–1735 (as Carlo I). The first son of the second marriage of Philip V with Elizabeth Farnese of Parma, he was one of the so-called "enlightened monarchs".
Contents [hide]
1 King of Naples and Sicily
2 King of Spain
3 Marriage and Children
4 See also
5 Selective Bibliography
King of Naples and Sicily
It was his good fortune to be sent to rule as Duke of Parma by right of his mother at the age of sixteen, and thus come under more intelligent influence than he could have found in Spain. On December 1, 1734 following his victory over the Austrians at Bitonto, he made himself master of Naples and Sicily by arms. Charles had, however, no military tastes, seldom wore uniforms, and could, only with difficulty, be persuaded to witness a review. The peremptory action of the British admiral commanding in the Mediterranean at the approach of the War of the Austrian Succession, who forced him to promise to observe neutrality under a threat to bombard Naples, made a deep impression on his mind. It gave him a feeling of hostility to the Kingdom of Great Britain which, in after-times, influenced his policy. In 1735, he resigned Parma to Emperor Charles VI in exchange for recognition as King of the Two Sicilies.
As King of the Two Sicilies, Charles began there the work of internal reform which he afterwards continued in Spain. Foreign ministers who dealt with him agreed that he had no great natural ability, but he was honestly desirous to do his duty as king, and he showed good judgment in his choice of ministers. The chief minister in Naples, Tanucci, had a considerable influence over him. It was during his rule that the Roman cities of Herculaneum (1738) and Pompeii (1748) were re-discovered. The king encouraged the excavations and was informed about the findings even after moving to Spain.
King of Spain
On August 10, 1759, his half-brother Ferdinand VI died and Charles succeeded him as King. On October 6, 1759 he abdicated the throne of the Two Sicilies in favor of his third son, Ferdinand.
As king of Spain, his foreign policy was disastrous. His strong family feeling and his detestation of England, which was unchecked after the death of his wife, Maria Amalia of Saxony, led him into the Family Compact with France. Spain was entangled in the close of the Seven Years' War, to her great loss. In 1770 he almost ran into another war over the barren Falkland Islands. In 1779 he was, somewhat reluctantly, led to join France and the American insurgents against England, though he well knew that the independence of the English colonies must have a ruinous influence on his own American dominions. For his army he did practically nothing, and for his fleet very little except build fine ships without taking measures to train officers and men.
But his internal government was, on the whole, beneficial to the country. He began by compelling the people of Madrid to give up emptying their slops out of the windows, and when they objected he said they were like children who cried when their faces were washed. In 1766, his attempt to force the madrileños to adopt the French dress for public security reasons was the excuse for a riot (Motín de Esquilache) during which he did not display much personal courage. For a long time after it he remained at Aranjuez, leaving the government in the hands of his minister Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Count of Aranda. Not all his reforms were of this formal kind.
Charles was a thorough despot of the benevolent order, and had been deeply offended by the real or suspected share of the Jesuits in the riot of 1766. He therefore consented to the expulsion of the order, and was then the main advocate for its suppression. His quarrel with the Jesuits, and the recollection of some disputes with the pope he had had when king of Naples turned him towards a general policy of restriction of the overgrown power of the church. The number of the idle clergy, and more particularly of the monastic orders, was reduced, and the Spanish Inquisition, though not abolished, was rendered torpid.
In the meantime, much antiquated legislation which tended to restrict trade and industry was abolished; roads, canals and drainage works were carried out. Many of his paternal ventures led to little more than waste of money, or the creation of hotbeds of jobbery. Yet on the whole the country prospered. The result was largely due to the king, who even when he was ill-advised did at least work steadily at his task of government. He created the Spanish Lottery and introduced Christmas cribs following Neapolitan models. During his reign, the movement to found "Economic Societies" (a rough prototype Chamber of Commerce) was born.
His example was not without effect on some at least of the nobles. In his domestic life King Charles was regular, and was a considerate master, though he had a somewhat caustic tongue and took a rather cynical view of mankind. He was passionately fond of hunting. During his later years he had some trouble with his eldest son and his daughter-in-law. If Charles had lived to see the beginning of the French Revolution he would probably have been frightened into reaction. As he died on the 14th of December 1788 he left the reputation of a philanthropic and philosophic king, still nicknamed "the mayor of Madrid" because of the public works there. In spite of his hostility to the Jesuits, his dislike of friars in general, and his jealousy of the Spanish Inquisition, he was a very sincere Roman Catholic, and showed much zeal in endeavouring to persuade the pope to proclaim the Immaculate Conception as a dogma necessary to salvation.
Marriage and Children
Charles III married Maria Amalia of Saxony (1724-1760), daughter of Augustus III of Poland in 1738. They had 13 children; however, only seven reached adulthood:
María Josefa (1744-1801)
Maria Louisa (1745-1792). Married Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor.
Philip (Felipe) (1747-1777). Duke of Calabria but excluded from succession to the throne due to his imbecility.
Charles IV (1748-1819), though whom the Spanish branch of Bourbons continues
Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies (1751-1825), founder of the Sicily branch of Bourbons
Gabriel (1752-1788). Married Mariana Vitória Josefa of Portugal (daughter of Maria I of Portugal) and had issue.
Anthony (Antonio) (1755-1817). Married his niece María Amalia, daughter of Charles IV. No issue.[/hide]
:Charles III of Spain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Charles III, King of Spain
Spanish Royalty
House of Bourbon
Charles III (January 20, 1716 – December 14, 1788) was king of Spain 1759–1788 (as Carlos III de Borbon), King of the Two Sicilies 1735–1759 (as Carlo VII), and Duke of Parma 1732–1735 (as Carlo I). The first son of the second marriage of Philip V with Elizabeth Farnese of Parma, he was one of the so-called "enlightened monarchs".
Contents [hide]
1 King of Naples and Sicily
2 King of Spain
3 Marriage and Children
4 See also
5 Selective Bibliography
King of Naples and Sicily
It was his good fortune to be sent to rule as Duke of Parma by right of his mother at the age of sixteen, and thus come under more intelligent influence than he could have found in Spain. On December 1, 1734 following his victory over the Austrians at Bitonto, he made himself master of Naples and Sicily by arms. Charles had, however, no military tastes, seldom wore uniforms, and could, only with difficulty, be persuaded to witness a review. The peremptory action of the British admiral commanding in the Mediterranean at the approach of the War of the Austrian Succession, who forced him to promise to observe neutrality under a threat to bombard Naples, made a deep impression on his mind. It gave him a feeling of hostility to the Kingdom of Great Britain which, in after-times, influenced his policy. In 1735, he resigned Parma to Emperor Charles VI in exchange for recognition as King of the Two Sicilies.
As King of the Two Sicilies, Charles began there the work of internal reform which he afterwards continued in Spain. Foreign ministers who dealt with him agreed that he had no great natural ability, but he was honestly desirous to do his duty as king, and he showed good judgment in his choice of ministers. The chief minister in Naples, Tanucci, had a considerable influence over him. It was during his rule that the Roman cities of Herculaneum (1738) and Pompeii (1748) were re-discovered. The king encouraged the excavations and was informed about the findings even after moving to Spain.
King of Spain
On August 10, 1759, his half-brother Ferdinand VI died and Charles succeeded him as King. On October 6, 1759 he abdicated the throne of the Two Sicilies in favor of his third son, Ferdinand.
As king of Spain, his foreign policy was disastrous. His strong family feeling and his detestation of England, which was unchecked after the death of his wife, Maria Amalia of Saxony, led him into the Family Compact with France. Spain was entangled in the close of the Seven Years' War, to her great loss. In 1770 he almost ran into another war over the barren Falkland Islands. In 1779 he was, somewhat reluctantly, led to join France and the American insurgents against England, though he well knew that the independence of the English colonies must have a ruinous influence on his own American dominions. For his army he did practically nothing, and for his fleet very little except build fine ships without taking measures to train officers and men.
But his internal government was, on the whole, beneficial to the country. He began by compelling the people of Madrid to give up emptying their slops out of the windows, and when they objected he said they were like children who cried when their faces were washed. In 1766, his attempt to force the madrileños to adopt the French dress for public security reasons was the excuse for a riot (Motín de Esquilache) during which he did not display much personal courage. For a long time after it he remained at Aranjuez, leaving the government in the hands of his minister Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Count of Aranda. Not all his reforms were of this formal kind.
Charles was a thorough despot of the benevolent order, and had been deeply offended by the real or suspected share of the Jesuits in the riot of 1766. He therefore consented to the expulsion of the order, and was then the main advocate for its suppression. His quarrel with the Jesuits, and the recollection of some disputes with the pope he had had when king of Naples turned him towards a general policy of restriction of the overgrown power of the church. The number of the idle clergy, and more particularly of the monastic orders, was reduced, and the Spanish Inquisition, though not abolished, was rendered torpid.
In the meantime, much antiquated legislation which tended to restrict trade and industry was abolished; roads, canals and drainage works were carried out. Many of his paternal ventures led to little more than waste of money, or the creation of hotbeds of jobbery. Yet on the whole the country prospered. The result was largely due to the king, who even when he was ill-advised did at least work steadily at his task of government. He created the Spanish Lottery and introduced Christmas cribs following Neapolitan models. During his reign, the movement to found "Economic Societies" (a rough prototype Chamber of Commerce) was born.
His example was not without effect on some at least of the nobles. In his domestic life King Charles was regular, and was a considerate master, though he had a somewhat caustic tongue and took a rather cynical view of mankind. He was passionately fond of hunting. During his later years he had some trouble with his eldest son and his daughter-in-law. If Charles had lived to see the beginning of the French Revolution he would probably have been frightened into reaction. As he died on the 14th of December 1788 he left the reputation of a philanthropic and philosophic king, still nicknamed "the mayor of Madrid" because of the public works there. In spite of his hostility to the Jesuits, his dislike of friars in general, and his jealousy of the Spanish Inquisition, he was a very sincere Roman Catholic, and showed much zeal in endeavouring to persuade the pope to proclaim the Immaculate Conception as a dogma necessary to salvation.
Marriage and Children
Charles III married Maria Amalia of Saxony (1724-1760), daughter of Augustus III of Poland in 1738. They had 13 children; however, only seven reached adulthood:
María Josefa (1744-1801)
Maria Louisa (1745-1792). Married Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor.
Philip (Felipe) (1747-1777). Duke of Calabria but excluded from succession to the throne due to his imbecility.
Charles IV (1748-1819), though whom the Spanish branch of Bourbons continues
Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies (1751-1825), founder of the Sicily branch of Bourbons
Gabriel (1752-1788). Married Mariana Vitória Josefa of Portugal (daughter of Maria I of Portugal) and had issue.
Anthony (Antonio) (1755-1817). Married his niece María Amalia, daughter of Charles IV. No issue.[/hide]
The Wikipedia quote is clear. Carlos did not accomplish anything worthy for the status of main power that Spain is supposed to be. While England battled France for the domination of Canada or India, while Prussia won countless battles during Frederick, Spain was a failure, a giant empire with weak members. And if he is one of the better kings of the period, I could just imagine how a bad king would look like... oh, no, I have it... Carlos II...
Since we are using Wikipedia i suggest you read up on the treaty of Utrecht. Spanish version here. i cannot read it but i suppose that you canCarolus III said:
Anyway. the point is that Felipe most definitely lost the war and, among other things, Naples.
Spain is suffering from the same curse as Ottomans do. "Being distant from Stockholm." That's why there are six times less provinces compared to Sweden and the existing ones are either clumsy or erroneous. Same goes for other minors, Serbia, Albania etc..
That's why there are six times less provinces compared to Sweden and the existing ones are either clumsy or erroneous. Same goes for other minors, Serbia, Albania etc..
Imagine how China and India will suffer *shudders*Tunch Khan said:Spain is suffering from the same curse as Ottomans do. "Being distant from Stockholm."
Spain was certianly a great power, if not the great power, during the late 1500s and most of the 1600s. But in the 1700s it could not be called such. In the war of the Spanish succesion, Spain was a prize to be fought over more than particpant in the war. When it DOWed the UK in the Seven Years war, it lost Havana and Manila without being able to inflict corresponding damage on the UK. By the US rev war it was looking better, but still it could hardly have taken the UK by itself.
In any case in game terms I am not sure what this means. Would more provs help spain, or is the money and manpower from the prov important? If it is the money, you need to know the money from the Spains provs not the number of provs. And don't get worked up about the AI nations not doing well, it is poor AI not an evil plot of Paradox.
In any case in game terms I am not sure what this means. Would more provs help spain, or is the money and manpower from the prov important? If it is the money, you need to know the money from the Spains provs not the number of provs.
And don't get worked up about the AI nations not doing well, it is poor AI not an evil plot of Paradox.
Alexandru H. said:The Wikipedia quote is clear. Carlos did not accomplish anything worthy for the status of main power that Spain is supposed to be. While England battled France for the domination of Canada or India, while Prussia won countless battles during Frederick, Spain was a failure, a giant empire with weak members. And if he is one of the better kings of the period, I could just imagine how a bad king would look like... oh, no, I have it... Carlos II...
There must be an error. Carlos III made a great marine! I don't understand
.
Registered said:Since we are using Wikipedia i suggest you read up on the treaty of Utrecht. Spanish version here. i cannot read it but i suppose that you can
Anyway. the point is that Felipe most definitely lost the war and, among other things, Naples.
I think he won the war, because he won the trone of Spain
. Yes, we lost every places in Italy, but after that, we conquer Naples and Sicily.
Tunch Khan said:Spain is suffering from the same curse as Ottomans do. "Being distant from Stockholm."
Um...the two biggests Empires of that Age.
Well he might have won but Spain definitely lost.Carolus III said:I think he won the war, because he won the trone of Spain
EDIT: To get a bit closer to the original topic, could you give a link to the pic of Spain? I can't sem to find it anymore
The famous picRegistered said:Well he might have won but Spain definitely lost.
EDIT: To get a bit closer to the original topic, could you give a link to the pic of Spain? I can't sem to find it anymore
Carolus III said:
Number of provinces say little about the might of said nation.
Whoi knows, maybe the average French province has taxvalue 5 and Spanish ones 10.. leaving spain better off, and developing faster.. while staying a bit poorer early on.
Add in some very generous events when finding the aztecs..
Add in the inca ransom, mymap has 10.000 ducats!!!
And I fail to see how Spain wouldnt completely ROKK!
- Status