Plausibility Check: Spain vs. the Muslims

[Cicero the Younger]

I am working on a TL that requires, but is not directly about, an effective Spanish withdrawal from the New World in the early 16th century. My POD is that Cortes gets defeated by the Aztecs and King Carlos decides to rearrange Spain's priorities and concentrate on the Old World.

My assumption is that he would turn his attention to North Africa and try to re-Christianize the Muslim lands there. I figure he'd go after Morocco and Algeria first. Does this seem reasonable? And how difficult would it be for him to conquer them, given that no more Spanish soldiers are heading to the Americas?

And if he is successful there, how much farther could Spain go? Given a starting point of 1520, could they take Egypt? The Holy Land? As far as I know, it's the Ottomans who own that area now, and would not have been a pushover. Is it possible the Spanish Empire could be ruined by a long and expensive Crusade? Or was the Ottoman Empire too strong for the Spanish to even try? And if they wouldn't go after Ottoman lands, where would they go?

See, my TL is not about the Spanish, but I do need to know what they would be doing in the 1500s and 1600s if they had chosen to stop sending expeditions to the New World. Basically, I just need to keep them distracted, but I want to do it plausibly.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

If Columbus ended up dying along with his whole crew while upon accidentally discovering the Americas, then yeah expect Castile-Aragon to head south towards Morroco and re-Christianize North Africa.

 

[Falastur]

Hmm...I can't prove that he wouldn't turn to Africa instead following the said setback (though I want to, I'm not a big fan of Europe-conquering-Africa-early ideas) but one thing to consider is that only a few years before - 1478 to be precise - Sebastian I of Portugal lead an army of 17,000 men into Morocco, together with 6,000 allied Muslim troops. The result of his campaign? After deciding to leave the coastline (about the only place in Africa that Europeans felt safe) he was met almost immediately by an army of 50,000 men and his army was slaughtered. The destruction was sufficient that the prisoners ransomed after the battle couldn't actually tell where or when he was killed, he was just seen charging off towards the Moroccan lines and never seen again. Sebastian's remains weren't restored to Portugal for 100 years, and even then it's dubious as to whether the remains were actually his. I'm not saying it would put the Spanish off such a scheme, but...it would affect their judgments, definitely. Also, it goes to show that Africa isn't exactly the pushover many seem to think it was.

As for Egypt and the Levant? Never going to happen. The Ottomans are in their ascendancy in this period and would beat the Spanish down with extreme prejudice if they ventured so far east. Their navy is vastly superior, and typical Ottoman armies of this period could number 100,000 men whereas the Spanish would be lucky to muster 20,000 that far from home.

Oh, and one more point to consider. As far as I recall, Spain didn't really unite in any real sense of the word until the ascension to the thrones of Charles I in 1516, and then took rather a while to get going - they took centuries to ultimately merge administratively. Prior to that they were under a somewhat messy dual administration with Ferdinand of Aragon ruling with his wife Isabella until her death, then using Isabella's heir (Joanna)'s mental health to wrench control of the state over, but the two countries as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) were vastly different and largely didn't cooperate with each other, so you'd be lucky to have the two states combining their forces to assault the Muslim world - which is unfortunate for your plan as Castile had the good armies whereas Aragon had the navy for transportation, and they would have complemented each other very nicely.

 

[kasumigenx]

I had a timeline with this as one of the POD's
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/NoColonization

 

[Cicero the Younger]

The point of this is neither the expulsion of Europeans in general from the Americas nor a Spanish conquest of Africa. The point is to distract Spain. I don't need Africa to be a "pushover". I don't even need Spain to succeed at whatever it is they end up doing. I just need them to follow OTL in the Americas as far as the invasion of the Aztecs, and then to find something else to do thereafter. I assumed that if they stopped going after the Americas, given their religious zeal and martial drive during this time period, they'd turn their attentions to the Muslim world. I didn't realize Morocco would be quite that difficult for them, and I wonder whether they'd even try. I did assume they'd lose if they embarked on a Crusade, but I didn't know whether that would be obvious enough to them at the time that they wouldn't even attempt it.

If my base assumption that they'd go after the Muslims was unrealistic, I have no qualms about giving them something else to do instead. My TL doesn't need a Spanish Morocco or a Spanish Jerusalem. As long as they don't A) take over Mexico or South America, or B) invade anyone in Western Europe, with a POD of (and not earlier than) 1519-1520, I don't much care what they do.

 

[elkarlo]

The Port actually went that way briefly, which led to the Battle of Ksar El Kebir. An Overseas Empire is a lot of work, and just patrolling for pirates could bankrupt a nation. There is a decent amount of practibility in invading North Africa, and Spain was heavily involved there till the 1560's. Heck Cortes almost died at the disaster of 1541. So it's not ASBs at all.

 

[LemonySniffit]

If Spain was infact defeated by the Aztecs in the early 16th century and retreated from the New World entirely (which would mean that they would also abandon their Spanish assets in the Carribbean), Spain would be in no position to attack any country, let alone their former Muslim masters. Spain was a very young country, a combination of a few northern kingdoms and the reconquested south. Spain was relatively poor and weak at this time, note that all of Spain's wealth came from Mexico's gold, so without their South-American possessions Spain would not be able to finance an assault against anyone. I would also hope that they would not be stupid enough to dare assault an enemy that outnumbers them by the tens of thousands.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

If Spain was infact defeated by the Aztecs in the early 16th century and retreated from the New World entirely (which would mean that they would also abandon their Spanish assets in the Carribbean), Spain would be in no position to attack any country, let alone their former Muslim masters. Spain was a very young country, a combination of a few northern kingdoms and the reconquested south. Spain was relatively poor and weak at this time, note that all of Spain's wealth came from Mexico's gold, so without their South-American possessions Spain would not be able to finance an assault against anyone. I would also hope that they would not be stupid enough to dare assault an enemy that outnumbers them by the tens of thousands.

If we go technical, Spain did not even exist until 1714.

Anyway, everything in this post is so wrong that it almost goes the other way around to become right. Except it doesn't. Just to begin with: You do realize that at the same time a bunch of adventurers going against their superiors' orders were conquering the New World, the actual spanish army was busy kicking ass and taking names in Italy against France and a coalition of italian states, don't you? Or that at the beginning of the 16th century Castile was one of the most industrialized states in southern Europe? Or that the reconquered south, with the exception of Granada, had belonged to Castile for almost three centuries at the time? The conquest of America was only a small sideshow for the spaniards, and, if anything, it crippled in the long term rather than helping spanish economy.

 

[Cicero the Younger]

(which would mean that they would also abandon their Spanish assets in the Carribbean)

Well, not exactly. I need them to stay in the Caribbean. In the rough draft I have going now, I have them leaving their Caribbean holdings in place, but not sending any new expeditions across the Atlantic, and being too distracted sinking their soldiers and money into war in Morocco to do much in the way of supporting the Caribbean colonies. Effectively, Cuba and Hispaniola and the others are on their own, but are still nominally possessions of Spain.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

If Spain does manage to stay away from the Americas, it at least would be wiser to not overspend what money they would've earned in pointless wars in Europe and concentrate on making small but stable gains in North Africa.

 

[MNP]

As was said earlier, Cortes was an adventurer. Hell he had to go around the Cuban governor who was not a fan of his expedition. So say the expedition goes bad, quite bad as in Cortes and company are captured and defeated. This would include his horses and the few guns he had (as I understand it, he mostly had Rodeleros) and the original plan of concentrating on the plantations in the Caribbean stuck to for longer. This could mean that if there are Spaniards captured they aren't going to see help and as a matter of self preservation help explain captured tech to the Aztecs. Or it might not. Maybe the Aztecs will kill 'em all and burn the weapons or the Spaniards captured don't want to help them or don't know the intricacies of how they actually work. Could you explain how to make a cartridge or shell casings?

In OTL though after the Aztecs were overcome Spain spent a century conquering the rest of Mexico and for a while anyhow, they had to give up and just buy off some of the cultures (like the Chichimecs over the silver mines). So it's not like they could just wander around and pick up gold and silver whenever they wanted.

Unlike some of the other posters I do firmly believe Spain could have taken North Africa if it had put its main effort there and the Ottomans had not intervened but it would require both and that's unlikely. In fact the Ottomans are going to be stronger: over the late 16th and 17th century, the Ottomans actually had a money problem since so much New World silver was pouring into Europe via Spain, the continent suffered significant inflation. However because they couldn't actually print money, the Ottomans had to devalue the coinage (more than once I think) to pay their troops enough coins because their silver coins were worth less. That caused some definite pain for the populace but that's removed or slowed down here.

That said Ottoman authority never really reached Morocco and of course was more on the nature of a partnership with Algeria except for a few years. I definitely think it's possible to capture Morocco and put pressure on the Africa land-trade routes (more important if there is no union with Portugal) even with the Ottomans.

The Spanish Netherlands would probably be even more important to the state finances. Without the money to just try to and overcome them by force, maybe the Spaniards are more conciliatory. Or maybe they just go bankrupt much faster trying to suppress them. Logic would dictate the former but it's religion and what's religion got to do with logic?

ED:

note that all of Spain's wealth came from Mexico's gold

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???

Actually if Spain can restrain their Catholic fervor and develop an actual middle class they stand to do pretty damn well. It's not going to be the Siglo de Oro, but maybe de Plata and long term, probably better.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

As was said earlier, Cortes was an adventurer. Hell he had to go around the Cuban governor who was not a fan of his expedition. So say the expedition goes bad, quite bad as in Cortes and company are captured and defeated. This would include his horses and the few guns he had (as I understand it, he mostly had Rodeleros) and the original plan of concentrating on the plantations in the Caribbean stuck to for longer. This could mean that if there are Spaniards captured they aren't going to see help and as a matter of self preservation help explain captured tech to the Aztecs. Or it might not. Maybe the Aztecs will kill 'em all and burn the weapons or the Spaniards captured don't want to help them or don't know the intricacies of how they actually work. Could you explain how to make a cartridge or shell casings?

In OTL though after the Aztecs were overcome Spain spent a century conquering the rest of Mexico and for a while anyhow, they had to give up and just buy off some of the cultures (like the Chichimecs over the silver mines). So it's not like they could just wander around and pick up gold and silver whenever they wanted.

Unlike some of the other posters I do firmly believe Spain could have taken North Africa if it had put its main effort there and the Ottomans had not intervened but it would require both and that's unlikely. In fact the Ottomans are going to be stronger: over the late 16th and 17th century, the Ottomans actually had a money problem since so much New World silver was pouring into Europe via Spain, the continent suffered significant inflation. However because they couldn't actually print money, the Ottomans had to devalue the coinage (more than once I think) to pay their troops enough coins because their silver coins were worth less. That caused some definite pain for the populace but that's removed or slowed down here.

That said Ottoman authority never really reached Morocco and of course was more on the nature of a partnership with Algeria except for a few years. I definitely think it's possible to capture Morocco and put pressure on the Africa land-trade routes (more important if there is no union with Portugal) even with the Ottomans.

The Spanish Netherlands would probably be even more important to the state finances. Without the money to just try to and overcome them by force, maybe the Spaniards are more conciliatory. Or maybe they just go bankrupt much faster trying to suppress them. Logic would dictate the former but it's religion and what's religion got to do with logic?

ED: Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???

Actually if Spain can restrain their Catholic fervor and develop an actual middle class they stand to do pretty damn well. It's not going to be the Siglo de Oro, but maybe de Plata and long term, probably better.

Or not kick out the Muslims and Jews in the first place.

 

[LemonySniffit]

If we go technical, Spain did not even exist until 1714.

Anyway, everything in this post is so wrong that it almost goes the other way around to become right. Except it doesn't. Just to begin with: You do realize that at the same time a bunch of adventurers going against their superiors' orders were conquering the New World, the actual spanish army was busy kicking ass and taking names in Italy against France and a coalition of italian states, don't you? Or that at the beginning of the 16th century Castile was one of the most industrialized states in southern Europe? Or that the reconquered south, with the exception of Granada, had belonged to Castile for almost three centuries at the time? The conquest of America was only a small sideshow for the spaniards, and, if anything, it crippled in the long term rather than helping spanish economy.

The unified kingdoms of Castille and Aragon would be what we would call Spain today, you know that right?

Eventhough your post made me laugh, it's so wrong it's not even funny anymore. I'm quite aware of the fact that Hernando Cortez attacked the Aztec's prematurely, but did you know that the King and Queen were shitting themselves because they could barely afford any such expedition? By the way, the word "industrialized" cannot apply to this era, Spain was just getting back on it's feet after being controlled by the Moors for the last 600 years. What part of the South with the exception of Granada had been under control of the Spanish for 300 years? I don't know what alternate history your into but the Moors still had quite a chunk of Andalucia as well. The conquest of the Americas was a "small sidestep" for the Spaniards? Who are you kidding? The Spanish crown could barely afford hiring Colombus in the first place. It might have crippled the economy of Spain itself, but the overflow of minerals exported from the New World to Spain gave the Spanish economy a huge boost and funded your "taking names in Italy against France".

 

[Faralis]

The unified kingdoms of Castille and Aragon would be what we would call Spain today, you know that right?

Eventhough your post made me laugh, it's so wrong it's not even funny anymore. I'm quite aware of the fact that Hernando Cortez attacked the Aztec's prematurely, but did you know that the King and Queen were shitting themselves because they could barely afford any such expedition? By the way, the word "industrialized" cannot apply to this era, Spain was just getting back on it's feet after being controlled by the Moors for the last 600 years. What part of the South with the exception of Granada had been under control of the Spanish for 300 years? I don't know what alternate history your into but the Moors still had quite a chunk of Andalucia as well. The conquest of the Americas was a "small sidestep" for the Spaniards? Who are you kidding? The Spanish crown could barely afford hiring Colombus in the first place. It might have crippled the economy of Spain itself, but the overflow of minerals exported from the New World to Spain gave the Spanish economy a huge boost and funded your "taking names in Italy against France".

Well, actually what Dr.Strangelove is saying its not wrong at all, at least at first ( the entire 16 century, maybe more ) they actually lost money in America ... after that the silver mines, mainly and the gold ( less ) make it profitable ...

 

[jmrioi]

If Spain was infact defeated by the Aztecs in the early 16th century and retreated from the New World entirely (which would mean that they would also abandon their Spanish assets in the Carribbean), Spain would be in no position to attack any country, let alone their former Muslim masters. Spain was a very young country, a combination of a few northern kingdoms and the reconquested south. Spain was relatively poor and weak at this time, note that all of Spain's wealth came from Mexico's gold, so without their South-American possessions Spain would not be able to finance an assault against anyone. I would also hope that they would not be stupid enough to dare assault an enemy that outnumbers them by the tens of thousands.

Mmmmmmmmm....., but we did a good job in Italy against the french, without Mexico´s gold and with the "Gran Capitan", and even as a state, in the strict sense, the Spain of Fernando and Isabel could be considered rather more like a modern state than any other European country.

However I think that a campaign like that of Sebastian of Portugal against North Africa would be a suicide,but..., Tunis, Tripoli, and even Algiers could be consolidated as Spanish citys and after that, who knows?

Another matter. Given that everyone here considers to Spain in 1500 as a poor country, here I leave this link to wikipedia (stating that wikipedia is not the absolute truth). Spain at this time was not poor, at least, compared to the rest of Europe, Spain in 1500 was as poor/rich as any other country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._past_GDP_(PPP)

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

In accordance with most of what has already been posted, it's relatively easy to discourage the adventurers from that risky, novel, crazy endeavour of conquering a new found continent.

Whether that would prompt them to take actions in Africa is rather uncertain.
Concentrating on their various spheres of interest in the old world is not a bad idea, but that wouldn't necesserarily lead to reconquista 2.0 (c).
I agree that they would be able to gain some footholds, but only slowly and with much effort.

Note: A country can be strong and busy at the same time while no changes are visible on a map

It seems that you only need some disastrous experience on the American main, which the conquistadores seem to have provoked many times. Just so everybody believes that landing there is just to dangerous.

People from other countries can develop their own opinions, perhaps by starting in different places and with different strategies, a decade (say) after that drama.

 

[LemonySniffit]

Mmmmmmmmm....., but we did a good job in Italy against the without Mexico´s gold and with the "Gran Capitan", and even as a state, in the strict sense, the Spain of Fernando and Isabel could be considered rather more like a modern state than any other European country.

However I think that a campaign like that of Sebastian of Portugal against North Africa would be a suicide,but..., Tunis, Tripoli, and even Algiers could be consolidated as Spanish citys and after that, who knows?

Another matter. Given that everyone here considers to Spain in 1500 as a poor country, here I leave this link to wikipedia (stating that wikipedia is not the absolute truth). Spain at this time was not poor, at least, compared to the rest of Europe, Spain in 1500 was as poor/rich as any other country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._past_GDP_(PPP)

Spain did do a good job in Italy indeed, but yeah, a campaign against the North Africans would be suicide an impossible feat since the Spanish (as well as any other European power) lacked the manpower and funds to do anything like that.

Also, since the royal families all throughout Europe weren't so wealthy in this period and most of the general populace were starving and sick I like to call the country poor, while yes, compared to some other countries they weren't that poor.

 

[Niko Malaka]

Whether that would prompt them to take actions in Africa is rather uncertain.
Concentrating on their various spheres of interest in the old world is not a bad idea, but that wouldn't necesserarily lead to reconquista 2.0 (c).
I agree that they would be able to gain some footholds, but only slowly and with much effort.



It seems that you only need some disastrous experience on the American main, which the conquistadores seem to have provoked many times. Just so everybody believes that landing there is just to dangerous.

You raise an interesting point here. Assuming the OP's premise and a defeated Cortés means discouragement for the conquest of the Americas (I'm not so sure about it) I think we would see some less obvious butterflies. The social origin and configuration of the participants in a hypothetical north african campaing would be very different to these of the Americas in OTL. We would also have adventurers in TTL, but they wouldn't be leading figures as they were in the Americas. Probably it would be more similar to the latter stages of the Reconquista and well, even the OTL castilian, imperial and portuguese campaings in North Africa were leaded, funded and supported by the great nobility. The reason is simple. In order to, at least, have some hope in Northern Africa you need to deploy larger and better prepared armies than in the Americas. Thereare not technological and microbiological advantages, nor seizable numbers of locals wanting to fight in the invasor's side (I think). As others said, I also think that we shouldn't expect great spanish conquests in Northern Africa, not much beyond the consolidation and maybe timid expansion of some coastal places and presidios.

So I'm wondering about the social effects of this scenario in Spain. Without the Americas to ease the internal social tensions and the great nobility grabbing the bigger part of an smaller cake, the discontent among the low nobility and the incipient bourgeoisie can be greater than in OTL (and remember, there widespread urban rebellions against Charles I in Castile and Valencia). I should think with calm about the possible tangible consequences of that, but I wouldn't even discard some persistent penetration of the Reformation in Spain.

Cheers.

 

[Cicero the Younger]

Some interesting thoughts here. It may have been naive of me to assume they'd have to send their adventurers somewhere else to keep them out of the New World. I can't imagine they'd pull a Ming China and just withdraw into themselves, especially after other European powers start getting into the colonization game. After all, they had met the Aztecs now. They knew the gold was there. A second, more prepared invasion is probably more likely than a withdrawal, but as even a delayed Spanish conquest of Mexico upsets my whole TL I'd like to avoid it if there's any way it wouldn't be ASB to do so.

And having them abandon Mexico as dangerous and go to other parts of the New World goes as much against my plans. I don't recall anyone suggesting that yet, but I thought I'd point it out now in case anyone was thinking it. I need the Caribbean possessions to stay put, but I very much need Spain to not be sending any more expeditions. Even after England and France get into the game.

I need to decide what Spain is doing and do more research into Netherlands independence before I can know if the Dutch will still be active here. I don't need them to be, but I also don't need them to not be. I also need to know what Portugal will be doing with the sixty years before they're absorbed into Spain, or whether that absorption will be butterflied away by whatever Spain ends up doing.

ETA:
(Sigh. It sure is a lot of work preparing a TL. My TL isn't even about Spain, and they'll barely even be mentioned in the finished version. But if I can't justify their staying out of the Americas, then the whole thing collapses. So I'm having to focus this much on Spanish affairs when I'd rather be working on, you know, the countries my TL is actually about.)

 

[kasumigenx]

You can have the Manchus or Mongolians invade a part of Americas as well in this timeline boosting the immunity of native americans.