How much of this did they actually have control over? Did they have a real presence for example in now Northern Mexico and the US Southwest and further northward or is it just colors on a map?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
The smallpox crap was fake.
But just consider it was physically impossible for the Roman Empire to pay wages in gold. With all the silver Spain obtained it was barely able to pay anything.
Most of history just happened on paper and huge areas on a map were controlled by five people on a missionary trip.
Nothing of consequence happened the entire history of Spanish rule of California and no documents survive of any taxes or numbers.
South America was never white and it was nothing more than indigenous peoples who got bored one day and rebelled.
When Columbia rebelled Spain had to spend years sending a few people over to fight a battle. Then a tiny English force and foreign aid completely destroyed all Spanish rule.
That's what the average Anglo-Euro believes, there were plenty of battles in New Spain and New Granada.
If one wants to compare the outcomes of all of those contemporary conflicts (independence wars, napoleonic wars), first one should have into account the proportions of population, casualties and wealth spent by the belligerents.
>Northern Mexico and the US Southwest
Yes, also founded several cities there, still was mostly rural border region run with missions and forts (presidios).
>further
Mix of tribes submited to the spanish and french colonies given to the Spanish due to french inability to defend these territories due economic and military problems.
They had pretty much no control whatsoever over the southern cone beyond northern Chile and Argentina, the tribes over there got conquered by already independent argentinians and chileans with machine guns in the second half of the 19th century.
Their center of rule of most developed regions on the continents are where Mexico City stand today all the way down to Chile and Argentina like this anon said.
Don't believe the moronic wetback beaners and Moorberians on this board who tell you about places like San Antonio or Los Angeles prior to American annexation. These "cities" were little more than townships built around ranching and farmland. Their population never got past a few thousand and they never contributed shit the Empire.
Spain controlled the seas around their land claims, not the physical land itself.
Just a shitty colony like the 13th colonies had same population than Colombia at 18th century. Said that, California alone had 120.000 persons living in missions back then and not counting independent farmers/ranchers from the countryside.
>Said that, California alone had 120.000 persons living in missions back then
All of those people were Indian tribes that had converted and watched over by a handful of Catholic priests. Spain had no real presence there.
Another day, another spicoid cope.
>Spain had no real presence there
Fricking filled Southwest us with presidios for the soldiers that stablished there.
>no infrastructure
>no towns exceeding 10k in population
>no homesteads
>"hey we built some forts on the edge of the frontier, the bare minimum expected from an occupying empire"
LOL
They held onto North America for centuries. Meanwhile Americans completely claimed and settled in less than 60 years after taking it from Mexico.
You are quite dishonest considering that you have changed your speech depending on the situation.
>>no infrastructure
I mean there was the Royal Way that connected the old Tenochtitlan with pretty all these territories.
>>no towns exceeding 10k in population
In a pre-industrial agrarian society, colonization in lands that were absolutely empty apart from hostile nomadic tribes, often turns out to be a slow and tedious process that takes time to germinate its fruits.
>>no homesteads
There were a lot all around the Royal Way.
>>"hey we built some forts on the edge of the frontier, the bare minimum expected from an occupying empire"
There were missions, there were forts to defend the border (spanish colonial army had around 130.000 soldiers) and maintain order and villages next to the missions for the families of the soldiers.
Not you or him but by his standards russia's empire also wasn't real because it didn't all look like st peterburg within 3 decades.
moronic logic, they try to push Industrial Era standards on agrarian pre-industrial era empire.
Just Viceroyalty of New Granada had same population than 13th colonies, a creation of combined efforts of dutch and british settlers alongside all german settlers.
Average Spanish city still was by far more developed and populated.
Buenos Aires had a population of 44.000 persons, Caracas 42.000, CDMX had around 100.000 persons, Havana 90.000-100.000 persons, Lima around 103.000 persons, etc.
Their control extended from the central lands of the Viceroyalty of New Spain to the central lands of the Viceroyalty of Perú.
That's why the heavy fighting was concentrated at the Viceroyalties of New Spain, New Granada and Perú. The people living in modern Argentina, Uruguay and Chile got independence after some minor skirmishes.
Controlled the territory and launched military campaigns, protties seethe because they never expanded out of their borders until 19th century for a brief period of time before killing each others as the savages they were.
Almost none of it. Brits were savaging their fleets shipping gold and other valuable commodities before they even had any territory in the New World.
Every early modern American Empire was highly dependent on Ocean Transport. This is why the Caribbean was so valuable even tho it’s a shithole today. Those tiny islands were easily accessible by water.
Coastal 13 colonies and Great Lakes/costal Canada are the same way.
It was faster to travel from New York City to Jamaica then it was to travel over land to upstate New York.
That Spainoids believe they had real and deep control over indigenous tribes in densely forested rainforests without potable water (Mayan territory + Mayan insurgency) and high in the deserts mountains of Bolivia has to be some kind of cope.
Many of those governments don’t exercise real effective control of their own territories today
>Brits were savaging their fleets shipping gold and other valuable commodities
Brits, Dutch, French and Nafris all togheter and still failed to conquer Spanish provinces, and what's worse, by 1789 brits lost the 13th colonies and french gave to Spain their last oversea colonies.
You should be really grateful to Napoleon for changing the political paradigm of the time.
>french gave to Spain their last oversea colonies.
Yeah, that’s true, it wasn’t even really known by the Americans who failed to realize that the territory had been exchanged by secret treaty. Still, French North America was far more developed than Spanish North America, including both the later purchased territories head quartered in New Orleans, which was arguably the largest or second largest city on the continent.
There was a Spanish presence in Florida for, what, 300 years? And they still failed to do anything there despite it being favorably located by Cuba and other Spanish colonies, easily accessible by boat from Mexico, there were fertile lands in the North of the State and modern day Alabama and Mississippi. The Keys and modern Miami also was easily developable with a cool Caribbean climate without the problem of having to transform the marshland of the central and southern Floridian interior. I
Putting aside that France was a kingdom with 22 million persons while Spain just 6 million persons, Spain was also settling the mainland Spain, Philippines, Southwest US, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, etc.
New Orleans wasn't really that developed, it had st the best same development than regions like Texas and California.
Florida was an special case because geography was extremely hostile to settlers, even after the US conquered Florida it remained little populated until 20th century.
They didn't control the patagonia
They had very little control over northern Mexico and the south western US. It was hard for them to get to and the missions were ran as slave labor camps and people sent to them would often flee. The Indians like the commache basically ran the place and the Spanish paid them to leave them alone
this map is tiny but it's much more accurate with regards to how much it really controlled
the south of chile and argentina was native land, with natives becoming horse riding nomads that raided the spanish to steal cattle
in the north, the only part that was really well populated is what is now New Mexico, Texas and California had a very small population, only half a million Californians descend from Spanish-Mexican era California settlers.
All of it
>Did they have a real presence for example in now Northern Mexico and the US Southwest and further northward or is it just colors on a map?
They had basically nothing there. It was still mostly uninhabited frontier. It's similar to how large swathes of Africa were "claimed" in the 19th century but all that amounted to were a few forts with a handful of men to hold a vast territory they had no way to really extract resources from.
Pretty this, Louisiana and the Soithwest was fully controlled, nutca territories not at all.
Here in the Philippines, Spanish Colonial control was centered in their fortified cities, Haciendas, and subject native nobles in Southern half of Luzon & Visayas. They had little to no control of the mountain ranges, deep jungles, and zero control over the Far North (held by Cordilleran tribes) and the far South (dominated Muslim Moros). By the time Spanish rule ended in the 1890s, the red parts in this map are the only areas under their absolute control.
Its a big reason why we have so many insurgencies in the Philippines. When hispanics were ousted by Mutts, the Americans took full control over the entire island and added to the Philippines areas that Spain never ruled at all. After the Mutts left a lot of these areas disagreed with being part of a Catholic Philippine Nation and chimped out a few decades later.
They have struggled to control Northern Morocco which was only few miles away from them
Before 1830, it was difficult enough to keep a stronghold at the other side of the Mediterranean. Not just for Spain, but for all other european powers. Having to fight the ottomans (and ottoman allies/vassals) was more of a hastle than it was worth. Hell, it was more frequent paying pirate ransoms than actually fighting pirates because it was cheaper.
It's kind of sad how little power they have today
even in the British and French territories you can see that they are still in a way kind of colonized by their masters (like in french africa with the cfa system) but in the former spanish territories the connection isn't even as strong