This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

How did the Spanish Empire become so powerful?

It controlled all of america basically and i don't know much else apart from that they had a great navy but how did they manage all of this after the Muslim rule?

Reply 1

Paxdax

11

BTB

It controlled all of america basically and i don't know much else apart from that they had a great navy but how did they manage all of this after the Muslim rule?

You answered your own question, basically. They were the first to exploit the riches of the Americas. That's why they could grow so strong, even though ineptness ended their superpower status by 1650.

Reply 2

Mrgd291190

16

Same. They were the only Superpower = Hyperpower.

Apart from maybe the Portuguese and a couple of other smaller ones.

Reply 3

SolInvictus

11

BTB

It controlled all of america basically and i don't know much else apart from that they had a great navy but how did they manage all of this after the Muslim rule?

Oooh, this is a nice debate.

The conquest of the Americas largely occured because of Spanish 'unemployment' in a sense. Spain, or 'the Spains' to be more precise at this point, had a large number of well trained and battle seasoned soldiers, particularly from the Hidalgo class, who were willing to fight in new lands for their own wealth. These conquistadors, were often willing to finance a share of their own enterprise, and in exchange for a government subsidy, they set up new Spanish governates in the New World.

Spain, at this point, really did not exist, and personal allegiance to the Monarch largely allowed for a freedom of enterprise unseen in Europe at this time. If you could get the men and guns, then the New World was your oyster. One made a few concessions to the crown, and inexchange could become prince over a new dominion.

Reply 4

Arminius

14

Following on from Sol Invictus's point, those factors which allowed spain to send men and resources abroad just happened to occur at the time that nations all over europe had the capability to build ocean going ships to cross the atlantic.

It is the explorers of the 15th century such as columbus that lead the way for the spanish empire. The age of exploration directly lead to imperialism. And exploration is not possible without the ships.

I'm not quite sure what spurred on the development of ships but i think it may have something to do with growing importance of trade outside of the medditerranean (where more primitive ships could be used).

Good thread.

Reply 5

SolInvictus

11

Arminius

Following on from Sol Invictus's point, those factors which allowed spain to send men and resources abroad just happened to occur at the time that nations all over europe had the capability to build ocean going ships to cross the atlantic.

It is the explorers of the 15th century such as columbus that lead the way for the spanish empire. The age of exploration directly lead to imperialism. And exploration is not possible without the ships.

I'm not quite sure what spurred on the development of ships but i think it may have something to do with growing importance of trade outside of the medditerranean (where more primitive ships could be used).

Good thread.

I think that you confuse exploration with conquest and colonisation. Better ships allowed European ships to go further and explore the world, but it is important to note that only Spain, and to a far lesser extend Portugal, had any king of significant overseas holdings by 1600. England and France had many exploratory expeditions, but really didn't get their colonisation act together until the late 17th century, and even then their overseas Empires were underpopulated, unprofitable, and quickly lost by the end of the 18th Century.

Spain simply left its Conquistadors a free hand, and this simply allowed for an amazing bulk of mercenaries all seeking to create their own fiefs, and it was only due to this bulk that Spain created its Empire. We learn a great deal about Cortes, and Pizzaro, but let us not forget the many unsuccessful expeditions whose members were usually dealt with rather efficiently by well warned and wary natives.

Reply 6

Arminius

14

I think my only (simple) point was that exploration had to come before colonialism, which seems to be true in the case of Spain and the rest of europe. Its just that with england, france and holland they did not make the leap to colonialism as quick as spain.

To an extent this might be because the Spanish kept those countries bogged down in europe, once Spain lost its prime position in europe (after the spanish armada?) england and france began their colonies too.

Reply 7

SolInvictus

11

Arminius

I think my only (simple) point was that exploration had to come before colonialism, which seems to be true in the case of Spain and the rest of europe. Its just that with england, france and holland they did not make the leap to colonialism as quick as spain.

To an extent this might be because the Spanish kept those countries bogged down in europe, once Spain lost its prime position in europe (after the spanish armada?) england and france began their colonies too.

Yet until Charles V, and even afterwards, the Empire was threatened more by other powers than they could threaten their neighbours.

With the exception of Spain, most of their territory was a patchwork of tinpot fiefs, who lacked anything in the way of technology and were basically giant fields of peasants who just spent their time plowing the land and dancing around maypoles.

Reply 8

Mr_Steve_Stifler

OP

SolInvictus

Oooh, this is a nice debate.

The conquest of the Americas largely occured because of Spanish 'unemployment' in a sense. Spain, or 'the Spains' to be more precise at this point, had a large number of well trained and battle seasoned soldiers, particularly from the Hidalgo class, who were willing to fight in new lands for their own wealth. These conquistadors, were often willing to finance a share of their own enterprise, and in exchange for a government subsidy, they set up new Spanish governates in the New World.

Spain, at this point, really did not exist, and personal allegiance to the Monarch largely allowed for a freedom of enterprise unseen in Europe at this time. If you could get the men and guns, then the New World was your oyster. One made a few concessions to the crown, and inexchange could become prince over a new dominion.

So, in effect, as long as mercenaries had money and guns then they could become Kings of large chunks of the Americas by having good relations with the King of Spain? Wow, what made this idea fall apart then?
However, it does make sense that exploiting the silver and gold mines in America would've greatly sustained the military capability of Habsburg Spain in its many European and North African wars.

0

Magic.

BTB

So, in effect, as long as mercenaries had money and guns then they could become Kings of large chunks of the Americas by having good relations with the King of Spain? Wow, what made this idea fall apart then?

They were never 'kings' in the sense of the title, but more or less acted as independant rulers until the eighteenth century.

The system collapsed due to stagnation really. Once most of the land was eaten up, and the natives started to die of old world diseases, nothing could really be done. Most of the industry in the New World came down to mining, and that started to become less profitable when silver and gold started dropping in value due to the massive surplus.

In addition, the British and French Empires were growing at a rather fast rate, and putting pressure on Spains northern border, which was never colonised or fully under control. Spain's largest town in Texas, San Antonio, only had 3000 inhabitants.

In the end, it generally came down to the fact that Spain's policy was one of pillage and exploitation. Like Viking raids, they were great for quick booty and quick territorial expansion, but never encouraged investment and development leading to an inevitable decline.

Reply 11

jacketpotato

20

In the end, it generally came down to the fact that Spain's policy was one of pillage and exploitation. Like Viking raids, they were great for quick booty and quick territorial expansion, but never encouraged investment and development leading to an inevitable decline.

Spain had become a superpower long before it was able to exploit the New World - the gold from the New World helped sustain Spain in its position, it didn't put it there.

The main thing was strong leadership by Ferdinand and Isabella, who managed to forge a sense of unity and a nation state before other places in Europe. Its all relative: England was impotent until relatively recently because monarchs were weak and Parliament made it very difficult for the crown to get money to do anything, France was blighted by internal struggles, and noone else had that much power at this time.

Reply 12

SolInvictus

11

jacketpotato

Spain had become a superpower long before it was able to exploit the New World - the gold from the New World helped sustain Spain in its position, it didn't put it there.

Spain did not even exist, and was actually rather weak coming out of the reconquista. Although they were victorious against Granada, Isabella and Ferdinand were burdened by the mounting costs of this triumph, as well as garrisoning and subjugating their new territories. They also inherited a multi-confesional state and multi-ethnic dominions whose loyalties were suspect and chance of revolt high.

The main thing was strong leadership by Ferdinand and Isabella, who managed to forge a sense of unity and a nation state before other places in Europe. Its all relative: England was impotent until relatively recently because monarchs were weak and Parliament made it very difficult for the crown to get money to do anything, France was blighted by internal struggles, and noone else had that much power at this time.

Once again, Spain did not exist, and the two monarchs each ruled over seperate kingdoms, each with their own laws, courts and languages. They were also extremely backwards, and the renaissance had yet to make its mark in the Iberian peninsula outside of Portugal. Spain had less than a dozen printing presses in its entire realm when every town in France, Germany and Italy had at least a few.

France, at this point, was far stronger and the Valois Monarchs were seizing territory from an every collapsing Burgundian dominion as well as a weak Holy Roman Empire. The Italian states were also extremely powerful, and had a good knowledge of sea faring and exploration, and had their monopolies not been so assured, Veniec or Genoa might have easily been the conquerers of the New World.

Reply 13

jacketpotato

20

Spain did not even exist, and was actually rather weak coming out of the reconquista. Although they were victorious against Granada, Isabella and Ferdinand were burdened by the mounting costs of this triumph, as well as garrisoning and subjugating their new territories. They also inherited a multi-confesional state and multi-ethnic dominions whose loyalties were suspect and chance of revolt high.

You are massively over-exaggurating the costs of the Reconquista. Granada did not provide any meaningful response, and increased royal power- not decreased it. It allowed F+I to get the support of the nobility and created a state of unity in Spain.

Once again, Spain did not exist, and the two monarchs each ruled over seperate kingdoms, each with their own laws, courts and languages. They were also extremely backwards, and the renaissance had yet to make its mark in the Iberian peninsula outside of Portugal. Spain had less than a dozen printing presses in its entire realm when every town in France, Germany and Italy had at least a few.

France, at this point, was far stronger and the Valois Monarchs were seizing territory from an every collapsing Burgundian dominion as well as a weak Holy Roman Empire. The Italian states were also extremely powerful, and had a good knowledge of sea faring and exploration, and had their monopolies not been so assured, Veniec or Genoa might have easily been the conquerers of the New World.

You cannot meaningfully see Aragon and Castile as seperate kingdoms by 1516, the end of F+I's reign. A great deal of unity had been formed by this time - certainly as much as had been developed elsewhere.

France, at this point, was far stronger and the Valois Monarchs were seizing territory from an every collapsing Burgundian dominion as well as a weak Holy Roman Empire. The Italian states were also extremely powerful, and had a good knowledge of sea faring and exploration, and had their monopolies not been so assured, Veniec or Genoa might have easily been the conquerers of the New World.

Venice and Genoa simply did not have the military power of Castile or Aragon. France was powerful, of course - but this only lasted as long as Francis I's reign lasted!

Reply 14

SolInvictus

11

jacketpotato

You are massively over-exaggurating the costs of the Reconquista. Granada did not provide any meaningful response, and increased royal power- not decreased it. It allowed F+I to get the support of the nobility and created a state of unity in Spain.

The reconquista left Spain in an economic crisis, and the expulsions of Jews and Muslims only made things worse.

You cannot meaningfully see Aragon and Castile as seperate kingdoms by 1516, the end of F+I's reign. A great deal of unity had been formed by this time - certainly as much as had been developed elsewhere.

The very nature of Joanna's ascension and reign during her father's regency was proof that Castille, Leon and Aragon were seen as completely different Kingdoms. There was little unity, save in foreign policy and war. Even through Charles V each part was ruled in the same manner as any other realm of the Hapsburg Empire.

It really was not until the reign of Phillip II that the beginnings of a united realm were apparent, and until the war of Portuguese independence, the Spanish dominion was still seen as a group of separate states.

Venice and Genoa simply did not have the military power of Castile or Aragon. France was powerful, of course - but this only lasted as long as Francis I's reign lasted!

Neither did Spain. Cortes conquered the Aztec Empire with only 300 Spaniards, and a federation of Aztec hating natives. Genoa and Venice had an excellent maritime capacity and funding that would have allowed for much success in new world enterprises.

France may have been troubled after Francis I, but it would still be going strong until St. Bartholemew's Day and the subsequent wars of religion.

Reply 15

Sarape

1

Spanish people were providing cereals and wool to most Europe and then they had vital importance in market. Afterwards they saved Northern Europe from their common hungers by incorporing the potato. So Spain was always well seen, I think you need a bit more of information regarding that.

How did the Spanish Empire become so powerful?

Related discussions

Articles for you