Spanish and Portuguese Empires without the Napoleonic Wars

Both the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the Americas were lost as a result of the Napoleonic Wars. Tough to keep a hold of your empire when your government back home has collapsed. But independence was in the air already, with the American Revolution having succeeded and people like Francisco de Miranda agitating for the same thing in Latin America.

How would these empires have developed, and how long would they have lasted, if for whatever reason Spain and Portugal avoided the disruption of the Napoleonic Wars?
 
Well, Portugal lost Brazil more because of the Liberal Revolution, without that revolution Brazil would be happy being part of the Portuguese Empire.
 
The Spanish colonies are still lost in my opinion, but Portugal may have a shot at keeping Brazil. No Napoleonic wars, no tranfer of the court, no open trade, no brazillian independence movement, at least for while.
 
Well, Portugal lost Brazil more because of the Liberal Revolution, without that revolution Brazil would be happy being part of the Portuguese Empire.

They were only happy because Rio de Janeiro became the effective capital of the empire. They wanted full parity with Portugal itself, which Portugal would never agree to.
 
The Liberal Revolution in Portugal?

Or Brazil?

In Portugal, the liberals of Portugal.

They were only happy because Rio de Janeiro became the effective capital of the empire. They wanted full parity with Portugal itself, which Portugal would never agree to.

The liberals of Portugal never accepted, but other groups could have worked it better, but not the liberals.
 
A big part of the loss of Spanish America was the destruction of the Spanish fleet at Trafalgar. They have far more ability to project power without that.
 
from what I've read, there were three major events/factors in the rapid increase in nationalist sentiment:
  • the loss of the Spanish fleet, as Socrates said, which drastically reduced Spain's ability to defend and communicate with the colonies
  • the failure of Spanish troops to defeat the British invasion of La Plata (local troops were the ones who defeated them), breaking the idea that Spain was protecting them from foreign conquest
  • and the change of regime in Spain during the Peninsular campaign. When the Bourbons were removed, the common feeling was that Joseph Bonaparte was not a legitimate king. Juntas (local military governments) formed across the colonies, claiming that sovereignty had (temporarily, at first) reverted to the people, establishing precedent for republicanism and political separation from Madrid. These juntas gradually turned towards self-government, rejecting the pro-Bourbon resistance in Spain, the liberal constitution of 1812, etc.
after that, the idea of independence was too strong for the weakened Spanish to keep control. Removing the Napoleonic Wars would take care of all three of these things, ensuring Spain had a far greater ability to protect their colonies, maintaining the idea of security and legitimacy, and preventing a power vacuum which would allow the rise of independantists.
Luck would probably still run out for Spain, though. Spain was allied to France even before Napoleon's rise to power, which means there might still be some conflict with Britain. And the 19th century was chaotic, it would be surprising if Spain avoided any civil conflict. Even if Spain did avoid both external defeats and domestic chaos, the stifling colonial regulations, distance from Spain, and any number of issues with colonial rule would strengthen independence movements.
 

Lusitania

Donor
During Pombal rule, restrictions on Brazil trade and industry had been iliminated. When Maria I came to power they were reinstated and Lisbon once again tried to control Brazil.

Brazil was only elevated to same status as Portugal when Portuguese court escaped the French invasion and established Portuguese capital in Rio.

Without French Invasion Brazil would of still become independent but as many Brazilian historians have stated Brazilian identity as a country only came to about due to Portuguese capital being in Rio. Otherwise Brazil was fated like Spanish Empire to splinter into several countries.

As for feasibility of joint Portugal /Brazil empire that was too late by 1807 if everything else stayed iOTL. For that to happen then you need to change several major government policies in the 18th century. For a good example see TL in signature below.
 
What if the Spanish Bourbons fled to Mexico City or Lima or Cartagena or Buenos Aires or Habana? Would they still have been destined to lose the colonies post war?
 

Lusitania

Donor
What if the Spanish Bourbons fled to Mexico City or Lima or Cartagena or Buenos Aires or Habana? Would they still have been destined to lose the colonies post war?

Ferdinand did try to emulate the Portuguese court escape but was captured by French and held captive. His escape to New Spain would not of changed anything. By 1807 the Spanish colonies were destined to break way from Spain. The arrival of Spanish court in new world might of postponed a little but the southern colonies would of still attempted to break away.

IOTL Spain raised an army to try and recapture the breakaway colonies but the soldiers revolted before boarding the ships and Spain's American colonies were lost.
 

ben0628

Banned
Didn't Peru stay loyal to the crown up until being defeated by rebels from other Spanish colonies? So is it possible that a viceroyalty of Peru can still exist?
 
from what I've read, there were three major events/factors in the rapid increase in nationalist sentiment:
  • the loss of the Spanish fleet, as Socrates said, which drastically reduced Spain's ability to defend and communicate with the colonies
  • the failure of Spanish troops to defeat the British invasion of La Plata (local troops were the ones who defeated them), breaking the idea that Spain was protecting them from foreign conquest
  • and the change of regime in Spain during the Peninsular campaign. When the Bourbons were removed, the common feeling was that Joseph Bonaparte was not a legitimate king. Juntas (local military governments) formed across the colonies, claiming that sovereignty had (temporarily, at first) reverted to the people, establishing precedent for republicanism and political separation from Madrid. These juntas gradually turned towards self-government, rejecting the pro-Bourbon resistance in Spain, the liberal constitution of 1812, etc.
after that, the idea of independence was too strong for the weakened Spanish to keep control. Removing the Napoleonic Wars would take care of all three of these things, ensuring Spain had a far greater ability to protect their colonies, maintaining the idea of security and legitimacy, and preventing a power vacuum which would allow the rise of independantists.
Luck would probably still run out for Spain, though. Spain was allied to France even before Napoleon's rise to power, which means there might still be some conflict with Britain. And the 19th century was chaotic, it would be surprising if Spain avoided any civil conflict. Even if Spain did avoid both external defeats and domestic chaos, the stifling colonial regulations, distance from Spain, and any number of issues with colonial rule would strengthen independence movements.

The Bourbons were actively trying to reform even after Charles III. While Charles IV was more cautious and accommodating, even the French Revolution didn't stop reform completely. Godoy considered himself a man of the Enlightenment and reform continued. The seizure of Church property in Spain for example, was starting to have very positive effects even during the ravaging Spain endured during the Napoleonic Wars. I think the ultimate blow to Spain was the NW's causing Liberalism to be associated with foreign domination and plunder. Furthermore, the ultimate defeat of Napoleon taught Europe that compromise with liberalism was a bad idea and that if you held out and didn't give up, the Enlightenment could be defeated.

So I think a more accommodating France would do wonders for Spanish survival and even prosperity.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The Bourbons were actively trying to reform even after Charles III. While Charles IV was more cautious and accommodating, even the French Revolution didn't stop reform completely. Godoy considered himself a man of the Enlightenment and reform continued. The seizure of Church property in Spain for example, was starting to have very positive effects even during the ravaging Spain endured during the Napoleonic Wars. I think the ultimate blow to Spain was the NW's causing Liberalism to be associated with foreign domination and plunder. Furthermore, the ultimate defeat of Napoleon taught Europe that compromise with liberalism was a bad idea and that if you held out and didn't give up, the Enlightenment could be defeated.

So I think a more accommodating France would do wonders for Spanish survival and even prosperity.

From my research I found that Godoy wanted nothing with reforms. The reforms you mention was started by Spanish Prime minister the Count of Floridablanca who studying many of the reforms started by Pombal began emulating him. Godoy led a group apposed to Count and had him imprisoned.

King Charles IV had no ability to be king and run the Spanish government never mind instituting reforms. He was controlled by his wife and her lover Godoy.

Huge amount of $$ was provided by French to Godoy to rearm and help Spanish government coffers. The Majority of the $$ was stolen by Godoy and his friends and Spanish armed forces were never modernized and increased.

When Ferdinand came to power he was adamant on getting rid of Godoy and his cohorts.
 
From my research I found that Godoy wanted nothing with reforms. The reforms you mention was started by Spanish Prime minister the Count of Floridablanca who studying many of the reforms started by Pombal began emulating him. Godoy led a group apposed to Count and had him imprisoned.

King Charles IV had no ability to be king and run the Spanish government never mind instituting reforms. He was controlled by his wife and her lover Godoy.

Huge amount of $$ was provided by French to Godoy to rearm and help Spanish government coffers. The Majority of the $$ was stolen by Godoy and his friends and Spanish armed forces were never modernized and increased.

When Ferdinand came to power he was adamant on getting rid of Godoy and his cohorts.

Well I disagree with you but I also don’t really feel like getting into a big debate. One thing though, I always hear that the Queen was cheating on Charles IV with Godoy. Is there actual proof of this?
 
Well I disagree with you but I also don’t really feel like getting into a big debate. One thing though, I always hear that the Queen was cheating on Charles IV with Godoy. Is there actual proof of this?

I don't think anything beyond circumstantial evidence exists at this point, considering how long ago it was, but from what I've read the queen did seem unusually close to Godoy for a long time. Supposedly, the queen also made a deathbed confession that none of her 14 children were actually sired by her husband, Charles IV, but I don't believe Godoy was named specifically and it's possible this deathbed confession was a forgery.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Well I disagree with you but I also don’t really feel like getting into a big debate. One thing though, I always hear that the Queen was cheating on Charles IV with Godoy. Is there actual proof of this?

Maybe the correct word was that while he might of wanted to continue with the badly needed reforms circumstances and politics took up most if not all his time and effort. In the 1800s his sole goal was to get out from under Ferdinand way who was adamant he wanted to get rid of Godoy. Hence, Godoy deal with the devil (I mean Napoleon) to support French demands on Portugal in return for southern Portugal.
 
Last edited:
Top