The Degree of success that Charles V had can be determined by how he defended and pursued his territorial claims, such as Milan and Naples. Milan was a very important part of the Holy Roman Empire for Charles as it was the crossroads between his North territories consisting partly of German states and his South territories including Scilly and Naples. If Milan was in Charles V’s possession may prevent any attack from the middle of his Empire almost. This may be therefore be a good place to judge Charles V’s success may be by how he handled his claim to Milan, due to the importance of it in maintaining the Empire. That Charles gained control of Milan in November 1521 by allying with the pope and driving the French out of Italy in itself, may show Charles to be a success. Charles V also gained control of Tournai in 1521, which could convey that Charles had taken quickly to ruling as Emperor. This may be because he had only been Emperor for less than two years and had already claimed Milan from Francis I, who had the motivation of preventing Habsburg domination and the French claim to Milan. This as well as other territories such as Tournai being conquered in such as short space of time, indicates Charles V had a successful start as Emperor, as he quickly gained more territories to increase the size of the Empire. Charles also claimed Genoa neighbouring Milan; this may have been a very wise tactical move by Charles to gain control of the large Genoan fleet. This fleet could be used to defend Milan from any future attacks from Francis I. Therefore it can be stated that Charles was a success if he had the tactical prowess to conquer Genoa, with the knowledge of the large army that he would have at his disposal. Were Charles V successful in capturing Genoa. However, as is the case with Italian territories like Milan they may be easy to capture but yet difficult to hold as was shown in 1525. This was when Francis re took Milan, which could support Charles V being a failure as Emperor due to him being able to hold the important state of Milan. Moreover, though Charles managed a substantial victory at the Battle of Pavia in 1525 in which Francis I was captured and forced to surrender. Francis I may have only managed to gain Milan from Charles in 1525 because he had the help of the new pope Clement VII and that Charles was in Madrid at the time, not because Charles was a failure as an Emperor.
The Turks began to pose a serious problem to Charles in 1526 when they invaded Hungary, which had traditionally been the buffer state between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. When the Turks routed Hungary and kill the Hungarian king Lewis along with most of the Hungarian nobility at the Battle of Mohacz in 1526, it put the Turks on the border of the Holy Roman Empire now they occupied Hungary. This was poor timing for Charles and pointed out one of his weaknesses as an Emperor, due to the Imperial Army being unpaid and left outside Rome for sometime which resulted in the Sack of Rome in 1526. When the Turks began to advance upon Danube during 1529 the German princes as G.R. Elton describes as “uncharacteristically” unwilling to vote supply for defence at the Diet of Speyer in 1529. Even though Charles managed to escape this time due to the Turks not being suited to fight in the mid-October weather and the attitude of the Turkish Janissary. However, this does not disguise the fact that Charles V had alienated the German Princes possibly through the strong opposition of Lutheranism by Charles. This allows the argument that Charles was a failure as an Emperor due to the alienation of German Princes so much that they were unwilling to vote supply to a threat against possibly their own territory by the Turks. However, anyone may have done the same thing in Charles’s position and opposed Lutheranism as it threatened the control he had over his own territory at any cost, even if it meant alienating the German Princes. Subsequently, Charles can be said to be a success as an Emperor as he would have done what any other person would have done, due to decisions like opposing Lutheranism were never going to please everybody due to the amount of support behind Lutheranism if anything.
Charles V being considered a failure as an Emperor can be supported due to the mismanagement of his finances at this time, which may have caused problems, such as the alienation of the papacy at the time. Due to the Sack of Rome that caused 4000 deaths and robbery of the papacy in Rome. Had Charles been a successful ruler his finances may have been in a better state, enabling him to pay the imperial army and avoid alienation of the papacy. However, it may have been the general state of the Empire at this time that caused Charles’s finances to be in the state they were in, for example the Italian Wars may have dried up a lot of his resources due to the sheer expense of funding an army. Charles was not even present in the empire at the time of the Sack of Rome in 1526 as he was in Madrid. This in itself can support that Charles V had too much to deal with at the time and may have been unrealistic in his expectations of success, due to the sheer size of the territory he had to rule. Although, it can be stated that Charles should have been present at this time in the empire defending his Empire and that he was a failure for not being present. Due to Charles V signing the treaty of Madrid in 1526 with Francis I it can be stated that Charles V was defending the Empire by doing this. As signing the Treaty of Madrid included Charles gaining many advantages for the Empire such as control of Burgundy, Milan and Naples. However, it can be argued that Charles V was naïve and expected too much from this treaty, as when Francis I was released from being Charles V’s prisoner there was nothing to make Francis keep his word. Nevertheless, Charles V could have done everything in his power to milk the capture of Francis and cannot really be blamed for Francis I not keeping his word, due to there being nothing Charles V could do to ensure Francis did not break the Treaty of Madrid. This may have been due to Francis I motivation to uphold his territorial claims to Burgundy and Milan to prove himself as a ruler and the urge to overcome Charles V, whom Francis I may have seen as overshadowing him due to the mass of territory Charles V ruled.
In conclusion it can be argued Charles V did everything in his power to rule as Holy Roman Emperor successfully as the sheer size of the ever expanding territory that he had to rule, limited his success or anyone else in his position for that matter. Thus Charles may have been perhaps hard on himself judging himself as a failure as he had so much to rule it was always going to be hard ruling successfully. However, it can be argued he was a failure due to him taking too much on and not leaving incompetent people like his brother Ferdinand of Austria, to preside over important matters like the First Diet of Speyer in 1526. This is due to new problems such as the Recess of Speyer were created by leaving incompetent personnel in charge, which led to the German Princes gaining the upper hand over Charles V during the parts of the Reformation.
