Famously sound on languages, Charles V.

right, but he wasn't spanish. raised in netherlands, native language french, learned castilian to fluency, conversant in german (assuming flemish?)....

About the lack of unity in the Spanish Empire, I cannot refrain from quoting the famous oath of allegiance of the Aragonese nobility to the king:

"We, who are as good as you, swear to you, who are no better than we, to accept you as our king, provided you observe all our liberties and laws; but if not, not".

If I remember correctly, this formula dates from the 12th century.

That's the common pattern: the more influental a state is on paper (that is, the more soldiers and toys it has), the less likely its population is to study foreign languages (since in bigger countries they're not as useful), which acts as a check to actual influence, as the less you know about the world, the more your attempts to influence it will be drowned in unintended consequences.

Needless to say, having your language as a global lingua franca would be a terrible strategic disadvantage, as everyone would be able to analyze you and you'd be unable to analyze anyone else with similar precision. For example, such a state would be forever vulnerable to the great old "Our hearts are filled with admiration for your virtues, but sadly our people are ruled by an evil man with a grudge against your great nation. If only I were in charge..." scam and it would be forever stuck defending itself against charges from people who can list all the past misdeed of this country and no other (except maybe their own, but hey, who's that dumb?).

I guess everyone could actually expect the Spanish inquisition.

LOL

...raised in netherlands... : actually, born and raised in Ghent, Belgium.

...raised in netherlands... : actually, born and raised in Ghent, Belgium.

belgium didn't exist, right? was simply the southern half of the netherlands. at least flanders. right?

Charles was a creature created by his grandfather, Maximilian, the Hapsburg HRE. Max was the Hapsburg, and he got Burgundy, including Flanders and the Netherlands, (I don't remember if it was the County or the Duchy, I can never keep the two straight, not that it comes up very much), by marrying the heiress, and he married his daughter off to Juan, who I cannot remember exactly who how he was related to Ferdinand and Isabella, but who died while still heir to the Spanish throne. So, just within Europe, Charles was a collossus, and a really archtypal Hapsburg, gaining power, wealth and kingdoms through tremendous match making talent of his family rather than military talent.

The usual, and I think sound, reason given for Spanish backwardness is the mountains of cash gotten in the New World. Govt modernization is about mobilizing the national resources, or getting a more efficient tax system, and Spain never really had to do that so no act of Union like in the UK. In addition, Spain was never really a nation while the Hapsburgs were kings, it was looked at as a family possession. The Hapsburgs were more medevial than modern.

Just to add, the 'Spanish Empire' was the Hapsburg Empire in reality.

Sounds interesting, I'll try to get a hold of the book.

Couple of remarks:

I wonder about the head start that both Spain & Portugal had in the age of discovery - Spain getting the best parts of the Americas, Portugal the trade routes to the East, both countries completely dominating the field for most of the 16th century. I'm guessing oceanic navigation started as a Portuguese project in the early 15th century, and the first country that tried to catch up was Castile, but I don't know very much about this part of history.

It's interesting to note that other parts of the Spanish Habsburg Empire also declined. Italy, which had been the most urbanized & cultured part of Western Europe since Greek colonization in antiquity back lost that status during the years of Spanish domination. Belgium too to a lesser extent, Amsterdam taking over from Antwerp as the most important commercial center in the region, and cities like Ghent & Bruges going into decline.

Regarding the multinational aspect of the Spanish empire - many areas were dominated by monastic orders like the Jesuits, which was of course an international order.

I just saw in Wikipedia that the Kingdom of Aragon was abolished in 1707, which as chance may have it, the same year of the Acts of Union and the abolishment of the Scottish crown. Thus two United Kingdoms came about at the same time, in both places in circumstances of dynastic struggle and European-wide war.

Carrying on Danny's thought, it occurs to me that to this day Spain remains disunited: its western littoral, known as "Portugal", maintains a stubborn political independence. Linguistically Portuguese is closer to Spanish than Spanish is to Catalan, and the Portuguese will tell you that their economy depends on Spain's. Why didn't Spain send the Portguese the way of the Galicians, or of the Provençals?

I'm thinking that Brazil grew to such an extent that Portugal became effectively "Portu-Brasil". King Joao II even moved his capital over there IIRC. Imagine if George II had decided to rule Britain from Philadelphia, or Victoria from Bombay!

I wonder about the head start that both Spain & Portugal had in the age of discovery - Spain getting the best parts of the Americas, Portugal the trade routes to the East, both countries completely dominating the field for most of the 16th century. I'm guessing oceanic navigation started as a Portuguese project in the early 15th century, and the first country that tried to catch up was Castile, but I don't know very much about this part of history.

minor note: spanish navel prowess was heavily dependent on non-spanish talent. specifically, italian and portuguese (columbus and magellan were not anomalies).

It's interesting to note that other parts of the Spanish Habsburg Empire also declined. Italy, which had been the most urbanized & cultured part of Western Europe since Greek colonization in antiquity back lost that status during the years of Spanish domination. Belgium too to a lesser extent, Amsterdam taking over from Antwerp as the most important commercial center in the region, and cities like Ghent & Bruges going into decline.

two points.

1) venice would be a check on the spanish-wrecked-italy thesis (broadly construed), since they managed to remain independent of he hapsburgs throughout this period. contrary to legend the spice trade via the levant and egypt remained significant until the 17th century, so it isn't like the italian city-states lost all their economic vitality due to the cape of good hope route.

2) a lot of the best human capital relocated from antwerp to amsterdam. i recall that protestantism was initially more advanced in the more well developed regions of flanders as opposed to the rural north (even around 1600 it seems likely that 90% of the people of the rebellious northern provinces were still catholic from what i have read, it was simply that the sea beggars and their fellow travelers were organized & motivated).

"Assuming this is correct, it reminds me a great deal of aspects of the Ottoman or Chinese interaction with the West when these societies were in relative decline, down to the lack of interest in foreign arts & literature as well as the need for middlemen to translate because of linguistic ignorance."

Why does a presumed lack of interest in foreign arts and literature imply a decline in local culture? Those were the centuries of the Spanish Golden Age, after all.

In fact, that claim about lack of interest in foreign art seems a bit suspect to me. It's certanly false in the case of painting, see for example El Greco.

Why didn't Spain send the Portguese the way of the Galicians, or of the Provençals?

They tried, and failed.

As for Provence, it is one territory that the French (well, the Angevins) got "the Habsbourg way" - by inter-marriage. It was consolidated into France proper by Louis XI (who else?), without violence. You may be thinking of Southwest France, which was essentially conquered by French noblemen under the guise of the Albigeois crusade.

Why didn't Spain send the Portguese the way of the Galicians, or of the Provençals?

The King of Spain inherited Portugal in 1580, but the country successfully revolted in 1640, taking advantage of the (failed) Catalan revolt of the same year. Late in the eighteenth century, Spanish King Carlos III tried to abrogate the Salic Law to allow the two kingdoms to be reunited in the offspring of King João VI of Portugal and Princess Carlota Joaquina of Spain, but he failed. (This would would have been Prince Pedro, who later led the rebellion for Brazilian independence against his father and was ruled Brazil as Emperor Pedro I, 1822-1831). In Spain, the Salic Law was later abolished with disastrous consequences (see "Carlist Wars").

I'm thinking that Brazil grew to such an extent that Portugal became effectively "Portu-Brasil". King Joao II even moved his capital over there IIRC. Imagine if George II had decided to rule Britain from Philadelphia, or Victoria from Bombay!

Plans for relocating the Portuguese capital to Brazil existed since the mid-17th century, exactly because European Portugal was so exposed to invasion. King João VI (not II) did move to Rio de Janeiro to continue the war against Napoleon despite losing the homeland. King Carlos IV of Spain also planned to flee to Buenos Aires for the same reason and with the same objective, but he was thwarted by indecisiveness, a traitorous son (the future Fernando VII, one of the worst kings ever), and rapid advance by the French army.

spanish naval prowess was heavily dependent on non-spanish talent

Yeah, and the first major English explorers were the Italian Cabots. And 20th century American scientific prowess owes a great deal to talents like Einstein, Fermi, Von Braun and many others to this day (comparison between the Spanish Empire & the current American Empire is tempting, btw). I don't think talents matter a that much; more important is having an infrastructure in place for the conducting exploration, and have the ability to leverage those discoveries, and this is something that both Portugal & Spain possessed at an earlier stage than other countries.

venice would be a check on the spanish-wrecked-italy thesis (broadly construed)

I didn't want to say or imply it - I don't know enough. Nevertheless, it is true that early modern Italy declined compared to other parts of Western Europe.

In Spain, the Salic Law was later abolished with disastrous consequences

The Salic law never applied to Spain, if it had there would have been no queen regnants like "Reyna Catolica" Isabella and her daughter "Mad" Juana. Fernando VII was a son of Carlos IV. Wouldn't he have succeeded him without recourse to the Salic law?

"the Acts of Union and the abolishment of the Scottish crown." And the English crown too, of course.

"And the English crown too, of course."

Maybe in theory. In practice the seat of government was English, and the language of Government English. That was true until recently.

"Maybe in theory. In practice ...the language of Government [was] English." The language of Government of the Union was English to begin with while a Scottish dynasty was on the throne. It was then briefly French because the first of the German descendants of the Stuarts to succeed to the throne spoke no Englsh so had to speak to his ministers in French.

The Salic law never applied to Spain, if it had there would have been no queen regnants like "Reyna Catolica" Isabella and her daughter "Mad" Juana. Fernando VII was a son of Carlos IV. Wouldn't he have succeeded him without recourse to the Salic law?

The Salic law was introduced by the Bourbon dynasty on assuming power after the War of Spanish Succession; Isabella reigned two centuries before that. If Carlos III had succeeded in repealing the law, the next King of Spain would not have been Carlos IV, but Princess Carlota Joaquina (his firstborn) and her line (i.e., Pedro of Portugal/Brazil - see my post above). Fernando VII's right to the throne was never in doubt, but then I didn't say it was.