No unification of Spain: effects on colonisation and exploration of the world

katchen

Banned
Much of what determined colonization in Europe was the result of emigration and population policy by kings. Both the Castillians and the French were worried about their farms getting depopulated (bubonic plague outbreaks were fairly common until 1500). So colonization was limited to a few very well vetted colonists. Feudalism and serfdom were issues in some places. According to Will and Ariel Durant (the Age of Reason begins), Danes and Norwegians were tied to the land. Which is why Denmark didn't get into massive colonization.
Only the English had the kind of peculiar situation that would encourage colonization. And it came about because English wool exports were in demand all over Europe and had been since the 13th Century (I get that from Ken Follett, Pillars of the Earth and I have no reason to doubt Follett's historical research). This meant that pasture tended to be in more demand than farmland, at least to a point. So unlike just about anywhere else in Europe, landlords actually threw peasants off their land--because local landed lords had better uses for land as sheep pasture than as three field farmland. ("the sheep's in the meadow, the cow's in the corn!--with the landlord's blessing). At the same time, the British enforce a rule of primogeniture (eldest living son inherits the manor). So unlike just about anywhere else in Europe, the British consistently have surplus population to export and will find a New World very interesting. and useful, just as IOTL. And likely a lot sooner if John or his brother Sebastian Cabot explores the North American coast far enough.
It does help explain why the Brits were head and shoulders above the rest of Europe when it came to mass colonization. :)
 
I will go even further than you.

Historically and legally, the american colonies were a possession of the kingdom of Castile. Aragon had legally no share in the business.

And conquest was made by a small bunch of adventurers who did not drain significantly on the ressources of the kingdom of Castile.

So it is not going to change anything for the Americas to have the 2 kingdoms of Castile and Aragon not united under the same king.

But it will change much for the rest of Europe. France and Castile are not going to be ennemies for almost 2 centuries. They are going to reach a quite easy settlement about Navarra.

Castile is going to conquer much more land in northern Africa then it did. It Amy dominate northern Morocco and the western coast of what is today Algeria.

The Low Countries and most of Italy may end-up under french control.

There may even be much tougher times for the protestant Reform because the division of the catholic great powers (Spain and France again and again at war for 2 centuries) was a key to establish as solidly as it did and to resist catholic pressure, especially in the holy roman empire.
 
I think what could hurt the rise of the Castilian overseas empire is not the lack of union with Aragon per se but the butterflies that come with it.

What prevented the union of Castile and Aragon? No Catholic Monarchs? Who else is king then? Someone like Henry IV that seemed unenthusiastic about the Canaries in particular and exploring in general?

The Castilians after Alcáçovas had essentially given up on exploring past the Canaries and it was pure chance that Columbus appeared at the right time with the right project. Butterflies could very well kill off this timing and have someone else have the initiative.

The latest PoD that prevents the effective union of Castile and Aragon is as late as 1509, when Ferdinand II had a son with his second wife Germaine de Foix. If he survives, he'll inherit Aragon, but Castile (with a colonial empire already on the forge) will go to Juana and her Habsburg descendants as IOTL.
This is not exactly the case of breaking up Castile and Aragon, mind. Until 1504 the King of Aragon and the Queen of Castile just happened to be husband and wife and after that (until the death of Ferdinand II) father and daughter.
 

Tamandaré

Banned
England seems the likeliest to discover the new world first. What is more up in the air is whether they would be the first to colonize, what would be colonized first and how fast it would be colonized. Also important is whether or not the Aztecs and Inca are conquered in the same way that they were OTL.

The Portuguese seem better localized to me, but then again there was never a "discovery" of the New World as much as there was a entire process of discovery that started with the Vikings in 1000 AD or so.

I seriously doubt that Aztecs and Incas would be conquered the same way. For starters, the PoD wipes out Colombo, Cortez and Pizarro through butterflies, even if they are born they are going to be vastly different persons doing vastly different things, or ATL-Siblings. Like I said earlier, Cortez and Pizarro's expeditions were huge historical anomalies, the Spanish Governor of Cuba even tried to stop Cortez through force.

I read somewhere that without Cortez and Pizarro, the conquest of the Aztecs and Incas would be a lot more like India: Estabilish trade and get influence and power, do the usual divide-et-imperia while building up bases in the Caribbean. Eventually disease weakens Mesoamerica so much the Spanish (or Castilleans in this case) pratically walk over and become boss. This would more or less play out in the same way if the Portuguese or the English colonized the Caribbean.

Castile relied primarily on its own tax base for "Spain's" fighting OTL. (Far) more of the income of the crown was from the Castilean peasants and merchants than the Indies, for Pete's sake.

So 30%? I doubt it.


Not sure about the rest, but I feel this needs to be pointed out as a counter to the idea that Castile has "less of a tax base and manpower".

Well, then getting not getting Aragon won't hamper them so baddly.

We need to think more about Aragon, through. How Aragon got along with France and the Italian polities? Would we see French-Aragonese wars in Italy or something else? Did anyone in Aragon have any interest in North African territory?

I think what could hurt the rise of the Castilian overseas empire is not the lack of union with Aragon per se but the butterflies that come with it.

What prevented the union of Castile and Aragon? No Catholic Monarchs? Who else is king then? Someone like Henry IV that seemed unenthusiastic about the Canaries in particular and exploring in general?

The Castilians after Alcáçovas had essentially given up on exploring past the Canaries and it was pure chance that Columbus appeared at the right time with the right project. Butterflies could very well kill off this timing and have someone else have the initiative.

The latest PoD that prevents the effective union of Castile and Aragon is as late as 1509, when Ferdinand II had a son with his second wife Germaine de Foix. If he survives, he'll inherit Aragon, but Castile (with a colonial empire already on the forge) will go to Juana and her Habsburg descendants as IOTL.
This is not exactly the case of breaking up Castile and Aragon, mind. Until 1504 the King of Aragon and the Queen of Castile just happened to be husband and wife and after that (until the death of Ferdinand II) father and daughter.

yeah, that what I was thinking as well. That's why I said this seemed like a Anglo-Lusowank at first.

1509 is too late to change much - Habsburgs still take Castile (but not Aragon), they already have Caribbean colonies. The Portuguese already went to India and to Brazil. Might still butterfly Cortez and Pizarro, through. Butterflies here might hit Europe stronger and sooner than in America. We're still probably going to see Castille fighting the reformation in quixotic wars. Will this stop the Spanish-Portuguese Crown Union? If Yes, we're going to see a stronger Portuguese empire.

I'm thinking the PoD here is the Castillean War of Sucession or thereabouts. Thing is, it seems that if the Portuguese won, they would be set up to get their own Personal Union through Joana. So we need to have something happen in order for the Catholic Monarchs not take over.

Wonder what would happen if Butterflies made the Spanish lose the Canarias?

Anyway, this would be a very nice PoD to see someone develop.
 
Well, then getting not getting Aragon won't hamper them so baddly.

We need to think more about Aragon, through. How Aragon got along with France and the Italian polities? Would we see French-Aragonese wars in Italy or something else? Did anyone in Aragon have any interest in North African territory?

That I am less able to answer. I suspect that there's going to be rivalry in regards to Italy (Aragon and France). I am not sure at all about North Africa.
 

Tamandaré

Banned
That I am less able to answer. I suspect that there's going to be rivalry in regards to Italy (Aragon and France). I am not sure at all about North Africa.

Seems to me we're going to see a rivalry mostly fought on the border (Languedoc, etc) and Italy, can't see Castille allowing France to take over Aragon, which would give it a perfect position to conquer Iberia AND Italy, which seems bad news to Castille, Portugal, England and Venice.

I think it might depend on the Castillean War of Sucession. If there's none we''re probably going to see Castillean-French relations still good, if it happens I think we will see a cooling of French-Castillean relations.

I'm curious as to what a friendly France and Castille might mean to the upcoming Reformation. Spain and Portugal did fairly well against the reformation in their home country. The signs that the Reformation was going to happen were already there, through.
 
I'm thinking the PoD here is the Castillean War of Sucession or thereabouts. Thing is, it seems that if the Portuguese won, they would be set up to get their own Personal Union through Joana. So we need to have something happen in order for the Catholic Monarchs not take over.

Wonder what would happen if Butterflies made the Spanish lose the Canarias?

There are two alternate outcomes of the War of the Castilian Succesion:
1. As you say, if the Portuguese win we have a Portuguese-Castilian personal union rather than a Castilian-Aragonese one. This technically satisfies the OP.
2. King Afonso V and Queen Isabel reach a compromise before going into heavy battle. This means that the Castilian-Aragonese union is not avoided but Castile is heavily maimed, probably without Galicia and Leon and definitely without the Canaries.

The cleanest way to avoid the union of Castile and Aragon with a mid-to-late-1400s PoD is simply to somehow avoid the marriage of the Catholic Monarchs...
 
Top