Can Portugal Stay Part of Spain?

Yep,and that's how national identities had formed.That's the basis of our modern nationalism.

You are talking in circles a bit ... what you mean is that Portugal HAS to rebel because is different ( language, for example ), but in those times most of the people didnt care a lot ( for not saying they didnt give a damm ) who was ruling, if that person did not exploit them too much.

You need a massive urban population with some culture to develop modern nationalism, and in Portugal that was not the case.

For a rebellion you need ( like in OTL ) someone with the connections and the posibility to rule instead the former, and at least a good number of people support him ( a really good number ), I was assuming Olivares ( and succesors ) keeps "pissing them off" for a new rebellion, if things happens like Niko said the chances of rebellion lessen at least until the said War of Spanish Succesion, and if their chosen side they loose the chances of a new serious rebellion for a good time ( in Mainland Portugal, the Colonies are a completely different thing )

But what if they support Charles and they DO win ... quite an interesting ATL IMHO ...
 
Well,not nationalism as an organised movements.But nationalism as a general concept was there since the creation of states.Otherwise why people would have been drive by a desire to preserve they are own culture started to rebel against government who brough great economical and technological development to their area?

Obviously the union could be disolved in any moment by a lot of causes, and there is a lot of reasons which could make colide portuguese interests with the interests of the court, thus breaking the feudal contract with the king, as they did in OTL. But I don't think identity would be one of the reasons before the 19th century. To begin with, even in a country relativelly homogenous and small like Portugal, identity was probably more diverse along the country than nowadays (excluding inmigration). That was not a problem because government was based in pacts, loyalties and faith, not in the decimononic idea of national identity. Furthermore, we are talking about an union where the only point of proper political union is the common alliegance to the same king, but, as I said, under a poli-synodal system. Each constituent political entity had their own set of laws, their own assembly (called Cortes in the iberian context) their own customs etc. Most of time, they operated as different states, something comparable, though esentialy different in concept to the modern idea, to a confedaration. An Aragonese was a foreigner in Castile and vice-versa. It's famous the case of Antonio Pérez, secretary of Philip II who felt in disgrace with the king and fled to Aragon to avoid the castilian laws under which he had been condemned. And it was in a case against the crown. The iberian case is not exclusive, of course.

In pre-industrial Europe, on the other hand, revolts are more complex than a solely identitary thing (probably also in industrial Europe, but for different reasons), even when identity could have played a role in many cases. Of course, nobody likes when his identity is attaked or threatened, but even identity is often a tricky and difficult thing, doubtless more complex than nationalisms pretend. In societies where the individuals are not individuals, but members of guilds, estates, corporations etc, where labour and hierarchical relations transcended the merely economical relations (theoretically in opposition, for example, to a modern job contract or a class system), clientelar nets are a factor to take into account. If the guy who feeds you says to do something, you probably have a lot of reasons to do it. And the interests of the guy who feeds you may or may not have relation with identity. High nobility could movilize large contingents for that reason, but we know they often had more prosaic intentions. Plus, social imbalances, extreme poverty, abusive taxes (which furthermore weren't payed by everybody) and a bunch of reasons where also there to fuel any revolt.
 
Portugal was in personal union with the other crowns of Iberia, it was not an unitary kingdom. We are neither talking about nation-states here. Problems begun when it was percieved by some portuguese sectors, with reason or without it, that portuguese affairs were being decided outside Portugal too often and too many privileges and power positions were going to non-portuguese. Anyway, if Portugal stays under the spanish Habsburgs either because the rebellion is crushed or because Philip IV (or better said, Olivares) has more sensible politics regarding Portugal, it will be still under a poli-synodal system.
Cheers.

Wich will be irrelevant in the long range (hell, by 1640, in the medium range!) Aragon was on a personal union, too. In gact, there were a good half a dozen kingdoms in "Spain" each with their own laws and cortes. By the 17th century the european civilization had already started to leave medieval feudalism behind and create the modern "Nation State". Portugal as an independent nation would either be destoyed like Castille, Aragon and Navarre, or it would revolt and get freedon.
 
Spain is a pretty diverse place, it's not only Portugal that could've ended up splitting off from them. Likewise, Portugal was by no means destined to be a separate country.

I think the relationship between England-Scotland resembles Spain-Portugal in many ways: not all, just in a few that are important. Namely, that both Portugal and Scotland are linguistically different from Spain and England, have had strong regional identities and a history of being somewhat peripheral to Spanish/English interests. However, unlike Scotland, Portugal shares a strong monarchical history with Spain, took part jointly in the Reconquista and had a very strong commercial empire. Then again, so did Aragon.

So yeah, Portugal could stay part of Spain: you'd need to look in on the specifics of when you're talking about this, since there's a big difference from the 1200s to 1500s to 1800s to modern times.
 
Wich will be irrelevant in the long range (hell, by 1640, in the medium range!) Aragon was on a personal union, too. In gact, there were a good half a dozen kingdoms in "Spain" each with their own laws and cortes. By the 17th century the european civilization had already started to leave medieval feudalism behind and create the modern "Nation State". Portugal as an independent nation would either be destoyed like Castille, Aragon and Navarre, or it would revolt and get freedon.

Yes, you are right, thought your point can be nuanced. As I said in my first post, there is the possibility of Portugal losing autonomy à la Aragon because a bad choice in TTL SWS, if there is one, or whatever other moment. Certainly, as you say, it could trigger a rebelion and the end of the union, but also the same logic which has operated with the other kingdoms in OTL can be applied here with all the implications. On the other hand, the process of destruction of the spanish kingdoms is not unavoidable, and is not linear, nor a straight and preplaned path to modernity, alongside or despite the general trends in european civilization. Many of the institutions and government modes existing in medieval "Spain" can be seen, from a liberal point of view, as more "modern" than what came latter, and, for example, some aspects of the Constitutional process during the War of independence are indicative of this. Had the nobility supported or at least stayed neutral during the revolt of the Comuneros, and it would have been different for Castile. The nobiliar armies crushing an urban rebellion seems pretty feudal to me. Aragon, nesides other considerations, was also punished under a feudal logic after which they had broken the feudal contract. Charles and Philip's original programs were not so different each other, though I accept we can suspect about the sincerity of Philip. Navarre, on the other hand, is a different case since it happened in the apogee of the National Movement (the original, not the fascist one). My point is, Portugal keeping his own institutions until the mid 19th century, like Navarre in OTL, in union with the rest of Iberia is not so unlikely. This union, in the 19th century, of course, could have troubles due to the rasing regionalism (did them ever died?) and nationalism, both centralist and peripherial, where identity would be now a driving factor, asuming nationalism develops similarly to OTL.

Perhaps you are also thinking in the bourbonic reforms. Asuming there is still spanish Bourbons and bourbonic reforms or something analogous, I think it can said that bourbonic reforms had more legalistic and technical reasons and aims than identitary ones, though, of course, identities doesn't exist in the vacuum. And in OTL, the unrest related to the reforms probably afectted rather to the local elites and the church, which saw their quotas of power reduced in behalf of the throne, than to the common man and his identity.

Cheers.
 
. On the other hand, the process of destruction of the spanish kingdoms is not unavoidable, and is not linear, nor a straight and preplaned path to modernity, alongside or despite the general trends in european civilization.
Cheers.

The destruction of the Spanish Kingdoms was not unavoidable, but it was not as if the kings planned to destroy then either. They lost their privileges as punishment for choosing the wrong side of a civil war; Castille lost then to Charles I in the comuneros rebellion, Aragon lost then in the war of Spanish sucession... Navarre was the last, losing then in the Carlist wars. Bad luck or bad planning, but that was the eventual result. Portugal is the one kingdom than did win his civil war, and won independence as a result.

But if they had lost, chances are the whole "personal union", "separate institutions", "portuguese nobility privileges", "tax exception" et all would end up as a waste of perfectly good parchment sooner rather than later... Spain may have not plotted to eliminate Fueros, but this is Imperial Spain, a nation not known for its gentle handling of inner conflicts or treason (everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition)
 

wwalter

The 1640 Portuguese revolt was well-timed to coincide with the nadir of Spanish power during the 17th Century. The Empire's best troops were employed in the 30 Years War, if not fighting in the Netherlands, or putting down revolts in Arragon or Catalonia. If the Duchess of Mantua had discovered the conspiracy by Portuguese noblemen before they seized power in a coup, the revolt could have been snuffed out.

However, even barring the 1640 revolt, Spain is not out of the woods when it comes to maintaining its Iberian Union during the 17th Century, to say nothing of the 18th or 19th. During the incompetent reign of Carlos II's mother and ministers, Louis XIV engaged in several successful wars against the Spanish, and would have been open to collaborating with dissatisfied Portuguese noblemen against the mad king. Barring that, at the conclusion of the War of Spanish Succession, it is likely that the British would have attempted to restore the independence of their ancient ally as part of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

Finally, by the 19th century you will probably see a more broad-based nationalist movement agitating for independence from Spain, not just a small group of noblemen. If Spain could hold onto Portugal after 1815 or so, it has a pretty good chance of keeping it indefinitely, but it would be just another hotbed of secession and rebellion that would strain the Spanish state during the 19th century, and contribute to political paralysis in the 20th.
 

Goldstein

Banned
The 1640 Portuguese revolt was well-timed to coincide with the nadir of Spanish power during the 17th Century. The Empire's best troops were employed in the 30 Years War, if not fighting in the Netherlands, or putting down revolts in Arragon or Catalonia. If the Duchess of Mantua had discovered the conspiracy by Portuguese noblemen before they seized power in a coup, the revolt could have been snuffed out.

However, even barring the 1640 revolt, Spain is not out of the woods when it comes to maintaining its Iberian Union during the 17th Century, to say nothing of the 18th or 19th. During the incompetent reign of Carlos II's mother and ministers, Louis XIV engaged in several successful wars against the Spanish, and would have been open to collaborating with dissatisfied Portuguese noblemen against the mad king. Barring that, at the conclusion of the War of Spanish Succession, it is likely that the British would have attempted to restore the independence of their ancient ally as part of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

Finally, by the 19th century you will probably see a more broad-based nationalist movement agitating for independence from Spain, not just a small group of noblemen. If Spain could hold onto Portugal after 1815 or so, it has a pretty good chance of keeping it indefinitely, but it would be just another hotbed of secession and rebellion that would strain the Spanish state during the 19th century, and contribute to political paralysis in the 20th.

Good points, but that's assuming the 18th and the 19th century still happen in a recogniceable way, which is dubious considering hundreds of years after the POD. Not to tell the Portuguese revolt happened many years before Charles II was born. What makes you think he would, ITTL? I can agree that, in case of Nationalism still emerging, Portugal would have lots of chances to become a hot spot of rebellion, but then again, as others have said, the Spanish empire was very decentralized and divided in inner "kingdoms" with their own fueros, that were progressively retired everytime regions chose the wrong side in a revolt or civil war, and that hasn't led to Peninsular breakup so far.

Also, look at the OTL examples, which are very illustrative of how little connection Nationalism has with historical political entities. Isn't that curious how the three main Nationalist movements (the Basque, Catalan, and, to some extent, the Galician one) are unrelated to any actual historical independent country?
Catalonia was a series of separated counties under French tuttelage, that eventually were directly annexed to Aragon throught marriage. The Basque Country was part of Navarre, and then part of Castille... and then, the Lordship of Vizcaya became a distinct political entity within Castille, but not the rest of what is now considered Euskadi. Galicia was reconquered by Asturias, which became Leon, wich was annexed by Castille centuries before Spain was formed.

On the other hand, The places that were not only independent countries, but in some cases, mighty empires (Navarre, Leon, Aragon), either lack a Separatist movement or it is testimonial enough for not being able to achieve the minimal political representation (Navarre has, admittedly, some Basque Nationalist presence in its north, but to which extent the Navarran kingdom historically corresponds to the Basque identity, that's another question). Not to tell there are bilingual places, like Valencia (which was, funnily enough, a kingdom within Aragon, unlike Catalonia, which was a principality), where Spanish Nationalism is almost hegemonic.

In order to get a succesful Nationalist movement, you need certain economic and social agents, not just a distinct culture, otherwise there would be very few countries in the world free from a breakup risk; and though I can see some bourgoisie emerging in Portugal and promoting a Portuguese Nationalist movement, it hardly means there is some kind of Portuguese Manifest Destiny. No contry has such a thing.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
If the Portoguese rebellion fails, I totally see Portugal to develop within the Iberian nation much like Catalonia. It was linguistically and culturally no more different from Spain than Catalonia was from Castille, yet the latter has so far failed to break free. The 1640 rebellion got a lot of luck since a lot of Spanish energies were busy in fighting the 30 Years War and quelling the rebellion of Catalonia. Yet, if the Portoguese rebellion is quelled with some luck from Spain, I do not see any reaosn why Portogal should far any different from Catalonia.
 
I think the relationship between England-Scotland resembles Spain-Portugal in many ways: not all, just in a few that are important. Namely, that both Portugal and Scotland are linguistically different from Spain and England, have had strong regional identities and a history of being somewhat peripheral to Spanish/English interests. However, unlike Scotland, Portugal shares a strong monarchical history with Spain, took part jointly in the Reconquista and had a very strong commercial empire. Then again, so did Aragon.

Actually, Scotland shares a strong monarchical history with England, took part jointly in the Battle Against The Evil Papists Who Worship The Pope, and had a very respectable commercial "empire" for our size, so... :p

I basically agree with what Goldstein says, same as usual.
 
Last edited:

raamses66

Banned
And Hitler had a non-aggression pact with Poland, what's your point?

Yes but hitler invaded poland beacuse his position was strong enough.spanish position at the time was weak regardless to portugal.I think you are overestimating the importance of portugal to the spanish (habsburg) empire.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Yes but hitler invaded poland beacuse his position was strong enough.spanish position at the time was weak regardless to portugal.I think you are overestimating the importance of portugal to the spanish (habsburg) empire.

I also think you are overestimating the importance of Portugal as a power...
 
Last edited:
Top