Spain

What is the IQfy opinion on the history of this country, especially their empire in comparison to all the other empires of history? They often seem to be overshadowed by the British, the Germans, and French when it comes to talking about contributions to humanity and the modern world. Is this just because they reached their height a good deal earlier, or is there really something justified to say about them lacking things like philosophers and scientific innovation throughout the course of their empire compared to others of their time for whatever reason?
Are there any good readings on this?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    schizo thread

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The location of the capital actually makes sense.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like listening to people explain how Spain could have "survived" aka how they could have retained their Empire and not spun into perpetual decline.

    I would like to hear again if there are any hispanoboos. tell me the LARP

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Spain thread number 10000.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    their royal posessions in america could have been handled a billion times better, especially around the whole mistreating your own spanish settlers in the americas (criollos), their dune coon / pinoy colonies were a lost cause for obvious reasons.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      imagine if actual humans had those resources

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why I'm so poor

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Historical GDP has little to do with actual wealth
          Spain had the third highest wealth per person in europe (behind north italy and flanders) at the end of the 16th century

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >or is there really something justified to say about them lacking things like philosophers and scientific innovation throughout the course of their empire
    It's pondering that people ask this all the time for Spain compared to other western countries but never ask for example why Rome has produced much less philosopher and scientist than Greece.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I was actually thinking about if it's fair to say Spain was a civilization more like Rome than Greece but I didn't include it in the OP.
      >why Rome has produced much less philosopher and scientist than Greece.
      This has been asked occasionally though.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I was actually thinking about if it's fair to say Spain was a civilization more like Rome than Greece but I didn't include it in the OP.
      >why Rome has produced much less philosopher and scientist than Greece.
      This has been asked occasionally though.

      Because we Iberian bvlls are conquerors, authentic kshatriyas. Nerdcel Anglo-Germanics will seethe that we didn't produce "philosophers" or "scientists" aka gay weak nerds that sit around thinking about bullshit or investigating some dumb shit like the beta male bugmen that they are. We produced the best artists. The artists of war, of conquest, of dominance, of adventure, of painting and music and culture.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        tremendously based although i would give it to the genetically adjacent north italians for the arts and music

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even tho Italy and Spain began to diverge long before Roman times and Spain literally did nothing but to keep the southern half of Italy (the Kingdom of Two Sicilies) in a perpetual state of poverty, the effects of which can still be seen in the north-south economic divide in Italy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're unironically moronic if you think that southern Italy is somehow poor because of Spain. It hasn't been part of Spain for 300 years.
            Also the duchy of Milan (modern day Lombardy) was also a part of Spain for some 150 years and it's one of the richest place in Italy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Even tho Italy and Spain began to diverge long before Roman times and Spain
            That isn't what was talked about.
            North Italians are very close to Iberians genetically, much more than they are to south Italians who are more akin to greeks regardless if they share a country or not.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            When the Aragonese (as Spain was not a thing at that time) managed to get Naples and Sicily they kept the system that was alredy there, at worst they helped to entrench it as a way to keep the elites happy and loyal

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The catalans you mean

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Squandered the new world gold on wars in Europe and saw very little long-term gain from it, besides cucking the Dutch out of Flanders. Indirectly contributed to the fall of Ming by flooding them with silver.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >besides cucking the Dutch out of Flanders
      And stopping the ottoman progress westward and making sure that protestantism would never reach south of germany.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think that like the British, the Spanish should've designated at least one of their colonies as a dedicated settler-colony instead of making them all resource extractions colonies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was, it was called Argentina and it was one of the richest place in the world until that moron Peron came about and turned it into another castizo hellhole

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Conde de Aranda could've saved it

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One of the main reasons why Spain didn't had that big of scientifc output is because Spain isolated itself during the decadence of the Habsburgs, forbidding any kind of intelectual exchange with the rest of Europe, at the time where the scientific method was being developed.
    That made the inelligencia of the country to become dogmatic and isolationist, regecting any new idea that came from outside, so Spain had to do a lot of catch up, and only in the late XIX and XX century it managed to get at the same level, only for the destruction of the civil war to send the country back decades.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >One of the main reasons why Spain didn't had that big of scientifc output is because Spain isolated itself during the decadence of the Habsburgs, forbidding any kind of intelectual exchange with the rest of Europe, at the time where the scientific method was being developed.
      You are corect. The part you're wrong with is about that being a bad thing. Enlightenment destroyed europe.
      Also the Spanish/Roman ethos is inherently devoid of interest for non-applicable science. Spain output in stuff like Medicine, engineering and above all anything having to do with navigation and sailing is actually more than decent

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm Argentinean and have Spanish citizenship (although I don't really consider myself Spanish, in the same way that a half Polish American born in the USA isn't a Pole)
    I read quite a lot about Spanish history and their colonial empire years ago.

    Spain wasn't always backwards, Spain did very well economically all the late middle ages (say, the period in which Granada was the only remaining Muslim kingdom in Iberia). Granada were vassals of Castile, and it was through Granada that the gold of the Islamic subsaharan Empires entered Europe. Spain also had some other economic virtues, they had the best wool on the planet, from the Merino sheep, and they exported it massively to the Netherlands, which was the most "industrialized" region of Europe. The main economic activity of Europe before 1492 was selling wool cloth from Flanders to the rest of the world. Spain, because of its contacts with the east, was also a large producer of silk, and they had one of the best European navies too. Castile helped the French conquer Aquitaine from the English by beating the English at sea.
    In general France benefited a lot more from Spain than vice versa. Spain helped France in many wars, but France failed quite badly at helping Spain against the Portuguese or English of Gibraltar.
    The Spanish in the late middle ages also still had a large israeli population, and a large Islamic population (the Muslims were very productive farmers and artisans).
    Basically, Spain was seen as a quite rich European country, perhaps only behind Italy and Flanders, from the 1200s until the mid 1600s.
    The Iberians had the best navies in the 1500s, that is why they had a headstart of a century.
    Spain begins to become backwards in the 1600s, Ill leave that to the next post

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Spain declined in the 1600s for many reasons.
      First, Spain begun to receive very large amounts of Silver and Gold from the Americas, in a time in which the science of Economics didn't exist. They suffered from hyperinflation due to the much larger sudden supply of currency, and also because of "dutch disease", all the gold and silver made the spanish exports a lot less competitive. Spain also had problems with bankrupcies.
      Spain was also often at war with France, the Turks, England, the Dutch, and all protestant States of Europe. Sometimes simultaneously. The new source of income was spent almost completely in armies and mercenaries. Not in developing the country.

      Another problem Spain had is that everything was paid for by Castile, Aragon (and Portugal in the 1580-1640) period refused to contribute like Castile, and Catalans and Portuguse tried to become independent in 1640 (the Portuguese succeeded). Losing Portugal has permanently damaged Spain's ability to be a real big European nation like France, they will always be behind France, Germany, UK and probably also unified Italy. There are only around 40 million Spaniards (without immigrants). They are more comparable to Poland now.

      In the 1600s the population didn't grow, it remained flat the whole century, while it got much larger in the UK and France.
      That was explained by
      -expulsion of the Moriscos (350.000 people)
      -all the men they lost in a century of wars
      -all the men that emmigrated to the Americas
      -a very large population of priests, monks and nuns who didn't breed.
      -being very late to introducing food from the Americas into Spain (like potatoes or corn)

      Spain also declined scientifically in the 1600s, the university became a place for producing theologians and lawyers, and the inquisition had banned many authors of the rest of Europe like Descartes. Artistically they were doing very well in the 1600s, but intellectually it had become a stagnant place.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >-all the men they lost in a century of wars
        >-being very late to introducing food from the Americas into Spain (like potatoes or corn)
        neither of these problem are exclusive to Spain. Spain didn't lost so many men compared to the HRE or France or even the Netherlands who had far higher civilian casualties than Spain did for obvious reason. Between the fall of Granada (1492) and the War of Succession (1700-1715) there wasn't a single major war on Castilian soil. There was the Comuneros but all in all it was a very tame conflict if you compare it to the other civil conflict that occured in France, Germany or England in the 16th and 17th century
        Even military losses can't be that big because a large part of the army was made of foreigners and as you said some non-Castillans Iberians refused to contribute. There's probably as much if not more Italians and Germans who died for Spain in that era than Iberians.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And even the immigration to the Americas wasn't a big phenomenon, there were more Spanish immigrant to the Americas in the 19th century than in all other centuries combined.
          Really Spain already started the 16th century as a much smaller country than France or the HRE. Spain had 7-8 millions inhabitants, among whom 100s of 1000s were Moriscoes and such, whereas France and Germany were approximatively at 20 millions. They were largely overreaching.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Spain lost 3.5 percent of its population when it expulsed the moriscos, and almost all lived in Aragon, mostly in what is now Aragon and Valencia. That marks the point in time in which Barcelona begins to be a more important city than Valencia, it sent the whole region into decline.

            And even if emmigration to the Americas wasn't massive, a loss of 2000-3000 young men to the Americas every year does have an impact (a negative impact) on the demographics of the country.
            Also, nobody knows how many Spaniards emmigrated to the Americas. It's mostly speculation based on incomplete data from La casa de contratación and counting Spaniards in documents from the Americas. Spanish emmigration in the XVI century may have been as low as 140.000 and as high as 300.000.

            IIRC France had 16 million people around 1600s and 20 million in 1700s, so, it went from having 60% more population than Spain to doubling Spain (and the advantage was even greater in the Napoleonic period, 26 million in France vs around 11-12 millions in Spain)

            There is a region of Spain which did get devastated by war in the 1600s, which is Extremadura, because of the conflicts with Portugal until Spain acknowledged its independence again. The population fell from like 500.000 to around 200.000, but it may simply have been people moving to other regions, not dead.
            In the 1600s we begin to see Castile getting depopulated and people moving to the coast (or Madrid)

            Another factor in Spain's decadence is Spain was great at pike and musket war, punched well above their weight, but nowhere near as good at think lines with bayonets war.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Another factor in Spain's decadence is Spain was great at pike and musket war, punched well above their weight, but nowhere near as good at think lines with bayonets war.
            Yes. The Tercio dominated pike & shot warfare but they didn't adapt to the military reform in the 17th, though tbh even the Dutch reformed Dutch army by Maurice of Nassau and the Swedish army still weren't a match for the Tercios. It took the French and their massive human capital to finally put the Tercios down.
            >IIRC France had 16 million people around 1600s and 20 million in 1700s, so, it went from having 60% more population than Spain to doubling Spain (and the advantage was even greater in the Napoleonic period, 26 million in France vs around 11-12 millions in Spain)
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population#World_Population_Estimates,_20_Countries_and_Regional_Totals,_AD_1%E2%80%932000_(in_thousands)
            18,5 millions for France and 8 millions for Spain. In the 1700s 21 millions for France and 8,7 millions for Spain.
            >Extramadura
            iirc it was from this place that most of the first wave of immigrants to the new world were from. I doubt the war with Portugal caused 300,000 dead

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In the end I think Spanish domination was always an uphill battle, because France had such a huge demographic advantage.
            Spanish domination can be explained by 3 things.
            -The Spanish were extremely good at the type of warfare that existed in the 1500s and early 1600s
            -American gold allowed them to hire mercenaries to increase their manpower
            -France was weakened by their wars of religion

            Spain fell because 1) warfare changed and they didn't adapt successfully 2) iirc there was a drop in production of American gold and silver in the 1600s, far from the peak of the 1500s, and there was always the risk of British, Dutch, French fleets causing damage to the treasury. 3) France unfricked itself and increased their demographic advantage over Spain.

            I think the Spanish empire could have survived if not for El Hechizado. If the last Habsburg king had been normal and had been able to breed, Spain could have survived simply because the British and Dutch now feared France more than they feared Spain. So international relations would have turned into a game of everybody against France and help Spain to resist French expansionism. In the last wars of the 1600s Spain was allied to the Dutch against France. But having a disabled infertile king put an end to that possibility.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *