Why weren't Macaronesian Islands Fought Over More?

Pretty much, once the respective islands (Canaries, Madeira, Cape Verde, and the Azores) were conquered, they never changed hands at all, except when Portugal and Spain were in a personal union. The islands were clearly strategic. What gives?
 
Pretty much, once the respective islands (Canaries, Madeira, Cape Verde, and the Azores) were conquered, they never changed hands at all, except when Portugal and Spain were in a personal union. The islands were clearly strategic. What gives?

Britain almost annexed Madeira during the Napoleonic Wars, but that seems more the exception than the rule.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
They were never sufficiently strategic until the periods where people didn't go to war lightly. They would have been very useful in WWII, but before then, not so much. People could get across the Atlantic easy enough without a stop off.

I mean they would be nice to have, but they would be difficult to hold in war against either of the Iberian powers. If the Iberians can't get to them because you've knackered their fleets, then they are neutralised and there is no need to actually take them.
 
I can see one other group that would be interested in holding those islands - the Maghreb states. If you had them unified and strong at a period that Spain was also unified and strong, then those islands become useful (especially the Canaries) for controlling the "Flank", i.e. the western coast of Morocco, and the SW coast of Spain. The Azores would also enable strikes on the north coast of Spain more or less unmolested.

So yeah, the reason - nobody else had a reason to take them. Create a rival and job done.
 
Top