Spanish North Africa instead of New World Colonization

[Deleted member 109569]

For this scenario, I would like to know anyone's thoughts on Spain devoting their resources (military, economic, food) to colonizing North Africa instead of the New World. This is part of a larger scenario I'm working on where the Spanish have a merchant and trading relationship with the New World instead of one of conquest.

In the early 1500s, Spanish government ministers wanted to continue the reconquista into North Africa. Spain in OTL has the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African coast. I also know that Spain held the city of Oran in present-day Algeria for almost 200 years between the years 1509 and 1708. They also held the key city of Algiers between 1510 and 1529, when it was lost to the Ottoman admiral, Barbarossa. Habspurg Emperor Charles V tried to re-take Algiers in 1541 but failed when much of his fleet was destroyed under stormy conditions.

I have two lines of thought with this scenario. First, I think at least some of the resources that would have been spent on the New World does get invested into controlling North Africa resulting in controlling the area of Morocco between Tangiers and Melilla, which approximates to the Protectorate of Morocco OTL. They might have also held onto Oran as well.

The second line of thought concerns Spain able to retain in 1529 or re-take Algiers in 1541. For 1529, I'm wondering if the Spanish had the resources to fight off Barbarossa. For 1541, if Charles V re-took Algiers, does the Habsburg Empire have the resources to retain it. Controlling Algiers has major consequences, because it becomes a major base for the infamous Barbary pirates that remain a threat until 1830.

I'd like to know if you think the Spanish later Habsburg Empire would have enough to control the areas I discussed especially Algiers or if the formidable Ottoman Empire and their native North African allies would have stepped up their efforts resulting in a similar situation OTL where Spain controls small enclaves like Ceuta or Melilla.

 

[Albert.Nik]

Not worth. North Africa is dry and short of resources. New World is way more richer.

 

[AussieHawker]

So Spain still becomes part of the Hapsburgs then? Because I think avoiding becoming intangled with Imperial politics and routine warfare with the rest of Europe might have more of a impact in allowing the Spanish to devote enough attention to North Africa.

The Spanish never really devoted all their resources to American colonisation, including only mainly recruiting Castillians for colonial ventures. America also provided the capital to engage in low value conquests, which much of North Africa would be. Ditching America I don't think would be particularly helpful. Ditching the HRE would be.

 

[sloreck]

The Americas have lots of loot right away (gold to take from natives as well as mines to work with native slaves), North Africa not much. Furthermore North Africa is full of locals capable and willing of resisting the Spanish, with potential allies from the Ottoman Empire and the rest of the Muslim world. In the Americas you have stone age locals without horses or draft animals and conveniently dropping like flies from imported diseases, who are fragmented and have no effective allies. This simply does not work out.

 

[RGB]

The Americas have lots of loot right away (gold to take from natives as well as mines to work with native slaves), North Africa not much. Furthermore North Africa is full of locals capable and willing of resisting the Spanish, with potential allies from the Ottoman Empire and the rest of the Muslim world. In the Americas you have stone age locals without horses or draft animals and conveniently dropping like flies from imported diseases, who are fragmented and have no effective allies. This simply does not work out.

Most of all, I don't think the meager resources spent on conquering the New World (mostly not by the Crown but by private ventures anyway) would make even the slightest dent in fighting the Ottomans and their client states, really.

This isn't to say that Spain cannot be a lot more successful on the North African littoral, there's plenty of PODs that would allow that (not getting bogged forever in the Netherlands but having a plan about developing local Spanish economy since that provided the bulk of all wealth to the crown would be a wonderful start). Only saying that moving every Spanish or mercenary soldier from the global empire to Algiers would make up for perhaps one of the many big defeats that they suffered fighting there at best.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

North Africa is a geographical hell with no allies but enemies of equal strength a d of course... no wealth.

 

[Tripledot]

North Africa is a geographical hell with no allies but enemies of equal strength a d of course... no wealth.

What about the big cities like Fes and Marrakesh? Surely at least those would be decent prizes, right?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

First, I think at least some of the resources that would have been spent on the New World does get invested into controlling North Africa resulting in controlling the area of Morocco between Tangiers and Melilla, which approximates to the Protectorate of Morocco OTL. They might have also held onto Oran as well.

... except they also don't get any of the resources gained from the New World, which are a net lose. Especially since most of the early ventures were private Conquistador efforts that were self-funded and built up on internal profit-sharing agreements with members, the Crown getting 1/5 of the proceeds for the non-cost of what amounted to a Letter of the Marque on the Western Hemisphere. The lack of perspective wealth in North Africa means the State will have to offer incentives, and won't be getting regular influxes of bullion into the treasury, so they can't afford to project power their even at the rate they were over an extended period. Trade will NEVER be as profitable as hooking directly into the production network, and without being able to use the endless inflows of silver they won't be able to get nearly as many loans from the Italian states either. Maybe they do moderately better early on, but by the mid to late 16th century the Turks (Who aren't exactly in a worse situation than IOTL, in fact they'll probably be better) will be able to do more with the same resources against the weaker Spainish position

The Americas were such a massive net gain for Spain that losing their monopoly on them shoots the Golden Age in the temple.

 

[Drex]

During the time between the last years of the 1490's to the time the Spanish discovered the highly civilised areas of Mexico the American territories were a poor backwater devoid of Indians and resources, not really worth keeping. If somehow the Spanish never notice Mesoamerican civilisations they could have ended up abandoning the Caribbean and dropping their resources elsewhere. About North Africa, during the time Cardinal Cisneros ruled Spain in behalf of Charles I / V he centered the nation in extending the reconquista to Northern Africa, attacking Oran, Algiers and Tunis among others. If Charles loses more time not ruling Spain or if he losses the crown as he almost did in the 1520's during the rebellions in Castile (Comuneros) and Valencia (The Brotherhood) we could get Cisneros continue his efforts to take Africa. If we could overlap these two scenarios we could achieve the major point of this AHC. Conquering Northern Africa wouldn't be too much of a problem with Spanish efforts fully centered there instead of Germany, Italy or whatever, though the lack of silver and gold for America would severily limit what the Spanish could do, but I guess if Spain focuses on that, a conquest would eventually be achieved.

 

[TheKutKu]

During the time between the last years of the 1490's to the time the Spanish discovered the highly civilised areas of Mexico the American territories were a poor backwater devoid of Indians and resources, not really worth keeping. If somehow the Spanish never notice Mesoamerican civilisations they could have ended up abandoning the Caribbean and dropping their resources elsewhere. About North Africa, during the time Cardinal Cisneros ruled Spain in behalf of Charles I / V he centered the nation in extending the reconquista to Northern Africa, attacking Oran, Algiers and Tunis among others. If Charles loses more time not ruling Spain or if he losses the crown as he almost did in the 1520's during the rebellions in Castile (Comuneros) and Valencia (The Brotherhood) we could get Cisneros continue his efforts to take Africa. If we could overlap these two scenarios we could achieve the major point of this AHC. Conquering Northern Africa wouldn't be too much of a problem with Spanish efforts fully centered there instead of Germany, Italy or whatever, though the lack of silver and gold for America would severily limit what the Spanish could do, but I guess if Spain focuses on that, a conquest would eventually be achieved.

Could it also happen if spain does notice the mesoamerican but fail to conquer the aztecs?

 

[Drex]

Could it also happen if spain does notice the mesoamerican but fail to conquer the aztecs?

I don't think so. At the time someone discovers the riches of the New World, the Aztecs or essentially whatever civilisation existed there was doomed. Spain was filled with adventurous men who would love to get rich or famous through conquering territories, specially if they were as wealthy as the OTL Aztecs or the Incans. Even if Cortés or Narváez died, someone such as De Soto would try again and again until eventually gaining control of a chunk of territory, if not all. The possible gain is too much to be ignored, specially if big silver mines such as Potosí or Zacatecas are discovered.

 

[Amateur]

Could it also happen if spain does notice the mesoamerican but fail to conquer the aztecs?

A more likely scenario would be for Columbus to never sail west to discover the route between Spain and the New World.

Columbus sailed west in an attempt to reach Indonesia and Japan without having to go around Africa. He thought this possible because of a series of errors which resulted in him believing the Earth was about 25% smaller than it actually is, and also believing that Asia was thousands of miles longer east to west than it actually is. If Columbus had not made these errors, or had not been able to convince Queen Isabella of Spain to fund his voyage, the New World would not have been open to Spanish colonization in 1492.

Europeans still would have eventually discovered the New World, but those traveling along the northern edge of the Atlantic would have been more likely to have been first.

So, in this alternate reality, the English and French discover the New World in ~1550 and Spain focuses on endless war in North Africa with little reward.

 

[AussieHawker]

North Africa in itself isn't particularly valuable, thought I think people consider it all arid wasteland when it wasn't. Spain would be doing it when the overland routes lose a lot of its valuable due to the sea route around West Africa outflanking that route. Plus Spain would need friends on the other end, which was the first entry of Islam in West Africa. But there is still quite a bit in terms of natural resources and agriculture.

But conquering North Africa biggest gains will be back in Spain's core territories, as the conquest cuts down on piracy. This would be extremely helpful for Spain's coastal territory. The coasts can be recolonised, there isn't a constant military cost of fending off piracy, less manpower cost from people being enslaved or killed, trade would be much safer and communications more stable. Such Mediterranean control can give them the ability to control trade through the Central Mediterranean, tolling trade that passes through. It also makes possessions in Italy more secure.

Militarily the Spanish are now the ones who have the geographic naval advantage vs the Ottomans, who still ended up losing their naval dominance eventually anyway. The raiding would favour the Spanish, and they could use North Africa and Southern Italian ports as bases to strike into the Ottoman Empire proper.

Of course economic concerns aren't the only ones they would consider. The prestige of taking back North Africa for Christendom would be immensely important for the kings of Spain.

 

[Gintoki Sakata]

I do agree with the other posters, North Africa may have some valuable resources but due to the terrain, it would be extremely difficult to navigate. Controlling the littoral areas, which has the most resources in contrast to the hinterland and keeping key trade cities like Algiers, Oran and Tunis at around say, during the 16th century while maintaining Spain's naval superiority around the time would be a better choice and would deal a huge blow to the Barbary pirates, a better trade flow for the Spanish crown and a stronger Spanish position in the Mediterranean with the ports they have. This would also mean that Spain could probably hold on to Sardinia much longer and eventually become part of Modern Spain, but Sicily is pretty unlikely and could probably culturally more Hispanicized to stand out from other Southern Italians. Bonus points if John, Prince of Asturias survives to succeed the Catholic Monarchs and Spain does not get involved with the Habsburg shenanigans.

 

[twovultures]

But conquering North Africa biggest gains will be back in Spain's core territories, as the conquest cuts down on piracy.

Reading up on Phillip II's bankruptcies, I saw that while the wealth from the New World was immense, it was also not very reliable-in addition to corruption and piracy, the output of mines like Potosi could vary considerably from year to year and so was not always useful for budgetary reasons, while taxing their Italian holdings provided a much more reliable source of income. Increasing the safety of the Western Mediterranean for commerce and getting territory in North Africa-which has a Mediterranean climate on the coasts and has been productive farming land for millenia, let's not forget-would get them a more reliable source of wealth. Not enough to finance a Quixotic campaign like trying to keep the Netherlands, but in the long run the economy of Spain would benefit and its national interests are better suited for controlling the Mediterranean, while controlling the Americas benefitted the colonial elite immensely but not metropolitan Spain so much.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

This could be possible, but it relies on the first expeditions going poorly to make the Spanish think it isnt worthwhile to attack the mainland. In this scenario expect you'd see a Spanish Caribbean but if you can have (for example) the Aztecs kick out the Spanish and take a hostile stance, they may start to stategise on the scale required, working to keep the Spanish away from thr mainland. Effectively to ensure its safety from these invaders. Youll still have the diseases, but if the Aztecs can hide that weakness and persist, when they recover they'd be well placed to dominate the region's politics.

But it isn't impossible for this to evolve to a trade relationship. First for Spain to get easy gold whilst the Aztecs transform their military. Later for the Aztecs to trade gold directly with Europe.

That gold (in Spain's case) can then fund an invasion of North Africa which secures the Med for Spain and kills off Barbary Piracy. Further it brings Spain closer to Mediterranean wars, such as against the Ottomans which could the them down.

Honestly, a Spain focused on the Med is an interesting TL idea

 

[rfmcdonald]

It's not exactly clear to me what Spain would do with North Africa. What, exactly, would Spain do with the Maghreb and with Maghrebins if it conquered the area?

 

[Dingus Khan]

Spain can't just steamroll over North Africa like they did to the Americas. The Arabs and Berbers are immune/resistant to the same Old World diseases like the Spanish are, and at this point in time they're about militarily/technologically equal to them. Plus, good luck trying to force Catholicism upon millions of Muslims who have all the means to fight back. This will not be anything like the Reconquista of Iberia.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

But it isn't impossible for this to evolve to a trade relationship. First for Spain to get easy gold whilst the Aztecs transform their military. Later for the Aztecs to trade gold directly with Europe.

That gold (in Spain's case) can then fund an invasion of North Africa which secures the Med for Spain and kills off Barbary Piracy. Further it brings Spain closer to Mediterranean wars, such as against the Ottomans which could the them down.

How does this make sense? Spain produces military equipment to sell to the Aztecs for gold than... uses that gold to buy military equipment? Let's leave aside the fact there's no way the inflow is going to be nearly as high without hooking directly into the production and won't be offloading expenses on local adventurers while skimming a fifth off the top but now directly has to manage a large scale merchantile venture as a Crown enterprise with all the underlying expenses and risks. What on Earth is the profit on this?

 

[Amateur]

It's not exactly clear to me what Spain would do with North Africa. What, exactly, would Spain do with the Maghreb and with Maghrebins if it conquered the area?

Northern Africa's coastal provinces in present day Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco are quite rich agricultural areas. These areas were the breadbasket of the Western Roman Empire during the 3rd and 4th centuries (before the Vandals placed the area beyond Roman control).

Controlling the region would require both a strong navy AND the ability to project force into the desert interior. Both were feasible for Spain in the 16th century, and removing the distraction of colonizing Central and South America would have increased their focus on expanding holdings and establishing additional colonial towns along the North African coast.