In case Napoleon doesn't decide to overthrow the Spanish Bourbons in 1808, which of Spain's colonies in the American mainland is more likely to be kept? New Spain, Peru, Nueva Granada or Río de la Plata?
Spanish colonies without Napoleonic invasion
- Thread starter TheRealAndOnlyGaru
- Start date
Kick
Spain did not have colonies, we were equally Spanish as a basque or a Castilian was.
After this fraternal correction I believe that the secession from the motherland will be 1) Butterflied away or 2) be like the commonwealth of nations with more love, cultural and religious homogeneity and without genocide.
I have spoken.
After this fraternal correction I believe that the secession from the motherland will be 1) Butterflied away or 2) be like the commonwealth of nations with more love, cultural and religious homogeneity and without genocide.
I have spoken.
Still, I wanted to know which Virreinatos are more likely to stick to Spain in a timeline where Napoleon doesn't overthrow Fernando VII, a pivotal moment in Spanish history. Taking into account forces such as nationalism in the XIXth Century, fallout of the Napoleonic Wars, the response of the Spanish American elites at liberal governments in Spain, Fernando VII's succession, the USA's Manifest Destiny and British colonial interests, which of the Spanish viceroyalties is more likely to remain under direct or indirect control by Madrid by the end of the XIXth Century.
Last edited:
New Spain and Perú, both had the biggest number of royalist, in Rio de la Plata you need to eradicate the merchants and smugglers of Buenos Aires and increase the power of the Native Americans of Chiloé.
In New Granada is imperative that Agustín Agualongo or Antonio Huachaca, Native American Royalist chiefs become ministers or Viceroys.
About the degenerate doctrine of Manifest Destiny a strong military with good generals will be enough, with stability assured by the crown industrial revolution will continue and a economic boom will start in 1830-1840.
Hispanophiles can claim all they want that Spanish-ruled lands in the Americas were integral Spanish territory, but the reality on the ground was that the exact relationship between the crown and its lands abroad was a bone of contention in peninsular politics in the first half of the nineteenth century. Ferdinand VII, presumably in a stronger position without Napoleon invading/deposing him, can better withstand liberal reforms in his European domain, but this will only cost him his lands abroad in the long run.
Last edited:
Faeelin
Banned
I'm sorry, what? A huge reason for the wars of independence was the favoritism towards people born in Spain?
No, it wasn’t, the biggest reason of secession was the interest of the criollo elite and British merchants to tear up the nation, if that is true ¿Why most of the Native American and mixed caudillos remained loyal?
I recommend you to read "Sureños a las Armas", "Imperiofobia y Leyenda Negra" and see the videos of Pablo Victoria and Trincheras Ocultas.
Maybe the viceroyalties become independent monarchies with Spanish infantes in the throne.
That would be interesting, but are here enough to go around?
Posible nations:
Nueva España o México.
Río de La Plata.
Perú.
Nueva Granada.
Nueva España o México.
Río de La Plata.
Perú.
Nueva Granada.
Probably yes, or maybe become independent or another far province of Spain like Canarias, but in Asia.
In the long-term the status quo can certainly hold up for another few generations at the very least, but that depends on events in Spain. In much of Spanish America it seems that masses were content enough to remain loyal to the Spanish Crown. The problems form in 1808 Napoleon has Carlos IV and his son abdicate and then imprisons them. In the eyes of most Spanish subjects in both Europe and America the new government was illegitimate. In an absolutist state, removal of the Sovereign created an immense power vacuum which the creole elites in America sought to fill. In the Americas, amongst the masses the Spanish Crown had retained a mythical position bordering on divinity, with people often complaining about bureaucrats but saying that "if the king only knew what was going really going on". Joseph Bonaparte lacked any loyalty and once he assumed the throne, many no longer saw a need to remain loyal to corrupt bureaucrats. The juntas that were formed initially proclaimed their loyalty to King Ferdinand VII and acted in his name, but so did the juntas in Spain, even though their interests were opposed to one another.. It didn't help that the instability created in Spain by the Napoleonic invasion would linger on throughout much of the nineteenth century.
Faeelin
Banned
Discrimination against the creoles in favor of native-born Spaniards is a historic fact; are you claiming it didn't?
British attacks and support for the Independence of Spanish America intensify (Wellington would have gone to Venezuela to help Miranda if not for the Peninsular War). The Continental System becomes somewhat more effective due to royalist Hispanic American discontent with British intrasingency.
I imagine that New Spain and Peru remain and in the future they could evolve into an Empire and a Kingdom, respectively, under some infant (such as Carlos María Isidro, who would be rewarded with one of these two to accept the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830).
Venezuela and Argentina I see them becoming Republics with expansionist spirits. Perhaps the first one will achieve a much better Gran Colombia (which includes Nueva Granada).
With Chile and Guatemala I don't know that happens.
I imagine that New Spain and Peru remain and in the future they could evolve into an Empire and a Kingdom, respectively, under some infant (such as Carlos María Isidro, who would be rewarded with one of these two to accept the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830).
Venezuela and Argentina I see them becoming Republics with expansionist spirits. Perhaps the first one will achieve a much better Gran Colombia (which includes Nueva Granada).
With Chile and Guatemala I don't know that happens.