Why in the period 16th to 18th century did Spain not colonize Morocco?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
Was there anything worth taking there? Morocco was nothing next to the giant silver mines of the Americas.
Mostly because the New World was more profitable towards Spanish interests once all of those cash crops crops and silver flowed into the Empire. Morocco was definitely no pushover during the Early Modern Period and an invasion on Morocco would be pretty nonsensical when France, the Netherlands, England, Sweden, and a whole host of European countries were more threatening towards Spanish/Habsburg rule.
If the Trastamara or some other non-Habsburg dynasty was on the throne, then Spain might take more than just Melilla and could potentially take over the Rif region to secure both sides of the strait, but it's not for certain.
If the Trastamara or some other non-Habsburg dynasty was on the throne, then Spain might take more than just Melilla and could potentially take over the Rif region to secure both sides of the strait, but it's not for certain.
that's also not the likeliest outcome in most campaigns. worth considering, but not the biggest reason to not
The Spanish had trouble colonizing the Rif in the 19th and 20th centuries, let alone back then. The Portuguese fortresses were a perpetual money sink that produced more ideological "profit" in training soldiers and inculcating religious zeal than anything approaching real profit. The major population centers of Marrakesh and Fes were deep inland as well, which made conquest a rather difficult proposition -- even if you eliminate one dynasty, you'll still have to deal with Berbers and a restive Muslim population (including Andalusi exiles).
The Spanish had also secured THE bag of the first wave of colonialism with their part of the Americas -- why piss away money in Morocco when you can make bank in the Manila trade and then piss that away in the Netherlands instead
The Spanish had also secured THE bag of the first wave of colonialism with their part of the Americas -- why piss away money in Morocco when you can make bank in the Manila trade and then piss that away in the Netherlands instead
Ironically, it'd be easier for Spain to hold onto it's American colonies during said time period than it would to hold onto Morocco. Moroccans would be in constant revolt, they'd be assisted by the Ottomans and possibly other European countries, Spain didn't want to rule over religious minorities and the land isn't as profitable as other options. Keeping a standing army in Morocco also prevents them from keeping a standing army in the much more profitable Spanish Netherlands.
Because the Morocco aren’t comparable to Native American they aren’t vulnerable to plague and military backward . Add to that the fact that Morocco was a power on his own right during the 16th 17th century capable of maintain their independence against the ottoman and fight back the European power . And the very tribal and Islamic nature of the Maghreb make it very hard to conquer to the European until the 19 century .
Also like the other have said Spain have far more important and easier thing to do during the period and that not like they didn’t tried OTL the best they can do in the period is a better control of the coastal city
Last edited:
Osman Aga
Banned
1. Not enough interest by Spain
2. Not enough resources (too much wars with Britain, France, Dutch etc.)
3. Too much instability (War of Succession, bankruptcy)
4. Geography not favorable
5. Too much hostile Muslims in the interior
Algiers was conquered in 1830 and only subdued by 1850. I may have to remind you that most Algerian population centers were on the coast or nearby. Morocco has a worse geography for pre-19th century conquest and subjugation.
Point 1, 2 and 3 are solvable. That bring us to 4 & 5. Point 4 is possible with... reduce the area you want. Instead of Morocco, the Rif region only for the period pre-1800. Which brings us to point 5... which can be dealt with as A). The region is smaller and less populous than the whole thing and B). Less resources are needed. Spain needs to colonize the area to change demographics in their favor. As long as the region remains 66%+ Islamic, it is always in danger of revolts. Since missionary activity leads to rebellion, colonization is a better short term solution..
Last edited:
Faeelin
Banned
Yea, the Moroccan state at this point is invading Songhai across the Sahara and defeated Iberian incursions. so probably not as obvious as folks are thinking.
North Africa in general is far more daunting a prospect for conquest then your hypthetical generic victim of colonization. Remember that France made it an fundamental law of the land that Algeria was direct French soil completely indistinguishable from any other department of the metropole, and tried everything in their power to flood the coast with everyone from Greeks to the Maltese to Corsicans to Spaniards to Occitan and Breton Frenchmen and even further bolstered their numbers with greater integration of French and Algerian Jews (a decidedly big ask on the part of pro-colonization rightwing imperialists in the country of the Dreyfuss Affair).
They still got their asses kicked so hard that we came very, very close to the OAS ending the Fourth Republic on their terms, in effect a return of Vichy France by auto-coup much like how Spain in the 1920s launched its own military junta in fear of their legislature's "communists" ending the Rif War with a sane peace.
Just most of the North African states have built rather robust hegmonies in their resistance to Ottoman suzerainty, and have really strong native institutions of education and religious/ethnic solidarity. This is a beautiful moment of coincidence where full non-protectorate colonization of North Afica happens to be both logistically and militarially insane, as well as insane on principles of socio-economic justice. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They still got their asses kicked so hard that we came very, very close to the OAS ending the Fourth Republic on their terms, in effect a return of Vichy France by auto-coup much like how Spain in the 1920s launched its own military junta in fear of their legislature's "communists" ending the Rif War with a sane peace.
Just most of the North African states have built rather robust hegmonies in their resistance to Ottoman suzerainty, and have really strong native institutions of education and religious/ethnic solidarity. This is a beautiful moment of coincidence where full non-protectorate colonization of North Afica happens to be both logistically and militarially insane, as well as insane on principles of socio-economic justice. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Last edited:
The Spanish had trouble colonizing the Rif in the 19th and 20th centuries, let alone back then. The Portuguese fortresses were a perpetual money sink that produced more ideological "profit" in training soldiers and inculcating religious zeal than anything approaching real profit. The major population centers of Marrakesh and Fes were deep inland as well, which made conquest a rather difficult proposition -- even if you eliminate one dynasty, you'll still have to deal with Berbers and a restive Muslim population (including Andalusi exiles).
The Spanish had also secured THE bag of the first wave of colonialism with their part of the Americas -- why piss away money in Morocco when you can make bank in the Manila trade and then piss that away in the Netherlands instead
Indeed - with the difference that the Netherlands were both rich and strategically placed to deal with Spain (and the other Habsburg domains)'s enemies in England, France and northern Germany. As both the Dukes of Burgundy and the Dutch themselves showed, there were plenty of potential riches in controlling the Netherlands, so it is understandable that the Spaniards spent a lot of resources trying to control it.
Control of resources is very important, which begs the question as per the OP why did Spain not try to take Morocco. I mean if they controlled both sides of the straits of Gibraltar they would effectively control trade entering the Mediterranean from northern Europe and vice versa, which would be easy to tax.
Yeah I think the example of the Portuguese losing Sebastian (and his entire army) and the money sink nature of the Portuguese attempts to conquer the area and the money/blood sink nature of the Portuguese fortified coastal possesions will stick with the Spanish. Add in the relative lack of value in actually conquering the country (Versus just occupying a couple of fortified coastal cities) and the Spaniards having other much more valuable targets to go after and it's just not that appealing. Maybe they could occupy a few more coastal cities and fortify them as enclaves. Any other coastal cities/areas that would be worth the trouble?
I mean in the America's the Spaniards lucked into massive wealth and like 90 percent of their subjects/enemies dying of small pox and measles. For their two big scores they also lucked into landing in New unstable empires (With the Inca's literally being in the middle of both a apocalyptic small pox epidemic and a civil war and the Aztecs almost immediately undergoing another massive epidemic that academics now think was local rather then Old World in origin) who were recently formed and still had plenty of subject peoples that despised the Aztecs/Inca's and readily provided much of the manpower needed to conquer their empires. In the America's the Spaniards were initially the new kids on the block and initially didn't have the same baggage that everyone local had. The various groups that made up the future Spanish American empire tended to despise their neighbors and didn't have a long history of despising the Spanish the way they despised each other. In Morocco the local groups might hate each other but they also had a long history of despising and fighting Christian Europeans. The Spanish have baggage in Morocco that they initially didn't in the America's.
Pet peeve: Alcácer-Quibir was not a Portuguese attempt to conquer Morocco. The goal was simply to interphere in Moroccan succession and place a more friendly king in the throne in order to protect Portuguese coastal possessions in the region and hopefully regain some of the recently lost ones.
I'm not sure if an actual wholesale conquest and colonisation of Morocco was ever realistically considered by any Iberian power...
I'm not sure if an actual wholesale conquest and colonisation of Morocco was ever realistically considered by any Iberian power...
What Spain needs to do is to avoid colonizing or occupying areas that are a nightmare to their logistics in their early times...i.e. Northern Luzon when they could get Sabah.
No they would not. Gibraltar isn’t controllable the way the Bosporus is. The Bosporus at its widest is 3.7 km wide and narrows down to just 750 m. That’s controllable. Gibraltar meanwhile is 13 km wide at its narrowest point. That isn’t remotely comparable, and isn’t something controllable until modern naval developments.
Honestly this is a ridiculous overexaggeration of the North African situation, North Africa during the early modern period was a demographic periphery, at any point in time it had either less people than the kingdom of France alone and that is counting everything from the Canaries to Cyrenaica or even less than Iberia or the Kingdom of Spain and it was not obvious that without Ottoman support it would be unified enough to resist a Iberian onslaught from the extremely strong(in the 16th century) Spanish kingdom.
Also given the demographic situation it's quite plausible for settler colonialism by Europeans to work there or even just what happened in post-Islamic Sicily or Granada for that matter.
Define "insane", I don't see how it is any different from what happened anywhere else.
Last edited: