Why were there so few attempts to conquer Madeira-Azores-Cape Verde-Canaries in OTL?

I don't know much about this region but have been including these islands off the coast of western Europe/western Africa in some of my TL's. Looking back through their history, I don't see a great deal of attempts to conquer these Portuguese/Spanish islands by the Dutch, French, British or each other.

Any ideas why?

They seem to be strategically significant as naval bases. Why didn't other nations try to seize them?

When St. Lucia was exchanged 14 times in its history, you would think that Madeira or Cape Verde would as well.

Thanks.
 
IMHO the reason those islands were less fought over is that they were not as "valuable" as the "sugar islands" of the Caribbean. Those islands were settled by the Iberian countries because they were the first making the long voyages. The islands had use as "stop-overs" especially early in the age of exploration. On the other hand, the Caribbean islands (like St Lucia) produced an extremely valuable crop (sugar primarily) and/or were geostrategically located near producing islands or trade routes.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There's also the point that when the eastern Atlantic

IMHO the reason those islands were less fought over is that they were not as "valuable" as the "sugar islands" of the Caribbean. Those islands were settled by the Iberian countries because they were the first making the long voyages. The islands had use as "stop-overs" especially early in the age of exploration. On the other hand, the Caribbean islands (like St Lucia) produced an extremely valuable crop (sugar primarily) and/or were geostrategically located near producing islands or trade routes.

There's also the point that because the eastern Atlantic islands had been colonized/settled by the time the Atlantic world was really becoming integrated (call it 1500-1600), there was a need for a way station, especially for fresh water, on the way west across the Atlantic.

But a century or two later (1700-1800) when the West Indies were flipped from one empire to another because they paid (sugar from plantation agriculture), the eastern Atlantic islands didn't really (as Sloreck says) "pay" and in terms of controlling the Straits of Gibraltar, one power or the other could go for continental bastions.

Likewise, the passage west went faster in the 1700s and 1800s than it has a century or two earlier, so the need for potable water or what have you was not as great.

The West Indies made money and (generally) led somewhere; the eastern Atlantic islands didn't make that much money (in a relative sense) and didn't (generally) lead anywhere the various European powers couldn't get to anyway.

Best,
 
IMHO the reason those islands were less fought over is that they were not as "valuable" as the "sugar islands" of the Caribbean. Those islands were settled by the Iberian countries because they were the first making the long voyages. The islands had use as "stop-overs" especially early in the age of exploration. On the other hand, the Caribbean islands (like St Lucia) produced an extremely valuable crop (sugar primarily) and/or were geostrategically located near producing islands or trade routes.

I know the Canary Islands grew sugar in the colonial era--I'm not sure if the other ones did or to what extent. Is the problem more they were inferior producers of sugar compared to the Caribbean sugar islands?

I suspect there's also the issue (for Madeira/Canarias) that they were too close to Iberia to be able to hold long-term.
 
They are not that valuable, and pretty much out of the way from most of everything. Mounting a naval expedition to conquer those islands is requires a dedicated force that is not going to be available in other, more juicy theaters. I understand that only the Canaries were an important stopover for the Spanish routes to the Americas, due to currents, but clearly it was very possibly to do without them.
 
All Macaronesia -funny name- was strategically important. As late as the early 19th century, Britain was interested in most of it: the agreement to transport the Portuguese court to Brazil also included the British occupation of Madeira. Nonetheless, the small island of the most solid Biritsh ally was completely integrated into the British economy (v.g. the popularity of Madeira wine within the British Empire) and, after the fall of Napoleon, they simply returned it. It wasn't the British M.O. to maintain an occupation of a natural part of a friendly and small nation (v.g. Ionian Islands).

Also, if we exclude Madeira and Azores, most of these islands were pretty dry, thus, uninteresting as ports of call. There was a large population surplus of impoverished peasants that made their way to the Americas. By the way, the Iberian empires wisely used that surplus: Most the of the settlers of the frontiers of the Iberian Empires in the Americas would be islanders. (v.g. Madeirans/Azoreans in Southern Brazil and Canarians in Spanish Louisiana, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.)
 
I don't know much about this region but have been including these islands off the coast of western Europe/western Africa in some of my TL's. Looking back through their history, I don't see a great deal of attempts to conquer these Portuguese/Spanish islands by the Dutch, French, British or each other.

Any ideas why?

They seem to be strategically significant as naval bases. Why didn't other nations try to seize them?

When St. Lucia was exchanged 14 times in its history, you would think that Madeira or Cape Verde would as well.

Thanks.

Regarding the Portuguese islands did not have much value to justify trying his conquest, the British and Portuguese were allies (except, of course, in the period in which Portugal was bound to Spain) and the Dutch rather go try / or conquer the rich Asian possessions of Portugal.

With regard to the Canary Islands, which were not conquered, it was not due to a lack of strategic interest or because the British have not been tried, on more than one occasion, but were not conquered by the strong defense that the Spaniards made against British attacks.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the feedback.

I know the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance probably protected the Portuguese Islands from 1700 onwards.

What if the Portuguese Royal family had been captured in the Napoleonic Wars?

Would Britain have tried/succeeded in taking them over with an eye for claiming them?

There is a precedent given the later British plans to demand that Portugal turn over their African mainland possessions.
 
Thanks for all the feedback.

I know the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance probably protected the Portuguese Islands from 1700 onwards.

What if the Portuguese Royal family had been captured in the Napoleonic Wars?

Would Britain have tried/succeeded in taking them over with an eye for claiming them?

There is a precedent given the later British plans to demand that Portugal turn over their African mainland possessions.

I'm not an England fan but even I know that there was virtually zero chances that England try to conquest an possesion (and most important), then claiming it, from an allied kingdom against Napoleon's menace.
 
I'm not an England fan but even I know that there was virtually zero chances that England try to conquest an possesion (and most important), then claiming it, from an allied kingdom against Napoleon's menace.
Like Ceylon or South Africa, you mean?
 
Like Ceylon or South Africa, you mean?


These colonies were from the Netherlands, which was not a traditional British ally and were conquered by Napoleon. Which besides being strategically / economically important they were conquered and preserved following the traditional British policy of bringing the war to the colonial possessions of their enemies and / or allies of their enemy. What is clearly not the case in Portugal nor these Portuguese islands were so important economically or strategically to justify they became a target for British conquest.
 
The azorean economy is driven by cattle and fishing. Not much else going on. Other than as a port of call, there's no reason to be there.

Good food, though.
 
These colonies were from the Netherlands, which was not a traditional British ally and were conquered by Napoleon. Which besides being strategically / economically important they were conquered and preserved following the traditional British policy of bringing the war to the colonial possessions of their enemies and / or allies of their enemy. What is clearly not the case in Portugal nor these Portuguese islands were so important economically or strategically to justify they became a target for British conquest.
The Netherlands were a pretty traditional ally, just had quit once after a long period of alliance. And the Dutch government was ousted by French troops, same as Portugal if the royals are captured, probably.
 
Top