Spanish and Portuguese Empires without Napoleon

Will the Spanish and Portuguese empires retain their colonies in Americas, Africa and Asia had Napoleon never conquer Iberia or Napoleon never borns? Will their economy and culture better shaped than in OTL?
 
I agree, sadly man worship and idolize Napoleon. They hate it f something happened to their god emperor. I created a similiar thread a couple days ago of Spain winning the pyrenes war. Completly ignored, it's as If all have given up on reviving Spain or Portugol in the 19th century or maybe it comes
anyway yes a lot would happen. Without Nappy Spain might be able to retain Louisiana. Also Portugol was destroyed because of Spains agreement with France. Nappy then stabbed Spain in the back. Here that does not happen. just think with all their manpower they could easily retain and hold their colonies.
Napoleon struck the death blow to the Spanish and Portuguese empires. With him gone they maystill survive.
 
I agree, sadly man worship and idolize Napoleon. They hate it if something happened to their god emperor. I created a similar thread a couple days ago of Spain winning the Pyrenees war. Completely ignored, it's as If all have given up on reviving Spain or Portugal in the 19th century or maybe it comes anyway yes a lot would happen. Without Nappy Spain might be able to retain Louisiana. Also Portugal was destroyed because of Spain's agreement with France. Nappy then stabbed Spain in the back. Here that does not happen. just think with all their manpower they could easily retain and hold their colonies.
Napoleon struck the death blow to the Spanish and Portuguese empires. With him gone they may still survive.

I know, in AH.com, Napoleon is being worshiped while Spain is being killed here in the forum. I think Spanish and Portuguese American colonies could survive for another 50 years without Napoleon.
 
Napoleon (of whom I AM a fan though I see his negatives as well) is not worshiped at AH.Com, Britain is. Specifically Imperial Britain.

I was actually wondering what would have happened if he'd been crushed at Austerlitz instead of doing the crushing. If he's beaten and captured, France is going to be in a much stronger position (as is Russia) and Britain a weaker one. Talleyrand might be able to do some interesting things.

That said, I don't know how Spain CAN be rescued in the 19th century (and anyone here knows I like Spain a lot). The Bourbons did improve things but geologically and climatically is it really suited to the kinds of things that made for a very strong economy in the period?
 
The Spanish would probably continue to reform their empire. While they will likely not keep all of it, they might be able to form some kind of federation.
 
I can't make any comment at all on the Spanish side of things.

On the Portuguese side, much in the way of recovery seems a little unlikely. They'll probably keep hold of their colonies: they did so OTL anyway, with Brazil being the main- albeit pretty major- exception. The Portuguese Empire has three main components to it as of the late 18th century:

1) Portugal itself, which was something of a backwater. Pombal tried, bless his little cotton socks, but with a limited agricultural base and a small population, he could only do so much. In the Seven Years War, the Portuguese had to turn to the British to keep the Spanish out.

2) Africa and Asia. Here, things are bad and have been for a while, particularly in Asia. The African colonies are filled with semi-independent Luso-African nobles and indigenous kings- in the 17th century, Portuguese adventurers in West Africa set themselves up with the Jaga and the Kongo kingdom (and provinces thereof) independent of the Portuguese crown.

Asia is even worse. To get a world-beating concern out of this enterprise really requires a POD in the 16th or 17th century. In the 17th century, the Portuguese were consistently ousted by the Dutch, who had a technical advantage and a more long-term eye for profit. George Winius has written on quite how badly mismanaged the Portuguese empire in Asia was; someone else (I forget who) described the 17th century Portuguese empire as a failing wholesale grocery business. After 1763, the British are hard to beat in India and the Dutch, by that point, have been firmly ensconced in the Spice Islands for many, many decades.

3) Brazil. Brazil represents something that is, to the best of my knowledge, unique in Western colonial history: a case of the colonial tail beginning to wag to the metropolitan dog. For most of the 18th century, Brazil had been more promising, economically speaking, than Portugal. On one hand: brazilwood, sugar, diamonds. On the other: fish. Economically and demographically, if Brazil wants independence, it's likely to get it, unless someone else- Britain, _maybe_ France- can be persuaded to intervene. The trick then becomes making Brazil _want_ to stay connected to Portugal; how that might be achieved, I can't comment.
 
Asia is even worse. To get a world-beating concern out of this enterprise really requires a POD in the 16th or 17th century. In the 17th century, the Portuguese were consistently ousted by the Dutch, who had a technical advantage and a more long-term eye for profit. George Winius has written on quite how badly mismanaged the Portuguese empire in Asia was; someone else (I forget who) described the 17th century Portuguese empire as a failing wholesale grocery business. After 1763, the British are hard to beat in India and the Dutch, by that point, have been firmly ensconced in the Spice Islands for many, many decades.
Would that be Fatal History of Portuguese Ceylon?
 
Americas, NO, at least for Spain. The only way to prolong Spanish Imperial rule in continental America is to butterfly away the American Revolution. Brasil is a differnet story, since the flight of the Baraganza's to Brasil helped lead to Brasil's separatation under a brach of the royal family. Perhaps without Napoleon a Portugese-Brasilian confederation develops, or the two components separate in the same way as OTL.

Aside from the Philippines Iberian colonization in Asia was largely a matter of trading posts and not significantly impacted and African colonies at the time of Napoleon were irrelevant except for the Spanish outposts directly across the straits.
 
Americas, NO, at least for Spain. The only way to prolong Spanish Imperial rule in continental America is to butterfly away the American Revolution. Brasil is a differnet story, since the flight of the Baraganza's to Brasil helped lead to Brasil's separatation under a brach of the royal family.

But this flight would of course not have happened had it not been for Napoleon.

I think a lot of this whole discussion depends on whether the French Revolution still happens. If Bourbons stay on the thrones of both France and Spain, Spain will be able to hang on a lot better due to French support. However, that would likely mean Portugal gets invaded after too long.

All in all, taking out Napoleon means there potential for huge butterflies, and it depends on which way they flutter what is the fate of Latin America. If both Portugal and Spain remain unoccupied and with decent size fleets, I think the empires could last another 50 years. After that you might get equivalents to the Commonwealth or La Francophonie.
 
Americas, NO, at least for Spain. The only way to prolong Spanish Imperial rule in continental America is to butterfly away the American Revolution. Brasil is a differnet story, since the flight of the Baraganza's to Brasil helped lead to Brasil's separatation under a brach of the royal family. Perhaps without Napoleon a Portugese-Brasilian confederation develops, or the two components separate in the same way as OTL.

Aside from the Philippines Iberian colonization in Asia was largely a matter of trading posts and not significantly impacted and African colonies at the time of Napoleon were irrelevant except for the Spanish outposts directly across the straits.

Without Napoleon:

Spain and Britain are not enemies, when Spain was allied to Napoleon Britain felt it was in their interest to disrupt the colonies as much as possible. This meant funding and arming revolutionaries.

Greater Spanish ability to send troops over seas. Instead of fighting the Penisular war.

No abdication of the Bourbons, they were extremely popular all over the empire. In fact many of the early movements in South America were in favor of the Bourbons and against the Spanish Juntas.
 
Top