‘I am firmly convinced that Spain is the strongest country of the world. Century after century trying to destroy herself and still no success.’ - Otto von Bismarck
@Andros Magnum Gastronomy and eating habits, artistic and academical influence (music, literature, visual art, philosophy, philanthropy...), population density, crime rates and delinquency/ safety, life expectancy... And Japan is 2nd class?? lol
The Ottomans and Spain was kinda perfect as rivals, like two sides of a mirror. Both emerged by ousting their rival religious powers from European lands, and they peaked and declined at similar times.
@@MimOzanTamamogullar well the French are German tho. Franks tribe is germanic people. Have you taken a look at turkic people in center Asia?? They look more mongolian
And yet the English Armada the following year hardly ever gets mentioned, despite the Spanish sinking more English ships than the English had the year before
Fun fact: in the 1400s the last Byzantine Emperor made it has will that Ferdinand and Isabella inherit all his titles, making them *technically* the Byzantine emperors in exile/the technically legitimate heirs to the long-dead Roman Empire. He did this in hopes that the mega-powerful Spain and their HRE cousins would gangbang the Ottomans, rebuild Christian power in the East, and avenge the Byzantines. But shortly after that Columbus fucked off to the Americas and brought back a shit ton of gold, so Spain went full-speed into the future in the West and pretty much left the East in the past.
@@TeenageMutantZuckerTurtle Interesting topic. However I'm not willing to believe it unless you give me some proof since almost everyone claims to be remnants of Rome these days.
@@TeenageMutantZuckerTurtle Yeah that's a load of horse crap. They were both infants when Constantinople was taken and Isabella wasn't even set to be queen
@@AmizarEagle Yea I’ve since looked it up a while ago after Jackie’s comment. I even typed and posted a whole correction comment but I guess some random word combination tripped RUclips’s dumbass auto delete bot. This historical “fun fact” which I had heard and then repeated here is actually an oversimplification of a more complicated series of events. The Byzantine titles transferred a few times through the last emperor’s surviving brother and other relatives for several decades, before one eventually gifted the titles to the Spanish monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand, as a gesture of good will by the distant relative who held them at that point many years later. The titles did ‘legally’ end up with Isabella and Ferdinand, just in a more complicated, drawn out, less interesting way.
Another item to consider in Spain's decline was the fact that as gold (and silver) came in hordes from the Americas, spaniards people became rich but their industry started to be replaced by cheaper imports. This inspired Adam Smith's work. It is pretty much the same story with later British Empire (imports from Germany and the US), and more recently with the US (imports from Asia, most importantly China). When an empire/country starts to focus more on finance than production, declining happens.
Spain's problem was not inflation. Spain had two colossal investments, which the other empires did not. Our reinvestment in America was 70% of all wealth, in the 16th-17th centuries. 80% in the eighteenth century. At that time the empires of England, the Netherlands and France took almost all the wealth to London, Amsterdam, Paris until almost XX century. In addition, we were in wars with those 3 powers, simultaneously, plus the Turkish empire and Protestant Germany, and we couldn't sell many products there in 1500-1700. We also had a NATO in Italy, which required a strong investment, building 9 universities there, palaces, baroque cities, churches and fortresses. In addition, the Mediterranean peninsulas have historically had many difficulties in exporting products to Europe (I'm talking about Spain, central and southern Italy, Portugal, Greece, the Balkans). A French farmer only has to travel 30 minutes to the German, Swiss or Belgian border. That produces a lot of investment. Spain does not have large river routes and the hot temperatures are extreme. That is why the south of Spain has always been poorer than the north (since the beginning of the modern age). The Adam Smith system was basically: remove food crops from some regions of India to plant cotton for the English textile industry, which produced 30-40 million deaths. Slave trade industry for 250 years. English industrial revolution with children between the ages of 5-12 working in the coal mines until 1850, in endless days of slavery, sometimes just for a plate of food, and now 20 tax havens, stealing money needed for social services from others countries. That creates a lot of money. The Netherlands is an imitator of the UK, in economic matters. The only university in the Dutch empire is 1946, Indonesia. 300 years after arriving there. Spain made 40 universities in the world, for all races, more than 900 large hospitals, 400 cathedrals, thousands of nursery schools... England, the Netherlands and France was almost just investment in white people. That is why the Spanish legacy in mother tongue (475 million native Spanish speakers) and Catholics (800 million thanks to Spain) is greater than the 3 empires of central and northern Europe, combined. In addition, Spain did things like the first globalization, the golden age of culture, participation in the Renaissance, the first patented steam machines for industrial use (Ayanz, 16th century), the first international human rights (Laws of Burgos 1512 and New Laws 1542), the first scientific expeditions (16th century), the first liberal ideas (Francisco Suárez, 16th century, School of Salamanca), current calendar (16th century, adopted by the British in 1752), The first currency in the world for 300 years (1500-1800), Real of 8 or Spanish dollar, mother of the currency of the United States, China, Japan... I admire British science and economics, but it's not just about making money.
A bit of a simplistic view of history. The UK has one of the highest standards of living in the world, as do all the "declining" finance-focused economies.
@@Nn-3I mean, Spain’s decline, if we look at it from this finance first perspective, started well before it lost great power status and its empire. Just so with the United States - it was an empire of production in the former half of the 20th and only began to shift into being a financial sort of economic power in the latter half - and then, it was only in the 21st century that the cracks have really began to show. Imperial decline is a gradual thing.
@@looinrims that is exactly the thing that would be true if what I’m saying is correct. Production is leaving, but the line keeps going up. Wealth is in the US, but is prosperity? Doesn’t seem like it. The real economy, the one people interact with, has been poor in the US. People are poorer than they’ve been in some time.
When people talk about the Spanish Armada we often forget to mention that the following year the British sent an armada of their own against Spain to capitalize on the momentum but also failed spectacularly (But didn't go bankrupt because the crown didn't finance all of it, it was a joint venture with the Dutch and nobles)
Trafalgar was the main naval defeat. Philip V, a clever king, rebuilt the Spanish Navy and this fought against 5 nations (including UK) in the War of the Quadruple Alliance.
@@ignacio5819 Clever would be overestimate him, he was manipulated to declare a war against basically all the major powers just after being in the losing side of a conflic.
@@ignacio5819 Also, the fail of the Spanish Armada happened during the Anglo-Spanish war of 1585, when Phillip II was king of Spain. Phillip V was king during the early 1700's, and the battle of Trafalgar happened during the Napoleonic wars in the 1800's, you messed the dates so hard.
Spain is the first modern example of what economists call "resource curse". The flood of silver into Spain, instead of financing productive enterprises, created a rentier class of hidalgos who had no interest beyond "noble" ease and status and who acquired vast estates worked by near-serfs. In such a country a middle-class doesn't grow
Sorry but I have to call that "bullshit". Spanish gold bolstered European capitalism. What do you think the Habsburg financed Germany's and Austro-Hungarian fastuous cities with? Where the bullion came from? Tulips and spices? Sorry, but numbers do not add up ... Emperor Charles Dutch courtiers robbed and slandered so much from the Spanish treasury that Spanish commoners revolted against the authority of their king, being crushed along the way. See "THE REVOLT OF THE COMUNEROS"
Also, turns out that pouring tonnes of gold and even more silver out of the colonies has this little downside called inflation, so the very source of Spanish power was also a source of a problem from the start.
It also unintentionally ruined the Ming’s economy as well. Because the Chinese would trade with the Spanish for the silver when there ships went through the pacific. They would trade for the silver but they wouldn’t buy anything with it so they began to stock pile on the silver. Inflation eventually destroyed the empires economy and is one of the many factors that lead to the fall of the Ming Chinese empire and the rise of the Manchu Qing empire.
From around Charles V coming to power to the end of the war with France after the 30 Years War, Spain was pretty much always at war. Most people point out to the monetary cost of this, but I remember reading in a book (I think it was "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kenedy but I am not sure as it was a while ago) that the population of Castille fell by nearly 1 million people during this period as well.
it was already in decline in the 1700s. Most of Spain's prestige came from Mexico City as it was the trade capital of the world 1600s-1700s. Spain hyperinflated their own economy in Europe but in Mexico City trade was still going strong with the Philpines.
Fun fact, the battle of Manila Bay where Spain lost to USA's Dewey was a mock battle. The Spanish and American commanders met in secret outside of Aguinaldo's knowledge to plan a mock battle that would leave the Americans in control of Intramuros in preparation of a Philippine American war which did happen. There wasn't supposed to be casualties but people died in inaccurate shelling and in an accidental encounter with Spanish vs Philippine troops. As it was taught to us, the Philippines wasn't that prestigious compared to New Spain (Mexico) and various South America colonies like the River Plates. If anyone Spanish wanted to make it big, it was the American colonies especially Mexico that's why a big portion of Mexicans are Spanish. The only thing worthwhile was the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade which made most of the colony's revenue. Philippines was very far so mostly neglected and a dumping ground of undesirable and misfit Spaniards(from Mexico not Spain itself) nobles, soldiers, and criminals and called "poor quality" by a Spanish King. Sadly I think my ancestor was one of those undesirables, he was a lawyer who couldn't make it big in Barcelona.
@@RuiRuichi Como mexicano, puedo dar fe de la fuerte influencia española aquí que todavía se puede sentir. Muchos españoles todavía vienen aquí para hacer negocios y vivir aquí, viceversa. Incluso ahora encontrarás ocasionales gachupín en la Ciudad de México.
@LagiNaLangAko23 Perhaps, but I feel like they were just smashing whatever they came into contact with. Look at Latin America, almost most people have Spanish blood, I highly doubt they have some sort of I'm going to make it big here mentalities.
@@caeserslegion602 he is obviously talking about it in the larger scale. How many natives were killed by the smallpox? If not for that reason there might still be some native country that exist today but instead the only plausible way for them to survive was to accept Spaniards rules and cultures that gave birth to modern day Latin America.
Iberia's hold and control on the colonies in the Americas had always been tenuous anyway as it had relied heavily from the outset on people that were not European to expand it and maintain it. Finances, or the cost as you imply, had little do with it because on the contrary Iberia demanded and got more money from taxes than money that it spent on those colonies. And it was what propelled the independent movements as the elite in the Americas were sick and tired of subsidizing foreigners thousands of miles away.
They had some things on with the Russians in the Balkans... so had no problems with Napoleon? Of course the Egyptian campaign but that was much earlier, getting to the proper wars it seems that they would benefit from friendly relations with France.
@@rat_thrower5604 I thought as much, it seems odd to me that they did not side with Napoleon for a good chance of dominance in the Balkans, maybe even a fulfilment of the age old dream of an Ottoman Vienna
They fought against Serbs 1804-1813 in First Serbian Uprising, and they were kind of allies with Napoleon who fought Russia which supported Serbs. Also, Napoleon supported Turks with the artillery. Thats what I can tell you as a Serb. I guess story was different in Egypt..
@@unigeekpanda3026 it seems strange that the ottomans didn't do more in Europe, given their Austrian and Russian enemies were also the enemies of France. Perhaps they benefited more from British trade (which would have been cut) than minor land gains in the Balkans.
@@marcino457 neither did the Spanish armada. The idea of an inability to produce new ships is more part of the English mitos of ruling the wavea than realice the different priorities of the Hausburg monararquie at that point in time.
2:18 actually, the island of Sicily was given to Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy. He later exchanged it with Austria for Sardinia under treaty of The Hague which concluded the War of the Quadruple Alliance.
@@jonoc3729 actually Charles, Duke of Parma conquered it during the War of Polish Succession. After 24 years he became King of Spain as Charles III. He ruled Spain, Naples and Sicily simultaneously for only few months though.
@@jmadmaxx7295 That was not a pun. It was a completely meaningless and unoriginal comment, as evidenced by the many many times that other mindless posters posted the same idiocy. You are defending stupidity.
@@popopduck877 Louis XIV did not hate Spain. He, rightfully, hated France being surrounded on all sides by the Habsburgs and he just continued what the previous French kings did by aiming his foreign policies and alliances (even with the Turks !) solely at ending this dangerous situation. It took 3 centuries for the French to go out of this trap (and plenty of failed European gangbangs against them)
@@javiercarrete2106 its still an empire. And China has 20 years in what world are you living in? Surely not planet earth... Its has at least 70 years of the communism regime. Oh and btw its never too early in your history to have an empire
And then the Spanish-American war along with losing Cuba and the Philippines would put that final nail in the coffin of Spain's once glorious and illustrious title of a general European power.
@@sergioserobcam You're speaking English right now. In English America refers to the United States of America. Much like how in English it's the Falklands, while in Spanish its malvinas
And your saying the Spanish didn’t do anything similar? As I recall Spain took advantage of any weak technological inferior natives and conquered them. Killed off both the Inca and Aztec empires and conquered the philippines and forced the natives to convert Catholic while taking away all of their gold and silver.
I knew about the wars with Napoleon diminishing Spain's power and wealth, but didn't know much about all what came before. Super, super interesting, insightful, and informative. Thank you!
Napoleon lost power in Spain. Then the Spanish soldiers republicans were the first to enter Paris, in 1944, capturing the Nazi governor. It was when France lost its last possessions.
not quite ff were already fighting in paris before the spanish or any other arrived.......and there were a small force at that...napoleon weakened spain to the point they lost there empire same for portugal....the british also funded the spanish colonies to break away from spain also.@@Gloriaimperial1
@@CAM8689 I know the French fought in France before, of course. The French resistance, where 60,000 Spaniards were integrated. After the Spanish Civil War, exiled Spanish Republicans were sent to concentration camps on the beaches of France (1939), where many died of disease and cold. French families went there with their children to see the show, without suspecting that the German panzer divisions were going to enter Paris in 1940. That is why the Spanish Republicans compensated by entering Paris first and capturing the Nazi governor, and then releasing Strasbourg. I do not blame France for that defeat: hegemonic empires are unstoppable, and Germany initiated the aggression. Especially the French and Nazi empires were very explosive, although they were diluted very quickly: 15 and 5 years, with Napoleon's Paris and Hitler's Berlin occupied. But that can be very destabilizing. Napoleon caused a lot of damage, sinking the Spanish economy by 80%, with half a million dead, destruction of cities, industry, livestock, agriculture, roads, the fleet in port, and 2 million emigrants to Spanish America. 270,000 French soldiers killed. This allowed the entry of many revolutionary ideas into Spanish America and the opportunity for independence. But this process had already begun before in the 13 colonies (USA). The 13 colonies and Spanish America were Western societies, with universities, technology, literature and European culture. That's why it's easier for revolutionary ideas to work there. Hispanic America has 90% of native Spanish speakers. 99% speak Spanish. 85% Catholic. More than 530 million people with our culture (with nuances). The Commonwealth and French Empire have 10% native speakers of English and French and less than 10% Christians. India, Zimbabwe or Mauritania could not become independent before WW2, because ideas and technology did not circulate in tribal or non-Western societies, where there is no investment. Napoleon accelerates the process in Spanish America. But Spain already had the Spanish legacy in the world made in the previous 300 years. So after 1800 it was an extra time. The American republics complete and develop the legacy Spain began the first world globalization (with Portugal) taking Europe out of the feudal era. We defeated France in 9 Italian wars, in the 16th-17th centuries (and before, with the empire of Aragon), and the French were only able to return to Italy with Napoleon, briefly. Less than 10 years. Spain spent 457 years in Italy, building 9 universities, 50 fortresses, baroque cities, luxury palaces like Caserta, participation in the Renaissance, domination of the Vatican and discovery of Pompeii and Herculaneum. In Italy we captured the king of France in 1525, and took him prisoner to Madrid. Spain defeated France in 1556, in France. That is why we built the El Escorial Palace. At that time we had Philip II as king of England, and Charles I as emperor of Germany. Spain participated in the French Wars of Religion (1562-1598), with dozens of invasions of French territory to support Catholics. In 1590, the Spanish Empire invaded Paris, when the Catholics were about to lose. So France had to accept the Catholic religion as the official religion for the next centuries. Louis XIV was a very important king who disseminated French culture in all the courts, a very interesting golden age for France (like the Spanish golden age). France recovered Franche-Comté, Perpignan and part of Northern France, and became the great power. Spain defeated France in Italy (1648), Catalonia (1652) Belgium (1695). But the betrayal of France supporting the Protestant powers, in the 30 Years' War (17th century), when Spain tried to control them, strengthened the British and the Protestant Germans. The British destroyed the French empire in India and Quebec in the 18th century. And Prussia turned Germany into a power that invaded France in 1870, 1914 and 1940. The family pact between Spain and France in the 18th century was a more fortunate time. The British could defend themselves on the island, and that is why they were saved. Spain had a very strong civilization in America, and the French had to give us Louisiana, because Spain could defeat the British, as in Cartagena de Indias in 1741, when we sank 50 Royal Navy ships. The Spanish blockade of England in 1779-82, capturing two British fleets of 24 and 55 ships (including 39 frigates), which sank the London Stock Exchange. That is why Spain gave the Spanish dollar to the USA (also to China and Japan). We also defeated Nelson three times in 1797, capturing him at Tenerife. And after Trafalgar 1805, we defeated the British in Argentina and Uruguay 1806-07. We then helped the French invade Vietnam in 1862. Then the French said: "Vietnam for us. Let Spain find another place." Stupid arrogance. I always regret that the French saw Spain as an enemy, guaranteeing ETA's terrorist sanctuary in France or inciting Morocco to invade Ceuta and Melilla in 2000.
@@adriancampos8640 That's kinda true the Financial Crisis is Spain wasn't cause by poor economy but in fact their economy is doing great, but the fail at the financial management which caused the crisis.
@@camm8642 in 1790 the spanish currency was widely used. the decline militarily and with prestige was because of the "do nothing king" after the american revolution, dont discredit spains victory in the war of jenkins ear, american revolution, cartagena de indias. the quadruple alliance (spanish defeat, but the fact spain rose again after a few years is something)
I love how people only talk about the Spanish Armada failure. However, they don't know about the Counter Armada that the English did in Galicia. A bigger and more disastrous failure for the brits
@@ultimosdefensoresdeeuropa8400 not to be petty or anything, but i'm pretty sure that Spain didn't destroy France. Quite the opposite, the name Rocroi springs to mind.
Also a factor that historians do not mention is that a lot of Spain's best and more capable men went to the Americas. This meant that Peninsular Spain lost a lot of talented and capable people who were now settled in the Americas. Thus, Spain was able to control and expand their Empire in the Americas though competent leadership, but lose power in Europe.
They really did themselves in with the method of governance tho, way too little people traveled to the americas, no latin american nation ever grew very big, lack of population and the weird quasi feudal system of governing the americas meant every state was very backwards and could never florish.
@@caeserslegion602 More than the chaste system (wich didnt really work like an actual chaste system, people were not better or lesser because of it, nobles were nobles, peasants were peasants) , problem was that the spanish instated a lord-subjects structure, and it perdure, in many places , until 1970's , wich was simply ridicoulous, and the reason why only now SA is seeing some sort of modernization and growth, it's the begining of their middle classes.
1:26 lol. I love how it says "the protestant power of Europe....and France", since France itself was a catholic country like Spain, but aligned itself with the Protestant countries because France hated the Habsburg Spain
And both Austria Hungary and the Ottomons fell after WW1. I noticed whenever two rivals fight each other, they usually end up wearing each other down so much and a smaller power benifits off it, leading to that small power becoming the new super power. Think about it, how did America become world superpower? Staying neutral for most of the world wars and only joining in after everyone else was already beat up and tired.
i really love how you went from 10 minute history to history matters becuase in the time of 10 mh i could never get myself to fully watch a 10 min video, but now i fully watch every video you upload
Spainsh Empire: *Exists* Revolutionarys: I am about to end this man's whole career. European Powers: I am about to end this man's whole career. France: I am about to end this man's career. Spainsh people: I am about to end this man's whole career.
More like: Spain: *Exists.* Spain: *I'm going to end this man's whole career.* Source: Spain.
2 года назад+35
You have made the most neutral and objective video I have seen on the subject (coming from English-speaking youtubers), congratulations. The only mistakes I see is exaggerating the bankruptcy of the kingdom after the army (since Spain came out of that war better than England) and omitting some important things that are always omitted in international historiography and that is that Spain even managed to recover several of its lost territories in the War of the Spanish Succession; for example reconquering southern Italy from the Austrians after several wars (Charles III himself was the king in The Two Sicilies before the death of his brother made him heir to the Spanish throne). It is true that after the Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish Bourbons of Italy gained greater autonomy due to the weakness of their mother kingdom, until the Italian reunification happened.
As a person born in one of Spains former colonies, I have often wondered what history would’ve been like if Napoleon had never risen to power or, going a little further back in time, if the French revolution had been stamped out. I really do not think that the armies in the colonies themselves could’ve prevailed against the actual Spanish army in a little revolutions that broke out had this army not been depleted and distracted fighting in the Napoleonic wars.
António Sousa I mean Spain basically contributed to Portugal’s decline, sadly. Portugal is one of my most interesting country as it had a tactical way of colonising; if they hadn’t been in a union with Spain their empire could have expanded massively, or atleast slow its decline drastically
You're both right. In a way the decline of Portuguese Empire was also Napoleon fault too. If he hadn't invaded Portugal probably Brazil wouldn't have declared independence as of course seeing the metropole in such a caos doesn't help at all. But there were a couple phases of the Portuguese Empire with ups and downs. I can name about three decline periods: the one starting in 1580 with the Iberian Union (between PT and Spain) where we lost the control over trade routes in the Indic Ocean; the one with the Napoleonic invasions wich resulted in Brazil's independence and the lost of Brazil and i think the independence of the second biggest world colony (only smaller than India) and the one brought with the modern democratisation of Portugal in 1974, where we gave independence to all of our african colonies
Well we had a long run, 100 something years as the bigest power in the world and the empire lasted 300 years. Don't cry it ended,smile because it happened.
@@angelgjr1999 so? I'm sure visigoths loved the moors. I'm sure the iberians loved the Romans. Papi tienes nombre español,quien invadió america,si quieres llamarlo asi,fueron tus antepasados,los mios se quedaron en España plantando cereales.
@@angelgjr1999 at least they were alive to hate the Spanish Empire, with legal rights to prevent them from slavery and even, at the end of the Empire, with full Spanish citizenship recognised in a Constitution. Of course things weren't perfect, but why is everyone complaining about the same? Latin American countries become poor much after independence, mainly due to the USA.
Absolutely brilliant as usual. I'm shocked to realise how slow the decline had been and how final France's involvement has been. Louis XIV was essentially the one who took 1st place, the war of Spanish Succession is famously the pre-7 years war, and I thought Napoleon's invasion of Spain was just a small part of their history, instead it was a blow so hard they fell entirely apart from it. Incidentally I am pretty friendly with spaniards.
The Peninsula War in Spain and Portugal where Britain fought France, diverted a lot of resources and troops from Napoleons campaigns in Russia and Central Europe. Fighting on two fronts is what defeated Napoleonic France. Germany did not learn this lesson when they chose to fight on two fronts a century later.
It is indeed a small part in our history. The history of Spain starts with Hannibal Barca (III BC) and continues today. We have had a war like every 2 or 3 years since like 2300 years ago.
@@fraperlop7583 c'est vraimant bizarre que je suis meme pas francais et je l'admire tandis que vous baignaient dans l'ingratitude. Vos institutions existent à cause de lui tout comme votre republique et beacoup de vos grandes écoles c'est une des figures les plus impressionantes de l'histoire, vous devriez le considéré un hero national au lieu d'essayer de l'effacer de votre histoire.
Saw a documentary several decades ago about this. One of the contributing factors was that Spain relied for so many years on its wealth coming from the new world that it had little need to industrialize itself, like a spoiled rich kid it just bought what it needed.
Nowadays it's the same: more imports than exports of goods because of how unprofitable is to maintain a business without sinking and the lower prices of foreign equivalent goods. The food sector has some benefits due to the good quality of unique products from the peninsula but good luck finding Made in Spain products in any other sector.
I know that's the traditional argument, but it's a bit of a simplistic answer. Apart from the fact that no one was industrialized before 1750-1800, the Dutch, British and French empires did not feel committed to civilization on other worlds until almost the 20th century, taking almost all the wealth to London, Amsterdam and Paris. That produces a lot of money, and that is the reason for wealth, when nobody was an industrialist. While Spain had a civilizing commitment in America, with a 70% reinvestment of wealth. 80% in the eighteenth century. Spain was almost 200 years at war against 5 European powers between 1500-1700, to save the Catholic religion, preventing a Protestant and Islamic invasion of Madrid, Lisbon, Vienna and Rome. Almost the other 30% of the wealth produced in America had that objective, to save the Catholic religion and the Spanish possessions in Europe. With those two colossal investments it is impossible to be rich. In addition to the difficulty to trade. A Frenchman has a border with War, Germany and Switzerland. Historically, a Spanish merchant had to travel 2,000 km to reach the German border, and sell some product there, crossing Spain (the second most mountainous country in Europe). Another 2000 km2 back. That's not competitive. It is the same problem in southern Italy, the Balkans, Greece, Portugal, Russia. (More problematic is for the people of North Africa.) As I have said, during the 2 centuries of almost continuous warfare, we could hardly trade with the Protestants: Huguenots, Calvinists, Lutherans and Anglicans, who were allied with each other, and traded among themselves. Only from the 20th century did the recovery of the southern European territories begin, especially now with air transport, air conditioning, Internet... That is the reason that there are emerging countries or already in the top-30, which before they were poor, like China, Korea, Ireland, Indonesia, Italy, Spain, Mexico..
@@Adri9570 We make cargo planes, frigates and aircraft carriers that Australia and other countries buy, satellites, submarines, high-speed trains in Arabia or California, expansion of the Panama Canal, massive construction in Africa, and many new technology companies. Spain is also the tenth power in scientific research, now.
They had no money left to finance their defensive wards in Europe and also suffered of debts. Many people bought noble titltes to avoud taxes and did not invest in anything because it was not profitablt due to taxes too. So what was left to get money from? Americas, but they could not get 100% dude to the quinto real, that only let them get 15% from what americas produced. Basically if spain wanted to get out from that hell, they should have let france get all the central euirrope territories and give Netherlands their independency and belgium too. Give the ottomans the contorl of Italy and the contorl of Mediterranean sea too.
They biggest problem that ailed the French and Spanish Empires was naval reform and doctrine, especially important if you are a colonial power. It doesn't matter even if you are not industrialised as you say or where your money comes from, at the end of the day when war comes, its all about winning battles. The reason the Brits became dominant at sea is because they spent every effort, toil and sweat to do so. At Trafalgar the end of the Spanish Navy's power and failure as a system and in doctrine is perfectly summarised by the testimony of a Spanish sailor who was witness who said "The thing that amazed us the most from the entire experience took place after the fight was over when the English made us prisoner, we watched the British sailors run around on deck and climb masts with an energy as if they had not just fought a major battle".
As a medieval young nation, you conquer and secure your own lands first. As a teenage nation, you expand , discover new trading routes, found colonies, circumnavigate the globe, get in some wars, get drunk... you know.. have some fun, to put it shortly. As an adult nation you try to stabilize your empire, both culturally and linguistically and leave a legacy behind. As a retired nation, with all of your "children" now independent and forming their own empires, you lay down on your playa back home, ice tea in hand, watching the sun set aware and proud of a centuries-long job well done. Now you see, the problem is there are some "retired" nations that still behave like teenagers.. and they are nothing else but embarrassing.
I look on the bright side. The British Empire was smaller than Spain's. What's that? People who never questioned the Black Legend propaganda inculcated into their unsuspecting minds are already typing their gullible bandwagon responses to me? The Brits sing that "Britannia rules the waves!" so they admit that seas count in imperial extension. Therefore, considering that the Brits always had to share every ocean with the French and others like Spain who destroyed their armada at Cartagena de Indias, whereas Felipe II shared no ocean with any rival except three seas with Turks (Med., Red, Persian Gulf), then that plus the fact that earth is more water than land means that España had the biggest empire in all of history as a matter of irrefutable fact. :-) Only hypocrites count British and Mongol wastelands but not seas with more resources and profitable trade routes. Modern Spain is a libtarded disgrace. Liberalism is a poison that Napoopleon spread as he was a good dog for the Synagogue of Satan that has persecuted its own people to hide its tracks. Compare Hitler's decision to doom Germany at Dunkirk and sparing Britain while then attacking the Russians without finishing off the British threat first when h e could have, and compare his Templar cross and other satanic symbolism (that one being a reference to the 8-pointed Star of Ishtar, an allusion to the Tower of Babel representing mankind's attempt to conquer heaven under Satan)... with Felipe II's deliberate sabotaging of the Spanish Armada by putting an inexperienced man in command, forbidding flexibility and maneuverability, sending them off without finishing preparations and making sure the British knew about the Armada ahead of time plus his use of Templar symbols showing who really ran the joint.... Britain never saved herself. Gentiles are puppets, and the best slaves think they're free. The elite Jews made Spain decline because they divide to conquer.
@@scintillam_dei So even in your imagination, Spain still sucked. It's more like Spain rose up during the Reconquista because of the foreign aid it needed.
The Spanish Empire (Spain thrives nowadays rather successfully) declined because the underlying causes of their rise disappeared. The economical and social bases for Spanish expansion endured several centuries, but their national political leadership was terminally weaken by the Habsburg (German) and Bourbon (French) dinasties and their associated interests and entourage. For instance, little is known that prior to the widespread bourgeois revolt in Europe there was one in Castille, "The revolt of the Comuneros", the somehow representatives of the local parliamentary powers (Spain had the oldest parliament n Europe in the Cortes of Leon, parliamentarism was nothing new to them) against the newly arrived Dutch courtiers acting in the name of the emperor Charles. The forces of the local parliaments lost in the power struggle so the "foreign" dinasties did not have local leverage to act globally as better suited their family interests up to our days. By the way these Dutch and German courtiers were the first to slander their Spanish counterparts (as their competitors) giving birth to the Black Legend and Hispanophobic arguments against the Spaniards that the English, French and Dutch would employ so successfully in their propaganda wars up to the present days ...
I love my boy Charles the second, un ionically one of my favorite historical figures. I love how he represents the twisted underbelly of monarchy and how he's a tragic figure due to being handed a fate he had no control in. I know he was mentioned once but I have to give this man some attention.
England: becomes a great power after beating spain Netherlands: becomes a great power after beating spain France: becomes a great power after beating spain America: becomes a great power after beating spain Kinda getting a trend over here
The Spanish empire was not lost due to incompetence. In fact it has been the most powerful and effective empire of all time. 1525 Spain captures the king of France at the Battle of Pavia. In 1527 Spain invaded Rome and captured the Pope of Rome 30 years later Spanish hegemony continues: 1556. Spain has a king in England, an emperor in Germany. We defeated France in France, and dominated Italy. The big 4 countries of Western Europe have a Spanish king or Spanish emperor, have lost on the battlefield, or are occupied. Not even Napoleon or Hitler could do that. Their empires for 15 and 3 years, with Berlin and Paris occupied, and Napoleon and Hitler prisoners or dead. The British Empire had nothing but small islands in Europe. 20-30 years later, Spain continues to be the great European power: 1580 Invasion of Portugal. 1585, destruction of 100 ships of the Dutch fleet in a single night. 1588 Spanish invasion of Germany. 1589 destruction of 80 ships of Drake's invincible fleet. 1590 Spanish invasion of Paris. 100 years after the Battle of Pavia, in 1525, Spain defeats all the powers in 1625 1625. Cadiz. Destruction of 62 ships from England and the Netherlands 1625. Victory over England, Denmark and the Netherlands at Breeda, Holland 1625 Destruction of the French fleet in the Mediterranean. Spanish invasion of Genoa 1625 Victory over the Dutch fleet in Brazil, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. One hundred years after that time, Spain invades Italy, defeating Austria in 1734, and sinking 50 British ships in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias 1741. We won that War of Jenkins' Ear 1739-41 by capturing more than 400 British ships in the Atlantic and Caribbean. 40 years later, in 1779-82, Spain makes a naval blockade of England, capturing 80 British ships filled with weapons, money and soldiers. Collapse of the London stock market. We even won 3 battles against Nelson in 1797, and the final battle in 1806-07, a year after Trafalgar 1805, in Argentina and Uruguay, capturing the redcoats and British generals. The Spanish legacy was saved, and today it is the greatest in the world. 485 million native Spanish speakers. 380 million native English speakers (40% born in parts of the USA that the British never controlled. The USA saves the English language, as a secondary legume, after World War II). 800 million Catholics thanks to Spain (200 million in Europe. 100 million in Asia). Anglicans: 120 million. The problem is that the inhabitants of Spanish America had 28 universities in 1800 (Spain and England had 10 in 1800) so the Spanish Americans had an advanced European civilization and technology, and could rebel, like the North Americans of the 13 colonies against the British. Independence is much more difficult in India, Botswana or Pakistan until after the Second World War, because they had not received European technology and culture, they were only colonies of extraction without the power to rebel (commercial empires). Spain did a Romanization, Hispanization. Napoleon had a decisive impact on all of continental Europe. The British lived on an island, and could withstand invasion attempts with little effort, and that is why their great expansion coincides with the end of the Napoleonic Wars of 1815, when all of Europe has to recover from millions of deaths and collapse of the economy of more than 60%
@@Gloriaimperial1no lo pudiera haber resumido mejor, gran trabajo! ¿Aunque me pregunto que si estados unidos no hubiese emergido como potencia mundial el francés siguiese siendo la lengua franca? En fin gran resumen.
@@Sphinxgamingworld9942 Yes, I agree that it was a great empire both in extension and in how it treated its people in comparison to others, wouldn't say the most powerful *of all time* (that's prob the brits), but definetely the most powerful for a couple centuries. You are right that Charles I and Phillip II were great monarchs, as well as Charles III, and that's why the empire was almost unstoppable during the 16th century. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that Phillip III, IV, Charles IV and Ferdinand VII were terrible monarchs that completely failed to run the empire and thus lost it. It is not the old spaniards' fault, but the monarchs who ruled the country. It is well known that the first and second of these would rather hunt hares than rule a nation, and left the job to people that teared the country apart for their own benefits while Charles IV was called stupid even by his own father. I do not doubt that it was a powerful empire, but it was definetely the pure incompetence of the ruling class that brought it down. And if not, what did?
Next is becoming another Venezuela with prime minister Pedro Sánchez. Did you see how he walked next to Joe Biden, repeatedly staring at him like begging for his attention, and Biden didn't look at him until the very last moment?
Could you please make a video about Michael the Brave's reign?He did a lot of great things like beating the ottomans with a much smaller army (Battle of Calugareni) and uniting the principalities of Wallachia Moldavia and Transylvania for the first time in history (in 1600)
Just watch History Marche's channel, they covered Michael the Brave. Awesome video too. Besides, formerly Ten Minute History would only spend like 2 or 3 minutes on him.
I know it sounds silly but one of the simplest reasons why I think the Spanish Empire was so cool is how it was introduced in the fourth Pirates Of The Caribbean movie :D
*Spain in a wheelchair* : I used to rule the world.. *Spanish-American Countries carrying the wheelchair* : Yes dad, you dominated the world, that's what you said.
Inflation has always been overestimated. I'd say: too many wars at the same time (16th and 17th century), bad kings (17th century onwards), and the anarchy with the Napoleonic wars: a combination of Napoleon stabbing in the back the Spanish royal family, the Spanish rebellion against the French in order to put in the throne the worst Spanish king ever (Ferdinand VII) -rebellion made up with autonomous governments everywhere, also in the Americas-, and new ideas (mainly those of independence in the Americas).
And the symbolic end of Spanish power, the final nail in the coffin, the point where no one could pretend they were anything anymore, was when they lost a war against the United States of America.
@joseph davisson I know, right? Sleepy little isolationist America actually won a war, and it was only 90 years after Spain stopped being a real power.
Yup. America fabricated a false flag and invaded Cuba. Heck, they also invaded the Phillipines for no reason.That is why Spaniards hate Americans lol. They paid for the American revolution, and got backstabbed many times.
4 года назад+438
"Every good Spaniard should piss always looking at England." blas lezo
Bastards fucked with us with a succession war that they used advantage of to take Gibraltar, fucked us with the whole Tangier international zone shit, fucked us by getting pirates to raid our ships and I doubt that's even a bit of it. Can't hate the English for fucking with your nation so many times tho, I guess.
There are several problems that Spain faced in the past that are very rarely mentioned when trying to explain the collapse of the empire. The first one is simple: Demography. Continental Spain never had the population of the other continental powers, and that turned out to be a huge problem in the XVII century. The second one is more complex: Geography. The Iberian peninsula is separated in different areas by mountain ranges that made communication slow and difficult, and turned out to be a huge hindrance to the economy until the late XIX century. It made trade slow and costly, and industry had to be very focused on local goods and not national level trade.
You are actually right. Also, when industrial age arrived, Spain lacked coal that was necessary. Countries with coal (england, Belgium, Germany...) were the ones that could industrialize earlier.
@@espadajusta4380 Spain didnt lack the coal and mineral necessary, the problem was that Spain was in civil wars one after a another including revolts, until the final 1800's Spain didnt start with the industrial revolution
I’d like to further the geography part. Simply put, Madrid was a disastrous capital. Without trains or navigable rivers, that meant feeding the capital required transporting low-priced grain that doubled in price every few miles while also diverting carts and mules from transporting high-value goods to stimulate the economy. For context, sending a boat of grain to London was *sixteen* times cheaper than hauling it to Madrid.
In short, a combination of: chronic demographic weakness, a completely rigid caste society where two of the three branches (nobility and church) did not pay any taxes and encroached every profit of the empire, an illiterate common people who completely missed the financial revolution that took the western world by storm in XVIII century, and last but not least, the tremendous success of the early empire that impeded any significant evolution till the entire thing collapsed. Besides, the demographics of the Spanish American colonies made it for the empire completely impossible to survive the democratic wave in one piece, if only because white spaniards were an absolute minority not only in the American colonies but in the empire as a whole.
@@eduardoborrego5714 Spain was so focused on Gold and Catholicism that it completely ignored everything else going on around it. It's happened plenty of times throughout history where innovation completely topples the old top dog because they don't pay attention to change.
@@hiimjustin8826 That is why its much more impresive to have a lasting empire then a big one, rome may not have been nearly as big as say, the mongol empire, but it was certainly all arround better at being an empire.
In Spanish, the word English is translated as ingles. It sounds the same as ingles=groins, which is next to the genitals. A lot of nonsense can be said by removing letters from Germany or France, too. But there are 2000 languages in the world.
They basically didn't. It took 2 months to go from Spain to America by ship. The administration was very corrupt and was basically self ruling and reverted the wealth to itself.
Thank you for this great breakdown! Would it be possible to have a video that goes more in depth regarding the reasons for the different revolts, civil wars, and civil strife/conflicts that you talked about. They seem to be a big factor in the decline of Spain.
The fundamental problem for Spain was that France had twice the population and was next door. Spain capitalized on France's internal strife in the 16th century, but when it became firmly under the control of Louis XIV, it surpassed the Spanish as a power. In the Americas, Spain benefitted from the head start it had gotten, but in Europe, it declined in importance after the Thirty Years' War.
basically. Instead of reinvesting wealth internally they squandered it in (mostly) useless wars. In particular the constant religion struggles in Europe, but also the wars against the Ottoman placed such a toll on the spanish coffers. The struggle against the Ottomans was more than justified (they were a true military threat for europe at the time, and had it not for Spain probably we'd be having balkan problems up the middle of Germany nowadays because of it), but the whole shenanigans against the Protestants, definitely not. And the whole struggle to keep the netherlands controlled was never justified. Flanders (the richest region) was firmly catholic and loyal, and the benefits of controlling the seven provinces were far outweighed by the cost of keeping them under control (which the spanish never really managed to do anyway). Also there's the fact that until the bourbon reforms in the XVIII century Spain was more of a commonwealth of kingdoms than a kingdom itself. Deep decentralization seriously hurt the spanish efforts, particularily so in the XVII century, where they were the dominant reason why the 30 year war finally went the protestants way.
The Spanish Empire was not a colonial empire such as the English, French or Dutch, but on the contrary, it was the last empire of the ancient type, closer to what Rome or Greece were. 300-400 years of domain based on miscegenation, alphabetization and conversion of different peoples; construction of universities, cathedrals and cities worldwide; a huge cultural and artistic explotion; deliberation of new phylisophic, teologic and juridic debates in human history (like f.e., if all humans were equal); discoverments that changed the conception of the world; opening of new shipping routes; creation of an undefeated infantry for 2 centuries; expansion of the Hispanic culture throughout the Atlantic and Pacific ocean (called "the spanish lake" at that time) as Rome did throughout the Mediterranean... All of this, in a world as big as the one we know today, but using a technology from 5 centuries ago. From here onward, european empires had a colonial model based on mercantilism, slavery, and large-scale production, creating factories or plantations in overseas possessions, instead of a civilizing reproduction of their society. The former were a global market, the latter a global kingdom. European empires shouldnt be generalized by the fact of having overseas territories, because not all of them were the same.
Your reductive embellishment of Spanish colonialism conveniently omits that slavery was a thing in the Spanish empire just like any other, pointless discussions about the equality of all humans conference of Valladolid or not. Go tell the native American civilisations that they were "culturally enriched". Sure, Spanish expansionism seemed more bent on exporting the Spanish way of life and culture than other powers, implementing local Spanish/Spanish-like administrations, customs, etc. But they were far from the only ones to found cities, build public buildings, or other. Just because you build a church on top of it doesn’t make Spanish colonialism not a colonialism. Make no mistake that it was built on the same principles of, and for the same goals of exploitation just like any other.
@@TheAtmosfear7 effectively. did you know that when manifest destiny happened americans were the ones who were surprised on how natives that were from the former mexican empire were quite civilized, then instructed to kill them. You may talk about american case, but that happened after independence of many spanish territories. Then why is it that natives in the US were almost extinct while natives south of the border got to grow their population ? Spanish were the only ones who gave a thought on natives, that's why they wrote laws of burgos, precedent of human rights, which granted natives rights. English, french,portuguese never did this.
he already answered that question tons of time, he didn´t feel like forcing his videos to ten minutes because some small topics (like the one in the video) are in no way worth a 10 minute video
Another important reason is the actual amount of silver they brought back from South America. As decades passed they brought so much silver that it overwhelmed demand and made the silver worth less and less .
Little money arrived in Spain. 70% of all wealth: silver, trade, gold, stayed in America. 80% in the eighteenth century. Almost the other 30% went to the Spanish war for 200 years (1500-1700) against 5 European powers, to save the Catholic religion in Europe, for our NATO in Italy, and to buy in the Asian market. We could hardly trade with the Protestant Germans, Anglican English, Huguenot and almost always hostile French, Islamic Turkish Empire, and Calvinist Dutch, for almost 200 years. Spain had a war economy during those centuries, with an emigration to America of 600,000 people before 1700, the majority men. In addition, the Mediterranean peninsulas, such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, the Balkans, have always had more problems exporting to central Europe, even in the 20th century. A Spaniard or an Italian from the south had to travel 50 days by horse-drawn cart to sell something in Germany. A Frenchman crosses the border from Germany, sells, and returns home for dinner. That was never competitive for Spain and many countries in the world until the advent of air transport, air conditioning, Internet business. These economic differences, in investment and industry have been seen between the North of Spain and Italy, and the South of Spain and Italy. Even the north of France and the south of France.
@Maestro Horchatero Sorry buddy but this world is all about political influence and military might. The ailing Spanish Empire was merely a shell of its former glory. No country has friends, only interest.
Interestingly the reason why railway tracks are further apart in Spain is because when they were building them, France invading was a regular thing, and they didn't want to use the same gauge as France as they thought they would invade by train.
It's a myth, the real reason id judt that Spain is a very mountainous country and so need bigger trails
5 лет назад+1
@@acusticamenteconvusional9936 exactly, also because of that our old trains could not turn as much as others because they were design to the terrain we have here before tech allow us to cut a mountain in half or make tunnels
French King Francis I was an awful king. He allied with Ottomans just only with the hope to invade HRE. Risking whole Christianity to be invaded by Turks... What a freaking shitty king he was.
Carlos Marcial I wouldn’t say so. With or without France’s invitation, Suleiman would want to invade Europe anyway. That’s his dream. Also, you picture as if Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was a good Catholic monarch and a Defender of Catholicism. Charles V, at one point, even fought the Pope when the Pope allied himself with France. This, in turn, led to several mutinous troops of Charles V to invade and sack Rome. He only used the pretext of defending Catholicism only to justify Spanish hegemony in North America (to ensure that every other European power to not break the Treaty of Tordessilas and steal some New World riches from him) and cement his rule as ruler of a bunch of lands in Europe. It, however, made him in conflict with France (who was battling other Italian states allied with the Pope later on), the Ottomans (which allied with France), and the Lutherans in northern Germany. The fight with the Lutherans, for example, only served to stoke the fire of rebellions amongst the German principalities, where some of them had already embraced Luther’s teachings, who wanted some degree of autonomy from Charles V. This culminated in several rebellions that happened throughout Germany and the weakening of the Hapsburg power in Germany. The fight against the Ottomans, as the video explains, is also expensive and a massive drain in Charles’ and Phillip’s treasury. The Spanish kingdom’s adoption of being the Defender of the Catholic Faith also made Th em very antagonistic towards the Protestants, which would later take hold in the Netherlands. This resulted in many cases of brutal Spanish repression of the Protestant faith in the Low Countries, which of course only brought the Netherlands to full revolt during the Eighty Years War. I’d say had Spain not adopt the title of Defender of the Faith, they might still be able to maintain their empire up (including their European empire) and remained a powerhouse until the late 1700s or mid 1800s without throwing them into many costly wars that only served to bring in prestige and honor, but no real political or economic gain. Empty glory is still empty.
For me it hit home how far the Spaniards got into the America's when I saw a old-world Spanish fort in Kansas. There were no cars. These bad asses literally fucking walked from either South America, Florida or the Gulf all the way into the middle of Kansas looking for gold. Also if many Americans are unaware of the history of Sir Francis Drake, that's a worthwhile chunk of time to learn about - in terms or reimagining the history of the USA.
Yeah its call the segadors revolts and its cause is because of many reasons but at the end the principality of Catalonia returned crying to The King Phillip IV why they saw Louis XIII with his Borbonic system and absolute monarchy together and not a Federal as they like
Isso são mitos que são repetidos constantemente na Internet, Portugal teve em guerra com Espanha quase 30 anos para obter a independência, e o mais interessante é o facto de a rebelião da catalunha só ter despoletado após a de Portugal! E como é óbvio Espanha não obtou por ficar com catalunha em detrimento de Portugal ( senão não tinha guerreado com Portugal tanto tempo)..
I'd like to clarify that the Spanish never held cape horn as you mention in 0:05. In fact the southmost place in America that the Spanish effectively colonised was Chiloé.
All common untruths one after another. The real reason was lack of population. In year 1.500 Spain had 7 million inhabitants, whilst in 1.700 at the dead of the last Austria dinasty king Charles II, in Spain they were around 5 million people overall. Spanish Armada was not defeated, but detourned by the storms. The English destroid fighting just 2 ships, the bad wheather 60. The believe that the Spanish naval power was finished led the English to send the following year an still larger armada against Spain, which was severely defeated in La Coruña. British lost more than 80 ships. After the dead of Elizabeth I, the Sommerset House peace treaty showed that England had no possibilities and decided to stop piracy for a while. Think a litle bit, could Spain keep the American territory with the exception of Jamica unless It had a powerful fleet? Could It dominate the Pacific ocean without it?
Worth to mention that spain at its prime had 8 million people vs 20 millions otomans french and indians each....so to little for too many fronts in a big big World. Even though the empire lasted 400 years...amazing!!
@Steven Lee Spain did not lose against ottomans ever the contrary, they saved Europe to become muslim twice on the sea at Lepanto and in land at the gates of Vienna. In fact Ottomans were the nemesis of Europe that time a real big power and due to their species blockade Europe via Spain and Portugal bypassed exploring the seas to the infinity wealth of america and asia. Respect French and British they came later and on the whole there was a draw in the battlefield arena wins and lost average
I look on the bright side. The British Empire was smaller than Spain's. What's that? People who never questioned the Black Legend propaganda inculcated into their unsuspecting minds are already typing their gullible bandwagon responses to me? The Brits sing that "Britannia rules the waves!" so they admit that seas count in imperial extension. Therefore, considering that the Brits always had to share every ocean with the French and others like Spain who destroyed their armada at Cartagena de Indias, whereas Felipe II shared no ocean with any rival except three seas with Turks (Med., Red, Persian Gulf), then that plus the fact that earth is more water than land means that España had the biggest empire in all of history as a matter of irrefutable fact. :-) Only hypocrites count British and Mongol wastelands but not seas with more resources and profitable trade routes. Modern Spain is a libtarded disgrace.
@@bartender4731 So you're a hypocrite who counts British wastelands but not Spanish seas with more resources. Brits had to share every ocean: HA! Spain during the Iberian Union, with almost no one except three seas with Turks, not most of the world's waves. Brits wish they had as much glory.
We don't have to wish, Spain's empire was impressive for the time but a complete joke by the standards of later ones. Also if you think the British empire was a wasteland I can only wonder at what your standards are as it was considerably more prosperous than the Spanish (which largely relied on mining precious metals for it's profits and suffered from extreme fluctuations in currency as a result) and indeed large parts of its lands were even more prosperous than the Spanish homeland itself. Also the British navy was far more dominant than the Spanish ever was, largely because they didn't pick fights with half the continent and proceed to have their ships targeted by everyone and their dog on top of the usual problems from the people (*cough Barbarystates cough*) who attacked everyone.
@@vorynrosethorn903 The joke is your pride pretending that a country that had to share every ocean with France owned as much of the earth as Spain whose Emperor during the Iberian Union had entire oceans to himself including the biggest one in the universe which Brits could possess entirely only in their dreams. :-) I never said all of the Brutish Empire was wastelands but much of it was, but you have a double standard counting wastelands but not seas with more resources and profitable trade routes.
It's still amazing to me that after all these losses, a devastating Civil War and a backwards traditionalist dictator in power for a large part of the XXth century, Spain still managed to pull ahead and become one of the most developed countries in the world, with a HDI higher than France's.
The story of the transition after the civil war is exciting. I do not know if there is any vídeo in english for you to see. The mind of the spanish was very positive and they managed to modernize the country from the 80s, almost equalizing the way of living in France, a mirror in which we have looked at each other and compared
‘I am firmly convinced that Spain is the strongest country of the world. Century after century trying to destroy herself and still no success.’
- Otto von Bismarck
LOOL sounds like something Bismarck would say. 🇪🇸 sucks, haha
Bravo! As a foreigner living in Madrid, I couldn't agree more. Have a star ⭐
@Andros Magnum so it's the best among the second class? 😅
@Andros Magnum Gastronomy and eating habits, artistic and academical influence (music, literature, visual art, philosophy, philanthropy...), population density, crime rates and delinquency/ safety, life expectancy... And Japan is 2nd class?? lol
Bismarck was sunk by Hood.
I think I've watched around 50 of your videos over the past few weeks, love them!
OMG What are you doing over here
Alex you’re late to the party
Well well, the Rambler watching about a declining empire... suddenly all's clear for me... xD
Drew durnil gay
Your hairline declined faster than Spain taking over the americas.
The Ottomans and Spain was kinda perfect as rivals, like two sides of a mirror. Both emerged by ousting their rival religious powers from European lands, and they peaked and declined at similar times.
The Muslim gained Anatolia and Greece
The Catholics regained Iberia
Perfectly Balanced
Two sides of a mirror: One a perfect reflection of light, the other a wooden slab.
@@ihatetobethatguybut7175 Muslim aren't a race. Turks are mongolian decended
@@feetgoaroundfullflapsC lol
@@MimOzanTamamogullar well the French are German tho. Franks tribe is germanic people. Have you taken a look at turkic people in center Asia?? They look more mongolian
Spain vs The Ottomans
Winner: The Dutch
Best comment
Damn straight
G E K O L O N I S E E R D
France vs Netherlands (1672-78)
Looser: Spain
ITS ALWAYS THE DUTCH
One of the most important naval battles in history
History Matters: It was expensive
Wasn't it? Too expensive shit brings empires down.
War is always expensive
One of the most important AoE2 campaigns.
And yet the English Armada the following year hardly ever gets mentioned, despite the Spanish sinking more English ships than the English had the year before
Mike Munoz England had ships to burn Spain didn’t
Spain was a bad EU4 player and kept using military points to suppress rebellions without investing in tech.
This comment goes deeper into the real causes of Spanish decline than the whole video.
Declaring No CB to natives then using all your PowerPoint to stabilize your country
And not using there admin points to bring down the inflation before it got crazy.
@Ryan McCreedy instead they choose religious aristocratic etc
God I love EU4
I always found Spanish-Ottoman rivalry underrated and poetic.
Fun fact: in the 1400s the last Byzantine Emperor made it has will that Ferdinand and Isabella inherit all his titles, making them *technically* the Byzantine emperors in exile/the technically legitimate heirs to the long-dead Roman Empire. He did this in hopes that the mega-powerful Spain and their HRE cousins would gangbang the Ottomans, rebuild Christian power in the East, and avenge the Byzantines. But shortly after that Columbus fucked off to the Americas and brought back a shit ton of gold, so Spain went full-speed into the future in the West and pretty much left the East in the past.
@@TeenageMutantZuckerTurtle Interesting topic. However I'm not willing to believe it unless you give me some proof since almost everyone claims to be remnants of Rome these days.
Mostly because Portuguese-Ottoman rivarly often takes a little priority over that due to the naval dominance by Portugal.
@@TeenageMutantZuckerTurtle Yeah that's a load of horse crap. They were both infants when Constantinople was taken and Isabella wasn't even set to be queen
@@AmizarEagle Yea I’ve since looked it up a while ago after Jackie’s comment. I even typed and posted a whole correction comment but I guess some random word combination tripped RUclips’s dumbass auto delete bot.
This historical “fun fact” which I had heard and then repeated here is actually an oversimplification of a more complicated series of events. The Byzantine titles transferred a few times through the last emperor’s surviving brother and other relatives for several decades, before one eventually gifted the titles to the Spanish monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand, as a gesture of good will by the distant relative who held them at that point many years later. The titles did ‘legally’ end up with Isabella and Ferdinand, just in a more complicated, drawn out, less interesting way.
Another item to consider in Spain's decline was the fact that as gold (and silver) came in hordes from the Americas, spaniards people became rich but their industry started to be replaced by cheaper imports. This inspired Adam Smith's work. It is pretty much the same story with later British Empire (imports from Germany and the US), and more recently with the US (imports from Asia, most importantly China). When an empire/country starts to focus more on finance than production, declining happens.
Spain's problem was not inflation. Spain had two colossal investments, which the other empires did not. Our reinvestment in America was 70% of all wealth, in the 16th-17th centuries. 80% in the eighteenth century. At that time the empires of England, the Netherlands and France took almost all the wealth to London, Amsterdam, Paris until almost XX century. In addition, we were in wars with those 3 powers, simultaneously, plus the Turkish empire and Protestant Germany, and we couldn't sell many products there in 1500-1700. We also had a NATO in Italy, which required a strong investment, building 9 universities there, palaces, baroque cities, churches and fortresses. In addition, the Mediterranean peninsulas have historically had many difficulties in exporting products to Europe (I'm talking about Spain, central and southern Italy, Portugal, Greece, the Balkans). A French farmer only has to travel 30 minutes to the German, Swiss or Belgian border. That produces a lot of investment. Spain does not have large river routes and the hot temperatures are extreme. That is why the south of Spain has always been poorer than the north (since the beginning of the modern age). The Adam Smith system was basically: remove food crops from some regions of India to plant cotton for the English textile industry, which produced 30-40 million deaths. Slave trade industry for 250 years. English industrial revolution with children between the ages of 5-12 working in the coal mines until 1850, in endless days of slavery, sometimes just for a plate of food, and now 20 tax havens, stealing money needed for social services from others countries. That creates a lot of money. The Netherlands is an imitator of the UK, in economic matters. The only university in the Dutch empire is 1946, Indonesia. 300 years after arriving there. Spain made 40 universities in the world, for all races, more than 900 large hospitals, 400 cathedrals, thousands of nursery schools...
England, the Netherlands and France was almost just investment in white people. That is why the Spanish legacy in mother tongue (475 million native Spanish speakers) and Catholics (800 million thanks to Spain) is greater than the 3 empires of central and northern Europe, combined.
In addition, Spain did things like the first globalization, the golden age of culture, participation in the Renaissance, the first patented steam machines for industrial use (Ayanz, 16th century), the first international human rights (Laws of Burgos 1512 and New Laws 1542), the first scientific expeditions (16th century), the first liberal ideas (Francisco Suárez, 16th century, School of Salamanca), current calendar (16th century, adopted by the British in 1752), The first currency in the world for 300 years (1500-1800), Real of 8 or Spanish dollar, mother of the currency of the United States, China, Japan...
I admire British science and economics, but it's not just about making money.
A bit of a simplistic view of history. The UK has one of the highest standards of living in the world, as do all the "declining" finance-focused economies.
@@Nn-3I mean, Spain’s decline, if we look at it from this finance first perspective, started well before it lost great power status and its empire. Just so with the United States - it was an empire of production in the former half of the 20th and only began to shift into being a financial sort of economic power in the latter half - and then, it was only in the 21st century that the cracks have really began to show. Imperial decline is a gradual thing.
That’s…that’s not true at all
The decrease in US manufacturing has also occurred as…the entire economy keeps going up
@@looinrims that is exactly the thing that would be true if what I’m saying is correct. Production is leaving, but the line keeps going up. Wealth is in the US, but is prosperity?
Doesn’t seem like it. The real economy, the one people interact with, has been poor in the US. People are poorer than they’ve been in some time.
When people talk about the Spanish Armada we often forget to mention that the following year the British sent an armada of their own against Spain to capitalize on the momentum but also failed spectacularly
(But didn't go bankrupt because the crown didn't finance all of it, it was a joint venture with the Dutch and nobles)
The “Spanish Armada,” was largely commandeered and converted Basque whaling ships. Spain lost both military power and economic power all at once.
@@AdamAuxier64 They didn´t lose all of their boats though, just like 1/3, so they still had a big armada.
Trafalgar was the main naval defeat. Philip V, a clever king, rebuilt the Spanish Navy and this fought against 5 nations (including UK) in the War of the Quadruple Alliance.
@@ignacio5819 Clever would be overestimate him, he was manipulated to declare a war against basically all the major powers just after being in the losing side of a conflic.
@@ignacio5819 Also, the fail of the Spanish Armada happened during the Anglo-Spanish war of 1585, when Phillip II was king of Spain. Phillip V was king during the early 1700's, and the battle of Trafalgar happened during the Napoleonic wars in the 1800's, you messed the dates so hard.
Spain is the first modern example of what economists call "resource curse". The flood of silver into Spain, instead of financing productive enterprises, created a rentier class of hidalgos who had no interest beyond "noble" ease and status and who acquired vast estates worked by near-serfs. In such a country a middle-class doesn't grow
This is a better account of Spain's decline than the video. History isn't all about kings and battles.
Most of the silver was used by american governors the trade with china instead of europe or spain
Plus, massive runaway inflation because the Spanish government didn't update their taxes to all the new currency.
Indeed.
And we're seeing it in our USA today too. Hard times are coming, hard men will rise.
Sorry but I have to call that "bullshit". Spanish gold bolstered European capitalism. What do you think the Habsburg financed Germany's and Austro-Hungarian fastuous cities with? Where the bullion came from? Tulips and spices? Sorry, but numbers do not add up ... Emperor Charles Dutch courtiers robbed and slandered so much from the Spanish treasury that Spanish commoners revolted against the authority of their king, being crushed along the way. See "THE REVOLT OF THE COMUNEROS"
Also, turns out that pouring tonnes of gold and even more silver out of the colonies has this little downside called inflation, so the very source of Spanish power was also a source of a problem from the start.
It also unintentionally ruined the Ming’s economy as well. Because the Chinese would trade with the Spanish for the silver when there ships went through the pacific. They would trade for the silver but they wouldn’t buy anything with it so they began to stock pile on the silver. Inflation eventually destroyed the empires economy and is one of the many factors that lead to the fall of the Ming Chinese empire and the rise of the Manchu Qing empire.
@Asier Linazasoro That definitely makes sense.
@Asier Linazasoro Why the UK and France not suffer similar emigration problems?
Maybe not the UK as a whole, but Ireland definitely suffered from mass emigration especially in the 1840’s.
Thx for the extra info
From around Charles V coming to power to the end of the war with France after the 30 Years War, Spain was pretty much always at war. Most people point out to the monetary cost of this, but I remember reading in a book (I think it was "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kenedy but I am not sure as it was a while ago) that the population of Castille fell by nearly 1 million people during this period as well.
Dead people don't make babies!
Spain also had territory in Asia & Africa. The Philippine revolution & the Spanish American War were definitely part of Spain’s demise.
it was already in decline in the 1700s. Most of Spain's prestige came from Mexico City as it was the trade capital of the world 1600s-1700s. Spain hyperinflated their own economy in Europe but in Mexico City trade was still going strong with the Philpines.
Fun fact, the battle of Manila Bay where Spain lost to USA's Dewey was a mock battle. The Spanish and American commanders met in secret outside of Aguinaldo's knowledge to plan a mock battle that would leave the Americans in control of Intramuros in preparation of a Philippine American war which did happen. There wasn't supposed to be casualties but people died in inaccurate shelling and in an accidental encounter with Spanish vs Philippine troops. As it was taught to us, the Philippines wasn't that prestigious compared to New Spain (Mexico) and various South America colonies like the River Plates. If anyone Spanish wanted to make it big, it was the American colonies especially Mexico that's why a big portion of Mexicans are Spanish. The only thing worthwhile was the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade which made most of the colony's revenue. Philippines was very far so mostly neglected and a dumping ground of undesirable and misfit Spaniards(from Mexico not Spain itself) nobles, soldiers, and criminals and called "poor quality" by a Spanish King. Sadly I think my ancestor was one of those undesirables, he was a lawyer who couldn't make it big in Barcelona.
@@RuiRuichi Como mexicano, puedo dar fe de la fuerte influencia española aquí que todavía se puede sentir. Muchos españoles todavía vienen aquí para hacer negocios y vivir aquí, viceversa. Incluso ahora encontrarás ocasionales gachupín en la Ciudad de México.
@LagiNaLangAko23 Perhaps, but I feel like they were just smashing whatever they came into contact with. Look at Latin America, almost most people have Spanish blood, I highly doubt they have some sort of I'm going to make it big here mentalities.
@@caeserslegion602 he is obviously talking about it in the larger scale. How many natives were killed by the smallpox? If not for that reason there might still be some native country that exist today but instead the only plausible way for them to survive was to accept Spaniards rules and cultures that gave birth to modern day Latin America.
So the lesson in short: It`s expensive to maintain an empire. Sometimes too expensive.
@Maintenance Renegade That is to say: the ones in power usurp all the empire's profits.
Iberia's hold and control on the colonies in the Americas had always been tenuous anyway as it had relied heavily from the outset on people that were not European to expand it and maintain it. Finances, or the cost as you imply, had little do with it because on the contrary Iberia demanded and got more money from taxes than money that it spent on those colonies. And it was what propelled the independent movements as the elite in the Americas were sick and tired of subsidizing foreigners thousands of miles away.
United States was part of a former empire, but now it's an empire by itself
An empire can't survive without expansion
Yup. And Russia is just learning it right now :D
I have a question, I thought it would fit the format of your latest videos. What were the Ottomans doing during the Napoleonic wars?
Getting their asses kicked in Egypt by Napoleon.
They had some things on with the Russians in the Balkans... so had no problems with Napoleon? Of course the Egyptian campaign but that was much earlier, getting to the proper wars it seems that they would benefit from friendly relations with France.
@@rat_thrower5604 I thought as much, it seems odd to me that they did not side with Napoleon for a good chance of dominance in the Balkans, maybe even a fulfilment of the age old dream of an Ottoman Vienna
They fought against Serbs 1804-1813 in First Serbian Uprising, and they were kind of allies with Napoleon who fought Russia which supported Serbs. Also, Napoleon supported Turks with the artillery. Thats what I can tell you as a Serb. I guess story was different in Egypt..
@@unigeekpanda3026 it seems strange that the ottomans didn't do more in Europe, given their Austrian and Russian enemies were also the enemies of France. Perhaps they benefited more from British trade (which would have been cut) than minor land gains in the Balkans.
Thank you for the video. You answered many questions and did so in short order. Great job, keep up the good work.
Bill: Wait who's in charge of France
Napoleon: *Me*
Avery just comments everywhere
Luckily they banished him to an island.
i see you legit everywhere. Go away commie
Avery's no commie
Fun fact...no
The declined because they didn’t name a monarch Louis
@TheBlueHavoc9 grammar nazi
@@favo3545 Grammar Nazi
Grammar commie
@TheBlueHavoc9 G R A M M A R E X T R E M E I S T
A mistake on translation, not everyone is a native speaker.
You are always told about the Armada in schools, but forget the failure of the English Counter Armada... ;P
Just the achievements, the fail always sweeps under the rug.
Right but it doesn’t matter for the topic at hand. English armada might’ve failed, but it didn’t affect their economy nearly as much.
@@marcino457 neither did the Spanish armada. The idea of an inability to produce new ships is more part of the English mitos of ruling the wavea than realice the different priorities of the Hausburg monararquie at that point in time.
DirtyMack spain remade theyr armada in like 5 years
@@marcino457 It took the English out of Europe for 200 years.
2:18 actually, the island of Sicily was given to Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy. He later exchanged it with Austria for Sardinia under treaty of The Hague which concluded the War of the Quadruple Alliance.
And actually Spain reconquered Naples and Sicily and gave them to a cadet branch of the Bourbon Family.
@@jonoc3729 actually Charles, Duke of Parma conquered it during the War of Polish Succession. After 24 years he became King of Spain as Charles III. He ruled Spain, Naples and Sicily simultaneously for only few months though.
Can’t spell Spain without “Pain”
Wow. A first-grader could make a stupid comment like that.
Not Sure wow. A fucking kindergartener could make a comment like this at someone making a pun.
@@jmadmaxx7295 That was not a pun. It was a completely meaningless and unoriginal comment, as evidenced by the many many times that other mindless posters posted the same idiocy. You are defending stupidity.
Not Sure ok, so I guess jokes aren’t funny when somebody tells them again. Ok.
Not Sure u ok?
"The Protestant powers of Europe"
:|
"and France"
:O
Ö
Ö
Ø
It's mainly because france was not so fan of protestant, but louis XIV still hated spain more
@@popopduck877 Louis XIV did not hate Spain. He, rightfully, hated France being surrounded on all sides by the Habsburgs and he just continued what the previous French kings did by aiming his foreign policies and alliances (even with the Turks !) solely at ending this dangerous situation. It took 3 centuries for the French to go out of this trap (and plenty of failed European gangbangs against them)
Because every empire in history has an end
Well the American, Russian and Chinese empires are strong atm
@@RodolfoGaming but usa is not more than 200 years old, China is a 20 years old empire
@@javiercarrete2106 its still an empire. And China has 20 years in what world are you living in? Surely not planet earth... Its has at least 70 years of the communism regime. Oh and btw its never too early in your history to have an empire
USA will see by themself soon (California, Texas, Puerto Rico, Hawaii...)
@@RodolfoGaming china was unified for the first time in ages after the Chinese revolution. So he is right
Thanks for posting! Love these videos.
Debt: *exists*
Empires: I'LL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK!
*Stonks*
I will take your entire *STONK*
Especially Spain
**Stinks**
Whole world colonization in a nutshell
And then the Spanish-American war along with losing Cuba and the Philippines would put that final nail in the coffin of Spain's once glorious and illustrious title of a general European power.
The wrong called Spanish-American war, as it wasnt whole America, it was just US taking advantage of a country in a weak moment, as you always do
@@sergioserobcam
I didn't do anything.
@@sergioserobcam You're speaking English right now. In English America refers to the United States of America. Much like how in English it's the Falklands, while in Spanish its malvinas
And your saying the Spanish didn’t do anything similar? As I recall Spain took advantage of any weak technological inferior natives and conquered them. Killed off both the Inca and Aztec empires and conquered the philippines and forced the natives to convert Catholic while taking away all of their gold and silver.
@@brandonlyon730 "No you dotn get it, they did it , so we can do it too!"
Abstract: Charles IV and Ferdinand VII, those who ruined Spain in 20 years. Their reigns were even worse than the Charles II one.
true
That was all on Godoy, the bastard...
Esa es la única vez que entendería que hubiera una república en España
Basically Borbouns destroyed Spain by basically being a french puppet.
@@nicks5636 Not really. Charles III was pretty decent, but the people instigated by the church opposed his reforms.
I knew about the wars with Napoleon diminishing Spain's power and wealth, but didn't know much about all what came before. Super, super interesting, insightful, and informative. Thank you!
Napoleon lost power in Spain. Then the Spanish soldiers republicans were the first to enter Paris, in 1944, capturing the Nazi governor. It was when France lost its last possessions.
If only Spain joined Napoleon
not before weakening spain to the point the spanish empire was on the verge of collapse....@@Gloriaimperial1
not quite ff were already fighting in paris before the spanish or any other arrived.......and there were a small force at that...napoleon weakened spain to the point they lost there empire same for portugal....the british also funded the spanish colonies to break away from spain also.@@Gloriaimperial1
@@CAM8689 I know the French fought in France before, of course. The French resistance, where 60,000 Spaniards were integrated. After the Spanish Civil War, exiled Spanish Republicans were sent to concentration camps on the beaches of France (1939), where many died of disease and cold. French families went there with their children to see the show, without suspecting that the German panzer divisions were going to enter Paris in 1940. That is why the Spanish Republicans compensated by entering Paris first and capturing the Nazi governor, and then releasing Strasbourg. I do not blame France for that defeat: hegemonic empires are unstoppable, and Germany initiated the aggression. Especially the French and Nazi empires were very explosive, although they were diluted very quickly: 15 and 5 years, with Napoleon's Paris and Hitler's Berlin occupied. But that can be very destabilizing. Napoleon caused a lot of damage, sinking the Spanish economy by 80%, with half a million dead, destruction of cities, industry, livestock, agriculture, roads, the fleet in port, and 2 million emigrants to Spanish America. 270,000 French soldiers killed. This allowed the entry of many revolutionary ideas into Spanish America and the opportunity for independence. But this process had already begun before in the 13 colonies (USA). The 13 colonies and Spanish America were Western societies, with universities, technology, literature and European culture. That's why it's easier for revolutionary ideas to work there. Hispanic America has 90% of native Spanish speakers. 99% speak Spanish. 85% Catholic. More than 530 million people with our culture (with nuances). The Commonwealth and French Empire have 10% native speakers of English and French and less than 10% Christians. India, Zimbabwe or Mauritania could not become independent before WW2, because ideas and technology did not circulate in tribal or non-Western societies, where there is no investment. Napoleon accelerates the process in Spanish America. But Spain already had the Spanish legacy in the world made in the previous 300 years. So after 1800 it was an extra time. The American republics complete and develop the legacy
Spain began the first world globalization (with Portugal) taking Europe out of the feudal era. We defeated France in 9 Italian wars, in the 16th-17th centuries (and before, with the empire of Aragon), and the French were only able to return to Italy with Napoleon, briefly. Less than 10 years. Spain spent 457 years in Italy, building 9 universities, 50 fortresses, baroque cities, luxury palaces like Caserta, participation in the Renaissance, domination of the Vatican and discovery of Pompeii and Herculaneum. In Italy we captured the king of France in 1525, and took him prisoner to Madrid. Spain defeated France in 1556, in France. That is why we built the El Escorial Palace. At that time we had Philip II as king of England, and Charles I as emperor of Germany. Spain participated in the French Wars of Religion (1562-1598), with dozens of invasions of French territory to support Catholics. In 1590, the Spanish Empire invaded Paris, when the Catholics were about to lose. So France had to accept the Catholic religion as the official religion for the next centuries. Louis XIV was a very important king who disseminated French culture in all the courts, a very interesting golden age for France (like the Spanish golden age). France recovered Franche-Comté, Perpignan and part of Northern France, and became the great power. Spain defeated France in Italy (1648), Catalonia (1652) Belgium (1695). But the betrayal of France supporting the Protestant powers, in the 30 Years' War (17th century), when Spain tried to control them, strengthened the British and the Protestant Germans. The British destroyed the French empire in India and Quebec in the 18th century. And Prussia turned Germany into a power that invaded France in 1870, 1914 and 1940.
The family pact between Spain and France in the 18th century was a more fortunate time. The British could defend themselves on the island, and that is why they were saved. Spain had a very strong civilization in America, and the French had to give us Louisiana, because Spain could defeat the British, as in Cartagena de Indias in 1741, when we sank 50 Royal Navy ships. The Spanish blockade of England in 1779-82, capturing two British fleets of 24 and 55 ships (including 39 frigates), which sank the London Stock Exchange. That is why Spain gave the Spanish dollar to the USA (also to China and Japan). We also defeated Nelson three times in 1797, capturing him at Tenerife. And after Trafalgar 1805, we defeated the British in Argentina and Uruguay 1806-07. We then helped the French invade Vietnam in 1862. Then the French said: "Vietnam for us. Let Spain find another place." Stupid arrogance. I always regret that the French saw Spain as an enemy, guaranteeing ETA's terrorist sanctuary in France or inciting Morocco to invade Ceuta and Melilla in 2000.
The Carlist wars of the 19th century also weakened Spain.
Everything weakened Spain. Even Spain weakened Spain. That's just how it works.
@@adriancampos8640 That's kinda true the Financial Crisis is Spain wasn't cause by poor economy but in fact their economy is doing great, but the fail at the financial management which caused the crisis.
Since we got a French King everything went south.
@@sefirotsama decline started long before that
@@camm8642 in 1790 the spanish currency was widely used. the decline militarily and with prestige was because of the "do nothing king" after the american revolution, dont discredit spains victory in the war of jenkins ear, american revolution, cartagena de indias. the quadruple alliance (spanish defeat, but the fact spain rose again after a few years is something)
I love how people only talk about the Spanish Armada failure. However, they don't know about the Counter Armada that the English did in Galicia. A bigger and more disastrous failure for the brits
None of us know or care about it so it doesn't matter at all.
@@Konoronn British piratea propaganda
@@ultimosdefensoresdeeuropa8400 I have no idea what you just said.
@Jason Voorheese Spain destroy England France Protestant Otomans at the same time pussy pirate
@@ultimosdefensoresdeeuropa8400 not to be petty or anything, but i'm pretty sure that Spain didn't destroy France. Quite the opposite, the name Rocroi springs to mind.
Also a factor that historians do not mention is that a lot of Spain's best and more capable men went to the Americas. This meant that Peninsular Spain lost a lot of talented and capable people who were now settled in the Americas. Thus, Spain was able to control and expand their Empire in the Americas though competent leadership, but lose power in Europe.
Not to mention the Spanish people living in Americas weren't allowed to join the Spanish government unless they were born in Spain.
You got it correct. Same thing happened to the Chola Empire of the Thamils.
They really did themselves in with the method of governance tho, way too little people traveled to the americas, no latin american nation ever grew very big, lack of population and the weird quasi feudal system of governing the americas meant every state was very backwards and could never florish.
@@cseijifja That idiotic Chaste system really put the nail in the coffin. No one wants to sit idly by while they are being oppressed.
@@caeserslegion602 More than the chaste system (wich didnt really work like an actual chaste system, people were not better or lesser because of it, nobles were nobles, peasants were peasants) , problem was that the spanish instated a lord-subjects structure, and it perdure, in many places , until 1970's , wich was simply ridicoulous, and the reason why only now SA is seeing some sort of modernization and growth, it's the begining of their middle classes.
1:26 lol. I love how it says "the protestant power of Europe....and France", since France itself was a catholic country like Spain, but aligned itself with the Protestant countries because France hated the Habsburg Spain
It is rather funny how the two staunch rivals, the Ottomans and Spain, began heavily declining in the same century (19th century).
More Ironic thing triple alliance died together againts their former allies(Russo Austrian alliance French Ottoman alliance Anglo Prussian alliance)
And both Austria Hungary and the Ottomons fell after WW1. I noticed whenever two rivals fight each other, they usually end up wearing each other down so much and a smaller power benifits off it, leading to that small power becoming the new super power.
Think about it, how did America become world superpower? Staying neutral for most of the world wars and only joining in after everyone else was already beat up and tired.
@@SupremelyFly It also helps when your enemies are located on the other side of the oceans
Odenat “Minorities are poison.” No people like you are.
@@odenat3701 They're seeing it already!
i really love how you went from 10 minute history to history matters becuase in the time of 10 mh i could never get myself to fully watch a 10 min video, but now i fully watch every video you upload
Spainsh Empire: *Exists*
Revolutionarys: I am about to end this man's whole career.
European Powers: I am about to end this man's whole career.
France: I am about to end this man's career.
Spainsh people: I am about to end this man's whole career.
Cringe & unfunny go back to plebitt
@@jeremiasgomez5168 calm tf down
@@jeremiasgomez5168 Aren't you a pleb yourself?
@@iwillsalt3459 care to explain?
More like:
Spain: *Exists.*
Spain: *I'm going to end this man's whole career.*
Source: Spain.
You have made the most neutral and objective video I have seen on the subject (coming from English-speaking youtubers), congratulations. The only mistakes I see is exaggerating the bankruptcy of the kingdom after the army (since Spain came out of that war better than England) and omitting some important things that are always omitted in international historiography and that is that Spain even managed to recover several of its lost territories in the War of the Spanish Succession; for example reconquering southern Italy from the Austrians after several wars (Charles III himself was the king in The Two Sicilies before the death of his brother made him heir to the Spanish throne). It is true that after the Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish Bourbons of Italy gained greater autonomy due to the weakness of their mother kingdom, until the Italian reunification happened.
It would had been neutral if he mentioned the effect of the bourbonic reforms effects in the viceroyalties of the new world.
1:20 Top ten brutal deaths in the anime
As a person born in one of Spains former colonies, I have often wondered what history would’ve been like if Napoleon had never risen to power or, going a little further back in time, if the French revolution had been stamped out. I really do not think that the armies in the colonies themselves could’ve prevailed against the actual Spanish army in a little revolutions that broke out had this army not been depleted and distracted fighting in the Napoleonic wars.
Perhaps America would be very different to what is now, if we would have kept united.
you have a lot of autonomy and all of you were Spanish citizens at born, so that is not how a colony works
I think most importantly is what if france won the 7 years war, wich was far more likeley
There would still be a separation from Spain. Just perhaps later or under different conditions.
French revolution is one of the most butterfly effect things of all time, it would change the world upside down imo.
You could do a "Why did Portugal Decline?"
I woudln't bother see my country's decline history if I can have you talk about it xD
It pretty much happened when Brazil divorced itself from the empire after the Napoleon wars.
António Sousa I mean Spain basically contributed to Portugal’s decline, sadly. Portugal is one of my most interesting country as it had a tactical way of colonising; if they hadn’t been in a union with Spain their empire could have expanded massively, or atleast slow its decline drastically
You're both right. In a way the decline of Portuguese Empire was also Napoleon fault too. If he hadn't invaded Portugal probably Brazil wouldn't have declared independence as of course seeing the metropole in such a caos doesn't help at all.
But there were a couple phases of the Portuguese Empire with ups and downs. I can name about three decline periods: the one starting in 1580 with the Iberian Union (between PT and Spain) where we lost the control over trade routes in the Indic Ocean; the one with the Napoleonic invasions wich resulted in Brazil's independence and the lost of Brazil and i think the independence of the second biggest world colony (only smaller than India) and the one brought with the modern democratisation of Portugal in 1974, where we gave independence to all of our african colonies
@@orlandogreenhow2870 you don't blame to Spain bro, blame the socialist and the communist who in the 70 they gave to the colonies the independence
@@mariano98ify You are blind to history, dummy.
History has never been this FUN - who knew square boxes with signs could be so effective - pure joy.
Well we had a long run, 100 something years as the bigest power in the world and the empire lasted 300 years.
Don't cry it ended,smile because it happened.
Yup I am sure the American Indians loved the Spaniards. Lol
@@angelgjr1999 so? I'm sure visigoths loved the moors.
I'm sure the iberians loved the Romans.
Papi tienes nombre español,quien invadió america,si quieres llamarlo asi,fueron tus antepasados,los mios se quedaron en España plantando cereales.
@@angelgjr1999 at least they were alive to hate the Spanish Empire, with legal rights to prevent them from slavery and even, at the end of the Empire, with full Spanish citizenship recognised in a Constitution. Of course things weren't perfect, but why is everyone complaining about the same? Latin American countries become poor much after independence, mainly due to the USA.
@@crdecos you actually buy that
@@CoolioXXX52 man its true
Absolutely brilliant as usual.
I'm shocked to realise how slow the decline had been and how final France's involvement has been. Louis XIV was essentially the one who took 1st place, the war of Spanish Succession is famously the pre-7 years war, and I thought Napoleon's invasion of Spain was just a small part of their history, instead it was a blow so hard they fell entirely apart from it.
Incidentally I am pretty friendly with spaniards.
The Peninsula War in Spain and Portugal where Britain fought France, diverted a lot of resources and troops from Napoleons campaigns in Russia and Central Europe. Fighting on two fronts is what defeated Napoleonic France. Germany did not learn this lesson when they chose to fight on two fronts a century later.
It is indeed a small part in our history. The history of Spain starts with Hannibal Barca (III BC) and continues today. We have had a war like every 2 or 3 years since like 2300 years ago.
Vive l'empereur
@@SamerAN1985 tu voulais dire "VIve le meurtrier du couchon Napoleon!"
@@fraperlop7583 c'est vraimant bizarre que je suis meme pas francais et je l'admire tandis que vous baignaient dans l'ingratitude. Vos institutions existent à cause de lui tout comme votre republique et beacoup de vos grandes écoles c'est une des figures les plus impressionantes de l'histoire, vous devriez le considéré un hero national au lieu d'essayer de l'effacer de votre histoire.
Saw a documentary several decades ago about this. One of the contributing factors was that Spain relied for so many years on its wealth coming from the new world that it had little need to industrialize itself, like a spoiled rich kid it just bought what it needed.
Nowadays it's the same: more imports than exports of goods because of how unprofitable is to maintain a business without sinking and the lower prices of foreign equivalent goods. The food sector has some benefits due to the good quality of unique products from the peninsula but good luck finding Made in Spain products in any other sector.
I know that's the traditional argument, but it's a bit of a simplistic answer. Apart from the fact that no one was industrialized before 1750-1800, the Dutch, British and French empires did not feel committed to civilization on other worlds until almost the 20th century, taking almost all the wealth to London, Amsterdam and Paris. That produces a lot of money, and that is the reason for wealth, when nobody was an industrialist. While Spain had a civilizing commitment in America, with a 70% reinvestment of wealth. 80% in the eighteenth century. Spain was almost 200 years at war against 5 European powers between 1500-1700, to save the Catholic religion, preventing a Protestant and Islamic invasion of Madrid, Lisbon, Vienna and Rome. Almost the other 30% of the wealth produced in America had that objective, to save the Catholic religion and the Spanish possessions in Europe. With those two colossal investments it is impossible to be rich. In addition to the difficulty to trade. A Frenchman has a border with War, Germany and Switzerland. Historically, a Spanish merchant had to travel 2,000 km to reach the German border, and sell some product there, crossing Spain (the second most mountainous country in Europe). Another 2000 km2 back. That's not competitive. It is the same problem in southern Italy, the Balkans, Greece, Portugal, Russia. (More problematic is for the people of North Africa.) As I have said, during the 2 centuries of almost continuous warfare, we could hardly trade with the Protestants: Huguenots, Calvinists, Lutherans and Anglicans, who were allied with each other, and traded among themselves. Only from the 20th century did the recovery of the southern European territories begin, especially now with air transport, air conditioning, Internet... That is the reason that there are emerging countries or already in the top-30, which before they were poor, like China, Korea, Ireland, Indonesia, Italy, Spain, Mexico..
@@Adri9570 We make cargo planes, frigates and aircraft carriers that Australia and other countries buy, satellites, submarines, high-speed trains in Arabia or California, expansion of the Panama Canal, massive construction in Africa, and many new technology companies. Spain is also the tenth power in scientific research, now.
They had no money left to finance their defensive wards in Europe and also suffered of debts. Many people bought noble titltes to avoud taxes and did not invest in anything because it was not profitablt due to taxes too. So what was left to get money from? Americas, but they could not get 100% dude to the quinto real, that only let them get 15% from what americas produced.
Basically if spain wanted to get out from that hell, they should have let france get all the central euirrope territories and give Netherlands their independency and belgium too. Give the ottomans the contorl of Italy and the contorl of Mediterranean sea too.
They biggest problem that ailed the French and Spanish Empires was naval reform and doctrine, especially important if you are a colonial power. It doesn't matter even if you are not industrialised as you say or where your money comes from, at the end of the day when war comes, its all about winning battles. The reason the Brits became dominant at sea is because they spent every effort, toil and sweat to do so. At Trafalgar the end of the Spanish Navy's power and failure as a system and in doctrine is perfectly summarised by the testimony of a Spanish sailor who was witness who said "The thing that amazed us the most from the entire experience took place after the fight was over when the English made us prisoner, we watched the British sailors run around on deck and climb masts with an energy as if they had not just fought a major battle".
Thanks
As a medieval young nation, you conquer and secure your own lands first. As a teenage nation, you expand , discover new trading routes, found colonies, circumnavigate the globe, get in some wars, get drunk... you know.. have some fun, to put it shortly. As an adult nation you try to stabilize your empire, both culturally and linguistically and leave a legacy behind. As a retired nation, with all of your "children" now independent and forming their own empires, you lay down on your playa back home, ice tea in hand, watching the sun set aware and proud of a centuries-long job well done. Now you see, the problem is there are some "retired" nations that still behave like teenagers.. and they are nothing else but embarrassing.
UK is a perfect example
@@fabiobuccarello4628 exactly
John Newman Here in Spain we call that efficiency 😎
omg your comment is perfect, I'm stealing it :D
hahaha booom
I feel his spain
wow how original...
@@richardlooch2109 wow you're replying a 6 month old comment wow
@@sajidmon4600 do you have a problem with that? are you god? fuck you and stop bothering me.
@@richardlooch2109 chill out, next time wait until it is 7 or 8 months old
@@adamraserovaquera Good retort ;-D
I've studied the next century of Spain's history. As my teacher said "it all started going downhill and without breaks".
I look on the bright side. The British Empire was smaller than Spain's. What's that? People who never questioned the Black Legend propaganda inculcated into their unsuspecting minds are already typing their gullible bandwagon responses to me? The Brits sing that "Britannia rules the waves!" so they admit that seas count in imperial extension. Therefore, considering that the Brits always had to share every ocean with the French and others like Spain who destroyed their armada at Cartagena de Indias, whereas Felipe II shared no ocean with any rival except three seas with Turks (Med., Red, Persian Gulf), then that plus the fact that earth is more water than land means that España had the biggest empire in all of history as a matter of irrefutable fact. :-) Only hypocrites count British and Mongol wastelands but not seas with more resources and profitable trade routes. Modern Spain is a libtarded disgrace. Liberalism is a poison that Napoopleon spread as he was a good dog for the Synagogue of Satan that has persecuted its own people to hide its tracks. Compare Hitler's decision to doom Germany at Dunkirk and sparing Britain while then attacking the Russians without finishing off the British threat first when h e could have, and compare his Templar cross and other satanic symbolism (that one being a reference to the 8-pointed Star of Ishtar, an allusion to the Tower of Babel representing mankind's attempt to conquer heaven under Satan)... with Felipe II's deliberate sabotaging of the Spanish Armada by putting an inexperienced man in command, forbidding flexibility and maneuverability, sending them off without finishing preparations and making sure the British knew about the Armada ahead of time plus his use of Templar symbols showing who really ran the joint.... Britain never saved herself. Gentiles are puppets, and the best slaves think they're free. The elite Jews made Spain decline because they divide to conquer.
@@scintillam_dei So even in your imagination, Spain still sucked. It's more like Spain rose up during the Reconquista because of the foreign aid it needed.
@@tritium1998 How do you misread "bigger than the British Empire" as "sucking"?
@UC8V_Hm5g6oa04GIdt7HW5EA bug off, spain is the richest culture in the world, england is trash.
@@tritium1998 foreign aid? During the reconquista? What the hell are you talking about
The Spanish Empire (Spain thrives nowadays rather successfully) declined because the underlying causes of their rise disappeared. The economical and social bases for Spanish expansion endured several centuries, but their national political leadership was terminally weaken by the Habsburg (German) and Bourbon (French) dinasties and their associated interests and entourage. For instance, little is known that prior to the widespread bourgeois revolt in Europe there was one in Castille, "The revolt of the Comuneros", the somehow representatives of the local parliamentary powers (Spain had the oldest parliament n Europe in the Cortes of Leon, parliamentarism was nothing new to them) against the newly arrived Dutch courtiers acting in the name of the emperor Charles. The forces of the local parliaments lost in the power struggle so the "foreign" dinasties did not have local leverage to act globally as better suited their family interests up to our days. By the way these Dutch and German courtiers were the first to slander their Spanish counterparts (as their competitors) giving birth to the Black Legend and Hispanophobic arguments against the Spaniards that the English, French and Dutch would employ so successfully in their propaganda wars up to the present days ...
Spain is definitely not thriving now
tldr
Spain in 1575: We’re the greatest power the world has ever seen! No one can stop us!
1898: *Loses a war to a former colony*
1866: Gets a fleet wrecked by a bunch of former colonials with cannons
Well, that colony was helped by the United States...
USA:
I'm about to end this whole man's -career- remaining colonial empire!"
One that'll be the United states
@Jedi Temple Guard But we were already saying it in 1575.
I love my boy Charles the second, un ionically one of my favorite historical figures. I love how he represents the twisted underbelly of monarchy and how he's a tragic figure due to being handed a fate he had no control in. I know he was mentioned once but I have to give this man some attention.
Naval battles are like the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy
They're expensive
And predetermined by masons (formerly Templars).
and take place in New Zealand?
Spain: Okay but at least we still have the Philippines and Cuba?
USA: How about you don’t…
England: becomes a great power after beating spain
Netherlands: becomes a great power after beating spain
France: becomes a great power after beating spain
America: becomes a great power after beating spain
Kinda getting a trend over here
Spain being everyone else's stepping stone.
Spain got there first though.
1:20, Death of King Phillip II (1598, colourised)
What's this supposed to mean?
Vivek Acharya normie
@@olivierlensvelt6367 what?
@Box Blox what? Please explain
@L.K what does this have to do with King Philipe lI of Spain
Thanks for posting! I have an assignment on Spanish decline and this made things easy and concise to understand
As a Spaniard, I am surprised how accurate this is. Very neat summary of how the empire was lost out of pure incompetence
The Spanish empire was not lost due to incompetence. In fact it has been the most powerful and effective empire of all time.
1525 Spain captures the king of France at the Battle of Pavia. In 1527 Spain invaded Rome and captured the Pope of Rome
30 years later Spanish hegemony continues:
1556. Spain has a king in England, an emperor in Germany. We defeated France in France, and dominated Italy. The big 4 countries of Western Europe have a Spanish king or Spanish emperor, have lost on the battlefield, or are occupied. Not even Napoleon or Hitler could do that. Their empires for 15 and 3 years, with Berlin and Paris occupied, and Napoleon and Hitler prisoners or dead. The British Empire had nothing but small islands in Europe.
20-30 years later, Spain continues to be the great European power:
1580 Invasion of Portugal. 1585, destruction of 100 ships of the Dutch fleet in a single night. 1588 Spanish invasion of Germany. 1589 destruction of 80 ships of Drake's invincible fleet. 1590 Spanish invasion of Paris.
100 years after the Battle of Pavia, in 1525, Spain defeats all the powers in 1625
1625. Cadiz. Destruction of 62 ships from England and the Netherlands
1625. Victory over England, Denmark and the Netherlands at Breeda, Holland
1625 Destruction of the French fleet in the Mediterranean. Spanish invasion of Genoa
1625 Victory over the Dutch fleet in Brazil, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
One hundred years after that time, Spain invades Italy, defeating Austria in 1734, and sinking 50 British ships in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias 1741. We won that War of Jenkins' Ear 1739-41 by capturing more than 400 British ships in the Atlantic and Caribbean.
40 years later, in 1779-82, Spain makes a naval blockade of England, capturing 80 British ships filled with weapons, money and soldiers. Collapse of the London stock market.
We even won 3 battles against Nelson in 1797, and the final battle in 1806-07, a year after Trafalgar 1805, in Argentina and Uruguay, capturing the redcoats and British generals.
The Spanish legacy was saved, and today it is the greatest in the world. 485 million native Spanish speakers. 380 million native English speakers (40% born in parts of the USA that the British never controlled. The USA saves the English language, as a secondary legume, after World War II). 800 million Catholics thanks to Spain (200 million in Europe. 100 million in Asia). Anglicans: 120 million.
The problem is that the inhabitants of Spanish America had 28 universities in 1800 (Spain and England had 10 in 1800) so the Spanish Americans had an advanced European civilization and technology, and could rebel, like the North Americans of the 13 colonies against the British. Independence is much more difficult in India, Botswana or Pakistan until after the Second World War, because they had not received European technology and culture, they were only colonies of extraction without the power to rebel (commercial empires). Spain did a Romanization, Hispanization. Napoleon had a decisive impact on all of continental Europe. The British lived on an island, and could withstand invasion attempts with little effort, and that is why their great expansion coincides with the end of the Napoleonic Wars of 1815, when all of Europe has to recover from millions of deaths and collapse of the economy of more than 60%
@@Gloriaimperial1no lo pudiera haber resumido mejor, gran trabajo! ¿Aunque me pregunto que si estados unidos no hubiese emergido como potencia mundial el francés siguiese siendo la lengua franca? En fin gran resumen.
@Gloriaimperial1
The fact that you had to brag about Spanish legacy in English because you know no one would read it otherwise. Oh the irony.
@@Sphinxgamingworld9942 Yes, I agree that it was a great empire both in extension and in how it treated its people in comparison to others, wouldn't say the most powerful *of all time* (that's prob the brits), but definetely the most powerful for a couple centuries. You are right that Charles I and Phillip II were great monarchs, as well as Charles III, and that's why the empire was almost unstoppable during the 16th century. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that Phillip III, IV, Charles IV and Ferdinand VII were terrible monarchs that completely failed to run the empire and thus lost it. It is not the old spaniards' fault, but the monarchs who ruled the country. It is well known that the first and second of these would rather hunt hares than rule a nation, and left the job to people that teared the country apart for their own benefits while Charles IV was called stupid even by his own father.
I do not doubt that it was a powerful empire, but it was definetely the pure incompetence of the ruling class that brought it down. And if not, what did?
@@TS111WASDThat is thanks to the United States not Britain.
As always....learning something new. I Knew Spain fell but I didn't know how hard! Can't wait to see what is next.
Next is becoming another Venezuela with prime minister Pedro Sánchez. Did you see how he walked next to Joe Biden, repeatedly staring at him like begging for his attention, and Biden didn't look at him until the very last moment?
Could you please make a video about Michael the Brave's reign?He did a lot of great things like beating the ottomans with a much smaller army (Battle of Calugareni) and uniting the principalities of Wallachia Moldavia and Transylvania for the first time in history (in 1600)
Just watch History Marche's channel, they covered Michael the Brave. Awesome video too. Besides, formerly Ten Minute History would only spend like 2 or 3 minutes on him.
You're pronouncing 'Philip' (English) or 'Felipe' (Castellano) 'Philippe', which is French
yeah it annoyed the hell out of me. It doesnt sound natural hile him speaking English. He shouldve sticked with the English version of the name.
they are all Filip :)
@@favorius No.
@@favorius Filip in polish
Well, for some reason I don't understand they call Isabel de Castilla Isabella, in Italian.
I know it sounds silly but one of the simplest reasons why I think the Spanish Empire was so cool is how it was introduced in the fourth Pirates Of The Caribbean movie :D
It didn’t flow only to Madrid but to Sevilla as well which was way how riches arrived to Spain.
*Spain in a wheelchair* : I used to rule the world..
*Spanish-American Countries carrying the wheelchair* : Yes dad, you dominated the world, that's what you said.
*wheelchair
Lmmfao
percival archibald
Latin Americans are poor and stupid.
There, fixed your capitalization errors for you 😊
Lo importante al final es eso,no españa en si sino la cultura hispana, ojalá de aquí a 100 años veamos una unión fuerte latina.
@@jjgf8412 Unión Hispánica*
To put it short:
War, inflation, Rebellions and civil war
Sounds about like every empire history putting It like that
And repeat
Actually there were like 4 big civil wars in 19th century and a LOT of minor civil wars lol
Inflation has always been overestimated.
I'd say: too many wars at the same time (16th and 17th century), bad kings (17th century onwards), and the anarchy with the Napoleonic wars: a combination of Napoleon stabbing in the back the Spanish royal family, the Spanish rebellion against the French in order to put in the throne the worst Spanish king ever (Ferdinand VII) -rebellion made up with autonomous governments everywhere, also in the Americas-, and new ideas (mainly those of independence in the Americas).
You forgot the Jewish element.
I remember asking this in my Intro to European History course way back in Uni and never having as satisfactory answer as this video has given.
And the symbolic end of Spanish power, the final nail in the coffin, the point where no one could pretend they were anything anymore, was when they lost a war against the United States of America.
Ah yes when America fabricated a war to backstab Spain and start their empire. Without Spain they wouldnt have been an independent nation either.
@@GrandMoffTarkinsTeaDispenser Stop trying to take credit for our awesomeness. 😎 Lol What a bunch of losers... (Pathetic)
Sorry I don't speak stupid.
@joseph davisson I know, right?
Sleepy little isolationist America actually won a war, and it was only 90 years after Spain stopped being a real power.
Yup. America fabricated a false flag and invaded Cuba. Heck, they also invaded the Phillipines for no reason.That is why Spaniards hate Americans lol. They paid for the American revolution, and got backstabbed many times.
"Every good Spaniard should piss always looking at England." blas lezo
Bastards fucked with us with a succession war that they used advantage of to take Gibraltar, fucked us with the whole Tangier international zone shit, fucked us by getting pirates to raid our ships and I doubt that's even a bit of it. Can't hate the English for fucking with your nation so many times tho, I guess.
So the wind can blow it back on you? LOL
God Save The Queen
Can't wait to go to Spain again after Covid and get shit faced on €1 pints!
@@mcbabwe4977 Britain doesn't have friends, only interests
Joseph Napoleon??.....I think you mean Joseph Bonaparte...
or do you mean pepe botellas
His full name is Joseph-Napoleon Bonaparte.
Or do you mean: Ｊｏｓｅ Ｎｉｎｇｕｎｏ
Honestly, it must be through editing that all these videos are so fast because this guy doesn't take one breath in any video.
There are several problems that Spain faced in the past that are very rarely mentioned when trying to explain the collapse of the empire.
The first one is simple: Demography. Continental Spain never had the population of the other continental powers, and that turned out to be a huge problem in the XVII century.
The second one is more complex: Geography. The Iberian peninsula is separated in different areas by mountain ranges that made communication slow and difficult, and turned out to be a huge hindrance to the economy until the late XIX century. It made trade slow and costly, and industry had to be very focused on local goods and not national level trade.
You are actually right. Also, when industrial age arrived, Spain lacked coal that was necessary. Countries with coal (england, Belgium, Germany...) were the ones that could industrialize earlier.
@@espadajusta4380 Spain didnt lack the coal and mineral necessary, the problem was that Spain was in civil wars one after a another including revolts, until the final 1800's Spain didnt start with the industrial revolution
Sounds like South America.
I’d like to further the geography part. Simply put, Madrid was a disastrous capital. Without trains or navigable rivers, that meant feeding the capital required transporting low-priced grain that doubled in price every few miles while also diverting carts and mules from transporting high-value goods to stimulate the economy.
For context, sending a boat of grain to London was *sixteen* times cheaper than hauling it to Madrid.
This is a fine chronological summary of spanish history, but it doesn't say anything about WHY all of these things happened.
In short, a combination of: chronic demographic weakness, a completely rigid caste society where two of the three branches (nobility and church) did not pay any taxes and encroached every profit of the empire, an illiterate common people who completely missed the financial revolution that took the western world by storm in XVIII century, and last but not least, the tremendous success of the early empire that impeded any significant evolution till the entire thing collapsed. Besides, the demographics of the Spanish American colonies made it for the empire completely impossible to survive the democratic wave in one piece, if only because white spaniards were an absolute minority not only in the American colonies but in the empire as a whole.
@@eduardoborrego5714 Spain was so focused on Gold and Catholicism that it completely ignored everything else going on around it. It's happened plenty of times throughout history where innovation completely topples the old top dog because they don't pay attention to change.
@@hiimjustin8826 That is why its much more impresive to have a lasting empire then a big one, rome may not have been nearly as big as say, the mongol empire, but it was certainly all arround better at being an empire.
Under 4 minutes, you are not going to get much detail in under 4 minutes...
Try reading some books on the subject if you want to find out more.
@@philiposborne982 The answers to Diego give a good summary and make better sense of the history than the video
Make a video about louis XIV and the golden age of absolutism in France.
I really feel like the chanel lack of france history during the renaissance.
These are great videos - well done
“I live in Spain, but the *S* is silent”
-creative 8d
In Spanish, the word English is translated as ingles. It sounds the same as ingles=groins, which is next to the genitals. A lot of nonsense can be said by removing letters from Germany or France, too. But there are 2000 languages in the world.
imagine how hard it was back then to control an entire kingdom across the world
They would probably take years just to send the message that a new law was passed.
They basically didn't. It took 2 months to go from Spain to America by ship. The administration was very corrupt and was basically self ruling and reverted the wealth to itself.
Thank you for this great breakdown! Would it be possible to have a video that goes more in depth regarding the reasons for the different revolts, civil wars, and civil strife/conflicts that you talked about. They seem to be a big factor in the decline of Spain.
No better feeling than the algorithm giving you a history matters video you’ve not seen before
The fundamental problem for Spain was that France had twice the population and was next door. Spain capitalized on France's internal strife in the 16th century, but when it became firmly under the control of Louis XIV, it surpassed the Spanish as a power. In the Americas, Spain benefitted from the head start it had gotten, but in Europe, it declined in importance after the Thirty Years' War.
So basically we watched a video of "How French ruined Spain through centuries"
the spaniards started ganging up on france much before france just did to them what the spanish tried to do and failed. thats a skill issue
@@smal750 not our fault that Burgundy was ours and not there's via marriage
@@lolxdani9996
Lost badly france negged spain
@@smal750 not in 1590
So basically they entered a bunch of expensive wars and didn't win their money back, right?
basically. Instead of reinvesting wealth internally they squandered it in (mostly) useless wars.
In particular the constant religion struggles in Europe, but also the wars against the Ottoman placed such a toll on the spanish coffers. The struggle against the Ottomans was more than justified (they were a true military threat for europe at the time, and had it not for Spain probably we'd be having balkan problems up the middle of Germany nowadays because of it), but the whole shenanigans against the Protestants, definitely not. And the whole struggle to keep the netherlands controlled was never justified. Flanders (the richest region) was firmly catholic and loyal, and the benefits of controlling the seven provinces were far outweighed by the cost of keeping them under control (which the spanish never really managed to do anyway).
Also there's the fact that until the bourbon reforms in the XVIII century Spain was more of a commonwealth of kingdoms than a kingdom itself. Deep decentralization seriously hurt the spanish efforts, particularily so in the XVII century, where they were the dominant reason why the 30 year war finally went the protestants way.
i love how specific the title of this video is
Could you do a video about the byzantine empire in the future?
That would be nice
The Spanish Empire was not a colonial empire such as the English, French or Dutch, but on the contrary, it was the last empire of the ancient type, closer to what Rome or Greece were. 300-400 years of domain based on miscegenation, alphabetization and conversion of different peoples; construction of universities, cathedrals and cities worldwide; a huge cultural and artistic explotion; deliberation of new phylisophic, teologic and juridic debates in human history (like f.e., if all humans were equal); discoverments that changed the conception of the world; opening of new shipping routes; creation of an undefeated infantry for 2 centuries; expansion of the Hispanic culture throughout the Atlantic and Pacific ocean (called "the spanish lake" at that time) as Rome did throughout the Mediterranean... All of this, in a world as big as the one we know today, but using a technology from 5 centuries ago.
From here onward, european empires had a colonial model based on mercantilism, slavery, and large-scale production, creating factories or plantations in overseas possessions, instead of a civilizing reproduction of their society. The former were a global market, the latter a global kingdom. European empires shouldnt be generalized by the fact of having overseas territories, because not all of them were the same.
gracias por decirlo.
Your reductive embellishment of Spanish colonialism conveniently omits that slavery was a thing in the Spanish empire just like any other, pointless discussions about the equality of all humans conference of Valladolid or not. Go tell the native American civilisations that they were "culturally enriched".
Sure, Spanish expansionism seemed more bent on exporting the Spanish way of life and culture than other powers, implementing local Spanish/Spanish-like administrations, customs, etc. But they were far from the only ones to found cities, build public buildings, or other.
Just because you build a church on top of it doesn’t make Spanish colonialism not a colonialism. Make no mistake that it was built on the same principles of, and for the same goals of exploitation just like any other.
@@TheAtmosfear7 ya. muy bonita tu equiparacion
@@TheAtmosfear7 effectively. did you know that when manifest destiny happened americans were the ones who were surprised on how natives that were from the former mexican empire were quite civilized, then instructed to kill them. You may talk about american case, but that happened after independence of many spanish territories. Then why is it that natives in the US were almost extinct while natives south of the border got to grow their population ? Spanish were the only ones who gave a thought on natives, that's why they wrote laws of burgos, precedent of human rights, which granted natives rights. English, french,portuguese never did this.
@@1lyxbollyvykn714 poor justification of inquisitions, slavery etc done by spainish
As a Spaniard i put this video every month to remind me what NOT to do when i become president.
And to cry.
To cry a lot.
Same
i am austrian and i also get depression from austrian empire declining
@@christian9125abd noise 🇪🇸🤜🤛🇦🇹
Lmao
Me: Happy Mexican noises because we're no longer under Spanish rule
Also Latin America: *Corruption*
Edit:
Can't forget the colorism
@@maria-melek Mexico is corrupted and overrun by drug dealers.. LMAO... Was run better under Spain!
Me, looking at the title:
"Decline what?"
Me, after reading it again:
"Ah, I see"
Next you should do the greek civil war + why did you stop making 10 minute videos
he already answered that question tons of time, he didn´t feel like forcing his videos to ten minutes because some small topics (like the one in the video) are in no way worth a 10 minute video
You forgot about the silver I N F L A T I O N
All empires decline
Another important reason is the actual amount of silver they brought back from South America. As decades passed they brought so much silver that it overwhelmed demand and made the silver worth less and less .
Little money arrived in Spain. 70% of all wealth: silver, trade, gold, stayed in America. 80% in the eighteenth century. Almost the other 30% went to the Spanish war for 200 years (1500-1700) against 5 European powers, to save the Catholic religion in Europe, for our NATO in Italy, and to buy in the Asian market. We could hardly trade with the Protestant Germans, Anglican English, Huguenot and almost always hostile French, Islamic Turkish Empire, and Calvinist Dutch, for almost 200 years. Spain had a war economy during those centuries, with an emigration to America of 600,000 people before 1700, the majority men. In addition, the Mediterranean peninsulas, such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, the Balkans, have always had more problems exporting to central Europe, even in the 20th century. A Spaniard or an Italian from the south had to travel 50 days by horse-drawn cart to sell something in Germany. A Frenchman crosses the border from Germany, sells, and returns home for dinner. That was never competitive for Spain and many countries in the world until the advent of air transport, air conditioning, Internet business. These economic differences, in investment and industry have been seen between the North of Spain and Italy, and the South of Spain and Italy. Even the north of France and the south of France.
1:59 Look Charles II eyes. That "attention" to detail lol.
Spain: We still have Cub-
America: Not anymore!
@Maestro Horchatero Sorry buddy but this world is all about political influence and military might. The ailing Spanish Empire was merely a shell of its former glory. No country has friends, only interest.
Interestingly the reason why railway tracks are further apart in Spain is because when they were building them, France invading was a regular thing, and they didn't want to use the same gauge as France as they thought they would invade by train.
I think that is myth or a theory about the railways
It's a myth, the real reason id judt that Spain is a very mountainous country and so need bigger trails
@@acusticamenteconvusional9936 exactly, also because of that our old trains could not turn as much as others because they were design to the terrain we have here before tech allow us to cut a mountain in half or make tunnels
French King Francis I was an awful king. He allied with Ottomans just only with the hope to invade HRE. Risking whole Christianity to be invaded by Turks... What a freaking shitty king he was.
Carlos Marcial I wouldn’t say so. With or without France’s invitation, Suleiman would want to invade Europe anyway. That’s his dream.
Also, you picture as if Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was a good Catholic monarch and a Defender of Catholicism. Charles V, at one point, even fought the Pope when the Pope allied himself with France. This, in turn, led to several mutinous troops of Charles V to invade and sack Rome. He only used the pretext of defending Catholicism only to justify Spanish hegemony in North America (to ensure that every other European power to not break the Treaty of Tordessilas and steal some New World riches from him) and cement his rule as ruler of a bunch of lands in Europe.
It, however, made him in conflict with France (who was battling other Italian states allied with the Pope later on), the Ottomans (which allied with France), and the Lutherans in northern Germany. The fight with the Lutherans, for example, only served to stoke the fire of rebellions amongst the German principalities, where some of them had already embraced Luther’s teachings, who wanted some degree of autonomy from Charles V. This culminated in several rebellions that happened throughout Germany and the weakening of the Hapsburg power in Germany. The fight against the Ottomans, as the video explains, is also expensive and a massive drain in Charles’ and Phillip’s treasury. The Spanish kingdom’s adoption of being the Defender of the Catholic Faith also made Th em very antagonistic towards the Protestants, which would later take hold in the Netherlands. This resulted in many cases of brutal Spanish repression of the Protestant faith in the Low Countries, which of course only brought the Netherlands to full revolt during the Eighty Years War.
I’d say had Spain not adopt the title of Defender of the Faith, they might still be able to maintain their empire up (including their European empire) and remained a powerhouse until the late 1700s or mid 1800s without throwing them into many costly wars that only served to bring in prestige and honor, but no real political or economic gain. Empty glory is still empty.
For me it hit home how far the Spaniards got into the America's when I saw a old-world Spanish fort in Kansas. There were no cars. These bad asses literally fucking walked from either South America, Florida or the Gulf all the way into the middle of Kansas looking for gold.
Also if many Americans are unaware of the history of Sir Francis Drake, that's a worthwhile chunk of time to learn about - in terms or reimagining the history of the USA.
1:32 when the revolts start spain could only defend one side, they when with Catalonia and Portugal became independent again ... (just some context)
Interesting
Yeah its call the segadors revolts and its cause is because of many reasons but at the end the principality of Catalonia returned crying to The King Phillip IV why they saw Louis XIII with his Borbonic system and absolute monarchy together and not a Federal as they like
@@francherogamer5187 Yeah, Catalonia are freaking losers. If I would be Catalonian, I would feel really ashamed about my ancestors.
@@carlosmarcial6201 I would like to se your country (whatever it is) trying to survive between Spanih and French empires and then call it looser
Isso são mitos que são repetidos constantemente na Internet, Portugal teve em guerra com Espanha quase 30 anos para obter a independência, e o mais interessante é o facto de a rebelião da catalunha só ter despoletado após a de Portugal! E como é óbvio Espanha não obtou por ficar com catalunha em detrimento de Portugal ( senão não tinha guerreado com Portugal tanto tempo)..
I'd like to clarify that the Spanish never held cape horn as you mention in 0:05. In fact the southmost place in America that the Spanish effectively colonised was Chiloé.
Wasn't there going to be a video on the Orthodox Response to the Reformation?
All common untruths one after another.
The real reason was lack of population. In year 1.500 Spain had 7 million inhabitants, whilst in 1.700 at the dead of the last Austria dinasty king Charles II, in Spain they were around 5 million people overall.
Spanish Armada was not defeated, but detourned by the storms. The English destroid fighting just 2 ships, the bad wheather 60.
The believe that the Spanish naval power was finished led the English to send the following year an still larger armada against Spain, which was severely defeated in La Coruña. British lost more than 80 ships. After the dead of Elizabeth I, the Sommerset House peace treaty showed that England had no possibilities and decided to stop piracy for a while.
Think a litle bit, could Spain keep the American territory with the exception of Jamica unless It had a powerful fleet? Could It dominate the Pacific ocean without it?
I love every chance I get to wave back at the characters, so this episode was a treat :D
Worth to mention that spain at its prime had 8 million people vs 20 millions otomans french and indians each....so to little for too many fronts in a big big World.
Even though the empire lasted 400 years...amazing!!
@Steven Lee Spain did not lose against ottomans ever the contrary, they saved Europe to become muslim twice on the sea at Lepanto and in land at the gates of Vienna. In fact Ottomans were the nemesis of Europe that time a real big power and due to their species blockade Europe via Spain and Portugal bypassed exploring the seas to the infinity wealth of america and asia. Respect French and British they came later and on the whole there was a draw in the battlefield arena wins and lost average
I look on the bright side. The British Empire was smaller than Spain's. What's that? People who never questioned the Black Legend propaganda inculcated into their unsuspecting minds are already typing their gullible bandwagon responses to me? The Brits sing that "Britannia rules the waves!" so they admit that seas count in imperial extension. Therefore, considering that the Brits always had to share every ocean with the French and others like Spain who destroyed their armada at Cartagena de Indias, whereas Felipe II shared no ocean with any rival except three seas with Turks (Med., Red, Persian Gulf), then that plus the fact that earth is more water than land means that España had the biggest empire in all of history as a matter of irrefutable fact. :-) Only hypocrites count British and Mongol wastelands but not seas with more resources and profitable trade routes. Modern Spain is a libtarded disgrace.
@@bartender4731 So you're a hypocrite who counts British wastelands but not Spanish seas with more resources. Brits had to share every ocean: HA! Spain during the Iberian Union, with almost no one except three seas with Turks, not most of the world's waves. Brits wish they had as much glory.
We don't have to wish, Spain's empire was impressive for the time but a complete joke by the standards of later ones. Also if you think the British empire was a wasteland I can only wonder at what your standards are as it was considerably more prosperous than the Spanish (which largely relied on mining precious metals for it's profits and suffered from extreme fluctuations in currency as a result) and indeed large parts of its lands were even more prosperous than the Spanish homeland itself. Also the British navy was far more dominant than the Spanish ever was, largely because they didn't pick fights with half the continent and proceed to have their ships targeted by everyone and their dog on top of the usual problems from the people (*cough Barbarystates cough*) who attacked everyone.
@@vorynrosethorn903 The joke is your pride pretending that a country that had to share every ocean with France owned as much of the earth as Spain whose Emperor during the Iberian Union had entire oceans to himself including the biggest one in the universe which Brits could possess entirely only in their dreams. :-) I never said all of the Brutish Empire was wastelands but much of it was, but you have a double standard counting wastelands but not seas with more resources and profitable trade routes.
It's still amazing to me that after all these losses, a devastating Civil War and a backwards traditionalist dictator in power for a large part of the XXth century, Spain still managed to pull ahead and become one of the most developed countries in the world, with a HDI higher than France's.
The story of the transition after the civil war is exciting. I do not know if there is any vídeo in english for you to see. The mind of the spanish was very positive and they managed to modernize the country from the 80s, almost equalizing the way of living in France, a mirror in which we have looked at each other and compared
Yeah and now we are trying to fuck it up again, actually since 2008...
What? When you start from nothing it's easy to get better.
Lol hdi? As if that has any meaning at all. Spain like most of Europe is a place rich people retire too to get away from poor people.
@@weignerleigner3037 still one of the best indicators to say if a country is developed enough for it's people to make a life
Great video 👍🏻