Latin America without the Peninsular War

Thande

Donor
Let's say Napoleon never invades Spain and there's no Peninsular War, for whatever reason. (From what I've read, I think it was mainly a whim to support one of his crazy epic plans that never materialised, anyway). Ignore the obviously significant changes to Europe and the world for a moment. What happens to Latin America without the invasion? Do the colonies stay Spanish significantly longer? Will there eventually be rebellions and independence movements without this catalyst? And will they be successful, especially since Britain and the United States (and Napoleonic France if it survives) have vested interests in the Spanish colonies becoming independent?
 
Well, I think there still would have been rebelions, cause there were a lot of profound reasons for discontent among all classes of Lain American society. And, if both the US and the French revolution have taken place, that means the Latin Americans have an importantant ideological and practical base for their claims. Would they succeed? I see three scenarios:

1) If there are still Napoleonic wars between England and France BUT no Peninsular War, Spain might remain a French ally. If this is the case, there might have been an ever greater British involvment in Latin America. IOTL, the British were friendly to the revolutionary movements, because these were against Spanish commercial monopoly and favoured free trade; but the fact that Spain was its ally against Napoleon (at least since 1808) discourage direct British support of this movements. If Spain isn't an ally but an enemy, these restrictions don't longer exists, and British may intervene directly.

So, in thjis scenario, I think revolutions are a must (if they don't start locally, they would be started from abroad by people like Francisco de Miranda, who disembarqued in Venezuela in 1806 with British support). And, if they British play their cards correctly (unlike what they did in Buenos Aires), these would probably succed, and Spain would loose, because it would be very hard for her to fight both the revolutionaries and the British.
By "play their cards well" I mean clearly stating that they want to "liberate" these lkands, not anexing them.

2) Spain is a British ally. If this is the case, I think revolutions would still arise, but it would be much harder for them to succeed. Specially if Spain had allowed British ships to trade freely in Latin American ports, which would leave Britain with almost no reason to support any revolutionary movement that appears. Instread, it might side with the Spanish and help them repress them. Spain might be able to retain her empire or a significant part of it for a long time, until local rebelions and the lack of industry in the mothercountry make it too costly to mantain.

3) Spain is neutral. Britain still has an economic reason to support the rebels. But Spain is in better shape to impose her rule and the revolutionaries lack an excuse to start the rebelion (their King is no longer in jail). But, since the detention of the King was nothing more that an excuse to spark the rebelion, another might have replaced it. Revolutionaries might have had a harder time in TTL, but I think that, if they still rebell, they may still triumph. Why? Because, given the Spanish authorities intolerance, once a revolution had started, the rebels had no choice but to suceed or be excecuted. And this was a powerfull incentive to succeed.
 
The Portugues Royal Family would never flee to Brazil, which would at least delay the revolution. Napoleon would also have more troops to devote in Russia but I don't think they would of made a difference. The Napoleon War would go as in OTL but the Latin Revolutions would most probally be delayed until after the war. I think Spain might be able to hold on to more of its colonies and only lose a couple.
 
The Portugues Royal Family would never flee to Brazil, which would at least delay the revolution. Napoleon would also have more troops to devote in Russia but I don't think they would of made a difference. The Napoleon War would go as in OTL but the Latin Revolutions would most probally be delayed until after the war. I think Spain might be able to hold on to more of its colonies and only lose a couple.

I'm not so sure. If we're positing a Franco-Spanish alliance, then why wouldn't the Portuguese family fele the Franco-Spanish invasion?
 
If you look at the history of the Latin American rebellions, there was very heavy pro-Royalist support in most of Latin America. In the case of no imprisonment of the King of Spain, then I think that the reasons the colonies revolt becomes very different. I can see enemies of the Spanish monarchy fighting much more explicitly for Republicanism. For instance the Mexican Revolution ended up very conservative. Perhaps after the end of the Napoleonic War (since not invading Spain doesn't mean he won't invade Russia and lose anyway), the Spanish army attempts to impose a liberal constitution the revolts in Latin America become a struggle between supporters of the King and supporters of the liberal constitution. So Latin America has some problems, but stays under Spanish rule. The real fun comes when the Carlist Wars (which need to happen so the fun can happen, butterflies be damned) start, and Mexico declares for Carlos. The Carlists may lose in Spain, but they get the Viceroyalty of New Spain as the consolation prize, and then history starts to really wacky . . .
 
Well, IIRC, many of movements for independence evolved from earlier juntas that were formed after 1809 to administer Spanish territories in Latin America in name of Spanish Bourbon king - against Bonaparte appointed viceroys...
 
I'm not so sure. If we're positing a Franco-Spanish alliance, then why wouldn't the Portuguese family fele the Franco-Spanish invasion?

It depends when France invades Russia. Napoleon might want his ally to help him attack Russia.
 
Top