Who here /habsburgboo/?
I dare /his/ to name a more powerful family
>>438847
Majority of US presidents are descended from British royalty.
>>438847
Rothschilds
They kind of bankrolled almost every big war since the 1800's
>>438847
One could argue the Bourbons.
Yes.
And shitposting about the inbred deformities of the early modern line only makes me appreciate their blind self-aggrandizement harder.
>>438840
INCEST
N
C
E
S
T
>>438847
>Capet
>Hannover
>Hohernzollern
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p39ulIfnzc
GOTT ERHALTE
>>438850
Majority of British royalty are descended from French and German dynasties.
>>438850
that is surprisingly plausible
But British royalty didn't have as much political power as the Hapsbergs (except maybe the Tudors), Also British royalty is composed of several names and ethnicities, Hapsbergs is only Hapsbergs
>>438865
Bourbons had absolute control over France and a lot of influence over Europe but their power only extended to France (and a very declining Spain), France didn't really get imperial until the Bonapartes
>>438871
>Capet
>Hohenzollern
those are even smaller
>Hannover
Parliament Puppets
>>438880
>But British royalty didn't have as much political power as the Hapsbergs
Huge generalizations.
British royalty's power varied, Habsburg's power varied.
>Also British royalty is composed of several names and ethnicities, Hapsbergs is only Hapsbergs
Habsburgs are composed of Burgundian, Spanish, and Portuguese blood. Maximilian's mother was Portuguese, Philip's mother was Burgundian, and Charles V's mother was Spanish.
>those are even smaller
So you really think size is the only thing that matters?
You do realize that Holy Roman 'Emperor's' were nothing more than exalted princes throughout the Habsburg's reign, and that while Charles V's Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire might be impressive in their scale, prior to that Austro-Hungarian Empire was the bumbling, negligent, selfish princes of the Habsburg dynasty.
The Capet and the cadet dynasties it entailed are woven through other European dynasties far more than the Habsburgs. The power of the Hohernzollerns certainly ended up outweighing that of the Habsburgs in the modern era.
I adore the Habsburgs, but don't literally inflate them. They glorified themselves well enough.
>>438880
One could argue that 18th century France was more relevant than 16th century Spain, which was peak Habsburg influence. Certainly at no point was Austria ever more important than France, so all the argument is focused on Carl the fifth.
>>438854
Ep1c m3me
>>438896
>The Capet and the cadet dynasties it entailed
That's unfair. Should we count the Etichonids instead of the Habs then, and have half of the european nobility under one family?
>>438896
>>438899
yeah but the Haps ruled an entire continent
sure they never successfully controlled the HRE, but of the lands they did own (Italy, Spain, Portugal, South America, Mexico, etc). they were pretty complete in their control. Everyone wanted to be Bourbon France sure, but everyone of its neighbors also wanted to destroy it.
>>438907
We can also say the Normans includes all British Royal families
>>438840
Hapsburgs are shit-tier tbqh.
>>438907
Fine then, Anjou is just as good for widespread, but not centralized, dynastic control.
>>438908
I'd be very careful in equiparating colonial presence with "full control" tbqh. A few coastal settlement and some bands of glorified raiders going about stealing all the stealable gold don't exactly match controlling a region of Europe. Also at the time of Carl V Portugal and the better half of Italy weren't under Hab control.
>>438908
>yeah but the Haps ruled an entire continent
Yeah and the British 'ruled' literally most of the world. Not so glorious as it sounds when you look into it though.
>but of the lands they did own (Italy, Spain, Portugal, South America, Mexico, etc). they were pretty complete in their control.
This varied hugely.
Italy? Haha no way. Italy was the chew toy of the French and Habsburgs, but there sure as fuck wasn't complete control of it. Portugal? Not really, no. South America and Mexico is colonial control, a far cry from 'complete' control of actual European kingdoms.
>>438919
hey I already said it was plausible
most big American families at the time were either a part of or married into English/Dutch/Scottish/North Irish nobility which in turn probably married British Royalty somewhere down the line (among other royalties).
>>438921
>Also at the time of Carl V Portugal and the better half of Italy weren't under Hab control.
Actually, the better half of Italy was under his 'control', if control = one territory on a list, but otherwise effectively self-governed.
>>438935
>The Angevines aren't really comparable to the Bourbons or the Habs.
I'm pretty sure they're actually quite comparable in the dick-measuring contest, since both had a habit of marrying throughout Europe, and while the resulting Capetian dynasties were dominant in medieval Europe, the Habsburgs presence was relatively dominant in the Renaissance.
>>438937
He controlled Milan and the south. He had no influence over Venice and the Papal State, Florence and Piedmont, which made up like 2/3 of Italy's population and 3/4 of its wealth.
>>438930
Hanover reigned when England controlled 1/3 of the Earth but they didn't have much political control over any of that
Bonapartes probably count but I think the jury is still up on whether they counted as a monarchy or not.
Khans were probably more powerful though
>>438933
Plausible means not confirmed.
Except this theory is pretty much confirmed.
>>438943
>were dominant in medieval Europe, the Habsburgs presence was relatively dominant in the Renaissance.
See, that's the point. Dominating in the early modern period means more than dominating in the middle ages, due to greater wealth, population, centralization of power, land controlled, etc.
>>438950
nah plausible means "that is REALLY likely"
doesn't confirm or deny, but it's most likely the case
>>438944
wow you are, let us see... a fucking ignorant.
the two siciles kingdom held like more than half of the golden deposit of the italian peninsula
>>438944
>He controlled Milan and the south.
He 'controlled' half the god damn peninsula and huge chunks otherwise. He controlled the better half of Italy. It's just that 'control' isn't really control.
>He had no influence over Venice and the Papal State
>no influence over the Papal State
>well documented coronation with the Pope, got his blessing after Tunis, his soldiers sacked Rome
>controls Naples and the better half of Northern Italy, most of the regions territory
>effectively sticking it to Francis, most important of all
He owned enough of Italy to matter, and for it to be a notch on his belt; the Habsburgs did win the Italian wars. Just didn't mean all that much when Louis XIV took what he wanted the next century anyway.
>>438953
>Dominating in the early modern period means more than dominating in the middle ages
But the Habsburgs didn't really 'dominate' in the early modern period. Sure, they were relatively powerful, but that was really very short-lived. The Thirty Years War and Spanish Armada, of course among other things, put a cap on any Habsburg dominance. Prior to that, they were derided and resisted in the Netherlands, princes lucky enough to inherit Bohemia but not necessarily well received there either, and otherwise proto-colonialists rivaled by the Portugese and Dutch.
The French and English actually had their estates on a leash, and could muster armies, and navies too, to really demonstrate that the decentralized, de jure Habsburg 'control' was really lacking.
And while that collectively may sound impressive, that power would rise and fall over about a century, you could say from 1548-1648. French and English power was far more focused, and far more consistent. It had its ups and downs too, but the Habsburgs ups didn't outweigh their downs. You might even say literally with their laughable image, which ultimately gives me an entirely different appreciation for the Habsburgs.
You shouldn't appreciate them for their purported power. You should appreciate their Quixote-like character for fantasizing and propagandizing better than any other dynasty in Europe, period.
>>438872
FRANZ DEN KAISER
>>438963
>the two siciles kingdom held like more than half of the golden deposit of the italian peninsula
Their government did. But it means fucking nothing, european government treasuries have been constantly in the red and working in debt for centuries, yet no one would call France or Britain "poor". A rich government more often than not only just mean an idle government, and it surely was the case in the two sicilies where the rural population lived in stark poverty.
>>438847
Osmanoğlu I guess they kept hungary from the austrians for a century
All of southern Poland
Yes.
>>440942
He looks like he's just about to ask you to check out his mixtape on SoundCloud.
>>438840
Austrian Habsburgs worst Habsburgs desu
>>440961
You're retarded, senpai.
allies are asleep, post soldiers of the Habsburgs
