Spanish Empire

I always find myself feeling bad for Spain. They were the pioneers of having truly massive colonial empires, and lost it all.

How could this have been prevented? I can see Napoleon not invading Spain as helping, but imagine a Spain controlling most if not all of Central and South America well into the 20th Century?

As a side note (because I don't want to start another topic for it) I had an interesting thought about some of the threads about America losing the independence war against the Brits. Had this happened, and the 13 states were still British through Napeoleon's reign, who would Napoleon have sold Louisiana to? Surely not the British :p
 
I always find myself feeling bad for Spain. They were the pioneers of having truly massive colonial empires, and lost it all.

How could this have been prevented? I can see Napoleon not invading Spain as helping, but imagine a Spain controlling most if not all of Central and South America well into the 20th Century?

As a side note (because I don't want to start another topic for it) I had an interesting thought about some of the threads about America losing the independence war against the Brits. Had this happened, and the 13 states were still British through Napeoleon's reign, who would Napoleon have sold Louisiana to? Surely not the British :p

Spain retroceded Louisiana to Napoleon at San Ildefonso 1796, so if there's no USA, but a British N America, its most probable that whatever happens elsewhere, Spain will hold onto it

If the USA loses the ARW then there's going to be rampant butterflies eating up Napoleon's emergence. France may even enter revolution earlier because not only would it be bankrupt, but it would be bankrupt AND defeated. Of course, Spain also fought against Britain, and I'm not sure how badly that affected THEIR economy ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Good points. In all honesty I know very little of the ARW, including who was involved. I just like to ponder :rolleyes:

It seems it was everyone against Britain mostly. I would still like to see a Spanish Empire surviving into the 1900s. Maybe with maps too :D. I'm sure a lot of their colonies would have gained independence anyway (notably Mexico?) but ignoring the ARW, which was a side note in the first place and not related to the original question, how can Spain's colonial empire survive into the 1900s?
 
The US losing their revolution probably butterflies France's acquisition of Louisiana. Regardless, if the American settlers 'get their way' (settlement West the Appalachians, which is pretty much a perquisite for having the British 'win' the revolution), New Orleans (and the rest of Louisiana) is going to be on top of a short wish-list of acquisitions for the Americans regardless of whether they're under the King or the Constitution. Ask someone about old, "WI Napoleon didn't sell Louisiana to the Americans?", they'll tell you that the Americans would have gotten it anyway because New Orleans was absolutely, 100% vital to American interests on the Mississippi. If it could not be bought, it would be taken by force of arms.

Really, any post-1776 attempt to curtail American settlement at least to the Rockies is really pushing it. You can't just plop 3 million wealthy (comparatively), well-educated, ambitious people on one sea-coast and expect the thinly populated, comparatively unorganized natives to do anything to stop them. It should be enough to know that the major reason the frontier was at all interested in revolution wasn't taxes (who could tax them? No taxman dared venture that far from the coast) or representation, it was the proclamation by King George which was preventing them from pushing the frontier further west.

So New Orleans AT LEAST and probably the rest of the Mississippi watershed ends up in Anglo-American hands whatever you do. It requires some serious dicking around with history to prevent that. However, California and the west coast are significantly less certain.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
In this thread, there was some potential to keep the Spanish Empire together. By making Charles VI we may see the reforms of the Austrian Habsburg happen in Spain instead, resulting in a more streamlined, centralised and economical sound empire.
 
It's not only about the reforms of Charles VI and his descendants. By retaining the Habsburg dynasty, Spain will remain in the Anglo-Austrian camp, thus ensuring a fair relationship with English ships and merchants. I can't see South America not trying to obtain its independence, but I see it taking the route of Brazil (proclaiming independence under Habsburg monarchs) or of India (the Spanish king becoming emperor in South America).
 
IMO a very good way to do this would be to get rid of the French Revolution altogether. This way Spain remains at peace, with a powerful navy and no British meddling in Spanish colonies. With a firmer hand guiding their development, independence movements could be delayed or averted altogether (IIRC a large part of their inception came from a collapse in Spanish regional authority).

Another thing to note is that people always assume that the United States could easily take New Orleans and Louisiana from the Spanish. But ITTL, the Spanish Navy would far outclass anything the Americans could throw together. At their disposal would also be thousands of soldiers from throughout New Spain that could be transferred to New Orleans to protect the city. Spain really was more powerful than the United States throughout the 18th century, and it would largely remain that way in this TL.
 
Possibly you can have a double-barreled PoD. You can keep the Hasburgs in Spain, and have them reform the Empire (as well as Spain itself) as said before, and even though this will probably butterfly American and French revolutions, you can cook up some European war in which Spain stands victorious, thus gaining prestige and the like.
In the long term, the Empire can be given independence as the Spanish American Empire with the Spanish King automatically as Emperor, and the diffferent regions having devolved powers so that the 'Empire' will be in practice Spanish devolved control.

Later on, with a strech you could have the Portugese model as a united state with eveyone equal, but in practice that would be a United Latin America gaining control of Spain, not vice versa. The colonies need to gain independence at some point.
 
IMO a very good way to do this would be to get rid of the French Revolution altogether. This way Spain remains at peace, with a powerful navy and no British meddling in Spanish colonies. With a firmer hand guiding their development, independence movements could be delayed or averted altogether (IIRC a large part of their inception came from a collapse in Spanish regional authority).

Another thing to note is that people always assume that the United States could easily take New Orleans and Louisiana from the Spanish. But ITTL, the Spanish Navy would far outclass anything the Americans could throw together. At their disposal would also be thousands of soldiers from throughout New Spain that could be transferred to New Orleans to protect the city. Spain really was more powerful than the United States throughout the 18th century, and it would largely remain that way in this TL.

If my memory does not betray me, the idea was to gone in with the British. Take New Orleans, help out the Brits against one of their main Napoleonic enemies. I think even Jefferson could have stomached that.

EDIT: Of course, there's no guarantee that Louisiana is Spanish ITTL. Some of the PoDs being thrown around pre-date the Seven Years War, when Spain acquired the territory from France.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible you could see the Spanish empire becoming a federation? The idea was popular in the British Empire in the late 19th century... would of been cool if it happened.
 
Regardless, if the American settlers 'get their way' (settlement West the Appalachians, which is pretty much a perquisite for having the British 'win' the revolution), New Orleans (and the rest of Louisiana) is going to be on top of a short wish-list of acquisitions for the Americans regardless of whether they're under the King or the Constitution. Ask someone about old, "WI Napoleon didn't sell Louisiana to the Americans?", they'll tell you that the Americans would have gotten it anyway because New Orleans was absolutely, 100% vital to American interests on the Mississippi. If it could not be bought, it would be taken by force of arms.

I may be about to make a fool of myself here, but is it possible that the French could buy the Americans off? Say, a base in New Orleans plus unlimited access to the Mississippi plus a few other things, all in perpetuity?
 
Good points. In all honesty I know very little of the ARW, including who was involved. I just like to ponder :rolleyes:

It seems it was everyone against Britain mostly. I would still like to see a Spanish Empire surviving into the 1900s. Maybe with maps too :D. I'm sure a lot of their colonies would have gained independence anyway (notably Mexico?) but ignoring the ARW, which was a side note in the first place and not related to the original question, how can Spain's colonial empire survive into the 1900s?

Basicaly Britain had smashed the French, Spanish and Dutch to establish themselves as sole power in America and those powers were eager for revenge and a new power (aka the US) in America which is friendly to them.
 
In this thread, there was some potential to keep the Spanish Empire together. By making Charles VI we may see the reforms of the Austrian Habsburg happen in Spain instead, resulting in a more streamlined, centralised and economical sound empire.

But the Bourbons made similar reforms in Spain too (even though some of them started under Charles II actually). The only thing that keeping the Habsburgs would help is by not involving Spain in any war France was fighting against Britain. However, that might mean constant border conflicts with the French.
 
Didn't Aranda suggest something along the lines of devolution of power or federalized empire...

absent the Napoleonic wars or more specifically the French occupation and the Peninsular war he may not fall from grace and implement such a plan.

the Spanish King, Emporer, but a junior Spanish infante would sit on their own throne in the various vice-royalties, which could probably grow over time from the original four proposed. this requires peace with the British of course and would essentially result in a devolution of power to the various colonies in Latin America. It probably requires some semblance of stability in Spain itself of course as well. No Carlist wars for instance.
 
Didn't Aranda suggest something along the lines of devolution of power or federalized empire...

absent the Napoleonic wars or more specifically the French occupation and the Peninsular war he may not fall from grace and implement such a plan.

the Spanish King, Emporer, but a junior Spanish infante would sit on their own throne in the various vice-royalties, which could probably grow over time from the original four proposed. this requires peace with the British of course and would essentially result in a devolution of power to the various colonies in Latin America. It probably requires some semblance of stability in Spain itself of course as well. No Carlist wars for instance.

Yep yep. :)

http://wcg-features.blogspot.com/

http://books.google.com/books?id=AC...ru Mexico New Granada Spanish Emperor&f=false
 
Top