DBWI: No Spanish Conquest

(North American Members): If the Spanish Armada could not conquer England like the Normans did in the 11th century, how might the world be different?

Without the Spanish forcing their language and religion on the English, how would the country itself be different? Obviously, it would be Protestant.

How would Felipe II of Spain be remembered?

And how to destroy the Armada... perhaps a huge storm?

(Britannic Members): Si l'Armada Invencible no cud conquist Inglandia as da Normans en da centurie XXI, how da orbo be difrente?

Sin da Spanicos forzand sa lengua an religion on da Inglese, how wud da tierra misma be difrente? Obvament, wud be Protestante.

How wud Felipe II de Espania be commembrado?

An how destrui l'Armada... pertave a tormenta?

(Habsburg and Iberoamerican Members): ¿Si la «Grande y Felicísima Armada» no pudo conquistar a la Inglaterra como los Normandos en el siglo XXI, ¿cómo sería diferente el mundo?

Sin «La Asimilación» de los ingleses, ¿cómo sería diferente eso país? Obviamente, en eso mundo serían protestante.

¿Cómo recordamos el rey Felipe II de España?

Como destruir a la Armada... es posible que esté destruido por una tormenta.
 
Last edited:
(I'll write in Angloamerican, just out of deference to the OP.)

I would first like to very much object to the statement "the Spanish forcing their language and religion on the English". The language change was pretty much voluntary, same as in America. This change was mostly due to the English elites themselves beginning to use the Spanish language so they could open trade routes with continental Europe (other than France, obviously, as it was blockaded) and America. This created a situation of diglossia that resolved into the Británico language as time went by.

More to the point, yes, England would very likely be protestant. I don't think that English society would differ much from the current Angloamerican one. After all, it wasn't until the English Crussade that the English began to massively emmigrate to Angloamerica, far from the reach of Phillip II, so you could consider it like a transplant of the English society in a place with a similar weather.
As for the religion, well, the English had been Catholic till a fortnight earlier, so to speak, and the only difference between the former Anglicans and the Catholics was were the head of the Church resided. Dogma and rites were pretty much the same.

Even without being able to realize the English Crussade, I think Phillip II would still be a pivotal figure of our history, thanks to his successes in the colonization and industrialization (for that time) of America, the union with Portugal (realizing the dream of his great-grandparents of uniting Spain), and the contention of the Ottoman onslaught. But probably historians wouldn't gloss over all of the times he made Spain to default on debt... defeat makes your bankruptcies all the worse.

As to how could the Grande Armada be defeated? It wasn't invincible, as many historians would make it to be, letting their nationalism show. In fact, most of it was a collection of barges meant to transport the troops stationed in the United Provinces. On their way to Flanders, the Armada suffered heavily under the harassment of the faster and more manouverable English warships, as they avoided skillfully the grappling hooks.
The game changing point, in my opinion, is that the commander Medina Sidonia was not a seaman. He had not seen a sea battle in his life and considered himself ill-prepared for the task (Phillip II appointed him, it seems, because he was a friend and a good Christian). This, which could have doomed the Armada, proved its salvation: Medina Sidonia decided to give up on boarding the slippery English sails (where the Spanish sea strength resided), and treated the matter as land siege, arranging the ships in line in front of the port of Gravelinas, to fire against the English.

Have Phillip II put in charge of the Armada a seasoned sea commander, as Medina Sidonia had adviced, someone who would stick to the traditional boarding practices, and the English would have a chance to whittle down the fleet. A small chance, but a fair one.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the repercussion it would have had on my home region the Netherlands. Who knows all ''XVII'' Netherlands or maybe a part might gain independence from the Spanish Empire. However we all know that with the addition of England the fate of the Dutch revolt was sealed too.

Still for the Dutch Philip II never became as beloved as his father the great Charles V, who was (and is) seen as a native (Dutch) ruler.
 
Still for the Dutch Philip II never became as beloved as his father the great Charles V, who was (and is) seen as a native (Dutch) ruler.

Heh, Charles I/V was an expert at making people believe he was a native from their own lands, like the Comuneros in Castille.
 
Heh, Charles I/V was an expert at making people believe he was a native from their own lands, like the Comuneros in Castille.

To be fair in contrast to Philip II, Charles V did often visit a many parts of his empire (in Europe); naturally that helped a lot to gain such an image.
 
Completing the OP's points, i'd say that the world would see some changes, more as we move farther from the Empire.

Angloamerica would surely have become part of a hypothetical English empire (and eventually splitting away), America would culturally be the same as today with Spanish and Portuguese areas, although they might have become independent earlier, given a weaker empire.

A weaker empire might have also kept the Mediterranean from becoming an Aragonese playground, there might be some Muslim countries left in North Africa and the Levant.
Africa and Oceania, by and large might shift from hispano/portuguese/dutch political influence to a hispano/english conflict over the resources. India and Japan would surely be still see a heavy Portuguese influence (specially in India, as the Portuguese element was the only cohesive one).

I wonder if the failure against England would have triggered some kind of defeatism in the Empire and spin it into a more centralist kind of state? that might disintegrate the whole thing...
 
Angloamerica would surely have become part of a hypothetical English empire (and eventually splitting away), America would culturally be the same as today with Spanish and Portuguese areas, although they might have become independent earlier, given a weaker empire.
I have to wonder if Iberoamerica might actually be less Spanish and Portuguese than OTL. And actually probably less German, Dutch, Irish and Indio too.

Independent states carved from the Viceroyalties would probably receive immense European and Asian immigration like Angloamerica. Said Europeans would be non-Habsburgo (or non-Imperial, to use the more common term).

Or those states might be unstable, with a focus on resource collection and exportation, and thus be not attractive to immigrants whatsoever.

And native cultures would be preserved further, especially without the brutally squashed rebellion of Tupac Amaru.

Of course we'll never know.

A weaker empire might have also kept the Mediterranean from becoming an Aragonese playground, there might be some Muslim countries left in North Africa and the Levant.
Aragonese... now that's an archaic word. But correct, I suppose. And I agree, Berberia would probably remain independent or a puppet of the Ottomans.

Africa and Oceania, by and large might shift from hispano/portuguese/dutch political influence to a hispano/english conflict over the resources. India and Japan would surely be still see a heavy Portuguese influence
Con seguridad.

(specially in India, as the Portuguese element was the only cohesive one).
Well, you can't forget the French influence in the 19th century. And there was the Britannic adventurism in the 1910s, what with the Vizroyal Armada and the Londres-Ceilan Compania.

I wonder if the failure against England would have triggered some kind of defeatism in the Empire and spin it into a more centralist kind of state? that might disintegrate the whole thing...
Now that's an interesting idea. We wouldn't get the relocation of the capital from Madrid to Nueva Madrid like in OTL.
 
What does that mean?
Diplomatically-correct term for the non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian faiths arising after the Reformation/Second Great Schism/whatever historians call it these days. You know, Martin Luther, Henry VIII and all that.

Surprised you haven't heard it since it's what North American Christians usually call themselves (if not Anglican).
 
I have to wonder if Iberoamerica might actually be less Spanish and Portuguese than OTL. And actually probably less German, Dutch, Irish and Indio too.

Independent states carved from the Viceroyalties would probably receive immense European and Asian immigration like Angloamerica. Said Europeans would be non-Habsburgo (or non-Imperial, to use the more common term).
That's true, i hadn't though much of the immigration. It would depend on the immigration policies: i am guessing that a world where England isn't... uh... "chastised" for its religious split is a world where Protestants would succeed more easily. So probably the immigration to America would be restricted to verifiably Catholic elements, like Italians, Austrians, Japanese, which would create the population seed for later mass immigration when those states, as you hypothesize, would become independent. But as long as the Spanish-Portuguese element could be culturally dominant, that would give those states enough affinities not to have them quarrel among themselves.

And native cultures would be preserved further, especially without the brutally squashed rebellion of Tupac Amaru.
Yes, that's one of the biggest sins we carry with ourselves. Don't let the Angloamericans know ;) but i secretly admire how they were able to preserve and thrive together (well, to a point, it isn't the richest place in the world) with the natives of their land.

Aragonese... now that's an archaic word. But correct, I suppose. And I agree, Berberia would probably remain independent or a puppet of the Ottomans.
Yes, archaic alright. I'm guessing that with a weaker Castille and weaker Atlantic policy, all of Aragon would push itself to the Mediterranean, without having "Aragon proper" become Castillian. Of course, this is assuming no centralist policies...

Well, you can't forget the French influence in the 19th century. And there was the Britannic adventurism in the 1910s, what with the Vizroyal Armada and the Londres-Ceilan Compania.
Haha, correct. For some reason we always forget the French in AH.com, right?

Now that's an interesting idea. We wouldn't get the relocation of the capital from Madrid to Nueva Madrid like in OTL.
It would be a shame, and against the Habsburg tradition, but i guess in a context of imperial crisis it might happen. But the loss of that ... federal monarchy, so to speak, would be tragic indeed, as all the kingdoms and provinces had very strong personalities and legal traditions, and wouldn't give up on them peacefully.
I have to visit Nueva Madrid some day. From all the pictures i see, it's a city to see and get lost in it.
 
OOC: Okay, so I'm confused by what's what in this DBWI (I don't do these very often), namely in regards to the fate of the Americas. I mean, I understand that IC England fell to the Armada, and Catholicism reasserted itself in the Isles (along with, erm, interesting linguistic changes). And I see references to both Iberoamerica and Angloamerica, but what would those entail ITTL?
 
OOC: Okay, so I'm confused by what's what in this DBWI (I don't do these very often), namely in regards to the fate of the Americas. I mean, I understand that IC England fell to the Armada, and Catholicism reasserted itself in the Isles (along with, erm, interesting linguistic changes). And I see references to both Iberoamerica and Angloamerica, but what would those entail ITTL?

OOC: From what i gather, and from what i had in mind in what i wrote: Angloamerica would be the equivalent of Canada and the US, but mostly being refugees and protestant loyalists from England. Most of Canada, and the NE third of the US. Named Angloamerica as contrast with America which would be the hispano-portuguese one, richer and politically powerful (the empire would center around it). Kinda like IOTL America is the anglosaxon one, the rich and powerful country, and the rest is Latin America.

So the Empire keeps strong elements of Spanish, Portuguese, Catalonian (Aragonese) and Dutch cultures and expands them, according to their respective spheres of influence (which works quite well, in fact, it did work quite well IOTL, Dutch element excluded obviously, until the constant weakening of the imperial positions in Europe led to an attempt of centralization that turned the war against France into the 40 year war).

The linguistic changes in England proper surely seem unlikely, but if the Spanish becomes lingua franca for the world commerce, and England becomes an allied of the Empire, i think it would be less unlikely. This "Spanglish" might go from sailor language to harbor-town language to working class language and eventually national language. Royalty and nobility would surely keep using the English, at least for a long while.

Butterflies, butterflies everywhere :D
 
Top