Napoleon doesn't invade Iberia.

Well, the South American independence movements would be seriously hampered. Although eventually the colonies would ask for independence or home rule anyways since Carlos IV and his son are rather incompetent.
 

scholar

Banned
Well, the South American independence movements would be seriously hampered. Although eventually the colonies would ask for independence or home rule anyways since Carlos IV and his son are rather incompetent.
French support could always come, and that could cause serious problems for any independence movements.
 
French support could always come, and that could cause serious problems for any independence movements.

Well, depending on their post-war condition, Britain could financially and militarily support the revolutionary independence movements.

Also, chances are that Portuguese Brazil would not gain independence as a full country without the unifying force of the Portuguese Royal Family in exile. So Portuguese America would splinter like how the Spanish colonies did IOTL.
 
Well, the South American independence movements would be seriously hampered. Although eventually the colonies would ask for independence or home rule anyways since Carlos IV and his son are rather incompetent.

Sure, the South American liberators were influenced by the French and American revolutions, but it's my understanding they only got their chance due to Napoleons invasion of Iberia. Even then it took nearly 20 years for independence. How long would Spain be able to hold on to it's empire in the Americas without Napoleon?
 
Dfront21 said:
Is there anyway to avoid Napoleon's invasion of Iberia?
Avoiding what happened in Bayonne might do the trick: Napoleon basically overthrew Charles IV, forced Ferdinand VII to renounce the crown of Spain which Napoleon gave to Joseph, his own brother. This was a really bad move as it only strengthened the Spanish's conviction that Napoleon was using them as mere pawns.

If Napoleon were somehow to be convinced to let Ferdinand VII take the throne from his father Charles IV, things might turn out for the better.
 
The spanish king was a wet noodle, sure, but replacing him with napoleons brother was stupid, counterproductive and unnecessary. Spain might not have been a great help that way, but it wouldnt have been the horrible bleeding ulcer it became.
 
Sure, the South American liberators were influenced by the French and American revolutions, but it's my understanding they only got their chance due to Napoleons invasion of Iberia. Even then it took nearly 20 years for independence. How long would Spain be able to hold on to it's empire in the Americas without Napoleon?
A key point is whether Spain is formally allied with France. If it is, the British would probably try to put a naval blockade around her, so independentist movements might still consider they have a chance - although they would have less legitimacy. Viceroys would still be undisputable lawful rulers and there are no previous junta movements in Spain.
Eventually, (European) Spain is likely to fall into a civil war between absolutists and liberals as in OTL, which might spill to the Americas or might give the independentist movements their chance.

OTOH, what's going with Napoleon if France doesn't have forces tied up in Spain? Are those forces lost in Russia anyway or are the Napoleonic Wars extended?
 
Top