What if the Spanish Colonial Empire Followed Aranda's advice and reformed

In 1783, the Spanish PM Count of Aranda predicted that the USA would not only survive, but thrive, become a great empire of its own, expand across North America and inspire the spanish colonies to become independent. As such, he suggested to King Charles III to divide the colonies between his sons and turn them into different kingdoms that would be tied in a web of alliances and look up to their Spanish counterpart as their superior, who would take the title of Emperor, with only the islands retained under direct Spanish leadership - 80 years before the first British dominions.

The King responded that Aranda was exaggerating and that this kind of reforms was not needed. A century later, Spain only controlled the insular parts of its American empire, and soon after lost them to the Americans.

So, What if King Charles followed his PMs advice and divide the Spanish Colonies in different kingdoms with their own national identities that would be under Spain's sphere of influence?


What would these kingdoms be called? Would this lead to a different scenario in the upcoming French Revolution? Would it allow Spain to retain the title of Great Power?
 
The ''experiment'' could have

My opinion is that at least there would have been a chance ... at least if we follow the example of Brazil and we consider the strong nationalist and royalist sentiments of the American colonists considered themselves British.

The ''experiment'' could have lasted long enough to create the new nations, which would be larger and more stable than OTL, a set of powers that would Allies in America of Spain and counterbalance the territorial expansionism of US and British Economical
 
Well I imagine Charles IV would stay in Spain since he's the heir, meanwhile Ferdinand is already King of Naples and Sicily so e won't get anything.

This leaves Gabriel and Antonio. Possibily Francisco if you have him not being killed by smallpox as a side POD (seeing as it wouldn't cause any major divergence in history on its own.

In Spain there are four viceroyalties, New Spain, New Granada, Peru, and Rio Plata. So you need four Infantes, so I recommend having Francisco survive to lessen the margin. or you can not mess with anything before the main POD of Carlos taking Aranas advice and have Carlos IV's twin sons not die (they OTL died in 1784 after POD). The first twin would stay in Spain as the second in line, but the second twin would get a kingdom (under a regent). And then have a different Ferdinand VII born in 1784 and give him a kingdom under a regent. Or potentially can award kingdoms to his grandsons in Naples, who besides Francis (heir to Naples & Sicily), was Gennaro.

Anyways for the Viceroyalties (maybe have them instead called Royalties considering they are ruled by a loyal?) I'll list who I think should get what.

New Spain the biggest, richest, most populous, most important viceroyalty will go to Gabriel as the eldest. This is also great because Gabriel could be Carlos III 2.0. However the Spanish East Indies will be detached from New Spain and returned to Madrid's control.

I'd then imagine Peru going to Antonio Pascual because it is the second richest and well populated. Which is so-so, because Antonio is absolutism, but I think he'll do okay. Hopefully Spain reattaches Upper Peru (Bolivia) to Peru and detaches Chile from Peru. Maybe Antonio begs his father to do this and says he'll refuse the crown unless it is done. Antonio's internal reasoning is owning Upper Peru's silver will be great.

All the other potential Kings either never lived long enough OTL to develop a personalty or were born after the POD. Either way their personalty can molded to your benefit.

New Granada is the next most important viceroyalty and it will go to Francisco (if he lives), Carlos IV's second twin (if he lives and Francisco is dead and the first twin is alive), Ferdinand VII (if one of Carlos IV's twins is dead and Francisco is too), finally there is Genarro (should the rest be dead)

Same order for Rio Plata which is the least developed of the viceroyalties.

My personal recommendation is have Carlos' twins live, so that you can have a strong strong led by the first twin and a strong New Granada led by the second twin. Then kill Ferdinand VII, because he's just so hateable and you'd get badgered if you changed his personalty by giving him a different gene combo. Now have Genarro take Rio Plata.

With these Royal Kingdoms, presumably still all under Spain (which could possibly become an empire if the Pope approved), we'd see interesting stuff occur. First off each viceroyalty will became to develop unified national identities, because of rallying around their own royal. Meanwhile administration of the colonies will probably vastly improve with their government being within them and the lack of all the colonial administrators. Another thing is viceroys lacked legislative power in the colonies, but these Kings wouldn't. They would probably have the power to do almost anything, but their power over foreign relations would limited, their defense would be too to an extent, meanwhile on trade they'd probably have to still trade mainly with Spain. I'd suspect a portion of the income of the kingdoms to be allotted to Spain. Anyways overall these Kingdoms would be better run and better able to accomplish things. We'd see a better defense against American expansion and probably more immigration (though it'd be restricted to Catholics).

On revolutions, they are going to be less likely. OTL they were sparked by Napoleon's invasion removing the government which oversaw the colonies, here the colonies have their own governments and own kings. However that is not to say that that was the only cause of the revolutions. However in Mexico the majority of the population is conservative and likes the Church, so revolution is not to likely, especially with Gabriel at their head. In New Granada there were rumblings, which could give trouble to whoever is their King, but the revolution will not succeed as New Spain can take it down and so can Spain. Peru will not suffer revolution, but large native population problems, which Peru will be able to deal with, because it had been dealing with large scale native revolts for centuries. Rio Plata is probably going to be fine.

Also I don't see Spain giving up Louisiana in this case to either France or America. And should the Americans try to take it they will fail, because Jefferson's military cuts fucked the military and Spain's Mexican colonies have always been well defended. However American immigration is hard to beat. But I can guarantee you that a significant amount of Catholic immigration to the U.S. is ending up in the Spanish American Kingdoms.

The effect on Europe short term would probably be limited (this is not taking into account the possible change of Carlos IV's heir which would have an impact on Europe). So you could go on a deterministic line and have the Napoleonic Wars occur, or you could go Allohistorical and prevent the French Revolution (by that I mean stop it from being a violent outburst and turn into a not so violent and more political movement, basically 1917 Russian Revolution vs 1905 Russian Revolution (not best analogy)).
 
Can't copy&paste because mobile, but when it has come before I've shared my pet idea of Charles III's wife living longer, having more sons and convincing him to adopt the plan as a way to give them something (not unlike how Charles' own mother convinced his father to give him a state in Italy when he was not expected to inherit Spain). Thus you solve the problem of Charles not having enough adult sons for each kingdom. They would get:

- Charles: Spain
- Ferdinand: Naples
- Gabriel: Mexico
- Anthony: Peru
- Fictional: New Granada
- Fictional: La Plata

I.e. the most senior son gets the most senior kingdom.

Alternatively, you could have Charles III's eldest son Philip born not mentally defficient (from paintings and descriptions he seems to have had Down's Syndrome, so no relation to inbreeding or anything) and his other son Francis not dying of the pox in 1771, so they would get:

- Philip: Spain
- Charles: Naples
- Ferdinand: Mexico
- Gabriel: Peru
- Anthony: New Granada
- Francis: La Plata

BTW, Gabriel's death IOTL, also of smallpox, later broke Charles III amd likely speeded his demise. If it was avoided, Charles III might live to see the French Revolution, if only barely, with all the effects that can get.
 
I've thinking on wotking an alternate TL where the Peruvian Native American revolts are more successful and manage to create a slowly expanding neo-Incan state by the late 1880's. Would this influence on such a decision in some way?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Setting aside anything else, doesn't the geography

In 1783, the Spanish PM Count of Aranda predicted that the USA would not only survive, but thrive, become a great empire of its own, expand across North America and inspire the spanish colonies to become independent. As such, he suggested to King Charles III to divide the colonies between his sons and turn them into different kingdoms that would be tied in a web of alliances and look up to their Spanish counterpart as their superior, who would take the title of Emperor, with only the islands retained under direct Spanish leadership - 80 years before the first British dominions.

The King responded that Aranda was exaggerating and that this kind of reforms was not needed. A century later, Spain only controlled the insular parts of its American empire, and soon after lost them to the Americans.

So, What if King Charles followed his PMs advice and divide the Spanish Colonies in different kingdoms with their own national identities that would be under Spain's sphere of influence?

What would these kingdoms be called? Would this lead to a different scenario in the upcoming French Revolution? Would it allow Spain to retain the title of Great Power?

Setting aside anything else, doesn't the geography (physical and political/social/demographic/intellectual) end up in a "eastern and western empire" sort of situation? Or "every satrap goes to sleep dreaming of how to become a king and wakes up plotting just that?"

Other examples are the various (sub)Napoleonic kingdoms, the various and sundry personal unions and dual monarchies, and even such Twentieth Century conglomerations as East and West Pakistan.

My point is, such constructs tend to be very brittle, and simple demographics would suggest that at some point, the "Americans" would have little desire, interest, or willingness to be governed from afar, even with whatever level of local control/devolution is allowed by the Spanish Empire - which, considering the basic delta is a series of junior kingdoms, is not going to be great.

As an example (and, obviously, these numbers could vary tremendously based on the ripples of this attempt at empire-building in the 1790s, but it's probably about the earliest one can come up with these numbers) but by 1900 (historically), Spain's population was (roughly) ~21 million; Mexico's was 12 million, Argentina a little less than 6 million, Columbia almost 5 million, and Peru almost 4 million. Chile and Venezuela were both almost 3 million, Cuba and Bolivia each about 1.5 million, and Ecuador, Salvador, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, and Uruguay each about 1 million; the rest of the "Spanish" Latin American republics together were probably at least 5 million people.

So call it 2-1 in demographics in favor of the "American" Spanish Imperials vis a vis the "European" Spanish Imperials.

That is not a stable situation.

It's an intriguing idea, but there's a long distance in the political science spectrum of empire and federations between Aranda's proposal and even the dominion status that (say) Canada enjoyed after 1867 - and which came about, really, because of the realities of the United States.

Considering that Canada didn't even complete the federalization process until 1949 (Newfoundland), it seems to expect a lot from the Eighteenth Century.

Given everything else that is to be expected to happen in Europe in the late 1700s and early 1800s, it's entirely possible something akin to Brazil's "imperial" history follows, in one or more of the "junior kingdoms" all the way through to republics...

Best,
 
Last edited:
The Brazilian model

Setting aside anything else, doesn't the geography (physical and political/social/demographic/intellectual) end up in a "eastern and western empire" sort of situation? Or "every satrap goes to sleep dreaming of how to become a king and wakes up plotting just that?"

Other examples are the various (sub)Napoleonic kingdoms, the various and sundry personal unions and dual monarchies, and even such Twentieth Century conglomerations as East and West Pakistan.

My point is, such constructs tend to be very brittle, and simple demographics would suggest that at some point, the "Americans" would have little desire, interest, or willingness to be governed from afar, even with whatever level of local control/devolution is allowed by the Spanish Empire - which, considering the basic delta is a serious of junior kingdoms, is not going to be great.

As an example (and, obviously, these numbers could vary tremendously based on the ripples of this attempt at empire-building in the 1790s, but it's probably about the earliest one can come up with these numbers) but by 1900 (historically), Spain's population was (roughly) ~21 million; Mexico's was 12 million, Argentina a little less than 6 million, Columbia almost 5 million, and Peru almost 4 million. Chile and Venezuela were both almost 3 million, Cuba and Bolivia each about 1.5 million, and Ecuador, Salvador, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, and Uruguay each about 1 million; the rest of the "Spanish" Latin American republics together were probably at least 5 million people.

So call it 2-1 in demographics in favor of the "American" Spanish Imperials vis a vis the "European" Spanish Imperials.

That is not a stable situation.

It's an intriguing idea, but there's a long distance in the political science spectrum of empire and federations between Aranda's proposal and even the dominion status that (say) Canada enjoyed after 1867 - and which came about, really, because of the realities of the United States.

Considering that Canada didn't even complete the federalization process until 1949 (Newfoundland), it seems to expect a lot from the Eighteenth Century.

Given everything else that is to be expected to happen in Europe in the late 1700s and early 1800s, it's entirely possible something akin to Brazil's "imperial" history follows, in one or more of the "junior kingdoms" all the way through to republics...

Best,


It is very likely that in certain regions could follow the Brazilian model, on the other hand Brazil had not its evolution to a republic as inevitable or predetermined, but in other regions as New Spain, which would include Central America or the Viceroyalty of Peru for their socioeconomic structures and OTL bastions would Realistic but this hypothetical ATL, would have very good chances of stabilizing as Kingdoms.

But its institutional or Demographic evolution is not in discussion or is too important as any way to achieve the project started and the new nations formed survive the first 2 or 3 generations term, where trends and autonomist sentiments would become in nationalists trends and would be achieved in part in order to avoid the high fragmentation of the post-independence Spanish America.



That at least they survive as Kingdoms Nations,will be linked to the old Metropolis by''pactos similar familia'' the OTL French and Spanish Bourbons.
The republics, if it gets any, his relations with Spain would not be burdened by memories of a bloody independence war nor would have made her, that lastraria and determine their mutual relations based on historical account of the release of the Spanish oppression.


One result would be expected to evolve that perhaps events like OTL way, the Napoleonic invasion would not lead to a power vacuum in America that would cause the proliferation of '' Together '' following the Spanish example, who would act on behalf of Ferdinand VII but actually marked the beginning of the independence process in America.

Many would Revolutionary government and military leaders OTL independence would be serving faithfully in the new Royal to create in the old Viceroyalties, for their new monarchs armies.

Another serious consequence would be the increasing of the politics-military tension with Brazil, especially since the new Reino del Plata, which would include the current Chile and parts of southern Brazil in OTL, a war between them would be very likely given the geopolitical trend llevavan to a confrontation were present before the formation of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata and the installation of its Monarchs, only strengthened.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Agreed, it's early enough that one can suggest "almost"

It is very likely that in certain regions could follow the Brazilian model, on the other hand Brazil had not its evolution to a republic as inevitable or predetermined, but in other regions as New Spain, which would include Central America or the Viceroyalty of Peru for their socioeconomic structures and OTL bastions would Realistic but this hypothetical ATL, would have very good chances of stabilizing as Kingdoms.

But its institutional or Demographic evolution is not in discussion or is too important as any way to achieve the project started and the new nations formed survive the first 2 or 3 generations term, where trends and autonomist sentiments would become in nationalists trends and would be achieved in part in order to avoid the high fragmentation of the post-independence Spanish America.



That at least they survive as Kingdoms Nations,will be linked to the old Metropolis by''pactos similar familia'' the OTL French and Spanish Bourbons.
The republics, if it gets any, his relations with Spain would not be burdened by memories of a bloody independence war nor would have made her, that lastraria and determine their mutual relations based on historical account of the release of the Spanish oppression.


One result would be expected to evolve that perhaps events like OTL way, the Napoleonic invasion would not lead to a power vacuum in America that would cause the proliferation of '' Together '' following the Spanish example, who would act on behalf of Ferdinand VII but actually marked the beginning of the independence process in America.

Many would Revolutionary government and military leaders OTL independence would be serving faithfully in the new Royal to create in the old Viceroyalties, for their new monarchs armies.

Another serious consequence would be the increasing of the politics-military tension with Brazil, especially since the new Reino del Plata, which would include the current Chile and parts of southern Brazil in OTL, a war between them would be very likely given the geopolitical trend llevavan to a confrontation were present before the formation of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata and the installation of its Monarchs, only strengthened.

Agreed, it's early enough that one can suggest "almost" any sort of result(s) over the next two centuries; my point is simply that empires/federations/whatevers, especially trans-oceanic examples, are not simple to create, maintain, or sustain.

And the demographics will push the politics (internal and inter-empire and external) in terms of shared power and/or devolution; one obvious example - using Brazil and Portugal - is that in 1900, Brazil had 17 million people; Portugal less than six million. The instability of a "nation" or even a "federal/empire" where the politcal center has one third the population of the periphery seems obvious.

The interesting contrast is with the British, who actually managed to make a "dominion" system work, after a fashion; in 1900 (again, just because it is a handy date, and both postdates Canada and predates the other "white" dominions) Britain had 38 million (including the population of Ireland), while Canada had less than six million, what became Australia about 4 million, and New Zealand less than 1 million; what became the Union of South Africa was, of course, in the middle of fairly bloody conflict over the very issue of federation (conquest to the Boers).

Again, based on the historical examples, it is very difficult to make this sort of state work.

I could see it leading to "larger" South American states, although even there, most borders make geographic and topographic sense; the Andes, for example, are sort of difficut to ignore.;)

Best,
 
Last edited:
Any independence movements under this system are likely to be much smoother than what happened IOTL. And anyway, after a few generations, the junior kingdoms would be independent in all but name, in each the court would reside there permanently and the King would have grown there, holding the interests of the people there as his own. The Emperor of Spain would officially be the Head of State, but otherwise he'd barely interfere.
 
See also

AHC/WI: The Aranda Plan/Chateaubriand's Idea Succeeds
JonasResende

AHC: Spanish Commonwealth
Eagle's Nest

AHC: Spain keeps as many Latin American Colonies as possible (Multi-page thread 1 2)
Emperor Constantine

Spain or Portugal hold on to parts of Latin America
Strategos' Risk



Not nearly as well covered as lots of PoDs.
 
Interesting. Could we also see the Captain Generalities (Guatemala, Cuba) transformed into Principalities and Duchies and given to junior members of the Bourbons ?
 
That was the scheme for the Portuguese Empire..they have native kingdoms as vassals like they did in Wehali/Timor and Congo/Angola

For the Philippines, I think returning the Filipinos to their original kingdoms with their rightful and strongest heir would be the best thing to do - so no united philippines.

For Luzon, a branch of the Bolkiahs can rule it under Spanish vassalage as what Lakandula wanted to happen in the first place, Luzon, Mindanao and Sulu would be vassal Kingdoms while Visayas is given to a Cadet Bourbon.
 
Last edited:
Top