A Less Terrible Spanish Empire?

I was wondering, what would happen if Spain wasn't so greedy for money or haven't fought too many wars? What if they allowed a degree of religious toleration? What if they modernized their economy after the British model? Will they become a stronger nation?
 
Being greedy for money describes every power in this period.

Every power.

Fighting too many wars . . . how exactly is one fixing this? This is a complicated problem. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you can't just say "What if Spain was at peace with its neighbors" and treat it as if it was just a matter of deliberate belligerence.

And . . . yeah, until that's sorted out the rest can wait.
 
Being greedy for money describes every power in this period.

Every power.

Fighting too many wars . . . how exactly is one fixing this? This is a complicated problem. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you can't just say "What if Spain was at peace with its neighbors" and treat it as if it was just a matter of deliberate belligerence.

And . . . yeah, until that's sorted out the rest can wait.

What about the rest I just said? Will that work out as well?
 
I was wondering, what would happen if Spain wasn't so greedy for money or haven't fought too many wars? What if they allowed a degree of religious toleration? What if they modernized their economy after the British model? Will they become a stronger nation?

I'm not an expert on Spain, per se, but I have looked at the issue. For one, Spain absolutely has to be greedy for money, because its commitments far exceed its ability to pay for them. With religious toleration, there's some promise; I don't know exactly how much Spain would have saved if Charles V hadn't spent so much of his later reign fighting Lutheranism, but presumably it's a lot. On the other hand, he probably would have poured any savings from this into fighting the Ottomans, most likely in North Africa. As for modernizing their economy 'after the British model', this would have to be a huge anachronism: you can't take 15th/16th century Castile and turn it into Britain. The entire Spanish economy depends on whoever's lending money to them, whether that's the Fuggers or the Genoese, and they barely scrape by even after considering the silver from Potosi and the profits from the Far East trade. It's hard to imagine what kind of changes could fund a Spanish Empire that truly dominates Europe.

EDIT: Another big boon for Spain would be to let the Low Countries go rather than wasting huge amounts of money fighting for them. Although that might be an unrealistic expectation.
 
Last edited:
I don't know exactly how much Spain would have saved if Charles V hadn't spent so much of his later reign fighting Lutheranism, but presumably it's a lot. [...] Another big boon for Spain would be to let the Low Countries go rather than wasting huge amounts of money fighting for them. Although that might be an unrealistic expectation.
A) John, Prince of Asturias survives.
B) Miguel da Paz survives.

Spain never becomes involved with the Netherlands or the rest of HRE, and are now free to concentrate on their colonial holdings.
 
Without Habsburg Spain (oy, my first TL and very likely my next one ;) ) Spain loses the European entanglements and still gets a head start on American exploitation, but all those silver and a lack of homegrown proto-industry will hurt it.

Thankfully this lack of European entanglement will soften the inflation problems.
 
What about the rest I just said? Will that work out as well?

Religious tolerance is good, although there aren't many examples of it anywhere in Europe. Modernizing the economy...is going to be difficult.

Not a Spanish problem in particular, although Spain is not the place I'd bet on here.
 
If De Las Casas is taken more seriously and the Spanish crown is able to get the local elites to stop abusing the Indians as badly as they did, it'd be less terrible from a human-rights perspective.

Of course, that's easier if the need for silver isn't as strong--there'd be less need to work the Indians to death in the mines and thus it'd be easier to get it to stop.
 
Without Habsburg Spain (oy, my first TL and very likely my next one ;) ) Spain loses the European entanglements and still gets a head start on American exploitation, but all those silver and a lack of homegrown proto-industry will hurt it.

Thankfully this lack of European entanglement will soften the inflation problems.

No Habsburg Spain can be interesting for the other parts of Habsburg Empire too, maybe an earlier restoration of Hungary or the Netherlands stay united? Anyway Spain will stay involved in Europe, since Spain has quite some holdings in Italy (Crown of Aragon) and it is a continental power. They may be less involved then IOTL, but they IMHO won't manage to stay outside of any European Entanglements.
Even a non Habsburg king of 'Spain' might get involved in a religious conflict like the OTL 30 yrs war to support Catholic powers, just like Denmark and Sweden IOTL joined the conflict on the protestant side.
 
No Habsburg Spain can be interesting for the other parts of Habsburg Empire too, maybe an earlier restoration of Hungary or the Netherlands stay united? Anyway Spain will stay involved in Europe, since Spain has quite some holdings in Italy (Crown of Aragon) and it is a continental power. They may be less involved then IOTL, but they IMHO won't manage to stay outside of any European Entanglements.
Even a non Habsburg king of 'Spain' might get involved in a religious conflict like the OTL 30 yrs war to support Catholic powers, just like Denmark and Sweden IOTL joined the conflict on the protestant side.

Definitely. Spain won't be like Portugal, given its size, but it will be less involved. The Habsburgs also get to focus more on asserting Imperial power, though they lose out on those sweet tercios.
 
If De Las Casas is taken more seriously and the Spanish crown is able to get the local elites to stop abusing the Indians as badly as they did, it'd be less terrible from a human-rights perspective.

Of course, that's easier if the need for silver isn't as strong--there'd be less need to work the Indians to death in the mines and thus it'd be easier to get it to stop.

He also offered an alternate colonization plan.

Las Casas suggested a plan where the encomienda would be abolished and Indians would be congregated into self-governing townships to become tribute-paying vassals of the King. He still suggested that the loss of Indian labor for the colonists could be replaced by allowing importation of African slaves. Another important part of the plan was to introduce a new kind of sustainable colonization, and Las Casas advocated supporting the migration of Spanish peasants to the Indies where they would introduce small scale farming and agriculture, a kind of colonization that didn't rely on resource depletion and Indian labor. Las Casas worked to recruit a large number of peasants who would want to travel to the Islands where they would be given lands to farm and cash advances and the tools and resources they needed to establish themselves there. The recruitment drive was difficult and during it the power relation shifted at court when Chancellor Sauvage unexpectedly died. In the end a much smaller number of peasant families were sent with insufficient provisions and no support secured for their arrival: those who survived the journey were ill received and had to work hard even to survive in the hostile colonies. Las Casas was devastated by the tragic result of his peasant migration scheme, which he felt had been thwarted by his enemies. He decided instead to undertake a personal venture which would not rely on the support of others, and fought to win a land grant on the American mainland which was in its earliest stage of colonization.[33]
 
Didn't De Las Casas ultimately attack black slavery as well? I'm under the impression he thought blacks would survive it better, and saw they didn't.

Hmmm...maybe to get a "less terrible Spanish Empire," his peasant colonization scheme succeeds?
 
Didn't De Las Casas ultimately attack black slavery as well? I'm under the impression he thought blacks would survive it better, and saw they didn't.

Hmmm...maybe to get a "less terrible Spanish Empire," his peasant colonization scheme succeeds?

Yes, he assumed that black Africans would be more suitable to the tough labor that the Spaniards imposed on the native Indians in addition to not dying in droves to the diseases introduced from Europe. He did eventually spoke out against it once he saw that it wasn't a very good idea with the blacks suffering just as much as the Indians, if not worse in certain respects.

Avoid Chancellor Sauvage's death or delay it for a few years and Las Casas' plan would get the full approval of Charles V. The Spanish colonies themselves will probably end up being much more mestizo and criollo while there is some semblance of autonomy amongst the Indians like the Tlaxcalans (one of the only groups of Indians that the Spanish did not surprisingly betray) enjoyed for the next three hundred years. Maybe more indigenous states arising once the Spanish Empire starts to decline?
 
You know what, I think I got the perfect scenario:

Instead of the Hapsburgs, the Bourbons take over Spain. That means that Spain wouldn't have to be at the losing side of the Thirty Years War. Also, the OTL Bourbon Reforms might occur in the country, so that would be good.

Spain still will have its problems, but hey. Not as big as OTL.
 
This is probably one of the biggest collections of topycs, stereotypes and stupid ideas I have seen in this forum. Does anybody read anything on Spanish history ever?

* Greed for money: at least some people have stated that this is a common issue on any state of any era.

* "Fought so many wars": I agree but, when you have so many possessions in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Europe, that is almost impossible to avoid. Some of them could have been prevented (get rid of Hapsburgs and the war in Flanders could be avoided...).

* Spanish economics were quite advanced. In fact the groundings of modern economy were settled by neo-scholastics of the school of Salamanca. They were the first ones to study the temporal value of money, inflation, differences in the value of things, laws of demand... The first modern banks were created in Seville (although they were destroyed by Charles I).

* Proto-industry: there was textile industry in Castile. The problem was that Hapsburg kings favored exports of Wool to Flanders in order to keep the flemish textile makers happy and English wool exporters unhappy. Again get rid of Hapsburg kings and you solve this issue.

* Leyes de Indias: Las Casas WAS taken into consideration... in fact he was taken into consideration before Las Casas. Isabel I condemned Columbus seizing indians as slaves and she considered them subjects of the crown as those in Castile. The situation required regulation because settlers did not obeyed the crown and the laws of Burgos of 1512 were published. Then after the controversy of Valladolid in 1550 the most advanced legislation in the world was published: it protected the american natives to an extent that no other european legislation has ever done (it ever regulated child labour three centuries before british or french legislation!!).

* Slavery: the 1550 legislation had a dark side that was promoted by Las Casas. Anyway african slaves were treated better in Spanish possessions than in any other place (the first Spaniard to grow wheat in Mexico was in fact an African ex-slave; the first military unit formed by afroamericans and led by afroamericans was created in La Florida).

* The amerindians really did not rebelled against the Spanish crown. They were well treated, they languages received written form, there were laws protecting them... in fact when the liberation movements started in the Americas they sided with the crown.
 
This is probably one of the biggest collections of topycs, stereotypes and stupid ideas I have seen in this forum. Does anybody read anything on Spanish history ever?

* Greed for money: at least some people have stated that this is a common issue on any state of any era.

* "Fought so many wars": I agree but, when you have so many possessions in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Europe, that is almost impossible to avoid. Some of them could have been prevented (get rid of Hapsburgs and the war in Flanders could be avoided...).

* Spanish economics were quite advanced. In fact the groundings of modern economy were settled by neo-scholastics of the school of Salamanca. They were the first ones to study the temporal value of money, inflation, differences in the value of things, laws of demand... The first modern banks were created in Seville (although they were destroyed by Charles I).

* Proto-industry: there was textile industry in Castile. The problem was that Hapsburg kings favored exports of Wool to Flanders in order to keep the flemish textile makers happy and English wool exporters unhappy. Again get rid of Hapsburg kings and you solve this issue.

* Leyes de Indias: Las Casas WAS taken into consideration... in fact he was taken into consideration before Las Casas. Isabel I condemned Columbus seizing indians as slaves and she considered them subjects of the crown as those in Castile. The situation required regulation because settlers did not obeyed the crown and the laws of Burgos of 1512 were published. Then after the controversy of Valladolid in 1550 the most advanced legislation in the world was published: it protected the american natives to an extent that no other european legislation has ever done (it ever regulated child labour three centuries before british or french legislation!!).

* Slavery: the 1550 legislation had a dark side that was promoted by Las Casas. Anyway african slaves were treated better in Spanish possessions than in any other place (the first Spaniard to grow wheat in Mexico was in fact an African ex-slave; the first military unit formed by afroamericans and led by afroamericans was created in La Florida).

* The amerindians really did not rebelled against the Spanish crown. They were well treated, they languages received written form, there were laws protecting them... in fact when the liberation movements started in the Americas they sided with the crown.

The Habsburg thing is what I just said earlier. Maybe Charles I shouldn't have destroyed the first modern banks. Spain shouldn't also destroy the textile industry as well. I also believe better treatement of the native peoples and ban of slavery would also improve Spain as well.
 
I also believe better treatement of the native peoples and ban of slavery would also improve Spain as well.

Native peoples were treated in Spanish possessions better than in those that other colonial powers. They had rights, they were protected by the laws of the Spanish Crown. There were amerindian writers, painters and even saints of the catholic church. Native languages were given a written form. There were Universities in the Americas since the 1530s. The prove is that there were almost no native rebellions and that the amerindian that fought in the liberation wars fought on the crown side.
The laws that were created after the Controversial of Valladolid regulated even child labour in the Spanish possessions in the Americas... that was not done in France or England until the second half of the XIX century. Amerindians did have rights and there was even a debate whether they should convert or not (in the 1870s the general opinion among US theologians was that indians did not have human soul).
Although I agree that a world without slavery would have been better. I do not see the relationship. Slavery was much worse in Portuguese possessions, the English were much harsher (in La Florida there were villages of slaves that had run away from English plantations and they had their own military units trained and equipped by the spanish crown) or even the French.
 
It seems no hapsburgs is the essential thing.

Not being involved in much continental political struggles is a good thing generally. (See Britain).

The only land in Europe worth gaining is unifying Iberia completely with an union with Portugal. Apart from that all gains will involve costly wars.
 
Top