Spain conquers Cambodia in the 1590s

What if Spain had, successfully, conquered Cambodia in the 1590s? How successful would the Spanish have been at converting the population, from Buddhism, to Catholicism? Would the Spanish have gone further and attempted to conquer Siam, Champa and Vietnam? If so, how successful would they have been?
 
What if Spain had, successfully, conquered Cambodia in the 1590s? How successful would the Spanish have been at converting the population, from Buddhism, to Catholicism? Would the Spanish have gone further and attempted to conquer Siam, Champa and Vietnam? If so, how successful would they have been?
Main issue with the above is that the early 1600s wasn't exactly a time when Spain had the luxury of fighting even more large scale wars (the massive plague outbreak in the 1590s that wiped out 10% of Spain's population, the 30 Years' War, Portugal and Catalonia revolting) economically or militarily. Even if they performed well in battle, they'd be overstretched and overcommitted on too many different fronts to actually be able to hold any gains they could make and, as it was, SE Asia is far less important that the Iberian peninsula, so 'unsuccessful' would be the realistic answer. And, as a result of not being able to hold the land against revolts or Thai/Viet invasions (since both parties had interests there and both could field rather significant armies), Christianising the population would be unsuccessful as well, simply because there's not enough time to make significant efforts and make them stick.
 
By 1590 Spanish conquerors had ample experience converting Amerindians, with established cults to Catholisism. The could have been very successful.
 
Main issue with the above is that the early 1600s wasn't exactly a time when Spain had the luxury of fighting even more large scale wars (the massive plague outbreak in the 1590s that wiped out 10% of Spain's population, the 30 Years' War, Portugal and Catalonia revolting) economically or militarily. Even if they performed well in battle, they'd be overstretched and overcommitted on too many different fronts to actually be able to hold any gains they could make and, as it was, SE Asia is far less important that the Iberian peninsula, so 'unsuccessful' would be the realistic answer. And, as a result of not being able to hold the land against revolts or Thai/Viet invasions (since both parties had interests there and both could field rather significant armies), Christianising the population would be unsuccessful as well, simply because there's not enough time to make significant efforts and make them stick.

But, in the 1590s, the Spanish did attempt to conquer Cambodia. In fact, originally, the Cambodian king had invited them for protection from the Siamese, but they arrived too late.
 
In the 1590s the technological gap between Spain and Cambodia is vastly smaller than that between Spain and Mesoamerica. Consider that Spain was fighting campaigns to pacify the Yucatan well into the seventeenth century; if there is native resistance to Spain it will be much harder to deal with than in New Spain.

Even if they don't face local resistance (and I doubt that the local elite will cooperate for very long,) they would have faced invasions from the Thais and Viets- invasions that would outnumber any Spanish force and have better supply lines.
 
But, in the 1590s, the Spanish did attempt to conquer Cambodia. In fact, originally, the Cambodian king had invited them for protection from the Siamese, but they arrived too late.
I'm aware of their attempt to conquer Cambodia (which ended in failure) but, even assuming the best case where they succeed in their little misadventure, conquering Cambodia is far from being the end of what they'd need to accomplish to Christianise Cambodia and more of SE Asia. They need to 1. hold Cambodia against any local revolts, 2. fend off the Thai and the Viet (both capable of fielding armies in the tens of thousands) with armies far from reasonable supply lines while also fighting in Europe (the French, Catalan, Portuguese, Dutch, etc.), 3. and do both for the time it takes to convert a population to their religion, decades being somewhat reasonable seeing how established Buddhism is in the region.
 
worked in the Philippines

The main European advantage was naval. The Philippines were a archipelago far from any potenial reinforcements and heavily divided. Cambodia is a interior kingdom, bordered by other powers. Maybe Spain can hold the coastline, but that isn't going to exert control over the whole thing, or prove a defensible frontier.
 
worked in the Philippines

The main European advantage was naval. The Philippines were a archipelago far from any potenial reinforcements and heavily divided. Cambodia is a interior kingdom, bordered by other powers. Maybe Spain can hold the coastline, but that isn't going to exert control over the whole thing, or prove a defensible frontier.

In addition to what AussieHawker said, the Philippines were less technologically advanced than Cambodia.
 
Yeah I agree, while Spanish purely-military successes are quite plausible and would not be surprising at all, their presence comes under question the moment they lose mastery of the sea and fail to deliver supplies or reinforcements for a few months (something that Portugal, Netherlands, England, France, possibly Denmark or Sweden or Ottomans too would be only to happy to assist with). Look at what happened to the French troops in Arakan.

Also, any comparisons with late campaigns in Yucatan are really off-base. The individual Spanish forces involved in Yucatan in the late 17th c. were in the double digits of soldiers, most of whom were locals and not Spanish, most expeditions were coupled with trade caravans or missionaries and were basically more civilian than military, and on top of that Spanish governors were actively or passively undermining each other's attempts. It proved to be enough.

The level of resistance from the SEA kingdoms would be incomparable. It would be armies of tens of thousands, like someone already said. No force of fifteen guys and a dog would be able to make the slightest dent on that. The Spanish would need to maintain several hundred to several thousand soldiers in top fighting condition to back up a friendly local kingdom just to have a chance of holding on.
 
Yeah I agree, while Spanish purely-military successes are quite plausible and would not be surprising at all, their presence comes under question the moment they lose mastery of the sea and fail to deliver supplies or reinforcements for a few months (something that Portugal, Netherlands, England, France, possibly Denmark or Sweden or Ottomans too would be only to happy to assist with).

Sorry for replying after more than a month but I'd like to clarify that Portugal and Spain were united at the time, so Portugal couldn't assist.
 
Top