What happened to the Spanish Empire?

Except that we’re talking some 430 years ago and I would cut them some slack because knowledge of economy was nothing like it was today and the mentality on all other things was totally different. To be meaningful any judgment has to be made against the standards of the time.

Spanish history of that period is one of my favorite reading topics but I do not want to get too deeply involved in this thread. Pretty much all empires decline for the same reason: They wish to maintain a position which is financially unsupportable and they do it for a short while (in historical terms) by going into debt and then everything collapses. Only a crisis like that will make people accept their new position in the world and, as you say, America today is a good example.

The decline of the Spanish empire is a very complex topic and all simple answers are going to leave a lot of important things out. Furthermore, most simple answers are going to be Anglo textbook simplifications of the sort which make Spain look bad and the Anglos look good. Like “they didn’t want to work, only steal gold, and that was their downfall” with the implication “and we didn’t steal gold but rather worked and that’s why things went so much better for us”. Which is patently nonsense. Complex questions require complex answers. Or you can just say of any empire that it declined due to “getting into idiotic wars they couldn’t afford”.

Let’s begin with something very basic. There was no such thing as “Spain” at that time. There was Castile and Aragon, two separate and distinct kingdoms, with their separate laws and customs, in personal union. Castile was by far the richest of the two and it was Castile which undertook the discovery and conquest of America while Aragon had nothing to do with it and focused their energy in the Mediterranean conquering Naples and other parts. So that is the first crucial thing to understand.

As I said, Castile was the richest kingdom in western Europe in its own right. It had high production of cereals, wine, wool and other goods. It is nonsense to say “Spain” was only rich from the gold it got from America.

One crucial point is that the population of Spain took a big hit in trying to populate the Americas. Spain’s population was being bled to death. Later empires had a higher population to work with and populated places more slowly.

Another crucial point in understanding the decline of Spain is that governments of centuries ago did not have the kind of effective control governments have today. Their sovereignty and control were mostly symbolic, even in the metropolis but extremely so in the colonies.

The King of Spain could issue as many decrees as he liked but there was damn near little he could do to enforce them effectively. A matter submitted to the crown from South America could take a year or more to receive a response and often when the royal order came the local authorities, always ostensibly acting in the name and interest of the king, would “submit to it but not enforce it” (se acata pero no se cumple) as the formula went.

In the early 19th century two crucial things came together. The ideas of the enlightment which spread across Europe and then maerica like wildfire and the Peninsular wars which decapitated for some years the Spanish Empire. These two factors came together in the South American colonies to create the conditions for independence movements which are a close copy of what happened some years earlier in North America.

As I say, it is an incredibly complex subject which would fill pages and pages. I just recommend reading about it. A lot.

I would point out that the it seems such a question is asked there is an implication that if things had been done differently Spain could have remained powerful longer. Maybe or maybe not. The same can be said for any empire. A hundred years from now people will be asking about the stupidity of some American wars and military expenses and how they were a factor in the downfall of the USA. But with or without stupid policies every empire will decline, it is just a matter of controlling the rate of the decline.

In this sense I think the British have been the more judicious and least bad. On the whole they have managed to adapt to their declining power and influence and not try to hang on with wars to unsustainable colonies. They have managed on the whole to maintain rather good relations with their ex-colonies.

IN 1855, the United States had the money to field a huge to keep states from leaving. In 2055, it might not.

But they may not have anywhere else to go.

And many of them won’t. The Census Bureau projects that we will add more than a hundred million people to our population before 2050. There is no way we can assimilate most of them into our culture and economy. And their simple physical presence will be a huge strain on our infratstructure. We can’t build the houses, roads, hospitals, schools, power grids etc. that will be needed to prevent a drastic decline in the quality of life for the average American.

Importing tens of millions of people from the Third World will turn America into a Third World country.

So tell me, in what previous period did the United States add a hundred million immigrants to its population in four decades and assimilate them all?

That should read “to field a huge army.” Missed the edit window.

That’s nonsense. First of all you should measure not absolute numbers but the ratio of immigrants / established population.

Secondly, cetibus paribus, the larger the population the larger the economy, the tax base, the manpower. In general terms immigration is always a good thing for the economy.

Saying “we can’t build so many homes” is just silly. It is immigrants, many of the illegals, who are already building most American homes and new immigrants will build their own homes.

As I say, a population drain and insufficiency is one of the prime reasons for the decline of the Spanish empire.

I appreciate your analysis, but I DO belive that the Armada was a far bigger disaster than Philip IV knew: it is estimated that 25% of the skilled seamen 9mainly Basques) were lost with the Armada-and while ships could be replaced, skilled mariners could not. The endless wars in the Low Countries bled the Spanish treasury-and what good did it do? Plus, sending in the Duke of alva (to kill thousands) wasn’t a smart move.
Philip IV deserves a LOT of the blame-the man was pig-headed and arrogant.

I am talking about the rate. Immigration is at its highest rate in 150 years–and unlike the nineteenth century, we no longer have a rapidly expanding economy and lots of unused land to accommodate the immigrants.

Road apples. Employers pay immigrants substandard wages and externalize the cost of their health care, housing, etc. to the taxpayers. Immigrant labor (the way it’s structured today, at least) is a net loss for our economy.

But it doesn’t automatically follow that population growth is either desireable or necessary. I find it interesting that only Western nations are expected to absorb large numbers of immigrants.

My apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread. I’ll stop now.

This is just a little exaggerated IMO, sailor. I agree that Castile was the economic engine of the Hapsburg empire ( increasingly so as the revenue fr omLow Countries continued to decline ) and contributed far more to the exchequer than the Treasure Fleets. But it certainly wasn’t as wealthy as a unit as France for instance ( always the economic powerhouse due to rich farmlands, large size and relatively dense population ). Also some short-sighted agrarian policies ( the favoring of sheep-herding at the expense of cereal production ) while it led to a short-term increase in crown revenues from the burgeoning wool trade ( easier for the crown to monopolize ), ultimately opened up an achilles heel as food prices spiraled out of control.

Also a great deal of wealth remained tied up in the hands of a fabulously rich noble class that had acquired a great deal of land alienated from the crown in the 14th century that was mostly not recovered in the Imperial period. We know that Philip II’s budget in 1574 was just south of 6,000,000 ducats, but a few decades earlier, when the great nobles were probably less rich, the top 62 nobles in Castile produced an average aggregate annual income of ~1,300,000 ducats.

Philip II. The Spanish Armada and the duke of Alba’s ham-handed approach to the unrest in the Low Countries both happened under his watch.

[quote=“LonesomePolecat, post:47, topic:462597”]

I am talking about the rate. Immigration is at its highest rate in 150 years–and unlike the nineteenth century, we no longer have a rapidly expanding economy and lots of unused land to accommodate the immigrants.

[quote]

You have no idea what the word “proportion” means, do you?

Blink Do you seriously think that Mesican migrant workers are the only people to immigrate?

Well, yes, I do. But you see, the fact that we have accepted large numbers of immigrants in the past doesn’t mean that it’s good a idea to go on accepting large numbers of immigrants. We no longer have large areas of vacant land to be settled, and our economy isn’t expanding nearly as quickly as it did during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Up to about 1880, we were admitting about two immigrants a day. Since about 1990, we’ve been admitting about two immigrants a minute–and many of them have no intention whatsoever of assimilating. Many of those immigrants are chain immigrants, allowed to enter the country only because they already have relatives here and not because they add anything of value to our economy.

There simply is no need for mass immigration any more,

Talking about ratios of immigrants to citizens does not address the fact that adding tens of millions of immigrants who will be difficult or impossible to assimilate to our population is a really, really bad idea.

Of course not. It doesn’t matter where they come from, so far as labor is concerned. Apparently you seriously think that employers don’t use immigrants to undercut the wages of American workers. You’re aware there are agencies which teach American employers how to legally avoid hiring Americans so they can hire cheaper labor from abroad? You’re aware that, following an immigration service raid on a meat packing plant in America, American citizens immediately started lining up at the plant’s office to apply for jobs, and cheered the immigration officers leading the illegals away? You’re aware that some employers pull strings in the government to admit “refugees” who will come work for them for substandard wages?

Why hire an American citizen for $12 an hour when you can hire a Mexican for $9 an hour or a Somali “refugee” for $6 or $7 an hour–especially if the Mexican or the Somali can easily be deported when he gets uppity?

The only way American workers can compete with Third World labor is to accept Third World standards of living. You really want that?

There was also the factor that Spain as we know it was a conglomeration of different nations joined through their monarch, not political union. The Hapsburgs only had direct control over Castille and the other parts of their empire (particularly Arragon and their Italian holdings) guarded their rights and independence fiercely. As a result if Spain needed more money and decided to raise taxes it could only do it directly in Castille and ask the other states pretty please if they’d raise taxes too.

Between 1621-40, 38% of Spain’s income was coming from Castille, compared to 1.1% from Aragon. Sure, Castille was more wealthy and had a larger population, but this was mainly due to the fact that Aragon didn’t want to be taxed to death and the Cortes refused to increase taxation to make up extra revenue. In the same period 70.4% of the state’s expenditure was on either Spain’s military or on debts (and this in an age before national debt existed so there was also interest to be paid to foreign bankers) and spending exceeded income by 12.5 million ducets. Not exactly a recipe for long-term economic success.

Finally, as Tamerlane mentioned, the nobility has acquired vast amounts of wealth from the crown in the form of lands and the right to claim taxes, and they were themselves exempt from taxation, depriving Spain from a huge source of revenue. Tax burden fell disproportionately on the enterprising/middle classes in Spain which stunted their development. By the end of the 17th century when France, England and Holland were really starting to see the cash come in from trade and their overseas colonies, Spain had already declared itself bankrupt twice.

Cite

My cite was for my figures, by the way, I did actually know the rest myself. :o

Surely part of Spain’s eventual decline should be attributed to the misfortune that Ferdinand and Isabella weren’t blessed with a competent heir. Their kingdoms were saddled with the worst possible successor–a feeble female who married into the most powerful family in Europe, ensuring that for 40 critical years Spain would be governed not in her own interest but as an outlying province of (and cash cow for) an even larger empire.

This is not really entirely correct. While emperor Charles started out as a foreigner in Spain more interested in Eurpean affairs, he gradually became more involved in his Spanish Kingdoms, forced in great part by the revolts~wars of the communidades and the hermandades which demanded he be present in Spain and he stop using tax monies from Castile to fight his other European wars. In the end he preferred Castille to anything else and he retired there for the rest of his days.

His son Philip II was an entirely Castilian-Aragonese monarch with only a fraction of the understanding his father had for European politics.

The start of Spanish decline is difficult to pinpoint as it was a gradual process. The defeat of the Armada was one turning point but Spain was still strong, although declining, after that. Shortly before that, Spain (or rather the coalition headed by Spain) won a huge and decisive battle at Lepanto against the Turks. This is another area of special interest to me because Lepanto was the last of the old style naval battles which were like land battles fought on ships where the aim was to come alongside, tie up and board the enemy ship. From then on ships fought at a distance and mainly tried to damage or sink each other.

That’s funny. The United States has a much lower population density by far than any European country but you say you “no longer have lots of unused land”. That’s funny. Have you looked at a map of the United States? The two coasts are more populated but in between it is mainly empty land by any standard. It seems to me some people think Americans have a God given right to consume more energy, more space and more of everything than the rest of the people living on this planet.

And why this has become an anti-immigration thread I have no idea.

You know more about this topic than I do so I am not going to be foolish in contradicting anything you say but, having said that, the castilian literature of the time paints the French as poor immigrants in Castille who, not only were beggars and did low jobs like water carriers but had the nerve to criticize and bitch and complain about the Castilians. And the Castilians reciprocated by telling them to go back to their own country and quit complaining. More or less the same attitude many Americans have towards Mexicans. The French in Spain then were what the Mexicans are in the USA today. (BTW, people from the Basque country and the periphery also immigrated to central Castile for the same reasons.) Now, what that means with respect to the entire French economy and power I do not know. Clearly over the years French power grew while Spain’s diminished.

Spain was really the first modern nation to emerge in Europe after the feudal middle ages. It matured earlier and somewhat imperfectly and withered sooner also. Those that followed were able to perfect more the modern nation-state.

Philip II as has already been corrected. To say the cause of Spanish decline was that Philip II was pig-headed and arrogant is one of those simplifications which just leave so much outr as to become meaningless. It’s not that it is not true in a way, it is that it is a tiny part of the whole picture. A tiny part which has been expanded by Anglo textbooks to fill the entire picture and leave out everything else. Philip II was pig-headed and arrogant? Compared to who? To Henry VIII of England?

Philip II was a very complex man, like almost anybody is. He was certainly not arrogant. He lived like a friar and had a great humility before God. It is difficult to find arrogance in him.

On the other hand he lacked the understanding of practical European international politics his father had and that led him to make mistakes his father would probably not have made. His father was much more flexible and understanding.

Philip II was extremely religious and that sometimes got in the way but he was an extremely conscientius man who believed in right and wrong. After acquiescing to the murder of Escobedo and later finding out he had been misled his conscience never stopped bothering him and never forgave Antonio Perez for the fact.

Again, Castile overextended itself spreading itself too thin and having to get into heavy debt in order to maintain a military pre-eminence. Now it is easy to see it was a mistake but the Spanish monarch and people at the time just could not get used to the idea that Spain needed to assume a different, less important, role in the world. One could call the arrogant and stupid if it were not for the fact that pretty much every other empire has done the same thing and it is exactly what America is doing today. Future generations may see the folly of it but for now Americans do not want to accept the notion that America is no longer in the position it occupied after WWII. Look at the folly of the French in Algeria and SE Asia and tell me if that was not utter stupidity. Now, looking back it is easy to see it but it must not have been so obvious for them at the time.

Oh, well, obviously the thing to do is fill it up with people as quickly as we possibly can. It would be especially nice if millions of them regard our southwestern states as conquered territory which doesn’t rightfully belong to the United States. :rolleyes: Guess what, bub? Most of that land is already taken, and the land that isn’t is mostly uninhabitable land held by the federal government. And even if it weren’t, most of the new arrivals are going to settle in cities and towns.

We don’t need 400 million people.

Another poster earlier in the thread said that it was impossible for the United States to lose territory. I pointed out that we can only maintain our territorial integrity so long as the economy remains fundamentally sound–and it’s entirely possible, even likely, that it won’t. You apparently took this as a personal challenge.

Do me a favor. Next time you post, try to actually have some kind of point. The quaint notion that the United States has huge amounts of perfectly good unused land isn’t one.

Have you read this?

Germany, area: 357,021 Km2, population: 82,217,800, Population density: 230 persons/Km2
USA, area: 9,826,630 Km2, population: 305,106,000, population density: 31

Germany is 7.4 times more densely populated than the U.S. and I have not heard that this is the cause of a coming collapse of Germany.

I suppose similar results would be found with other European countries.

I have also not found it in the Bible that Americans are entitled to 7.4 times as much space as other humans.

But your prejudice is quite clear for all to see.

Now can we get back to the decline of the Spanish empire or is it all about keeping Mexicans out of the USA?