More colonization of the Americas by Spain.

What POD would have Spain ( Hapsburg) to send more settlers to it's colonies in the Americas? And as part of this what POD would get them to send settlers from their other territories in Europe to secure their dominance in the Americas.

AussieHawker said:

What POD would have Spain ( Hapsburg) to send more settlers to it's colonies in the Americas? And as part of this what POD would get them to send settlers from their other territories in Europe to secure their dominance in the Americas.

Click to expand...

I dont know what is your definition of dominance of the Americas or more colonies from OTL.

The Spanish did colonize the largest chunk of land of the Americas before 19th century.

The Spanish colonies also had the largest population of colonists before 18th century.

North America was unattractive for the Spanish compared to Central or South America. North American colonial success required 18th century-19th century tech/sophistication. While Central and South America gave Spain the Galleon trade since the 16th century.

Maybe Florida is stronger, then they take Georgia from the English during some war. A colony to get rid of Protestants could happen somewhere in North America.

Baconheimer said:

Maybe Florida is stronger, then they take Georgia from the English during some war. A colony to get rid of Protestants could happen somewhere in North America.

Click to expand...

I dont understand why should taking Florida or more of North America will make Spain more dominant in OTL?

That part of America is poorer in natural resources compared to what Spain already had in OTL.

Is this British Bias or USA bias or misinformation or DBWI?

AussieHawker said:

What POD would have Spain ( Hapsburg) to send more settlers to it's colonies in the Americas? And as part of this what POD would get them to send settlers from their other territories in Europe to secure their dominance in the Americas.

Click to expand...

Successful Spanish Armada

I was doing a TL but i hitused it

Having the Spanish monarchy approve of de las Casa's scheme from the get go of using peasants to replace the Indians as labor and serve as settlers while the remaining natives would be made into autonomous tribute-paying vassals.

Preserving the Iberian Union (no idea on the POD there) would mean Hapsburg Brazil, but that's probably cheating.

Cuāuhtemōc said:

Having the Spanish monarchy approve of de las Casa's scheme from the get go of using peasants to replace the Indians as labor and serve as settlers while the remaining natives would be made into autonomous tribute-paying vassals.

Click to expand...

Earlier, the Portuguese used the same scheme for a majority of Asian and African colonies, they made the local rulers vassals rather than rule them directly.

Cuāuhtemōc said:

Having the Spanish monarchy approve of de las Casa's scheme from the get go of using peasants to replace the Indians as labor and serve as settlers while the remaining natives would be made into autonomous tribute-paying vassals.

Click to expand...

This would be interesting, and probably would make a slighty better world, but it could have undesired consequences for the crown, or mainly for the great landowners in Iberia. Having the possibility to own their own land, to start a new life free of chains, oppresive hierarchies, etc and with state support and a less adventurous way than IOTL, the landless masses of peasants in southern Spain wouldn't need to think about it too much. This could have negative effects in their original lands economies, specially against the interests of the high nobility. Probably one of the reasons why de las Casas' scheme was not implemented in OTL.

A way to stimulate the emigration to the Americas would be to open more ports with licence to travel (and maybe trade) with the New world earlier than in OTL. Let's say that about 1600 you have Casas de Contratación in Seville, Cádiz, A Coruña and Laredo. It would be easier to try chances in the Americas, both in bureaucratic terms and geographical terms. You have probably earlier large galician and basque emigration, aswell as asturians, cantabrians/northern castilians also in larger number, compared to the overwhelming majority of andalusians and extremenians in the first phase of OTL's colonization. Bonus if it's also made easier for the subjects of Aragon to travel to the Americas, perhaps opening the ports of Valencia and Barcelona to trans-atlantic routes. Though not sure if the mediterraneans would find the same incentives to cross the pond like the western spaniards.

That said, don't expect espectacular changes, Spain had its demographical limitations, and to change that you need an earlier POD, and probably also a ecological POD. And as Namayan said, is not as if there wasn't emigration to the Americas in OTL.

Namayan said:

I dont understand why should taking Florida or more of North America will make Spain more dominant in OTL?

That part of America is poorer in natural resources compared to what Spain already had in OTL.

Is this British Bias or USA bias or misinformation or DBWI?

Click to expand...

This is the facts. There is no bias involved here. The challenge asks for a larger Spanish Empire. It is a fact that if they expanded their Florida colony, their empire would be larger.

Baconheimer said:

This is the facts. There is no bias involved here. The challenge asks for a larger Spanish Empire. It is a fact that if they expanded their Florida colony, their empire would be larger.

Click to expand...

Hmm, the OP asks for a way to get more european settlers in the colonies of the Hispanic Monarchy, not for a larger empire.

Niko Malaka said:

This would be interesting, and probably would make a slighty better world, but it could have undesired consequences for the crown, or mainly for the great landowners in Iberia. Having the possibility to own their own land, to start a new life free of chains, oppresive hierarchies, etc and with state support and a less adventurous way than IOTL, the landless masses of peasants in southern Spain wouldn't need to think about it too much. This could have negative effects in their original lands economies, specially against the interests of the high nobility. Probably one of the reasons why de las Casas' scheme was not implemented in OTL.

A way to stimulate the emigration to the Americas would be to open more ports with licence to travel (and maybe trade) with the New world earlier than in OTL. Let's say that about 1600 you have Casas de Contratación in Seville, Cádiz, A Coruña and Laredo. It would be easier to try chances in the Americas, both in bureaucratic terms and geographical terms. You have probably earlier large galician and basque emigration, aswell as asturians, cantabrians/northern castilians also in larger number, compared to the overwhelming majority of andalusians and extremenians in the first phase of OTL's colonization. Bonus if it's also made easier for the subjects of Aragon to travel to the Americas, perhaps opening the ports of Valencia and Barcelona to trans-atlantic routes. Though not sure if the mediterraneans would find the same incentives to cross the pond like the western spaniards.

That said, don't expect espectacular changes, Spain had its demographical limitations, and to change that you need an earlier POD, and probably also a ecological POD. And as Namayan said, is not as if there wasn't emigration to the Americas in OTL.

Click to expand...

Are there any numbers for the amount of immigration from Castille to the New World?

And on the side, are there any circumstances that could see Spain allowing for Catalans and Italians to migrate, or even people from the Netherlands, Austria and Germany? I can imagine a situation with a more successful Reformation(in terms of politics, not necessarily converts) that sees a lot of displaced Catholics, but I'm not sure the Spanish would (ever) be that magnanimous.

EMT said:

Are there any numbers for the amount of immigration from Castille to the New World?

And on the side, are there any circumstances that could see Spain allowing for Catalans and Italians to migrate, or even people from the Netherlands, Austria and Germany? I can imagine a situation with a more successful Reformation(in terms of politics, not necessarily converts) that sees a lot of displaced Catholics, but I'm not sure the Spanish would (ever) be that magnanimous.

Click to expand...

Regarding the numbers if castilians (not sure if you ask about castilians properly or subjects of the castilian crown, which would include basques, galicians, andalusians etc) there are estimates, but I don't have them at hand.

Regarding catalans, like other subjects of the aragonese crown (Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearics), they were allowed to migrate and in fact they migrated. Even in first Columbus voyage, the Catholic Kings' representative was a catalan, Pere de Margarit. However they weren't allowed to trade till the Nueva Planta decrees in 1714. Catalans migrated in large numbers to the Antilles and the Philipines in the late 18th century an 19th century. Famous rum labels like Bacardí or Barceló were founded by catalans, for example.

Now, the problems to somebody who wanted to migrate to the Americas where two. One was the royal permit, and the other the geographical accessibility. The first waves of colonists were mainly from south western areas because the only port allowed to trans-oceanic travel at the time was Seville. The crown wanted to assure its revenues. If you look at a map of Spain you will understand it quickly.


Of course, there were also other side factors. Extremadura, being rather poor, was over-represented, thus Cortés, Pizarro, Núñez de Balboa, Cabeza de Vaca or Valdivia, to name only some, were extremenians. Though you have also conquistadors and settlers from other places, like Aguirre, who was basque or Ponce de León, who was castilian (sensu strictro), the number of extremenians, considering its low population, is very high in the 1500's. In absolute numbers, in this period the andalusians were dominant, for obvious reasons.

When ports in Galicia and Cantabria were opened to american trade in the 18th century, galicians and basques became the most numerous migrants. It was also helped by the peculiar basque inheritance laws and a shortage of land in Galicia.

For a catalan or a valencian, then, in order to emigrate to the Americas in the 1500's and 1600's, it was necessary to make a long trip to Seville and then hope for the bureaucrats to be quick and grant you a licence to travel. Meanwhile Italy, the mediterranean trade or the campaings against the Ottomans and the Barbary pirates were next door, either for profit or adventure.

Regarding italians, tbh, I'm not sure, since technically they were aragonese subjects. Anyway, the problems faced by aragonese, catalans and valencias would be even greatr for them, as the incentives for other options. Go figure for flemish or germans, who also spoke totally ununderstable languages (in relation to castilian) Still, there were plans for a "german" settlement in OTL venezuelan coast, but vested interests and pressures by pearl collectors in the area, amongst other problems, left the idea only in the paper.

I hope I have solved at least some of your doubts.

I'm just about to finish a set of three world maps in a no Islam world during the years of colonization. Without the Reconquista to deal with, Spain probably would have been the first true world power, as opposed to Britian.

Niko Malaka said:

Hmm, the OP asks for a way to get more european settlers in the colonies of the Hispanic Monarchy, not for a larger empire.

Click to expand...

Oh. Then I think a Protestant colony is a good bet. The Spanish monarchy would probably be happy to send them away. Also, Louisiana. If the Spanish took it off France in some war, they would probably use settlers there, because a lot of it simply isnt good for anything else.

If Spain were more centralized, then we might see more settlement of the Americas.

The colonization of the new world was not a "Spanish" thing - it was a Castilian project. Only Castilians were allowed to settle in the colonies - no Aragonese or Navarrese allowed - the idea was for the colonies to be irreproachably Castilian and Catholic. So if the Kingdoms in Europe were more firmly united, there would be less political threat to allowing non-Castilians to emigrate.

Additionally, the Spanish didn't do much recruiting for colonists abroad - off the top of my head, I can only think of them recruiting the ancestors of the Cajuns to settle Louisiana during the Bourbon era.

I think the real problem is: why might the Spanish decide they needed more people in the Americas? If they don't see the need for more people, they aren't gonna want more colonists of any stripe. And during the Hapsburg era, Spain was pretty well ahead in the Americas. France, Britain, the Dutch and Portugal could nibble at the edges of the empire where, but at this stage, they were in no way capable of threatening the core territories.

fasquardon

Baconheimer said:

Oh. Then I think a Protestant colony is a good bet. The Spanish monarchy would probably be happy to send them away. Also, Louisiana. If the Spanish took it off France in some war, they would probably use settlers there, because a lot of it simply isnt good for anything else.

Click to expand...

Spain never brought Prtoestants because they wanted a pure new world

If you can have Isabella and Ferdinand exodus the Spanish Jews to America you can get a lot bigger Spanish colonial empire

Also if you get Castille to allow the navarasse and aragonese to colonize in let's say Georgia you can substantially increase Spain's colonies

Again you can have a successful Spanish Armada. Short term that has mixed results for Spain. But Long term it maintains the belief of Spanish naval invincibility for longer and keeps Portugal in union with Spain. This also gives Spain more time to consolidate their colonial empire and expand it

Once again, the aragonese and navarrese were allowed to migrate to the new world, and indeed they did and participated in the conques, though in small numbers for the reasons exposed in my previous post. For example the aragonese Juan de Ampiés was an important figure in the colonization of Curaçao and other lesser Antilles, but yhere are several others. However only castilians could trade with the new world (until 1714) and only through the designated ports and under the licence of the Casa de Contratación. The reason is simple, the crown wanted to assure its share of revenues and its monopolies. So mundane as that.

Gurroruo said:

Again you can have a successful Spanish Armada. Short term that has mixed results for Spain. But Long term it maintains the belief of Spanish naval invincibility for longer and keeps Portugal in union with Spain. This also gives Spain more time to consolidate their colonial empire and expand it

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. How does one get this "successful Spanish Armada"? And having somehow produced this chimera, how does it result in the effects you state it creates one century later, when its most probable effect is to produce exactly the sort of overstretch that lead to the very disasters of the late 17th century you say it will prevent?