Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What caused the gradual decline of the Spanish colonial empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? A post I read claimed that the Spanish overestimated their wealth, and my teacher pointed out to me that "nobody liked them". To what extent are these claims true, and what were some other reasons? Thanks!

share|improve this question
1  
Please add a link to that post. –  Drux Jun 25 '13 at 3:32
    
@Drux Oh it was a post here on SE that I saw a few days ago, but I do not remember the tile at all. Is there a way to see the recent questions you have viewed here on SE? –  Ovi Jun 25 '13 at 3:58
2  
What period are you asking about? Usually, when people speak about the decline of the Spanish Empire, they mean some period after the loss of the Armada and before Napoleon. On the other hand, the colonies were lost later. So which one do you mean? –  Felix Goldberg Jun 25 '13 at 14:08
1  
This question is way too broad and as such I feel that it needs to be closed. I would recommend that anyone interested should look for books on the subject. I came across this one (goodreads.com/book/show/…) during a quick google search. I'm sure that more can be found with the aid of a librarian. –  BrotherJack Jun 26 '13 at 0:35
1  
@BrotherJack I will try in the future, but I don't know how to narrow this question down. I was just looking for the general reasons of the decline of the Spanish empire. –  Ovi Jun 28 '13 at 20:17
show 9 more comments

3 Answers 3

up vote 10 down vote accepted

It is commonly accepted that the Spanish Empire, which rose to the pinnacle of its strength under Charles V/I and Philip II was in decline by early seventeenth century and, in spite (or perhaps because?) of strenuous efforts to arrest and reverse that decline during the early 17th century, it declined and by 1643 or 1659 (not random dates..) it was a shadow of its former self.

This view was developed and greatly popularized by John Huxtable Elliott in an influential 1961 paper whose first paragraph I cannot resist reproducing:

enter image description here

This has been the standard approach in modern historiography, as far as I can tell; it and in fact it was espoused already in the 17th century by contemporary pundits and columnists who were then called Arbitristas.

Of course this paradigm found an able challenger in Henry Kamen who argued in an interesting paper that paradoxically, Spain did not decline because it never actually rose economically. Instead, he asserted:

Spain thus remained a dominated colonial market at whose expense other European nations progressed towards industrial growth.

Kamen's paper is great reading but I personally am more convinced by J. Israel's rebuttal that re-asserts the traditional picture I have outlined above.

A recent paper ("The decline of Spain (1500–1850): conjectural estimates") proposes quantitative measurements of Spanish economic performance and arrives at this conclusion:

In a comparative perspective, our findings support the view that when Spain colonised America and built a worldwide empire it was not a poor country of warriors but a relatively affluent nation and, by the end of the sixteenth century, when it had achieved ‘the political hegemony of Europe’ (Hamilton 1938, p. 168), Spanish per capita income was among the highest in Europe, second only to Italy and the Low Countries. Since the 1590s Spain experienced an absolute decline that only became relative in the early nineteenth century. Spain’s decline has its roots in the seventeenth century while its backwardness deepened in the first half of the nineteenth century.

While couched in mild language, their view is compatible with the standard thesis.

As for the dates, 1643 is the year of the battle of Rocroi which not only wiped out a veteran Spanish army but also Spain's enduring reputation for having the finest military tradition in Europe. 1659 is the year of the Peace of the Pyrenees which showed up Spain's great weakness relative to its chief opponent of the time, France.

Now to the possible causes. First of all, your teacher had two good points. I'll try to expound on them and also on what I think are other possible causes of Spanish decline. One must bear in mind, however, that no one cause can be singled out as the cardinal reason for decline; rather, it was a combination, often mutually reinforcing, of these causes that brought Spain down. The list below is my own and I take full responsibility for its errors and misconceptions:

  1. The expulsion or persecution-induced-emigration of Jews, Marranos and Moriscos. These measures sapped the Spanish demographic base - perhaps not so much numerically as qualitatively. What I mean is that the expulsion of these populations deprived the Spanish kingdoms of precisely the kind of people they were so sorely to lack in the 17th century: artisans, traders, professionals, etc. A parallel can be drawn here with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV which cost France its Huguenot population and had a similar adverse long-term effect.

Another relevant point - and I am going on a bit of a limb here - is that it took a number of generations for the deleterious effects of the expulsions to be truly felt. This reminds me of Stalins's purges (in the wider sense) in the 1920s-1950s which deprived Russia of its best and brightest - it can be argued that the modern-day problems of Russia can be traced back to that qualitative and quantitative dent Stalin made. But let's return to Spain.

  1. The Mesta. I'll just quote Britannica here:

So profitable were the activities of the organization that Spain’s nascent industry tended to be neglected in favour of stock breeding, and the country continued to export raw materials and import manufactured goods well into the 19th century. Some historians blame the Mesta for Spain’s lack of industrial development in comparison to that of the rest of Europe. The Mesta reached the height of its power in the 16th century and thereafter declined in importance.

In other words, Spain fell into a sort of Dutch Disease (the ironies of history). Of course, this is also true for American silver and gold - this matter was touched on in the post you mentioned. With bullion flowing from the colonies, Spain had little incentive to develop its industry and commerce and to create a solid and healthy taxable base.

  1. Poor finances. The Spanish crown defaulted on its debts four times: 1557, 1560, 1575, and 1596. This was due to poor management, constant warfare which cost a lot and brought meagre returns at best, over-reliance on New World bullion etc (see n. 2 above).

This is a huge subject so I'll restrict myself to one eloquent quote by from Robert Walpole: (taken from here):

It is true that all that treasure is brought home in Spanish names, but Spain herself is no more than the canal through which all these treasures are conveyed over the rest of Europe.

  1. The war with the Dutch. Henry Kamen's excellent book Spain's Road to Empire shows that the Spanish Empire was in fact a multi-national project in which the King of Spain drew on the resources of many countries, with the contribution of Spain (or Castile, for that matter...) often being surprisingly small. The muscle - the famed and feared Spanish armies - often consisted of a relatively small number of Castilians, together with German, Italians and Flemish soldiers. The sinews - the money and credit came from Italian and German bankers.

Such a world-hugging enterprise was nearly invincible when operating in concord. But with the Dutch Revolt a crucial leg was sawed from under it and the empire lost a great proportion of its best merchants, artisans and soldiers. Even worse, they became its worst enemies and from that point on the continuous futile attempts to reconquer the Dutch consumed most of the Empire's attentions and resources. Since the latter were usually borrowed (see n.2 and n.3) they were wont to fail at the crucial moment. For example, time after time the Spanish victories in the Netherlands were squandered as a result of mutinies which occurred when the King could no longer pay. Of course, the ready expedient of letting them plunder and pillage just served to stiffen the Dutch resistance.

To sum it up: to me it seems that as soon as the Dutch Revolt broke out, the empire became a house divided against itself - and it could not stand.

What is perhaps less well-known is that the 80 Years War included a twelve-year respite during which Spain and the Dutch were at peace. Possibly the decision to renew the war in 1621 was the single worst decision Spain took - the King and his advisers did not realize that by this point they could no longer win.

Ironically, the truce served to highlight just how much economically dependent was Spain on the Netherlands. A quote from Israel's article also ties this up with the other points given above:

Castilian wool exports were much diminished during the I620s, largely due to the absence of Dutch shipping which had previously carried most of the wool, but the Castilian manufacturing towns proved unable to profit from the situation.

  1. Over-expansion and hubris. This needs almost no elaboration. One point will suffice. The 30 Years War pitted Catholics against Protestants; but it is illuminating to recall that the Protestant cause was supported and seconded by Catholic France, led by Cardinal Richelieu; more strikingly, the Pope himself was giving covert support to France against the Catholic champions, the Spanish & Austrian Habsburgs. This is not really surprising as the Pope was also a temporal prince, hemmed in from all directions by Habsburg dominions in Italy and anxious to diminish their preponderance.

So, if even the Pope was against the Spanish Empire, are we to wonder that it aroused so much hostility, just because it was so big and menacing?

share|improve this answer
add comment

One of the main reasons was that Spanish empire was too large to control. After Napoleonic wars (and earlier against England) the Spain had lots of interior problems and this was more important than colonies. That's why most of them gained independence.

I totally disagree that "nobody liked Spanish". It might have been in 16th or 17th century, but not in 19th. Spain was Great Britain's ally against Napoleon. The Ostend Manifesto ended in great scandal and was denounced by Powers.

In Anglo-French treaty of 1904 (Spain was of course absent) both parties agreed that the Morocco issue should not alter Spanish possessions in Africa, eg. article 7:

In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not including, Melilla and the heights which command the right bank of the River Sebou.

This condition does not, however, apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.

and article 8:

The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the interests which that country derives from her geographical position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the French Government will come to an understanding with the Spanish Government.

The agreement which may be come to on the subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Government.

This was after Spanish defeat during the war against the USA (you might want to read my answer to similar question). I think this last article was put on British demand.

share|improve this answer
add comment

A proximate cause of the Spanish empire was the Netherlands War of Independence (which lasted 80 years), and other revolts against Spain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War

The Spanish Empire had been "cobbled" together in the late 15th and early 16th centuries by the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, whose daughter Juana married Philip, the son of Maximilian of Austria and Marie of Burgundy (who lost that province to France, but kept the Netherlands including modern Belgium). Charles V, the son of Juana and Philip, inherited Spain, the Netherlands and Austria. But when he subdivided it, the Netherlands went together with Spain to Charles' son Philip, instead of to Charles brother Ferdinand, who got Austria and Bohemia and the Holy Roman Empire.

The Netherlands rebelled against Philip and later Spanish rulers, so it became a major liability, instead of a major asset, especially since the war dragged on for 80 years, (with some breaks), during which Spain went bankrupt several times. Philip had annexed Portugal in 1580, but that rebelled in 1640 and broke away. Even Catalonia (part of the old Aragon) rebelled in the middle of the 17th century, although Spain managed to hang on to it. But fighting all these wars, plus a short but costly "Armada" war with England set Spain on a downward spiral through the 17th and 18th centuries.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.