More industrialized Spain?

Could Spain have industrialized more than it did IOTL, in the 19th Century? If so, how?

Also, would there be any way they could gain a larger population?
 
In the 19th century?

The easiest way would to avoid the destruction of the Peninsular War, which would likely mean a Napoleonic Europe with Spain as a close ally (not a puppet).

After that, well, things get a bit murky. Its hard to pin-point one exact spot when you can stemy Spain's fall from grace, because every subsequent event is a result of some earlier movement, which can all be traced directly back to the Napoleonic period.

The various Spanish American Wars of Independence, the Liberal Revolution of 1820, the Congress of Verona all pretty well wrecked the Spanish economy, and the reactionary rule of Ferdinand VII did nothing to improve things above the level of squalor. Then comes the Carlist War, and the continual infighting between conservatives, moderates, liberals, and progressives for several years until the moderates seize power. The década moderada laid the ground-work for a stable Spain, but ultimately the moderates were always more worried about maintaining their authoritarian grip on power than they were fixing Spain, and so liberals and progressives finally got into power and started to reform the system in the late 1850s and early 1860s. However the trend had just started from poor backwater to moderately prosperous when the disaster of the Chincha Islands War threw the liberals & progressives out of power, and the resulting conservatives spent the next several years working hard to turn the clock back to 1836, if not even earlier, so then finally everything fell apart in the Glorious Revolution, the Restoration, and three more decades of in-fighting between reactionaries, conservatives, moderates, liberals, progressives, and republicans. Its really amazing Spain even made it through the 19th century in one piece.
 
I've wondered about this before myself.

So, wolf_brother, you lay the blame mainly on the Napoleonic wars, eh? So was there a plausible way Spain could be allied with Napoleon and mean it?

It seems tricky; was the Spanish dynasty not a Bourbon dynasty placed there by Louis XIV's intrigues some generations before? But then again, in the 18th century Spain often was aligned with Britain against France IIRC, so these Spanish Bourbons were off on their own hook. I'd think even if they had no sentiment of kinship with the executed French monarch they'd still be bitter opponents of any regime stemming from the Revolution--but perhaps Napoleon could look sufficiently authoritarian and conservative to them to cut deals with?

But then of course there are other hurdles. So Spain avoids being messed up during the Napoleonic ascendency--well and good, but won't they still have a hard fight to try and keep their colonies? What about the fact that if Spain is allied with Napoleon they are therefore enemies of Britain? The British would cut the links of their colonial empire, perhaps (though very cautiously!) encourage secession.

The loss of the American empire seems to be a given no matter which way Spain swings, but you went on from there which implies there might have been hope for Spain even without it. Was there?

If it took radical progressives to make any progress in Spain, could they have had prospects for taking power early in the century and consolidating it? And if we have a long, steady progressive regime, how much progress can it foster in Spain?

Should we write off the Philippines and Cuba too, on the grounds that retaining these possessions was a consolation prize gifted to the conservative, anti-Napoleonic Spain of OTL, and had Spain taken the steps necessary to avoid being wrecked in the Peninsular War and come out of the Napoleonic period with a progressive government, they'd have lost every overseas possession to the British and gotten nothing back in the reactionary peace?

Or can we include Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in a plan for reviving Spain so that the remnant Spanish Empire circa 1890 is an industrial power after all, one with colonies in Asia and the Caribbean? (Oh, and Africa too and I might be forgetting yet other places).

I would like to see a scenario for an economically strong Spain, with or without colonies, circa 1890 or so. But I suspect it was a worse problem than just making a wrong political step in 1800 or so. I gather the Spanish Empire had been in serious decline for some time before, that the economy in mainland Spain was a mess and had been for a century or so before Napoleon, that the Spanish were increasingly aware that their colonial empire existed on sufferance of Royal Navy seapower (therefore Madrid aligning with Napoleon, or any anti-British regime, was almost unthinkable).

To invigorate Spain in the 19th century seems to be a second chance for Spain, a Spain shorn of her vast world conquests. That sounds inspirational enough but does the opportunity exist, in an era where most rising European powers did have colonies and the ones that rose without them (Prussian dominated Germany for instance, or Italy) were quite keen to acquire them?

Or, what about PODs earlier than 1800, that strengthen the Spanish Empire before the American Revolution and then the French one? Can the Spanish Empire be more economically prosperous, can South American possesssions or Mexico develop in a way that gives a lot of the subjects there a strong stake in the Spanish empire, enough to resist or ride out British interference? How can such developments, if they are possible at all, lead to a stronger Spain rather than a stronger Mexico or Argentina or Peru simply walking off?

These are questions, not answers of course.:eek:
 
The loss of the American empire seems to be a given no matter which way Spain swings, but you went on from there which implies there might have been hope for Spain even without it. Was there?

IOTL Argentina (including Paraguay and Uruguay), Chile, and Bolivia (or at least Upper Peru) are likely lost after 1810 or so, but Peru, Gran Colombia, and Mexico could have been held with a judicious application of both the carrot and the stick. Having the economic might, population, and military might to bring rebellious colonies to heel would need to be combined with a socioeconomic policy that doesn't treat the criollos like second-class citizens. Assuming Ferdinand doesn't repeal the 1812 Constitution, or perhaps Carlos becomes King in the stead of his brother, then Spain could easily have held onto a vast swath of the Americas, and likely therefore remained a great power.

Of course in an ATL where the Peninsular War never takes place, the Latin American Wars of Independence are pretty well doomed. Argentina might be able to break away, likely as a British protectorate, but the rest is going to be firmly held by Madrid (as long as some reforms are made).

If it took radical progressives to make any progress in Spain, could they have had prospects for taking power early in the century and consolidating it? And if we have a long, steady progressive regime, how much progress can it foster in Spain?

Certainly, and quite a bit. The problem is getting there first. Perhaps if the British hadn't looked down their noses at the other European powers at the Congress of Verona maybe liberal Spain can survive. The issue here is that hyper-reactionary France is not going to be content to shave a border with what is currently the most liberal European nation. So the British are going to have to offer up something truly wonderful in order to get Paris to back down, and I'm just not sure that's in the cards. Alternatiely, you could have the Spanish liberals defeat the Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis, but that's highly doubtful considering four of the five army groups were commanded by former generals from the Napoleonic period - Oudinot, Molitor, de Moncey, & de Bordesoulle. Even with the "liberty lancers" - an international brigade of liberals from Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and the German and Italian states - supporting them the Spanish really never had a chance, so you'd need to prevent the war altogether. Again, I'm not sure how though.

The only other option for the liberals to get into, and then maintain power, would be if you avoided or changed the course of the Chincha Islands War. Again, the best bet there would be to avoid the war altogether, or at least the war was kept solely between Peru and Spain, at least at the official level. Pareja shouldn't have been so surprised that there were Chileans willing to volunteer for the Peruvian cause, but taking the hardline against the whole of the nation such only forced the Chilean government's hand. What should have been a minor international incident between Spain and one of her former colonies that could have easily been arbitrated by a neutral power like Britain or the US instead turned into a major war where nearly the whole of Latin America was against Spain.
 
By the way, would Spain industrializing more and gaining a greater population (which always helps with industrialization by providing a workforce) be possible with a post-Napoleonic PoD?
 
Like I said, after the Napoleonic period it'll be a lot harder to do, because there's no really one moment I can point to and say "There, that's where everything went wrong." Basically Spain went through a century and a half of hell after 1814 - and worse yet, do the nature of the troubles, a POD in Spain likely won't do much, because Spain was facing intense pressures both from within and without. You'll need to remove the latter to at least present the opportunity for stability and economic growth.

A possible POD might be for Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh not to commit suicide just before the Congress of Verona. IOTL after his death he was replaced as the British ambassador to the congress by Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, who was a) not a diplomat, and b) a Euroskeptic Tory, to be it in today's parlance. Wellington refused any and all suggestions made by the other representatives, instead continually claiming British aloofness and non-interventionism, so that finally Metternich was forced to work without the British, even going so far as to have meetings with the other ambassadors without Wellington present (which suited him just fine), which ultimately lead to the Congress giving its blessing to a French intervention in Spain to put down the liberals and the new constitution and restore the absolutist rule of Ferdinand IV. If Castlereagh had lived, things would have gone very different; the Viscount had been one of the leading lights in the creation of the Congress System, and had thus previously worked closely with Metternich, and would have likely agreed to the latter's first suggestion that the members of the Quintuple Alliance send a common diplomatic note to the Spanish Cortes indicating that they would intervene if the Spanish did not free Ferdinand VII (who had been under arrest since the Liberal Revolution). By offering the Spanish a chance first instead of allowing an immediate conflict there's at least the chance that the Cortes would be smart enough to realize that a) the French aren't going to accept a liberal neighbor, and b) that Ferdinand would never accept constitutional limits, and thus they would release the king only on the condition that he abdicates in favor of the very young Isabella under a regency - effectively a Pragmatic Succession nearly two decades ahead of OTL, but under very different circumstances. But it'll depend on if the Congressional powers accept it, especially France, and if the Spanish conservatives can accept it as well - it'd help if the liberals were smart enough to offer the Regency to Infante Carlos.
 
What if the Spanish sell off the remaining American colonies by 1850? Cuba, Puerto Rico, and possibly the Pacific as well. It might allow them to focus more closely to home, granting all of Morocco to the Spanish and possibly other colonies as well. And American investment might be more forthcoming if Spain readily sold the colonies.
 
What if the Spanish sell off the remaining American colonies by 1850? Cuba, Puerto Rico, and possibly the Pacific as well. It might allow them to focus more closely to home, granting all of Morocco to the Spanish and possibly other colonies as well. And American investment might be more forthcoming if Spain readily sold the colonies.

You mean what if they sold off core territories that had been Spanish for centuries? Well, whatever government attempted such a thing wouldn't see another sunrise.
 
What if the Spanish sell off the remaining American colonies by 1850? Cuba, Puerto Rico, and possibly the Pacific as well. It might allow them to focus more closely to home, granting all of Morocco to the Spanish and possibly other colonies as well. And American investment might be more forthcoming if Spain readily sold the colonies.

They give up large markets for Spanish industrial products that return high valuable natural resources.

Yeah, that's going to help a lot. :rolleyes:

Like I said, after the Napoleonic period it'll be a lot harder to do, because there's no really one moment I can point to and say "There, that's where everything went wrong." Basically Spain went through a century and a half of hell after 1814 - and worse yet, do the nature of the troubles, a POD in Spain likely won't do much, because Spain was facing intense pressures both from within and without. You'll need to remove the latter to at least present the opportunity for stability and economic growth.

You could avoid the Carlist wars. Particularly the first. What the hell, kill Ferdinand VII. Everyone wins with that.

At a later point, there is the failure of the 1869 'Glorious Revolution' to establish a strong, liberal constitutional monarchy that could solve the challenges of the late 19th century, which we've already considered as a POD in the board a couple of times.

The thing is that there were periods of stability and industrial and economic growth in the 19th century. The 1850-60s and the 1880s for example. Your challenge is to prolong these periods enough to make them the norm rather than the exception.
 
Is there any way to avoid the Chincha Islands War and other assorted colonial adventures in the 1850s and 60s? Wolf_Brother's idea of an Infante Carlos led regency for Isabella II might be a possibility, if the liberals can entrench themselves and/or a different upbringing induces Isabella to concentrate on domestic affairs rather than gallivanting about internationally.
 
I don't know. Wolf_brother is obviously steeped deeply in knowledge of many details of the 19th century, and doesn't seem to think much of my impression that long before Napoleon and the French Revolution itself, Spain was in a spiral of failure and decay. But that is my impression from every source. Long before 1789, Spain was not in a position to oppose British designs to get control of the profitable aspects of her empire, taking over the carrying trade. Unlike Britain that was building a strong and rising industry on the basis of her monopolies in her colonies, the monopolies in Spain's were building up metropolitan--Britain!

It's all very well to point out how Spain's reactionary politics again and again conspired to make things even worse in Spain. Does it follow if these forces were suspended somehow, by a Prussian monarch or an enlightened Bourbon or by a revolutionary committee that defies the reactionary powers of Europe, that they'd have the traction, let alone wisdom, to pull Spain out of her spiral of economic irrelevance? I suspect it is rather more the other way round--that the deep trap Spain was in weakened the political prospects of progressives and made the desperation of radical reactionaries seem less insane. Spain failed to find a workable political solution because Spain was already decapitated and floundering around in death throes.

If that's true, then the POD has to be earlier, during the pre-Revolutionary period. Successful reorganization of the Spanish Empire to the mutal profit of both metropolis and colonies would squeeze the British out, weakening Britain's rise and would therefore come with a cost to offset the benefits--Spain would have to have a navy to hold her own against the RN on the high seas, as well as sufficiently numerous and well-trained, reliable armies in the colonies to defend them on land against insurrection and invasion. With Spain so strong on land and sea, presumably the Americans would never dare rebellion; presumably European politics would be butterflied beyond all recognition, presumably the Hanoverian reigns in Britain would not seem to be years of "Augustinian" triumph but more of a fight for their lives.

A successful Spain would seem to require a completely different 18th century and later European/Atlantic world.

Is modest, humble success in the shrunken horizons of a mostly lost empire, based on free trade, Spanish industry, and the modest colonialism of just a handful of territories in the Caribbean, Africa and Philippines in the cards instead? With the best wisdom in the world, could any faction lead this ensemble of territories to a virtuous spiral that would presumably stabilize Spain's political grip on the overseas territories while earning both metropolis and colonies a rising share of a growing world market?

When Britain is still out there vying to snap it all up, the French are pushing back with various dirigisme St Simonian schemes, Germany is pulling together and moving onto the world stage and the United States is consolidating a continental empire of its own?

I somehow feel that the epic failure of Spain as a nation has deeper roots than who bedded whom.
 
Top