Save the Spanish Empire

[cloistered scholar]

Spain built one of the world's largest empires, starting with its colonization of the New World.

It began to fall apart with Napoleons intervention in Iberia.

What would it take to preserve its empire, and what would be the effect on the 1800s if it did?

 

[ordinarylittleme]

What would it take to preserve its empire, and what would be the effect on the 1800s if it did?

Spain could have invested in strengthening its military capabilities both in Europe and in its colonies. This would involve modernizing its armed forces, improving its naval power, and fortifying key strategic locations. Or they could have focused on internal stability by implementing political and economic reforms to address domestic challenges. This would have included tackling issues such as corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, and economic stagnation. By fostering a more stable and prosperous society, Spain could have better withstood external pressures.

Spain's continued dominance would have altered the balance of power in Europe and the world. It might have challenged the emerging dominance of Britain and France, leading to a multipolar world order. Also, the Spanish empire encompassed vast territories rich in resources. Its preservation would have allowed Spain to continue exploiting these resources, leading to continued economic growth and expansion.

 

[kasumigenx]

Not being over extended for starters.

 

[JErosion]

It began to fall apart with Napoleons intervention in Iberia.

Actually you could argue that the Spanish Empire didn't fall part with Napoleon, he merely accelerated its demise. The collapse began with Phillip II, who despite the enourmous wealth that came from the new world, bankrupted the nation five times. The constant wars, the loss of the armada and bad economic policies forced the Dutch to declare independence. And while greatly skilled at governance his heir was not up to the task, which led Phillip iii to depend on Duke of Lerma, who was highly corrupt.

 

[Fatt Shea]

Spain built one of the world's largest empires, starting with its colonization of the New World.

It began to fall apart with Napoleons intervention in Iberia.

What would it take to preserve its empire, and what would be the effect on the 1800s if it did?

Well you kind of said it in your post, you just have to avoid the Napoleonic invasion, so just have Napoleon die young, have him decide not to invade Spain or have the French revolution be avoided. Those 3 PODs though will have HUGE effects outside of Spain. Of course it will still be weak compared to how it once was but it will survive a lot longer.
As for the effects on the Spanish empire:

Spanish America is economically oppressed by Spanish policies for longer but they are more a lot more stable stable to it balances out, though the economic model may change later
Natives and whites are more seperated and their cultures less intergrated, with natives staying in Indian towns and the Spanish staying in the cities
Viceroyalities like New Spain will keep more territory, meaning the OTL American southwest will be settled by Europeans and Mexicans, this also happens later than widescale American settlement meaning the natives of the area like the comanche survive better
Spanish America will be a lot more connected to Spain culturally
Spain avoids most of the civil wars, revolutions, economic decline and horrors of the 19th century, that really only ended with the fall of Franco.
Spain remains a major player in Europe, although not the strongest
Spain itself will be a lot richer from both their empire and from their increased stability

The native nobility will also remain

 

[Terço]

Not being over extended for starters.

True.
But if Spain centralizes and forget the idea of several kingdoms under the same monarch in Iberia and stimulate the migration of large numbers of italians to the new world then some marginal areas whit potential like California and the Pampas would be highly profitable centuries earlier than Otl something that would strengthen the Empire.
Then the obvious, no second class whites in the Americas, go the portuguese way and treat peninsulars and criollo alike, that will mellow down the malcontent because a criollo could expect being appointed to a prestige position like a governor or a viceroy not only in the Americas but also in other areas controlled by Spain.
The Netherlands should be governed from Vienna making them an austrian problem while Spain focus on Italy and go for total control of the north african coast from Morocco to Tripolitania, eradicating the pirates and making the western mediterranean some sort of Spanish sea where Spain can keep France in check while preparing for a continuation of the reconquista, this time against the ottomans in the eastern mediterranean.
It's an oversimplification but it's doable.

 

[Tupolev0247]

After 1800 it is complicated, but if you want to have a chance you have to kill Godoy and Ferdinand VII. Before 1800, it is much easier, you just need that Charles III, instead of privileging the peninsulars, allows the Creoles to hold positions under the condition of being administratively trained in the metropolis.

 

[Neal Caffrey]

Spain built one of the world's largest empires, starting with its colonization of the New World.

It began to fall apart with Napoleons intervention in Iberia.

What would it take to preserve its empire, and what would be the effect on the 1800s if it did?

You need to let the colonies have some industry and be less abusive with taxes and also give the local people rights and some autonomy, if you do that most complaints made by many of the intellectuals and general populations will stop or at least be addresed.

Now of course this isn't easy to happen mostly because it goes against what the entire empire was seen by the monarchy, it was never truly seen as a part of Spain or a clony with subjects whose needs had to at least be given some thought, it was simply seen as a economical tool to fund their needs and be a market for Spanish products, so you would need a king that breaks radically with that thought, otherwise these reforms would just not happen.

 

[GunterW]

I’d say nothing is inevitable with an early enough POD… but keep in mind the following:

Spain proper is much smaller and has less resources than its American possessions, it is likely we end up seeing the center of gravity moving away from Madrid to Mexico City at some point in the late 1700s to early 1800s. What are the implications? It could range from a devolved government in the Viceroyalties like the Count of Aranda’s plan - keeping a sort of Spanish Commonwealth as an economic bloc and military alliance, to having the Spanish court move to Mexico City and having to stay there indefinitely, for example, having Napoleon succeed in keeping Spain and the Spanish government evacuating much like their Portuguese neighbors.

This is not something unique about Spain, Portugal faced the same problem even earlier, with talks about moving the government to Rio de Janeiro even before Napoleon was an issue. The British will also face the same problem if they keep their American colonies.

Another thing to consider, and this is something not many non-Hispanic people tend to understand, Mexico, Peru, Argentina (La Plata) and Nueva Granada (Colombia) were as Spanish as Andalucía or Castilla. We were never colonies in the British or Portuguese sense, we were kingdoms ruled by a representative of the King (Viceroy). There was already a national identity (Spanish). Mexican, Colombian, Peruvian, Chilean, etc. were identities formed after Independence, no one wanted to cut off ties initially. Therefore, it easier to keep the empire in some form even until this day with a right POD, we are culturally much more aligned to Spain today than the US is to the UK for example.

This must be done voluntarily, Spain can never hope to keep the empire together by force, it is too vast and there is no manpower to police the entire region. Spain relied on the native nobility and commoners to secure control, this is one the reason it managed to keep the American Viceroyalties for 300 years. It is a myth (or Anglo-centric view) that evil white Spaniards kept everyone enslaved, most natives were happy with the status quo. When they weren’t, things start to fall apart (see Tupac Amaru’s rebellion in Peru). Slavery was detested by most, even the viceregal authorities, as something imposed by foreign interests (Portugal and Britain). Slaves were difficult to control, had no loyalty and were expensive to import. Slavery is not a widespread issue like in Brazil and in what would become the southern US. We always had, even until today, more social cohesion than in many former empires.

Internal PODs are nearly infinite, ranging from genetic lottery (having more competent kings rule like Carlos III) to more plausible alternatives such as simply allowing or keeping competent ministers that can work around some of the idiotic monarchs Spain had both in Hapsburg or Bourbon periods. External events are really a toss-up, you can never know how an early death of Napoleon, a different British government, the election of an alternate Pope, or a war/rebellion somewhere in Europe is going to impact things.

 

[Aldarion]

Actually you could argue that the Spanish Empire didn't fall part with Napoleon, he merely accelerated its demise. The collapse began with Phillip II, who despite the enourmous wealth that came from the new world, bankrupted the nation five times. The constant wars, the loss of the armada and bad economic policies forced the Dutch to declare independence. And while greatly skilled at governance his heir was not up to the task, which led Phillip iii to depend on Duke of Lerma, who was highly corrupt.

I remember reading somewhere (sorry, memory of a sieve) that it was precisely the New World wealth that caused the Spanish collapse. Essentially, the idea is that the Spanish crown and state relied too much on the wealth of the New World, and thus failed to properly develop the mercantile and production basis that will have allowed them to compete in the long term. Plus, the colonies drew off many settlers, with negative consequences for the Spanish mainland.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Is it inevitable that colonial empires will splinter and no longer be empires? I would argue that none of the great power empires have survived til today. They might have a tiny territory exclave somewhere, but not massive colonies of the type we're talking about with Spain. Britain comes closest, but Canada and Australia, while technically part of an empire, are realistically independent countries. So, unless world events track much differently, sooner or later the Spanish colonial empire will break apart. In that case, the challenge is to keep the Spanish Empire intact for as long as possible.

Carlos II not being bewitched, but rather being blessed with competence galore, would be a pod. This would rewrite the entire history of Europe, and probably the New World. France, Dutch Republic, probably Britain and the Glorious Revolution, possibly Austria, all go a different path. Within all this, Spain could figure out a way to stabilize and modernize.

Philip V being a competent ruler who follows up a good start with continuing to develop the country. Instead, he marries Elizabeth Farnese, and Spain expends all energy/focus on putting sons on Italian thrones.

Ferdinand was an OK steward, but his reign was mostly just having a moment to breathe after Philip V's non stop wars.

Carlos III seems semi competent, but he was a disaster. His reign starts with extreme folly of jumping into the 7 Y W after his ally France had lost the war. Spain is left in shambles. He then institutes the Bourbon Reforms, which are great for squeezing money out of the colonies, but are horrible for colonial unity. As mentioned above, instead of harnessing the power of the criolle elite, he sowed the seeds of revolution. Then, he spends a lot of resources to help the American Revolution and another war with Britain, ending up with Florida for his efforts, which is then ignored. When Carlos III dies, the Empire is no better than when he started, and arguably, sent on the road to revolution.

Carlos IV is an idiot. He inherits a country unable to protect itself. He makes his wife's lover, Godoy (a man with no credentials for the job), top dog in the gov't. Maybe they'd have been able to muddle through if the world was stable, but the French Revolution, and the Napoleon Era turned everything upside down. Godoy and Carlos IV were way in over their heads, and Spain was destroyed.

Ferdinand (another one) was another idiot like his father, and takes an Empire mostly destroyed, and destroys it further.

There's about 150 years of very poor management, with a little meh thrown in once in a while. First order of business is to magically correct that. Presto, hand wavium, Spain has competent leadership. Doesn't have to be non stop brilliance. Just mostly competent. There's going to be wars, but there doesn't need to be as much involvement as OTL. I think getting to a point Philip V did in 1715ish, with centralization, and a start to good fiscal policies, is a start. But then, it has to be continued. Pursue reforming/building the country instead of derailing progress in trying to retake Italy. Next reform the colonies. They aren't going to be kept forever, but allow them to grow instead of squeezing money out of them. Make them part of the empire, not just a resource to be sucked dry. There's a lot of corruption all over the empire, and getting it under control is a herculean task, but something has to be done. Even if the colonies are treated semi similar, but just a little better, the Empire can thrive for a long time.

Napoleon is a tough obstacle. The easiest thing is to magically eliminate him. Now the world is completely different. If we keep him, have Spain enter the era in better shape, and with better leadership avoid being ripped apart. Sans that big invasion/take over attempt, the Empire can easily rumble along for another 50-100 years.

 

[Taunay]

The easiest thing is to magically eliminate him.

@Assouf 's excellent TL shows to me that even eliminating Napoleon doesn't necessarily mean that Spain will be better-off or that France won't set its sights on a reactionary monarchy...

 

[unprincipled peter]

@Assouf 's excellent TL shows to me that even eliminating Napoleon doesn't necessarily mean that Spain will be better-off or that France won't set its sights on a reactionary monarchy...

Napoleon catching a stray bullet at Toulon doesn't automatically mean Spain is free and clear. But, I find it hard to believe there's another meglomaniac with the audacity to try putting all of Europe under his control. Europe could still be a mess, and likely will be, but it may be easier for alt Spain to navigate.

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

I think that the decision of Charles III to enter the Seven Years War wasn't that irrational, but stemming mainly out of fear of potential British movements in the Caribbean, and future diplomatic isolation if France grew more distant due to the lack of Spanish assistance. Granted, it did play out rather disastrously, with the loss of Manila and Havana; but these events also played an important role in pushing for the reforms of his reign, as it became clear Spain had to be able to improve imperial defences.

Also, the deference to the peninsulares was problematic, but at least personally, I think that at the time, Madrid didn't really have much of a choice, were the reform plans to materialise; many of the economic and commercial reforms threatened interests of the local elites (not just in the colonies - check the reaction of the Cadiz banking, shipping and merchant communities to the reforms, the problem was more general), and in the case of the colonies, the purchase of offices and similar practices had created a rather ineffective administrative system that couldn't be really trusted with carrying out policies that could be detrimental to the interests of those that were de facto running it. The appointment of trusted officials with no ties to the regions and local power dynamics and factions, and committed to the reforms, was perhaps the only way in the eyes of the court and the cabinet at the time for the government to carry out what many saw as a vital project of reorganisation and restoration - the sense of importance most likely played a role (my view, may be wrong)

For a Charles III pod, perhaps we could have the more dynamic reforms in metropolitan Spain not end with the riots of 1766: if the reforms were allowed to progress and continue, this could perhaps allow Charles' ministers to move at a more gradual pace with regard to the colonies; the weaker sense of urgency, a greater focus on metropolitan Spain and a success of the government in tearing down institutional opposition from the aristocracy, various interest groups, and the Church, could provide a viable playbook for those responsible to implement across the Atlantic.

Another pod (perhaps together with the aforementioned one) is the less well known but also infamous Armada of 1779 succeed, at least moderately so. This could allow for various things: for one, the Thirteen Colonies might have gone independent without forming a federation - although an alliance wouldn't be off the cards. Also, in this scenario, Floridablanca et co. might manage to push for the annexation of the lands between the Thirteen Colonies and the Mississipi (the eastern half of Louisiana that had been promised to them in 1762), alongside Florida and some other Caribbean possessions. Such a development could leave Spain in a much more secure position in the Western Hemisphere - and it could have the added benefit of saving France a good amount of debt and give Louis XVI and Turgor some breathing room to try and implement reforms with greater confidence (although I could see France being dragged into other wars in Europe, like over the Bavaria situation or in the Netherlands). Optimally, a lack of enemies, a lot less exhaustion from the war and a more powerful and stable French ally could all help the Spanish Bourbons in the short and medium term.

(disclaimer: no expert here)



Another possibility is that Britain makes concessions to the colonists, who may fearful about the possibility of a "torn down" Britain and a dominant Spain and France

 

[unprincipled peter]

infamous Armada of 1777 succeed

it was -79, but, yeah, this is a potential POD. Not sure it does a lot toward reviving Spain, but it gives them a potentially glorious victory which might give them a pick me up.

 

[Paladín Wulfen]

Not being over extended for starters.

I would say that: Say the same to the British Empire.

I’d say nothing is inevitable with an early enough POD… but keep in mind the following

... *eating an Iberian Ham with joy after read that*
honestly. I am of the opinion that the Empire could have been maintained if Carlos the Hunter had not been such a Hunter and more Worker at the time that Fernando VII died as a child and his brother Carlos Isidro inherited the throne.

At the same time, I want to recall that Spain in the 1600s was carrying a ton of weight. I am talking about at least a war at the same time with 5 regional powers, territorial expansion and several bankruptcies, since the cost of exercising as what would now be the USA, yielded a lot.

 

[funnyhat]

I think that the decision of Charles III to enter the Seven Years War wasn't that irrational, but stemming mainly out of fear of potential British movements in the Caribbean, and future diplomatic isolation if France grew more distant due to the lack of Spanish assistance. Granted, it did play out rather disastrously, with the loss of Manila and Havana; but these events also played an important role in pushing for the reforms of his reign, as it became clear Spain had to be able to improve imperial defences.

They should have either not fought the war at all, or entered it in 1756, and forced the British to fight both France and Spain at once. Entering the war when it was basically already over, and thus allowing the British to concentrate on them alone, did not make a lot of sense.

 

[Sardar]

Give Spain a dynasty that is not constantly looking to the rest of Europe to waste its gold and silver. There was a brief respite there with Ferdinand VI, but it was discontinued by Charles III and his moronic dynasty. Honestly I can't help but think Elisabeth Farnese and her descendants were the worst thing that happened to Spain.

If you keep Luis I alive and have him sire a line of Spanish Kings which remain solely committed to Spain itself, the chances of holding onto the colonies for longer increases by a lot IMO. And eventually keeping them close to Spain when they inevitably turn into sovereign nations is also more likely. Of course, Luis's line can certainly fall into the same pitfalls of reactionary absolutism OTL descendants of Charles III did, but who knows.

 

[GunterW]

Personally, my assessment of Carlos III is not as harsh compared to some of the very thoughtful posts I read above, and I agree they have good arguments.

In hindsight, isolation was the best choice, but the second-best alternative – the pragmatic choice in my opinion, would have been to align with Britain instead of France. For that you’d need a more menacing France, and for a Tordesillas 2.0 with Spain and Britain reaching an understanding, Britain would see reason with the proper incentives…$$$

Carlos III was an honest, hard working and progressive man, who had done an acceptable job in Naples and inherited a rather mismanaged and decrepit state. The Spanish Bourbons ranged from moronic to insane, he might have made bad choices, but did not do so out of obstinacy.

He faced very strong opposition to change the status quo in Spain, from the Church, the aristocracy and even the common folk. Reform is impossible without pissing off someone. In retrospective, I think his legacy is overall good. He could have certainly done better, maybe if he had inherited a slightly better Spain that would allow him to focus on the Americas more. The domestic situation was also critical. It’s impossible to do everything at once.

 

[Fulano]

Just butterfly the Bourbons getting the Spanish Throne. The Bourbon Reforms were actually good for the Metropole (with some nuances) but pretty much bad for everyone else. The Trastamara/Habsburg system worked better for the conglomerate that was the Spanish Empire.