AHC/Plausbility/WI:Conquistadors ignore Spain and found their own states?

Seville trade in the 1500s was for basic needs such as textiles, agricultural produce and ships... the English, Dutch and French were really only active in the region starting in the late 16th Century and in any case, trade with them would have been interdicted by Spanish fleets. America could/would become self-sufficient in time but that itself would require settlers and slaves to set up industries and to replace native depopulation.

Settlers rooted colonial administration over the Native Americans. The ecomienda system had each settler be the 'guardian' of a set number of Native Americans, the latter owing the former labor services. The arrangement restricted Native autonomy, an incredibly important consideration when the Spanish were still very much newcomers and minority rulers in the New World. Substituting for French/English settlers, even if possible, simply means giving up Spanish rule for their rule.

The legitimacy of the capitulacion was hugely important for the conquistadores, as through it they received royal sanction/protection for their work. A conquistador who broke his capitulacion and even worse, rebelled against the Crown probably opened himself up to assassination from his fellow conquistadores, who stood to 'inherit' the titles/profits originally assigned to said conquistador.
Not saying it won't happen,but aren't you overestimating the efficiency and the abilities of the Spanish fleet?This is just before the Age of piracy.Given how much gold the conquistadores would have,it might actually kick start a whole smuggling business.As for substituting French or English settlers,is it really such a problem?You will also be getting settlers from other places like Italy and Germany as well,so you don't have a single large ethnic group,but others to balance them as well.Another thing is that given there's gold in the Americas,what's stopping a lot of Spaniards from migrating through the aforementioned smuggling business?

I think the main problem would be getting the trade started(ie finding a ship to get to Europe and then jockey with foreign courts to get their support in the endeavor).Once you manage to get the trade started,there's very few things Spain can do.Not saying all of what I'm proposing is easy and the chance of failure is quite high just like how the crusades and the conquest of the Americas depended on a streak of good luck as well.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why it wouldn't work God knows the Conquistadors had the right proper mindset to do something like this. What you'd have is a minority run government dominating native peoples who have for so long lived under the depravity of the Aztecs. Literally no issue there for unrest except every once in a while. It would literally just be the encomienda system as in OTL except without some faraway government trying to take these new world aristocrats feudal rights way.

Spain will gnash their teeth but they don't have the manpower really to counter this especially if these new world kingdoms have the support of native forces.
 
Last edited:
You have to determine the reason why the Conquistadors did no such thing as you proposed. Without knowing their mindset, and why they handed their conquests to the crown, you can't get an answer to your question. It's like asking what would happen if Hitler suddenly decides to become nice to the Jews. It's so totally out of character for him that you just ask that question without asking why he would bge nice to the Jews.

In the same vein, you should ask, why were the Conquistadors loyal to the Spanish Crown, then make a PODs to affect that loyalty.
 
It did not happen at all, not even once. Thus, you have to determine, why?

You have to determine the reason why the Conquistadors did no such thing as you proposed. Without knowing their mindset, and why they handed their conquests to the crown, you can't get an answer to your question. It's like asking what would happen if Hitler suddenly decides to become nice to the Jews. It's so totally out of character for him that you just ask that question without asking why he would bge nice to the Jews.

In the same vein, you should ask, why were the Conquistadors loyal to the Spanish Crown, then make a PODs to affect that loyalty.

That's why I'm curious and is making this an AHC.By all means,the conquistadors were ambitious,untrustworthy thugs who had no qualms upon overturning previously made agreements.Yet they were for some reason loyal to the Spanish crown whereas during the 19th century there were multiple so-called "Men who would be king" who tried to establish their own independent states despite drastic advances in communication,transportation and industry.
 
That's why I'm curious and is making this an AHC.By all means,the conquistadors were ambitious,untrustworthy thugs who had no qualms upon overturning previously made agreements.

ONe theory is that the conquests of the New World is just a continuation of the reconquista in Spain. The reconquista ended in 1492, and during that time, it was unthinkable that soldiers serving the King and Queen would establish their own independent states on former Muslim lands.

That same mentality continued to the New World. They were fighting for gold, true, but they were also, in their minds, fighting for God, and King. Look at Cortes. After disobeying the governor of Cuba, he took pains to found a new town, Vera Cruz, have that council of that town "appoint" him to lead an expedition.

Why bother with all of those?

To give legal cover and to show that he is loyal to the king of Castille.

Remember that in Asia, no Portuguese ever rebelled and established an independent state as king, and in the Philippines, neihter did Miguel Lopez de Legazpi when he conquered Cebu and Manila establish himself as king.

In North America, no French colonizer ever established himself as king in Quebec or Louisiana, and in the New World, no founders of colonies declared their independence from England when they founded the colonies.

And Brazil did not even try to rebel or declare their independence when it was founded.

Why? The simplest answer is that those people were loyal to their king, and sometimes, even the most brutish, thuggish, men could be loyal to their sovereigns. And more importantly, their men were also loyal to the king and country and God, and they expected their leaders to be loyal to the king too.

They're patriotic. It's that simple.
 
As profxyz mentioned, I believe a large part of it is fear that you'll be killed and replaced by one of your own men who will kowtow to the Spanish monarchs back in Europe.

I believe that you need someone even more amoral, ambitious, greedy, ballsy, and crazy than OTL conquistadors to set a (successful) precedent for invading native lands and setting up a kingdom. If they can successfully pull it off, then IMO it'd break the taboo of attempting such a thing and you'd see far more discrete attempts by conquistadors to conquer their own small fiefdoms. At the same time, this would probably spell the end of Spanish reliance on conquistadors and likely see the end of anything beyond scouting missions, IMO. Future military operations would likely be orchestrated by men of higher nobility who have much to lose should they go rogue or native.

This scenario would in all likelihood guarantee the survival of the Inca past the initial point of contact with the Europeans. Short of the Spanish striking lightning in a bottle twice, no European power will have the capacity or the insanity to invade the Inca; especially not when the Inca, renown hoarders of innovations, would be willing to trade gold for it. In all likelihood, I think a scenario somewhere between European activity in Japan and India will occur, in that firearms will be introduced and widely adopted by the Incans, produced en masse locally. But additionally, a large number of conquistadors are likely either to openly defect or be bribed to join the Sapa Inca's court and payroll as advisors and craftsmen that bring the Inca up to par with other iron age civilizations in the old world very quickly.

I can foresee large communities of traders, craftsmen, missionaries, and even artists making their way to Tawantinsuyu in search of a large paycheck of gold. Hell, we could even see the conquistadores lead Incan armies in the name of the Emperor in the conquest of the Mapuche and the tribes along the Rio de la Plata within a few decades of initial contact.
 
ONe theory is that the conquests of the New World is just a continuation of the reconquista in Spain. The reconquista ended in 1492, and during that time, it was unthinkable that soldiers serving the King and Queen would establish their own independent states on former Muslim lands.

That same mentality continued to the New World. They were fighting for gold, true, but they were also, in their minds, fighting for God, and King. Look at Cortes. After disobeying the governor of Cuba, he took pains to found a new town, Vera Cruz, have that council of that town "appoint" him to lead an expedition.

Why bother with all of those?

To give legal cover and to show that he is loyal to the king of Castille.

Remember that in Asia, no Portuguese ever rebelled and established an independent state as king, and in the Philippines, neihter did Miguel Lopez de Legazpi when he conquered Cebu and Manila establish himself as king.

In North America, no French colonizer ever established himself as king in Quebec or Louisiana, and in the New World, no founders of colonies declared their independence from England when they founded the colonies.

And Brazil did not even try to rebel or declare their independence when it was founded.

Why? The simplest answer is that those people were loyal to their king, and sometimes, even the most brutish, thuggish, men could be loyal to their sovereigns. And more importantly, their men were also loyal to the king and country and God, and they expected their leaders to be loyal to the king too.

They're patriotic. It's that simple.
Yet what made me curious the most was how they managed to defy the concept of power corrupts,especially with people like them.A lot of loyal men eventually became addicted to power and turned coat on their ruler--that's more than enough examples throughout the Middle Ages and during the antiquity.So theoretically,what would it take for a group of conquistadors to have the will to successfully break from their homeland?
As profxyz mentioned, I believe a large part of it is fear that you'll be killed and replaced by one of your own men who will kowtow to the Spanish monarchs back in Europe.

I believe that you need someone even more amoral, ambitious, greedy, ballsy, and crazy than OTL conquistadors to set a (successful) precedent for invading native lands and setting up a kingdom. If they can successfully pull it off, then IMO it'd break the taboo of attempting such a thing and you'd see far more discrete attempts by conquistadors to conquer their own small fiefdoms. At the same time, this would probably spell the end of Spanish reliance on conquistadors and likely see the end of anything beyond scouting missions, IMO. Future military operations would likely be orchestrated by men of higher nobility who have much to lose should they go rogue or native.

This scenario would in all likelihood guarantee the survival of the Inca past the initial point of contact with the Europeans. Short of the Spanish striking lightning in a bottle twice, no European power will have the capacity or the insanity to invade the Inca; especially not when the Inca, renown hoarders of innovations, would be willing to trade gold for it. In all likelihood, I think a scenario somewhere between European activity in Japan and India will occur, in that firearms will be introduced and widely adopted by the Incans, produced en masse locally. But additionally, a large number of conquistadors are likely either to openly defect or be bribed to join the Sapa Inca's court and payroll as advisors and craftsmen that bring the Inca up to par with other iron age civilizations in the old world very quickly.

I can foresee large communities of traders, craftsmen, missionaries, and even artists making their way to Tawantinsuyu in search of a large paycheck of gold. Hell, we could even see the conquistadores lead Incan armies in the name of the Emperor in the conquest of the Mapuche and the tribes along the Rio de la Plata within a few decades of initial contact.

Any interesting candidates?I think I've seen a thread once about Cesare Borgia being sent to the Americas.
 
Last edited:
Yet what made me curious the most was how they managed to defy the concept of power corrupts,especially with people like them.A lot of loyal men turn eventually became addicted to power and turned coat on their ruler--that's more than enough examples throughout the Middle Ages and during the antiquity.So theoretically,what would it take for a group of conquistadors to have the will to successfully break from their homeland?

Perhaps there is a disputed succession in Castille, and one of the claimants went to the new world to escape, and then conquered some lands to be his base to reclaim his lost throne in Spain.

Technically, in his mind, he won't be committing treason, since it is the king in Spain who is committing treason by usurping the crown.

Basically, there should be something that would make men break their allegiances, not merely greed and power, since they could get rich and powerful and remain loyal to the crown too.
 
Perhaps there is a disputed succession in Castille, and one of the claimants went to the new world to escape, and then conquered some lands to be his base to reclaim his lost throne in Spain.

Technically, in his mind, he won't be committing treason, since it is the king in Spain who is committing treason by usurping the crown.

Basically, there should be something that would make men break their allegiances, not merely greed and power, since they could get rich and powerful and remain loyal to the crown too.
What about Charles for some reason trying to arrest Cortes for treason after he conquered the Aztecs for defying his appointed governor and thus himself?Would this get the conquistadors as a group think that the crown's going to persecute them all and rebel?
 
One of the things that struck me as odd was the way how many of the conquistadors yield the fruits of their achievements to the Spanish crown without declaring making their own states. The Crusaders by comparison, often ignored whatever liege they had previously and founded de facto independent states.

The Crusaders were multinational, and operating under the aegis of the Church, not their kings. (The Third Crusade was led by kings.) The conquistadors were all explicit vassals of the Spanish crown, operating under grants of authority from the crown or from royal governors, and with men provided by the crown. It would have been very hard for them to buck that authority.

Note also that if a conquistador defied royal authority and set up for himself, he opened the door to being defied or overthrown by his own followers.
 
The Crusaders were multinational, and operating under the aegis of the Church, not their kings. (The Third Crusade was led by kings.) The conquistadors were all explicit vassals of the Spanish crown, operating under grants of authority from the crown or from royal governors, and with men provided by the crown. It would have been very hard for them to buck that authority.

Note also that if a conquistador defied royal authority and set up for himself, he opened the door to being defied or overthrown by his own followers.
So basically,a multinational conquistador band might have a chance?As for the crusaders,the first crusade was led entirely by Dukes and Counts,but they were made to swear an oath to turn over all land they have conquered to the ERE.
 
Last edited:
So basically,a multinational conquistador band might have a chance?As for the crusaders,the first crusade was led entirely by Dukes and Counts,but they were made to swear an oath to turn over all land they have conquered to the ERE.

Yes to the ERE and not their own kings. The ERE is a foreign and heretic realm for them. And even after breaking their vow they still had the backing of the church and western Europe. Its a completly different situation.

The conquistadors would be left without any support at least for the time. And the other European powers werent really present in the americas in the early stages of spanish conquest. And later its not really a possibility.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Seconded Tonifranz patriotism thesis.

I think AH in general paying too little attention on 'soft technology'.

Think like religion, nationalism, ideology, social and economic organisation also behave similar to 'hard technology'. There are development ànd more advanced version. European socio-poltical organisation in 1500s is superior than in 1200s , and more advanced than in Àmerica.
 
One of the things that struck me as odd was the way how many of the conquistadors yield the fruits of their achievements to the Spanish crown without declaring making their own states.The Crusaders by comparison,often ignore whatever liege they had previously and found de facto independent states.Certainly there were some rebellions by the conquistadors against the Spanish crown,but a lot of them seems to have accepted the authority of the Spanish crown without questions,despite the fact that the involvement of the Spanish crown(at least initially) was marginal at best and quite often non-existent altogether .Supposed the conquistadors refuse the authority of the Spanish crown altogether and declared their leader their own King,how sustainable would these conquistador states be?Some of the problem I see include the conquistadors possibly cut off from supplies and more settlers by Spain.
There WAS an attempt at a conquistador state. As part of the "Rebelión de los Encomenderos" on Peru...

The Spaniards dealth with them swiftly and brutally.

Tough the possibility is certainly interesting!
 
Top