Strongest Spain post-1700?

Not many.

Even if it doesn't weaken, other powers are ahead of it and getting more so.

Does it have the resources for even major reform to access so far as the government is concerned?
 
Not many.

Even if it doesn't weaken, other powers are ahead of it and getting more so.

Does it have the resources for even major reform to access so far as the government is concerned?

Spain doesn't have to be a Great Power - even though at this point in OTL, Prussia was on its way to Great Power status despite its size and lack of colonial possessions.

What I mean is a better outcome for Bourbon Spain - one that continues the relative momentum set by the early Spanish Bourbons instead of derailing as in the OTL 19th century.
 
Spain doesn't have to be a Great Power - even though at this point in OTL, Prussia was on its way to Great Power status despite its size and lack of colonial possessions.

Prussia has valuable assets like a middle class and a functioning bureaucracy though. Spain seems short on those (Which are necessary for its long term future, with or without great power status)

What I mean is a better outcome for Bourbon Spain - one that continues the relative momentum set by the early Spanish Bourbons instead of derailing as in the OTL 19th century.

Probably something where either the dynasty does better or just better administration in terms of the people actually directly running (or ruining) things. How you get that I don't know, but that might be the thing to fix and positive results will flow from there rather than say, doing better in the colonial field (to the extent that's distinct).
 
Prussia has valuable assets like a middle class and a functioning bureaucracy though. Spain seems short on those (Which are necessary for its long term future, with or without great power status)

A worthy point. Perhaps if Charles III's administration isn't virtually erased by his lackluster son Charles IV, then Spain could do better.

Alternatively, the Napoleonic Wars destabilized Spain, so getting those out of the way can help.
 
A worthy point. Perhaps if Charles III's administration isn't virtually erased by his lackluster son Charles IV, then Spain could do better.

Alternatively, the Napoleonic Wars destabilized Spain, so getting those out of the way can help.

Having both would be even better.
 
The uninspiring Charles IV was bound to ascend the throne in the late 18th century, and his son proved little more competent anyway. That said, having an abler valido (proto-prime minister) than Godoy, a guards officer and the Queen's lover would have helped.
 
The uninspiring Charles IV was bound to ascend the throne in the late 18th century, and his son proved little more competent anyway. That said, having an abler valido (proto-prime minister) than Godoy, a guards officer and the Queen's lover would have helped.

Perhaps a different match for Charles III? I do seem to recall Charles IV's elder brother being mentally unfit and Charles IV himself being pretty dull.
 

Thande

Donor
The uninspiring Charles IV was bound to ascend the throne in the late 18th century

No. The only reason Charles ascended was because his older brother Philip had a mental condition that rendered him unfit for rule. If Philip had been healthy, we'd have had Philip VI reigning in Spain and Charles continuing in Naples and Sicily. Which I use in my own timeline Look to the West.

However I think this is a bit late in any case. To avoid Spain's decline, you need its kings to find a less confrontational way of ruling; throughout the 18th century they alienated their people by trying to force Enlightenment ways on the country, often using foreign-born ministers as their enforces, which--especially given the French origins of the Bourbons--led to a 'detached alien elite' mentality that few people want to fight for. Spain needed modernising, but they should have found a way to cast modernisation programmes in a more nativist light.
 
Actually, in the 19th century, the best bet for Spain would be more conflict not less. If she'd let go of Cuba, and fought another Carlist war to put them in their place, Spain could have maintained at least some status and power in the international stage. Compare to Italy or Austria-Hungary prior to WWI.
 
Actually, in the 19th century, the best bet for Spain would be more conflict not less. If she'd let go of Cuba, and fought another Carlist war to put them in their place, Spain could have maintained at least some status and power in the international stage. Compare to Italy or Austria-Hungary prior to WWI.

A Spain with no colonies and four civil wars in a row is in better situation than how Spain was in 1700?

The 'Carlists are overrated' should be included in the misconceptions thread BTW. The Carlists were crushed and done for good in the 1870s. If they had any power or political traction left they would have tried something in 1885 when there was a king-in-utero or in the aftermath of the '98 disaster. True, they made a comeback in the 1920s and 1930s but that was in line with the general trend of militaristic groups arising in interwar Europe. The 1930s Carlists were as different from the 1870s ones (or the 1870s from the 1830s for that matter) as the first and second incarnations of the KKK were.

In 1885 Alfonso XII was respected (even by the die-hard Carlists) and reasonably popular, the military saw him as its undisputed head, there was a minimal foreign prestige (treaties with Britain and Germany securing Sulu and the Marianas, the border arbitration in Central America), the economy was on the rise and the situation in both Spain and Cuba the most stable seen in the last 25 years. Him not dying could be a decent window to give Spain a better end of the 19th century.

But the OP is asking for a strongest Spain post-1700, so I'll go with the lot pointing at Charles IV. Yep, I know that some people don't like the "Great Man" theory of History, but it held its water during the Absolutist period. The likes of Ensenada, Aranda and Floridablanca show that the Spain of the late 18th century had its share of capable administrators. It was Charles IV who chose to give their job to the royal guard that was banging his wife. You can figure how well that went.

So I'm thinking of three ways to get around that:

a) Ferdinand VI has issue. Charles III and his continue in Naples. Meanwhile, Spain continues Ferdinand's attempt to regain its own personality and maintain and equilibrium between France and Britain, rather than being a subject of the former.

b) Charles III still gets the throne (he screwed up a little when he joined the Seven Years War as it was closing because he was a noob but made good for it later) but other than Charles IV succeeds him.

c) Other than Maria Luisa of Parma marries Charles IV (she had him completely dominated, so even if we kill Godoy she would just put other guy in his place). Also, whatever can stop the unholy union between the ovule and spermatozoid that produced Ferdinand VII, the better.

Either way, Spain performs better during the War of the Pyrenees without Godoy screwing up with Ricardos' supplies (even if she only gets statu quo ante at the peace table), there is no alliance with Napoleon, no Trafalgar, no Peninsular War (or a far less destructive version, what with the French starting outside Spain's borders) and Spain is in a position to join to gangbang against Napoleon when he makes the final blunder - because he will, one way or another. So Spain is in a position to make some token geographic wins in the Pyrenees, has an actual representation at Vienna and a freer hand to deal with the Latin American revolutions. How's that?
 
I feel that you've misunderstood my post.

A Spain with no colonies and four civil wars in a row is in better situation than how Spain was in 1700?

One merely without Cuba, but still retaining her other colonies, and one that has crushed all domestic insurgents is certainly strong than one with costly overseas entanglements and internal revolts and dissidents.

The 'Carlists are overrated' should be included in the misconceptions thread BTW. The Carlists were crushed and done for good in the 1870s. If they had any power or political traction left they would have tried something in 1885 when there was a king-in-utero or in the aftermath of the '98 disaster. True, they made a comeback in the 1920s and 1930s but that was in line with the general trend of militaristic groups arising in interwar Europe. The 1930s Carlists were as different from the 1870s ones (or the 1870s from the 1830s for that matter) as the first and second incarnations of the KKK were.

Exactly. By the later part of the 19th century the Carlist were, de-facto, defeated. However that was only after a quarter of a century, or more depending on how you measure these things, of internal dissident, revolts, and threats of revolution that had slowed, if not regressed, Spain's modernization and socio-economic progress. Dealing with them earlier instead of later as per OTL means more time, and, importantly, more effort, can be put into reconstruction of Spain; both internally as a functioning society and externally as a, somewhat neutered, great power. Dealing with the pain now to hasten the recovery versus putting off the inevitable and making things worse, so to speak.
 
Top