If No Napoleonic Invasion of Spain how long would Spain Kept Its American Colonies

Could any form of instability in Spain that's not caused by Napoleon still affect the Americas?

Well sure, the point is that the French invasion was an enormous disaster far beyond anything else Spain had experienced before the Spanish Civil War - so the odds are if there is no French invasion, there is no disaster as bad as the French invasion either.

Louisiana Purchase was before Napoleon wrecked Spain, so I am confused about this chatter.

We aren't talking about a specific scenario - we seem to be talking about several, including one where Spain doesn't side with France at all and avoids invasion that way.

And my post that you quoted was pointing out that the Louisiana Purchase was not an honest or regular sale, so even a TL where it happens as it did in ours doesn't mean it ends up the same way.

fasquardon
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Fasquadron's idea:

A bad enough war can break up any empire. One AH I once thought of was a TL where Spain stayed neutral in the Napoleonic wars, thus keeping its empire and developing through the 19th Century, but got involved in a WW1-type conflict and ended up imploding in a messy Tsarist Russia style way, complete with bloody civil war and revolutionary ideology arising in the American colonies.

fasquardon

Fasquadron, this is a really, really cool idea. I'd subscribe if you'd wish to develop it.

It would be challenging, because you need to figure out how to play out Napoleonic wars with Spanish neutrality, and then to take this all the way through the 19th century to an early 20th century conflict, you would need to provide a lot of detail and explanation to make the altered world still seem authentic. All global diplomacy is getting butterflied into new shapes within 5 years or so of your PoD, so it's a big blank campus, but it could be interesting to end up with the result of a "Russian revolution" in the Spanish empire.
 
Fasquadron's idea:



Fasquadron, this is a really, really cool idea. I'd subscribe if you'd wish to develop it.

It would be challenging, because you need to figure out how to play out Napoleonic wars with Spanish neutrality, and then to take this all the way through the 19th century to an early 20th century conflict, you would need to provide a lot of detail and explanation to make the altered world still seem authentic. All global diplomacy is getting butterflied into new shapes within 5 years or so of your PoD, so it's a big blank campus, but it could be interesting to end up with the result of a "Russian revolution" in the Spanish empire.

I don't know if I will ever write out that timeline. Certainly I've been working (and intend to finish) on a timeline of a Spain that has a more peaceful Revolutionary and Napoleonic period.

The big stumbling block for it was actually the difficulty of finding sources on Revolutionary era Spain/South America. I've only found really good sources on either in the last couple months. The rest of the 19th Century and the impact a more powerful Spain would have on it was relatively easy to figure out.

Whether the timeline ended up with a revolution is another question. For one thing, I have a hard time seeing how a revolutionary regime could capture a large chunk of any naval empire. I have a theory that countries that are more self-contained have an easier time bringing successful revolutions to term. And sea commerce encourages dependency on other countries. Also, unlike say Russia or France during their revolutions, a mature Spanish Empire has many centers of power, so a successful revolution can't just capture Madrid, it has to capture Madrid, Mexico City, Cartagena, Buenos Aires and Lima!

So yeah, the idea of a Spanish cultured revolutionary leftist super power in the 20th is cool, I've yet to think of any way to pull it off.

fasquardon
 
Step one: get rid of Godoy. IMO, he's one of the prime reasons Spain lurched from one side to another and back again. ASB is needed to make Charles IV a more worthy ruler. Godoy can simply involve a lost bar fight/death when he was a young man, before he captured the hearts of the Queen and King and was elevated to a position beyond his capability. It was he who lurched Spain from being a combatant against France to being an ally, and once there, Spain's fortunes rose and fell with the French, becoming nothing more than a pawn. A leader who simply accepts defeat in the War of the Pyrenees, and sits on the sideline, means a more neutral Spain. a neutral Spain means England doesn't cut her off from the colonies, which means a better economic situation. Even Charles, lackluster as he was, came to lament not remaining neutral. How long such a position could be held is questionable. Godoy was hated in Spain, and the anti Godoy faction used Ferdinand to foster opposition and engineer a coup, which in turn allowed Napoleon to play the situation and capture both kings.

No Godoy doesn't automatically mean better times, but it certainly means better possibilities.
 
Step one: get rid of Godoy. IMO, he's one of the prime reasons Spain lurched from one side to another and back again. ASB is needed to make Charles IV a more worthy ruler. Godoy can simply involve a lost bar fight/death when he was a young man, before he captured the hearts of the Queen and King and was elevated to a position beyond his capability. It was he who lurched Spain from being a combatant against France to being an ally, and once there, Spain's fortunes rose and fell with the French, becoming nothing more than a pawn. A leader who simply accepts defeat in the War of the Pyrenees, and sits on the sideline, means a more neutral Spain. a neutral Spain means England doesn't cut her off from the colonies, which means a better economic situation. Even Charles, lackluster as he was, came to lament not remaining neutral. How long such a position could be held is questionable. Godoy was hated in Spain, and the anti Godoy faction used Ferdinand to foster opposition and engineer a coup, which in turn allowed Napoleon to play the situation and capture both kings.

No Godoy doesn't automatically mean better times, but it certainly means better possibilities.

No Godoy was certainly the first PoD I thought of. It means Spanish politics is dominated either by Floridablanca or Arranda - Floridablanca is best, but opposition to him was rising already before Godoy came and helped Arranda push him out, so I am not sure a lack of Godoy just means that Floridablanca is just pushed out later. Arranda is much more dangerous to Spain as he is likely to make some very bad decisions. He is, however, a competent man, which is still a great improvement over Godoy so Spain may thrive under his leadership anyway.

However, both men face two challenges which I am not sure can be overcome: first, there will be strong pressures on Spain to join the Napoleonic wars. Second, the French Revolution stimulated a spasm of conservatism across Europe, and both men would have to shape their decisions in light of that reaction within Spain (indeed, Floridablanca would probably lose his job because of this reaction), this is a problem because Spain really needs continued enlightened moderate liberalism to reform the barriers between the various provinces and colonies.

For the best outcome for Spain, what may be needed is not a politician like Arranda and Floridablanca, but a gigglo like Godoy - only one with better luck or competence than OTL's Godoy. Why a gigglo? Because the strong support of the royal family would be required to steer Spain against the strong currents of radical liberalism and conservatism.

fasquardon
 
No Godoy doesn't automatically mean better times, but it certainly means better possibilities.

Exactly. Spain as Prussia signed the Basel peace as Prussia in 1795. It was a good peace for Spain. All the european countries have signed peace with France save UK (an Island) and Austria.
In 1796, Napoleon took Italy and the kings of Spain decided to establish a defensive alliance with France in order to protect the Italian Bourbons, Don´t forget, were part of the Spanish Royal Family.
The alliance became defensive and offensive after the British penetrated the Spanish embassy and the ambassador don Simon de Las Casas arrested and the Royal Navy committed several acts of piracy
UK refused to give explanations. Those were the reason (The Italian Bourbon and the british attitude) pull Spain to the alliance with France in 1796... an alliance only against Great Britain (not against Austria or any other state in war with France).
But like you well say... Godoy was a calamity... in a time in Britain was Pitt, in Austria Metternich and in France, Tayllerand... in Spain is... Godoy!!!!
 
Britain's actions all along are what really puts any question into whether Nap was the aggressive monster, or a victim of the times. Britain repeatedly did a lot of things which made the situation worse, or at least made peace impossible. IF Nap hadn't gone and blundered in Spain and Russia, we might very well be swapping Pitt and Godoy, saying how Godoy backed the winner and Pitt led Britain into ruin.
 
exactly as you say .. it was Britain, not Napoleon, who treacherously attacked a neutral country (Denmark) .. and that action, forced the Emperor to intervene in Portugal for setting the Continental System in all of Europe.
 
Well, let's not get carried away. Napoleonic France was just as bad as England in making a situation not conducive to a peaceful situation.

Regarding Portugal, P had mostly backed down and was closing ports to England. Nothing P did, though, would satisfy Nap, because, In My Opinion, Nap had his heart set on invading Portugal as step one of invading Spain. As I said earlier, which you disagreed with, the two actions were part of one strategy. Portugal was ultimately complying with the continental system. If Nap wasn't going to use it as a stepping stone to Spain, he wouldn't have invaded. Instead, he insisted on conditions impossible to satisfy. The entire Iberian theatre was entire on Nap's shoulders.
 
Well, let's not get carried away. Napoleonic France was just as bad as England in making a situation not conducive to a peaceful situation.

ok. You are right. but We can see the state of affairs in perspective.

As I said earlier, which you disagreed with, the two actions were part of one strategy.

Yes, in this point we disagreed. In July 1807, Napoleon signatured the Treaty of Tilsit. Russia became his ally and NI reached the summit of his power and glory, the Grandeur. Only Britain bore up against him. Like It was an Island ad like N had lost the fleet in Trafalgar (1805)...the only option for Britan "saw the reasons of peace", was the economic blockade with the goals to wreck the British industry and trade.
Therefore, NI signatured the two decrees establishing the Continental System (one in Berlin, the other one in Milan). Under these decrees was prohibited trade with Britain, not only for France and its allies, but for any European country. However, the initiative of violence against neutral countries didn´t begin Napoleon, but Britain.
The new British government (primer minister: Duke of Portland, Foreing Office, George Canning and War Office, viscount Castlereagh) not merely rejected the Russian proposal for mediation, August 10, but organized a treacherous attack on Denmark (much like Pearl Harbour by the Japanese in 1941), whose capital was attacked by land and sea and bombed the population (from 2 to 7 September) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807) killing more than 2.000 civilian.


As a result of such an unjustifiable aggression, Denmark declared war on Britain and allied with Napoleon, Austria and Prussia joined the Continental System and Russia broke the Diplomatic Relations with Britain. The British government was not discouraged and continued this aggressive policy towards neutral (Order in Council, November 11, 1807).
Napoleon responded to the British attack on Denmark with the order to close the continent to British trade. N gave orders to Tayllerand that intimated Portugal to close their ports to British before September 1st under threat to invade the country with a French-Spanish army.

When the French entered Spain towards Portugal still didn´t think to intervene in Spain.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Until Spain was involved in a Great War that it suffered greatly. Lets look at major colonial collapse. Not losing or exchanging a colony here or there but a country leaving colonial status.

1) USA - bit of odd ball, but basically a failed revolt if not for help of France.

2) Brazil is lost by Portuguese, and key component is a lost war by Portugal.

3) Latin America. Lost by Spain.

4) French Empire - It took major wars to break back of empire.

5) Same for UK, but I can argue negative trends to would cause WW1 to be enough.

6) Dutch East Indies - Major war weakens Dutch.

So, GENERALLY speaking, the Europeans did not lose colonies until after a major weakening of strength from IntraEurope War. IMO, the British and French would still maintain a big chunk of their empire if you butterfly way the World Wars. I would say the same for the Portuguese and Spanish if you avoid the Napoloenic Wars. Now only god really knows (or has any good idea) what happens after 1900 if you avoid Napoleon entering Portugal and Spain.

Note: Not saying that say if UK avoids WW1 that the elites in England can avoid the loss of some centralized powers to White colonies or even Brown colonies.
 
That's a good analysis Blondie. I'd not noticed that major wars were such a big, big part of colonial independence before.

1) USA - bit of odd ball, but basically a failed revolt if not for help of France.

Well, the American War of independence was also a big intraeuropean war - it was basically all of Britain's enemies dog-piling on the UK along with the American colonists and some unfriendly neutrals hampering the British too.

5) Same for UK, but I can argue negative trends to would cause WW1 to be enough.

I've been reading alot of interwar history lately, including some on the British colonies, and my view now is certainly that it was WW1 that killed the British Empire. It just delivered a wound that killed it slow, rather than a quick merciful death. The British lost Afghanistan outright after the war, lost their influence in Persia (they'd get it back in WW2 of course), lost almost all of their power in Egypt and were rapidly moving towards the exit there (again WW2 would temporarily boost British power there for a decade), the British position in India was fatally wounded (meaning inexorable movement towards independence during the interwar years) and perhaps most importantly, they'd really ruined relations between the old country and the White Dominions. After WW1 I can't imagine any of the Dominions accepting Britain having a significant degree of power over them...

fasquardon
 
If there was a Spanish-American War, could the U.S. gain Spanish Latin America as its prize? What would it take? My guess would be internal strife at the right moment for the U.S. to attack.
 
Top