WI: Spain successfully colonizes Pensacola Bay

I recently read this article in Archaeology magazine. In 1559,
Tristán de Luna y Arellano attempted to set up a colony near modern day Pensacola, with plans to connect overland to another future colony at Santa Elena, near Parris Island, SC.Although the colony was well-planned with plenty of provisions and weapons, a hurricane destroyed the ships before they could unload.

The article quotes one archaeologist as saying that if they'd been successful, the Spanish very well could have also been successful at Santa Elena, and "we'd be speaking Spanish right now." I think that might be a little hyperbole, but...

What if there had been no hurricane or the hurricane took a different path (a butterfly in Australia and all that)? Could this colony have survived and prospered? Could it have actually led to a successful Spanish colony further north on the Atlantic coast? Could it at least have led to an earlier Spanish presence at the mouth of the Mississippi? What would the consequences of all this be?
 
Wow.... Yeah you definatly would get a strong spanish presence. If this colony actually takes off, Damm, You could have a potential for florida remaining in Spanish Hands, Which means,Major butterflies in the americas. I say do a tl it should be interesting to see how things go.
 
Let me say as a resident...;)

Florida was always an outpost, and Pensacola even moreso than St. Augustine. It was always a military garrison meant to protect New Spain and the Spanish Antilles' flanks and not much more.

Let me put it this way: Santa Elena WAS briefly founded in OTL, and by then was near the far closer, established St. Auggie. Did that save it? No. And so an even farther village and garrison helps neither. And even with St. Auggie Florida was never really developed. Heck, it only really got major population with the British and then Americans, whom founded the superior port at Jacksonville anyways.

It'll be a bit different primarily for maps, nothing else.
 
I agree that the connection with Santa Elena seemed far fetched. And obviously, since they didn't try again for another 100 years, the Spanish weren't all that interested in the area.

At the very least, there must be some interesting butterflies.

But, couldn't a successful colony leads to something more? A permanent presence would have to lead to a stronger Spanish claim on West Florida.
When the French reach the area, more than 100 years later, they might find the Spanish objecting to them establishing a base in New Orleans.
 
It WOULD be interesting if this leads to the (Deep) South being Spanish since the quasi-feudal setup of the South was more similar to Latin America than the North... The chances are slim but if this happened it would be VERRY interesting.
 
But, couldn't a successful colony leads to something more?


First, you need to define "successful".

Second, you need to realize that Spain's colonization goals, practices, and results were very different from France's or Britain's. Look at Spain's settlement of what will become the Dominican Republic versus France's settlement of what will become Haiti for example. Both were in the same island and for much the same purposes, but settlement in the French colony expanded rapidly within it's territory while settlement the Spanish colony was strictly limited to a region around the capital.

A permanent presence would have to lead to a stronger Spanish claim on West Florida.
Using St. Augustine as a guide, the Spanish will still be too thin on the ground to make much of a difference. Any settlement will be a military outpost, a "tripwire" of sorts, with a little farming/trading and greatly reliant on supplies shipped in from elsewhere in Spanish America.

When the French reach the area, more than 100 years later, they might find the Spanish objecting to them establishing a base in New Orleans.

As the two locations are nearly 300km apart as the crow flies and much further apart by land, any "objections" will be moot.
 
Last edited:
First, you need to define "successful"

I meant successful as opposed to what happened OTL, where they were destroyed by a hurricane before they could even set up shop. It's certainly possible, of course, that this means they last ten years until the next hurricane and then go away, but I would assume that they'd be able to last a about as long as St. Augustine did OTL.

Second, you need to realize that Spain's colonization goals, practices, and results were very different from France's or Britain's. Look at Spain's settlement of what will become the Dominican Republic versus France's settlement of what will become Haiti for example. Both were in the same island and for much the same purposes, but settlement in the French colony expanded rapidly within it's territory while settlement the Spanish colony was strictly limited to a region around the capital.

That's reasonable.

So, then, what caused this to work differently throughout most of South and Central America? Certainly, there's no Aztec or Incan empire in the area (Mississippian culture is scattered to the wind by this time). But they spread far beyond those borders.

Yes, New Mexico and California remained rather underpopulated for most of their time under Spanish rule, but Spain still maintained enough of a presence there far beyond their outposts for it to be considered 'theirs' by other Europeans. There's obviously something else going on there than on Hispaniola.

As the two locations are nearly 300km apart as the crow flies and much further apart by land, any "objections" will be moot.

Unless they decide, later, to build another "outpost" in the area.

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for a "Spanish control Dixie" scenario. I'm just asking about the results of an earlier Spanish claim to a small part of West Florida. I'm perfectly satisfied by the "different primarily for maps" answer, I'm just curious about what those differences are going to be.
 
From the sound of it, it would be different only in the maps or by random chance - say, the descendants of the people who would have settled there discover how to make a successful internal combustion engine long before Rudolph Diesel.

Not sure what more can happen just from another settlement otherwise - western Florida is still really minor.
 
So, then, what caused this to work differently throughout most of South and Central America?


Are you serious? You really don't know or can't figure out why Spain's "colonization" of Central and South America was different than Spain's "colonization" of the Caribbean? Seriously?

Here's a hint. Look at how much of the native population remained alive after Spanish contact in Central/South America compared to how much of the native population remained alive after Spanish contact in the Caribbean.

Once you make that comparison, think about what sort of "treasure" was grown on Caribbean islands, the labor required to process that "treasure", and how potential labor shortages in the Caribbean were dealt with by the European colonial powers. Then think about what sort of "property" was imported to solve those labor shortages, whether it may have been necessary to control that "property", and how that control might be expressed.

Beginning the understand?

Certainly, there's no Aztec or Incan empire in the area (Mississippian culture is scattered to the wind by this time). But they spread far beyond those borders.

The Aztecs were not the whole of Mexico and the Incas were not the whole of South America. There were plenty of other native civilizations and populations in both regions.

Yes, New Mexico and California remained rather underpopulated for most of their time under Spanish rule...

Underpopulated? You have a definite flair for understatement. A few mission stations with a a few friars and a village or two of "mission" Amerinds expanding at a glacial pace across territories claimed by Spain is not a "population".

How slow was Spanish settlement within their claimed lands? The tiny settlement which eventually became San Francisco was found on July 4th, 1776. Contrast that with everything that had occurred in eastern North America during the previous century.

... but Spain still maintained enough of a presence there far beyond their outposts for it to be considered 'theirs' by other Europeans. There's obviously something else going on there than on Hispaniola.

Yeah, that something else is a little thing called distance. Look at map and then think about how easy it is to get to Florida from Europe in 1600 versus how easy it is to get to California from Europe in 1600.

I'm perfectly satisfied by the "different primarily for maps" answer, I'm just curious about what those differences are going to be.

The only real difference is going to be that Andrew Jackson has a few more Spanish settlements to march through when he invades Florida during the First Seminole War.
 
Thank you, I appreciate the answers. Although the tone certainly could have been a little bit more civil. I'll leave it at that.
 
From the sound of it, it would be different only in the maps or by random chance - say, the descendants of the people who would have settled there discover how to make a successful internal combustion engine long before Rudolph Diesel.

Not sure what more can happen just from another settlement otherwise - western Florida is still really minor.

I have one idea. Pensacola, being longer established in ATL than in our world, has stronger ties to Mobile. As the years march on, European and American territory carvers draw their lines to include Pensacola and Mobile in the same territory. Alabama and Florida eventually become US states, secede, join the CSA, go through Reconstruction, become US states again, and so on. Pensacola still becomes the center of US naval aviation.

The truth is, Pensacola is a small piece of land with a minor population. Any changes to the timeline are minor and easily overlooked. Until one year, centuries after the establishment of Pensacola colony. For this whole region leans conservative and Republican. Florida has a somewhat smaller population than in OTL. Congressional districts are a bit different. The ratio of "blue" voters to "red" voters favors the blue in ATL more than in OTL. When the 2000 election rolls around, the disputed ballots in southern Florida aren't as important. Florida is eventually decided for Gore. 400+ years of insigificant differences finally burst into the timeline.
 
Top