1493: Spain, Naples, etc.

[AJNolte]

Based on the ideas of Raphael Mendez, I'd like to create a free trade block between Spain and Naples, with options for France and possibly Navarre to join at some point (we'd invite Portugal but free trade really doesn't seem to be their thing). At the least, I want to work on an open trade policy between Spain and Naples.
Any plausibility concerns?

[Keenir]

Based on the ideas of Raphael Mendez, I'd like to create a free trade block between Spain and Naples, with options for France and possibly Navarre to join at some point (we'd invite Portugal but free trade really doesn't seem to be their thing). At the least, I want to work on an open trade policy between Spain and Naples.
Any plausibility concerns?

you're making an awfully lot of Free Trade blocs/zones in the Age of Exploration.

[AJNolte]

you're making an awfully lot of Free Trade blocs/zones in the Age of Exploration.

Well...kinda.
The Hanseatic League isn't really a free trade block, though it may evolve in that direction (particularly if Mendez's ideas gain more widespread currency). Think of it more as an international trade monopoly.
As for Spain and Naples: they're trying to recover from a war while at the same time not standing down from a position of military readiness. Add to this the fact that the ideas of TTL's Mendez were closely analogous to those of Louise deMolena OTL and I think a plausible case for this one can be made.
But as to your possible broader point:
Yes, I do like free trade blocks. Say what you like about free-market global capitalism, but it's a hell of a lot better system than mercantilism for all concerned any day of the week. So where I see a plausible opportunity I do intend to advance it. That phrase "plausible opportunity" being the operative. If it's implausible I won't do it. But I do intend to do as much as I can get away with along these lines.
Or put another way:
Those who love Turkish culture will seek to advance the Ottoman empire. Those who like Chinese culture will seek to push the Ming to prominence. Free trade is just one of my pet causes, particularly at this time period.

[Keenir]

Well...kinda.

Those who love Turkish culture will seek to advance the Ottoman empire. Those who like Chinese culture will seek to push the Ming to prominence. Free trade is just one of my pet causes, particularly at this time period.

you're saying that to a Turkophile who was planning on using the Turks to advance China.

[AJNolte]

you're saying that to a Turkophile who was planning on using the Turks to advance China.


Right, so you know what I'm talking about. <g>

My real question is: how implausible is a Spanish-Neapolitan trade block emerging between 1530 and 1535?

[Keenir]

Right, so you know what I'm talking about. <g>

um...not sure. what I meant was "I'm using Turks (my favorite) to advance China (I like them, but they're not among my favorites; and are played by someone else)"

did that make sense?

My real question is: how implausible is a Spanish-Neapolitan trade block emerging between 1530 and 1535?

exclusive trade block...probably too early. Spanish having Favored status in Neapolitan ports and vice versa, probably more likely.

[Psychomeltdown]

Mercantilism is kinda THE only theory out there at the moment and it hasn't really been all that explored or developed upon. it'll be hundreds of years before you get the trading and over complicated trading agreements between nations.

Plus i would think Naples would have a bit more to lose in that deal, basically Spain has a lot of potential, it's a big resource filled nation and if it'd only get it's act together, then it probably would be able to rise up from it's lowly position. But its very unlikely that it'd get it's act together within the next few decades. rebuilding an economy that is still funneling large amounts of money toward the military, a nation that's trade has basically been destroyed, and one that has lost a lot of prestige (having been victorious in two wars in two decades, then losing a third even though they invaded and held part of their enemy's country). So from that stand point you're looking at a people who don't really have that much faith in the leadership, who've pretty much suffered through several decades of warring with nations and their lot steadily getting worse through the massive military expenditures and foreign adventures.

You have to understand that manufacturing and industry aren't the big money makers in this era. though in some areas they do have an effect on increasing wealth, its not the same as the current era. where industrialized nations tend to become dominate. Here that nations that tend to be rich are the nations that tend to control trade, it's only due to the influx of wealth from trade that a lot of money is available to begin building up the infrastructure needed to being industrializing.

Here we have pretty poor nations that are heavily learning toward conservatism and superstition, where major change is viewed as terrifying and heretic, and in your case a nation who's people are most likely of the opinion that they should have won the war but due to the incompetence of the leadership lost it and now suffer from it.

The current monarch may want to make changes, they may want to bring power and glory back to their kingdom, but things aren't so easy as suddenly learning of a unproven theory and then running full tilt with it, especially when you're talking about money that will most likely come from the pockets of nobles, merchants, and the people. Would they be willing to back something that they have no idea as how it should work?

You have a lot set against you.

1. Spain lost the war and possible that it's people might blame the current administration.
2. You've got a powerful trading nation growing on your side, which is a real threat economically.
3. The theory is just too unproven and seemingly too radical for this time and age.
4. Your nation is a lot poorer than OLT, possibly even back to 1492 standards. It's becoming more a choice of economy or military readiness.

[AJNolte]

Mercantilism is kinda THE only theory out there at the moment and it hasn't really been all that explored or developed upon. it'll be hundreds of years before you get the trading and over complicated trading agreements between nations.

Plus i would think Naples would have a bit more to lose in that deal, basically Spain has a lot of potential, it's a big resource filled nation and if it'd only get it's act together, then it probably would be able to rise up from it's lowly position. But its very unlikely that it'd get it's act together within the next few decades. rebuilding an economy that is still funneling large amounts of money toward the military, a nation that's trade has basically been destroyed, and one that has lost a lot of prestige (having been victorious in two wars in two decades, then losing a third even though they invaded and held part of their enemy's country). So from that stand point you're looking at a people who don't really have that much faith in the leadership, who've pretty much suffered through several decades of warring with nations and their lot steadily getting worse through the massive military expenditures and foreign adventures.

You have to understand that manufacturing and industry aren't the big money makers in this era. though in some areas they do have an effect on increasing wealth, its not the same as the current era. where industrialized nations tend to become dominate. Here that nations that tend to be rich are the nations that tend to control trade, it's only due to the influx of wealth from trade that a lot of money is available to begin building up the infrastructure needed to being industrializing.

Here we have pretty poor nations that are heavily learning toward conservatism and superstition, where major change is viewed as terrifying and heretic, and in your case a nation who's people are most likely of the opinion that they should have won the war but due to the incompetence of the leadership lost it and now suffer from it.

The current monarch may want to make changes, they may want to bring power and glory back to their kingdom, but things aren't so easy as suddenly learning of a unproven theory and then running full tilt with it, especially when you're talking about money that will most likely come from the pockets of nobles, merchants, and the people. Would they be willing to back something that they have no idea as how it should work?

You have a lot set against you.

1. Spain lost the war and possible that it's people might blame the current administration.
2. You've got a powerful trading nation growing on your side, which is a real threat economically.
3. The theory is just too unproven and seemingly too radical for this time and age.
4. Your nation is a lot poorer than OLT, possibly even back to 1492 standards. It's becoming more a choice of economy or military readiness.

I disagree.
1. The king who launched the Portuguese war is dead, and much of his administration has been replaced.
2. For exactly the reason that they did in fact lose the war, radical change is going to be seen as necessary.
3. I've already established the rise of both the Communeros and the Salamanca school. All that's happening here is they're coming to dominate King Juan's administration.
4. Capitalism was just as radical and untried when Adam Smith proposed it (building off the work of others including Molena). Yet England not only went with it, but got incredibly rich in the process.

Yes, Portugal's going to stay mercantilist, probably for hundreds of years. That IMO is going to be your eventual downfall, but that's your bag (that and the fact that you can't play Portugal wank forever: at some point something's going to give quite spectacularly). But Spain's just lost out big because of mercantilism, and I can't see why they wouldn't try something new.

[Psychomeltdown]

I disagree.
1. The king who launched the Portuguese war is dead, and much of his administration has been replaced.
2. For exactly the reason that they did in fact lose the war, radical change is going to be seen as necessary.
3. I've already established the rise of both the Communeros and the Salamanca school. All that's happening here is they're coming to dominate King Juan's administration.
4. Capitalism was just as radical and untried when Adam Smith proposed it (building off the work of others including Molena). Yet England not only went with it, but got incredibly rich in the process.

Yes, Portugal's going to stay mercantilist, probably for hundreds of years. That IMO is going to be your eventual downfall, but that's your bag (that and the fact that you can't play Portugal wank forever: at some point something's going to give quite spectacularly). But Spain's just lost out big because of mercantilism, and I can't see why they wouldn't try something new.

1. Yeah, but all support tends to rest on the people and their perception of how likely the new people in charge will handle things. Afterall, this is all currently theory and most of them are still living the same way they did in the mismanaged times.

Plus the nobles are still pretty much the same nobles that fought in the war against Portugal. They were winning until the King pulled the plug and told them to get back home.

2. Radical change only comes when there is massively ground shaking failure and defeat, the war between Spain and Portugal wasn't that. It was the Portuguese managing to defeat the navy of Spain and Spain being able to threaten the capital of their enemy. Therefore it'll be more likely that they'll assume that they did fairly well, militarily and that they could have probably won the war, if not for the King agreeing to peace. Therefore it'll look like victory was snatched from their grasps. Soldiers don't know about the financial situation of the kingdom, all they know is that they were close to winning and the King gave up on them. That action will engender a lot o distrust toward those in charge add in the shaky situation of the finances of the kingdom and you'll be seeing a lot of people not fully supporting the king and most likely looking back to the reign of isabella as the good days, after all they did defeat the muslims in Granada and the Mamelukes, along with securing the Holiest of cities.

Also new economic theories tend to sprout up where there's a lot of economic activity, not from almost voids of economy and one that's been heavily militaristic for the last two decades. It needs a lot of support, a lot of different sources to formulate.