Uniforms are used for identification as well as to provide a sense of unity during any conflict, and the American Civil War (1861-1865) was no exception. At their most basic level, Civil War uniforms distinguished Union troops from Confederate troops: Union troops wore blue while the Confederate troops wore gray. However, a number of distinct uniform variations were present on both sides, further differentiating soldiers by division and rank.   Civil War Uniforms: Beyond Blue and Gray Plate 172, containing illustrations of uniforms worn by Union and Confederate soldiers during the American Civil War, 1895. Source: Library of Congress   Taking a deep dive into the types of uniforms worn during the Civil War reveals outfits in a variety of styles and materials. A number of factors affected troop uniforms, such as resource availability, weather conditions, and cost. Most notably, uniforms differed between soldiers and officers on both sides, as well as between some divisions—cavalry and infantry, for example. And one key group of fighters initially didn’t have standard uniforms at all.   Civil War Militias: Volunteer Soldiers Two unidentified soldiers in Union uniforms and Ohio Volunteer belt buckles with bayoneted muskets, c. 1861-1865. Source: Library of Congress   To discuss solely Union and Confederate Army uniforms would leave out a major portion of soldiers in the war: volunteers who came from local militia. Many militiamen volunteered for the cause early on in the war in battles like the First Battle of Bull Run and came with their own uniforms, not those issued by either side of the Civil War.   Volunteers were such a large portion of the Union Army that they were eventually provided a uniform of their own to distinguish them from the regular soldiers. The “official” volunteer uniform of the Union Army became a dark blue jacket and light blue trousers with no colored stripe.   The Union’s Standard Issue Uniform Unidentified young soldier in Union uniform with bayoneted musket, knapsack, and knife, c. 1861-1865. Source: Library of Congress   When a soldier enlisted in the Union Army, he was issued a standard uniform for the duration of his service consisting of a cap, dark blue coat, blue wool trousers, and leather boots. Soldiers also carried a knapsack that slung around their backs to carry tents, sheets, a coat, and personal belongings. Families back home could get a peek at their service members’ uniforms through portrait photography that Alexander Gardner made popular.   Most Union uniforms—regardless of ranking or unit—were made of wool. Today, wool is considered essential for winter because it holds in warmth, something that the Union troops also valued in the cold winter months. What many do not realize is that wool regulates body temperature and wicks away moisture, making it appropriate for various kinds of weather, not just the freezing winter months. Of course, men would be sweating in nearly any type of fabric in the blazing sun of the summer months.   While this was the standard issue uniform, slight variations based on the unit the soldier served in were also found. The differences were not drastic but enough to differentiate men and, in the case of some units, support their unique roles on the battlefield.   Union Cavalry: Practical Considerations for Horseback Riding Unidentified soldier in Union cavalry uniform with cavalry saber, with Cavalry Company D Hardee hat, c. 1861-1865. Source: Library of Congress   The uniform with the most notable difference was that worn by cavalry soldiers, which had a shorter, waist length coat, in contrast with the longer jackets of other units. A short coat allowed for a range of movement on horseback, which other units did not have to contend with. In depictions of the cavalry, many of the soldiers also wielded swords instead of guns, so the shorter, lighter coat was helpful.   Cavalry soldiers were also issued what was referred to as a “great coat” to use in the winter, since their standard-issue jacket was shorter than the coats other soldiers received. The great coat appeared uniform across all cavalry soldiers. The coat was a lighter blue than the traditional uniform and double-breasted. A rain cape fell over the shoulders and rested at about the top of the jacket’s cuffs. Again, the design of the coat lent itself to the movements needed to fight on horseback.   Pants and belts were relatively standard among all units, with minor differences. The stripe on the side of the cavalry’s pants was yellow. Their belt also doubled as a sword belt to hold their sword at their side.   Union Infantry: Take What You Get Seated from left to right: Captain George L. Remington, Lieutenant Colonel William H. Drew, and Captain Algar Monroe Wheeler. Standing left to right: Captain William C. Alberger, Captain Jeremiah P. Washburn, and Captain Allen M. Adams, c. 1861. Source: Library of Congress   Though most pictures and drawings of Civil War soldiers show well-fitting garments, infantry soldiers often had uniforms that were too large or too small. Garments were so ill-fitting that it became a joke among soldiers.   The standard issue coat for infantry soldiers was longer than that of the cavalry at just about knee length. Infantrymen were also provided an overcoat, though it was not as dramatic as the cavalry’s great coat. It was single-breasted and did not have a cape.   The pants for the Infantry, also in light blue, had a dark blue stripe down the side. Members of the infantry also had a standard issue black belt worn at the waist rather than around the hips.   Union Army: Artillery Unidentified young soldier in Union artillery uniform with artillery saber and revolver, c. 1861-1865. Source: Library of Congress   Red was the name of the game for the men in the artillery unit during the Civil War. Members of the artillery units had coats that were similar in length to that of the infantry. Artillery uniforms were adorned with red piping to differentiate them from infantrymen. The stripe on their light blue trousers was the same red as on their uniforms.   Artillerymen, like the cavalry, were issued riding boots that went up to their calves. While boots served the cavalry well on horseback, they were also helpful for the artillerymen who drove artillery limbers, or carts. Though artillerymen were not fighting on horseback during battles, they did need to use horses to move large pieces of artillery.   Confederate Army: Standard Issue Uniform Portrait of a Confederate soldier, c. 1861. Source: Library of Congress   Compared with their Union Army counterparts, soldiers in the Confederate Army had fewer dress options. In fact, Confederate troops had one standard issue uniform consisting of a hat, gray wool jacket, gray or blue trousers, haversack and ankle boots known as brogans.   The South began with less money for uniforms than the North and, as the War progressed, had even less money to put toward outfitting its soldiers. Uniforms were gray in the beginning of the war in 1861—gray that often faded to a brownish color—but by the end of the War in 1865, uniforms were any number of colors.   One major difference between Confederate Army uniforms is the fabric of choice: cotton. Unlike the North that relied on wool, the South had access to more cotton because of its agricultural economy. In fact, the South produced so much cotton that it hoped Britain would support their war effort in order to continue its dependence on the South’s cotton production. This, for one, made uniforms cheaper to produce but also kept the troops cooler. There was no need for wool uniforms in the Southern heat.   Confederate Officers: Showcasing Status Confederate General Jubal Early, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing front, c. 1860-1870. Source: Library of Congress   While the Union Army uniforms had differences between units, Confederate uniforms were instead differentiated by rank. In general, officer uniforms were more ornate and tailored than an enlisted soldier’s uniform.   Confederate officers had dark blue uniform jackets that were ornate and tailored. Officers—those like Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson—purchased their own uniforms (and were required to until early 1864), so they had the opportunity to put more design effort into their attire. Many jackets worn by officers were longer than waist length and featured buttons, belts, tassels, high collars, and embroidery. Thanks to tailoring, officers’ uniform jackets were well-fitted, in contrast with standard issue uniforms that soldiers wore.   Standing Out: Badges, Buttons, and Insignia Unidentified soldier in Union uniform with engineer regiment insignia on collar and New York belt plate, c. 1860-1865. Source: Library of Congress   Both Union and Confederate troops used additional emblems to distinguish themselves, like badges, shoulder straps, collars, insignias, and even buttons. The Union Army, for instance, used shoulder straps on the uniform to distinguish ranks like Major, General, and Captain. The Confederate Army, on the other hand, used collars and sleeve badges to indicate rank. Both the Confederate and Union Armies used something as small as buttons to distinguish the unit; Union buttons were more elaborate than the simple Confederate buttons, which often simply used a letter to represent the unit.   Both sides of the Civil War used chevrons on the sleeve to denote lower ranks. There are some designs that overlap between both the Confederate and Union Armies, but they do not have a one-to-one meaning.   Unique to the Confederate Army was the use of different color hats for generals, colonels of the cavalry, captains of the infantry, and lieutenants of the artillery. Hats were more or less standard amongst the Union troops, regardless of rank or unit, but the Confederacy utilized navy, blue, yellow, and red hats for its highest-ranking officials.

  While much of the focus of World War I centers on the Western and Eastern Fronts where Germany is seen as having played the biggest role of the Central Powers, to the southeast, the Ottoman Empire, controlling half of the Middle East, played a vital role in combating the Entente. For almost the entire duration of the war, the Ottomans fought on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary.   Joining the Fight Map of the Ottoman Empire in 1914. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In late July 1914, European countries maneuvered into political positions, signaling the beginning of what would become known as the Great War. On one side was the Entente, a powerful alliance originally consisting of France, Great Britain, and Russia. Opposing them were the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire.   The Ottomans did not play any part in the developments that led to war and instead operated under the façade of neutrality, negotiating with both sides. At the time, the Ottoman Empire was lagging far behind the European powers in terms of industrialization, and aware of this, the Ottomans sought modernization with the help of Germany. The prospect of being dragged into a major war was not much of an issue, as most believed the conflict would be over by Christmas. On August 2, 1914, the Ottomans entered into an alliance with Germany, offering the Germans two dreadnoughts that the British were building for the Turks. The day before the alliance was signed, however, the British seized the ships, and the Germans never got their payment.   Later that month, two German ships were halted in the Dardanelles, under threat of being fired upon by the British navy. Technically, the Ottoman Empire was still neutral, and the Germans and the Ottomans decided to work their way around the problem by pretending to switch ownership of the vessels. Thus, two German ships, replete with their German crews, came under the control of the Turks.   The main battery of the SMS Goeben, a German battlecruiser transferred to Turkish control in 1914. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Ottomans didn’t immediately declare war. Many in government were reticent about entering the conflict. In concert with German Admiral Wilhelm Souchon, Ottoman War Minister Enver Pasha sought to pull his country into the war by getting the Entente to declare war on the Ottoman Empire.   The Ottoman entry into the conflict came on October 29 as a result of the Black Sea Raid, an attack conceived by Enver Pasha, Wilhelm Souchon, and various members of the German foreign ministry.   The German ships, flying Ottoman flags and with crew dressed as Ottomans, sailed into the Black Sea under the pretext of conducting maneuvers. The initial plan was to provoke Russia into attacking first. Instead, Souchon attacked Russian ports, and despite Ottoman leadership attributing the blame squarely on Souchon, Russia declared war on the Ottomans on November 2. Three days later, Britain and France joined their Russian ally in declaring war.   Enver and Souchon had managed to draw the Ottoman Empire into the First World War.   The Ottomans Go to War Ismail Enver Pasha, colorized by Cassowary Colorizations. Source: Wikimedia Commons   On November 11, Sultan Mehmed V, who only held nominal power in the empire, declared jihad against the Entente. The inadequate rail networks hampered mobilization and logistical efforts. Nevertheless, the Ottomans decided to launch a winter offensive against the Russians in the Caucasus. Enver Pasha traveled to the front to personally oversee the campaign, assuming command of the 3rd Army. He was a well-respected leader and an able officer, but he had little experience leading forces in conventional warfare.   The weather conditions, lack of artillery, and poor logistical support conspired to thwart the Ottoman plans, and after just two weeks, the offensive ground to a halt. The Russians seized the opportunity, launching a counteroffensive and making gains into Ottoman territory, capturing several cities in the process. Of note was the routing of the Ottomans at the Battle of Sarikamish in January 1915. According to Turkish and German sources, the Ottomans lost 60,000 to 78,000 killed, wounded, frostbitten, or captured. This figure was conceivably three times higher than the losses suffered by the Russians. The defeat was a scandal and was blamed on Armenian traitors, a predictable move that was part of a larger effort to isolate and eliminate Armenians from Ottoman society.   Armenians, wary of being targeted, took up arms, adding fuel to the propaganda against them as being disloyal. In the face of Ottoman hatred, many Armenians joined the Russians, provoking further Ottoman reprisals against the Armenian population.   To the south, the Ottoman Empire was under threat from British forces in Egypt, and to the west, an Indian Expeditionary Force (as part of the British Empire) occupied Basra, protecting its oilfields and threatening the Ottomans from Iraq.   British and Indian troops in Mesopotamia. Source: theobservationpost.com   The beginning of 1915 augured more disasters for the Turkish forces. To meet the threat on their southwestern flank, the Ottomans planned to invade Egypt. This began with a raid on the Suez Canal, a move the British expected and for which they had prepared sufficient defense.   With the Ottomans having little in the way of logistical abilities and having to cross the Sinai desert to reach their target, the raid was a disaster, and the Ottomans were forced to rethink their strategy. They lost 1,500 killed, wounded, and captured, while the British lost just 32 killed and around 300 wounded. Despite the failure, the Ottomans did succeed in forcing the British to keep significant numbers of troops in Egypt, thus diverting offensive and defensive power away from other theaters of conflict. Nevertheless, to the east, the British were pushing towards Baghdad from Basra.   To add to the worsening situation, conscription resulted in farms and fields being left untended. Crops withered, and the empire faced starvation.   From this point, the situation looked dire for the Ottomans, and it’s no surprise that the British felt confident they would be able to force their enemy out of the war. This confidence, however, was misplaced, and a series of mistakes by the British would turn the tide.   Reversal of Fortune Turkish soldiers at Gallipoli. Source: Wikimedia Commons   With the series of disasters befalling the Ottomans, and pressed on multiple fronts, the British decided that they had a real chance to go straight for Constantinople and force the Ottomans to surrender.   The Entente had plans to take the city of İskenderun (now Alexandretta in Turkey) in order to cut Constantinople off from Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. In so doing, the Ottoman Empire would have been split in two. However, disagreements between the French and the British led to the plan being shelved.   In a bid to open the Dardanelles, the Entente decided to attack Ottoman positions defending the strait. A fleet was gathered and sailed into the strait to suppress the Turkish defenses. Sea mines, however, played a devastating role, and the Entente fleet was forced to retreat with heavy casualties.   It was clear that the only way to neutralize Ottoman defenses and open the Dardanelles was via a land operation. To achieve this, the Gallipoli Peninsula would have to be taken. British, French, New Zealand, Australian, and Indian troops were chosen for the landings.   Diorama of Australian soldiers in the Gallipoli Gallery at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Source: Bidgee / Wikimedia Commons   Hopes for a quick victory were dashed by stubborn coastal defense, and when Entente troops did manage to gain a foothold on the peninsula, the fighting devolved into stagnant trench warfare.   Throughout 1915, almost a year of fighting failed to produce any sign of victory for the Entente, and the Gallipoli campaign ended in a complete defeat. Both sides had suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, but the Ottomans were able to claim victory, significantly boosting national morale.   For the Entente, the silver lining was that the Gallipoli campaign had forced the Ottomans to divert troops from the front against the Russians, and as a result, the Russians were able to make small gains in the Caucasus. Today, the Gallipoli disaster is well remembered and commemorated by Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) forces, which suffered terrible losses as a result of the ill-conceived plan.   At the end of 1915 and through April 1916, the British advance from Basra was also defeated. Besieged at Kut, the British garrison was forced to surrender.   The Entente Gains the Upper Hand Arab fighters. Source: Wikimedia Commons   By mid-1916, tensions had reached boiling point in various areas within the Ottoman Empire. On June 10, 1916, the Great Arab Revolt began, as Arabs in the Hejaz province on the western coast of the Arabian Peninsula took up arms against their Ottoman oppressors, and fought for independence.   These efforts gained widespread British support and created the legend of T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, a British officer who organized the Arabs and helped lead them to victory.   Portrait of T.E. Lawrence, artist unattributed. Source: The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence. Photo supplied by Greg Beyer   The year 1917 would herald significant challenges for the Entente as revolution in Russia forced the Russians to withdraw from the war in March. Their campaign against the Ottomans had been going well in the Caucasus, and with the withdrawal, significant pressure was taken off the Ottomans in the north.   Ottoman soldiers in World War I. Source: Library of Congress   With the pressure of the Arab Revolt and the renewed British offensive in Mesopotamia, the Ottoman Empire was in a desperate situation. The British took Baghdad in March 1917, and to the west, the British efforts in Palestine were gaining momentum. After several failed offensives, the British finally broke through the Ottoman defenses. Beersheba and Gaza fell after the British renewed their offensive on October 31, 1917. In December 1917, the British took control of Jerusalem.   The War Ends The territorial losses of the Ottoman Empire over the last century of its existence. Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica   By 1918, the Central Powers were sliding towards complete defeat. In the Ottoman sphere of influence, the Russians had pulled out, allowing the Turks to regain territory in the north. Conflict, however, continued as the vacuum left by the Russians was filled by Armenian volunteer units and irregular units that had been part of the Russian army. The Central Caspian Dictatorship and several other polities that existed in the wake of the collapse of the Russian Empire, supported by a British and Commonwealth force known as the Dunsterforce, continued to apply pressure in the north.   The British were also fighting to the south. While the Mesopotamian campaign had largely become static due to Britain consolidating its gains and choosing to take a defensive posture, in Palestine, the war continued, and the British slowly pushed northwards.   In September, the Entente launched an offensive in Southeast Europe and, seeing considerable success, forced Bulgaria, a member of the Central Powers, to capitulate. Without the support of its ally, the Ottomans were suddenly faced with the threat of an overland advance on Constantinople.   It was also clear that Germany’s situation in Europe had become unwinnable. On October 30, the Ottomans surrendered, signing the Armistice of Mudros.   Throughout the war, the Ottomans had fought in four major campaigns and had been victorious in only one of them. While Gallipoli had been a major setback for the Entente and a huge victory for the Ottomans, the Ottomans had suffered defeats in Palestine, Mesopotamia, and the Caucasus, and their forces had been pushed back to Anatolia.   Genocide Armenian victims of genocide. Photograph published in 1918. Source: Wikimedia Commons   During and after the First World War, the Ottoman Empire and its successor state, the Republic of Turkey, carried out systematic mass murder of ethnic minorities within its borders. These minorities largely represented Christianity within the Ottoman Empire and Turkey and thus contradicted the idea of a homogeneous state. Chief among the victims were the Armenians, of whom 1.5 million were exterminated. Greeks and Assyrians were also targeted by this same policy.   This genocide was carried out through massacres and forced marches through the desert, with the victims being deprived of food and water. Others died from atrocious conditions and forced labor. Rape and robbery were commonplace.   It is widely acknowledged that the horrific results of the Ottoman efforts constitute one of the first modern genocides in world history, as it was a systematic effort to wipe out certain ethnic groups.   As a result of the extermination, Armenians and other targeted groups fled the country en masse, which resulted in a wide Armenian diaspora around the world.   To this day, Turkey still denies that what happened was a genocide. The official reason for the genocide at the time was that the Armenians were supposedly in league with the Russians, and the Turks feared they would serve as a potential fifth column.   The Cost Turkish war graves. Source: tracesofwar.com   By the end of the war, the cost of human lives had been enormous for virtually everybody involved. It is estimated that the Ottomans lost 1.4 million soldiers killed and wounded, while the Entente lost the same number fighting them. Throughout the war, the Ottomans mobilized 3 million men. By the time of the armistice, only 323,000 soldiers were still in service, marking a drastic reduction of what the Ottoman Empire could field.   From a financial perspective, the empire was bankrupt. The war was a death knell for the Ottoman Empire, which was carved up and run as occupied territories under the control of various Allied powers. Many other polities were created out of the remains of the once powerful empire that had existed for six centuries.   Turkish nationalists, however, would fight against the harsh outcomes of the war and manage to establish the independent Republic of Turkey. In 1922, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk abolished the sultanate and put an official end to the Ottoman Empire.

  Due to a unique set of circumstances at the beginning of the 16th century, a teenage monarch inherited much of Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and parts of Italy. Throughout his reign, Emperor Charles V fought to keep his empire together against his French, Ottoman, and Protestant foes. Although he was largely successful in doing so, at the end of his life, he was forced to divide his vast empire between two branches of his family.   A Great Inheritance Emperor Maximilian I by Albrecht Durer, 1519. Source: Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna   When the future Charles V was born in Ghent on February 24, 1500, few expected that he would become the most powerful man in Europe less than two decades later. However, a unique set of circumstances made the young Charles of Ghent master of a vast empire that included territory on five continents.   Charles owed his destiny to his grandfather, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I. A member of the House of Habsburg, Maximilian had married Mary of Burgundy in 1477 as a young prince. Although the Burgundians lost control of their ancestral lands in eastern France, Burgundy controlled much of the Netherlands. Mary’s early death in 1482 saw Maximilian take over the Burgundian Netherlands as regent for their young son, Duke Philip IV of Burgundy.   After an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a marriage alliance with France, Maximilian turned to Spain, which had recently been united by the marriage of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile. In 1496, Philip married Infanta Juana, Ferdinand and Isabella’s eldest daughter. The couple would have seven children over the next decade.   While Philip and Juana began their married life in the Netherlands, they decided to move to Spain following the death of Queen Isabel in 1504. Philip fell ill on the journey and died in September 1506 at the age of 28. When Juana displayed signs of mental instability and refused to accept her husband’s death, she was declared unfit to rule and kept in confinement. In the meantime, Charles of Ghent became Charles II of Burgundy, though his aunt Magaret of Austria ruled as regent and was responsible for his upbringing.   King of Spain King Ferdinand of Aragon, c. 1470-1520. Source: The Royal Collections Trust   The future Charles V and his elder sister Eleanor spent most of their childhood at Margaret’s court at Malines near Brussels. Their younger siblings, who had accompanied their parents to Spain, were brought up at the Spanish court under the supervision of King Ferdinand of Aragon, who anticipated that he would leave his crown to his grandson and namesake, Prince Ferdinand.   However, Emperor Maximilian intended for Charles to become king in Spain and Ferdinand to take over the Habsburg hereditary lands in Austria. A marriage treaty signed with the King of Hungary in 1515 envisaged the marriage of Ferdinand and Princess Anne of Hungary, placing Ferdinand within reach of the thrones of Hungary and Bohemia.   Charles came of age in 1515 and assumed the reins of power in the Netherlands. The following January, his maternal grandfather Ferdinand of Aragon died and named him his successor. Charles’ succession did not go uncontested, and prior to his arrival in Spain in November 1517, the elderly Cardinal Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros served as regent and suppressed uprisings against Charles’ succession. In the meantime, Charles’ younger brother Ferdinand went to Margaret’s court in the Netherlands.   Emperor Charles V by Juan Pantoja de la Cruz, 1605. Source: Museo del Prado, Madrid   Although Charles was king of both Aragon and Castile, the two Spanish kingdoms maintained separate political institutions. The Crown of Aragon controlled territories in the eastern Mediterranean, including the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, while the Crown of Castile was responsible for the expanding Spanish empire in the Americas after Columbus’ expeditions.   Charles’ Spanish subjects resented the fact that he spoke no Spanish and was dependent on his Burgundian advisors. In 1520, he had to fight off a major popular uprising known as the Revolt of the Comuneros, who released Queen Juana from her captivity to install her as sole ruler. The queen did not wish to depose her son, and Charles was able to suppress the rebels by 1521. Over time, Charles centralized control over Castile, and the kingdom became an important source of wealth and manpower to support his European ambitions.   Holy Roman Emperor Emperor Charles V with his dog by Jacob Seisenegger, 1532. Source: Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna   On January 12, 1519, Charles’ grandfather Emperor Maximilian died. Although the imperial crown had now been held by the Habsburgs for a couple of generations, becoming emperor meant securing the unanimous support of the seven electors of the Imperial Electoral College. The electoral race in 1519 was particularly competitive: Charles’ rivals included King Francis I of France, Henry VIII of England, and his own younger brother Ferdinand.   While Charles persuaded his aunt Margaret to withdraw Ferdinand’s candidacy, the electoral campaign was an expensive business, and Charles secured the backing of the wealthy Fugger banking family from Augsburg to make donations to the electors. Despite having never visited Austria, his status as an Austrian archduke and his ability to speak German were central pillars of his campaign. Although King Francis also provided significant monetary gifts to the electors, on June 28, 1519, Charles was elected king of the Romans, though he would not become emperor until he could be crowned by the pope in Rome.   Although the Holy Roman Empire had no capital and its emperors were frequently itinerant, Charles’ position as the ruler of the Habsburg hereditary lands in Austria, the Burgundian Netherlands, and his kingdom of Spain pulled him in different directions. Charles was compelled to delegate his authority by leaving Margaret in charge of the Netherlands and transferred his brother Ferdinand to Vienna to rule Austria in 1522. Before returning to Spain, Charles strengthened his ties with England with a betrothal to Princess Mary, the daughter of King Henry VIII and his aunt Catherine of Aragon.   Italian Wars Tapestry depicting the capture of Francis I at the Battle of Pavia, Bernard van Orley, 1528-1531. Source: National Museum of Capodimonte, Naples, Wikimedia Commons   Under the influence of his Italian chancellor, Mercurino Gattinara, Charles saw himself as the ruler of a universal Christian Roman Empire. Gattinara encouraged Charles to take control of Italy, where imperial and French armies vied for control with the pope and independent princely states. Gattinara saw Italy as a springboard for a renewed crusade against the Ottoman Empire, which had been expanding into southeastern Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries.   The ambitious young emperor was keen to gain prestige by demonstrating his prowess on the battlefield. Charles’ main rival in Europe was King Francis I, having inherited dynastic disputes with France over Burgundy, Navarre in the Pyrénées, and Milan in northern Italy. Henry VIII of England sought to balance the interests of the two sides but often sided with Charles.   The Italian peninsula had been engulfed by war since King Charles VIII of France invaded Naples in 1496. Amid a conflict characterized by complex shifting alliances between the interest parties, as king of Spain, Charles was party to a pan-European treaty in 1518 that envisaged an attack on the Ottomans by a united European force. The crusade fell apart with the death of Emperor Maximilian, and by 1521, Charles formed an alliance with the pope to drive French forces out of Milan.   Although Francis managed to retake Milan in 1524, an imperial army under Charles de Lannoy defeated Francis and took him prisoner at the Battle of Pavia on February 24, 1525, the emperor’s 25th birthday. Charles imposed punitive conditions on Francis, but after being released in 1526, the latter made no effort to fulfill his obligations.   Maintaining European Hegemony King Francis I of France by Jean Clouet, 1525-1550. Source: Louvre Museum, Paris   After returning to France, Francis continued to be Charles V’s main rival for European hegemony. He was helped by King Henry VIII, who was infuriated by Charles’ decision to repudiate his betrothal to Princess Mary in favor of marriage to his cousin Isabel of Portugal, who gave him a son named Philip in May 1527. This was a factor that contributed to Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage to Anne Boleyn in the quest for a male heir.   In May 1526, France, England, and Venice joined Pope Clement VII in the League of Cognac, designed to expel imperial forces from Italy. While Charles sought to put diplomatic pressure on the pope, mutinous imperial soldiers sacked Rome on May 6, 1527 and took the pope as prisoner. Although French forces marched down the Italian peninsula and laid siege to Naples, Charles received naval and financial support from Genoa, and imperial troops defeated the French army at Landriano on June 21, 1529.   The imperial victory at Landriano created the conditions for the Peace of Cambrai of October 1529, in which Francis withdrew from Italy and acknowledged Charles as ruler of the southern Netherlands in his own right but retained Burgundy. Relations between Francis and Charles were strengthened by Francis’ marriage to Charles’ widowed sister, Eleanor. The peace agreement gave the European powers an opportunity to face the growing Ottoman threat. More importantly for Charles, it allowed him to be formally crowned emperor by the Pope at Bologna on February 24, 1530, his 30th birthday.   The Ottoman Threat Sultan Suleiman I (the Magnificent) by Titian   While Charles and Francis were fighting over Italy, the Ottomans under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent captured Belgrade in 1521 and breached the defenses of the island bastion of Rhodes from the Knights of St John the following year. In August 1526, King Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia was killed, and his army was defeated by the Ottomans at Mohács. While Louis’ death saw Charles’ brother Ferdinand become king of Hungary and Bohemia, the Ottomans had conquered most of Hungary and were advancing towards Vienna.   In 1529, as the Ottoman army laid siege to Vienna, Charles received desperate calls from Ferdinand to come to his aid. The emperor was in no hurry to act and instead focused on restoring order in Italy, while the Ottomans withdrew from Vienna of their own accord. Charles signaled that the defense of the eastern frontier was Ferdinand’s responsibility, and in 1531, Charles gave his brother greater powers over imperial affairs after securing Ferdinand’s election as king of the Romans.   1530 marked the death of Gattinara and the end of Charles’ ambitions of being a universal ruler. His preference to remain on the defensive led to criticism that he was not an effective champion of Christendom. He was more active in confronting Ottoman-backed corsairs in the Mediterranean, who threatened trade routes between Spain and Italy.   Charles sought to undermine Ottoman ambitions in North Africa, and in July 1535, Charles led a campaign to conquer Tunis. However, an attempt to seize Algiers in October 1541 proved disastrous, as over 150 ships were lost in poor weather. Charles’ war effort was further undermined by tacit French support for the Ottoman fleet.   The Protestant Reformation Emperor Charles V at Mühlberg by Titian, 1548. Source: Museo del Prado, Madrid   Throughout his reign as emperor, Charles struggled to deal with the Protestant Reformation. Although he sympathized with some of Martin Luther’s criticisms of corruption in the Catholic Church, Charles asserted his position as a defender of the Roman Catholic faith in the Diet of Worms in 1521. Since many German princes accepted Luther’s teachings, the Reformation undermined Charles’ authority in Germany.   In 1530, the Lutheran princes formed the Schmalkaldic League to defend their collective interests. As he prioritized his rivalry with France and the Ottomans, Charles initially sought to be a peacemaker between the Catholics and Lutherans in order to encourage the latter to return to a reformed Catholic Church. While Henry VIII separated from Rome to marry Anne Boleyn in 1533, Charles recognized that Henry’s decision was motivated by politics rather than religion.   In 1543, Charles abandoned his policy of accommodation and moved aggressively against the Lutherans. Leaving his son Philip as regent in Spain, he went to the Netherlands and raised an army to defeat the Lutheran Duke William of Cleves (brother of Henry VIII’s divorced fourth wife Anne of Cleves). On April 24, 1547, Charles defeated Elector John Frederick of Saxony in battle at Mühlberg and installed his pro-imperial cousin Maurice of Saxony as elector.   Following his success on the battlefield, Charles sought to impose a punitive religious and political settlement on the Lutheran princes. This approach alienated both Catholics and Lutherans in Germany. In 1552, Maurice of Saxony defected from Charles and led a renewed military effort that forced the emperor to make political concessions.   Dividing the Empire Map of Habsburg lands at the time of Charles V’s abdication in 1556, 1912. Source: Cambridge Modern History Atlas, 1912 / Wikimedia Commons   Over the course of almost four decades, Emperor Charles V had proven that he was the most powerful ruler in Christian Europe, and he had been largely successful in keeping his vast empire together. However, his setbacks against the Ottomans and his failure to suppress Lutheranism caused him to sink into a deep depression.   During his reign, Charles recognized that his early dreams of a universal empire were unrealistic, and his prolonged absences led to the emergence of national bureaucratic institutions in Spain, the Netherlands, and the imperial territories. The effective division of the empire in 1530 between Charles and Ferdinand was formalized in 1555. In February, Ferdinand presided over the imperial diet at Augsburg to reach a peace settlement with the Lutherans recognizing the religious freedom of imperial princes, placing Lutheranism on an equal footing to Catholicism.   In April 1555, the death of his mother, Queen Juana, compounded Charles’ grief. In October 1555, he relinquished his powers in the Netherlands to his son Philip. In January 1556, Philip succeeded to the Spanish crown after Charles’ abdication. In September 1556, Charles abdicated from the imperial throne and transferred his power to Ferdinand, who was proclaimed emperor in March 1558. While the two branches regularly intermarried, this established separate branches of Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs.   After returning to Spain, Charles retired to the monastery of Yuste in Estremadura and died on September 21, 1558. Within a decade, Philip’s Dutch subjects launched a protracted but ultimately successful rebellion against Spanish rule. In a curious irony, a defining legacy of Charles V, the most powerful emperor in Europe between Charlemagne and Napoleon, was to facilitate the emergence of independent nation-states.

There is nothing more entertaining -- for a Republican, anyhow -- than watching two angry Democrats go at each other. It's particularly edifying when one's an old Democrat, the other is a younger one, and the topic is the future of the party. Usually, these fights happen in backrooms or...

It's difficult to call a drug safe and effective if it ends in the death of another human being's life 100 percent of the time -- and that's if it works correctly. But, as it turns it, it's even worse than that for mifepristone, the abortion pill that Democrats have been...

Democrats continue to beclown themselves by championing an alleged wife-beating illegal alien as disturbing new details reveal the reported MS-13 gangster and accused human trafficker is even more violent than originally reported. As a reminder, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland is among a motley crew of Democrats diligently working...

There's more presidential poise at a high school beauty pageant. When former defeated Democratic candidate Kamala Harris took the stage Wednesday night for a speech in San Francisco, she reminded Americans how lucky they are that Donald Trump is in the White House. That wasn't what she set out for,...

FBI Director Kash Patel has bad news for those agents who decided to support the violent mob in 2020. CNN reported Wednesday that Patel had reassigned agents who were photographed kneeling during a George Floyd protest in Washington, D.C., in June 2020. These were people in uniform and on duty...

For all their shenanigans, judicial and otherwise, the Democrat-dominated establishment has no answer for President Donald Trump. According to an Emerson College poll released on Wednesday, the 2024 election, were it held today, would unfold almost exactly as it did on Nov. 5. Indeed, 94 percent of Trump voters indicated...

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller used Thursday's media briefing to absolutely obliterate former Vice President Kamala Harris. On Wednesday, Harris gave her first public address since losing the 2024 election to President Donald Trump. This was quintessential Harris with all the cringe-worthy cackling and word salads many...