latin american colonial independence
why did the spanish colonial empire in the americas fragment while the portuguese one remain united? i would assume that there were basically just as isolated settlements with difficult comminications between say caracas and mexico city as there would be between an outpost on the western end of brazil and on on the atlantic coast. both spain and portugal's colonies underwent similar development and growth and faced the same types of pressures, so why did the portuguese colony remain united as brazil and the spanish ones broke up into much smaller political units?
Re: latin american colonial independence
I'd say the fact that the Portuguese regime moved to Brazil itself, while the Spanish one remained divided, beset and weak a couple thousand miles away, certainly had something to do with it. Besides, at the time, the enormous Amazonian hinterland (as well as the plateau which today houses Brasília, Goiânia and other major population centers) of Brazil was less a possession and more -- far more -- a claim, effective control only being exercized on the coastal Portuguese cities with the interior still largely untouched and in the possession of the many aboriginal tribes. So it being "under control" of the government in Rio was no more true before the Napoleonic Wars than it was directly afterwards.
But it's not something I know particularly much of. The above is conjecture and someone with more knowledge of the matter might have to correct me on it.
Re: latin american colonial independence
The Spanish were concerned with immediate conquest and the rich rewards, which proved their downfall.
The tons of gold and silver that the Spanish sent home caused a de-valuation of gold across the board, leading to a decline in the economic health of Europe, and it impacted the source of all this gold and silver, Spain.
This weakened the military, which lessened the govermental control in the colonies. The colonies were controlled by a Catholic/Bureaucratic mix, which exploited locals. The locals got fed up and revolted.
Re: latin american colonial independence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
The Spanish were concerned with immediate conquest and the rich rewards, which proved their downfall.
The tons of gold and silver that the Spanish sent home caused a de-valuation of gold across the board, leading to a decline in the economic health of Europe, and it impacted the source of all this gold and silver, Spain.
This weakened the military, which lessened the govermental control in the colonies. The colonies were controlled by a Catholic/Bureaucratic mix, which exploited locals. The locals got fed up and revolted.
Is that what they teach you in school? That is such a simplistic view it isn't even funny. Why do you think the Portuguese had an empire? Because they wanted to teach children the language?
All empires are created for the same reasons, wealth, power, to divert attention from national issues...
The spanish empire fragmented for several reasons: There was already unrest in the colonial higher classes because the spanish courts were dragging on issues that affected them directly related to trade, and appointment of locals for administrative positions.
After the french invasion of mainland Spain, the government was either kidnapped (King, Crownprince, court) or an ad hoc one like the one that wrote the Cadiz constitution, basically composed of whoever happened to be in the city at the time.
The army was concentrated in fighting the french, the King was gone, the navy destroyed at Trafalgar, thus incommunicating the colonies from the mainland, the colonial aristocracy figured it would be a good moment to seize power for themselves. It wasn't the man in the street who revolted, mind you, but the people in power: generals, rich merchants, former spanish government officials. The people, as usual, just followed whoever offered immediate benefits.
Now, this is also a simplistic view, but it'll give you something to look up in wikipedia.
PS, no offence Marshal Murat
EDIT: As of the portuguese:
Their government was in touch with the colonial powers, and even increased their presence by bringing themselves closer. Their fleet was intact, so the empire could be protected and managed.
Re: latin american colonial independence
Quote:
Originally Posted by nokhor
why did the spanish colonial empire in the americas fragment while the portuguese one remain united? i would assume that there were basically just as isolated settlements with difficult comminications between say caracas and mexico city as there would be between an outpost on the western end of brazil and on on the atlantic coast. both spain and portugal's colonies underwent similar development and growth and faced the same types of pressures, so why did the portuguese colony remain united as brazil and the spanish ones broke up into much smaller political units?
Because the Spainish pocessions in the New world weren't one massive colony. The Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru much like New England or British North America was many colonies. Many correspond to modern Latin American nations.
A map from 1650. It show the sub units.
http://faculty.smu.edu/bakewell/BAKE...royalty-ns.jpg
http://faculty.smu.edu/bakewell/BAKE...yalty-peru.jpg
Re: latin american colonial independence
They don't even teach about Pre-Spanish Americas, or really anything other than how the U.S. whooped the Spanish behinds in the Spanish-American War.
That's my on-the-spot description based on my current knowledge.
No offense taken.
Re: latin american colonial independence
right, i understand that the spanish posessions in the new world were not one massive colony. but even the map shows that the administrative units the 'audiencas' were mostly bigger than the states that developed from them. thanks for the map by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Re: latin american colonial independence
Yes, and also you can see the Audiencias were grouped further into Viceroyalties.
It might seem like a lot of territory, but remember that most of it was mostly uninhabited. The argentinian Pampa, the Andes and the Amazon jungle are pretty depopulated even today...
Re: latin american colonial independence
Quote:
Originally Posted by nokhor
right, i understand that the spanish posessions in the new world were not one massive colony. but even the map shows that the administrative units the 'audiencas' were mostly bigger than the states that developed from them. thanks for the map by the way.
Well that's in 1650. After the War of Spainish succession the colonies were reorgonized by the new Bourbon dynasty.
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/s...a/ngranada.gif
This is the Viceroyalty New Granada. Looking at it' sub-units you can clearly see the borders of modern Columbia, Venezuela, Panama, and Ecuador. This whole Viceroy gained independance as the Republic of Gran Columbia around 1820. Then Ecuador and Venezuela split off and what was left changed it's name too the Republic of New Granada. Then to Columbia.
Here is the Captaincy of Guatemala.
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/c...tguatemala.gif
Take a look at it's sub-units. During the colonial revolt this whole area rebelled and became the the United Provinces of Central America.
In my googling to find those first two maps (the site I originally viewed them on is MIA) I found this.
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/region.html Should help.
Re: latin american colonial independence
Also the British (and to a lesser extent French) governments were supplying rebels in the Spanish colonies with weapons and money during the Napoleonic Wars. Also the corruption and poor morale of the Spanish military didn't help matters, nor did foreigners such as Bernard O'Higgins and Lord Cochrane (as individuals, not government agents) who fought with and led the rebels.
Re: latin american colonial independence
Simon Bolivar? :inquisitive:
