But the Spanish Habsburgs had no choice other than fighting the Ottomans. And the Protestants in the HRE. And the French. And the English. And the Flemings. And the Dutch. And the Italians.
Okay, maybe they could have done something differently
,,Listen Philip I know that we used that money from Americas to build many palaces. However, surely it would also be beneficial to improve the country, by for instance investing into manufacturies.''
No, better invest in the new land, building cities, roads, universities and, churches and monasteries. Unlike other powers’ purely extractive and prison colonies.
Surely in a few hundred years those who live here will be very thankful for improving their quality of life as we are with the romans in Europe.
"yeah before that lets try and conquer Flanders for the 27th time. Yeah dont invest in commerce between colonies lets ban that and add a caste system. Lowborns wont be allowed to even mount horses. Artisans and industry in New Spain? nah focus on Haciendas and silver mines."
Flanders didn’t need conquest, it was part of the Haubsburg inheritance from the Burgundian lineage. Protestant fake news is what it is.
Caste system?? Everyone could marry everyone and there was more social mobility than in Europe. The segregation was more based on status and wealth, sames as in the old world. Isabel of Moctezuma had nothing to envy to pure european nobility.
The entire mexican independence movement stemmed from Peninsular Spanish being privilleged. Indigenous and black people were expected to pay tribute to the crown at all times. Only spanish descendants could be ordained as priests. A simple wiki search
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta
Regardless of fake news, Spain spent the majority of its resources trying to take land that was never going to be theirs,l on very loose noble titles. The sheer amount of Spanish glazing here is expected of a monarchy defendant. Saying 1700s Spain had "envied social mobility" and retroactively painting the crown as this amazing liberal place is the hallmark of people who cant help themselves but fawn over how amazing everything was in that period. Not worth following up with your lies and blatant disregard for reality.
While its true that the guy above was glazing too much the spanish empire I dont think you are being fair either.
While its true that the Habsburg spent a lot of money in wars instead of investing it in Castille (since technically Spain didnt exist yet, and the colonies and its gold were part of Castille, It would be the same investing them in Aragón or in Germany), not many of those wars were triying to expand the empire.
Flanders was part of the spanish empire, Charles the I was even raises there, and as such triying to portray the war as an expansionist war would be wrong, in the same way the 30 years war in Germany wasnt a war to expand the spanish territories.
In the same way the war against the turks was due to their expansionism, not triying to take landa belonging to them.
Finally while its true that It did not have an "envied social nobility" Spain was the cultural center of Europe during the XVI and XVII century, and there were many advancements that would be very influential in latter humanitarian advancements (the Decretos de Nueva Carta are among the First laws to recognise human rights, and the peace of Augsburg meant (much to the spanish monarchy displeasure) the basis of religión freedom in Europe just to putna few examples) and so It could be considered quite "liberal" for the time in the same sense that France in the XVIII century was quite "liberal" for Europe, despite being an absolutist monarchy
Spain spent a lot of the money in wars under the Habsburgs (and a lot of the investment happened in the 18th century). There were mutinies of the Army of Flanders were due to not paying them when the flota arrived late.
It's kinda sad, because I was studying the campaigns of Parma in the Low Countries recently and his forces were not getting paid whatsoever, so he had to personally take out loans in order to pay the troops. Imagine if a company does not pay its regular employees, so a district manager or something has to pay them himself out of pocket.
Parma, being understanding of the plight of his soldiers and officers, wrote in letters to the king commending them for campaigning on without pay and their service to the crown. Meanwhile, in Friesland, one of his generals was writing private letters badmouthing Parma because he thinks that his commander is misusing the money or keeping it all to himself, since he doesn't know that Parma himself isn't getting an ounce of gold from Felipe.
Parma was taking the responsibility all on himself and not blaming Felipe, so took the blame from his own generals and officers, dealt with mutineers and mitigated any major desertions in the army from happening, paying and supplying the troops out of his own pocket, and still managed to use sound strategy to conquer almost all of Belgium for the Spanish crown.
And then, to """reward""" him for his services, Felipe gets involved in a two front war with France, so Parma has to go to France, outmanoeuvre Henri IV, save Paris and Rouen from siege, double back, face Maurits and check him as well, all while working on little to no support from the homeland. He was also dying of sickness and suffering from intense gout, so there was that too.
Meanwhile, the second great commander of Spain to rise up from the ranks, Spinola, did many meritorious services for the crown as well, but he also largely had to pay the troops out of pocket and ended up bankrupting himself. How did Felipe repay him? He didn't, and so Spinola fell out of favour due to his inability to keep up his successes, simply because he had no money.
The wealth that travelled all the way from Potosi in Peru and in Mexico (plus other smaller mines in the Spanish Main) was simply wasted by the Habsburgs in paying both the Fuggers and their armies in Flanders and Italy.
And whatever wealth remained just caused rampant runaway inflation for the Spanish economy.
There’s a cool display at the Florida History Museum in Tallahassee of Spanish silver dollars and there’s a very clear decline in the quality of the stamping and shape of the coins overtime that when arranged chronologically is a great visual representation of the decline of the Spanish Empire
Throwback to the that one poor bloke who was in a PhD program for years because his professor kept holding him from progressing and the man lost it and murdered the professor brief link
edit: nevermind, the student was actually apparently a huge POS who beat his wife and the professor according to other students was a genuinely great guy
We also have resource wars, heroic wars, Succession Wars, genocidal wars, Crusades, French wars, diplomatic misunderstandings, privateer raids, slave raids, and civil wars!
It wasn't the religious wars per se, the sack of Antwerp in 1576 by unpaid Spanish forces was part of a civil war, religion being one of the many reasons why the Low Countries states wanted to leave the Union or at least renegotiate their position
I like history but I’m not too familiar with mainland Spanish history (more informed about the Spanish presence in the Americas). How did a back then super power kingdom fell off so hard to this day? Was it really just overspending in European wars.
It’s not really that much of an outlier. Spain conquered the Aztecs in 1521, and the American colonies gained independence around the 1820’s. For comparison, the Scramble for Africa happened in the late 1800’s and the colonies gained independence in the mid-to-late 1900’s. India was only really ruled by the British starting in the mid 1700’s, and it gained independence in the mid 1900’s as well.
Even taking into account Spain’s decline before losing its colonies, it still had at least a century of hegemony in Europe and around 2 centuries as a dominant power in Europe.
Recency bias means we view the French and British empire as very long lasting, but they really weren’t.
There was some mismanagement, but it was primarily because they were overstretched. Basically what you said, but there’s a lot to extrapolate from it.
France is just parked right there and simply refused to be surrounded by Habsburg territory. They even, despite being Catholic, allied with the Protestant Powers. All of Europe was at war with “Spain” (the Habsburgs) at times.
Then you throw in Spain’s relatively small population, the colonies, the mismanagement, and bad luck—it’s a recipe for a short hegemony.
Mahan tells us that it is because Spain forgot the importance of sea power. They had a massive empire that necessitated having a massive and professional fleet to sustain and defend it, as well as careful positioning of naval units for force projection. They didn't follow up with that and spent all their wealth and money engaging in land warfare in the great money pit that was Central Europe. This allowed the Dutch and English to attain supremacy at sea, and waylay trade between Spain and her colonies as they saw fit. At some point, Spanish supplies and communication with her colonies existed only at British sufferance, with Britain taking her share of concessions as time went by.
endless deb, that led to constant debasement of currency (a spanish silver coin by the end of Philip the II reing was mostlly coper covern with silver that actual silver) and inflation.
Military overextension on endless wars, Italians wars, 5 wars with France, wars on the seas with England, wars vs the ottomans on the mediterranean, wars on the americas (for example the Mauches on Chile required the presence of a permanent spanish army, not just your average conquistador), religious conflicts on germany, the Philipines, the warnon flanders, Spanish ships and troops were everywhere.
Gradual decline while their "rivals" starter to rise. After losing the netherlands the spanish empire never recover. An spiral of decend that never stoped and from where spain never recovered.
[keeping a wary eye on the United States to see if they react.]
Largely because it wasn't really a country in the modern (or even the contemporary) sense of the world, it was a bunch of kingdoms and duchies and counties and cities and what-not which happened to have the same ruler. Even what we call Spain was actually Castile plus Aragon plus Navarre plus Catalonia plus a bunch of other principalities that felt very strongly about protecting their privileges (mostly the privilege to pay less taxes than other not so privileged entities). Pretty much all of the disparate possessions of Spanish Crown tried everything to avoid paying taxes that would end up for some other use other than for immediate protection of the kingdom/duchy/county/city itself.
So basically the windfall from America (all the Inca and Aztec gold plus the silver mines) was mostly spent just to keep the whole show running but even so the crown was at war with so many enemies so often that it went bankrupt again and again. It needed ready money, so much of the gold went straight to its creditors and the interest rates kept climbing because of all the defaults and uncertainty caused by the endless wars on multiple fronts.
Absolutism and lack of strong central power. As a result, no beneficial institutions ever really took hold, Russia wasn't too different except for the central power thing.
well thats the beauty of it, if non of your equals can actually reach and exploit that land, you basically are controlling it from them. if you controlled a door to another dimension, to those on our side you essentially control all access and so all resource transfer from that other dimension, despite only needing to ACTUALLY watch a few meters in either direction of that door
Even wirh bankruptcies Spain in the early 17th century was quite powerful. There was a reason why the 30 years war was a *30* years war, and it was not the power of the Austrian Habsburgs.
This isn’t entirely true. Yes the Spanish empire plateaued after its quick rise to the top, but Spain was the most powerful country in the world from the early 1500s until the War of Spanish Succession in the early 1700s. And remained a significant great power until the Napoleonic wars. Spain’s time as the most powerful country in the world (1520s to 1700s) was nearly twice as long as Britain’s (1815-1914), about 3 times as long as the Americans have had it up to this point (1945-present), and Spain remained a global great power for around 300 years, so longer than most global great powers have remained global great powers, since the existence of global great powers (Portugal is the only comparable one in terms of longevity, and I don’t count ancient Egypt or Persia or Rome because none were global great powers, they lacked the ability to have a global presence, Persia had no ability to exert its will in Britain, Rome had no ability to exert its will on China, whereas truly global great powers, of which Spain and Portugal were the first, could exert their will in Europe, Asia, the Americas, etc)
That’s the thing though, the ascendency period isn’t the same as the hegemonic period where these powers were actually on top (Except for France because France never established itself as the most powerful country in the world, kind of like Germany and Russia never quite got there, but came close). If we measure the ascendancy period as the same as the dominance period you could argue both Spain and Portugal’s periods started in the 1100s or 1200s once they got enough winning momentum with the reconquista which acted as a springboard for them to build the first global empires in history (It’s not a coincidence that the Spanish found Hispaniola the exact same year they completed the last part of the reconquista, or that the Portuguese were already establishing their first overseas colonies and beginning the age of European overseas empires in Ceuta in the 1300s)
However I’d argue that from 1659-1759 you could make a case for France as the most powerful state.
Their army was 3-4 times larger than Russia’s, or any other European power. Their language and culture and etiquette dominated European culture. Voltaire..
England was still England for most of that time, and not yet the indisputable master of the waves. The Mughals were in free fall. The Qing were insular. The Ottomans were retreating. Spain was bankrupt, and then a French “ally.” I’d say France did have a period of hegemony.
The reason I don’t consider France to be the most powerful state from 1659-1759 is because they had too many very capable rivals that prevented them from establishing true dominance. I’d argue Spain was still the dominant global power because Spain was still a serious military contender in Europe, was essentially untouchable in the Americas where its power and wealth base was, and had the ability to exert influence in Asia as well and ultimately Spanish silver production directly led to the collapse of the Ming dynasty in China. France was certainly a force to be reckoned with in Europe, and economically powerful, but they had no ability to exert the kind of influence Spain could exert simultaneously across the world. I’d say Spain only stopped being the dominant global power after the war of the Spanish succession.
And after the war of Spanish succession, Britain, Prussia, and Russia all became too powerful for France to ever establish any degree of clear dominance. And eventually after napoleon was defeated the British became the dominant global power.
IMO the only global superpowers to have existed so far in history are the Spanish empire, British empire, the U.S., and the USSR. The one power I debate on including is Portugal, during the very short period from when the Portuguese first established themselves in the Indian Ocean and dominated the spice trade, until the Spanish truly got their empire in the Americas going in the early 1500s. France, Tzarist Russia, Prussia/Germany, Japan, imo they were merely great powers, never a dominant global power or global superpower.
Well it’s a good argument! And my Francophile heart has collapsed whilst reading it! lol 🥀
But yea, I see the point you’re making. Perhaps if Louis XIV had been right and successful in 1700 when he said “the Pyrenees no longer exist” France could have fit your definition.
Yeah, that was always going to be an unacceptable outcome for basically every European power because France (One of the upcoming great powers) and Spain (The established global great power with global reach) were united in a personal union, the rest of the great powers would have been screwed lol
And I understand why you’re a Francophile, Napoleon and Croissants and French cars and French cheese and French meals and Cold War era French pop and Chopin and A demure yet stylish woman in a striped shirt with an accent saying “What do you think Mon Amie, it’s good, no?” in a quiet and subtle yet warm way, is all extremely lovely.
And many people dislike the French for this, but I actually respect the French for how stubbornly French they are. They have character and as a people won’t just conform because “it’s easier”, they’ll remain defiantly French to the last. That spirit is amazing
It still managed to be a lumbering behemoth in European affairs into the 17th century (albeit constantly hemorrhaging debts), but being on the losing side of the Thirty Years' War and the intwined war against Dutch independence ended its ability to hold off foreign influence, and by the conclusion of the War of Spanish Succession in 1714, a Bourbon was put on the throne of the Kingdom of Spain and it had practically no ability to act independently of France for the rest of that whole century.
In the 19th century the Empire collapsed into independent states and it has never really improved (in the 19th and 20th centuries, an unemployment rate of 20% or higher was not uncommon.)
It’s cool, they’ll get to keep Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and the Marianas unless some up and coming nation comes along in 300 years or so.
More silver means more inflation. More wars means more debt. Expelling the Jewish bankers from your country means more foreign debt. More foreign debt means a lot of the silver entering your country immediately leaves it.
So you both inflate the economy and yet have less silver.
Wild that there are no Spakish Empire Restoration gangs considering they were 4x more successful than the Nazis and 10x more successful than the Confederates.
They remained the dominant power for the next century and maintained all their possessions in the Americas for two centuries afterward, even expanding them; they practically forgot about Europe. But in terms of duration, they held global dominance longer than the French or British empires
It's always baffling to me to read about how little the Spanish invested their abusive wealth. The dudes owned half the world and lost it to... (checks notes) ... doing stupid shit with it???
Spanish kings thought they have a divine mision given by God to keep the catholic world united. That is the point nobody speaks about. They really really thought that.
The same happens with all the oil countries.
Venezuelans have the richest oil fields in the world but are going economically down. Same with Saudi Arabia in a few years. All the money spent on some stupid buildings but nothing in the future.
Phillip II: I am the richest King in the world
Spain: So you're reinvesting all that wealth into Spain right?
Phillip II:
Spain: So you're reinvesting all that wealth into Spain right?
But the Spanish Habsburgs had no choice other than fighting the Ottomans. And the Protestants in the HRE. And the French. And the English. And the Flemings. And the Dutch. And the Italians.
Okay, maybe they could have done something differently
WE HAVE INFINITE MONEY HELL YEAH LET'S FIGHT INFINITE WARS WE'LL HAVE INFINITE TERRITO-
What do you mean our colonies are all revolting and we ran out of money?
Hey thats not fair, they ran out money like 200+ years before the colonies revolted!
Works perfectly in EU IV, sounds like a skill issue
They should've fought Sweden . . . oh shoot I guess they kinda did in the 30 Years War.
You Hapsburgs sure are a contentious people
You've made an enemy for life! Or until I run out of money
“Ackshually, I’m a little busy with that Protestant heathen witch in England. Wonder if she’ll marry me..”
"Surely her glorious reign will continue on for many decades!"
,,Listen Philip I know that we used that money from Americas to build many palaces. However, surely it would also be beneficial to improve the country, by for instance investing into manufacturies.''
...
,,Another trillion to the German mercenaries.''
Ackshually, France the Ottomans and the Dutch consumed most of Spain's resources, despite England's propaganda having it on the #1 spot
Spanish inquisition: "Allow us to introduce ourselves"
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION
OUR CHIEF WEAPON IS SURPRISE
"Why would I need to invest? I have infinite free money coming in! Let's build an armada and see if it sinks!"
It still went better than the English counterarmada composed of pirates and drunkards.
That sounds way cooler than the Spanish armada tbf
At least the buccaneers were funding themselves... kinda...
England isn’t Spanish so it couldn’t have gone that badly
Oh but it did went that badly.
“English invasion of Portugal foiled by finding alcohol.” Figures lol
"What do you mean I can't chop all the trees in Iberia?"
Nah I'm spending it all on armies to mess with the proddies lol
Valid crash out.
Nah what if we spent it all on Italy and fighting Protestants for a gagillion years
No, better invest in the new land, building cities, roads, universities and, churches and monasteries. Unlike other powers’ purely extractive and prison colonies.
Surely in a few hundred years those who live here will be very thankful for improving their quality of life as we are with the romans in Europe.
"yeah before that lets try and conquer Flanders for the 27th time. Yeah dont invest in commerce between colonies lets ban that and add a caste system. Lowborns wont be allowed to even mount horses. Artisans and industry in New Spain? nah focus on Haciendas and silver mines."
Flanders didn’t need conquest, it was part of the Haubsburg inheritance from the Burgundian lineage. Protestant fake news is what it is.
Caste system?? Everyone could marry everyone and there was more social mobility than in Europe. The segregation was more based on status and wealth, sames as in the old world. Isabel of Moctezuma had nothing to envy to pure european nobility.
No industry in the Americas? Have you ever heard of the obrajes? https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obrajes_en_la_Nueva_Espa%C3%B1a
Others based their economy on trading furs with hunter gatherers.
Theres a lot of myopy on this comment.
Colonies were banned frome trading with eachother and develop ondustry what the hell are you on about?
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1503&context=nmhr#:~:text=Spaniards%20or%20foreigners%20controlled%20commerce,right%20to%20send%20one%20ship
The entire mexican independence movement stemmed from Peninsular Spanish being privilleged. Indigenous and black people were expected to pay tribute to the crown at all times. Only spanish descendants could be ordained as priests. A simple wiki search https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta
Regardless of fake news, Spain spent the majority of its resources trying to take land that was never going to be theirs,l on very loose noble titles. The sheer amount of Spanish glazing here is expected of a monarchy defendant. Saying 1700s Spain had "envied social mobility" and retroactively painting the crown as this amazing liberal place is the hallmark of people who cant help themselves but fawn over how amazing everything was in that period. Not worth following up with your lies and blatant disregard for reality.
While its true that the guy above was glazing too much the spanish empire I dont think you are being fair either.
While its true that the Habsburg spent a lot of money in wars instead of investing it in Castille (since technically Spain didnt exist yet, and the colonies and its gold were part of Castille, It would be the same investing them in Aragón or in Germany), not many of those wars were triying to expand the empire.
Flanders was part of the spanish empire, Charles the I was even raises there, and as such triying to portray the war as an expansionist war would be wrong, in the same way the 30 years war in Germany wasnt a war to expand the spanish territories.
In the same way the war against the turks was due to their expansionism, not triying to take landa belonging to them.
Finally while its true that It did not have an "envied social nobility" Spain was the cultural center of Europe during the XVI and XVII century, and there were many advancements that would be very influential in latter humanitarian advancements (the Decretos de Nueva Carta are among the First laws to recognise human rights, and the peace of Augsburg meant (much to the spanish monarchy displeasure) the basis of religión freedom in Europe just to putna few examples) and so It could be considered quite "liberal" for the time in the same sense that France in the XVIII century was quite "liberal" for Europe, despite being an absolutist monarchy
Spain spent a lot of the money in wars under the Habsburgs (and a lot of the investment happened in the 18th century). There were mutinies of the Army of Flanders were due to not paying them when the flota arrived late.
It's kinda sad, because I was studying the campaigns of Parma in the Low Countries recently and his forces were not getting paid whatsoever, so he had to personally take out loans in order to pay the troops. Imagine if a company does not pay its regular employees, so a district manager or something has to pay them himself out of pocket.
Parma, being understanding of the plight of his soldiers and officers, wrote in letters to the king commending them for campaigning on without pay and their service to the crown. Meanwhile, in Friesland, one of his generals was writing private letters badmouthing Parma because he thinks that his commander is misusing the money or keeping it all to himself, since he doesn't know that Parma himself isn't getting an ounce of gold from Felipe.
Parma was taking the responsibility all on himself and not blaming Felipe, so took the blame from his own generals and officers, dealt with mutineers and mitigated any major desertions in the army from happening, paying and supplying the troops out of his own pocket, and still managed to use sound strategy to conquer almost all of Belgium for the Spanish crown.
And then, to """reward""" him for his services, Felipe gets involved in a two front war with France, so Parma has to go to France, outmanoeuvre Henri IV, save Paris and Rouen from siege, double back, face Maurits and check him as well, all while working on little to no support from the homeland. He was also dying of sickness and suffering from intense gout, so there was that too.
Meanwhile, the second great commander of Spain to rise up from the ranks, Spinola, did many meritorious services for the crown as well, but he also largely had to pay the troops out of pocket and ended up bankrupting himself. How did Felipe repay him? He didn't, and so Spinola fell out of favour due to his inability to keep up his successes, simply because he had no money.
The wealth that travelled all the way from Potosi in Peru and in Mexico (plus other smaller mines in the Spanish Main) was simply wasted by the Habsburgs in paying both the Fuggers and their armies in Flanders and Italy.
And whatever wealth remained just caused rampant runaway inflation for the Spanish economy.
We were actually; then inbred idiots ruined it all
Bourbons?
Just gotta mop up this little thing the Netherlands real quick, should only be a couple more months.
How about 960 months?
Spanish Aristocracy when you ask them to actually invest their money and not waste it on dumb shit 🤯
Someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. My empire is dying.
Medici, Fuggers and every bank in Europe: Sure, just let us handle it. First order of business is taking out loans!
Spend less in mercenaries
No
True to your username
I expect you’ll keep spending on candles too then 😤
Give me wicker light or give me death
throws hands up in the air well fuck idk how to help you balance this anymore
Cut funding to the arts. Nobody needs paintings when you could be building roads
Those Pope tithes could also be spent on more mercenaries...
You are not going to believe what happened in 1527…
Henry VIII, Gustav Vasa, Frederick I: "Less tithes you say... And why don't we steal monastery property while we're at it"
EU5 player spotted
Nono, just need more gold. Not investment, just more gold circulation. The more the better. Mine more gold and faster.
Spend less on candles
There’s a cool display at the Florida History Museum in Tallahassee of Spanish silver dollars and there’s a very clear decline in the quality of the stamping and shape of the coins overtime that when arranged chronologically is a great visual representation of the decline of the Spanish Empire
That’s really cool 👍
When you realized that money is only a representation of wealth...
Oh, and I guess fighting endless wars isn't that great for the economy either.
I wonder if someone from the US would read this and worries a little
Americans have a good example of war draining national wealth from 5 years ago in Afghanistan and you want them to learn from 500? :D
We haven't gotten into our vampire economy era yet. But things will get ugly soon
You were in college for 40 years???
“I’m a terrible doctor.” 😔
*takes pill
“I’m a great doctor.” 🥹
Doctor Hu?
Throwback to the that one poor bloke who was in a PhD program for years because his professor kept holding him from progressing and the man lost it and murdered the professor brief link
edit: nevermind, the student was actually apparently a huge POS who beat his wife and the professor according to other students was a genuinely great guy
What getting into religious wars does to a mf
Don’t limit yourself to religious wars!
We also have resource wars, heroic wars, Succession Wars, genocidal wars, Crusades, French wars, diplomatic misunderstandings, privateer raids, slave raids, and civil wars!
Never limit your portfolio!
I mean, crusades are, by definition, religious wars
The excuse may have been religious but many most definitely were over political or territorial reasons.
Maybe dumb question but what territory was Spain getting from the crusades?
You mean la reconquista that drove off the Moorish Caliphate out of what is now southern spain?
Northern Africa plus crusading efforts against the Ottomans in the Mediterranean
They are crusades only if they come from the Holy Land, otherwise they are just sparkly religious wars.
also hurricanes and English privateers sinking your treasure ships
That happened like twice in 300 years, hardly a reason for a decline
It wasn't the religious wars per se, the sack of Antwerp in 1576 by unpaid Spanish forces was part of a civil war, religion being one of the many reasons why the Low Countries states wanted to leave the Union or at least renegotiate their position
I like history but I’m not too familiar with mainland Spanish history (more informed about the Spanish presence in the Americas). How did a back then super power kingdom fell off so hard to this day? Was it really just overspending in European wars.
It’s not really that much of an outlier. Spain conquered the Aztecs in 1521, and the American colonies gained independence around the 1820’s. For comparison, the Scramble for Africa happened in the late 1800’s and the colonies gained independence in the mid-to-late 1900’s. India was only really ruled by the British starting in the mid 1700’s, and it gained independence in the mid 1900’s as well.
Even taking into account Spain’s decline before losing its colonies, it still had at least a century of hegemony in Europe and around 2 centuries as a dominant power in Europe.
Recency bias means we view the French and British empire as very long lasting, but they really weren’t.
There was some mismanagement, but it was primarily because they were overstretched. Basically what you said, but there’s a lot to extrapolate from it.
France is just parked right there and simply refused to be surrounded by Habsburg territory. They even, despite being Catholic, allied with the Protestant Powers. All of Europe was at war with “Spain” (the Habsburgs) at times.
Then you throw in Spain’s relatively small population, the colonies, the mismanagement, and bad luck—it’s a recipe for a short hegemony.
Didnt the flood of silver from the Americas also devalue it?
Correct
Yo thanks for the response. Always liked getting history lessons through memes.
Anytime 👍 me too!
Mahan tells us that it is because Spain forgot the importance of sea power. They had a massive empire that necessitated having a massive and professional fleet to sustain and defend it, as well as careful positioning of naval units for force projection. They didn't follow up with that and spent all their wealth and money engaging in land warfare in the great money pit that was Central Europe. This allowed the Dutch and English to attain supremacy at sea, and waylay trade between Spain and her colonies as they saw fit. At some point, Spanish supplies and communication with her colonies existed only at British sufferance, with Britain taking her share of concessions as time went by.
Spain's fleet was the 2nd largest in the world during the 1700s but ok
endless deb, that led to constant debasement of currency (a spanish silver coin by the end of Philip the II reing was mostlly coper covern with silver that actual silver) and inflation.
Military overextension on endless wars, Italians wars, 5 wars with France, wars on the seas with England, wars vs the ottomans on the mediterranean, wars on the americas (for example the Mauches on Chile required the presence of a permanent spanish army, not just your average conquistador), religious conflicts on germany, the Philipines, the warnon flanders, Spanish ships and troops were everywhere. Gradual decline while their "rivals" starter to rise. After losing the netherlands the spanish empire never recover. An spiral of decend that never stoped and from where spain never recovered.
[keeping a wary eye on the United States to see if they react.]
Largely because it wasn't really a country in the modern (or even the contemporary) sense of the world, it was a bunch of kingdoms and duchies and counties and cities and what-not which happened to have the same ruler. Even what we call Spain was actually Castile plus Aragon plus Navarre plus Catalonia plus a bunch of other principalities that felt very strongly about protecting their privileges (mostly the privilege to pay less taxes than other not so privileged entities). Pretty much all of the disparate possessions of Spanish Crown tried everything to avoid paying taxes that would end up for some other use other than for immediate protection of the kingdom/duchy/county/city itself.
So basically the windfall from America (all the Inca and Aztec gold plus the silver mines) was mostly spent just to keep the whole show running but even so the crown was at war with so many enemies so often that it went bankrupt again and again. It needed ready money, so much of the gold went straight to its creditors and the interest rates kept climbing because of all the defaults and uncertainty caused by the endless wars on multiple fronts.
Napoleon destroyed the mainland and the colonies that would have been exploited to pay off the rebuilding used the opportunity to escape
Absolutism and lack of strong central power. As a result, no beneficial institutions ever really took hold, Russia wasn't too different except for the central power thing.
They claim a lot more land than they actually controlled.
Still a massive chunk of land.
Alaska is clearly rightfull spanish soil /s
well thats the beauty of it, if non of your equals can actually reach and exploit that land, you basically are controlling it from them. if you controlled a door to another dimension, to those on our side you essentially control all access and so all resource transfer from that other dimension, despite only needing to ACTUALLY watch a few meters in either direction of that door
Desde salamanca no les venian advirtiendo que eso podria pasar o me estoy confundiendo?
Yes, but in the end, nobody paid attention.
Even wirh bankruptcies Spain in the early 17th century was quite powerful. There was a reason why the 30 years war was a *30* years war, and it was not the power of the Austrian Habsburgs.
not stonks 😢
This isn’t entirely true. Yes the Spanish empire plateaued after its quick rise to the top, but Spain was the most powerful country in the world from the early 1500s until the War of Spanish Succession in the early 1700s. And remained a significant great power until the Napoleonic wars. Spain’s time as the most powerful country in the world (1520s to 1700s) was nearly twice as long as Britain’s (1815-1914), about 3 times as long as the Americans have had it up to this point (1945-present), and Spain remained a global great power for around 300 years, so longer than most global great powers have remained global great powers, since the existence of global great powers (Portugal is the only comparable one in terms of longevity, and I don’t count ancient Egypt or Persia or Rome because none were global great powers, they lacked the ability to have a global presence, Persia had no ability to exert its will in Britain, Rome had no ability to exert its will on China, whereas truly global great powers, of which Spain and Portugal were the first, could exert their will in Europe, Asia, the Americas, etc)
I understand where you’re coming from with that but here’s my personal timeline
Spanish Ascendency 1469-1643 (1659)
French Ascendency 1643 (1659)-1759
British Ascendency 1759-1916
That’s the thing though, the ascendency period isn’t the same as the hegemonic period where these powers were actually on top (Except for France because France never established itself as the most powerful country in the world, kind of like Germany and Russia never quite got there, but came close). If we measure the ascendancy period as the same as the dominance period you could argue both Spain and Portugal’s periods started in the 1100s or 1200s once they got enough winning momentum with the reconquista which acted as a springboard for them to build the first global empires in history (It’s not a coincidence that the Spanish found Hispaniola the exact same year they completed the last part of the reconquista, or that the Portuguese were already establishing their first overseas colonies and beginning the age of European overseas empires in Ceuta in the 1300s)
You make some interesting points 👍
However I’d argue that from 1659-1759 you could make a case for France as the most powerful state.
Their army was 3-4 times larger than Russia’s, or any other European power. Their language and culture and etiquette dominated European culture. Voltaire..
England was still England for most of that time, and not yet the indisputable master of the waves. The Mughals were in free fall. The Qing were insular. The Ottomans were retreating. Spain was bankrupt, and then a French “ally.” I’d say France did have a period of hegemony.
It was fleeting though lol
Thanks, and same to you!
The reason I don’t consider France to be the most powerful state from 1659-1759 is because they had too many very capable rivals that prevented them from establishing true dominance. I’d argue Spain was still the dominant global power because Spain was still a serious military contender in Europe, was essentially untouchable in the Americas where its power and wealth base was, and had the ability to exert influence in Asia as well and ultimately Spanish silver production directly led to the collapse of the Ming dynasty in China. France was certainly a force to be reckoned with in Europe, and economically powerful, but they had no ability to exert the kind of influence Spain could exert simultaneously across the world. I’d say Spain only stopped being the dominant global power after the war of the Spanish succession.
And after the war of Spanish succession, Britain, Prussia, and Russia all became too powerful for France to ever establish any degree of clear dominance. And eventually after napoleon was defeated the British became the dominant global power.
IMO the only global superpowers to have existed so far in history are the Spanish empire, British empire, the U.S., and the USSR. The one power I debate on including is Portugal, during the very short period from when the Portuguese first established themselves in the Indian Ocean and dominated the spice trade, until the Spanish truly got their empire in the Americas going in the early 1500s. France, Tzarist Russia, Prussia/Germany, Japan, imo they were merely great powers, never a dominant global power or global superpower.
Well it’s a good argument! And my Francophile heart has collapsed whilst reading it! lol 🥀
But yea, I see the point you’re making. Perhaps if Louis XIV had been right and successful in 1700 when he said “the Pyrenees no longer exist” France could have fit your definition.
No wonder the Grand Alliance said “no, sir,”
Yeah, that was always going to be an unacceptable outcome for basically every European power because France (One of the upcoming great powers) and Spain (The established global great power with global reach) were united in a personal union, the rest of the great powers would have been screwed lol
I mean... that should probably be extended a bit, no?
I refer to that as the “Napoleonic Interlude” of Britain’s Ascendency lol but I’m glad someone brought that up 👍
And I understand why you’re a Francophile, Napoleon and Croissants and French cars and French cheese and French meals and Cold War era French pop and Chopin and A demure yet stylish woman in a striped shirt with an accent saying “What do you think Mon Amie, it’s good, no?” in a quiet and subtle yet warm way, is all extremely lovely.
And many people dislike the French for this, but I actually respect the French for how stubbornly French they are. They have character and as a people won’t just conform because “it’s easier”, they’ll remain defiantly French to the last. That spirit is amazing
Haha, fair enough.
It still managed to be a lumbering behemoth in European affairs into the 17th century (albeit constantly hemorrhaging debts), but being on the losing side of the Thirty Years' War and the intwined war against Dutch independence ended its ability to hold off foreign influence, and by the conclusion of the War of Spanish Succession in 1714, a Bourbon was put on the throne of the Kingdom of Spain and it had practically no ability to act independently of France for the rest of that whole century.
In the 19th century the Empire collapsed into independent states and it has never really improved (in the 19th and 20th centuries, an unemployment rate of 20% or higher was not uncommon.)
It’s cool, they’ll get to keep Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and the Marianas unless some up and coming nation comes along in 300 years or so.
This is the favorite pastime of Anglo-Protestants. How their enemies degrade into opulence and wretchedness
More silver means more inflation. More wars means more debt. Expelling the Jewish bankers from your country means more foreign debt. More foreign debt means a lot of the silver entering your country immediately leaves it.
So you both inflate the economy and yet have less silver.
you spent 40 years in college?
When your country suffers from hyperinflation and a war economy at the same time
40 years isn't what I would call fast
r/IberianHistoryMemes
Spanish conquistadors in 16th century: "Why are these locals so poor and naked lol"
Them 5 centuries later: "Oh, that's why"
what good is an empire if you can't destroy it
The still outlasted the Confederacy by over 3 1/2 decades
You were in college for 40 years?
Plateau o plomo
“Hey, prince-elector votes ain’t cheap”
Wild that there are no Spakish Empire Restoration gangs considering they were 4x more successful than the Nazis and 10x more successful than the Confederates.
They remained the dominant power for the next century and maintained all their possessions in the Americas for two centuries afterward, even expanding them; they practically forgot about Europe. But in terms of duration, they held global dominance longer than the French or British empires
You were in college for 40 years?
ANOTHER 10000 SILVER TO ITALIAN MERCENARIES RAAHHHHH
It's always baffling to me to read about how little the Spanish invested their abusive wealth. The dudes owned half the world and lost it to... (checks notes) ... doing stupid shit with it???
And now the same will happen with the US trying to make money out of Venezuela.
Spanish kings thought they have a divine mision given by God to keep the catholic world united. That is the point nobody speaks about. They really really thought that.
Philip II was one of the most moronic rulers in the last 500 years
The same happens with all the oil countries. Venezuelans have the richest oil fields in the world but are going economically down. Same with Saudi Arabia in a few years. All the money spent on some stupid buildings but nothing in the future.