Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Treaty of Tordesillas is the answer. The world was divided along 46 degrees longitude. Everything to the west was Spain, to the east was Portugal. That was followed up by the 1529 Treaty of Saragossa which set the antimeridian at 142 degrees longitude.
I remember learning about this in HS. I must have attended a good high school
The Napoleonic invasion and the ensuing war of guerrillas and open wars ignited a civil struggle in Spain that lasted from 1812 to 1939. Instead of having a radical revolution like the French, Spain bled to death in never ceasing squabbles, "asonadas", "pronunciamentos", "sonidos de sables" between the two Spains; liberal Spain versus ultraconservative, ultracatholic Spain. The constitution of 1812 against absolutism and carlism.
Spain was able to preserve Cuba until 1898 because sugar and the slave trade, in fact, Cuban sugar was almost the only source of hard cash for Spain, a country that, according to Napoleon, was just a bunch of loonies led by a priest. Cuba and Morroccan wars supposed more than one million casualties and the total bankrupcy of the country, with a serious risk of social insurrection.
Last edited by Crocrodril; 10-28-2013 at 06:35 AM..
LOL....and those people that claim Spain was "weak." It's true Spain had lost much of its former glory, but it caused MAJOR damage even to the better armed French army during Napoleon's day (Napoleon himself said he lost due to his ill-fated desicion to invade Russia and Spain (aka his "Spanish Ulcer") and badly defeated them at the Battle of Bailen when they were outnumbered and poorer, and more ill-trianed thus inspiring all of Europe to form a last coalition against Napoleon! Plus, the British and Portuguese were constantly retreating over to Portugal everytime they got beat whereas the Spanish had to keep fighting. France found out the hard way what happens when one tries to invade Spain.
And in the Spanish-American War, Spain was dealing with a lot of political instability in the form of the left over Carlist Wars which thus dominoed and caused problems with Latin America. But Spain still managed to also do major damage to the USA especially in land battles in Cuba and they actually won many battles like: Battle of 1st Cárdenas, Battle of 3rd Cárdenas, Battle of 1st Cienfuegos, 2nd Cienfuegos, 1st Manzanillo, Battle of Tayacoba, Battle of Aguadores (Stats: 2,400 American/Cuban regulars, 300 guerrillueros, 1 cruiser and 2 gunboats vs a mere 274 Spanish soldiers. Result?: 2 dead and 10 wounded on American/Cuban side vs None on Spanish side), 2nd Battle of Manzanillo, and Battle of Manimani. As for the American/Cuban "victories" of the Battle of San Juan Hill and El Caney? The American/Cuban alliance might have won but the outnumbered and ill-equipped Spanish soldiers dealt higher casualties! For San Juan Hill the stats are: 8,412 Americans and 3,000 Cubans vs 521-800 Spanish soliders (and some say another 120-600 counter attack but still far outnumbered!) The Result? Depending on the source, either 144 or 2,000 Americans killed in action with 951-1,024 wounded, and 72 missing Americans vs 114 or 658 Spanish killed (depending on the source), 366 wounded and 2 captured Spanish! The Spanish dealt higher casualties although gravely outnumbered! And again with the Battle of El Caney! Stats: 6,653 Americans and 3,000 Cubans vs 520 Spanish regulars and 100 irregulars. Result? 81 American/Cubans killed and 360 wounded vs only 38 Spanish killed, 138 wounded and 160 captured. The Spanish also almost won the Battle of Las Guasimas! See? Even when Spain is lesser trained and equipped, they are a force to be reckoned with! The only reason they lost that war was because the Spanish superiors were divided on who to take orders from (the Carlist War) and when the Spanish admiral tried to rebuild the ill-equipped Spanish navy on the Canary Islands, the Spanish superior officer said no and so sent their own men to die with crappy ships!
Spain was no more "weak" than Portugal and although no longer a superpower it was in the actual sense, nevertheless held its own for quite a while against more "powerful" countries like France and the USA. And in WWII when Hitler wasn't afraid to invade France and Italy, he feared invading the neutral and supposedly "weaker" Spain saying: "The Spanish are the only tough Latins, if I invade I'll have a guerrilla war on my hands." So don't ever call Spain "weak." The only formidable enemies the Spanish have that led to their downfall are usually their own people.
The only reason why Spain didn't scramble for Africa was quite simple: They were the first European power to have colonies and so they knew all the work, effort, sacrifice and often resentment and violence that went along with it. They didn't want any of that any more. I assure you, if they wanted to colonize more of Africa, they would've found a way. Out of all the Europeans except maybe Portugal who had earlier dealings with Africa, they were the most resistant to malaria since that disease is also found in much of Latin America.
Spain was at its peak for much of the 15th-17th centuries besting countries in battles including France, England, the Netherlands, the Ottomans, sometimes the Portuguese, sometimes even the Germans. Most of these battles were fought during the Thirty Years War which was at first primarily won by Spain (the Holy Roman Empire, Spain's ally kept losing many battles to Sweden although they kept beating Denmark)
Here's proof that Spain was still a major force to be recokened with even after the late 1700s! The Battle of Cartagena de Indias in 1741 where Spain OBLIETRATED the supposedly greater and wealthier British navy! Stats: 12,000 British regulars, marines and militia, 15,398 British Royal Navy sailors, 29 British ships, 22 British frigates, and 135 British transport and other crafts vs 2,700 Spanish regulars, 400 Spanish marines, 600 Spanish sailors and 300 militia (and 600 native archers), and 6 ships. Result? 9,500-11,500 British dead, 7,500 wounded and sick, 1,500 guns lost, 6 Royal Navy ships lost, 17 Royal Navy ships damaged, 4 frigates and 27 transposrts lost vs 800 Spanish dead, 1,200 Spanish wounded, 6 ships lost, 5 forts lost, 3 batteries, and 395 cannons lost.
Conclusion? Spain might not have been considered a "superpower" by 1741 but they were certainly powerful and a major force to be reckoned with considering they just whipped the butt of a unified kingdom that was thought to be "more powerful" than it. So yeah...Spain was still a very powerful country at least militarily after 1741.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 07-28-2014 at 08:05 AM..
Reason: Name calling; personal barb.
Yeah, Pagan Sun, the Spanish really kicked us around pretty bad--awful big variation in your figures, though, so they can't be very reliable. Did you know there were only 385 total total American KIA in the entire Spanish-American War?
Here's proof that Spain was still a major force to be recokened with even after the late 1700s! The Battle of Cartagena de Indias in 1741 where Spain OBLIETRATED the supposedly greater and wealthier British navy! Stats: 12,000 British regulars, marines and militia, 15,398 British Royal Navy sailors, 29 British ships, 22 British frigates, and 135 British transport and other crafts vs 2,700 Spanish regulars, 400 Spanish marines, 600 Spanish sailors and 300 militia (and 600 native archers), and 6 ships. Result? 9,500-11,500 British dead, 7,500 wounded and sick, 1,500 guns lost, 6 Royal Navy ships lost, 17 Royal Navy ships damaged, 4 frigates and 27 transposrts lost vs 800 Spanish dead, 1,200 Spanish wounded, 6 ships lost, 5 forts lost, 3 batteries, and 395 cannons lost.
Obliterated? A rather incorrect overstatement. This was the war of Jenkins Ear. 17 British Ships of the Line were damaged. 6 smaller Spanish ships sunk and 6 British. The Royal Navy ruled the waters around Cartagena. Most of the British force was sailors on ships. There were few army men who were to take the fort and never. The Spanish did an excellent job in building the fortifications, which the British soldiers could not penetrate. The British unfortunately did not have any engineers that could have built battering rams to ram the gates down. The Spanish hardly left the fort and just fired cannon and muskets. George Washington's brother lead a group of British Americans. Once the navy men saw that the soldiers could not take the fort they withdrew, rather than starve the Spanish inside the fort out.
Quote:
Conclusion? Spain might not have been considered a "superpower" by 1741 but they were certainly powerful and a major force to be reckoned with considering they just whipped the butt
"whipped the butt" Another overstatement. In 1742 A groups of British ships blockaded the Spanish coast and attempted to tempt out the Spanish ships. They stayed in port. Spain was a declining world power by 1741.
The Spanish mainly hunted for quick treasures. In contrast to the Portuguese and Spanish, the British were traders and industrialists. They had products to sell and needed raw materials to buy. It suited both sides brilliantly. It was easy to see why the British ended up dominating the world.
Look at what the British left behind. BTW, the British Commonwealth was an idea from its members not the mother country. All ex Spanish colonies ended up in turmoil with democracy being alien to them. Look at the stability of what the British left behind in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong.
The grab for Africa was in the late 1800s after the 1870s depression. They thought taking land and its resources would alleviate the economic miseries in Europe. Even Belgium got a large part of central Africa. By this time Spain was a rural, peasant, impoverished nation.
Spain dominated the world, the English, Romans, etc.
English went to those places to earn money, as the Spanish.
Spain created one empire on lands with a large number of inhabitants that became subjects of the Spanish empire, England, or rather colonials, massacred original inhabitants in countries with a scarce number of "natives".
Had the English discovered America and set foot on the Aztec or Inca empire, they would have acted in the same way than Spain, some English historian said so.
As to former colonies, what about Jamaica, Belize, India, Birmania and the many African colonies? Do you remember what English did to Afrikaners or to Irish?
English ex-colonies are still colonies inhabited by non-natives, and colonies have no future in the long run.
Latin American countries are inhabited by citizens, not colonials, they will exist 1000 years from now.
England ceased to dominate the world generations ago.
Last edited by Miserere; 08-15-2014 at 12:17 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
