Why no Spain-wank?

[counterblitzkrieg]

AH.com is rife full of wanked country in the many timelines. There are Britwank, Ameriwank, Chinawank, Romanwank, Russiawank and whatever. There's even a timeline on Korea-wank!

But I can't seem to find a 'Spain-wank' timeline. Last time I check, the Spanish managed to create a large empire in the Americas. What I noticed is that none of the timelines I've seen let the Spanish keep their American possessions, it's always broken up and/or taken by foreign powers. In some cases, Spain itself was broken up!

Is Spain destined to be AH.com's butt monkey?

[Plumber]

OTL is kinda a Spain-wank already in the early modern age. IMO the reason why Spain isn't wanked is because both the Ameriwank and Britwank (the two most common wanks since this is an English-speaking board) ultimately cause Spain to lose more power.

[Dan1988]

Spain in OTL is pretty much a Castile-wank - not a very good wank, but a wank nonetheless. Having Spain retain its American possessions is pretty much a Castile-bukkake.

[MNP]

Originally Posted by counterblitzkrieg

AH.com is rife full of wanked country in the many timelines. There are Britwank, Ameriwank, Chinawank, Romanwank, Russiawank and whatever. There's even a timeline on Korea-wank!

But I can't seem to find a 'Spain-wank' timeline. Last time I check, the Spanish managed to create a large empire in the Americas. What I noticed is that none of the timelines I've seen let the Spanish keep their American possessions, it's always broken up and/or taken by foreign powers. In some cases, Spain itself was broken up!

Is Spain destined to be AH.com's butt monkey?

Originally Posted by Dan1988

Spain in OTL is pretty much a Castile-wank - not a very good wank, but a wank nonetheless. Having Spain retain its American possessions is pretty much a Castile-bukkake.

What do you call this Kemosabe?

[Dan1988]

Originally Posted by MNPundit

What do you call this Kemosabe?

A bukkake of the highest degree.

[hsthompson]

Originally Posted by counterblitzkrieg

AH.com is rife full of wanked country in the many timelines. There are Britwank, Ameriwank, Chinawank, Romanwank, Russiawank and whatever. There's even a timeline on Korea-wank!

But I can't seem to find a 'Spain-wank' timeline. Last time I check, the Spanish managed to create a large empire in the Americas. What I noticed is that none of the timelines I've seen let the Spanish keep their American possessions, it's always broken up and/or taken by foreign powers. In some cases, Spain itself was broken up!

Is Spain destined to be AH.com's butt monkey?

OTL, rather than a Spain-wank, has been Castile playing Dominatrix to any other Iberian nationality that it can get her high heel boots upon.

Bugger Spain-wanks, and give me an Aragon-gasm.

Unfortunately I do not have either the ability, or the time... RL, y'know.

Mimeyo, are you reading this? For a POD, try getting Pere II to win the battle of Muret. Or, for absolute total wankage, get Pere III to live another 40 years to ripe old age...

[wilcoxchar]

OTL is a Habsburg-wank, not a Spain-wank. Spain could keep the Netherlands if they'd gone with a better religious policy and hadn't gotten tied down with Austria's shitty foreign policy decisions. They also probably could have kept Portugal and gotten much more of the Americas earlier.

[B_Munro]

Nugax's British Tartary world lacks a TL, but is definitely a Spanish-wank...

(I hope you don't mind, Nugax)

Bruce

[I Blame Communism]

Grrr. Half of this is nonsense!

1) "Spain is already wanked". Is nobody aware of the extreme bad luck which set in and brought about the decline of an empire that was even to its very end massively more functional and sustainable than everyone seems to think? Further, is anyone aware that if any country is "wanked OTL" (a term which I disagree with: a wank is supposed to be implausible, nationalistic, and silly and not a term of pride; OTL is by definition plausible), it's America, and we're still happy to wank it?

2) "Evil Castillians dominate everybody else forever, and Spain can't be ay more succesful because then the evil Castillians would be even more succesful!" I don't see anyone complaining that Britwanks aren't allowed because it would just be "England bukake". Which it of course would not be; and there's far more to Spain than mega-Castille.

To answer the question, I think it's because people let their romantical instincts get the better of reason when it comes to lost kingdoms and independence movements (look at all the people who insist that Scotland is a victim of Evil English Genocide without having ever set foot here), because Spain still labours under a "black legend" in the conscience of many Anglophones, and because you have to carve it up to wank other countries.

[MNP]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

I don't see anyone complaining that Britwanks aren't allowed because it would just be "England bukake".

I think there are too many Britwanks on this board for just that reason and I have mentioned it to some people, Alex Richards for example. Sorry.

[strangeland]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Grrr. Half of this is nonsense!

1) "Spain is already wanked". Is nobody aware of the extreme bad luck which set in and brought about the decline of an empire that was even to its very end massively more functional and sustainable than everyone seems to think? Further, is anyone aware that if any country is "wanked OTL" (a term which I disagree with: a wank is supposed to be implausible, nationalistic, and silly and not a term of pride; OTL is by definition plausible), it's America, and we're still happy to wank it.

the conquests of Cortes and Pizarro would be considered implausible, nationalistic, silly, shameless Spain-wankery if someone posted them on this board. That is, had they not actually happened.

[Goldstein]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Grrr. Half of this is nonsense!

2) "Evil Castillians dominate everybody else forever, and Spain can't be ay more succesful because then the evil Castillians would be even more succesful!" I don't see anyone complaining that Britwanks aren't allowed because it would just be "England bukake". Which it of course would not be; and there's far more to Spain than mega-Castille.

Thank you very much for saving me minutes of my time, but I should insist in the point two because it hurts me particularily bad.

I am from Murcia. Which means I live in a place with a mostly Castillian origin and Spanish as the only language, yet universally considered non-Castillian as virtually all of our cultural input comes from Aragon, Valencia, La Mancha, Catalonia and the old Al-Andalus. That means that, excluding the language, the Castillian settlers were assimilated, not the other way around.

Actually, our transitional status mean that, unlike the Andalusians, we cannot see ourselves as a nation on its own, except if we considered ourselves as a frontier identity, like the Aran valley. But, you know, when a frontier identity encompasses the three percent of a country, that rings the alarm bells.

To me, it means the Murcian people share a nation. The Spanish nation, to be more exact. For understanding Spain as a multiethnical nation is our only way of understanding ourselves. Reduce Spain to teh ev0l Castilians playing dominatrix on the Poor Others, and my land (one of the Poor Ohers, actually) would be deprived of any point of reference, and served to romantic-mithology engineers that would fill us with hatred and lies that we don't really need.

I enjoy balkanizations (Oh, and please: if you are going to balkanize Spain, do it well. If the otherwise great contributors who have perpetrated the DoD-like Zombie Aragon witnessed its colossosal and magnificent level of absurdity, they would feel like waking up from a dream), much more than wanks, actually... but it would be nice if people don't reduce Spain so simply through the lens of the cheapest romantic nationalism. Thank you.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by hsthompson

Bugger Spain-wanks, and give me an Aragon-gasm.

Someone ordered and Aragonwank?

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...valdi+Journeys

[democracy101]

Originally Posted by counterblitzkrieg

AH.com is rife full of wanked country in the many timelines. There are Britwank, Ameriwank, Chinawank, Romanwank, Russiawank and whatever. There's even a timeline on Korea-wank!

But I can't seem to find a 'Spain-wank' timeline. Last time I check, the Spanish managed to create a large empire in the Americas. What I noticed is that none of the timelines I've seen let the Spanish keep their American possessions, it's always broken up and/or taken by foreign powers. In some cases, Spain itself was broken up!

Is Spain destined to be AH.com's butt monkey?

Haha well I notice that you were referring to my timeline when you mentioned "Korea-wank." The only reason that I created it was because I was frustrated of Korea being in a Catch-22 situation in all of the other timelines involving Korea. Of course, everyone's still saying that it completely ignores a lot of butterflies, but that's another story.

Anyway, I think that people aren't that interested in making a 'Spain-wank' is because almost everyone seems to think that Spain really couldn't have been more powerful than the one that we know of as the "Spanish Empire" in OTL. Ironically, this is almost the same reason why that you'll probably see only one serious timeline concerning a "Korea-wank" on this entire website, because a lot of people have the notion that Korea really couldn't have been more powerful than the one that we know in OTL.

The reason that I think that the Spanish Empire wouldn't have managed to last until the present-day is because it overexpanded itself too early in its empire-building endeavors. Spain had only declared itself completely independent from the Moors in 1492 when the king and queen commissioned Columbus to 'find spices in the Indies,' although we all now know that he really landed in the Caribbean, and technically "discovered" a New World. No matter how hard one tries to look at things, the Spanish was basically bound to crumble by the 1800's, because the natives in the Americas were bound to revolt, or at the very least, cause chaos enough for the Spaniards to withdraw completely from the Americas, with the exception of Cuba, which was also bound to become independent eventually.

So unless one gets rid of Napoleon altogether, make sure that the Bourbon dynasty never comes to power in Spain or at least make sure that the royal family doesn't intermarry within each other, and add a few other assumptions, it's really hard to create a reasonable 'Spain-wank' that consists of a Spanish Empire that lasts until 2000.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by democracy101

The reason that I think that the Spanish Empire wouldn't have managed to last until the present-day is because it overexpanded itself too early in its empire-building endeavors. Spain had only declared itself completely independent from the Moors in 1492 when the king and queen commissioned Columbus to 'find spices in the Indies,' although we all now know that he really landed in the Caribbean, and technically "discovered" a New World.

The Grandan Emirate had been a loyal vassal for decades before it was abolsihed, which was a deeply symbolic formality.

Originally Posted by democracy101

No matter how hard one tries to look at things, the Spanish was basically bound to crumble by the 1800's, because the natives in the Americas were bound to revolt, or at the very least, cause chaos enough for the Spaniards to withdraw completely from the Americas, with the exception of Cuba, which was also bound to become independent eventually.

Sorry, what? Spain's empire in the Americas only crumbled when it did because Spain was being invaded, occupied, and devestated, which doesn't happen every Teusday; and the victors of the struggle for Spanish America were not the natives but the Criolo elites.

Originally Posted by democracy101

So unless one gets rid of Napoleon altogether, make sure that the Bourbon dynasty never comes to power in Spain or at least make sure that the royal family doesn't intermarry within each other, and add a few other assumptions, it's really hard to create a reasonable 'Spain-wank' that consists of a Spanish Empire that lasts until 2000.

You make it sound like getting rid of Napoleon is hard. Compared to established dynasties or the good 'ole Vast Impersonal Forces, one ambitious, skilled, and absurdly lucky officer clawing his way to the top of Europe's foremost power is pretty easy to avert.

And the Bourbons did a lot to reform the moribund state and make it a major European power once again.

I don't think any massive colonial empire is likley to last to 2000 in a recognisable form, but given that Spain has been on a continuous streak of shit luck from 1808 to 1975, it's not hard to make things a lot better for it. At all.

[democracy101]

I'm going to say in advance that I typed that last post without stopping, so I realize now that some of my posts really don't make sense.

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

The Grandan Emirate had been a loyal vassal for decades before it was abolsihed, which was a deeply symbolic formality.

What I was trying to say was that Spain was not firmly established as a country with "Spanish" royalty until the 1400's. In other words, Spain was a newly emerging power when Columbus sailed to the Americas, and although I'm not trying to say that the Spanish Empire was "destined" to crumble, it was clearly evident by the early 1800's that the Golden Age of Spain was no more.

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Sorry, what? Spain's empire in the Americas only crumbled when it did because Spain was being invaded, occupied, and devestated, which doesn't happen every Teusday; and the victors of the struggle for Spanish America were not the natives but the Criolo elites.

To put it in simple terms, I knew that a long time ago. What I meant when I was typing that at the time was that in the early 1800's, there was instablity in Europe, and that the Criollos (not Criolos), and not necessarily the natives themselves, were discontented. In other words, in OTL, it was almost inevitable that the royals in Spain would be unable to hold onto their territory until the late 1800's, because the problem with keeping a such vast empire together is that once a few colonies begin to show discontent and begin to revolt, the "home" country can't do much to stop them from declaring independence. In Spain's case, the peninsulares might have convinced the Spainsh king to send troops in order to quell the rebellion, but by this point, the peninsulares were vastly outnumbered by the criollos, so it was almost impossible for Spain to retain its colonial possessions by that point.

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

You make it sound like getting rid of Napoleon is hard. Compared to established dynasties or the good 'ole Vast Impersonal Forces, one ambitious, skilled, and absurdly lucky officer clawing his way to the top of Europe's foremost power is pretty easy to avert.

And the Bourbons did a lot to reform the moribund state and make it a major European power once again.

I don't think any massive colonial empire is likley to last to 2000 in a recognisable form, but given that Spain has been on a continuous streak of shit luck from 1808 to 1975, it's not hard to make things a lot better for it. At all.

Let me clarify myself. I didn't mean that getting rid of Napoleon was hard. I know that it's been successfully been tackled in other timelines, and you only need Corsica to remain independent longer than in OTL or for France to not have interest in Corsica at all to butterfly away the French Empire under Napoleon altogether. Rather, I meant that even in ATL, it would be very hard for Spain to retain its territorial possessions until the late 1800's no matter how hard one tried to make it possible. The fact that the criollos were discontented by the 'caste' system almost makes it inevitable that the Spanish Empire was bound to crumble gradually, starting in the early 1800's. Remember, my first post was in response to counterblitzkrieg's question, and in that post, I was trying to say why it would be almost ASB for Spain to retain its overseas territories until the late 1800's, because that is literally the only way to get a 'Spain-wank.'

And I'm not saying that the Bourbon Dynasty was weak in itself. Rather, it was the main reason why the Spanish Empire was so powerful, because the first few kings knew exactly what they had to do to keep the empire together. However, by the late 1700's and the early 1800's, the Bourbon dynasty was becoming ineffective in holding the empire together, because other empires, such as that of Great Britain and France were challenging Spanish 'supremacy,' and the independence of the United States made it almost inevitable that the criollos would be inspired to revolt in order to become independent from Spain. In addition to that, the intermarriages between members of the House of Hapsburg, which caused birth defects, affected the Bourbons because ineffective kings gave an excuse for the criollos in America to declare independence from Spain.

And if you want to go even further, a lot of things could have gone wrong in OTL. Cortes and/or Pizarro could have easily been defeated by the natives (although in retrospect, it's really hard to say whether if the natives would defeat the outnumbered Spanish in a 'fair' fight), and if that happened, Spain would have been a much more weaker nation than in OTL, so having a 'Spain-wank' without adopting too many ideas of OTL is almost contradictory in itself.



So in other words, unless the peninsulares adopted a completely 'fair' system of treating the people under their rule, which is almost contradictory in itself unless it's somehow possible to 'appease' the criollos, mestizos, and the Native Americans to make sure that they do not think about declaring independence at any cost, and to butterfly away Napoleon, and to make sure that the Hapsburgs do not marry their cousins, it is almost impossible to make sure that a 'Spain-wank' is successfully achieved.

That's all.

[counterblitzkrieg]

From all I've seen, the Spanish American colonies were pretty much Spanish in their culture, even the Amerindians (which were mostly Mestizos). This is pretty much like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand to Britain. The question, is it possible for Spain to set up a commonwealth with her American colonies the way Britain did with her colonies?

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by democracy101

What I was trying to say was that Spain was not firmly established as a country with "Spanish" royalty until the 1400's. In other words, Spain was a newly emerging power when Columbus sailed to the Americas, and although I'm not trying to say that the Spanish Empire was "destined" to crumble, it was clearly evident by the early 1800's that the Golden Age of Spain was no more.

And Britain has only existed since 1707. This was all before any modern concept of nationality, so whether royalty were whateverish was pretty irrelevant to the longevity of states and empires: remember German Georgie, and all those Russian Tsars who couldn't speak Russian, and Frederick the Great and his hatred of the German language; all considerably later, in the 18th C.

In terms of its state structures, Spain was no more "emerging" in 1492 than any other colonial power.

And what does Columbus have to do with the 1800s?

Originally Posted by democracy101

To put it in simple terms, I knew that a long time ago. What I meant when I was typing that at the time was that in the early 1800's, there was instablity in Europe, and that the Criollos (not Criolos),

You used an apostraphe in "1800's", deemed utterly incorrect by the Oxford Word and Language Service.

Truce? We'll have a much more productive discussion of history if we don't hang up on harmless mistakes in languages other than our own.

Originally Posted by democracy101

and not necessarily the natives themselves, were discontented. In other words, in OTL, it was almost inevitable that the royals in Spain would be unable to hold onto their territory until the late 1800's, because the problem with keeping a such vast empire together is that once a few colonies begin to show discontent and begin to revolt, the "home" country can't do much to stop them from declaring independence.

And yet it took long, bitter wars to secure that independence after Spain as a European country had temporarily ceased to exist. Ought we assume that the fall of the Spanish empire by 1875 is "inevitable" even if Spain continues to be a European great power?

Let's use Britain, a country which had simply not suffered any comparable catastrophe since... like, the 1640s (the whole Set In This Stormy Northern Sea jazz does have its benefits ), as a comparison. Britain's empire was never brought down by "revolts" in any but the loosest possible sense, and lasted into the 1960s; and its structures were generally less established than those of Spain (how Anglican was India?). Not that I think that a colonially-ruled Spanish Empire in the 1960s is very likely at all; but then, Britain's settler-colonies remain in personal union today.

Originally Posted by democracy101

In Spain's case, the peninsulares might have convinced the Spainsh king to send troops in order to quell the rebellion, but by this point, the peninsulares were vastly outnumbered by the criollos, so it was almost impossible for Spain to retain its colonial possessions by that point.

That's to take a tremendously simplistic view of the whole thing. I don't claim to have any proper acquaintence with the subject, but I remember Faeelin quoting a lot of very enlightening facts and figures about the Spanish Americas in the 1780s and 90s somewhere which didn't do anything for the idea that the Criollos (thankyou ) would always unanimously revolt right on time.

Originally Posted by democracy101

Let me clarify myself. I didn't mean that getting rid of Napoleon was hard. I know that it's been successfully been tackled in other timelines, and you only need Corsica to remain independent longer than in OTL or for France to not have interest in Corsica at all to butterfly away the French Empire under Napoleon altogether. Rather, I meant that even in ATL, it would be very hard for Spain to retain its territorial possessions until the late 1800's no matter how hard one tried to make it possible. The fact that the criollos were discontented by the 'caste' system almost makes it inevitable that the Spanish Empire was bound to crumble gradually, starting in the early 1800's. Remember, my first post was in response to counterblitzkrieg's question, and in that post, I was trying to say why it would be almost ASB for Spain to retain its overseas territories until the late 1800's, because that is literally the only way to get a 'Spain-wank.'

You don't seem to have made any acknowledgement of the fact that for a lengthy period Spain was not so much "imperial metropole" as "bloody warzone" and that changing this, which can be done if necessary by having Napoleon fall down the well as a child or eat a bullet sandwich somewhere in Italy or even just pursue a more tactful policy towards Spain, will have a massive effect on the longevity of Spain's American possesions. More time is more time for changes in the system, after all. Going back to the British analogy, an undistracted Britain faced a large revolt in India... and crushed it, changed the system and kept adjusting it, and thus held onto India for the better part of the next century.

I don't for a moment believe that half the world can be ruled from Madrid forever, but people don't seem to understand that the OTL collapse of the Spanish empire in Europe and America was pretty much an unmitigated disaster for Spain.

I'm against the overuse of the term "wank", but I can't be prescriptive, only descriptive: a lot of people would consider a timeline where Spain loses its empire by a gradual process without nasty wars and doesn't get invaded, devestated, and politically torn apart with ramafications down to 1975 to be "Spain-wank". I'd certainly consider it a better deal for Spain.

Originally Posted by democracy101

And I'm not saying that the Bourbon Dynasty was weak in itself. Rather, it was the main reason why the Spanish Empire was so powerful, because the first few kings knew exactly what they had to do to keep the empire together. However, by the late 1700's and the early 1800's, the Bourbon dynasty was becoming ineffective in holding the empire together, because other empires, such as that of Great Britain and France were challenging Spanish 'supremacy,' and the independence of the United States made it almost inevitable that the criollos would be inspired to revolt in order to become independent from Spain.

Great Britain had been challenging Spanish supremacy almost non-stop since the time of Drake. In my city there's a neighbourhood (Portobello, Edinburgh) named after a British victory in Venezuela which was supposed to result in the instant British conquest and/or independence of Spanish America. It, uh, didn't.

As for America, there are a lot of whole in thsi argument. Canada is still part of the "British empire", if you will. So why should more distant and less similar societies inevitably look to the American example.

After all, with luck and Napoleon being a good boy on Elba, Britain could have given America a major bloody nose in the War of 1812. Add more rotten American luck... America, in contrast to Spain, is a country which has rolled a lot of sixes. Its example need not be so enviable in ATLs.

Originally Posted by democracy101

In addition to that, the intermarriages between members of the House of Hapsburg, which caused birth defects, affected the Bourbons because ineffective kings gave an excuse for the criollos in America to declare independence from Spain.

I've always been dubious of how much one monarch with some, shall we say, "awkward propensities" can arse up a modern beaurocratic state without lots of other factors in play. Let's check out Britain's monarchical record for about as long as our monarchs were tremendously relevant:

-Queen "No heirs" Anne

- King "German" Georgie I

- King "Still German" Georgie II

- King "Nutbar" Georgie III

- King "Orgy" Georgie IV

- Okay, William IV was actually a pretty cool guy

Originally Posted by democracy101

And if you want to go even further, a lot of things could have gone wrong in OTL. Cortes and/or Pizarro could have easily been defeated by the natives (although in retrospect, it's really hard to say whether if the natives would defeat the outnumbered Spanish in a 'fair' fight), and if that happened, Spain would have been a much more weaker nation than in OTL, so having a 'Spain-wank' without adopting too many ideas of OTL is almost contradictory in itself.

And Russia could have been relegated to Persianesque half-powerdom in the absence of Peter the Great (that's one interpretation that I'm using as an example: let's not start a debate on Russian history, fascinating as it would be), but would anyone deny that Russia hasn't exactly had the best possible time this last couple of centuries?

Any country could fail hard. Any country could succeed more than it did. Spain, like Russia, could potentially suceed a lot more.

Originally Posted by democracy101

So in other words, unless the peninsulares adopted a completely 'fair' system of treating the people under their rule, which is almost contradictory in itself unless it's somehow possible to 'appease' the criollos, mestizos, and the Native Americans to make sure that they do not think about declaring independence at any cost, and to butterfly away Napoleon, and to make sure that the Hapsburgs do not marry their cousins, it is almost impossible to make sure that a 'Spain-wank' is successfully achieved.

That's all.

I;ve said that butterflying away Napoleon is frankly easier than not butterflying him away (or rather, butterflying the Peninsular War) and that bad kings never doomed a modern monarchy by themselves. As for your apparent belief that Spanish American society was in a state of stasis and that the independence wars were everyone against the Peninsulares, I referyou to my British comparison. In India, where tthe roots of British rule were much shallower, Britain used a combination of violence coercion and measures to divide society to maintain control for ages.

[Zajir]

The problem with a longer lasting federative Spanish Empire is that if gives more power to its colonies, the center of power will move from the Iberian Peninsula to South America, and than it wouldn't really be a "Spanish Empire"

[Niko Malaka]

Originally Posted by democracy101

What I was trying to say was that Spain was not firmly established as a country with "Spanish" royalty until the 1400's. In other words, Spain was a newly emerging power when Columbus sailed to the Americas, and although I'm not trying to say that the Spanish Empire was "destined" to crumble, it was clearly evident by the early 1800's that the Golden Age of Spain was no more.

That's irrelevant. Until the Nueva Planta decrees the Americas were an exclusive castilian thing, and Castile was a well stablished kingdom with functional old institutions.

Originally Posted by democracy101

To put it in simple terms, I knew that a long time ago. What I meant when I was typing that at the time was that in the early 1800's, there was instablity in Europe, and that the Criollos (not Criolos), and not necessarily the natives themselves, were discontented. In other words, in OTL, it was almost inevitable that the royals in Spain would be unable to hold onto their territory until the late 1800's, because the problem with keeping a such vast empire together is that once a few colonies begin to show discontent and begin to revolt, the "home" country can't do much to stop them from declaring independence. In Spain's case, the peninsulares might have convinced the Spainsh king to send troops in order to quell the rebellion, but by this point, the peninsulares were vastly outnumbered by the criollos, so it was almost impossible for Spain to retain its colonial possessions by that point.

We should clarify one thing. We use to make a radical distinction/opposition between peninsulares and criollos. I'm the first guilty here, because it maes the things easier, but it's an historical over-simplification. There were criollos fighting for the king and peninsulares fighting against him. There wer alos internal divisions in both sides ad a lot of undefined people. In fact, the independe wars in the hispanic America were in a great measure civil wars. The peninsular spaniards were a minority in the royalist armies, if not, the wars' duration would have been a lot shorter. Also, there were pats of the empire without much movement ultil the very last moment, like Central America or the Alto Perú / Charcas (currently Bolivia, more or less).

Originally Posted by democracy101

The fact that the criollos were discontented by the 'caste' system almost makes it inevitable that the Spanish Empire was bound to crumble gradually, starting in the early 1800's. Remember, my first post was in response to counterblitzkrieg's question, and in that post, I was trying to say why it would be almost ASB for Spain to retain its overseas territories until the late 1800's, because that is literally the only way to get a 'Spain-wank.'

What? If they were so unhappy with the caste system, explain me why they kept it after the independence. The "indiano" elites where unhappy with the lack of autonomy. The criollos didn't like the preeminece of peninsulars in the top of the colonial administration, that's true, but their logic was a bit different. Who cares about who is the Vicerroy if he let you make what you want in your area of infuence. But it happened also the opposite. For example, Marta Elena Casaús has studied in depth the Central-American elites during the colonial and independent times (also Michel Bertrand is studing the question). She has privileged information because she comes from one of the most powerfull families in Guatemala. And she shows how in the local level, the peninsular newcomers were treated like pariahs for the "criollo" well stablished elites.

Originally Posted by democracy101

And I'm not saying that the Bourbon Dynasty was weak in itself. Rather, it was the main reason why the Spanish Empire was so powerful, because the first few kings knew exactly what they had to do to keep the empire together. However, by the late 1700's and the early 1800's, the Bourbon dynasty was becoming ineffective in holding the empire together, because other empires, such as that of Great Britain and France were challenging Spanish 'supremacy,' and the independence of the United States made it almost inevitable that the criollos would be inspired to revolt in order to become independent from Spain. In addition to that, the intermarriages between members of the House of Hapsburg, which caused birth defects, affected the Bourbons because ineffective kings gave an excuse for the criollos in America to declare independence from Spain.

The problem with that reasoning is that the movements in the hispanic America begun as autonomist and not independentist. In some parts of the emire, the autonomist was the main position even in the last moment, like in New Spain. On the other hand, although the USA's revolution was inspiring, the ideas and objetives in the hispanic America had local pedigree.
For the bourbonic hability to keep the empire together I have yet exposed my position in earlier posts. Also, in an absolute monarchy the king is as important as his ministers. Actually, at least in the spanish case, they didn't govern very much, it was betterand funnier go to hunt.

Originally Posted by counterblitzkrieg
From all I've seen, the Spanish American colonies were pretty much Spanish in their culture, even the Amerindians (which were mostly Mestizos). This is pretty much like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand to Britain. The question, is it possible for Spain to set up a commonwealth with her American colonies the way Britain did with her colonies?

Yes, it was a feasible option. In fact, there were proposal to make something like that several times. The most evident possibility is if the Treaty of Cordoba were acepted by he spanish Cortes in 1820, but a this time Río de la Plata and Nueva Granada were de facto independent and the royalists in Perú were in a very bad military position. Also, the constitutional debates in Cadiz could have gone in a federalist way and the spanish absolutists could have been more sensitive.

Cheers.