Spanish Empire Lasts Longer

Was discussing the effects of a longer lasting Spanish empire on US history. The departure must be getting Spains American Empire to last to at least the mid 19th Century. This includes Mexico/California thru the 1830s to the era of US expansion to western North America.

Can any experts see how this might occur?

Thanks
 
It is very likely that the US may have never have conquered northern Mexico. It all depends on what kind of policies the Spanish Empire takes relating to the populating of the northern regions.
 
That was one of the items that came up in our conversation. A variant to that was a large scale war between the US and Spain. Perhaps even a series of wars.
 
Then Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru and Chile will get Independence 50-100 years Later or Independent Nation ruled by Spanish Monarchs just like Canada and Australia are ruled by British Monarchs.
 
Can any experts see how this might occur?

Not an expert, by any means, but:

1. Keep Spain and Austria seperate. Getting dragged into wars all over Europe, especially with the constant efforts of every most OTHER European powers trying to stop Hapsburg dominance of the continent, depleted Spain's treasury again and again. Spain simply could not afford to keep fighting over and over again. You might say the France and Britain fought wars in Europe every few years as well but...

2. Spain needs its internal structure altered, a lot. I can't remember the details right off hand of why this was so, but Spain can effectively only tax Castille. While Castille was the wealthiest part of Spain it was also the only part the monarchs could raise taxes on when they needed more money coming in. This meant that the money being drained from Castille grew and grew until it simply could not sustain the country any longer.

And even if BOTH of those are fixed, IMO its unlikely that Spain's empire will last through the 19th century.
 
Like so many alt hist the effects depend on the circumstance of the PoD. I had wondered about the cost of the European wars. Internal tax & economic structure I've been mostly iggnorrant of.
 
Not an expert, by any means, but:

1. Keep Spain and Austria seperate. Getting dragged into wars all over Europe, especially with the constant efforts of every most OTHER European powers trying to stop Hapsburg dominance of the continent, depleted Spain's treasury again and again. Spain simply could not afford to keep fighting over and over again. You might say the France and Britain fought wars in Europe every few years as well but...

2. Spain needs its internal structure altered, a lot. I can't remember the details right off hand of why this was so, but Spain can effectively only tax Castille. While Castille was the wealthiest part of Spain it was also the only part the monarchs could raise taxes on when they needed more money coming in. This meant that the money being drained from Castille grew and grew until it simply could not sustain the country any longer.

And even if BOTH of those are fixed, IMO its unlikely that Spain's empire will last through the 19th century.

Maybe better tax reform under Isabella & Ferdinand. It's quite possible that the wealth of the Imperial holdings (esp the Netherlands) are another motivation for Charles V to have given Spain the Netherlands, Alsace, Franche-comte and Milan. A better division at the time of his abdication may lead to less warfare and need for involvement in the HRE (though he did desire for his son to be emperor)
Say Ferdinand get all the holdings except for Milan
Philipp get's Milan + the Spanish inheritance. He has the rich Italian holdings and more concentration of power in Italy + Mediterranean and the colonial world. Relatively more defensible and keeping to Spain's traditional sphere of influence (Italy). So when the French come a calling (they definitely will Habsburg or not) they have a better means of defending themselves and less revolty subjects (you know the whole Reformation thing)
 
replace the Bourbons with a quality line of kings. Carlos III was the only worthwhile one, and then it was straight downhill from there. At exactly the time Spain needed leadership, it got dunces.

the simplest way to extend the empire is to kill Napoleon in childhood (the nap wars are what killed the empire), but you're still stuck with idiots for kings.

with OTL kings, the best you can hope for is slowing the decline. With more kings like C3, there's no reason the Spanish Empire couldn't be reasonably robust.
 
Not an expert, by any means, but:

1. Keep Spain and Austria seperate. Getting dragged into wars all over Europe, especially with the constant efforts of every most OTHER European powers trying to stop Hapsburg dominance of the continent, depleted Spain's treasury again and again. Spain simply could not afford to keep fighting over and over again. You might say the France and Britain fought wars in Europe every few years as well but...

2. Spain needs its internal structure altered, a lot. I can't remember the details right off hand of why this was so, but Spain can effectively only tax Castille. While Castille was the wealthiest part of Spain it was also the only part the monarchs could raise taxes on when they needed more money coming in. This meant that the money being drained from Castille grew and grew until it simply could not sustain the country any longer.

And even if BOTH of those are fixed, IMO its unlikely that Spain's empire will last through the 19th century.

These were the policies of Philip V, beginning in 1701. You would need an earlier PoD to make it last, but with the Age of Reason and the new political ideas circulating, keeping large colonies with potent local elites would be difficult in the 19th c. A kind of Spanish Canada or a Brazilian solution are more likely IMO.
 
If the goal is to have the United States be around, then the POD has to be after 1781. The obvious POD is changing/preventing the conquest of Spain by Napoleon. If, after the Louisiana Purchase, Napoleon decides to concentrate his wars away from Spain, possibly seeking to make the kingdom an ally, then something like this may be doable.
 
not tough. there's a lot of POD's that lead to a stronger Spain. there are a lot of inferior kings for 200 ish years in both the Hapsburgs and the Bourbons. Pick your year. 1650, 1700, 1750, 1800. a hero (or even a competent) sperm latching onto the egg of the future king will make a huge difference.

the entire second half of the 17th century hinges on Balthazar dying of appendicitis. simply having him live butterflies at least one war. likely butterflies the abomination of Carlos II, the war of Spanish Succession, changes the entirety of Spain in the 1700's and beyond. Balthazar doesn't have to be a good king. simply being sane changes everything.



Just as the US is almost ASB for good luck, Spain is almost ASB for bad luck. the only thing that makes either believable is that they both happened. swap the ASB around. good mojo for Spain, bad for the US.
 
a stronger Spain can deal with Napoleon. OTL, Spain dealt with the situation pathetically. talk about ASB. two kings put the crown in the hands of a foreign power? and deliver the entire family to be held as captives? that's after being put in that situation by a buffoon who got to run the country because his dick pleased the queen, and the king was ok with that. as they say, truth is stranger than fiction.
 
I have to remember to start that book I have on Spanish imperial history. But it seems
that Spain had core geographical challenges that do not plague France or Britain. The Iberian Peninsula is mountainous and doesn't have that many rivers, compared to France and Great Britain. This encourages regional isolation, and discourages national unity and internal trade, requirements if a ruler wants a developing industrial economy and a large army and navy that is popular and sustainable. A focused effort on infrastructure could possibly make up for this disadvantage.
 
Top