Spanish Empire's Fall in an ATL?

So... there was lots of resentment and 'taxation without representation'-esque conflict happening in the Spanish colonies prior to the Napoleonic Wars, but in an ATL with no/delayed French Revolution and no/delyed Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, Spain maintains its colonies? :confused:

IMHO Peru, New Spain or La Plata is likely to be the start of the revolution... but I doubt it would spread across the entire Spanish American empire as in IOTL. You could see a TL where, say, La Plata is a US-modeled federal republic, while the rest of the empire remains in Spanish hands as 'dominions' or etc.
 
Well, this has gotten my head rumbling -- over the past few hours I've been mulling about with the idea that a member of the Spanish Royal Family head to New Spain; then the liberals in Spain seek to dispose an incumbent (thinking Charles IV's son Charles, OTL Count of Molina), leading the rebels and reformers in New Spain to rally around the local prince.

Here's how I see it -- and granted, this all depends on the plausibility of the above, in addition to several unmentioned PoDs. And yes, it is a lot, which is what I get I suppose...

Anyway, Charles III had five sons OTL: Felipe, who died childless prior to the PoD of this thread; Charles IV of Spain; Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies; Prince Gabriel, who was considered the smartest of the four, had a son Pedro in 1786, and OTL died 1788 of smallpox; and Antonio Pascual, who OTL died childless. Now I'm thinking CIV's son Ferdinand dies earlier TTL, and brother Charles (now the V) does enough to irritate the liberals both at home and abroad that they turn against him (by what mechanism, I'm not sure). And when the Sicilian Bourbons refuse their support, to avoid war, it falls to another prince, raised (ITTL) by his father (Gabriel, who TTL doesn't die of smallpox.) Got all that?

Making his way to New Spain, reformers and rebels alike swing to his forces, and after fighting forces loyal to cousin Charles, he becomes Perdro I of America.
 
Well, this has gotten my head rumbling -- over the past few hours I've been mulling about with the idea that a member of the Spanish Royal Family head to New Spain; then the liberals in Spain seek to dispose an incumbent (thinking Charles IV's son Charles, OTL Count of Molina), leading the rebels and reformers in New Spain to rally around the local prince.

Here's how I see it -- and granted, this all depends on the plausibility of the above, in addition to several unmentioned PoDs. And yes, it is a lot, which is what I get I suppose...

Anyway, Charles III had five sons OTL: Felipe, who died childless prior to the PoD of this thread; Charles IV of Spain; Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies; Prince Gabriel, who was considered the smartest of the four, had a son Pedro in 1786, and OTL died 1788 of smallpox; and Antonio Pascual, who OTL died childless. Now I'm thinking CIV's son Ferdinand dies earlier TTL, and brother Charles (now the V) does enough to irritate the liberals both at home and abroad that they turn against him (by what mechanism, I'm not sure). And when the Sicilian Bourbons refuse their support, to avoid war, it falls to another prince, raised (ITTL) by his father (Gabriel, who TTL doesn't die of smallpox.) Got all that?

Making his way to New Spain, reformers and rebels alike swing to his forces, and after fighting forces loyal to cousin Charles, he becomes Perdro I of America.

Why would this Prince go to New Spain in the first place? What makes him end up there in the first place? The Portuguese Royal Family only went to Brazil because of Napoleonic invasion. The Americas were still pretty "rugged" at this point. If any Spanish Prince went abroad, it'd probably be in Europe, not in the Americas. That scenario sounds really confusing and I'm trying to make sense of it. Ferdinand IV dies young, so Charles V, the OTL Carlist becomes King. Somehow manages to upset liberal elements and those in New Spain turn to a son of the Infante Gabriel who didn't die. Right, or no? Maybe need to simplify you idea... because honestly how you explained it made no sense.

Remember, without a French Revolution... there isn't going to be any political trauma in Spain. The Spain post-1814 was different from that of 1789. Yeah, the Enlightenment had made inroads, but I can't really see Charles V* pissing people off that it provokes some kind of civil unrest in a world where the Ancien Régime keeps going, and we see gradual/slow reforms, and the sparks of revolt/unrest take longer to boil over. Sure, Kings were unpopular, but it wasn't often they were deposed in that kind of political claimant. Remember in the 17th and 18th centuries, we only really had two monarchs who were killed: Charles I and Louis XVI. Sure, the Austrians drove the Duke of Mantua out of Italy and the French forced the Duke of Lorraine out of his domains... but in early modern Europe it took some real problems to lead to a king being deposed (or worse: killed). It was the Divine Right of King's that reigned supreme, and without a French Revolution to shake things up, things aren't going to change as quickly as in our world.

I like the idea of the Infante Gabriel's son, Pedro Carlos, as ruler of New Spain, though. He was raised in Portugal, IIRC, and was both a Portuguese and Spanish Infante. He was actually raised in Portugal after his father's death. If you could somehow get him into Mexico, he could be an important factor. But how is the important point. Just remember... without a French Revolution, you really have to change your mindset. It really shook things up and how things operated. Without it, things are going to change, certainly. Things are always changing. But it's going to be a much slower change. I honestly don't think you'd see any colonial resentment until the late 1820s early 1830s without Napoleonic trauma. I think by then, if there are no changes, the criollos are going to be more uppity. Maybe Pedro Carlos is appointed Viceroy, and he becomes quite popular. The King of Spain becomes fearful of this popularity, tries to recall him, but he chooses to side with the colonials. We could really see Spanish America be the birth of the Popular Monarchy in the ATL. "By the Grace of God and [under the Constitution/by the will of people, ect.], [Constitutional] Emperor of Mexico*."

Of course, we could also see the trends of the Ancien Régime imported into the Americas, especially if the conservative upper class criollos co-opt the independence movement in New Spain, as they did IOTL. We could simply see the Emperor of Mexico* being absolutist and part of the trend of enlightened despotism, but as he lives and reigns in the country and has banished the foreigners, he is wildly popular. That seems more likely, especially without a French Revolution, where change is slower.
 
Certainly good ideas -- and I do realize my idea is fresh and undeveloped, and now that you mention it, without the Napoleonic Wars it may well be impossible for the liberals to seriously threaten any reigning monarch. (Though FWIW, I was seeing the crisis coming in the early 1820's, so we're not that far apart...)
 
So... there was lots of resentment and 'taxation without representation'-esque conflict happening in the Spanish colonies prior to the Napoleonic Wars, but in an ATL with no/delayed French Revolution and no/delyed Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, Spain maintains its colonies? :confused:

IMHO Peru, New Spain or La Plata is likely to be the start of the revolution... but I doubt it would spread across the entire Spanish American empire as in IOTL. You could see a TL where, say, La Plata is a US-modeled federal republic, while the rest of the empire remains in Spanish hands as 'dominions' or etc.

"Lots"? What lots?

The only revolts in LA prior to the 19th century that I am aware of are the Comuneros in Paraguay (that were promptly crushed) and the "neo-incas" in Peru that only some very, very nationalistic Peruvian would try to pass today as something related to the independence of his country (this one was an Indian movement and was crushed by the same criollos who lead the independentist armies a generation later - the Indians fought for Spain in the second round!) and were crushed with ease too.

Sure I don't deny that independentist ideals could take hold later in the colonies but the situation in say 1800 wasn't the boiling, uncontrollable explosion in the making that many people seem to think it was.
 
Actually, if Brunei did not attack OTL Luzon I don't think most of it would be a part of the Spanish Empire since in OTL the Cordillerans and Mangyans are unconquerable to Spain, I wonder how would the Spanish empire would fare in that scenario
 
Actually, if Brunei did not attack OTL Luzon I don't think most of it would be a part of the Spanish Empire since in OTL the Cordillerans and Mangyans are unconquerable to Spain, I wonder how would the Spanish empire would fare in that scenario

Had forgot about the Phillipines -- but that is interesting...
 
"Lots"? What lots?

The only revolts in LA prior to the 19th century that I am aware of are the Comuneros in Paraguay (that were promptly crushed) and the "neo-incas" in Peru that only some very, very nationalistic Peruvian would try to pass today as something related to the independence of his country (this one was an Indian movement and was crushed by the same criollos who lead the independentist armies a generation later - the Indians fought for Spain in the second round!) and were crushed with ease too.

Sure I don't deny that independentist ideals could take hold later in the colonies but the situation in say 1800 wasn't the boiling, uncontrollable explosion in the making that many people seem to think it was.

There was a revolt of the Comuneros in New Granada as well. I didn't know there was one in Paraguay as well, or are you confusing the two?

Wolf_brother is definitely simplifying things... I guess it could be explained as "taxation without representation" but LA didn't exactly have the same political development as the British colonies on the Eastern Seaboard. There were not colonial legislatures, so there was no real resentment at the metropole levying taxes. The resentment came from being pushed out of the political offices they had traditionally occupied, that being the Audiencias, if I recall.

The situation definitely wasn't boiling in 1800, though. Simmering, definitely. But not boiling. And without any Napoleonic invasion, it's going to take a lot longer to spill over. I honestly don't believe that just because Napoleon invades Spain means that the Bourbons are going to create some wishy-washy commonwealth. Like Faeelin said, the interests of the colonies and those of Spain were already diverging. Even if independence comes in the form of monarchies headed by Spanish Princes, why would they tow to line of Madrid? This isn't like Spain is the Ottoman Empire and these new countries are the Danubian Principalities. They'd have the resources to do as they pleased. Which is why I think any commonwealth idea is likely to flounder, as the former colonies would be in a much stronger position than Spain. Spain wouldn't be calling the shots.

I also base these ideas on the fact that the Juntas went from supporting Ferdinand IV to less than a decade later wanting independence. In Paraguay and Uruguay, the change from supporting him and breaking free was even quicker. The situation was complex, and Ferdinand IV was definitely pretty bumbling. But I just think that deep down, the connection between Spain and her colonies near the end of the 18th century wasn't that greatly cemented. They're eventually going to go their own way, even if it takes twenty or thirty years more than it did in our world.
 
Actually, if Brunei did not attack OTL Luzon I don't think most of it would be a part of the Spanish Empire since in OTL the Cordillerans and Mangyans are unconquerable to Spain, I wonder how would the Spanish empire would fare in that scenario

No offense, but what does that even have to do with the topic at hand? Luzon was already firmly in Spanish hands in the 18th century, and Brunei was a backwater Sultanate in the East Indies. If you want ask a question about Brunei and the Philippines before the Spanish arrived, post your own topic. But don't derail JFP's. Because honestly what you said has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. About how the Spanish Colonies in America and what might happen in a Napoleon/French Revolution-less world.
 

All of the discussion earlier in the thread revolved around 'there's no way the colonies would break away,' immediately followed by 'well, there's was lots of resentment in the colonies against Spanish rule so..' :rolleyes: :confused:

Look at what DrakeRlugia keeps posting; resentment in the colonies, diverging interests, etc. It may not happen at the same time as OTL, but its very likely to happen. Even without the Napoleonic Wars Spain isn't going to retain her massive colonial empire.
 
No offense, but what does that even have to do with the topic at hand? Luzon was already firmly in Spanish hands in the 18th century, and Brunei was a backwater Sultanate in the East Indies. If you want ask a question about Brunei and the Philippines before the Spanish arrived, post your own topic. But don't derail JFP's. Because honestly what you said has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. About how the Spanish Colonies in America and what might happen in a Napoleon/French Revolution-less world.
I thought this was about how would the spanish empire would fare if the scenarios pre-existing it were different, sorry.
 
Top