Implications of no Spanish Conquista?

By any scenario you see fit, prevent the Spaniards from colonizing the New World (No Unification of Spain is always a good bet, Castile might still colonize in such a scenario). My question is this, what nations take interest in what parts of OTL Spanish conquests. The Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French come to mind but im sure there’s other potential colonizers. All Comments appreciated .

Kovalenko said:

By any force of your imagination prevent the Spaniards from colonizing the New World (No Unification of Spain is always a good bet). My question is this, what nations take interest in what parts of OTL Spanish conquests. The Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French come to mind but im sure there’s other potential colonizers. All Comments appreciated .

Click to expand...

i do believe that the castillians colonized america before spanish unification.
and the portugese would be your best bet.

PoeFacedKilla said:

i do believe that the castillians colonized america before spanish unification.
and the portugese would be your best bet.

Click to expand...

Indeed they did, before the Crown of Castille ceased to be it already controlled a large part of the Caribbean (Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica & Puerto Rico) as well as portions of the South American mainland.

Not the most (or least) likely, but without the Spanish monopolizing so much of the America's you might see the Italians take a crack at it. Thee Barbary States are also a potential colonizer if the competition doesn't get too fierce too fast (for instance the Aztec and Inca empires arent discovered until later so that precious metals are only found sporadically and in small quantities). Maybe people think of the Americas as clearly an inferior goal to going around Africa to trade in the east, and thus smaller weaker nations that get edged out of the eastern trade go west as a less desirable alternative. Maybe you get the Dutch, Danes, Italians, North Africans, Portugese, and other lesser powers from OTL in then.

I don't think the Italians can do any colonizing, unless we have the 2 Sicilies decide to break from Aragon and theres some kind of peace in Italy. The Barbary states seem kinda flat out, if the Barbary states have at least a firm access to the spice trade, why bother going across the ocean to places that might not be profitable. Unless the Barbary States decide to colonize to go spite the Europeans, I don't see any financial incentive. I honestly don't think you can stop Castillian/Spanish colonization of the Americas, at the most you could delay it by have having the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile divided but enemies, kill Columbus or have him go somewhere else.

Avitus said:

Not the most (or least) likely, but without the Spanish monopolizing so much of the America's you might see the Italians take a crack at it. Thee Barbary States are also a potential colonizer if the competition doesn't get too fierce too fast (for instance the Aztec and Inca empires arent discovered until later so that precious metals are only found sporadically and in small quantities). Maybe people think of the Americas as clearly an inferior goal to going around Africa to trade in the east, and thus smaller weaker nations that get edged out of the eastern trade go west as a less desirable alternative. Maybe you get the Dutch, Danes, Italians, North Africans, Portugese, and other lesser powers from OTL in then.

Click to expand...

Their was no Italy at the time, their were numerous small states along existing on the Italian peninsula, with the three largest and most powerful of these being Venice, Naples and the Papal States; in the case of Venice it was a country very much focused East while the Papal States was basically Super Vatican ruling over an actual country and did'nt much care about expansion save for getting little papal enclaves throughout Europe and Naples was sort of busy being invaded by by France at the time.

The North African states were a collection of small Pirate bases, City-states and various Emirates/Kingdoms that spent most of the time jut focusing on surviving or expanding South, it's basically ASB for them to colonize the America's (though a large North African state with an Atlantic coast would'nt be).

Essentially, without the Spanish dominance you'd see Portugal controlling more of South America and maybe Central America while Britain, France and the Dutch (to a lesser extent) getting more.

If you can get them interested you might see more Danish colonization, though this would be limited to the Lesser Antilles and the areas near Greenland.

I got excited, I thought you might have meant "no Spanish Reconquista."


It's pretty wild to imagine, say, South America with most people speaking French, English, or maybe Dutch or German.

As central and south amercia is very large, to say the least, I could see everyone having a bit and not treading each others toes too much. Mostly if England/Britian and France can keep well away for each other.

Portugal still gets a head start, whilst England and France do better.

Iberia is one of the best places to colonize the Americas from, and the only other one in Europe is the Greenland-Iceland area.

The Spanish pretty much have to be the conquerors of Meosamerica and the Andes, and about half of the Caribbean. Everything else can be taken away or colonized by someone else.

Iori said:

Their was no Italy at the time, their were numerous small states along existing on the Italian peninsula, with the three largest and most powerful of these being Venice, Naples and the Papal States; in the case of Venice it was a country very much focused East while the Papal States was basically Super Vatican ruling over an actual country and did'nt much care about expansion save for getting little papal enclaves throughout Europe and Naples was sort of busy being invaded by by France at the time.

The North African states were a collection of small Pirate bases, City-states and various Emirates/Kingdoms that spent most of the time jut focusing on surviving or expanding South, it's basically ASB for them to colonize the America's (though a large North African state with an Atlantic coast would'nt be).

Essentially, without the Spanish dominance you'd see Portugal controlling more of South America and maybe Central America while Britain, France and the Dutch (to a lesser extent) getting more.

If you can get them interested you might see more Danish colonization, though this would be limited to the Lesser Antilles and the areas near Greenland.

Click to expand...

Don't assume I don't lnow what Italy was at this time just because I said "Italians" to refer to the various Italian states collectively. I would actually say that, while it makes settler colonies impractical and difficult, Venice and Genoa would be good candidates for making trading post style colonies along the lines of what the Dutch did. As for North Africa, they were capable of projecting themselves into the atlantic at this period, enough to raid and harass the Spanish colonies at times, so I see no reason why they cant establish something small in tha absence of the Spanish Empire or something similar that would fill it's place. The key is to keep Portugal from picking up where Spain left off, because England and France didn't seriously begin colonizing until the mid to late 16th century, so Portugal is the place to beat. They were pretty happy with their rout around Africa, so I imagine that if little to no precious metals are found in the first few expeditions they would just focus on the massive profits to be made by cutting out all of the middle men along the Silk Road.

Venice never had Atlantic aspirations, don't go there. Also, it would be trade they aren't concerned with, never mind how they get past a hostile Iberia, nevermind how they get ocean faring vessels, nevermind how they learn ocean faring, nevermind how they deal with the Turks, nevermind how they didn't have the population, nevermind how they didn't have citizens willing to go, nevermind how they deal with the pope, Hungry, Austria, Milan, France, other city states, and so on. These things more or less apply for Genoa and especially not after the Venetians destroy them.

Avitus said:

Don't assume I don't lnow what Italy was at this time just because I said "Italians" to refer to the various Italian states collectively. I would actually say that, while it makes settler colonies impractical and difficult, Venice and Genoa would be good candidates for making trading post style colonies along the lines of what the Dutch did.

Click to expand...

Why and how would they do that?

Venice had zero interest in the New World, in fact they'd pretty much be against any such things as it ruins the Eastern Trade which Venice was so dependent on meanwhile Genoa, on the other side of the Peninsula has the issue that it's to the East of the Strait of Gibraltar and thus any colonies it founded would be incredibly vulnerable both as a result of supply lines having to pass through the Western Med. and Gibraltar as well as the other powers deciding to just take them.

As for North Africa, they were capable of projecting themselves into the atlantic at this period, enough to raid and harass the Spanish colonies at times, so I see no reason why they cant establish something small in tha absence of the Spanish Empire or something similar that would fill it's place.

Click to expand...

Pirates with bases or crew in/from the Maghreb are not the same thing as states with navies.

Pirates did establish bases in the New World, but they were also stamped out relatively quickly and were despised by pretty much all states.

The key is to keep Portugal from picking up where Spain left off, because England and France didn't seriously begin colonizing until the mid to late 16th century, so Portugal is the place to beat.
They were pretty happy with their rout around Africa, so I imagine that if little to no precious metals are found in the first few expeditions they would just focus on the massive profits to be made by cutting out all of the middle men along the Silk Road.

Click to expand...

If the Portuguese think that the Western route will be shorter than around Africa they're not just gonna give-up because their's no shiny metal, yes without Europe thinking Central America was full of Gold colonization would be slower, but only by a few decades.

Aside from that, the lack of Iberian control itself makes it more likely one of the other Atlantic European powers will move-in, seeing it as prime territory.

Zuvarq said:

Iberia is one of the best places to colonize the Americas from, and the only other one in Europe is the Greenland-Iceland area.

The Spanish pretty much have to be the conquerors of Meosamerica and the Andes, and about half of the Caribbean. Everything else can be taken away or colonized by someone else.

Click to expand...

Agree with you in regards to Meosamerica as well as the Caribbean, Castile even alone will likely conquer the OTL Viceroyalty of New Spain and pick up some islands along the way. However im not so sure about all of the Andes, while they will probably pick up New Granada, but I could see another power beating them to the Peru or Río de la Plata.

As for the posts about Italian conquests and a better performing British/French Empire I could somewhat see it happen. Its all about the justification, perhaps discovery of the new world is delayed in this scenario so Portugal doesn't get the opportunity to just pick up after Spain, or alternatively its discovered by a Italian/British/Frenchman, Columbus is likely butterflied away without a Spanish Unification. Further Comments and Corrections appreciated

Actually, if the Iberia had not been invaded by the Muslims it is possible that instead of unification the Iberian Peninsula could have been much more fractious and much more infighting which would have distracted them from any cross-Atlantic endeavors.

King of Malta said:

Actually, if the Iberia had not been invaded by the Muslims it is possible that instead of unification the Iberian Peninsula could have been much more fractious and much more infighting which would have distracted them from any cross-Atlantic endeavors.

Click to expand...

Uhhh... it was all owned by the Visigoths (and I think the Basques in the north). The succession conflict allowing the Umayyads to conquer the peninsula was IIRC just a succession conflict not any attempts at secession.

Zuvarq said:

Uhhh... it was all owned by the Visigoths (and I think the Basques in the north). The succession conflict allowing the Umayyads to conquer the peninsula was IIRC just a succession conflict not any attempts at secession.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the Visigothic population was so small and the Kingdom was prone to several different revolts. All it takes is a series of weak kings for fracturing.

King of Malta said:

Ah, but the Visigothic population was so small and the Kingdom was prone to several different revolts. All it takes is a series of weak kings for fracturing.

Click to expand...

interesting..

Those are the provincial divisions of the Visigothic Kingdom.

If Portugal got ahold of that Incan gold, they could use it to bolster their holdings in the Indian Ocean and lock out Dutch and English merchants for a lot longer. And without their Aztec loot, Spain would be far weaker (or at least unable to fund a big army), so they might get the boot from the Netherlands a lot sooner, and would never be in a position to threaten England.

The Incan could potentially end up in a sort of protectorate status with England, like some of the Indian states did (assuming Portugal doesn't go to the Andes), and could survive partly unchanged. I think they only did the sacraficing when a king died. Now the Aztecs... given how bloody of a society they were, I can't see any European power simply allowing it to exist for centuries. Who knows, maybe the Pope might declare a Crusade once the Church is promised it cut of the gold.