Less Castilian domination in the Americas


I read somewhere, in passing that, the Castilians were very strict in insisting that they were in control of the various American possessions and colonies from day one, at the expense of the other constituent members or language groups. Apparently this was as much from the organs of central government as it was from commercial or other interests. I guess it was also part of a wider Castilianisation process that went on for many centuries.

Anyway, is it at all possible with an POD (maybe early? Around the time of the two Catholic Monarchs perhaps) to at least allow one of the other language groups to establish a meaningful settlement with their own language group?

The obvious parties would be the Aragonese & Catalans, as the other party to the union of crowns, but also to the Basque, Galacians and other less known language groups.
 
The Church, which played a large role in the Spanish colonies could come from any nationality. The first Archbishop of Mexico was a Basque.
 
I'm not sure about the Galacians at this time. I am looking for sources online, while having this thread open too. If I find anything I'll cite.

Anyway, I take your points, but I would say that both the Catalan and Aragonese zones were pretty large and well populated for the period and so I am sure there was spare capacity there, if someone could get the right idea. IIRC there was a steady stream of migration from these zones to the Spanish Americas, just never as a controlling force.

I guess what I am looking for is some sort of organised language or cultural community, as opposed to OTL. Maybe like the Welsh settlement in Argentina, but with more people and over a longer period?

Or like IOTL Scotland was able to send migrants to England, Ireland and all over the empire, while being heavily involved in other affairs. See the Free Church settlement in Dunedin (although noting that was English Speaking).
 
If your intention is that there be an independent colony which will speak Catalan or other non-Castillian language, I do not believe that is possible. It has less to do with Castilian policy than many other factors which will prevent an exclusively Basque or Catalan speaking area.

If you are interested in how Spain developed and how its constituent parts of Empire worked with one another, I recommend Empire: How Spain Became a World Power, 1492-1763 by Henry Kamen. I just finished it over the winter holidays, and it goes into detail on how the Spanish empire worked and settled its New World colonies (among many other things). If you are looking into writing a timeline on Spain's American empire, you'll probably find it very useful.
 
The colony wouldn't be independent, it would be within the wider Empire, but constituted on the basis that it was organised and settled principally by one language group. It would still be under the civil authority of whatever region it was situated in.

I am thinking that the principal town and surrounding country are principally controlled and organised along the lines of that particular non Castilian language. Really, just like any other settlement on the mainland

I understand that this kind of thing is very unlikely. I also understand that pre centralisation and popular development of early modern autocracy, the various urban areas, regions or kingdoms of much of medieval Europe had very complicated stuctures.

While I think it unlikely, it still seems vaguely possible, that during the early phase of the union of the two thrones, before Castile became totally dominant, that the monarchs would allow a settlement in a new area based on a model from Aragon or Catalonia (etc), with settlers principally from that area. Quite why the latter would want such a colony, or fund it I guess is another problem
 
Last edited:
A non-Castillian settlement would be interesting, but very tough. Above all else, Castillian was the most dominant language in Iberia, which will be a heavy weight against other languages no matter what, and while the Crown of Aragon was in personal union with Castile, as has been stated it was focused more on the Mediterranean.

My personal best guess as to how to do it is 1) to choose a relatively isolated area of the empire for a group of Catalans (or other group) to settle in, 2) delay the personal union of the two crowns for a stronger unique identity. Unfortunately Charles I of Spain (also Charles V of the HRE, of course) was the one to do that, so taking him out will have huge butterflies.

The closest model I can think of for this scenario is the Scottish Gaelic and Irish in the Maritimes and Newfoundland respectively, and Lowland Scots in bits of the US south. But even those famously got swamped by English. (Indeed, OTL, A lot of non-Castillian peoples did emigrate to the Spanish colonies, but they didn't keep their language.) Alternatively, perhaps they do like the Pennsylvania Dutch and stay culturally isolated on purpose, but the latter seems hard to do in the Spanish Empire. My personal best guess is that you could have said outlier group go to Patagonia like some Welsh did OTL, and hope for the best from there.
 
Yeah, I see a lot of problems with the idea. The early POD would simply be that the settlement is allowed, then, it slowly grows, just like all the other Spanish settlements, and by virtue of being isolated, keeps its identity and still attracts enough migrants from the home language area to keep the majority population speaking that language. Then, at the time mass migration becomes more viable, it is a ready destination for such migrants from the home region that want to come.

It probably would need dealing with Charles, you are right I think on that point. But on the other hand pre centralisation, the Spanish state did seem like quite the hodge-podge of systems and rules and perhaps if something slips through early, it might get grandfathered in?
 
A non-Castillian settlement would be interesting, but very tough. Above all else, Castillian was the most dominant language in Iberia, which will be a heavy weight against other languages no matter what, and while the Crown of Aragon was in personal union with Castile, as has been stated it was focused more on the Mediterranean.

My personal best guess as to how to do it is 1) to choose a relatively isolated area of the empire for a group of Catalans (or other group) to settle in, 2) delay the personal union of the two crowns for a stronger unique identity. Unfortunately Charles I of Spain (also Charles V of the HRE, of course) was the one to do that, so taking him out will have huge butterflies.

The closest model I can think of for this scenario is the Scottish Gaelic and Irish in the Maritimes and Newfoundland respectively, and Lowland Scots in bits of the US south. But even those famously got swamped by English. (Indeed, OTL, A lot of non-Castillian peoples did emigrate to the Spanish colonies, but they didn't keep their language.) Alternatively, perhaps they do like the Pennsylvania Dutch and stay culturally isolated on purpose, but the latter seems hard to do in the Spanish Empire. My personal best guess is that you could have said outlier group go to Patagonia like some Welsh did OTL, and hope for the best from there.

It shouldn't be too hard divorcing Castile and Aragon - say, Ferdinand II has a surviving son with Germaine of Foix.
 
The basques and galicians, as subjects of the Crown of Castile, particpated in the american colonization, and very activelly by the way, specially since the latter 17th century, but also before. On the other hand the main sources of colonists in early stages of the colonial expansion in the americas were extremenian and, mainly, andalusians. I may be wrong, but I think there is an (understable) trend amongst anglo-saxons to mirror spanish diversity wih british diversity, an Castile with England, but things doesn't work in the same way in both places.

In this case, you have to diferenciate the Crown of Castille and Leon and the kingdom of Castille (or kingdoms, since there were two), because the former was already a multi-cultural and multi-lingual entity. So, when we speak about "castilians" in this context it can be confussing, because in general terms basques, galicians, andalusinas etc were castilians, but in a more specific sense they weren't (and aren't), in the same way that not all the subjects of the Crown of Aragon were aragonese. Though I doubt it was a big issue back in the time.

Castille properly, occuping mainly the central iberian plateau, had a rather low population.

On the other hand, the reasons behind the geographical origin of the colonists is more related, well, with geography and the emplacement of the main ports than with any other consideration. First Cadiz/Seville, and latter La Coruña became the main (and legal) gates towards the Americas. There is also other demographical and economical considerations, but well, we can pass without mentioning them for the moment. Thus for a Catalan, a Valencian etc it was easier to go to look for fortune in Italy or north Africa than making a long and incertain voyage to Seville or La Coruña with not much incetives for them.

Still, there are documented catalans, valencians and aragonese since the early stages of the colonial expansion, some of them in very important political positions, and probably many others that didn't let historical traits also participated (difficult to know in a time without ID cards), though, for the reasons expalined above, in small numbers. Without looking too much, the monarch's military representative in Columbu's second voyage, Pere de Margerit, was catalan as many of his men and pretty much they conquered Hispaniola. It was trade what wasn't allowed by no castilians (I mean non-subjects of the castilian crown), not settlement, by the way (and again, with the means of the time it would have been virtually impossible to apply this banning).

Also latter, after the Nueva Planta decrees that allowed aragonese trade with the Americas, many subjects of the aragonese crown, specially catalans, settled in the americas, though this procecess is more intense in the 19th century in the remaining spanish possesions in the Caribbean . Do you know Bacardí rum? well, thats a very catalan familly name, for example.


So, in order to have less castillian "domination" in the colonization, you have to move the aragonese kingdoms in the map. I can't see another form. If its about. Still, something that could attract bigger numbers of aragonese subjects to the Americas would be if they had been allowed to trade with the Americas since the beggining, though the demographical wheight of the castillian crown would be still decisive. On the other hand this would be in contradiction with the poli-synodial system followed by the Habsburgs, so perhaps we need a different dinasty.
 
It shouldn't be too hard divorcing Castile and Aragon - say, Ferdinand II has a surviving son with Germaine of Foix.

If you divide Castille and Aragon, Castille's empire falls apart. It is too poor on its own. Most of Spanish wealth came from its lands in Burgundy/Netherlands and Italian possessions (which were part of the Crown of Aragon). Castille on its own is simply a poor country not able to do much of anything.
 
The colony wouldn't be independent, it would be within the wider Empire, but constituted on the basis that it was organised and settled principally by one language group.

Why would this be important to whoever ruled Spain? Why go to so much trouble so that one specific language group thrives in some far corner of the empire?

I think it will be very hard to justify why this would happen.
 
Top