What would the 19th century look like with a surviving Spanish Empire?

[Sardar]

The ONLY real way I could see Spain avoiding getting caught up in the Napoleonic Wars would be to declare neutrality. OTL Spain tried fighting against the Revolutionary French and lost....then they allied with Napoleon and until he imposed his brother on them, they were willing to fight as allies because they had a common enemy in Britain. Once they started losing and began to revolt against the alliance THAT was when Nap put his brother Joe on the Spanish throne...and that was when the stirrings of revolt began in the Latin American colonies

Bottom line was that regardless of whether Spain fought with the French or against them, when they fought they lost. Spain would have to avoid being dragged into the Austrian and Polish Succession Wars, the Seven Years War and the American War of Independence in order to have the military might to be more victorious if they did get dragged into the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. This is why their best bet would be to remain strictly neutral and focus on federalizing their colonial empire...maybe a Spanish version of the later British Commonwealth

I don't think that once revolts begin in the colonies Spain is destined to lose them. It took a long time for the colonies to gain independence, and the revolutionaries had to fight armies and armies of Spanish loyalists to achieve victory. This is in OTL where Spain was notoriously incompetent, so I don't see how it is that hard to imagine if Spain has a better monarch then the Wars of Independence would be conducted more competently on the Spanish side, giving a greater chance to Spain of retaining her colonies.

 

[Just a Turteldove Fan]

I don't think that once revolts begin in the colonies Spain is destined to lose them. It took a long time for the colonies to gain independence, and the revolutionaries had to fight armies and armies of Spanish loyalists to achieve victory. This is in OTL where Spain was notoriously incompetent, so I don't see how it is that hard to imagine if Spain has a better monarch then the Wars of Independence would be conducted more competently on the Spanish side, giving a greater chance to Spain of retaining her colonies.

Had Spain have a better monarch is more than possible to conserve Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Central America. As the loyalist were actually winning in those fronts before Fernando VII fucked up as it was common in his reign. And when I say winnning I mean they were holding off the revolutionaries attempts to take over those territories and even pushing into Colombia. I believe that if a connection is stablished with Central America Bolivar could be defeated and then Spain could concentrate its forces against Mexico. Retaking Mexico, Argentina and Chile is off the question but the rest of the continent can be more of less secured.

 

[p0lish_runn3r]

Well I have a Pod that could make for an interesting TL. Luis I survives and reigns instead of Carlos IV. You got a King that continues Carlos III policy and avoid 3 of the worst kings in Spanish history. With this POD Spain probably ends up becoming a great power over Austria-Hungary and Italy as they probably got a good 19th century. What do you think?

Wait I'm confused isn't Louis I the guy who only ruled for 7 months in 1724 so his father had to come back and rule for another 20+ years. If so then if he has no issue then the title just jumps back to Charles III and Charles IV. Is this a differnt Luis that I can't find?

 

[unprincipled peter]

That does seem a bit like cheating though, as then I would just have Napoleon born as a son to Charles III

No different than scheming a death for OTL Carlos IV, and maybe Fernando (although I think he did fairly well in Naples), to get to a more qualified brother

 

[Sardar]

Had Spain have a better monarch is more than possible to conserve Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Central America. As the loyalist were actually winning in those fronts before Fernando VII fucked up as it was common in his reign. And when I say winnning I mean they were holding off the revolutionaries attempts to take over those territories and even pushing into Colombia. I believe that if a connection is stablished with Central America Bolivar could be defeated and then Spain could concentrate its forces against Mexico. Retaking Mexico, Argentina and Chile is off the question but the rest of the continent can be more of less secured.

That's why I'd prefer an alt-Charles IV, so Mexico and Chile are kept (I think Rio de la Plata is lost in 9 timelines out of 10 anyways).

Wait I'm confused isn't Louis I the guy who only ruled for 7 months in 1724 so his father had to come back and rule for another 20+ years. If so then if he has no issue then the title just jumps back to Charles III and Charles IV. Is this a differnt Luis that I can't find?

Yes, he only ruled for like 7 months because he died of smallpox (like so many royals in the early 18th century). At least from wikipedia it says he wished to focus his reign more on the American colonies rather than Italy, so there's that going for him (he's also not Charles IV, so that also is a point in his favor lol).

 

[p0lish_runn3r]

That's why I'd prefer an alt-Charles IV, so Mexico and Chile are kept (I think Rio de la Plata is lost in 9 timelines out of 10 anyways).

Yes, he only ruled for like 7 months because he died of smallpox (like so many royals in the early 18th century). At least from wikipedia it says he wished to focus his reign more on the American colonies rather than Italy, so there's that going for him (he's also not Charles IV, so that also is a point in his favor lol).

Yeah i understand that but it just means that charles IV isn’t removed from the succession unless luis has a kid and if he has a kid then that also removes charles the 3rd who we can all agree was one of the best spanish bourbon monarchs.

 

[Sardar]

Yeah i understand that but it just means that charles IV isn’t removed from the succession unless luis has a kid and if he has a kid then that also removes charles the 3rd who we can all agree was one of the best spanish bourbon monarchs.

Yes so that's why we want Charles IV to be born different or have one of his brothers become King of Spain.

 

[Fulano]

Something that is usually overlooked here is, while the Bourbon Reforms were quite beneficial to Spain, they weren't really a good thing to the american colonies. If any those laws were one of the main reasons the "Criollos" revolted against the "Peninsulares" in the 19th century.
They suffered from the loss of privileges and freedoms they had with the Habsburgs and they didn't really want to be ruled by lackeys sent directly from Spain, plus the reorganization of the Viceroyalties and Kingdoms into Intendencias and Territories really left a political and administrative mess that was not solved after many decades. And sometimes they were not even solved, considering how the majority of the territorial disputes that ended in civil wars in the new american countries were caused by those irregularities.

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

I don't think that once revolts begin in the colonies Spain is destined to lose them. It took a long time for the colonies to gain independence, and the revolutionaries had to fight armies and armies of Spanish loyalists to achieve victory. This is in OTL where Spain was notoriously incompetent, so I don't see how it is that hard to imagine if Spain has a better monarch then the Wars of Independence would be conducted more competently on the Spanish side, giving a greater chance to Spain of retaining her colonies.

But even with that, you assume Spain somehow avoids the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars.
Napoleon would've invaded Spain regardless of whether there was a competent ruler on the throne. French ideas would've infiltrated Spanish culture and made its way to their colonies...plus, there's the much closer example of the United States of America.

 

[Sardar]

Something that is usually overlooked here is, while the Bourbon Reforms were quite beneficial to Spain, they weren't really a good thing to the american colonies. If any those laws were one of the main reasons the "Criollos" revolted against the "Peninsulares" in the 19th century.
They suffered from the loss of privileges and freedoms they had with the Habsburgs and they didn't really want to be ruled by lackeys sent directly from Spain, plus the reorganization of the Viceroyalties and Kingdoms into Intendencias and Territories really left a political and administrative mess that was not solved after many decades. And sometimes they were not even solved, considering how the majority of the territorial disputes that ended in civil wars in the new american countries were caused by those irregularities.

Yup, that's the biggest issue with this scenario. I'd like to imagine that a better last couple of Spanish Kings would at least try and placate the Criollos, and the 1812 Constitution showed that those ideas were at least out there.

But even with that, you assume Spain somehow avoids the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars.
Napoleon would've invaded Spain regardless of whether there was a competent ruler on the throne. French ideas would've infiltrated Spanish culture and made its way to their colonies...plus, there's the much closer example of the United States of America.

Sure, there would be the example of the USA, but again we still have in OTL a large Royalist movement in the colonies even after the shitshow that was OTL.