"How did the Spanish Empire Fall Apart" Topic

Duke of Medina Sidonia: Sire! The English just sank the Armada!

King Phillip: Armada, Shmarmada. Who cares? We've got enough gold to sink that island five times over. Go build another one, hire every mercenary in Europe, kill everybody in England, and bring me back some fish and chips, but none of that warm beer…

***

Okay, why didn't this happen? In fact, Spain had wealth coming in from its American holdings that no nation in Europe could match. Add to that the fact that the Spanish army was the terror of Europe at the time. How, then, did the Spanish Empire fall apart?

Thoughts?

That's the way of the world. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.

Over extended. Original impetus religious fervour, major commitments on several fronts, main source of wealth well away from home at the end of a fragile link. Remember, they were holding a lot of their Empire by force (think of the Dutch), needed to keep an eye on the Portugese, a main concern was probably still the Ottomans……

These are just thoughts by the way – I haven't looked anything up and I'm not an expert on the subject.

They were up against the English and the Dutch. 'nuff said :)

Easy answer: all the gold and silver extracted from the American mines was already spent even before a single ingot left the mines. Two state bankruptcies in less than 10 years.

Even then, the Empire hold for another 200 years after the dead of Felipe II.

Over extended… Three front war (Ottomans, English & Dutch) combined with the English & Dutch being able to regularly cut the gold supply line.

Arturo Pérez Reverte will tell you that the very same Spaniards spoiled everything without any external help.

They ran out of duct tape.

Agree with Blacksmith the Alatariste novels have a thread about the decline of Empire running through them.

It was not due to the Spanish Armada's defeat. Actually, the English in the following year sent a large "Counter Armada" to Iberian Coastal waters and met with a fate similar to their adversaries. In fact, the Spanish fleet recovered in a year or two after the defeat of the Armada, and may have been even stronger than it was in 1588. (Most of the large warships survived the disaster of 1588--if I recall correctly).

The Battle of Rocroi (1643) is often cited as marking the end of the "Golden Age" of the Spanish Empire, although it remained relatively powerful and rich for generations afterwards. But, from 1643 onwards, it never really seemed to be able to exert its power and influence in Europe in the same manner.

Malatesta "It was not due to the Spanish Armada's defeat. Actually, the English in the following year sent a large "Counter Armada" to Iberian Coastal waters and met with a fate similar to their adversaries."

Always amazes me how every English victory gets glorified in our histories, and every English defeat is somehow forgotten. For every Agincourt, there was at least one Formigny.

Oberreifenberg "Over extended… Three front war (Ottomans, English & Dutch) combined with the English & Dutch being able to regularly cut the gold supply line."

Okay, but, again, how? With resources like they had, overextended or not, they should have been able to build a fleet sufficient to secure them.

basileus66 "Easy answer: all the gold and silver extracted from the American mines was already spent even before a single ingot left the mines. Two state bankruptcies in less than 10 years."

I had heard something similar. Got any more details? How was it being spent if not on arms and further exploration?

Low native population, not terribly abundant natural resources, lack of a decent banking system, over-centralized government (in the sense of the King), but weak government structure (very narrow aristocrat percentage of population), too many wars, military spread too thin, too much of army were mercenaries, occupied lots of unfriendly societies, best people drained off by the ability to move overseas, very conservative Church (and society), more entrenched Church and noble classes, inability to let up the Crusade mentality that had just united Spain when the Americas were 'discovered', etc.

Other factors include poor communications between the lands and forces of the Empire (common to all nations at that time), religious wars (self-inflicted or forced on them), break between HRE and Spanish branches of the royal family, etc.

In many ways it is easier to compare the Spanish Empire to those of its rivals and note the differences to explain their success and the Spanish failure.

Dan

It was the Inquisition. Burned to many berserkers for heretics maybe.

The book you want to read is Roger B. Merriman's "The rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and in the New". especially the third volume, but you really need the first two to make sense of it all.

Basically, it was a case of too much, too fast. Spain never had time to sort out the consequences of either the reconquista or the unification of Cartille and Aragon (or even the prior unifications of their component parts), before it was flooded with too much money (yielding rampant inflation in an already shaky economy) AND getting sucked into Habsburg power politics.

rmaker "Basically, it was a case of too much, too fast."

Interesting take. So, this thesis is that the power structure in place simply couldn't handle its own success?

Rap Music, I am sure of it.

I had heard something similar. Got any more details? How was it being spent if not on arms and further exploration?

Spain and her empire were only a part of the Habsburg monarchy. Simplifying a lot, the Spanish Habsburgs spent all the money from America financing their wars and interests in Europe. Problem was that even the huge resources of America weren't enough to pay for all the costs involved. Moreover to finance their wars and diplomacy (the cost to buy for Charles the Empire crown was staggering… and mostly paid from the gold imported from America), they endebted the crown heavily, on the guarantee of the future shipments of precious metals. Most of the resources (Elliott says that more than 70% of all the metal imported) never entered Spanish ports. It were redirected to Flemish, German and Italian bankers to pay for the debts incurred by the crown.

Once the imports of metals begun to dwindle (exhaustion of the mines, mainly, though losses to the English, Dutch and French action, storms, ecc too)the Habsburgs were left without enough resources to pay for all the expenses, and after the bankruptcies of the late XVIth Century few bankers took the risks to lend them money.

Up to 1640 the Spanish Crown had covered the weight of the expenses from Castilla's taxes and from the American gold and silver. By then, Castilla was utterly spent, and American production was actually dwindling. Olivares, the principal minister of Philip IV, tried to extent the base of taxation to Portugal and Aragon kingdoms. Both rebelled, being supported by the English and the French, respectively. Since then up to 1659, the Spanish Habsburgs had to sustain seven simultaneous fronts: in Western Iberian Peninsula (Portuguese rebels and English), Northern Iberian Peninsula (Catalonian rebels and French), Central Europe (French and, until 1648, Dutch), North Italy (French and Savoyards, with the ocassional support of Venetians), against the English in the Atlantic, the Turks in Central and East Mediterranean sea, and the Barbary Coast corsaries in Western Mediterranean.

If this wasn't enough, the king had only one feeble-minded and sickly male heir (the future Charles II).

In short: economical meltdown, seven front war, dinastic crisis. And I am not mentioning the several bouts of plague in Spain herself, the gallopant inflation of the XVIth century and some minor rebellions that happened between 1574 and 1605 in East-Southern Spain.

Actually, what surprises me is not that the Empire fell, but that it took so much time to fall (it didn't until the Napoleonic invasion of Spain in 1808).

Regards

PM me for a syllabus on exactly that matter.

My opinion Dutch, and bad economics.

Hi

I much prefer Kaman's "The Spanish Empire", though.

We had a thread a couple months ago about this. It wasn't one thing or one person, but really just the dead hand of history.

Rocky

Thanks for all the input gents, great thread so far.

The same thing that broke up the Rutles: Women. Just getting in the way.

I'll throw one more factor into the mix for discussion.

The traditional C19 English history answer would focus on religion. Protestantism v Catholicism.

While obviously self-serving, there is a grain of truth in it, though obviously not due to the superiority of any particular religion.

In England and Holland, Protestantism went hand-in-hand with trade and mercantilism, which encouraged the growth of a robust middle-class and the (relative) compression of class differences.

This in turn generated a heck-load of money to keep building and re-building fleets among other things. In short, England was generating its own wealth as well as stealing it from overseas. Spain was not.

Thinking they had money mines instead of being bullion exporters.

Running a massive national debt while dispersing their strength globally and neglecting development at home.

Damned slow fall, though. At least a century and a half as *the* world power, and another century or so as a player on the strategic map.

Rocky,

I would be hard pressed to make a choice between Kamen and Elliott. Both are excellent historians, and have a lot of knowledge on the Spanish Empire.

Whatisitgood4atwork:

I've read that rationale before, and even though it isn't without merit it doesn't explain why other countries, Catholic countries, as France, were more resilient. Or the relatively fast downfall of the Dutch Empire. Or why a country as Japan, whose mentality is a far cry from the Protestant ethics and individualism, was so succesful to implement a capitalistic reform without modifiying the basic tennants of her society. The Webberian theories should be handled with care. After all since 1901 has rain a lot!

basileus66,

I agree entirely. I just wanted to throw what was once mainstream historical thought – in the English speaking world anyway – into the mix. 'Revisionism' isn't always bad. Sometimes it is necessary.