What if Spain was a good colonial overlord?

[LibPrime]

What changes should've been made to Spain's colonial policy as to allow for the growth of industry and population growth in the new world?
If these changes were made, how would the New World societies change? Would America be in a constant struggle against this alt Mexican Empire? Would Brazil have a harder time catching up to its neighbors, perhaps leading to men such as Francisco Lopez to carve up large swaths of Brazilian land?

 

[Godot]

Spain being somehow unusually cruel or evil as a colonial overlord in the new world, while not totally baseless, is generally rooted in the propagandistic Black Legend. In many ways, the Portuguese, English, and French were just as brutal as the Spanish, if not moreso.

 

[Elfwine]

What changes should've been made to Spain's colonial policy as to allow for the growth of industry and population growth in the new world?

You'd really need, without touching overly much on how this compares to other countries also motivated by self interest, there being a desire for there to be industries in the new world instead of the colonies getting manufactured goods from the mother country.

Which raises the question of what the colonies are for from the perspective of said mother country. Self-reliant colonies are awfully close to independent countries from the perspective of the day.

If, putting that aside, you did see that - you'd undoubtedly see a response by the other powers to it before getting into things like "Would America be in a constant struggle against this alt Mexican Empire?" It's in no one's interest to ignore this, even if how they deal with it is likely to vary depending on their relations with Spain.

 

[LibPrime]

Which raises the question of what the colonies are for from the perspective of said mother country. Self-reliant colonies are awfully close to independent countries from the perspective of the day.

Hmm let's say that the resources of the New World were in less abundance than in OTL. This'd definitely lead to New World societies manufacturing their own goods at a higher rate (let's ignore the ramifications of Spain having less of an incentive to conquer parts of the NW).

 

[LibPrime]

In many ways, the Portuguese, English, and French were just as brutal as the Spanish, if not moreso.

My main jab against the Spanish relates more to how over involved they were with their colonial subjects than to their brutality.
IMO the Spanish treated the natives better than the English

 

[Napoleone the Kiwi]

So good in this instance means providing the basis for self-governance in their colonial possessions? Is the metric before the Empire is established or after? Both provide some interesting alternatives and may mean Spain may end with less colonies over all, but a much longer lasting legacy.

Spain itself may avoid its stagnancy and collapse into fascism with better economics and political cohesion in the long run.

 

[Ana Luciana II]

I think the issue is, in the Americas, it’s not really possible for you to be a “good” colonial overlord. Because any large scale settlement of the Americas by any European power would see the introduction of foreign diseases which would kill off most of the Indigenous Americans.

 

[LibPrime]

So good in this instance means providing the basis for self-governance in their colonial possessions? Is the metric before the Empire is established or after?

You can choose either option

 

[BBadolato]

Define 'good' because colonialism is terrible and 'good overlords' might as well be oxymorons, the OTL Spanish had to basically contend with the fact of its possessions came what could be best described as rogue expeditionary forces who ended up trying to wrangle entire empires, and requiring a lot of work to go sort out over decades, especially in trying to crack down on feudalism run rampant in the early years.

 

[Napoleone the Kiwi]

You can choose either option

If it was before the Empire building, I imagine the Reconquista would have to have gone very differently in order to erase the demographic of violent psychos without anything to do. Or maybe a Final Crusade that wipes out big portions of these adventurers. Invasion into North Africa that goes horribly, perhaps? It removes some of the immediate catalysts of colonial violence. The second may actually be the failure to usurp the Aztec Empire and walk into the middle of the Incan civil war. Even if things are pushed back ten years or so, though the systems themselves may not change, the indigenous reactions (and Spanish opportunities) might be settled enough that their natural 6s turn into 3s or 1s. A lot of stuff could have gone wrong with the Conquistadors.

The Mesoamerican empires becoming more contested ground among European Empires (due to failing to have those spectacular wins) could give the Mesoamericans time to recover, organise and adapt against the disease waves and no Spanish slavery. With a slower Spanish intrusion into the New World a much more informal Empire could develop and with a lot less wealth rushing into Spain at once, they probably wouldn't rush into the economic problems (and many wars they funded) due to things being a bit cheaper.

That being said, a more sedate and considered approach to the Americas will likely affect their colonial projects in the Pacific as well. Without a glut of silver in China, for instance, they could get into some very dynamic economic issues. Coming back into Spain though, if the American colonial project becomes a lot more Raj-like than the OTL Spanish Empire, the local economies of settler projects may well be invested in order for Spanish coastal settler towns to be able to support themselves against any indigenous incursions. A concentration of production and resource flows from the Mesoamerican subjects to the towns to the Spanish mainland could see a lot of interesting developments with the right pressures.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Hmm let's say that the resources of the New World were in less abundance than in OTL. This'd definitely lead to New World societies manufacturing their own goods at a higher rate (let's ignore the ramifications of Spain having less of an incentive to conquer parts of the NW).

Less people migrate in and the colonies may well end up with a lower overall level of development.
Maybe something like Túpac Amaru's revolt happens ATL with more success, I suppose?

 

[anotherlurker]

I take "good" as meaning "successful". The colonies weren't exactly rushing out the door to leave Spain, even after Spain went to hell in a handbasket. Spanish colonial policy was that functionaries sent from Spain would lord over the locally grown/rooted aristocracy and well off mercantiles who felt degraded and insulted by it, and that all colonies must only trade with Spain but not one another which impeded economic opportunities for said aristocrats and merchants and local development. Integrate local leaders and get rid of these internal tolls and trade barriers and the empire can be retained pretty much indefinitely.

 

[Hydra1234]

Well first, a morally good colonial empire is an oxymoron, as others have said. All empires are inherently extractive and exist to benefit the metropole, or settlers from the metropole. If it's not minerals, then it's farms and plantations producing cash crops. And the metropole does everything in its power to stop manufacturing, as that results in a profit imbalance between the metropole and the colonies (as exporting manufactured goods), especially during the mercantilist era of European economics.

As for a successful colonial empire, I would say the Spanish empire was successful. The amount of gold and silver produced was astronomical, and agriculture was also extremely lucrative. However, it was the Spanish metropole that bungled things. They didn't know how to manage the wealth of the empire, resulting in bankruptcies, did not set up industries to take advantage of the raw good imports, and expelled a massive population of Jews, Muslims, and converted Christians that could have assisted with industry, settlement, and colonial administration. A stronger metropole can exert more control over the colonies and also extract even more wealth from them. So basically, if Spain fixes its affairs on the Iberian peninsula, the wider empire naturally follows the success of the mainland.

 

[jacob ningen]

Well first, a morally good colonial empire is an oxymoron, as others have said. All empires are inherently extractive and exist to benefit the metropole, or settlers from the metropole. If it's not minerals, then it's farms and plantations producing cash crops. And the metropole does everything in its power to stop manufacturing, as that results in a profit imbalance between the metropole and the colonies (as exporting manufactured goods), especially during the mercantilist era of European economics.

As for a successful colonial empire, I would say the Spanish empire was successful. The amount of gold and silver produced was astronomical, and agriculture was also extremely lucrative. However, it was the Spanish metropole that bungled things. They didn't know how to manage the wealth of the empire, resulting in bankruptcies, did not set up industries to take advantage of the raw good imports, and expelled a massive population of Jews, Muslims, and converted Christians that could have assisted with industry, settlement, and colonial administration. A stronger metropole can exert more control over the colonies and also extract even more wealth from them. So basically, if Spain fixes its affairs on the Iberian peninsula, the wider empire naturally follows the success of the mainland.

Maybe the Achaemenids but they weren't colonial really and more just an empire. or Ahsoka. Or ironically considering the Spanish conquered them and purged their syste of the religious harmony of the dualism of Tatuinsuya of the Inca.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

that all colonies must only trade with Spain but not one another which impeded economic opportunities for said aristocrats and merchants and local development. Integrate local leaders and get rid of these internal tolls and trade barriers and the empire can be retained pretty much indefinitely.

I think as well had Spain avoided the collapse of the habsburgs under Charles ii, and there was less fear of the dismantling of the Spanish empire, the period where Nahuatl and Quechua were official government languages in the Spanish Americas is prolonged.

By the end of the 18th century in a no war of Spanish succession tl , I think it’s very plausible for it being a requirement that colonial officials from Spain have to learn either Nahuatl or Quechua depending on their posting, just as they’d learn Italian if being sent to the administration of Naples or French if they’re sent to the Netherlands.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

You'd really need, without touching overly much on how this compares to other countries also motivated by self interest, there being a desire for there to be industries in the new world instead of the colonies getting manufactured goods from the mother country.

Which raises the question of what the colonies are for from the perspective of said mother country. Self-reliant colonies are awfully close to independent countries from the perspective of the day.

If the Spanish government collects more direct taxes from the colonists, then it could be incentivised to promote economic growth more -- wealthier subjects means more money coming into the exchequer.

My main jab against the Spanish relates more to how over involved they were with their colonial subjects than to their brutality.

Maybe, though given what happened with the British North American colonies -- very little benefit for the motherland, followed by immediate rebellion when the British government started trying to actually recoup its investment -- I'm not sure I'd say the Spanish were all that over-involved. Not to mention, Spain managed to hold onto most of its American territories longer than Britain managed to hold onto the Thirteen Colonies.

Well first, a morally good colonial empire is an oxymoron, as others have said. All empires are inherently extractive and exist to benefit the metropole, or settlers from the metropole. If it's not minerals, then it's farms and plantations producing cash crops. And the metropole does everything in its power to stop manufacturing, as that results in a profit imbalance between the metropole and the colonies (as exporting manufactured goods), especially during the mercantilist era of European economics.

I think this statement is over-broad. Historically, empires have often been the best (safest, most prosperous) places to live in. Even with European colonial empires, whilst the colonies undoubtedly ended up poorer in relative terms compared to Europe, in many cases (most of Africa and Asia) I'm not sure I'd say the people were worse off in absolute terms than they had been before the European conquests.

Maybe the Achaemenids but they weren't colonial really and more just an empire. or Ahsoka. Or ironically considering the Spanish conquered them and purged their syste of the religious harmony of the dualism of Tatuinsuya of the Inca.

The trend in post-Roman Europe was for society to become poorer, simpler, and smaller-scale, which doesn't suggest that the inhabitants had previously been held down by the dead hand of Roman imperialism.

 

[Hydra1234]

Maybe the Achaemenids but they weren't colonial really and more just an empire. or Ahsoka.

The Achaemenids enslaved conquered subjects and hoarded a substantial amount of wealth.

Ahsoka pre-conversion was remarkably brutal, but my point was about broader institutions, no necessarily enlightened rulers/tyrants. The Mauryas helped solidify the caste system, for instance.

As for whether there's a distinction between colonial empires and regular empires, that's a subject of debate.

I think this statement is over-broad. Historically, empires have often been the best (safest, most prosperous) places to live in. Even with European colonial empires, whilst the colonies undoubtedly ended up poorer in relative terms compared to Europe, in many cases (most of Africa and Asia) I'm not sure I'd say the people were worse off in absolute terms than they had been before the European conquests.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I strongly disagree. Safety? Empires regularly dragged in their colonial periphery into conflicts that absolutely did not benefit them and were of a much larger magnitude than before, and many of these wars were also fought on the soil of neutral countries (various states of the 30 Years War HRE, WWI Iran, WWII Thailand). Plus, the empires themselves were frequently aggressors against natives.

Prosperity: Yeah, an empire occasionally did leave colonies better than their pre-colonial conditions, but that's assuming that pre-colonial societies stayed stagnant, of which there are a ton of examples showing otherwise. What improvements could an independent country make if its wealth and resources were not flowing to the metropole? And more often than not, it didn't even improve absolute metrics.
Total Population:

Heights (indicative of nutrition):

Wages:

The trend in post-Roman Europe was for society to become poorer, simpler, and smaller-scale, which doesn't suggest that the inhabitants had previously been held down by the dead hand of Roman imperialism.

Except "grand" civilizations are often built on the backs of those who are oppressed. The late Roman Empire absolutely was oppressive. It's bureaucracy swelled, it conscripted soldiers, and it practiced slavery on a massive scale. A "simpler" society was also one that demanded less of its citizenry, especially in an era without democratic governance or substantial welfare.

Height indicators show that the average person in the Mediterranean was actually better fed in the "dark ages" than during the 3rd/4th century.

 

[jacob ningen]

The Achaemenids enslaved conquered subjects and hoarded a substantial amount of wealth.

Ahsoka pre-conversion was remarkably brutal, but my point was about broader institutions, no necessarily enlightened rulers/tyrants. The Mauryas helped solidify the caste system, for instance.

As for whether there's a distinction between colonial empires and regular empires, that's a subject of debate.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I strongly disagree. Safety? Empires regularly dragged in their colonial periphery into conflicts that absolutely did not benefit them and were of a much larger magnitude than before, and many of these wars were also fought on the soil of neutral countries (various states of the 30 Years War HRE, WWI Iran, WWII Thailand). Plus, the empires themselves were frequently aggressors against natives.

Prosperity: Yeah, an empire occasionally did leave colonies better than their pre-colonial conditions, but that's assuming that pre-colonial societies stayed stagnant, of which there are a ton of examples showing otherwise. What improvements could an independent country make if its wealth and resources were not flowing to the metropole? And more often than not, it didn't even improve absolute metrics.
Total Population:
View attachment 867889
Heights (indicative of nutrition):

Wages:

Except "grand" civilizations are often built on the backs of those who are oppressed. The late Roman Empire absolutely was oppressive. It's bureaucracy swelled, it conscripted soldiers, and it practiced slavery on a massive scale. A "simpler" society was also one that demanded less of its citizenry, especially in an era without democratic governance or substantial welfare.

Height indicators show that the average person in the Mediterranean was actually better fed in the "dark ages" than during the 3rd/4th century.

Not to mention they're called the "dark ages" due to the opacity which was due to ..... the lack of bureaucracy keeping track of everything. And even if we ignore that, this was also the Era of Zera Yakub, Himyar, Mansa Musa, the Tang

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I strongly disagree. Safety? Empires regularly dragged in their colonial periphery into conflicts that absolutely did not benefit them and were of a much larger magnitude than before, and many of these wars were also fought on the soil of neutral countries (various states of the 30 Years War HRE, WWI Iran, WWII Thailand). Plus, the empires themselves were frequently aggressors against natives.

Yes, safety. During the pax Romana, for example, the average citizen could travel unarmed across vast swathes of Europe, something which had practically never been the case beforehand, and wouldn't be the case again for over a thousand years afterwards. Pre-colonial warfare was often both extremely common and extremely brutal; stamping that out was an unambiguous good thing.

Prosperity: Yeah, an empire occasionally did leave colonies better than their pre-colonial conditions, but that's assuming that pre-colonial societies stayed stagnant, of which there are a ton of examples showing otherwise. What improvements could an independent country make if its wealth and resources were not flowing to the metropole? And more often than not, it didn't even improve absolute metrics.

This, I think, shows the whiggish fallacy of material improvement being somehow inevitable, when history actually shows the opposite -- the norm is for things to stay more or less the same, with any improvements being too small to be really noticeable. And just eyeballing the figures in the Wikipedia List of regions by past GDP per capita, it doesn't seem like most places were poorer by c. 1950 than they had been at the beginning of the colonial period.

Except "grand" civilizations are often built on the backs of those who are oppressed. The late Roman Empire absolutely was oppressive. It's bureaucracy swelled, it conscripted soldiers, and it practiced slavery on a massive scale. A "simpler" society was also one that demanded less of its citizenry, especially in an era without democratic governance or substantial welfare.

A "simpler" society is one with less social complexity, which normally means less wealth. It doesn't equate to a society that makes less demands of its citizenry. And the late Roman Empire actually didn't practise slavery on a massive scale -- in fact, slavery was rarer than in the Classical period, because most slaves in the ancient world were taken in war, and the Empire had long since stopped conquering new places. The closest to widespread slavery was a form of proto-serfdom where farmers were legally tied to their land, but since this system continued into post-Roman Europe, it doesn't count as an advantage for the latter.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I think modern era thinking is seeping into the colonial days. Amerindians, peasants, slaves, even middle class, were all acceptable pawns in the power/money game. The question is really more of how to create a stronger, lasting, economic bloc within the morals of the day.

You can't separate the mother country and the colonies. Less mineral extraction means less resources for Spain to deal with its position in Europe. There was good and bad with having the resources. Economists can tell it better, but that massive influx of wealth was not all rosy.

The Bourbon reforms were quite one sided, benefiting Spain a great deal, but not so much the colonies. Leaving the Habsburgs in power might be better for the colonies, but who knows how that leaves Spain. Having a Philip V/wife who is concerned more about the present empire over recovering Italy will impact colonial progression as well as the direction of European TL. Ditto, competent Carlos IV/Ferdinand VII have major impact on the empire.

Then you have outside influences. Sans the French Revolution/Nap Wars, the Spanish Empire lasts intact for quite a while.

From a purely colonial POV, redoing the Bourbon Reforms so that they benefit both sides, is a good start.