Why did the Spanish populace tolerate the French invasion of 1823?

The Spanish population tolerated French occupation in the 1820s why

  • Because it supported a legitimate King, and even French support could not undermine that legitimacy

    Votes: 30 76.9%
  • Because the Church told the Spanish people that this time the French were good

    Votes: 18 46.2%
  • Because the Bourbon French occupiers did not anger people with "reforms"

    Votes: 19 48.7%
  • Because the Bourbon French troops were supplied from France, but the Napoleonic lived off the land

    Votes: 21 53.8%

  • Total voters
    39

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
And the continued presence of some French troops up until 1828?

It seems remarkable this did not become a guerrilla mess.\

Why not?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So far the favorite result is the legitimacy of the King.

Which brings up a point - Could Napoleon have made Spain into a reliable satellite, passageway to Portugal and member of the Continental System if he hadn't put his brother on the Spanish throne?
 
Which brings up a point - Could Napoleon have made Spain into a reliable satellite, passageway to Portugal and member of the Continental System if he hadn't put his brother on the Spanish throne?

The king might have second thoughts. Look at poor Austria under Napoleon's sphere of influence until they shook off the yok. Who's to say the Spanish king isn't next to be humiliated?
 
The king might have second thoughts. Look at poor Austria under Napoleon's sphere of influence until they shook off the yok. Who's to say the Spanish king isn't next to be humiliated?

If Austria was humiliated, it was because it kept joining anti-French coalitions and getting beaten.

Spain actually was on France’s side from 1796 until the overthrow of the Bourbons. Whether it would have remained an ally beyond 1808 is uncertain though (Napoléon had doubts).
 
If Austria was humiliated, it was because it kept joining anti-French coalitions and getting beaten.

I don't mean battlefield defeats (which they certainly were humiliating but off topic) but at the terms Napoleon put on them.

Tarylland wanted to let them off easy after the war of the Third Coalition since he viewed the, as a buffer against Russia. The Austrians by the 1780s no longer trusted the British. They were antagonistic towards the Prussians and Ottomans. They distrusted the Russians. While the Holy Roman Empire was de facto a series of related kingdoms and duchies rather than a nation, its facade was good to keep the population of Germany (Rhineland? I'm specifically referring to geographical region since the nation obviously didn't exist yet). With the Austrians getting mercy terms, Tarylland thought Napoleon could peacefully turn Western and Central Europe into a Bonaparte hegemony.

Because they were left smarting, the Austrians kept going for these coalitions. And in the second one they didn't do anything of note. You got it backwards, it is the humiliation at the end of the war of the third coalition that caused them to keep joining more even though most of France enemies (besides Britain) stayed out until the last one or whenever Napoleon did something to bug them (in the case of Spain put his brother on the throne). They knew that they might face Prussia and Russia in separate conflicts one day off in the future, but getting rid of Napoleon allowed them a few decades of prosperity.

Look at this from the king of Spain's point of view. France treats the Netherlands like shit. The new grand duchy of Warsaw is a clever way to disguise stealing of the area's wealth (1/8 of the taxes went straight to France). Austria, which could have proven useful to Napoleon, was humiliated. Napoleon keeps sprouting the ideals of the Revolution as rhetoric in public long after he became Emperor. The same revolution which killed the Spanish king's cousin! If I sent the King of Saxony in 1910 back in time to talk to Spain not about the future but about what he did as King of Saxony, the Spanish king would think the latter was just a glorified duke or marquess. Which, he was. The king of Spain could have been fearful of being reduced Napoleon's glorified duke who is called king.

Also, plenty of Spanish nobles thought Spain was trying to wrest away from France and go into neutrality. They must have gotten the idea from somewhere and rumors can be true you know...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think the church blessing or not is the decisive factor at the town and village grassroots level, although all the factors have some relevance.
 
I've voted for all four. Not really sure what order to put them in.

Perhaps there ought to be a fifth, that the average Spanish peasant didn't trust the urban lawyers who figured a lot in liberal politics, and felt inclined to stick to the King as "the devil we know".
 
Napoléon could've saved himself a lot of trouble had he just sanctioned Fernando VII's marriage to his niece. Fernando was pro-French (or more specifically he was anti-Godoy who was anti-French) and pliable. Plus, Lucien's daughter would've probably kept el rey felon on her uncle's side IMHO (Fernando's first and last wives had an almost unhealthy level of control over him, at least, compared to nos. 2 and 3).

As to why they didn't raise a fuss in the 1820s, not sure. It could've been any of the reasons given above.
 
Top