AHC: Make Portugal and Spain be united as one Nation after the Napoleonic Wars

Could there be a Second Iberian Union during the XIX Century ?

  • Yes, with just a few divergences

    Votes: 13 15.5%
  • Yes, but with major divergences

    Votes: 49 58.3%
  • No, it would never happen

    Votes: 22 26.2%

  • Total voters
    84
Talleyrand suddenly dies before the Congress of Vienna and France is left completely out of the negotiations. Besides losing all their territorial gains as in OTL, France is forced to pay unreasonable reparations to the other Great Powers ITTL. Louis XVIII is restored, and supports a harsher purge against anyone who is thought to have supported Napoleon.

This (except Talleyrand dying) is essentially what happened in 1815 after the Hundred Days. The second settlement was significantly harsher than that of 1814, and there was a White Terror.
 
While the Portuguese members are naturally going to be the authority on Portuguese history, I'd take usage of 'impossible' and the uniqueness of Portugal with a serious grain of salt, especially when appealing to mythos like they're a sports teams' storyline. National mythos were fostered in the late 18th century onwards to unite the populace behind the state; people believe those things now, but was it actually a common-held belief during the period when they were first being propagated? Yeah, need receipts on that one chief. Especially before the era of mass media, nevermind widespread literacy. Appealing to Portugal as being defined as an ideological 'Not Spain' from the moment Portuguese nobles seceded from Leon is insane, especially when Portugal spent the next few centuries trying to bed their way back into a united Iberia and were arguably the favorite to pull it off on various occasions.
 
This (except Talleyrand dying) is essentially what happened in 1815 after the Hundred Days. The second settlement was significantly harsher than that of 1814, and there was a White Terror.

Thank you for pointing out my error, for some reason in my mind I reversed the events with the Congress of Vienna taking place after the Hundred Days.

Looks like I need to read up on Post-Napoleonic France!
 
Both in 1383-1385 and in 1580, there was popular opposition to joining Castilla-León (in the XIV century) and Spain (in the XVI century). The idea of an union was only popular among the aristocracy and upper ranks of the clergy in those periods (support for it among them fell after each case).
By the XIX century, support for that idea was even lower (with only a few fringe intellectuals supporting it).
The easiest period to do it would be during the earliest period of independence, before the consolidation of a national conscience. After that the chances of success decrease with each passing century, requiring more military effort and time to do it, with less results from that effort.
 
While the Portuguese members are naturally going to be the authority on Portuguese history, I'd take usage of 'impossible' and the uniqueness of Portugal with a serious grain of salt, especially when appealing to mythos like they're a sports teams' storyline. National mythos were fostered in the late 18th century onwards to unite the populace behind the state; people believe those things now, but was it actually a common-held belief during the period when they were first being propagated? Yeah, need receipts on that one chief. Especially before the era of mass media, nevermind widespread literacy. Appealing to Portugal as being defined as an ideological 'Not Spain' from the moment Portuguese nobles seceded from Leon is insane, especially when Portugal spent the next few centuries trying to bed their way back into a united Iberia and were arguably the favorite to pull it off on various occasions.

Portuguese national consciousness is most definitely not a modern invention. There is very clear evidence of its existence from very early on in Portuguese history. As Archangel has observed, all attempts to unite Portugal and Spain under one nation were met with tremendous fierce by the populace. In the 14th century, and probably even before that, there was already a very strong sense of what being Portuguese meant, and it is no exageration to say that not being Spain was a core part of that.

Also, can there be a more literal example of a "national mythos" than The Lusiads (Portugal's national epic which was written in 1572)? Maybe some countries had to artifficially foster a national consciousness in the modern period, but Portugal surely wasn't one of them.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Portuguese national consciousness is most definitely not a modern invention. There is very clear evidence of its existence from very early on in Portuguese history. As Archangel has observed, all attempts to unite Portugal and Spain under one nation were met with tremendous fierce by the populace. In the 14th century, and probably even before that, there was already a very strong sense of what being Portuguese meant, and it is no exageration to say that not being Spain was a core part of that.

Also, can there be a more literal example of a "national mythos" than The Lusiads (Portugal's national epic which was written in 1572)? Maybe some countries had to artifficially foster a national consciousness in the modern period, but Portugal surely wasn't one of them.

To many people who are not familiar with Portuguese sense of being or existing and identity they may think that nationalism is a new 20th century invention but for the Portuguese it was part of what made us who we were.
 
Here is a translation of a quote from the book "O segredo da flor do mar" of Eduardo Pires Coelho:
"Portugal is mine! I inherit, bought and conquerd it, to take away all doubts" by D. Phillip II of Spain, by the time of it's aclamation as El-Rei D. Phillip I of Portugal in 1581.
If he bought and conquered the Portuguese woren't them willing to be part of his kingdom.

Link : https://books.google.pt/books?id=-8...oUKHUv4AR8Q6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
Here is a translation of a quote from the book "O segredo da folor do mar" of Eduardo Pires Coelho:
"Portugal is mine! I inherit, bought and conquerd it, to take away all doubts" by D. Phillip II of Spain, by the time of it's aclamation as El-Rei D. phillip I of Portugal in 1581.
If he bought and conquered the Portuguese woren't them willing to be part of his kingdom.

Link : https://books.google.pt/books?id=-8...oUKHUv4AR8Q6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Yes he became the king of Portugal but it was never a union like Castile-Aragon or England-Scotland.

Portugal was always a separate country, with its own noble titles, government, military and colonial empire. To the outside world they looked it as a single country but it never functioned as one.

The best analogy I can think of is Hanover and Britain which had same head of state but two different countries.
 
Here is a translation of a quote from the book "O segredo da folor do mar" of Eduardo Pires Coelho:
"Portugal is mine! I inherit, bought and conquerd it, to take away all doubts" by D. Phillip II of Spain, by the time of it's aclamation as El-Rei D. phillip I of Portugal in 1581.
If he bought and conquered the Portuguese woren't them willing to be part of his kingdom.

Link : https://books.google.pt/books?id=-8...oUKHUv4AR8Q6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Ok, so now we're talking about the OTL Iberian Union (1580-1640), not about some hypothetical (impossible) union in the 19th century. Portuguese cultural resistance to any kind of Union with Spain was already strongly in place at that time (althought the failure of that experiment would cause it to raise exponentially over the course of the next century). However, there were several factors in play at the time which converged to make the Union possible.

Chief among them was Spain's tremendous affluence at the time. That, coupled with the fact that Phillip had arguably the most legitimate claim to the Portuguese throese, was enough to earn him the support of the Portuguese elites, who agreed to back him after he promised that Portugal would retain a very high level of autonomy. It sounded like a hell of bargain to most of them, as they would gain access to Spain's imense richnesses and large markets with almost no negative consequences.

Economics tend to speak louder than culture, and even still Portugal did not go smoothly into the Union. Many people resisted.
 
Yes he became the king of Portugal but it was never a union like Castile-Aragon or England-Scotland.

Portugal was always a separate country, with its own noble titles, government, military and colonial empire. To the outside world they looked it as a single country but it never functioned as one.

The best analogy I can think of is Hanover and Britain which had same head of state but two different countries.

A better one yet is Austria-Hungary. In theory, a union of two equal partners, but the effective Capital, main interests and foreign relations were all centered around Austria.
 
Ok, so now we're talking about the OTL Iberian Union (1580-1640), not about some hypothetical (impossible) union in the 19th century. Portuguese cultural resistance to any kind of Union with Spain was already strongly in place at that time (althought the failure of that experiment would cause it to raise exponentially over the course of the next century). However, there were several factors in play at the time which converged to make the Union possible.

...

Economics tend to speak louder than culture, and even still Portugal did not go smoothly into the Union. Many people resisted.

True, I used the OTL Iberian Union to show that at that time it was dificult to happen, in the XIX Century it woul be even worst.
 
Yes he became the king of Portugal but it was never a union like Castile-Aragon or England-Scotland.

Portugal was always a separate country, with its own noble titles, government, military and colonial empire. To the outside world they looked it as a single country but it never functioned as one.

The best analogy I can think of is Hanover and Britain which had same head of state but two different countries.
That is the definition of a Personal Union.
A personal union is the combination of two or more states that have the same monarch while their boundaries, laws, and interests remain distinct.

That is what England and Scotland were before the Union of Crowns, Scotland had its own government and laws, you act like as soon as the crowns of Scotland and England were on the same head they were effectively the same country, this is false, Scotland had its own laws and customs the same as Portugal, and yet they were able to unify, countries didn't teleport from being sovereign nations to a single unified countries. A personal union is a step towards unification and Portugal was on that step.

The personal union failed because of the different goals of the two empires, Portugal was content on getting rich off of spice trade and staying so neutral that it stayed safe. However, Spain under the Hapsburg was after the domination of the European continent, this clash of interests made it harder for Portugal to reap the benefits of the spice trade because so many other European powers were gunning after them and neglect from Spain only exacerbated the problem.
 
That is the definition of a Personal Union.
A personal union is the combination of two or more states that have the same monarch while their boundaries, laws, and interests remain distinct.

That is what England and Scotland were before the Union of Crowns, Scotland had its own government and laws, you act like as soon as the crowns of Scotland and England were on the same head they were effectively the same country, this is false, Scotland had its own laws and customs the same as Portugal, and yet they were able to unify, countries didn't teleport from being sovereign nations to a single unified countries. A personal union is a step towards unification and Portugal was on that step.

The personal union failed because of the different goals of the two empires, Portugal was content on getting rich off of spice trade and staying so neutral that it stayed safe. However, Spain under the Hapsburg was after the domination of the European continent, this clash of interests made it harder for Portugal to reap the benefits of the spice trade because so many other European powers were gunning after them and neglect from Spain only exacerbated the problem.

All true, but I don't think Lusitania was referring to England-Scotland before the union of the crowns, nor was he, nor any of us in this thread, trying to say that a Portuguese-Spanish union in the molds of the UK would be entirely impossible no matter how early the PoD. The purpose of his comment, I think, was to point out to the fact that Portugal, by the mid 19th century, had already lived through 700 years of uninterrupted independence. That makes for a very deeply entrenched sense of national identity, and, as we have already explained, opposition to Spain was a very important part of that identity.

It cannot be denied that there's a gigantic cultural hindrance from the Portuguese side towards any sort of union with Spain. That does not necessarily contitute an absolute impediment, and it could be overcome if there were very strong (probably economic) reasons for a union, but there is simply no way you can create such a situation with a post-napoleonic PoD.
 
All true, but I don't think Lusitania was referring to England-Scotland before the union of the crowns, nor was he, nor any of us in this thread, trying to say that a Portuguese-Spanish union in the molds of the UK would be entirely impossible no matter how early the PoD. The purpose of his comment, I think, was to point out to the fact that Portugal, by the mid 19th century, had already lived through 700 years of uninterrupted independence. That makes for a very deeply entrenched sense of national identity, and, as we have already explained, opposition to Spain was a very important part of that identity.

It cannot be denied that there's a gigantic cultural hindrance from the Portuguese side towards any sort of union with Spain. That does not necessarily constitute an absolute impediment, and it could be overcome if there were very strong (probably economic) reasons for a union, but there is simply no way you can create such a situation with a post-napoleonic PoD.
You do know this is the age of revolutions, hundreds of years of entrenched national identities and social standards were upended in this time period.
 

Lusitania

Donor
You do know this is the age of revolutions, hundreds of years of entrenched national identities and social standards were upended in this time period.
They were by the nationalist forces fighting against “unions” and multi-ethnic countries. People wanted to be governed by people like them that could identify themselves with the people. The 19th century Iberian Union proposed in this thread actually goes against the trend. We not talking about Germans wanting to be governed under single German state but two distinct people with hundreds of years of antagonist relationship being united as a country. Totally backwards.

Actually I could see if the 1580 Iberian Union had survived that in the 19th century we have it collapse for the very reasons you identified. This time not only be portuguese but Catalonian and others who break free.
 
They were by the nationalist forces fighting against “unions” and multi-ethnic countries. People wanted to be governed by people like them that could identify themselves with the people. The 19th century Iberian Union proposed in this thread actually goes against the trend. We not talking about Germans wanting to be governed under single German state but two distinct people with hundreds of years of antagonist relationship being united as a country. Totally backwards.

Actually I could see if the 1580 Iberian Union had survived that in the 19th century we have it collapse for the very reasons you identified. This time not only be portuguese but Catalonian and others who break free.
I was just noting that it was a very volatile time and anything really could have happened, would such a union during this time be stable, no that would be ridiculous, it would likely implode in a spectacular fashion. Impossible though is a tough sell to me. As for your Iberian Union points, if Austria-Hungary and The Ottomans survived into the 20th century while having much more diverse populations than the Iberian Union and Spain itself being able to stay unified despite its unfavorable position, that an Iberian Union wouldn't just collapse to inside forces, though a collapse is possible.
 
The XIX century POD is the big problem. I don't see how Portugal can be realistically convinced to join Spain in a TL similar to ours. If there is a threat from France, Portugal is probably better off remaining separate, so Spain can be a big buffer state, instead of being part of the Spanish state that is under threat. Also Portugal already has the British alliance for protection. I'm not sure what Spain can really offer to convince Portugal to voluntarily join.

Only Spanish conquest can realistically do it. But that's also really hard because Spain is at war continually from 1793-1825 (against France, the UK, France again, and all the Latin American nations) and ends up losing most of its empire and is exhausted and in political turmoil. Spain in OTL 1823-28 is under French occupation again, this time by the invitation of the monarch. The circumstances are not good for Spain to decide to conquer Portugal (even less succeed).
 
Top