Spanish royalists in the South American Independence Wars?

Peru is known for being a key area for royalist support in the Spanish American Wars of Independence, but where else were the royalists found in strong numbers?

Thanks for answers
 
Certain parts of Venezuela, especially around Maracaibo and in what some people call Spanish Guyana (the areas of Venezuela close to British Guyana) come to my mind. Also the region around the Chiloé Archipelago in modern Chile was a royalist stronghold, too. There might be more, but those are the ones that immediately spring to my mind.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Mexico - the royalists were so strong, they took over

Mexico - the royalists were so strong, they took over at independence, which is why Mexico had such a rough period of national consolidation even after the Spanish sailed away.

Cuba and Puerto Rico, obviously; the Domincan Republic, since the royalists actually took them back under the Spanish flag for a period in the 1860s.

Best,
 
Certain parts of Venezuela, especially around Maracaibo and in what some people call Spanish Guyana (the areas of Venezuela close to British Guyana) come to my mind. Also the region around the Chiloé Archipelago in modern Chile was a royalist stronghold, too. There might be more, but those are the ones that immediately spring to my mind.

Mexico - the royalists were so strong, they took over at independence, which is why Mexico had such a rough period of national consolidation even after the Spanish sailed away.

Cuba and Puerto Rico, obviously; the Domincan Republic, since the royalists actually took them back under the Spanish flag for a period in the 1860s.

Best,

Both of your answers are really helpful, thanks. My second question then is would it be plausible for the Royalists to maintain control of Central America south of Mexico and north of Panama, keeping it under Spanish control for longer?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Central America was really poor, however

Both of your answers are really helpful, thanks. My second question then is would it be plausible for the Royalists to maintain control of Central America south of Mexico and north of Panama, keeping it under Spanish control for longer?

Central America was really poor, however; at least in Cuba, etc, there's sugar.

That's an immediate reaction, however; let me look at a couple of sources.

You are quite welcome, however.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Both of your answers are really helpful, thanks. My second question then is would it be plausible for the Royalists to maintain control of Central America south of Mexico and north of Panama, keeping it under Spanish control for longer?

It would be really difficult. Apart of the area being rather poor, it was aso a remte one, without ports of importance ( the raw materials produced by the Kingdom of Guatemala were exported through the Yucatan) and with dense jungles difficulting communications. Once Mexico becomes indeendent, there us no sense for Cenrral America to stay under spanish rule, nor for Spau to keep control over the area.
 
As mentioned above, much of what is today Western Venezuela was royalist including Maracaibo. Quito, Pasto and Popayán in New Granada were all royalist.

In Mexico, Querétaro was considered a royalist bastion as was Colima and Guanajuato. Mexico City, Veracruz and Acapulco along with Texas were in Royalist hands until 1821.

Montevideo was also considered a royalist city, along with much of southern Chile. Peru of course is the major royalist centre.
 
I think most of Spanish America was accepting of being under Spanish rule. Only a few key areas were eager to attain independence. Sans the fiasco in the home country of having two Bourbon kings forcibly given the boot and an interloper Bonaparte trying to hold onto the crown while the entirety of Spain erupted as a battleground, you probably don't see much of an independence movement for quite a while. The locals (as opposed to the mother country) having to defend Buenos Aires from the British didn't help either. But even in Argentina, Buenos Aires had to forcibly convince the other provinces to boot out the Spanish.
 

Deleted member 67076

Mexico - the royalists were so strong, they took over at independence, which is why Mexico had such a rough period of national consolidation even after the Spanish sailed away.

Cuba and Puerto Rico, obviously; the Dominican Republic, since the royalists actually took them back under the Spanish flag for a period in the 1860s.

Best,
Eh... that was mostly Pedro Santana and Buenaventura Baez, who after the failure of the 1850s harnesses the support of the elites to go back to the Spanish fold. Partially for defense and partially to cement their control (which is funny because they had less power under the Spanish government).

The old school Trinitarios loyal to a republic due to the conservative government in Spain.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Understood; just using it as an example of the vagaries of

Eh... that was mostly Pedro Santana and Buenaventura Baez, who after the failure of the 1850s harnesses the support of the elites to go back to the Spanish fold. Partially for defense and partially to cement their control (which is funny because they had less power under the Spanish government).

The old school Trinitarios loyal to a republic due to the conservative government in Spain.


Understood; just using it as an example of the vagaries of "late" Spanish imperialism/royalism in the Western Hemisphere.

Best,
 
Another place with strong royalst support was Alto Perú/ Charkas. They pushed back several rioplatense incurssions. Basically a large part of the local indigineous majority distrusted more the criollos than they distrusted the crown.




Eh... that was mostly Pedro Santana and Buenaventura Baez, who after the failure of the 1850s harnesses the support of the elites to go back to the Spanish fold. Partially for defense and partially to cement their control (which is funny because they had less power under the Spanish government).

The old school Trinitarios loyal to a republic due to the conservative government in Spain.

I often taunt a dominican friend remembering how the Dominican Republic is the only place crazy enough to breaking free from Spain and retourning by their free will, or "free", but still
 
I think most of Spanish America was accepting of being under Spanish rule. Only a few key areas were eager to attain independence. Sans the fiasco in the home country of having two Bourbon kings forcibly given the boot and an interloper Bonaparte trying to hold onto the crown while the entirety of Spain erupted as a battleground, you probably don't see much of an independence movement for quite a while. The locals (as opposed to the mother country) having to defend Buenos Aires from the British didn't help either. But even in Argentina, Buenos Aires had to forcibly convince the other provinces to boot out the Spanish.

Actually there wasn't an independence movement until the Peninsular War
 
Gurroruo,

there was the beginnings of a movement, which hadn't gone to rebellion stage prior to the peninsular war. at minimum, Miranda in Venezuela was trying to convince Britain to back his movement, and Buenos Aires was thinking about it after the attempted British invasions. There was certainly a lot of discontent. I doubt it would have gone to any serious rebellion stage if it weren't for the peninsular war, but there was some smoldering desire.
 
Gurroruo,

there was the beginnings of a movement, which hadn't gone to rebellion stage prior to the peninsular war. at minimum, Miranda in Venezuela was trying to convince Britain to back his movement, and Buenos Aires was thinking about it after the attempted British invasions. There was certainly a lot of discontent. I doubt it would have gone to any serious rebellion stage if it weren't for the peninsular war, but there was some smoldering desire.

The independentist minded group consisted of individuals not regions. from your earlier statement I took it as you saying that the people of certain regions wanted to over throw the Spanish, but it was in fact small groups of ambitious individuals.
 
Another place with strong royalst support was Alto Perú/ Charkas. They pushed back several rioplatense incurssions. Basically a large part of the local indigineous majority distrusted more the criollos than they distrusted the crown.
Representatives from Charcas and other provinces of what's currently southern Bolivia where part of the assembly that declared Argentine independence in 1816.

Now, there was definitely a lot of bad blood between the people of Alto Perú and the Argentine Northern Army (sacking and looting all over the place doesn't quite earn hearts and minds), but I understand the area was a hotbed of guerrilla activity against royalists: the Padillas, Lanza, Santa Cruz and others spring to mind.
 
Gurroruo,
Some areas were more prone to independence just as some areas were more prone to royalist sentiment. The ease which Buenos Aires and Paraguay took up the cause is evidence of this. In Buenos Aires in particular, the idea of independence predated the peninsular war by several years, manifesting itself particularly with the British invasions. The war in Spain, and the disruption of Spanish Authority, made for a very convenient excuse and timing for that notion to boil to the surface. As I originally said, without the disruption in Spain, the movement probably would have remained subdued, but I think it's incorrect to say there was not the beginnings of one.
 
Top