You can learn something new and help us at the same time, by accessing: curiositystream.thld.co/knowledgiaapr for unlimited access to the world’s top documentaries and nonfiction series. Use the code: KNOWLEDGIA when you sign up to get 30 days of FREE unlimited access.
"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 Bismark
@@paradoxkr4599 otto Bismarck was the one responsible for forming the German unification and created the German empire by winning the Franco-Prussian war which was one of the main reasons why ww1 happened. Otto Bismarck didn't start ww1 but he did create tensions between Germany and both UK and France
If you ask why Spain was always fighting random wars against protestants, remember that nationalism didn't exist at this time, so religious unity was a quite good way to keep Italians, Spanish, Dutch and all other peoples united under the same empire, or at least they thought so. Edit for those that says nationalism always existed: Sources. This statement seems an incorrect interpretation of ancient societies based upon contemporary concept of nation. Nationalism was developed in late 1700's , when capitalist order and post-Westphalian politics couldn't use monarchic loyalty or religious unity to keep a social cohesion. The idea of accepting same language and traditions as well as a supposed common past as a more important factor than religion or client relations is a 19th century worldview. This does not exclude than ancient societies had language as a more or less unifying factor, but it can't be called nationalism as we understood it today. Nations are not objetive beings, but they only exist as a shared idea by a community. That require a common imposed dialect, history and identity established by state-driven education system, and does not appear spontaneously by any other means.
The goal of the spanish colonizers in the philippines was to spread the christian faith or the gospel... But why did they have to colonize and kill people? 303 years is the span of the colonization of spain in the philippines... Didn't the bible said to preach the gospel? But if they don't accept the good news then brush the dust from your feet and shoulders and leave? The saints and martyrs or spreaders of the gospel were also the ones that were being persecuted like boiled in oil or sawed in half. But why is it that spain did the opposite? instead of simply spreading the good news of gospel by preaching what Jesus had done on the cross they did the opposite they killed people and colonized them for 303 years...
@@johnnyblaze9217 It existed, but it was not the same, the nationalism that we know today began in the eighteenth century, which is very different from the old.
@@yosueth yes, rome was quite known for being nationalistic, but this guy is saying no such thing as nationalism existed yet and so spain was fighting wars over religion when ROME was around far longer than spain.
After learning how much Isabella and Ferdinand labored to keep the throne from going to Joanna and thus her Habsburg husband, it’s kind of tragic to know their Habsburg grandson (he did not grow up in Castile like they wanted and had no real love for it) ruined everything they built.
My great great grandfather was Fernando. He was a Chavez of southern Spain. He ruled elegant Alhambra palace and he financed Columbus because he was super broke !
The Habsburgs did not ruin what they built. They had two missions: to save Catholicism and the Roman legacy in Europe, and to romanize-Hispanicize America and the Philippines. Both missions were accomplished. The Spanish kings of the 16th-17th century knew that they had to maintain the wars in the Netherlands (200 years, 1516-1714), to threaten Protestant Germany, England and France. That is why France definitively became Catholic in the religious wars, due to Spanish offensives from the north, conquering Paris in 1590. That is why the southern Germans and Palatinate are Catholic. Those wars in northern Europe concentrated Protestant efforts there, and the Protestants were never able to put together a united front to invade Rome, Madrid, Vienna, Lisbon. That would also have meant the end of the Spanish and Portuguese empire in America, which would be more similar to India (British and Dutch East India companies): a lot of wealth extraction, but little Romanization. The eighteenth century was a century of economic recovery for the Spanish empire. But we raised the reinvestment in America from 70 to 80%. The British, Dutch and French did not have such civilizing commitments until XX century, and took the wealth of their third world empires to London, Amsterdam and Paris directly.
@@Gloriaimperial1 This is why the Spanish Empire is a hero in my mind. They fought for Europe while the English, Dutch, and French fought for themselves.
@@alejandromaldonado6159 They had their issues with the Church I'm sure, it's like a Soviet country being ordered by the Kremlin and having the KGB power over your sovereignty, not to offend anyone they at least have a formula unlike other countries here in the America's that are just doing enough to keep up but not too much that would raise red flags it's like living next to the FBI headquarters and the only capitalism you know is ...🤫
The Empire had Wars with England, Holland,France, The Ottoman’s ,Denmark , Sweden, Bohemia and Portugal . Many working in concert with each other . What could possible go wrong .
@@napoleoniii8372 It was called Texas with an X. Like how Mexico is spelled with an X too. And it would be pronounced as a spanish "J". Example: Me-hee-co, Te-has. Personal sidenote here: It's excruciatingly painful hearing americans pronounce ex Spanish/Mexican territories. The worst one is Los Angeles. Thank god some people just say "LA"
@@pabloalvez915 my mother was there when over night the got there independence. Spanish citizens we given just 24 hours to leave. When i was a kid I remember a guy in my town in spain that had a large scar on his face. My mother told me that he refused to leave and was struck in the face with a machete. Thankfully a Spanish soldier intervened to stop him from being killed. He was put onto a ship and sent back to Spain.
What you lightly touched on here but needed to discuss more was the fact that Spanish aristocrats intentionally refused to reform Spain from an agrarian to an industrial society; they were deeply invested in the status quo as landed gentry. The entire economy atrophied as its colonial peers entered a new industrial age. When Spain's colonial subjects in South America pushed back against its strict control over economic production, and advocated for industrial reform, Spain's crack down and the subsequent revolutions reached a scale and brutality unseen in North America. Spain again and again floundered because those in power became a cancer preventing the empire from evolving over time.
The Mediterranean peninsulas (Iberia, Italy, the Balkans) have always had, since the end of the feudal era, more problems to trade with central Europe, where the largest mass of population is, with fertile lands and little heat. Historically, a Spaniard, an Italian, a Portuguese or a Greek have to travel 40-50 days by horse-drawn carriage to reach the markets of the Netherlands or Germany. A Frenchman crosses the border from Germany or Switzerland and comes home for dinner. That's not competitive for us. It is worse for the entire African Maghreb, of course. Isolation. Like the one the Vikings or the Germans had, when Rome was prosperous. That is changing now with air conditioning, air travel, the Internet, all over the world. But between the XVI-XX centuries it was a difficulty. Even within Spain, Italy or France, the north, better connected, rainier, with river routes, has always been richer than the south. In addition, Spain had two colossal investments. 70% of the wealth of America stayed there in the 16th-17th centuries, to build a western society (80% in the 18th century) while our competitors (England, the Netherlands, France) took almost all the plants from their empires to London, Amsterdam or Paris, without investing almost nothing until the 20th century in countries like India, Indonesia or Africa. The other colossal Spanish investment was the 200-year war (1500-1700) to save the Catholic religion against 5 European powers. Today Catholicism is the majority religion in countries like South Germany-Palatinate, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Malta, Italy (where we had a NATO with more than 50 fortresses)... because we invested almost the other 20-30% in Europe. Furthermore, we could not sell products to countries at war with us, which were the most prosperous. All these problems generate less investment, perpetuating political models around the world. He thinks that the United States withdrew from Afghanistan after 25 years of war against some third world guerrillas, because of the great cost of the war. Spain was like this for 200 years, invading Rome, Paris, Cologne, Florence, Amsterdam... Nobody was an industrialist before 1770-1800. Germany, Austria, Sweden France, were very rural countries at the beginning of the 19th century. Only England and Holland had an invested bourgeoisie. Because? Because they had two business empires. For them it was lawful to take all the wealth and not invest. The first university in British India is in 1857. The Dutch only made one university in their empire in 300 years (Indonesia 1946, 2 years before independence). Spain made 40 universities in the world. But that is why we have a legacy greater than those empires: the world's second mother tongue, after Chinese, and 800 million Catholics.
@@Gloriaimperial1 Thanks for adding much-needed clarity, Gloriaimperial1. The issue of Spain's empire is perhaps the most complex among all other modern world empires, largely because what Spain attempted to do in the late 15th and early 16th-century had never been attempted before to such a global scale. From the first circumnavigation of the world, the establishment of the first transoceanic global trade network, the establishment of the first global currency network as well as the establishment of the oldest universities and religious institutions outside of Europe, not to mention the global foodstuff revolution Spain sponsored via the Columbian Exchange (without which entire genres of world cuisine would not even exist as we know them today), the pioneering role of Spain's empire was the transformative agent that ultimately set the stage for the interconnected modern global society of today and laid down the global prototype in whose footsteps everyone else would be inspired to follow. And I think the reason for this is that what Spain was attempting was not just the creation of a network of trade outposts, but rather the establishment of a whole new global society- a culturally, linguistically, financially, and economically interconnected one- while, at the same time, dealing with the maelstrom of European political and religious upheaval Spain was at the center of during the High Renaissance. How Spain was able to bankroll and invest in this epic global endeavor from the Renaissance until the dawn of the twentieth century is one of the epic feats of world history.
@@valsainking I very much agree with your comment. I can hardly add anything else, because it is very complete. The Roman Empire is a clear antecedent of the Spanish Empire. There is also an influence of the Reconquista: Christians from the north were populating the old Islamized cities of central and southern Spain, and founding Christian civil, religious and military institutions, to create Christian roots, which would prevent a return to Islam, with all society supporting Christianization and participating in the army and traditions. A bit of that happened in America and the Philippines: the Reconquest was very recent, and the first conquerors had in their mind that all religions that were not Christian-Catholic would be a source of problems and disputes, among the so-called "heretics". and those who believed there was only one true religion. So the conquest was made by mixing everything (culture, economy, miscegenation, religion) as you have said.
@@Gloriaimperial1 This isn't my history, but I'm guessing from your page that it's definitely yours. I'm concerned that this narrative is feeding directly into your political ideology, and as a result this isn't history to you, it's a tool. So I don't think we can have a proper conversation about this; I'll just hit a brick wall of nationalism. But before I go: Spain and its desire for empire profoundly shaped the world and left an indelible impact that remains to this day. However, even if we look past the profound brutality of Spain's quest for empire, let's look at the budding colonies left after the ashes and blood had settled. By 1800, Spanish America is on the rise and thriving (well done Spain you did it, gold star for you 🌟). They're doing well, they're flirting with industrialization, and they're adopting the republican spirit of the times. Spain tried to crush these ambitions, ones that would have benefited them as well, because they were wedded to their own feudal, manorial traditions. Spain's aristocracy is so incompetent, detached, indulgent, and inbred at this time that they fumble the bag. This is known historical truth. Read any biography of Ferdinand VII or historical work detailing his reign (I have). Hell, you can go to his Wikipedia page and it'll tell you that his rule was grounded in reactionary policies that lost him almost all of Spain's colonial holdings in the Americas. In his first year of rule, Napoleon crosses the Pyrenees and dunks on Ferdinand. When he takes power again in 1813, he rejects the liberal constitution and proceeds to run the empire even further into the ground: Pure inbred-levels of incompetence. Spain had a chance to enter and compete with other colonial powers in the 19th century, but instead of adapting to the times, they held on to the past with a vice like drip and tried to strangle their colonies in the process. Now all Spain has is its memories of days long gone.
@@benb405 Your comment is interesting. But I believe that the passage from the enlightened despotism of the 18th century (complicated by a Napoleonic invasion) to the 19th century, the supposed modern and democratic world, is more complicated than it seems. The work of the Spanish Bourbons and their ministers, from 1700-1808, was very good. The 18th century was a time of prosperity, with the creation of artistic and literary academies (although art and literature was poorer than in the 16th-17th century, which was a golden century of culture). But many scientific and cultural institutions were created. Reinvestment in America and the Philippines was increased, from 70% to 80%, creating more universities, more hospitals, more infrastructure and a system of economic and resource balance, like the European Union, to benefit all viceroyalties, without bad agricultural competition. or mining. It surely wasn't perfect, in that land of 6,000 meter mountain ranges, rainforests, tropical diseases, deserts, volcanoes and millions of indigenous people. All this is always easier to do in Europe or Australia, full of resources, but very sparsely populated. All the Spanish viceroys of America and officials, at the end of their mandate, had to submit to a residency trial, to judge all their work as viceroys, so that even the last indigenous peasant could file a lawsuit for some injustice. I know that this paternalistic regime was becoming stagnant, as you say, next to the new republican or liberal ideas of other countries. But the world controlled by the British, the Dutch and the French was basically a factory, without mixing races, without making any sacrifice to get people out of the third world, a much worse world. The prosperity and modernity that you can see in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands at that time was based on the fact that their empires were very poor. 90% of the Commonwealth is very poor: India, Botswana, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, even Jamaica, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago (Latin American area). Haiti, Indonesia, Algeria... they had no interest in improving people's lives, the main idea was trade (even social Darwinism: the brown races are inferior, we can steal from them), so, the wealth went to London , Amsterdam and Paris until almost the 20th century: that creates a lot of prosperity and a lot of modernity in the metropolis, but little in India. Latin America is in the Western world. America was a very peaceful land during the 300 years of the continental Spanish empire, at least after the conquests of Peru and Mexico. Compare that period, with some Mapuche rebellion or some tribe in Mexico, with rebellious, sexist and violent chiefs, who did not want to submit to Western civilization (and some British incursion, defeated in the Caribbean, which did not intend to improve the life of the people, just making money), with the previous 2000 years of human sacrifices in America, and the subsequent 200 years, of revolutions, wars between brother countries, guerrillas, dictatorships and violence. The passage from the enlightened despotism of the 18th century to the so-called modern world of liberalism and the bourgeoisie of the 19th century is a very cruel time, which even in France had up to 6 regime changes, with four revolutions. Even quiet England, defended by the island, had hundreds of thousands of children aged 5-12 working in the coal mines for endless days, sometimes for a plate of food, until 1850. France was very rural until 1945. Germany and Austria were not industrial at all, before 1800 and even 1850. During the Napoleonic invasion, Spain made the constitution of Cádiz 1812, the most advanced of the time, very modern, influential in many countries in Europe. That constitution is annihilated by a French army sent by the Congress of Vienna (Germany, Austria, England) to eliminate "modernity in Spain." In any case, it must be admitted that when we change an absolutist monarch or a dictator anywhere in the world, a lot of revolutions and ambitious personalities are born. That step is never smooth. This was the case in Spain, Germany, Austria, France, Russia, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Korea, China... And that's what happened in America. The libertarian, independence ideas, which were going to change Latin America, became 10 or 12 rich families of landowners, in each republic, corrupted with the money of England and France, who reactivated slavery. Few people know that the majority of the soldiers of the Spanish army during the wars of independence were indigenous people, who were more afraid of the elitist liberators than of the Spanish administration so influenced by the paternalistic Catholic church.
@@User-wh1ff Where did the money go? I think all gold and wealth was siphoned off to Northern Italy, Austria and Switzerland. The rulers were not even Spanish! They wasted huge sums on useless, futile wars on the continent. They did not expand Spain's actual economy.
@@karloliver4949 Well it was stolen by pirates and privateers for the French, Dutch and British crossing the ocean. It was even being stolen between Barcelona and Madrid. What got there was wasted on useless wars trying to roll back protestantism and Islam. Yes, they damaged their local farming economy with exotic foods like wine and other things being imported. By 1600 they were really kind of dead man walking in European politics.
-"You see, the Roman Republic had a troubled relationship with Carthage and tensions began when Hannibal besieged Saguntum..." - "But I only want to know about the fall of the Spanish Empire" -"WE'LL GET THERE WHEN WE GET THERE"
@@Spartan265 17th century is golden century for dutch. Dutchmen would be upset if they see your comment :d. I personally love how a relatively small country like Netherlands managed to build an enormous colonial empire. I wish they chose more of french-like colonial rule for their policies which they chose more of a trade-centered policy. That's why Indonesians don't know more than maybe 5 words in dutch today.
@@tranium67 they inheritated it becoming the first global power after spain by 1800 after winnig a 100 year conpetition against France for that title since the fall of hegemonic Spain in 1715
In a way, the Spanish Empire was a continuation of the Reconquista. The same soldiers and clergy who sought to take back Christian lands quickly proceeded to convert the the Americas and the Pacific, whose inhabitants they initially thought were Indians and Moors, respectively (see the “Moros” of the Philippines).
@@josecipriano3048 Complete buffoon. You understand spain was first attacked by muslims and the spanish simply pushed them back and reclaimed their land? Dont you see how that shaped their culture and made them see themselves as defenders and expanders of christendom?
Technically you could argue that the Spanish Empire truly ended after Spain lost their few colonies in Africa. These included small territories in northern and western Morocco, Spanish Sahara, and Spanish Guinea.
If "empires" are defined controlling other countries, then your are right, however, there are cultural, linguistics and historical, legal, and institutional factors as well, and those have not gone away - and that is Spain's legacy to the World.
The fall of the Spanish Empire apart from factors such as the Napolionic wars, the Empire collapsed because it reached the maximum limit of control, taking into account that in its maximum extension (between 1770 and 1800) the population of the metropolis had only between 10 and 11 million. population.
Spain incorporated the peoples they conquered. While the Anglos just killed the native populations to populate the lands with Europeans. Big difference in the mentality of empires. Spain integrated their empire. This video is written by an Anglo point of view. Of conquering and replacing natives with Europeans.
Yep, no empire lasts forever. I think that's especially true during periods of rapid technological and societal change, massive institutions like governments just aren't very flexible at their core.
@@Alexander-tu3iv on the other hand, once they accept loss of ambition and power, the door opens to quality of life. The cuisine develops, the fine arts flourish, more of the populace contributes to the improvements
Salute from Cartagena,New Grenada. The city that Admiral Blas de Lezo defended with 6 ships and a few hundred men against the largest British Armada till D-day 🇨🇴🏴🇪🇸
@@josecipriano3048 my last name is Villarreal. My family was original land owners in Colombia or at the time New Grenada. We still own the Spanish barracks in the old city. If you ever come on vacation check out Las Bovedas. Had the city fallen to the English we would of lost all our land.
@@imdarkghost7195 “built a lot of universities, cities schools” That’s what all empires do including other European colonial empires. The British built cities, universities and colonial administrations across the colonies they founded.
As a Honduran, we’ve always been told that the Napoleonic invasion was one of the causes for the independence fights in the Americas. Now we know that Spain itself was paving the way centuries before.
At least in Honduras they have better education, here in Guatemala they tell us that the Spanish were always the bad guys, when they literally founded the country and the provinces that it was, and here they idolize to the indigenous
@@SpanishSkeleton777Bro your Name says it all. Spain had many invasion but you don't see them glorifying the Romans, Arabic, Vikings ect. If it wasn't for Arabics Spain Wouldn't have the History it has today. But the Spanish won't admit it. Being the trading center of great Empires in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Spain benefited greatly and thus them being the first ones to introduce it to the Americas, when they set sail to what they would think is the Hindis or India.
@@SpanishSkeleton777 "-founded the country" Yeah, you're right, Guatemala's educational system is ass. Considering you think colonization is "founding" something. Also, "idolize to the indigenous," uh yeah? Considering half of the country is of Maya heritage, they won't be too keen on "idolizing" the people who colonized them.
@@cuahtemoc7642 Pero de que estas hablando, me puedes decir que tiene de árabe la España del siglo XV, es una civilización formada en contra del moro, España es el país del mundo que mas cerdo come, simplemente por que los musulmanes no comen cerdo, y así con todo.
@@world_mem7567 Well all Spanish speaking countries GPD combined is less than 6 trillion. On par with Japan and Germany lol. Anyways, number of speakers is irrelevant if they don’t have economic or military might.
This video shows very little knowledge of the Spanish Empire and the independence of the American territories. The independence was carried out by the conservative elites in America that refused the liberal changes that were being adopted in Spain. These elites wanted above all to maintain their own status and the power of catholic church (Many revolutionaries like the "father of Mexico" the priest Hidalgo were conservative Catholics). That's why many historians claim that it was Spain who became independent of the old Empire.
haha you are very stupid, Hidalgo was always a defender of the indigenous people, he spoke 3 indigenous languages, he was an an abolicionist, next to him morelos and matarmoros, were looking for rights, justice equality, the spanish empire was a cancer, and there is nothing more beatuful in this world than the soon extincion of the spanish culture.
@@mexicoxv2236 Tu si que eres tonto si deseás la extinción de una cultura, eso es lo que tendrían que haber hecho los españoles con la cultura de los habitantes de México cuando llegaron así no habría imbéciles cómo tu diciendo estas tontearías, al contrario de lo que tu quieres para los españoles. Los españoles cuando conquistaron los imperios indígenas por lo menos les permitió vivir mantener sus costumbres (menos las bárbaras como la de sacrificar y comer gente) y tradujeron y escribieron sus idiomas para que no se perdiesen. Eres tan lamentable... Tus antepasados se avergonzarían de ti si viesen en lo que se ha convertido su descendencia.
@@Alex-mh1pj @Alex tu comentario eres tu diciendonos que eres un lame botas de los colonizadores sin decirme que eres un lame botas. "Costumbres barbaras" como si la esclavitud, genocidio, violac*ones y el saqueo que cometieron los colonizadores no fuesen conductas barbaricas.
@@Terry_Bell Te falta una de cultura grande a ti eh Eres el típico de los estereotipos, que no sabe nada sobre el periodo colonial pero que se pasea por internet diciendo que si ladrones, violadores etx etc México a día de hoy es exactamente eso que describes, ladrones violadores etc etc Te parece justo representar asi lo que es México?? O son estereotipos?... Inculto.
12:58 the Spanish territories didn’t have a slow growth compared to the Brits ones due to “military expansion” as you say, but due to the whole system it was based on: mixing native population with Spanish people to grow a native colonial population, as opposed to hundreds of ships carrying thousands of Brits to the British colonies. And the Spanish attitude towards indigenous had nothing to do with the British one: while the Spanish were about integrating them, the British were about exterminating them. Nor was the Spanish colonial system inferior of the British one, as a matter of fact the British one was mainly based on the Spanish one. As for the Spanish American colonies will of independence, it came following Napoleon’s brother handling of Spain and its territories in the beginning of the 19th century. Yes, I am picking on some things, but you see I am a certified historian specialist on the subject, and I can’t stand some UA-camr saying things untrue. 13:10 the sole reason for the Spanish empire to fall had nothing to do with Spanish monarchs, but with Napoleon and his brother at the beginning of the 19th century and the civilian turmoil that ensued during all the 19th century.
That's what I felt even though I don't have much knowledge on this topic. Been to english speaking countries, didn't see much natives. Spanish speaking countries, full of native people and culture. I guess the best way to conquer is massacre😅 😅😅 Oh and "the European disease killed them all" theory seems didn't apply to central and south America😂
So the Spanish didn't burn indigenous people alive, set viscious dogs after them; never massacred huge communities of innocent people? I see they married the locals, treated them kindly and everyone lived happily ever after.
Very interesting video. I agree with most of it. But there are some things that I would like to comment, that I don't agree with, or things that were omitted. The Americas didn't revolted just because of negligence alone, it's true but also over-simplifying. It's not mentioned that Spain at that time was being invaded and razed to the ground by the French, and all its treasure, industries and cities pillaged by the French and British combined (easy way to remove the competitors, right?). Also, the British Empire financed the revolts in the Spanish America, and helped the rebels with soldiers and warships (just like Spain did with the British colonies in the past, let's call it a revenge mixed with opportunity). Failed to mention too, that the British took all the gold from Buenos Aires and Lima in the process, and the new countries that formed owed a lot of loan money to British banks, who applied abusive commissions and interests, and was nevertheless paid over time (in contrast, USA owed money to France and Spain for their help, but never paid back). Well, it's hard to make a country prosper when it's attacked in all fronts for centuries by its viciously competitive neighbors, and very easy to say "it's just because they are laid-back people". The myth of the lazy South European... Like that time Merkel told that the Spanish had too many vacations, when the average Spanish worker works more hours than the German average worker. Spain was a big cake, that over time the competing empires took piece by piece when the opportunity presented itself. The British Empire and their allies won the long term war, so now they have the right to say their system was superior and that's why it worked, when in reality it's not that simple. 12:28 that's a little bit biased too. This is a fact: at that time the Spanish colonies were far more prosper and richer. There was a time when the British colonists nearly die from starvation. These colonists weren't prepared with specialized labor, but they were throwed away from Briton because they were poor, or criminals, or pariahs. So, while the British colonists were struggling to survive in the north, the Spanish colonies in the south had specialized engineers, botanics, miners and farmers who built roads, universities, bridges, new cities, ports and maritime defenses, hospitals (which were free to use by all), farms and mines to make the colonies self-sufficient and productive. That's why 80% of the extracted gold and precious minerals stayed in the Spanish America, to invest in its infrastructure. And that's why the British Empire armada and corsairs tried so many times to raid and conquer the Spanish American port cities, succeeding sometimes. Say again, because they were richer and prosper. It's also a little bit biased to say the native Americans had poor relations with the Spanish, based only on the conquest process. You have to remember it was a military alliance with different native tribes that could conquer the Aztecs and the Incans. A few hundred spaniards (that weren't even military at first) wouldn't conquer the Incan and Aztec empires alone; these native empires, the Aztecs and the Incans, were very powerful, and had hundreds of thousands soldiers. Even with technological disadvantage, a musketeer cannot win against 100 angry swordmen. Without the military and logistic help of opposing groups, like the Tlaxcalans for example, without diplomacy, conquest wouldn't have been possible there. Many native American chieftains that allied with Spain were granted nobility titles, representation in the Spanish court, freedom to manage their chiefdoms as dukes and freedom of movement. Moreover, during the XVI century laws were stablished to grant native Americans equal rights, declaring them free subjects, just like a peninsula spaniard, something that triggered the revolt of the abusive encomenderos. Also it was stablished tools to protect native americans from abuses, like the "protectores de indios" (indian protectors) to defend their cases as advocates against those who were accused of abusing them, and worked many times (ended with some spaniards decapitated). Interracial mixing (mestizaje) and marriage with natives was promoted, that helped to stabilize the region. The inquisition was completely forbidden to open cases against indians. Worker salaries were bigger than in many European countries. And a big forgotten etcetera. It wasn't perfect, it failed many times, but for some centuries it worked. Now it's me that sounds biased lol
Your last paragraph is just hilarious. Based on the fact that the Spaniard colonies fought a 100-year-old war just to kick you out of America (1809-1898), your claims are nonsensical. Do you realize just how much people hated you and despised you (around the 19 century of course)?
La guerra de independencia de la América continental sólo dura 15 años. Hubo movimientos anteriores por la independencia, por supuesto, por parte de los ilustrados. Pero eran una minoría. Son ilustrados porque España creó allí una civilización occidental, con universidades, hospitales, el Renacimiento, la cultura. Es como la Guerra de Independencia de los Estados Unidos. Ellos también tienen una forma de vida occidental, con cultura y tecnología europeas. La diferencia es que España incluía todas las razas, aunque había castas sociales, a veces basadas en el color de la piel, pero el dinero podía romperse, ya que hay negros ricos enterrados en la antigua catedral de Panamá, del siglo XVII, descendientes de esclavos, y muchos libertadores fueron criollos de clase alta, como el mismo Simón Bolívar. También fue una guerra civil. Los más pobres y los indígenas, en su mayoría, se sentían mejor protegidos por la administración del imperio español, que por las 7 u 8 familias criollas y terratenientes. Fue el terror de los independentistas, y la también violenta respuesta de España lo que polarizó a la sociedad. España venía de una devastadora guerra contra Napoleón, que hundió nuestra economía en un 80%. De lo contrario hubiera sido mucho más difícil lograr la independencia a corto plazo. 150-200 años después de la independencia aún había guerrillas luchando contra las injusticias sociales, en las selvas de Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua... El proceso de independencia me parece inevitable, como el de Australia o Canadá o Argelia, Vietnam, Angola, Indonesia, porque son tierras alejadas de la metrópoli. Los que no pudieron independizarse hasta el siglo XX fueron los pobres de India o África, porque no tenían herramientas culturales, apenas habían recibido aporte civilizador de los imperios británico, holandés o francés, porque eran de otra raza (comerciales). imperios). Después de la Independencia, América Latina fue un juguete de británicos y franceses, que sólo buscaban concesiones económicas, que les otorgaba todo caudillo ambicioso, y luego de Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética: se dividió el territorio, estallaron golpes de Estado. , guerrillas, tensión social, guerras entre países hermanos, narcotráfico, delincuencia rampante... Todo el planeta ha tenido esta tensión al pasar de un gobierno autoritario, con una sola persona (un rey o un emperador al mando) a una democracia , donde todos quieren gobernar. Pero en América Latina ha sido muy sangriento. El imperio español ya había hecho su legado en 1800, que es lo que une a Hispanoamérica hoy, para ser un día potencia, y el resto era tiempo extra. Fue un período de paz de 300 años, en el que solo hubo algunas revueltas mapuche o apaches, y algunas batallas para repeler a los ingleses en la costa, de las que casi nadie sabía nada. Pero se acercaba otro momento.
@@Gloriaimperial1 blablabla. Para su informacion, caballero. Comienza el 10 de agosto de 1809 en Quito-Ecuador y termina con la guerra de independencia de Cuba (1895), la "guerra" hispano-estadounidense (de tan solo 3 meses), la debacle de la Armada "invencible" Espaniola en Santiago de Cuba (masacrada por los acorazados Americanos), la rendicion incondicional de Espania y la firma del Tratado de Paris el 10 de diciembre de 1898. Ese fue el final de la "gloria imperial" (la ironia es magnifica) de Espania y el final de las guerras de independencia en el continente Americano. Punto y ahorrece la verborrea.
@@marioboada7424 Sí, y tu bla, bla, bla. Ya sabes que nunca se escribe para una sola persona en UA-cam. Ni siquiera me molestaría en contestar de otra manera. La armada invencible es de 1588, para tu información. Un año después España derrotó a la armada invencible inglesa de Drake en 1589, sin tormentas, hundiendo y capturando 80 barcos. La guerra de independencia continental duró 15 años. 1809-1825. El resto de guerras de independencia en América suma 14 años. No 100 ni 90. En total 30 años de guerra en el siglo XIX. Conflictos armados en Cuba 1850-1851 Guerra de los Diez Años 1868-1878 Guerra de Independencia cubana 1895-1898 La gloria imperial, ignorante, es que dominamos Europa durante 200 años, contra 5 potencias: Francia, Inglaterra, Paises Bajos, Alemania protestante y el imperio turco, haciendo el siglo de oro, salvando el catolicismo, participando en el Renacimiento y llenando el continente europeo de palacios y universidades. También descubrimos tres continentes, dimos la vuelta al mundo y tenemos el mayor legado mundial. Y tuvimos algún lugar con bananas (no todo América, donde hicimos universidades) sino donde vive usted.. Habrá que ver lo que dura el glorioso imperio de Estados Unidos. El imperio español duró 406 años. 200 años como primera potencia mundial, y 300 como imperio más grande del mundo. Estados Unidos comenzó en 1945, y antes de 2040, ya estará China como primera potencia. Luego la India y luego la Unión Europea, antes de final de siglo. Ahora vaya a comerle la banana a los anglosajones.
Spanish empire collapsed because Spain was conquered by Napoleon. Its kind of hard for colonies to see you as its “master” when you have been whooped and occupied by another country. All the revolutions in Spanish colonies happened after they saw Spain defeated in the battlefield and exposed as a weak country
The Prussia that followed 'Frederic the Great' was also conquered by Napoleon. Not only, the 'Holy Roman Germanic Empire' ceased to exist as result of its defeat against Napoleon... No, Spain didn't collapsed because of Napoleon, it collapsed for the same reason a typical lottery winner gets ruined in a decade, fucked up decisions from day 1.
whattttttttt, If Napoleon killed all the Iberians, we would have been very happy, after the hordes of France destroyed the Spanish army, there was no reason to pay taxes to those bastards.
In history, there is no absolute truth, but several interpretations of the same facts. However, even taking this into account, I have to say that I feel very partial about your video on the collapse of the Spanish Empire, you probably only take into account the bibliographic sources from the British point of view of history, since things were not so disastrous From the beginning, as you show here, not all the kings and economic systems of Spain from the 15th to the 18th centuries were so bad. For something Spain was a power for several centuries and if it were as such, it would not have been like that. First of all, the Spanish empire encompassed in its maximum extension, half of Europe, several territories of Africa, Portugal (yes, everything that belonged to Portugal, including Brazil and its territories in Oceania) and several Pacific islands (all that without counting to the Holy Germanic Empire), but here only shows Latin America and the Philippines on the general map (0:33) and the European territories show them separately, avoiding understanding the true extension. Second, the decline of the Empire has to be divided into 2, one in the last reigns of the Habsburgs and the other with the Bourbons. The two cannot be put as a whole, since they did not have the same causes, although you explain some of them well. With the former, the decline begins in the reign of Philip III, not in the reign of Charles I (fifth of the Holy Empire), while with the Bourbons, despite the territorial losses in the war of Spanish succession, there was a recovery economic that led the Empire to stay until the death of King Charles III, since his successors were very bad kings. The last funny mistake, is that you say that the Spanish colonial model was bad and that it did not attract the population (12:15); This was not necessary since the Spanish model was based on mixing with the local population and not on attracting a labor force from abroad. All the colonial kingdoms wanted to copy the Spanish model, since in America, the cities were comparable to what there was in Europe, for being a successful system, although increasingly corrupt. The real reason why the independence movements began in America was not because of dissatisfaction with the policies of the Iberian Peninsula, which there was, but not with such intensity as to rebel, and less because of bad relations with the natives; The real causes were the Napoleonic Invasion and later, the British financing to the separatist sectors in the colonies (caused by the French occupation of Spain), as revenge for the help that Spain provided to the 13 colonies a few decades ago. But of course, that should not be said because it contradicts the British version of events, the independence of the United States if it was due to the inefficiency of the administration, so it is wrong for you to put it above the Spanish one (12:30).
The Spanish model was on mixing with the locals ...you are deluded. Mexican and other native countries had no intention of mixing with Spain ,and still hate the Spanish.
3 роки тому+52
@@actionnotwords6344 What are you talking about? If it were as you say, it would not have lasted the 400 years that it ultimately was; from the beginning there was a mixture, less in the administration which was what ultimately led to their disputes, but it was above all with the Bourbons in power. And the hatred you speak of is something intentionally taught in Latin American countries after all, because the independencies never had the full support of the population and because of them there was so much fragmentation in leadership, not like in the 13 colonies (which led to the separation in so many countries). The native nations you speak of ceased to exist with the conquest, to be small political entities that coexisted with the administration of the Viceroyalties, what existed since then were mestizo nations such as Mexico.
@ Do you think the Aztecs or any other native their ,likes Spanish conquistadors taking away their culture ,even the Inca ? You are deluded.
3 роки тому+52
@@actionnotwords6344 Well, nobody says the same to the Romans, who literally did the same and in the end history has shown that these changes are part of the human being, to evolve and be better. When I look at what is now in Latin American countries, I see more cultural diversity than there will ever be in Anglo-Saxon countries like yours, because at least if something of the natives remained, we mixed; meanwhile the English, French and Dutch did not do the same, even in the United States they continue to have problems with the African American population, due to these difficulties in mixing. The Aztecs and the Incas or the cultures of America, have not been the only ones in all of humanity to be absorbed by other powers. In the end it doesn't matter what happened because it already happened; what matters in the end is that the world of now has been reached because of what happened and regretting it is a waste of time. What is wrong is to stop seeing history in a non-objective way and see it as something of good and bad, which is an absolute lie, in addition to criticizing the facts with the current mentality.
@ Of course they say it to the Romans! Do you think the Roman was welcomed into the countries,no they invaded and were resisted. Some countries surrendered others fought and kept out of their pagan influence. Interesting is that the same country or city of Rome gave the Spanish permission to go and invade the Americas with the Pope's blessing. All of the Latin countries are a complete mess,they destroyed local culture,but not replace it with anything better, totally corrupt ,con homicidios de mas! Uno verdadeiro vergonha,pueblo sofrido ademas con a benção de Vaticano ainda! Mexicanos odeia mestiços y negro,os familias descendents espanois desfrutam Todo vantagem y el pueblo nativo ganar NADA
I believe we were the last strong hold of the Spanish empire the Philippines especially my city Iloilo. They transferred the capital from Manila to Iloilo City when there was a widespread rebellion in Manila. The legacy of the Spanish empire can still be seen in our towns. The massive baroque Churches and houses of our Ancestors, the Fiestas, culture and foods all relate back to Spanish era instead of the USA. Queen Isabella even declared our city "Muy Leal y Noble Ciudad de Iloilo." Churches were built in the 16th-18th centuries. We don't call them Spanish we call them Kastila (Castille). Many families with Spanish descent still there we call them Mestizo/Mestiza. Our Ancestors have ill feelings to the abusive Friars but they have never forgotten the legacy they left behind. Every year we still celebrate the anniversary of their last years in our islands. Corruptions is one of the legacy as we can see in all countries under Spanish empire. But I'm sure we do celebrate the good than the bad. Thanks for sharing this story. We never learned about it in my Spanish class.
Your actual problem with corruption now a days is more correlated with you being a puppet of the USA, the contry that killed millions of philippines to reduce the spanish culture in your islands, rather than coming from spain
but all videos from the spanish empire have missleading info and lies. Most common thing they do is not to showing full spanish empire territories, such as having almost the entire US
There's a very important inaccuracy in the video--the British colonies were not better administered than the Spanish viceroyalties in the Americas. The viceroyaltues were not in fact neglected, but enjoyed a semi-autonomy, that was reigned in whenever a new viceroy was appointed, as well as its deputy administrators. In fact the Spanish Empire grew its Empire in east Asia/the Pacific, and North America with Mexico City as its administrative base. Mexico had its first university while Boston was still forest. It also had the largest religious, cultural, artistic movements, and military at the time. So much so, New Spain helped the American colonists drive off the British from the southern colonies in military campaigns while the French did in the north. (And why European powers thought Mexico would emerge victorious over the U.S. during the Mexican-American War). The viceroyalty of New Spain and Peru were in fact given equal weight as states within the empire as the kingdoms in Spain itself. The same with Sicily as southern Italy was also a viceroyalty and sometimes viceroys were exchanged between the viceroyalties. And it's also not quite true, there was no immigration to the viceroyalties at this time. In fact Mexico in particular received a lot of Spanish immigration as well as French (2nd most common), Italian, Balkan, etc. The French in particular established many Mexican customs and influenced food and music, and even helped lead to the so called Pastry War of the early 1800s. Mexico City was a very polyglot place. So was Manila (the Philippines were administered through Mexico City). In fact New Spain aka Mexico was the most powerful state in the Americas given that it was nearly 200 years older than the British colonies. It did have large settlements--actually cities. Puebla, Guanajuato, Leon, Zacatecas, Guadalajara, Valladolid (Morelia at present), Oaxaca, Veraruz, Acapulco, etc. They were in fact quite populated--Mexico City was the largest city in the Americas and larger than nearly all European cities save for Constantinople. The British colonies were colonies, while the Spanish territories were semiautonomous viceroyalties. Peru, and the viceroyalties of Colombia/New Granada (which included Venezuela) also had important centers. Peru supplied most of the silver to the Empire during the 1500s. Thereafter from the 1600s onwards New Spain (largely Mexico) supplied Spain with most of the silver the following 2 centuries. And it was from that silver that the Spanish real or piece of eight was created from, used as the world's first reserve currency. In fact when the royal palace, the Alcazar burned down in Madrid in the mid 1700s, Mexico contributed a large portion of silver towards its reconstruction. By the time the Empire was ending as Napolean invaded first Portugal (causing the Portuguese royal family to move to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil), then Spain, the Spanish king chose to also move his court to Mexico City. However, his son helped lead an uprising, literally stopping him en route to the New World. Instead they captured him, then both were captured and held captive by Napolean. My point in all of this is the viceroyalties were far from neglected. They were important cash cows, and also important centers of commerce, monetary policy (and minting), trade, diplomacy, culture, and bases for expansion of the Empire to other parts of the globe. By that point in fact Mexico had better living conditions than most of northern Europe. The main reason the Empire fell apart boiled down to one thing--Napolean invading Spain. Was there discontent in the viceroyalties before? Yes, but it's possible that with reforms the Spanish planned to carry out, the viceroyalties would have continued as part of the Empire. Napoleans invasion catapulted the revolutionary movements of independence.
I've read somewhere that a big reason for Spain's economic hardships was the huge influx of gold and silver from the Amreicas, causing a huge inflation at home that crushed economic growth and innovation.
Spain reinvested 70% of American wealth in America to build a Western society. Almost the other 30% was for the endless war in Europe between 1500-1700, almost always simultaneously against France (Catholic-Huguenot), England (Anglican), Protestant Germany (Lutheran), the Netherlands (Calvinist) and the Turkish Empire (Islamic). , and occasionally Sweden, Denmark and revolts in Italy, Portugal and Catalonia, as well as wars against Morocco, the Philippines, Apaches, Mapuches, Berber pirates... Spain managed to save the Catholic religion in southern Germany, the German Palatinate, France (Spanish invasion of Paris in 1590), Belgium and Luxembourg, and Italy (Spanish NATO in Italy for 450 years, mainly against the Turks). It was a continuous war economy. Inflation? After 1715, with the Bourbon dynasty, gold and silver arrived in greater quantity, but there was no inflation, and the 18th century was a time of prosperity and global growth for Spain. We even increased reinvestment in America to 80%. The reason for that prosperity? There was no longer a war in Europe against 5 European powers, to save the Catholic religion and the Mediterranean civilization, preventing the Protestant advance on Rome, Madrid and Lisbon. That was settled. Empires like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands did not have that civilizing commitment in America. Almost all the wealth of India or Indonesia and Africa went to London and Amsterdam, greatly benefiting central Europe. Spain always had problems exporting to central Europe. A Spanish, Greek or southern Italian merchant had to travel 1,000 or 2,000 km to reach those European markets. A French person has always had a border with Switzerland, Germany, Belgium... and very close to the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. That made the Mediterranean countries less competitive. Before the wealth was in the Mediterranean, and the people of Germany or Sweden, were less competitive, in Roman times.
With that trouble, they then took that silver and gold wealth to their colonies and outposts in the Philippines to trade with China and Japan for porcelain, silk, and spices. The Chinese took on so much silver that they went into economic depression. The situation was so bad, Japan said 'not us buddy' and closed their trade embassy and took on the policy of absolute isolationism.
@@mrrodriguezHLP There may be a reason in what you say. But the problem is more complex. Saudi Arabia or Qatar have black gold. They do not manufacture anything. Oil has been almost unlimited, and they have no poverty. Spain reinvested 70% of America's wealth in America, and almost the other 30% in our power in Italy and in the Spanish army in Europe, to save the Catholic Church. I am sure that if the money that the United States earns in the world, with its companies (Amazon, Coca-Cola, Hollywood, Google...) were invested 70% in another continent, and the other 30% in defending Ukraine and Afghanistan, they too would have an economic problem. There was no longer that problem of inflation in the 18th century (which was a century of prosperity for Spain, because it no longer had wars against 5 international powers) but we were unable to raise prosperity very, because we have always had a problem exporting to Europe, as Greece or southern Italy. For a French it is much easier (border with Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, rich northern Italy...) Anything that Spain created, had to be transported, in times of maritime war, to Germany, passing through France, which was at war with Spain. In America there was a ship industry, a metal industry, an arms industry, a construction industry...
Legacy of the Spanish Empire: Spanish Dollar: First World Currency (was widely used in Europe, the Americas, and the Far East) The Spanish Navy, heir to the Castile and Aragon navies, is one of the oldest in the world. The first to have regulations and standards for each warship that gave unity to the operation of the fleet. The one that made the discovery of America possible in 1492. The creator of the modern concept of naval convoy (Fleet of the Indies), in the 16th century. The first to circumnavigate the Earth: Magellan-Elcano Expedition (1519-1522). The discoverer of the trans-Pacific route between Asia and America: the Tornaviaje of Andrés de Urdaneta in 1565, and the establishment of the Manila Galleon. The creator of the world's first commercial route (between Cádiz and Manila): the Fleet of the Indies in the Atlantic, and the Manila Galleon in the Pacific. The Discover of the Pacific Ocean (1513) by Vasco Núñez de Balboa. The Creator and the first to use the marines (1537). The first to build churches, banks, universities and modern hospitals inside of american continent. The first to use frigates, at the end of the 16th century during the Eighty Years' War. The creator and first to use the gunboat (Antonio Barceló in 1779) First round the world by an armored ship carried out by the armored frigate Numancia (1865-1867). The first to have a destroyer in service (1887). The Destroyer, which gave its name to an entire saga, was designed by the Spanish naval officer Fernando Villaamil in 1885. The first to have a torpedo submarine invented by Isaac Peral in 1888 (the Peral submarine). Creator of the modern concept of amphibious landing (with battle tanks and a unified command for naval, land and air forces) put into practice in the Al Hoceima landing, resulting in absolute success and ending the Rif war (1925). The officers in charge of planning the Normandy landing (especially its chief executive, General Eisenhower), which marked the beginning of the end of World War II, thoroughly studied the strategy already employed by the Spanish Navy two decades earlier. The first navy in the world to use vertical take-off aircraft, specifically the Harrier AV-8A "Matador" on aircraft carriers, in this case on the Daedalus (R-01) (ex-USS Cabot). This practice later spread to other countries, specifically the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, Italy, India and Thailand. At present, Spain continues to operate with advanced versions of this type of V / STOL (Harrier II) aircraft.
I think the Pacific Ocean was discovered long before the Spanish got there - by the many peoples who lived around it! Saying the Spanish discovered the Pacific is very Eurocentric.
@@NIDOKING the Spaniards never killed the natives, that was the british. The Spaniards converted the natives into catholicism and made them learn spanish.
The revolution in New Spain (Mexico) that eventually paved the way to Mexican Independence, inspired the Philippines to also revolt against Spain. The Mexicans were the closest people to the Filipinos during those dark era. They even sent some weapons to help with the revolution. And in the WW II, they sent some military force to help their hermanos y hermanas en Filipinas to help with the new foreign aggressors.
Both countries rebelled at the behest of the Freemasons. If you look at the leaders of the Katipunan here in the Philippines, they were mostly Freemasons and wore occult symbolism and images that are closely tied to Freemasonry. History is far more interesting when you look at it deeper.
@@DarkPsychoMessiah The Mexicans were the ones who governed the philippines until their independence but most of the Spanish people who were in the philippines were mostly from Castile and Léon but the Mexicans did had a large influence especially corn and Dia de Los muertos.
@@AncientTruthSeeker yep, even America was founded by Freemasons. History is really interesting when you look deeper. There’s more to modern history than meets the eye. These guys have been running the show behind the scenes.
The reign of Isabel & Fernando was way more than “fairly admirable” they became the grandparents of Europe and the most important family, the Habsburgs respected their memory, and kept their Spanish traditions alive. Isabel and Fernando were living legends during their lifetimes.
Spain practically singlehandedly changed the course of history. If you look in almost any book regarding history of any European country, you will find in its index Spain or Spanish Empire in it.
Erasmus Darwin about Spanish Empire: In my travels through the vast Spanish empire, I have been amazed at how the Spaniards treat Indians, as similar, even forming mestizo families and creating hospitals and universities for them, I have met indigenous mayors and bishops and even the military, which results in the social peace, well-being and general happiness that we already want for ourselves in the territories that, with so much effort, we are taking from them. It seems that the London mists cloud our hearts and minds, while the clarity of sunny Spain makes you see and hear God better. Her lordships should consider the policy of depopulation and extermination since clearly the Spanish faith and intelligence are building, not like us an empire of death, but a civilized society that will finally end up imposing itself as by divine mandate. Spain is the wise Greece, the imperial Rome, England the Turkish corsair
You are based on a Darwin's 'post card' to define what the colonial Spain in America really was...? Spanish was anything but the enlightenment bullshit you claim. You ought to be delusional to ever justify the slightest association between the 'wise Greece' (humanistic and rational) with ultra-fundamentalist, brutal and uncompromising Catholicism led by the Spanish Inquisition. As for Spain as an empire, it is no more no less the Story of an individual who wins the lottery (America) and ends up completely ruined two decades down the road. Spain's imperialistic and economic concept was based exclusively upon power by conquest and warfare. Unlike the rest of Europe, Spain never thought it should be adapt to anything and with the surplus of gold and silver that extracted from America went on to dismantle its own industry and import everything (just like Hugo Chávez with his Venezuelan oil in the early two thousands), which first provoked a massive inflation, then a succession of bankruptcies that as explained in this video were exacerbated by yet more futile and ruinous wars. Holland was for Spain one hell of a Vietnam, just to name one total fuck up of an enterprise that end up with 6 bankruptcies in a row, under Philip II. To keep it short Spain has embodied an inoperative and decadent system ever since Charles V and more pathetic still, you still don't get it...
@@과자-z8o Fair enough. The way I see it, the big problem of Spain is not so much that they were brutal centuries ago (we all agree that that was the norm everywhere) but rather that they were both consistently and persistently moronic.
@@SVC-hz6dq it is. I'm peruvian and I can confirm spanish unlike brittish instead of separating natives, they did benefit blending. Most natives were given titles and land property which was lost after independence. You call brutal regime but spanish were the only ones who left universities, churches, roads and cities. Better read history, It's a common misconception even in latin america because goverments need to tell history so as long as it fits their interests
@@SVC-hz6dq again why there're millions of natives and languages well kept, why is that unlike the english world we hispanics instead of struggling with race we struggle with economy... look up at africa and why the french drained that continent or indonesia where the dutch never left anything build. All empires did separate the natives from european settlers while spanish were the ones who actually by the catholic crown gave natives rights...
@@sakura613 A lot of territory was highlighted in yellow, for a very long time.....But call the Spanish Empire a failure...Okay, but Napoleon, who ends in total defeat was the "triumph", I see who you dislike.
That's the thing. When we think of Rome we thinkg of the glory days and not of the fall. But when we think of Spain we thinkg of the last 50 years of the Empire instead of the two centuries of pure glory. The Spanish Empire lasted more than the american empire and the british supremacy of the world. Not even the Roman Empire lasted as long as Spain (countign as to it had to be split and had lots of interregnums).
@@juanjoseph The bit about Rome is not true at all! The Eastern half of the empire was still very much alive until the fall of Constantinople in the 1400s (some one thousand years after the fall of the West). A lot of people in modern days tend to disassociate the "Byzantines", as we call them, from the romans, but this is not actually the case. The term Byzantine was coined after the fall of Constantinople, but they considered themselves Roman, and they were. Depending on when you start counting it as an empire, and if we include Byzantine (which we should), the Roman empire lasted over 1500 years! Even if you don't include the Byzantine Empire, they still had a solid 500 years before the west collapsed.
@@azeon562 Most eastern provinces of the Eastern Empire were lost completely during the arab invasions bro. Egypt, Cyrenaica, Libya, and Siria. When the turks came they also lost central anatolia. You should read more about the eastern roman empire. From the arab invasions to 1454, they were just...a person in life support.
@@juanjoseph As I stated earlier, it depends on your criteria for an empire. History considers the Byzantine Empire as existing from the time they split from western rome, to their final defeat. Regardless of how small they became compared to their peak territorial expansion, the Byzantines remained a culturally and economically significant player in geopolitics until their conquest by the ottomans in the 1400s.
@@azeon562 Not really, they only mattered for merchantile matters, because of their trade positions. They were more of a buffer state for centuries until they fell in a terrible interegnum in 1204. Like Spain is still a nation with oversea territories and some "importance" in global trade and politics. But we wouldn't count Spain as an Empire after 1898. "History" is not a monolith. You cam even count the Eastern Roman Empire ending after the line of Constantine died out and the first major interregnum starting. Do we count Turkey as the Ottoman Empire still existing? Of course not. Most of the ERE history after the muslim invasions is just the ERE falling apart from internal civil wars or making small conquests before being conquered furthered down. Was there a Greek Kingdom called Basileia twv Romaiwov which said was the heir of Constantine? Yes. Was it an important player in high medieval politics? Nah, not really.
Great video but how is it possible that you said in 12:57 that one if the reasons the spanish empire in the americas feel was because of the poor relations with native americans when Spain is the colonial power that has had the best treatment towards native americas plus not other european country in the world has had as many interracial relationships as Spain did ?
best treatment relative to other european powers isn't that great, but I agree. implicitly saying english-american relations with the natives were better is easily disproven by the fact that northern native american populations are functionally non-existent safe from uncolonizable canadian tundra
@@boio_ yeah obviously it wasn't the best but atleast the native americans could go to the same schools that spanish children's went to and could also be given noble titles
@@boio_ The main population in the empire was mixed race people and indigenous,they even had schools,hospitals,courts for them,of course they were at the bottom of the social pyramid. But in comparative with the others powers they had a better treatment by the time's standards.
@@boio_ I believe the indigenous population in the north was much less that in the south. They had developed civilization in Central and South America. So you are comparing apples to oranges.
@@angelicadickson8666 my gosh you are such a troll it's just hard for you to accept that your ancestors were just a bunch of Hitler's they mg to erase a race of people which is why the would give indigenous people smallpox blankets so they could get small pox on purpose plus the Indiana scalping acts where British government allowed for the natives scalp to be removed
@@RockSmithStudio *Spanish Empire* "Yeah, well, our former colonies still speak Spanish!" *English/British Empire* "Is that ALL they do? HAH! Our former colonies not only still speak our language, but also one of them became the most powerful nation in all.of.HISTORY!"
Bullshit. Most countries today that were part of the old Spannish Empire, are now third world. Take a look at what the British Empire created and left behind in comparison. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. It shits on the Spannish Empire former colonies.
@@eddielong8663 in truth, I believe most latin Americans are not very bright. If a person can celebrate that they don’t need to speak English to travel to NYC because bunch of poor immigrants help drive another country economy
@@dennis771 There are no empires anymore. But Spain is very close to Hispanic America, and among them they are also very close, with a constant cultural, migratory, economic (investment) flow, joint prizes for literature, music, cinema, unified language academies, soccer (Real Madrid and Barcelona are very followed there) gastronomy, Ibero-American Summit, organization of Ibero-American states, which also includes the Iberian culture of Portugal and Brazil. In addition, there are plans, promoted by leaders like Lula da Silva, to unite all of Latin America as if it were the European Union. Portuguese and Spanish are the same in 89% of the words. Sometimes we call it the Iberosphere. Although in Latin America they seek to build a power there, which would be bigger than Russia. It will be a slow process.
One died when half of Europe decided to kick sweden's ass and they ultimatly lost despite having the best army. The other died like the british, a quite ravaged country who could less and less maintain its colonies, and ultimatly decided to abandon it when it became clear it couldn't work anymore.
spanish were quite productive in the day, but english in order to prevail did everything possible to crack the spanish empire. As said before victors are the ones who write history. And history is written in english not spanish, obviously skipping that side of history at some point.
Many Latin Americans ( living in former Spanish colonies in Latin (Spanish America) are unaware that these colonies were way richer than those held by the English in North America.
The original thirteen colonies have stone for the Quarries, timberlands for paper and pencil the soil for agriculture the industrial revolution was started in Northern state's there's wildlife there's lobster in Maine fish to the great lakes the rivers the harbors and Canada is like the British never left or the French. It might not be rich with gold and silver as far as we now it's rich in their culture they really made themselves home see we can be degenerative as we please the real people go back to their culture when it gets too far gone.
@@dicitencellovoyais7914 no lo creo, está tan imbricada en nuestra cultura que sería casi una mutilación. Aunque sé que los anglosajones con sus anglicismos están ganando terreno en los jóvenes profesionales influenciables.
When Texas was actually called Las Nuevas Filipinas or the New Philippines. Thnx Spain for acknowledging the service and loyalty the Filipinos gave to the Spanish Empire
I believe that both area were called Philippines because there were a few monarchs named King Phillip on the throne of Spain. The reason that Mexico and all of the mainland to the south spoke Spanish (with the exception of Brazil) was because of the Papal Bull of 1493. In fact, when Sweden, the Dutch, the French, and the British set up colonies in North America, it was viewed as an invasion because of the Papal Bull. All of the countries fought wars to expand their empires, and when the wars only expanded their debts, they started new wars to pay off the old debts. And when you gain territory, you have to spend more money you don't have to keep the new areas under control. Ask somebody in Quebec what the word "patriot" means to them.
Hopefully Spanish will be spoken in the Philippines if they continued to speak Spanish we would be 600 million people who speak Spanish but it is only a dream greetings from Argentina 🇦🇷
@@FBI.capturo.gente.rara. Soon bro, trust me. after the win of argentina in the world cup, many of the kids here in the philippines wants to play football and they would for sure learn how to speak spanish if they continue their passion for football.
@@FBI.capturo.gente.rara. Lol how’s language important? Anyways the Philippines are long past new language implementations. They have Tagalog & English. Their focus is their economy; which is 100x more important than language
As a Portuguese, I am fond of my Spanish brothers and sisters. I have visited Spain numerous times. I admire Spanish culture, history, and uniqueness from the rest of the Iberian Peninsula, but I would welcome Spain's decision to join a really Iberian Union. I genuinely feel that if these two countries were united, they would prosper immensely.
Spain isn't one country but at least two Spanish isnt spanish but Castilian you can do it but only siding with Catalans and building triple commonwealth 😉 but you will never regain Latin America as they have their own etnic animosities and much stronger than now fake European nationalities your comment proving it itself
spain was the first global superpower, the romans or the chinese or the mongol empire were all regionals empires, none was global, spain was the first. portugal was a spanish state, just as castille or aragon or navarre, so you must put them together. the dutch and the english and the french, all of them tried to emulate spain and tried to follow their footsprints, every one with their own particularities of course, but spain was the pioneer, the european state wich established the west supremacy over the rest of the world, so in that sense, the next global superpowers, the british and the americans tried to be the spain of their ages. what spain did was so astonishing at the time thay a person of today can hardly understand. no european country before spain ever dreamed of a world dominance, every european state that later follow that imperial path was inspired by the astonishing achievements of imperial spain...
I see you don't know the meaning of global superpower or the regional power, First and for most the global super power means an empire which control a vast land of the *known world* and a regional power is the country which control a good chunk of the *known world* such as the umayyad emirate of Cordoba, To say Rome or the Mongols weren't a global super power is utter ignorance. And Sapin wasn't the first global super power and it's a fact.
@@timelapse5586 the roman were a great power but not a global power of their world, they never controlled their known world. they knew about persia and about india and about china, and they controlled nothing of those regions.
@@mendozagriffith2720 neither did the Spanish they knew Persia and they knew Russia and they knew Asia and Asturalia but they didn't conquer it, As I told you a global super power is that empire which controls a vast amount of territory of the *known world* and the Roman empire controlled pretty much a good amount of territory in Asia and they had north Africa and almost all of Europe this is a global super power from it's time . But for the Spanish empire one simply cannot say the same thing , why? Because it just colonized the Americas and even Morocco could have done that if they thought about it or knew there was Americas in the first place this is called at best a colonial super power.
@@timelapse5586 the romans had dominance in a region of the world and in the rest of the world they had no influence. the spanish had lands and territories all over the world, they were dominants in europe, they had an entire continent for them, they had presence in africa, india and asia, they had an entire country in front of china, they controlled the seas. that was something never seen before. no one had done something like that, no one. that s why they were the first global empire.
@@mendozagriffith2720 nope as I told you having a lot of colonies doesn't make you the strongest country for example when they attacked the Muslims in north Africa the ottomans easly crushed them and they went so far to the coastes of spain, and also no they weren't dominant in Europe there were also a great powers that were rivaling them such as the Ottoman Empire. Seems like you didn't read what I wrote about what a global super power is.
That fool Charles V reminds me of some our present day rulers. Getting into unnecessary wars and squandering money. Neglecting his own people's financial and infrastructure needs. Then adding more and more tax burdens until tax income actually starts declining. Eventually losing it all.
they were not unnecessary wars. The Ottoman Empire and the Protestant Princes threatened the security of Austria. The French and the pope deliberately committed diplomatic crimes by denying treaties and starting illegal wars with Charles V to diminish his power. Apart from the fact that he defended the Balkan nations from the Ottomans openly declaring war against them, he was the one who get attacked by coalitions against him.
Also, Charles the V wanted to unite all Christian kingdoms under one banner to assert peace within the Christians, i consider it was a really honourable wish. And in that moment in time modern economics were unknown and some people mostly the Netherlands and English just started to try to figure out how modern economics work, and unfortunately for Charles V and Philip II, either they didn't take it seriously (which was comprehensible because it was such a new and unknown idea) or didn't have the opportunity to meet these early modern economists.
Trouble about Charles is he wanted to unite all Christians but under the Catholic Church. And with the Inquisition working. And the Catholic Church hierarchy with the Pope had become quite political and corrupt at that time. A big reason many rebelled against it. So he was in fact further dividing Christian's and persecuting those that wanted just to read the Bible themselves. Who tried to establish a Spiritual relationship without a Priest's unsatisfactory interpretations. They didn't want that power over them interfering with their Spiritual connection. All Charles accomplished in the end was drain his own resources and undermine his own goals. He wasn't the only leader like that either.
In Europe, Habsburg Spain controlled Burgundy, Flanders, the Netherlands, parts of northern Italy, Naples and southern Italy, and Sicily. For 60 years, it also held Portugal under a personal union.
9:45 The Portuguese and Spanish empires were formally separate between 1580 and 1640. What led Portugal to regain its independence was the intent of Castille (or, as you call it, "Spain") to abolish this statu quo. The Castilians wanted to consume Portugal, despite their previous guarantees, yet Portugal begged to differ.
Formally "separated" as all the kingdoms were under the habsburg rule, Portugal didnt have a special status. And what happened was that the kingdom of Castille was the one giving all the soldiers and money to finance and fight in the wars across Europe, so the Count-Duke of Olivares wanted to distribute all those expenses across all the kingdoms.
@@acusticamenteconvusional9936 I wrote that the empires were formally separated. This is a matter of record. Of course, there was an unprecedented migration between the two empires. Regarding Europe, Felipe IV waanted to revert and anul all the guarantees given by Felipe II, efectively annexing and dissolving Portugal, but in name.
Portugal has a different language than the Spanish. The country was pretty much destroyed at its home base by a big, big earthquake followed by a gigantic tsunami. I believe this is the last time they burned heretics a the stake because this happened right when they were about to burn victims to death.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 Actually the last "Auto de fé" in which people were burned (or "relaxed in flesh to the secular branch") was 5 years after the earthquake/tsunami, in 1761, when the elderly jesuit Gabriel Malagrida was burnt in the stake, for having attributed the disaster to the sins of the country. Other 3 would have been burnt, but one was abroad (he was burnt in effigy) and two women died in jail.
London was founded by the Romans more than 1000 years ago by Rome. And Tokyo is only 100 years younger than Mexico. And the current global cities aren't New York. Tokyo or London but are New York, London and Shanghai and Chinese cities are really old.
@@washimpatwary1446 London indeed was founded by Romans, but you can't simply give some data without contextualizing it. London was a peripherical outpost of the Roman Empire most of the time. Alternatively, some of the areas in the south of Hispania, particularly these surrounding Cordoba, were some with the highest commercial activity in the whole Western roman area of the Empire. I must however agree with you in the fact that Japanese civilization is much younger than most people realize. Until the jomon period (around 200BC), Japan was basically leaving "its Neolithic" era.
From Charles V onwards: yes, there was a problem with the economy, more specifically inflation, the amount of gold and silver coming from the indies created inflation, last it 12 years and with the British crown pushing the Turks into battle (battle of Lepanto) and the beginning of piracy that was a covert action from the British. The inflation stopped with the school of Salamanca, a direct evolution of it its today’s Austrian School of economics. Please read a bout this school as is very relevant to what is happening right now globally. I can keep going on the religious wars, the French taking over Spain throne (today’s biggest problem) and so on. It’s not enough time or space
Also it was factually incorrect to call the Netherlands Dutch colony. The Netherlands was part of the Spanish monarchy just like Castile and Aragon, it was incorporated when Charles V inherited these territories from his father.
I think that there is a mistake at around 10:30. I mean, Spain during the Bourbon dynasty didn't fought wars due to the expansion of Protestantism (that happened during the previous dynasty) nor if fought the Ottoman Empire (the peace between both had been maintained since the Truce of 1580).
1820s Cuba: Why is everyone rebelling? Spain is cool 1898 Cuba: Guess I'm leaving too USA: Yes, you will Nowadays, people use the term "the empire on which the sun never sets" to describe the presence of US military bases around the world. We're hoping to end the US military presence in Korea
Sure the Spanish Empire ended, as all superpowers do. But it did many things right, and that is why its rule lasted for 400 years, from 1492 to 1898, without substantial occupation forces -the powerful Spanish army of the times ("tercios") was never sent to America. How long did the British, Dutch, Belgian and French empires last for? The Napoleonic Empire lasted a mere 11 years. As for the exploitation of overseas territories, let's take into account that the percentage of gold and silver collected by the Hispanic Monarchy was three times less than what foreign powers extract from them today through the modern shareholding of mines. Unlike the said empires, but much as the Roman Empire, the Hispanic Monarchy used wealth to build cities, universities and hospitals, as well as protecting natives' rights to property (in year 1512) -five centuries later, have the USA, Australia and New Zealand done the same with their natives? The USA granted citizenship to its natives in 1924. It should also be mentioned that the newly formed American republics were ramshackled, once they couldn't count on the Spanish Empire protection: Great Britain looted the wealthy Spanish American local Treasuries, the new republics had to contract enormous debt with London banks that lagged them for a century, as well as sign economic treaties that damaged their local industries in favour of the UK's. The USA was also quick to take advantage of the opportunity and took 62% of Mexico's territory, so the newly formed republics were also unable to assert sovereignty over their territories. The Spanish Empire territories in Asia did not fare much better under the new masters of the world: after a fairly light confrontation with Spain (2,000 deaths), the Philippines had an estimated death toll of 200,000 to 1,000,000 people to gain independence from the USA -that is, one tenth of its population then. The end of the Spanish Empire was due, but the newly formed republics fell under ruthless exploitation.
Interesting. I would also asset that Spain claimed much land yet if the cannot occupy it and control it, was it every theirs to claim??? Then mexico, took over and tried to claim that what Spain claimed, was now theirs. 🙄 ridiculous !
@@captmack007 I am afraid that "occupation" is a primitive reading of the concept "sovereignty" -the primitive reading of American and Israeli settlers, who feign there was nothing before they take over. But Spain had been a State with legal sovereignty over most American territories for centuries; therefore, it had nothing to "claim". And for centuries the Spanish Army was capable of repelling several Anglosaxon military campaigns to conquer and control them. Needless to say, there was an end to the Spanish Empire's might, as there will be an end to the shorter lived American imperialism (now accumulating decades of failures to assert its objectives abroad) and there will be one to every human endeavour.
It didn’t “collapse”, it had about 300 years of existence, probably the most long-lasting modern European empire after the Portuguese one, and the Napoleonic Wars were a shock in Europe and the world that ended the order of things that previously existed, what was used to foster the disintegration of the Spanish America in the 19th century by the forces interested in splitting it and controlling its economy, being the US the ones capitalizing the movement in the end in spite of France and the United Kingdom. The British Empire, after about 200 years existence was disintegrated after the II World War, taking the US all their strategical posts, and the British only had the Germans against them, Spain had France, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, all the Protestants of Europe and the US in the end all as feinds… The Netherlands (today’s Belgium and Luxembourg after the independence of the northern United Provinces in 1581) and other territories from the old House of Burgundy between what today is France and Germany, and the Duchy of Milan were also part of the Spanish possessions until 1714, by the way, and the Spanish and the Portuguese monarchies were united between 1580 and 1640, which included to the empire the possessions in Africa, India and in other territories of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic oceans that don’t figure in this documentary. Also, the Spanish Monarchy didn’t become “extinct”, it was made a more centralized monarchy by the Bourbon dynasty in power since 1700 and is the Kingdom of Spain that exists nowadays. And it is pronounced “ca-steel”, not “cas-till”.
The goal of the spanish colonizers in the philippines was to spread the christian faith or the gospel... But why did they have to colonize and kill people? 303 years is the span of the colonization of spain in the philippines... Didn't the bible said to preach the gospel? But if they don't accept the good news then brush the dust from your feet and shoulders and leave? The saints and martyrs or spreaders of the gospel were also the ones that were being persecuted like boiled in oil or sawed in half. But why is it that spain did the opposite? instead of simply spreading the good news of gospel by preaching what Jesus had done on the cross they did the opposite they killed people and colonized them for 303 years...
For me the reason why spanish can't govern effectively in the Philippines is because the meddling of the Catholic Church. Spanish authority very much focused setting up forts while the Spanish priest in all kinds of orders set up churches all around. Only when the British invaded did Filipinos realized that the spaniards can be defeated resulting the rise of rebellion across the country. Spanish is more holding out the Philippines as an outpost rather than a country. Did you know that industries such as sugar plantation where introduced by a British diplomat during the American occupation than the Spaniards? The country is more controlled by Mexico than Spain itself.
sugar plantations replaced the philippines' trade with all spanish speaking countries filipinos were china's largest trading partners and were part of the largest
Trade network (porcelain from China, spices from Indonesia and India traded with Spanish-speaking countries in exchange for many minerals "now they only produce sugar to sweeten my tea"
Is it though? How many more wars would the world have seen with most empires surviving? One or two families ruling a piece or pieces of land for hundreds of years is rarely good for the majority of people. It is fascinating history though.
12:34 "Spanish administration in the Americas was inferior to the English and later British territories..." Is highly arbitrary, that was simply not the case. Spanish colonization began by early 1500s, English started about 100 years after (with many failed attempts before that). By 1750 their colonies in modern USA became independent, you will need to wait for 1820s for the independence of the Spanish oversea's territories. So, I would say Spanish administration was highly effective in the delevopment of a huge and culturally diverse region.
@@josecontreras6702 Not sure how you interpreted my post but I never said anything about being in favor of genocide or stealing natural resources. Actually a bit pissed since I do but speak Spanish and it sucks getting around these countries.
Saying that one of the reasons for the empire's collapse was the poor relation between the crown and the natives is not only false but totally misleading. In the former Spanish colonies there was regulation protecting natives rights and they were equal subjects before the law. During wars of independence most natives sided with the Spaniards as they knew that that they rights where better protected than with the local elites that foster the rebellion. Finally, in most of the Spanish former colonies most of the population is native in origin, take a look to that percentage in former colonies of other European powers.
Thats just a lie, there was a rigid caste system and slavery of africans who were also a sizeable minority. And about the gene pool, the only place american spanish colony where fully amerindian descent gets higher than 40% is Guatemala, Bolivia is second with 25%. Even today the ruling class of Hispanic America is disproportionately of european descent. You are wrong
@@us470 Have you ever been or know something or someone from Bolivia or Guatemala before spreading such BS? I mean, Bolivia will be like 80% precolombine population because at the time of the Viceroyalty of Peru ( Which was a gigantic territory and to which modern Bolivia also belonged as Upper Peru) all the people coming from Europe stablished in the coastal areas and not in the high valleys and mountains without coast like Bolivia is as a country. In the same Viceroyalty a majority of indians and local caciques fought on the royalist side against the armies of Bolivar, San Martin or O´Higgins that were particularly conformed by criollos of european origin when not directly British mercenaries.
@@alejandrosotomartin9720 Dude this is literally scientific genetic data, i know what people from Guatemala and Bolivia look like and if I didnt I could just google it, but phenotype is not everything, there are some traits we associate with amerindians and that makes someone look amerindian, whether they are actually amerindian is a totally different topic
"In the former Spanish colonies there was regulation protecting natives rights and they were equal subjects before the law" this is funny because my country never had "protective native rights" until the short rule of Ma.Dela torre in the philippines. other than that. philippines is most of the time under authoritarian rule. spanish is very exploitative and abusive. There's fuckton of rebellion happen in the phillipines against the Spaniards manly due to their abuses to the natives. Jose Rizal and other illustrados (the middle class) during the time Philippines finally open up after centuries of isolation tried to convinced the spanish empire to impose changes and equality to the natives but to no avail they just killed him sparking the revolution which ended the spanish rule in the philippines. If Spain was nice to phil. this won't happen. but they are pretty much abusive.
Also the Protestant Propaganda against the Spanish empire. The crazy reports of De las Casas and the clueless drawings of a theodor de Bry who never saw an american native in his life... He hated the Spaniards.
If the "Spanish Empire" as this video calls it, was so poorly managed. How come that it lasted 400 years (1492-1898)??, although Ecuatorial Guinee was released in 1968, Sidi Ifni in 1959 and Western Sahara in 1975. This video is full of the usual Anglo saxon propaganda. La Nueva España was far richer than the 13 colonies in North America and the British Empire lasted much less than the Spanish. The Hispanic Monarchy, that was its true name, wasn't focused on "conquest" as this video states. It was focused on the creation of a new civilization, building mines, roads, harbours, cities, villages, churches, cathedrals, universities (more than 20 all over the Americas, open to everyone regardless of his color), hospitals, etc The first university of the American continent was build by the Spaniards in 1540, a 100+ years before Harvard, as well as the first printing press. It is unbelievable the way they are destroying our culture and history with all of their lies.
We dont care if they destroy our culture and history,, because in this moment Madrid is the richest city in South Europe,, Spain is the second most visited country in the world, we have the highest life expectansy, amazing medic care, wonderful and perfect infraestructure, etc etc.
Why should we care? Anglo whites are less than 56% of the USA population. There are several cities where Spanish is more spoken than English. It's a matter of time that the USA will become a Spanish country, and without having to shoot a single bullet.
La Nueva España was far richer than the 13 colonies because had abundant mines and natural ressources to exploit. The economy of the Spanish colonies in America, however, was based solely upon the extraction of ressources, never developed any industry (neither in Europe) so here and there ended up surpassed by their neighbors in practically everything. Spain only started investing in America when it became overly risky to transport the gold and silver by sea, while its social administration totally excluded the non-peninsular Spanish (criollos), which pretty much explains why the independence movements took place across the continent to begin with. That egalitarian bullshit many claim it had taken place is absolutely delusional. Native Americans were exploited and worked in miserable conditions when not being outright massacred. Many even claim that Spanish had abolished slavery. Why would they need to get their hands dirty with the trade of slaves when they had all the manpower they needed right on the spot? I honestly think it’s pointless to try to make them understand. 500 hundred years on, more bankruptcies than any country in History, self-perpetuating fuck ups of all kinds and flavours and still they don’t get it. As Ramón María del Valle Inclán (Spanish like no other) once stated: “Spain is a grotesque deformation of the European civilisation.”
Apart from factors such as the Napolionic wars, the Empire collapsed because it reached the maximum limit of control, taking into account that in its maximum extension (between 1770 and 1800) the population of the metropolis had only between 10 and 11 million. population.
Being from Peru and having the Spaniards kill my ancestors along with taking our gold I think is time to get it back 😂. Spain is a beautiful country and we hold no animosity against our Spanish brothers and sisters for what the elders did. At the end of the day it turns out that GREED is the downfall of every empire.
If your ancestors had been exterminated by the Spaniards, you wouldn't be writing bs here. Test your IQ, which must be quite low. Maybe Peruvian ancestors killed among themselves with sacrifices, which the Spanish stopped, by the way.
Por partes: 1) Siendo yo nacido y criado en el norte de España, es MUY probable que TÚ, habiendo nacido en Perú, tengas más sangre española corriendo por tus venas que yo. 2) Esos españoles que dices que 'mataron' a tus ancestros, son TUYOS no mios. 3) Abre un libro e informate. Un saludo.
@Top Secret Actually, the Spanish Inquisition killed less than a third of the protestant, descentralized, mob-ruled witchhunts that occured during XVI-XVII centuries.
@Top Secret The Inquisition didn't handle the jews, the expulsion was a matter of civil authorities. The jewish population was expelled before, by France, England and the German nobility; the treatment wasn't diferent nor specially hard. And as I said, the Inquisition only had authority over christians (heretics or false converts), not jews. I am indeed Spanish.
@ 1:54 queen Isabella and king Ferdinand of Spain, their daughter Catherine was Henry the 8th of England's first wife. Their first child Mary was England's first ruling queen, that actually ran the country. known as Bloody Mary in England. Spain changed the world in a lot of ways. When they discovered the Americas, for Europe. this map is incorrect, Spain was way into the Alaska territory before 1774, in the library of congress there's a map of the Americans that's from the early 1500s in Spanish. there are some ports with Spanish names in Vancouver, Canada and some in Alaska. All of Western United States, some part of Canada and all of Mexico were New Spain, up until the early 1800 hundreds when Napoleon took over Spain and other parts of Europe.
......they did succeed in spreading their language and the Roman Catholic religion, both of which are still in force and beloved. For example, in the USA even fifth and sixth generation Latinos still name their sons Juan and Jose, NOT John and Joseph. Like Italians do not use Guiseppe or Giovanni
Whats with the focus on US Latinos? There is millions and millions in Latin America that use the Spaniard naming system and catholic religion. Also in the US, Gringo Latinos tend to name their kids English names with only their last names being Spaniard. “Ryan Sanchez” “Stephen Rodriguez” etc, etc
In the map shown, you’re missing the European Viceroyalties of the empire: Flandes (now Belgium) and the Netherlands, all the south of current Italy. Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and of course large portions of land in several spots in africa and for some time Portugal as well.
Their model was to extract gold from the colonies and use it buy manufactured goods from other European countries. The result was that Britain and France became powerful enough to supplant them.
I think almost all of Spain's gold was simply transferred to the Hapsburgs in Austria and Italy and Swiss and Vatican bankers. Spain looted the gold from the New Wold and they then were plundered by their foreign Hapsburg rules and their bankers.
The United States was formed from English colonies, not Spanish... the colonies Spain did have in the current territory of the USA where mere claims and the Spanish themselves had no real control over them, neither did they have any population matching the Thirteen colonies. Almost all ex Spanish colonies are failures, unile the UK which has created the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India etc... South Americas current poverty represents how the Spanish Empire once controlled them.
@@noobplays-saslow2920 Poverty in South America has nothing to do with the Spanish Empire. Please explain why you'd think that. PS: Are you calling India and South Africa good countries to live in and latin american countries bad in comparison? Seriously? India has severe poverty and human trafficking problems and SA has one fourth of it's population under the poverty line. And may I remind you, Myanmar, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria, South Sudan, Somaliland, Kenia, Tanzania, Benin, etc were also British colonies. And are they rich? NO Not to mention that the indigenous peoples in those countries you mentioned (USA, NZ, SA, Canada, Australia,) have huge problems with violence, extreme poverty, substance adiction, suicide, racism, low life expectancy, health and nutrition, culture and identity loss, etc
There are some jungles in Central America that not even armies can penetrate with all the technology from 2022 but the Spaniards crossed them 500 years ago with no technology at all, how did they do it? How did they not die from mosquitoes and malaria? They also built thousands of towns and founded hundreds of cities from Northern California all the way to Argentina's southern tip near Antartica.
At 3:45 author say " The main problems were the poor decision make by Spanish governments during the decades," but is it really poor decisions if it is the only one available due to the characters of the time. A historical "decision" can only be call bad if there is an alternative viable decision to be made. Spain rule over a larger area of the Americas for a much longer period then England or French so their decisions are not bad. The decisions made were good for Spain and it living rulers, it is bad for Spanish Americas and for the future ruler of Spain in the long run because the empire became fragile. It is fallacy to sometime to think that there is an over all decision to begin with, and that there is a central power that can control it all. Even absolute ruler of Spain don't have absolute control of it explorers, conquerors, later on planation owners and local overlords.
Although it is true that the Spanish were very negligent in many aspects with their viceroyalties, this negligence in some cases was positive, due to the lack of direct administration of the metropolis, the Spanish colonies developed an internal industry, modest, simple, but effective , trade with other European powers was prohibited, but not between the Spanish colonies themselves, among them leather, saddles, mules, food of all kinds were traded, even coins were minted, also in Havana a naval shipyard was built that was one of the most important in Spain, producing its best ships in its entire history, although the Spanish territories were sparsely populated, it does not mean that they were fragile, they were what sustained Spain and what gave it power, when they were under its dominion, if we had remained faithful to Spain during the Napoleonic invasion, we would have been a problem for Napoleon, because here there were almost 150,000 soldiers in all the viceroyalties, plus the warships of the colonies that were not few, unfortunately the kings of Spain at that time ruined everything.
It is a good analysis, I agree with all the first part. But I don't think the kings of Spain ruined everything. They did more positive things than negative. Latin America is a very complicated land, with tropical forests, tropical diseases, 6000-meter mountain ranges, deep valleys, attacked by the English, French and Dutch, and with a very large indigenous population, slowly assimilating. It is like the slow romanization that the Romans did in Hispania, Britain or Gaul. The British, French and Dutch empires had similar problems in small Jamaica, Belize, Haiti... and they directly ignored India or Africa, much poorer than Latin America. The United States, Australia and Canada (with plenty of natural resources for 3-4 people per km2) is more like the prosperous Spanish empire in Europe: (200 years in Belgium), 160 years in parts of Germany and France, 450 years in Italy. .. Europeans already Christianized, with European technology, with few or no indigenous people to assimilate, without land and tropical diseases, without mountain ranges of 6000 meters...
Not entirely Spain’s fault but their biggest mistake was creating peninsular and Criollo conflict. The Mexican war of independence started out as a civil war and various counter coups between Peninsular and Criollos.
You can learn something new and help us at the same time, by accessing: curiositystream.thld.co/knowledgiaapr for unlimited access to the world’s top documentaries and nonfiction series.
Use the code: KNOWLEDGIA when you sign up to get 30 days of FREE unlimited access.
Hi
Hi
You do know that Belize was a British colony right? I ask that is because you included Belize into the Spanish Empire.
Dis was boring imma watch a movie
🎥🍿
"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 Bismark
that's both a compliment and a diss lmao
Lol, Germany lost both world wars 🤣
@@danisabeh9771Bismarack has nothing to do with Ww2 or Ww1 he was the Konig of Konigsreich Prussia
@@danisabeh9771 correct, but how does that change anything about spain?
@@paradoxkr4599 otto Bismarck was the one responsible for forming the German unification and created the German empire by winning the Franco-Prussian war which was one of the main reasons why ww1 happened. Otto Bismarck didn't start ww1 but he did create tensions between Germany and both UK and France
Spanish Empire: We are the Empire on which the sun never sets
British Empire: Nice nickname you've got there. Would be a shame if someone stole it...
if someone colonised it...
I'm seeing you in Reddit videos now I'm seeing you here? Tf😂
You again?! WTF?!!
lol
They didn't have to steal it, it was mere succession.
If you ask why Spain was always fighting random wars against protestants, remember that nationalism didn't exist at this time, so religious unity was a quite good way to keep Italians, Spanish, Dutch and all other peoples united under the same empire, or at least they thought so.
Edit for those that says nationalism always existed: Sources. This statement seems an incorrect interpretation of ancient societies based upon contemporary concept of nation. Nationalism was developed in late 1700's , when capitalist order and post-Westphalian politics couldn't use monarchic loyalty or religious unity to keep a social cohesion. The idea of accepting same language and traditions as well as a supposed common past as a more important factor than religion or client relations is a 19th century worldview. This does not exclude than ancient societies had language as a more or less unifying factor, but it can't be called nationalism as we understood it today. Nations are not objetive beings, but they only exist as a shared idea by a community. That require a common imposed dialect, history and identity established by state-driven education system, and does not appear spontaneously by any other means.
Nationalism did exist LOL
@@johnnyblaze9217 Nationalism is a 19th century and onwards Phenomemon. People only identified with their local área and relegion
The goal of the spanish colonizers in the philippines was to spread the christian faith or the gospel... But why did they have to colonize and kill people? 303 years is the span of the colonization of spain in the philippines... Didn't the bible said to preach the gospel? But if they don't accept the good news then brush the dust from your feet and shoulders and leave? The saints and martyrs or spreaders of the gospel were also the ones that were being persecuted like boiled in oil or sawed in half. But why is it that spain did the opposite? instead of simply spreading the good news of gospel by preaching what Jesus had done on the cross they did the opposite they killed people and colonized them for 303 years...
@@johnnyblaze9217 It existed, but it was not the same, the nationalism that we know today began in the eighteenth century, which is very different from the old.
@@yosueth yes, rome was quite known for being nationalistic, but this guy is saying no such thing as nationalism existed yet and so spain was fighting wars over religion when ROME was around far longer than spain.
After learning how much Isabella and Ferdinand labored to keep the throne from going to Joanna and thus her Habsburg husband, it’s kind of tragic to know their Habsburg grandson (he did not grow up in Castile like they wanted and had no real love for it) ruined everything they built.
My great great grandfather was Fernando. He was a Chavez of southern Spain. He ruled elegant Alhambra palace and he financed Columbus because he was super broke !
The Habsburgs did not ruin what they built. They had two missions: to save Catholicism and the Roman legacy in Europe, and to romanize-Hispanicize America and the Philippines. Both missions were accomplished.
The Spanish kings of the 16th-17th century knew that they had to maintain the wars in the Netherlands (200 years, 1516-1714), to threaten Protestant Germany, England and France. That is why France definitively became Catholic in the religious wars, due to Spanish offensives from the north, conquering Paris in 1590. That is why the southern Germans and Palatinate are Catholic. Those wars in northern Europe concentrated Protestant efforts there, and the Protestants were never able to put together a united front to invade Rome, Madrid, Vienna, Lisbon. That would also have meant the end of the Spanish and Portuguese empire in America, which would be more similar to India (British and Dutch East India companies): a lot of wealth extraction, but little Romanization. The eighteenth century was a century of economic recovery for the Spanish empire. But we raised the reinvestment in America from 70 to 80%. The British, Dutch and French did not have such civilizing commitments until XX century, and took the wealth of their third world empires to London, Amsterdam and Paris directly.
@@Gloriaimperial1 This is why the Spanish Empire is a hero in my mind. They fought for Europe while the English, Dutch, and French fought for themselves.
@@alejandromaldonado6159 They had their issues with the Church I'm sure, it's like a Soviet country being ordered by the Kremlin and having the KGB power over your sovereignty, not to offend anyone they at least have a formula unlike other countries here in the America's that are just doing enough to keep up but not too much that would raise red flags it's like living next to the FBI headquarters and the only capitalism you know is ...🤫
F@#k colonial powers.
The Empire had Wars with England, Holland,France, The Ottoman’s ,Denmark , Sweden, Bohemia and Portugal .
Many working in concert with each other .
What could possible go wrong .
Empires don't have wars, rulers have wars. One major problem with centralized power.
@@lostmusichits Spain was and still is anything but centralized
they bite more than they could chew
and actually fought the only war ever between Spain and Russia in Oregon, USA.
Un universal empire that remained more than 300 years, something was done very well
Ah yes the good old times when texas was still called New Philippines
Nueva Filipinas
Yes, the old times, when texas was Mexican
@@emilianocastillo4187 it was still called Tejas in the Mexican Empire, right?
@@napoleoniii8372 It was called Texas with an X. Like how Mexico is spelled with an X too. And it would be pronounced as a spanish "J". Example: Me-hee-co, Te-has. Personal sidenote here: It's excruciatingly painful hearing americans pronounce ex Spanish/Mexican territories. The worst one is Los Angeles. Thank god some people just say "LA"
@@napoleoniii8372 Yes,Texas, but texas was samller than now
Never mentioned Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea, in which Spain held until the mid 1900’s
Also Northern Morocco
What about andalus 800
@@moncef9778 alandalus was In the reconquista, this video is after it xD
Spain's last province/colony to become independent was Equatorial Guinea, in 1968.
@@pabloalvez915 my mother was there when over night the got there independence. Spanish citizens we given just 24 hours to leave.
When i was a kid I remember a guy in my town in spain that had a large scar on his face. My mother told me that he refused to leave and was struck in the face with a machete. Thankfully a Spanish soldier intervened to stop him from being killed. He was put onto a ship and sent back to Spain.
What you lightly touched on here but needed to discuss more was the fact that Spanish aristocrats intentionally refused to reform Spain from an agrarian to an industrial society; they were deeply invested in the status quo as landed gentry. The entire economy atrophied as its colonial peers entered a new industrial age. When Spain's colonial subjects in South America pushed back against its strict control over economic production, and advocated for industrial reform, Spain's crack down and the subsequent revolutions reached a scale and brutality unseen in North America. Spain again and again floundered because those in power became a cancer preventing the empire from evolving over time.
The Mediterranean peninsulas (Iberia, Italy, the Balkans) have always had, since the end of the feudal era, more problems to trade with central Europe, where the largest mass of population is, with fertile lands and little heat. Historically, a Spaniard, an Italian, a Portuguese or a Greek have to travel 40-50 days by horse-drawn carriage to reach the markets of the Netherlands or Germany. A Frenchman crosses the border from Germany or Switzerland and comes home for dinner. That's not competitive for us. It is worse for the entire African Maghreb, of course. Isolation. Like the one the Vikings or the Germans had, when Rome was prosperous. That is changing now with air conditioning, air travel, the Internet, all over the world. But between the XVI-XX centuries it was a difficulty. Even within Spain, Italy or France, the north, better connected, rainier, with river routes, has always been richer than the south. In addition, Spain had two colossal investments. 70% of the wealth of America stayed there in the 16th-17th centuries, to build a western society (80% in the 18th century) while our competitors (England, the Netherlands, France) took almost all the plants from their empires to London, Amsterdam or Paris, without investing almost nothing until the 20th century in countries like India, Indonesia or Africa. The other colossal Spanish investment was the 200-year war (1500-1700) to save the Catholic religion against 5 European powers. Today Catholicism is the majority religion in countries like South Germany-Palatinate, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Malta, Italy (where we had a NATO with more than 50 fortresses)... because we invested almost the other 20-30% in Europe. Furthermore, we could not sell products to countries at war with us, which were the most prosperous. All these problems generate less investment, perpetuating political models around the world.
He thinks that the United States withdrew from Afghanistan after 25 years of war against some third world guerrillas, because of the great cost of the war. Spain was like this for 200 years, invading Rome, Paris, Cologne, Florence, Amsterdam...
Nobody was an industrialist before 1770-1800. Germany, Austria, Sweden France, were very rural countries at the beginning of the 19th century. Only England and Holland had an invested bourgeoisie. Because? Because they had two business empires. For them it was lawful to take all the wealth and not invest. The first university in British India is in 1857. The Dutch only made one university in their empire in 300 years (Indonesia 1946, 2 years before independence). Spain made 40 universities in the world. But that is why we have a legacy greater than those empires: the world's second mother tongue, after Chinese, and 800 million Catholics.
@@Gloriaimperial1 Thanks for adding much-needed clarity, Gloriaimperial1. The issue of Spain's empire is perhaps the most complex among all other modern world empires, largely because what Spain attempted to do in the late 15th and early 16th-century had never been attempted before to such a global scale. From the first circumnavigation of the world, the establishment of the first transoceanic global trade network, the establishment of the first global currency network as well as the establishment of the oldest universities and religious institutions outside of Europe, not to mention the global foodstuff revolution Spain sponsored via the Columbian Exchange (without which entire genres of world cuisine would not even exist as we know them today), the pioneering role of Spain's empire was the transformative agent that ultimately set the stage for the interconnected modern global society of today and laid down the global prototype in whose footsteps everyone else would be inspired to follow.
And I think the reason for this is that what Spain was attempting was not just the creation of a network of trade outposts, but rather the establishment of a whole new global society- a culturally, linguistically, financially, and economically interconnected one- while, at the same time, dealing with the maelstrom of European political and religious upheaval Spain was at the center of during the High Renaissance.
How Spain was able to bankroll and invest in this epic global endeavor from the Renaissance until the dawn of the twentieth century is one of the epic feats of world history.
@@valsainking I very much agree with your comment. I can hardly add anything else, because it is very complete. The Roman Empire is a clear antecedent of the Spanish Empire. There is also an influence of the Reconquista: Christians from the north were populating the old Islamized cities of central and southern Spain, and founding Christian civil, religious and military institutions, to create Christian roots, which would prevent a return to Islam, with all society supporting Christianization and participating in the army and traditions. A bit of that happened in America and the Philippines: the Reconquest was very recent, and the first conquerors had in their mind that all religions that were not Christian-Catholic would be a source of problems and disputes, among the so-called "heretics". and those who believed there was only one true religion. So the conquest was made by mixing everything (culture, economy, miscegenation, religion) as you have said.
@@Gloriaimperial1 This isn't my history, but I'm guessing from your page that it's definitely yours. I'm concerned that this narrative is feeding directly into your political ideology, and as a result this isn't history to you, it's a tool. So I don't think we can have a proper conversation about this; I'll just hit a brick wall of nationalism. But before I go: Spain and its desire for empire profoundly shaped the world and left an indelible impact that remains to this day. However, even if we look past the profound brutality of Spain's quest for empire, let's look at the budding colonies left after the ashes and blood had settled. By 1800, Spanish America is on the rise and thriving (well done Spain you did it, gold star for you 🌟). They're doing well, they're flirting with industrialization, and they're adopting the republican spirit of the times. Spain tried to crush these ambitions, ones that would have benefited them as well, because they were wedded to their own feudal, manorial traditions. Spain's aristocracy is so incompetent, detached, indulgent, and inbred at this time that they fumble the bag. This is known historical truth. Read any biography of Ferdinand VII or historical work detailing his reign (I have). Hell, you can go to his Wikipedia page and it'll tell you that his rule was grounded in reactionary policies that lost him almost all of Spain's colonial holdings in the Americas. In his first year of rule, Napoleon crosses the Pyrenees and dunks on Ferdinand. When he takes power again in 1813, he rejects the liberal constitution and proceeds to run the empire even further into the ground: Pure inbred-levels of incompetence. Spain had a chance to enter and compete with other colonial powers in the 19th century, but instead of adapting to the times, they held on to the past with a vice like drip and tried to strangle their colonies in the process. Now all Spain has is its memories of days long gone.
@@benb405 Your comment is interesting. But I believe that the passage from the enlightened despotism of the 18th century (complicated by a Napoleonic invasion) to the 19th century, the supposed modern and democratic world, is more complicated than it seems.
The work of the Spanish Bourbons and their ministers, from 1700-1808, was very good. The 18th century was a time of prosperity, with the creation of artistic and literary academies (although art and literature was poorer than in the 16th-17th century, which was a golden century of culture). But many scientific and cultural institutions were created. Reinvestment in America and the Philippines was increased, from 70% to 80%, creating more universities, more hospitals, more infrastructure and a system of economic and resource balance, like the European Union, to benefit all viceroyalties, without bad agricultural competition. or mining. It surely wasn't perfect, in that land of 6,000 meter mountain ranges, rainforests, tropical diseases, deserts, volcanoes and millions of indigenous people. All this is always easier to do in Europe or Australia, full of resources, but very sparsely populated. All the Spanish viceroys of America and officials, at the end of their mandate, had to submit to a residency trial, to judge all their work as viceroys, so that even the last indigenous peasant could file a lawsuit for some injustice. I know that this paternalistic regime was becoming stagnant, as you say, next to the new republican or liberal ideas of other countries. But the world controlled by the British, the Dutch and the French was basically a factory, without mixing races, without making any sacrifice to get people out of the third world, a much worse world. The prosperity and modernity that you can see in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands at that time was based on the fact that their empires were very poor. 90% of the Commonwealth is very poor: India, Botswana, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, even Jamaica, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago (Latin American area). Haiti, Indonesia, Algeria... they had no interest in improving people's lives, the main idea was trade (even social Darwinism: the brown races are inferior, we can steal from them), so, the wealth went to London , Amsterdam and Paris until almost the 20th century: that creates a lot of prosperity and a lot of modernity in the metropolis, but little in India. Latin America is in the Western world.
America was a very peaceful land during the 300 years of the continental Spanish empire, at least after the conquests of Peru and Mexico. Compare that period, with some Mapuche rebellion or some tribe in Mexico, with rebellious, sexist and violent chiefs, who did not want to submit to Western civilization (and some British incursion, defeated in the Caribbean, which did not intend to improve the life of the people, just making money), with the previous 2000 years of human sacrifices in America, and the subsequent 200 years, of revolutions, wars between brother countries, guerrillas, dictatorships and violence.
The passage from the enlightened despotism of the 18th century to the so-called modern world of liberalism and the bourgeoisie of the 19th century is a very cruel time, which even in France had up to 6 regime changes, with four revolutions. Even quiet England, defended by the island, had hundreds of thousands of children aged 5-12 working in the coal mines for endless days, sometimes for a plate of food, until 1850. France was very rural until 1945. Germany and Austria were not industrial at all, before 1800 and even 1850. During the Napoleonic invasion, Spain made the constitution of Cádiz 1812, the most advanced of the time, very modern, influential in many countries in Europe. That constitution is annihilated by a French army sent by the Congress of Vienna (Germany, Austria, England) to eliminate "modernity in Spain." In any case, it must be admitted that when we change an absolutist monarch or a dictator anywhere in the world, a lot of revolutions and ambitious personalities are born. That step is never smooth. This was the case in Spain, Germany, Austria, France, Russia, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Korea, China...
And that's what happened in America. The libertarian, independence ideas, which were going to change Latin America, became 10 or 12 rich families of landowners, in each republic, corrupted with the money of England and France, who reactivated slavery. Few people know that the majority of the soldiers of the Spanish army during the wars of independence were indigenous people, who were more afraid of the elitist liberators than of the Spanish administration so influenced by the paternalistic Catholic church.
Even though Emperor Charles in 1500 owned one third of the world's gold, his son bankrupted Spain 6 times by 1600.
Sound like America today
Dafu-
@@User-wh1ff Where did the money go? I think all gold and wealth was siphoned off to Northern Italy, Austria and Switzerland. The rulers were not even Spanish! They wasted huge sums on useless, futile wars on the continent. They did not expand Spain's actual economy.
@@karloliver4949 Well it was stolen by pirates and privateers for the French, Dutch and British crossing the ocean. It was even being stolen between Barcelona and Madrid. What got there was wasted on useless wars trying to roll back protestantism and Islam. Yes, they damaged their local farming economy with exotic foods like wine and other things being imported. By 1600 they were really kind of dead man walking in European politics.
Charles was born that year, crowned 1519
-"You see, the Roman Republic had a troubled relationship with Carthage and tensions began when Hannibal besieged Saguntum..."
- "But I only want to know about the fall of the Spanish Empire"
-"WE'LL GET THERE WHEN WE GET THERE"
I'm 40 but still love to learn history.Please keep it free,I'm poor guy.
i'm Like #40..lol Check it out..
I'm 15 and I love history too. I like talking to my father about history. I prefer colonialism whereas he's more of a Punic Wars guy
@@carlneoh5843 I love all history but the most boring for me is the 1600s. Otherwise I love it all
Same, I'm in my 30's and I still watch vids about history on a weekly basis. So much stuff to learn.
@@Spartan265 17th century is golden century for dutch. Dutchmen would be upset if they see your comment :d. I personally love how a relatively small country like Netherlands managed to build an enormous colonial empire. I wish they chose more of french-like colonial rule for their policies which they chose more of a trade-centered policy. That's why Indonesians don't know more than maybe 5 words in dutch today.
Spain was the FIRST global empire. The quote: "the empire where the sun never sets" was first USED for SPAIN
Then the British came and stole it
@@tranium67 they inheritated it becoming the first global power after spain by 1800 after winnig a 100 year conpetition against France for that title since the fall of hegemonic Spain in 1715
It was actually true for the British empire though
@@ChrisJohannsen It was true and first for spain
What about Portugal? Our empire started before in Africa, Asia, (India, China) and Brazil
The other impressive thing is how soon after the Reconquesta the Spanish empire started.
In a way, the Spanish Empire was a continuation of the Reconquista. The same soldiers and clergy who sought to take back Christian lands quickly proceeded to convert the the Americas and the Pacific, whose inhabitants they initially thought were Indians and Moors, respectively (see the “Moros” of the Philippines).
@@EmisoraRadioPatio so it was racism and fanaticism all along? Viva radio patio
@@josecipriano3048 Complete buffoon. You understand spain was first attacked by muslims and the spanish simply pushed them back and reclaimed their land? Dont you see how that shaped their culture and made them see themselves as defenders and expanders of christendom?
@@abctutnichtweh1 excellent comment
Reconquista starts in 722 b. C., Spanish Empire, wich it was never called Empire, but kingdom; starts in 1492. Does 770 years seem soon to you?
Technically you could argue that the Spanish Empire truly ended after Spain lost their few colonies in Africa. These included small territories in northern and western Morocco, Spanish Sahara, and Spanish Guinea.
But we'll always have Paris
If "empires" are defined controlling other countries, then your are right, however, there are cultural, linguistics and historical, legal, and institutional factors as well, and those have not gone away - and that is Spain's legacy to the World.
@@juansantana8448 Very true
They still have some enclaves and islands there, the empire might be alive and well
latin america must abandon spanish culture
Damn, during the Napoleonic wars the "S" really was silent in "Spain"
Esmil?
Pain?
🤣
It was a brutal, "no prisoners taken," war. Think the eastern front in WW2.
@@hdbrjagnstore6998 Hooligland?
The fall of the Spanish Empire apart from factors such as the Napolionic wars, the Empire collapsed because it reached the maximum limit of control, taking into account that in its maximum extension (between 1770 and 1800) the population of the metropolis had only between 10 and 11 million. population.
Spain incorporated the peoples they conquered. While the Anglos just killed the native populations to populate the lands with Europeans. Big difference in the mentality of empires. Spain integrated their empire. This video is written by an Anglo point of view. Of conquering and replacing natives with Europeans.
it actually was because Spain got rid of the Jews and Arabs (the real empire organizers.)
@@sandraleiva1633 Spain shouldve done what the Anglos did then, because all the countries that Spain claimed are garbage cans of a country..
@@hopemsu1 Typical Anglo racist. The truth hurts.
@@sandraleiva1633 the truth also hurts that my statement was correct.
The world is really is full of rubble from empires that once thought they are eternal
Yep, no empire lasts forever. I think that's especially true during periods of rapid technological and societal change, massive institutions like governments just aren't very flexible at their core.
@@Alexander-tu3iv on the other hand, once they accept loss of ambition and power, the door opens to quality of life. The cuisine develops, the fine arts flourish, more of the populace contributes to the improvements
Centralized power is utterly inefficient. Taxation is theft and ultimately destructive.
@Sports Entertainment so you need a balance.
For one empire to rise another need to fall, the world haven’t ended yet.
Salute from Cartagena,New Grenada. The city that Admiral Blas de Lezo defended with 6 ships and a few hundred men against the largest British Armada till D-day 🇨🇴🏴🇪🇸
One colonial empire saved you from the other. Why are you so proud?
@@josecipriano3048 my last name is Villarreal. My family was original land owners in Colombia or at the time New Grenada. We still own the Spanish barracks in the old city. If you ever come on vacation check out Las Bovedas. Had the city fallen to the English we would of lost all our land.
@@josecipriano3048 well said!
@@imdarkghost7195 “built a lot of universities, cities schools”
That’s what all empires do including other European colonial empires.
The British built cities, universities and colonial administrations across the colonies they founded.
@@josecipriano3048 spanish empire was a non colonial empire my friend.
As a Honduran, we’ve always been told that the Napoleonic invasion was one of the causes for the independence fights in the Americas. Now we know that Spain itself was paving the way centuries before.
At least in Honduras they have better education, here in Guatemala they tell us that the Spanish were always the bad guys, when they literally founded the country and the provinces that it was, and here they idolize to the indigenous
@@SpanishSkeleton777 same in Dominican Republic
@@SpanishSkeleton777Bro your Name says it all. Spain had many invasion but you don't see them glorifying the Romans, Arabic, Vikings ect. If it wasn't for Arabics Spain Wouldn't have the History it has today. But the Spanish won't admit it. Being the trading center of great Empires in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Spain benefited greatly and thus them being the first ones to introduce it to the Americas, when they set sail to what they would think is the Hindis or India.
@@SpanishSkeleton777 "-founded the country" Yeah, you're right, Guatemala's educational system is ass. Considering you think colonization is "founding" something. Also, "idolize to the indigenous," uh yeah? Considering half of the country is of Maya heritage, they won't be too keen on "idolizing" the people who colonized them.
@@cuahtemoc7642 Pero de que estas hablando, me puedes decir que tiene de árabe la España del siglo XV, es una civilización formada en contra del moro, España es el país del mundo que mas cerdo come, simplemente por que los musulmanes no comen cerdo, y así con todo.
Nearly 600 million native Spanish-speakers, This block should be a much more relevant global power!
Weak economy
@@dennis771 No way!
@@world_mem7567 Well all Spanish speaking countries GPD combined is less than 6 trillion. On par with Japan and Germany lol.
Anyways, number of speakers is irrelevant if they don’t have economic or military might.
@@PolskaMapping-1 I meant all the Spanish speaking countries gdp is equal to japan. Number of speakers alone isn’t good enough
most in Latin America, and unfortunately is a place with a lot of problems.
Girls: "Guys don't have feelings, I can't believe he didn't cry with Titanic"
Boys: [cries watching this video]
When you find out your 0.3% Spaniard.
¡PLVS VLTRA!
¡Arriba España!
España: una, grande y libre
Former colonies: *Interesting*
Tears of joy
People who use that meme should be thrown in jail.
This video shows very little knowledge of the Spanish Empire and the independence of the American territories. The independence was carried out by the conservative elites in America that refused the liberal changes that were being adopted in Spain. These elites wanted above all to maintain their own status and the power of catholic church (Many revolutionaries like the "father of Mexico" the priest Hidalgo were conservative Catholics). That's why many historians claim that it was Spain who became independent of the old Empire.
xd
haha you are very stupid, Hidalgo was always a defender of the indigenous people, he spoke 3 indigenous languages, he was an an abolicionist, next to him morelos and matarmoros,
were looking for rights, justice equality, the spanish empire was a cancer, and there is nothing more beatuful in this world than the soon extincion of the spanish culture.
@@mexicoxv2236 Tu si que eres tonto si deseás la extinción de una cultura, eso es lo que tendrían que haber hecho los españoles con la cultura de los habitantes de México cuando llegaron así no habría imbéciles cómo tu diciendo estas tontearías, al contrario de lo que tu quieres para los españoles. Los españoles cuando conquistaron los imperios indígenas por lo menos les permitió vivir mantener sus costumbres (menos las bárbaras como la de sacrificar y comer gente) y tradujeron y escribieron sus idiomas para que no se perdiesen. Eres tan lamentable... Tus antepasados se avergonzarían de ti si viesen en lo que se ha convertido su descendencia.
@@Alex-mh1pj @Alex tu comentario eres tu diciendonos que eres un lame botas de los colonizadores sin decirme que eres un lame botas. "Costumbres barbaras" como si la esclavitud, genocidio, violac*ones y el saqueo que cometieron los colonizadores no fuesen conductas barbaricas.
@@Terry_Bell Te falta una de cultura grande a ti eh
Eres el típico de los estereotipos, que no sabe nada sobre el periodo colonial pero que se pasea por internet diciendo que si ladrones, violadores etx etc
México a día de hoy es exactamente eso que describes, ladrones violadores etc etc
Te parece justo representar asi lo que es México?? O son estereotipos?... Inculto.
12:58 the Spanish territories didn’t have a slow growth compared to the Brits ones due to “military expansion” as you say, but due to the whole system it was based on: mixing native population with Spanish people to grow a native colonial population, as opposed to hundreds of ships carrying thousands of Brits to the British colonies. And the Spanish attitude towards indigenous had nothing to do with the British one: while the Spanish were about integrating them, the British were about exterminating them.
Nor was the Spanish colonial system inferior of the British one, as a matter of fact the British one was mainly based on the Spanish one.
As for the Spanish American colonies will of independence, it came following Napoleon’s brother handling of Spain and its territories in the beginning of the 19th century.
Yes, I am picking on some things, but you see I am a certified historian specialist on the subject, and I can’t stand some UA-camr saying things untrue.
13:10 the sole reason for the Spanish empire to fall had nothing to do with Spanish monarchs, but with Napoleon and his brother at the beginning of the 19th century and the civilian turmoil that ensued during all the 19th century.
That's what I felt even though I don't have much knowledge on this topic.
Been to english speaking countries, didn't see much natives. Spanish speaking countries, full of native people and culture. I guess the best way to conquer is massacre😅 😅😅
Oh and "the European disease killed them all" theory seems didn't apply to central and south America😂
So why did the population of India rise from 160 million under the Moguls to 255 million when it gained independence. I've never heard such rubbish.
🤔. Interesting.
So the Spanish didn't burn indigenous people alive, set viscious dogs after them; never massacred huge communities of innocent people? I see they married the locals, treated them kindly and everyone lived happily ever after.
So was Spain's wipe out out of the native Aztecs just......bad luck?
Very interesting video. I agree with most of it. But there are some things that I would like to comment, that I don't agree with, or things that were omitted.
The Americas didn't revolted just because of negligence alone, it's true but also over-simplifying. It's not mentioned that Spain at that time was being invaded and razed to the ground by the French, and all its treasure, industries and cities pillaged by the French and British combined (easy way to remove the competitors, right?). Also, the British Empire financed the revolts in the Spanish America, and helped the rebels with soldiers and warships (just like Spain did with the British colonies in the past, let's call it a revenge mixed with opportunity). Failed to mention too, that the British took all the gold from Buenos Aires and Lima in the process, and the new countries that formed owed a lot of loan money to British banks, who applied abusive commissions and interests, and was nevertheless paid over time (in contrast, USA owed money to France and Spain for their help, but never paid back). Well, it's hard to make a country prosper when it's attacked in all fronts for centuries by its viciously competitive neighbors, and very easy to say "it's just because they are laid-back people". The myth of the lazy South European... Like that time Merkel told that the Spanish had too many vacations, when the average Spanish worker works more hours than the German average worker. Spain was a big cake, that over time the competing empires took piece by piece when the opportunity presented itself. The British Empire and their allies won the long term war, so now they have the right to say their system was superior and that's why it worked, when in reality it's not that simple.
12:28 that's a little bit biased too. This is a fact: at that time the Spanish colonies were far more prosper and richer. There was a time when the British colonists nearly die from starvation. These colonists weren't prepared with specialized labor, but they were throwed away from Briton because they were poor, or criminals, or pariahs. So, while the British colonists were struggling to survive in the north, the Spanish colonies in the south had specialized engineers, botanics, miners and farmers who built roads, universities, bridges, new cities, ports and maritime defenses, hospitals (which were free to use by all), farms and mines to make the colonies self-sufficient and productive. That's why 80% of the extracted gold and precious minerals stayed in the Spanish America, to invest in its infrastructure. And that's why the British Empire armada and corsairs tried so many times to raid and conquer the Spanish American port cities, succeeding sometimes. Say again, because they were richer and prosper.
It's also a little bit biased to say the native Americans had poor relations with the Spanish, based only on the conquest process. You have to remember it was a military alliance with different native tribes that could conquer the Aztecs and the Incans. A few hundred spaniards (that weren't even military at first) wouldn't conquer the Incan and Aztec empires alone; these native empires, the Aztecs and the Incans, were very powerful, and had hundreds of thousands soldiers. Even with technological disadvantage, a musketeer cannot win against 100 angry swordmen. Without the military and logistic help of opposing groups, like the Tlaxcalans for example, without diplomacy, conquest wouldn't have been possible there. Many native American chieftains that allied with Spain were granted nobility titles, representation in the Spanish court, freedom to manage their chiefdoms as dukes and freedom of movement. Moreover, during the XVI century laws were stablished to grant native Americans equal rights, declaring them free subjects, just like a peninsula spaniard, something that triggered the revolt of the abusive encomenderos. Also it was stablished tools to protect native americans from abuses, like the "protectores de indios" (indian protectors) to defend their cases as advocates against those who were accused of abusing them, and worked many times (ended with some spaniards decapitated). Interracial mixing (mestizaje) and marriage with natives was promoted, that helped to stabilize the region. The inquisition was completely forbidden to open cases against indians. Worker salaries were bigger than in many European countries. And a big forgotten etcetera. It wasn't perfect, it failed many times, but for some centuries it worked. Now it's me that sounds biased lol
Muy de acuerdo, un análisis muy completo de lo que ocurrió.
Your last paragraph is just hilarious. Based on the fact that the Spaniard colonies fought a 100-year-old war just to kick you out of America (1809-1898), your claims are nonsensical. Do you realize just how much people hated you and despised you (around the 19 century of course)?
La guerra de independencia de la América continental sólo dura 15 años. Hubo movimientos anteriores por la independencia, por supuesto, por parte de los ilustrados. Pero eran una minoría. Son ilustrados porque España creó allí una civilización occidental, con universidades, hospitales, el Renacimiento, la cultura. Es como la Guerra de Independencia de los Estados Unidos. Ellos también tienen una forma de vida occidental, con cultura y tecnología europeas. La diferencia es que España incluía todas las razas, aunque había castas sociales, a veces basadas en el color de la piel, pero el dinero podía romperse, ya que hay negros ricos enterrados en la antigua catedral de Panamá, del siglo XVII, descendientes de esclavos, y muchos libertadores fueron criollos de clase alta, como el mismo Simón Bolívar. También fue una guerra civil. Los más pobres y los indígenas, en su mayoría, se sentían mejor protegidos por la administración del imperio español, que por las 7 u 8 familias criollas y terratenientes. Fue el terror de los independentistas, y la también violenta respuesta de España lo que polarizó a la sociedad. España venía de una devastadora guerra contra Napoleón, que hundió nuestra economía en un 80%. De lo contrario hubiera sido mucho más difícil lograr la independencia a corto plazo. 150-200 años después de la independencia aún había guerrillas luchando contra las injusticias sociales, en las selvas de Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua...
El proceso de independencia me parece inevitable, como el de Australia o Canadá o Argelia, Vietnam, Angola, Indonesia, porque son tierras alejadas de la metrópoli. Los que no pudieron independizarse hasta el siglo XX fueron los pobres de India o África, porque no tenían herramientas culturales, apenas habían recibido aporte civilizador de los imperios británico, holandés o francés, porque eran de otra raza (comerciales). imperios). Después de la Independencia, América Latina fue un juguete de británicos y franceses, que sólo buscaban concesiones económicas, que les otorgaba todo caudillo ambicioso, y luego de Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética: se dividió el territorio, estallaron golpes de Estado. , guerrillas, tensión social, guerras entre países hermanos, narcotráfico, delincuencia rampante... Todo el planeta ha tenido esta tensión al pasar de un gobierno autoritario, con una sola persona (un rey o un emperador al mando) a una democracia , donde todos quieren gobernar. Pero en América Latina ha sido muy sangriento. El imperio español ya había hecho su legado en 1800, que es lo que une a Hispanoamérica hoy, para ser un día potencia, y el resto era tiempo extra. Fue un período de paz de 300 años, en el que solo hubo algunas revueltas mapuche o apaches, y algunas batallas para repeler a los ingleses en la costa, de las que casi nadie sabía nada. Pero se acercaba otro momento.
@@Gloriaimperial1 blablabla. Para su informacion, caballero. Comienza el 10 de agosto de 1809 en Quito-Ecuador y termina con la guerra de independencia de Cuba (1895), la "guerra" hispano-estadounidense (de tan solo 3 meses), la debacle de la Armada "invencible" Espaniola en Santiago de Cuba (masacrada por los acorazados Americanos), la rendicion incondicional de Espania y la firma del Tratado de Paris el 10 de diciembre de 1898. Ese fue el final de la "gloria imperial" (la ironia es magnifica) de Espania y el final de las guerras de independencia en el continente Americano. Punto y ahorrece la verborrea.
@@marioboada7424 Sí, y tu bla, bla, bla. Ya sabes que nunca se escribe para una sola persona en UA-cam. Ni siquiera me molestaría en contestar de otra manera. La armada invencible es de 1588, para tu información. Un año después España derrotó a la armada invencible inglesa de Drake en 1589, sin tormentas, hundiendo y capturando 80 barcos.
La guerra de independencia continental duró 15 años. 1809-1825.
El resto de guerras de independencia en América suma 14 años. No 100 ni 90. En total 30 años de guerra en el siglo XIX.
Conflictos armados en Cuba 1850-1851
Guerra de los Diez Años 1868-1878
Guerra de Independencia cubana 1895-1898
La gloria imperial, ignorante, es que dominamos Europa durante 200 años, contra 5 potencias: Francia, Inglaterra, Paises Bajos, Alemania protestante y el imperio turco, haciendo el siglo de oro, salvando el catolicismo, participando en el Renacimiento y llenando el continente europeo de palacios y universidades. También descubrimos tres continentes, dimos la vuelta al mundo y tenemos el mayor legado mundial. Y tuvimos algún lugar con bananas (no todo América, donde hicimos universidades) sino donde vive usted..
Habrá que ver lo que dura el glorioso imperio de Estados Unidos. El imperio español duró 406 años. 200 años como primera potencia mundial, y 300 como imperio más grande del mundo. Estados Unidos comenzó en 1945, y antes de 2040, ya estará China como primera potencia. Luego la India y luego la Unión Europea, antes de final de siglo. Ahora vaya a comerle la banana a los anglosajones.
Spanish empire collapsed because Spain was conquered by Napoleon. Its kind of hard for colonies to see you as its “master” when you have been whooped and occupied by another country. All the revolutions in Spanish colonies happened after they saw Spain defeated in the battlefield and exposed as a weak country
@Carlos Morales was only russia... that country is so good in wars
The Prussia that followed 'Frederic the Great' was also conquered by Napoleon. Not only, the 'Holy Roman Germanic Empire' ceased to exist as result of its defeat against Napoleon... No, Spain didn't collapsed because of Napoleon, it collapsed for the same reason a typical lottery winner gets ruined in a decade, fucked up decisions from day 1.
whattttttttt, If Napoleon killed all the Iberians, we would have been very happy, after the hordes of France destroyed the Spanish army, there was no reason to pay taxes to those bastards.
@@xavierrealmadrid7420 i dont think think that aged well
Spain and Britain won the war against Napoleon that sapped Spain's resources in controlling its colonies
This video right after Geography Now Spain video! Perfect timing!!
Payed by IBERDROLA.
In history, there is no absolute truth, but several interpretations of the same facts. However, even taking this into account, I have to say that I feel very partial about your video on the collapse of the Spanish Empire, you probably only take into account the bibliographic sources from the British point of view of history, since things were not so disastrous From the beginning, as you show here, not all the kings and economic systems of Spain from the 15th to the 18th centuries were so bad. For something Spain was a power for several centuries and if it were as such, it would not have been like that.
First of all, the Spanish empire encompassed in its maximum extension, half of Europe, several territories of Africa, Portugal (yes, everything that belonged to Portugal, including Brazil and its territories in Oceania) and several Pacific islands (all that without counting to the Holy Germanic Empire), but here only shows Latin America and the Philippines on the general map (0:33) and the European territories show them separately, avoiding understanding the true extension.
Second, the decline of the Empire has to be divided into 2, one in the last reigns of the Habsburgs and the other with the Bourbons. The two cannot be put as a whole, since they did not have the same causes, although you explain some of them well. With the former, the decline begins in the reign of Philip III, not in the reign of Charles I (fifth of the Holy Empire), while with the Bourbons, despite the territorial losses in the war of Spanish succession, there was a recovery economic that led the Empire to stay until the death of King Charles III, since his successors were very bad kings.
The last funny mistake, is that you say that the Spanish colonial model was bad and that it did not attract the population (12:15); This was not necessary since the Spanish model was based on mixing with the local population and not on attracting a labor force from abroad. All the colonial kingdoms wanted to copy the Spanish model, since in America, the cities were comparable to what there was in Europe, for being a successful system, although increasingly corrupt. The real reason why the independence movements began in America was not because of dissatisfaction with the policies of the Iberian Peninsula, which there was, but not with such intensity as to rebel, and less because of bad relations with the natives; The real causes were the Napoleonic Invasion and later, the British financing to the separatist sectors in the colonies (caused by the French occupation of Spain), as revenge for the help that Spain provided to the 13 colonies a few decades ago. But of course, that should not be said because it contradicts the British version of events, the independence of the United States if it was due to the inefficiency of the administration, so it is wrong for you to put it above the Spanish one (12:30).
The Spanish model was on mixing with the locals ...you are deluded.
Mexican and other native countries had no intention of mixing with Spain ,and still hate the Spanish.
@@actionnotwords6344 What are you talking about? If it were as you say, it would not have lasted the 400 years that it ultimately was; from the beginning there was a mixture, less in the administration which was what ultimately led to their disputes, but it was above all with the Bourbons in power. And the hatred you speak of is something intentionally taught in Latin American countries after all, because the independencies never had the full support of the population and because of them there was so much fragmentation in leadership, not like in the 13 colonies (which led to the separation in so many countries). The native nations you speak of ceased to exist with the conquest, to be small political entities that coexisted with the administration of the Viceroyalties, what existed since then were mestizo nations such as Mexico.
@ Do you think the Aztecs or any other native their ,likes Spanish conquistadors taking away their culture ,even the Inca ?
You are deluded.
@@actionnotwords6344 Well, nobody says the same to the Romans, who literally did the same and in the end history has shown that these changes are part of the human being, to evolve and be better. When I look at what is now in Latin American countries, I see more cultural diversity than there will ever be in Anglo-Saxon countries like yours, because at least if something of the natives remained, we mixed; meanwhile the English, French and Dutch did not do the same, even in the United States they continue to have problems with the African American population, due to these difficulties in mixing. The Aztecs and the Incas or the cultures of America, have not been the only ones in all of humanity to be absorbed by other powers. In the end it doesn't matter what happened because it already happened; what matters in the end is that the world of now has been reached because of what happened and regretting it is a waste of time. What is wrong is to stop seeing history in a non-objective way and see it as something of good and bad, which is an absolute lie, in addition to criticizing the facts with the current mentality.
@ Of course they say it to the Romans!
Do you think the Roman was welcomed into the countries,no they invaded and were resisted. Some countries surrendered others fought and kept out of their pagan influence. Interesting is that the same country or city of Rome gave the Spanish permission to go and invade the Americas with the Pope's blessing. All of the Latin countries are a complete mess,they destroyed local culture,but not replace it with anything better, totally corrupt ,con homicidios de mas!
Uno verdadeiro vergonha,pueblo sofrido ademas con a benção de Vaticano ainda!
Mexicanos odeia mestiços y negro,os familias descendents espanois desfrutam Todo vantagem y el pueblo nativo ganar NADA
I believe we were the last strong hold of the Spanish empire the Philippines especially my city Iloilo. They transferred the capital from Manila to Iloilo City when there was a widespread rebellion in Manila. The legacy of the Spanish empire can still be seen in our towns. The massive baroque Churches and houses of our Ancestors, the Fiestas, culture and foods all relate back to Spanish era instead of the USA. Queen Isabella even declared our city "Muy Leal y Noble Ciudad de Iloilo." Churches were built in the 16th-18th centuries. We don't call them Spanish we call them Kastila (Castille). Many families with Spanish descent still there we call them Mestizo/Mestiza. Our Ancestors have ill feelings to the abusive Friars but they have never forgotten the legacy they left behind. Every year we still celebrate the anniversary of their last years in our islands. Corruptions is one of the legacy as we can see in all countries under Spanish empire. But I'm sure we do celebrate the good than the bad. Thanks for sharing this story. We never learned about it in my Spanish class.
Your actual problem with corruption now a days is more correlated with you being a puppet of the USA, the contry that killed millions of philippines to reduce the spanish culture in your islands, rather than coming from spain
"The last of the Philippines" have legendary heroic status
Much from Spain! We love you brothers! :)
Hasoooo, kamo nga mga Ilongo mga uto uto, amo na ang matuod
@@epifaniodelossantos3263 Ellos no son tontos ,al contrario saben más historia y valor cultural que tú
I needed this. So few talk about the Spanish Empire
Britainia will never be slaves
@@stevenvaldez4057 Never humble either.
but all videos from the spanish empire have missleading info and lies. Most common thing they do is not to showing full spanish empire territories, such as having almost the entire US
@@ArcabuzStrife because it's Anglo American perspective so they try to downplay it
@@ArcabuzStrife lolol I dont remember the Spanish fighting the natives off the land....
There's a very important inaccuracy in the video--the British colonies were not better administered than the Spanish viceroyalties in the Americas. The viceroyaltues were not in fact neglected, but enjoyed a semi-autonomy, that was reigned in whenever a new viceroy was appointed, as well as its deputy administrators. In fact the Spanish Empire grew its Empire in east Asia/the Pacific, and North America with Mexico City as its administrative base. Mexico had its first university while Boston was still forest. It also had the largest religious, cultural, artistic movements, and military at the time. So much so, New Spain helped the American colonists drive off the British from the southern colonies in military campaigns while the French did in the north. (And why European powers thought Mexico would emerge victorious over the U.S. during the Mexican-American War).
The viceroyalty of New Spain and Peru were in fact given equal weight as states within the empire as the kingdoms in Spain itself. The same with Sicily as southern Italy was also a viceroyalty and sometimes viceroys were exchanged between the viceroyalties.
And it's also not quite true, there was no immigration to the viceroyalties at this time. In fact Mexico in particular received a lot of Spanish immigration as well as French (2nd most common), Italian, Balkan, etc. The French in particular established many Mexican customs and influenced food and music, and even helped lead to the so called Pastry War of the early 1800s. Mexico City was a very polyglot place. So was Manila (the Philippines were administered through Mexico City).
In fact New Spain aka Mexico was the most powerful state in the Americas given that it was nearly 200 years older than the British colonies. It did have large settlements--actually cities. Puebla, Guanajuato, Leon, Zacatecas, Guadalajara, Valladolid (Morelia at present), Oaxaca, Veraruz, Acapulco, etc. They were in fact quite populated--Mexico City was the largest city in the Americas and larger than nearly all European cities save for Constantinople. The British colonies were colonies, while the Spanish territories were semiautonomous viceroyalties.
Peru, and the viceroyalties of Colombia/New Granada (which included Venezuela) also had important centers.
Peru supplied most of the silver to the Empire during the 1500s. Thereafter from the 1600s onwards New Spain (largely Mexico) supplied Spain with most of the silver the following 2 centuries. And it was from that silver that the Spanish real or piece of eight was created from, used as the world's first reserve currency. In fact when the royal palace, the Alcazar burned down in Madrid in the mid 1700s, Mexico contributed a large portion of silver towards its reconstruction.
By the time the Empire was ending as Napolean invaded first Portugal (causing the Portuguese royal family to move to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil), then Spain, the Spanish king chose to also move his court to Mexico City. However, his son helped lead an uprising, literally stopping him en route to the New World. Instead they captured him, then both were captured and held captive by Napolean.
My point in all of this is the viceroyalties were far from neglected. They were important cash cows, and also important centers of commerce, monetary policy (and minting), trade, diplomacy, culture, and bases for expansion of the Empire to other parts of the globe. By that point in fact Mexico had better living conditions than most of northern Europe.
The main reason the Empire fell apart boiled down to one thing--Napolean invading Spain. Was there discontent in the viceroyalties before? Yes, but it's possible that with reforms the Spanish planned to carry out, the viceroyalties would have continued as part of the Empire.
Napoleans invasion catapulted the revolutionary movements of independence.
I've read somewhere that a big reason for Spain's economic hardships was the huge influx of gold and silver from the Amreicas, causing a huge inflation at home that crushed economic growth and innovation.
That was initially 'til the spanish reforned statal Banks
Thats the true...
Spain reinvested 70% of American wealth in America to build a Western society. Almost the other 30% was for the endless war in Europe between 1500-1700, almost always simultaneously against France (Catholic-Huguenot), England (Anglican), Protestant Germany (Lutheran), the Netherlands (Calvinist) and the Turkish Empire (Islamic). , and occasionally Sweden, Denmark and revolts in Italy, Portugal and Catalonia, as well as wars against Morocco, the Philippines, Apaches, Mapuches, Berber pirates... Spain managed to save the Catholic religion in southern Germany, the German Palatinate, France (Spanish invasion of Paris in 1590), Belgium and Luxembourg, and Italy (Spanish NATO in Italy for 450 years, mainly against the Turks). It was a continuous war economy. Inflation? After 1715, with the Bourbon dynasty, gold and silver arrived in greater quantity, but there was no inflation, and the 18th century was a time of prosperity and global growth for Spain. We even increased reinvestment in America to 80%. The reason for that prosperity? There was no longer a war in Europe against 5 European powers, to save the Catholic religion and the Mediterranean civilization, preventing the Protestant advance on Rome, Madrid and Lisbon. That was settled. Empires like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands did not have that civilizing commitment in America. Almost all the wealth of India or Indonesia and Africa went to London and Amsterdam, greatly benefiting central Europe. Spain always had problems exporting to central Europe. A Spanish, Greek or southern Italian merchant had to travel 1,000 or 2,000 km to reach those European markets. A French person has always had a border with Switzerland, Germany, Belgium... and very close to the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. That made the Mediterranean countries less competitive. Before the wealth was in the Mediterranean, and the people of Germany or Sweden, were less competitive, in Roman times.
With that trouble, they then took that silver and gold wealth to their colonies and outposts in the Philippines to trade with China and Japan for porcelain, silk, and spices. The Chinese took on so much silver that they went into economic depression. The situation was so bad, Japan said 'not us buddy' and closed their trade embassy and took on the policy of absolute isolationism.
@@mrrodriguezHLP
There may be a reason in what you say. But the problem is more complex.
Saudi Arabia or Qatar have black gold. They do not manufacture anything.
Oil has been almost unlimited, and they have no poverty. Spain reinvested 70% of America's wealth in America, and almost the other 30% in our power in Italy and in the Spanish army in Europe, to save the Catholic Church. I am sure that if the money that the United States earns in the world, with its companies (Amazon, Coca-Cola, Hollywood, Google...) were invested 70% in another continent, and the other 30% in defending Ukraine and Afghanistan, they too would have an economic problem. There was no longer that problem of inflation in the 18th century (which was a century of prosperity for Spain, because it no longer had wars against 5 international powers) but we were unable to raise prosperity very, because we have always had a problem exporting to Europe, as Greece or southern Italy. For a French it is much easier (border with Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, rich northern Italy...)
Anything that Spain created, had to be transported, in times of maritime war, to Germany, passing through France, which was at war with Spain. In America there was a ship industry, a metal industry, an arms industry, a construction industry...
Legacy of the Spanish Empire:
Spanish Dollar: First World Currency (was widely used in Europe, the Americas, and the Far East)
The Spanish Navy, heir to the Castile and Aragon navies, is one of the oldest in the world.
The first to have regulations and standards for each warship that gave unity to the operation of the fleet.
The one that made the discovery of America possible in 1492.
The creator of the modern concept of naval convoy (Fleet of the Indies), in the 16th century.
The first to circumnavigate the Earth: Magellan-Elcano Expedition (1519-1522).
The discoverer of the trans-Pacific route between Asia and America: the Tornaviaje of Andrés de Urdaneta in 1565, and the establishment of the Manila Galleon.
The creator of the world's first commercial route (between Cádiz and Manila): the Fleet of the Indies in the Atlantic, and the Manila Galleon in the Pacific.
The Discover of the Pacific Ocean (1513) by Vasco Núñez de Balboa.
The Creator and the first to use the marines (1537).
The first to build churches, banks, universities and modern hospitals inside of american continent.
The first to use frigates, at the end of the 16th century during the Eighty Years' War.
The creator and first to use the gunboat (Antonio Barceló in 1779)
First round the world by an armored ship carried out by the armored frigate Numancia (1865-1867).
The first to have a destroyer in service (1887). The Destroyer, which gave its name to an entire saga, was designed by the Spanish naval officer Fernando Villaamil in 1885.
The first to have a torpedo submarine invented by Isaac Peral in 1888 (the Peral submarine).
Creator of the modern concept of amphibious landing (with battle tanks and a unified command for naval, land and air forces) put into practice in the Al Hoceima landing, resulting in absolute success and ending the Rif war (1925). The officers in charge of planning the Normandy landing (especially its chief executive, General Eisenhower), which marked the beginning of the end of World War II, thoroughly studied the strategy already employed by the Spanish Navy two decades earlier.
The first navy in the world to use vertical take-off aircraft, specifically the Harrier AV-8A "Matador" on aircraft carriers, in this case on the Daedalus (R-01) (ex-USS Cabot). This practice later spread to other countries, specifically the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, Italy, India and Thailand. At present, Spain continues to operate with advanced versions of this type of V / STOL (Harrier II) aircraft.
I think the Pacific Ocean was discovered long before the Spanish got there - by the many peoples who lived around it! Saying the Spanish discovered the Pacific is very Eurocentric.
@@sslaytor get over it.
Reduced the Americas population to 1/8 of what they had in just a few decades is also something that left a legacy.
@@NIDOKING the war is the war , natives cannivals, human sacrifices...all man, say all
@@NIDOKING the Spaniards never killed the natives, that was the british. The Spaniards converted the natives into catholicism and made them learn spanish.
The revolution in New Spain (Mexico) that eventually paved the way to Mexican Independence, inspired the Philippines to also revolt against Spain. The Mexicans were the closest people to the Filipinos during those dark era. They even sent some weapons to help with the revolution. And in the WW II, they sent some military force to help their hermanos y hermanas en Filipinas to help with the new foreign aggressors.
Yes but we lose Philippines when unites stades win the war against Cuba (Spanish Cuba) , and we send help too in WWII to Philippines
Both countries rebelled at the behest of the Freemasons. If you look at the leaders of the Katipunan here in the Philippines, they were mostly Freemasons and wore occult symbolism and images that are closely tied to Freemasonry. History is far more interesting when you look at it deeper.
Had Spain not made the Philippines a separate colony they would've gotten their independence with New Spain in 1821
@@DarkPsychoMessiah The Mexicans were the ones who governed the philippines until their independence but most of the Spanish people who were in the philippines were mostly from Castile and Léon but the Mexicans did had a large influence especially corn and Dia de Los muertos.
@@AncientTruthSeeker yep, even America was founded by Freemasons. History is really interesting when you look deeper. There’s more to modern history than meets the eye. These guys have been running the show behind the scenes.
The reign of Isabel & Fernando was way more than “fairly admirable” they became the grandparents of Europe and the most important family, the Habsburgs respected their memory, and kept their Spanish traditions alive. Isabel and Fernando were living legends during their lifetimes.
Habsburg doesn't just kept his traditions alive, they completely adopt it and become an 100% Hispanic house.
Nice, but you didn't actually covered the independece of the colonies. I expected that to be talked in here.
Jamás pensé que estarías en un video como este xd
@ si la verdad que también estoy sorprendido jaja, es todo un intelectual, con razón hace buen contenido
No eran colonias
@@elporrovegano tenés razón
That is because he specifically named the video about the collapse and not the independence of any country?
Spain practically singlehandedly changed the course of history. If you look in almost any book regarding history of any European country, you will find in its index Spain or Spanish Empire in it.
German Empire
@@Confederate_Mapping 😂😂
@@Confederate_Mapping
the german empire is litteraly irrelevant compared to the spanish
Not in a way anyone should be proud of though. Just endless destruction and decay upon all other cultures it encountered.
@@arvidberg1530 give me just one example of that. C'mon, the best one you might have.
Erasmus Darwin about Spanish Empire:
In my travels through the vast Spanish empire, I have been amazed at how the Spaniards treat Indians, as similar, even forming mestizo families and creating hospitals and universities for them, I have met indigenous mayors and bishops and even the military, which results in the social peace, well-being and general happiness that we already want for ourselves in the territories that, with so much effort, we are taking from them.
It seems that the London mists cloud our hearts and minds, while the clarity of sunny Spain makes you see and hear God better. Her lordships should consider the policy of depopulation and extermination since clearly the Spanish faith and intelligence are building, not like us an empire of death, but a civilized society that will finally end up imposing itself as by divine mandate. Spain is the wise Greece, the imperial Rome, England the Turkish corsair
You are based on a Darwin's 'post card' to define what the colonial Spain in America really was...? Spanish was anything but the enlightenment bullshit you claim. You ought to be delusional to ever justify the slightest association between the 'wise Greece' (humanistic and rational) with ultra-fundamentalist, brutal and uncompromising Catholicism led by the Spanish Inquisition.
As for Spain as an empire, it is no more no less the Story of an individual who wins the lottery (America) and ends up completely ruined two decades down the road. Spain's imperialistic and economic concept was based exclusively upon power by conquest and warfare. Unlike the rest of Europe, Spain never thought it should be adapt to anything and with the surplus of gold and silver that extracted from America went on to dismantle its own industry and import everything (just like Hugo Chávez with his Venezuelan oil in the early two thousands), which first provoked a massive inflation, then a succession of bankruptcies that as explained in this video were exacerbated by yet more futile and ruinous wars. Holland was for Spain one hell of a Vietnam, just to name one total fuck up of an enterprise that end up with 6 bankruptcies in a row, under Philip II. To keep it short Spain has embodied an inoperative and decadent system ever since Charles V and more pathetic still, you still don't get it...
@@과자-z8o Fair enough. The way I see it, the big problem of Spain is not so much that they were brutal centuries ago (we all agree that that was the norm everywhere) but rather that they were both consistently and persistently moronic.
@@과자-z8o That’s my point, I’m not judging with today’s standards, but rather on those established throughout 500 years…
@@SVC-hz6dq it is. I'm peruvian and I can confirm spanish unlike brittish instead of separating natives, they did benefit blending. Most natives were given titles and land property which was lost after independence. You call brutal regime but spanish were the only ones who left universities, churches, roads and cities. Better read history, It's a common misconception even in latin america because goverments need to tell history so as long as it fits their interests
@@SVC-hz6dq again why there're millions of natives and languages well kept, why is that unlike the english world we hispanics instead of struggling with race we struggle with economy... look up at africa and why the french drained that continent or indonesia where the dutch never left anything build. All empires did separate the natives from european settlers while spanish were the ones who actually by the catholic crown gave natives rights...
you forgot Sicily, Sicily was also a part of the spanish empire, for almost 400 years. The spanish brought tomatos and prickly pears to siciy.
Sicily and most of Italy, save Venice.
It was highlighted in yellow in the documentary with the other Spanish territory, so they didn't forget it, they just didn't focus on it.
@@sakura613 A lot of territory was highlighted in yellow, for a very long time.....But call the Spanish Empire a failure...Okay, but Napoleon, who ends in total defeat was the "triumph", I see who you dislike.
True also Lazio, many parts of Italy.
Well, it lasted for more than 300 years. I think that was a success.
That's the thing. When we think of Rome we thinkg of the glory days and not of the fall. But when we think of Spain we thinkg of the last 50 years of the Empire instead of the two centuries of pure glory.
The Spanish Empire lasted more than the american empire and the british supremacy of the world. Not even the Roman Empire lasted as long as Spain (countign as to it had to be split and had lots of interregnums).
@@juanjoseph The bit about Rome is not true at all! The Eastern half of the empire was still very much alive until the fall of Constantinople in the 1400s (some one thousand years after the fall of the West). A lot of people in modern days tend to disassociate the "Byzantines", as we call them, from the romans, but this is not actually the case. The term Byzantine was coined after the fall of Constantinople, but they considered themselves Roman, and they were. Depending on when you start counting it as an empire, and if we include Byzantine (which we should), the Roman empire lasted over 1500 years! Even if you don't include the Byzantine Empire, they still had a solid 500 years before the west collapsed.
@@azeon562
Most eastern provinces of the Eastern Empire were lost completely during the arab invasions bro. Egypt, Cyrenaica, Libya, and Siria. When the turks came they also lost central anatolia.
You should read more about the eastern roman empire. From the arab invasions to 1454, they were just...a person in life support.
@@juanjoseph As I stated earlier, it depends on your criteria for an empire. History considers the Byzantine Empire as existing from the time they split from western rome, to their final defeat. Regardless of how small they became compared to their peak territorial expansion, the Byzantines remained a culturally and economically significant player in geopolitics until their conquest by the ottomans in the 1400s.
@@azeon562
Not really, they only mattered for merchantile matters, because of their trade positions.
They were more of a buffer state for centuries until they fell in a terrible interegnum in 1204.
Like Spain is still a nation with oversea territories and some "importance" in global trade and politics. But we wouldn't count Spain as an Empire after 1898.
"History" is not a monolith. You cam even count the Eastern Roman Empire ending after the line of Constantine died out and the first major interregnum starting.
Do we count Turkey as the Ottoman Empire still existing? Of course not.
Most of the ERE history after the muslim invasions is just the ERE falling apart from internal civil wars or making small conquests before being conquered furthered down.
Was there a Greek Kingdom called Basileia twv Romaiwov which said was the heir of Constantine? Yes.
Was it an important player in high medieval politics? Nah, not really.
As a Brit who lives in Spain, I found this video very interesting. Good job 👍🏻
Hey my middle name is Olivar haha 👍
Great video but how is it possible that you said in 12:57 that one if the reasons the spanish empire in the americas feel was because of the poor relations with native americans when Spain is the colonial power that has had the best treatment towards native americas plus not other european country in the world has had as many interracial relationships as Spain did ?
best treatment relative to other european powers isn't that great, but I agree. implicitly saying english-american relations with the natives were better is easily disproven by the fact that northern native american populations are functionally non-existent safe from uncolonizable canadian tundra
@@boio_ yeah obviously it wasn't the best but atleast the native americans could go to the same schools that spanish children's went to and could also be given noble titles
@@boio_ The main population in the empire was mixed race people and indigenous,they even had schools,hospitals,courts for them,of course they were at the bottom of the social pyramid.
But in comparative with the others powers they had a better treatment by the time's standards.
@@boio_ I believe the indigenous population in the north was much less that in the south. They had developed civilization in Central and South America. So you are comparing apples to oranges.
@@angelicadickson8666 my gosh you are such a troll it's just hard for you to accept that your ancestors were just a bunch of Hitler's they mg to erase a race of people which is why the would give indigenous people smallpox blankets so they could get small pox on purpose plus the Indiana scalping acts where British government allowed for the natives scalp to be removed
0:26
"The Empire on which the sun never sets".
British : we not only conquer land , we also conquer titles
Spanish Empire: "Hey! You can't do that!"
British Empire: "Watch me"
@@RockSmithStudio *Spanish Empire* "Yeah, well, our former colonies still speak Spanish!"
*English/British Empire* "Is that ALL they do? HAH! Our former colonies not only still speak our language, but also one of them became the most powerful nation in all.of.HISTORY!"
@@diarradunlap9337 And China will be next 😉
@@diarradunlap9337 the U.S. isn't the most powerful in history Rome was
@@diarradunlap9337 not true, all empires are powerful in their time...
I don't know about you guys but I absolutely fucking love the spanish empire flag
Spanish Empire was absolutely one of the best empire in the World
@@gangstamack8397 the Best
All the Spanish speakers countries still work like a great nation, it’s a similar culture despite we have different ethnicities.
This is 2022 not 1750
Bullshit. Most countries today that were part of the old Spannish Empire, are now third world. Take a look at what the British Empire created and left behind in comparison. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. It shits on the Spannish Empire former colonies.
@@eddielong8663 in truth, I believe most latin Americans are not very bright. If a person can celebrate that they don’t need to speak English to travel to NYC because bunch of poor immigrants help drive another country economy
@@dennis771 There are no empires anymore. But Spain is very close to Hispanic America, and among them they are also very close, with a constant cultural, migratory, economic (investment) flow, joint prizes for literature, music, cinema, unified language academies, soccer (Real Madrid and Barcelona are very followed there) gastronomy, Ibero-American Summit, organization of Ibero-American states, which also includes the Iberian culture of Portugal and Brazil. In addition, there are plans, promoted by leaders like Lula da Silva, to unite all of Latin America as if it were the European Union. Portuguese and Spanish are the same in 89% of the words. Sometimes we call it the Iberosphere. Although in Latin America they seek to build a power there, which would be bigger than Russia. It will be a slow process.
Horseshit!
0:28 Wait does that mean the British stole that line from Spain
Yes. Those Britts
Ja mein kaiser
Yes
No shit
@Rincon Ovalle Luis Fernando Obio
I love this! Can you do something like this about the Swedish empire? The French Colonial Empire?
One died when half of Europe decided to kick sweden's ass and they ultimatly lost despite having the best army.
The other died like the british, a quite ravaged country who could less and less maintain its colonies, and ultimatly decided to abandon it when it became clear it couldn't work anymore.
@@clementlefevre5384 wish CANZUK would to through so some of the british empire can unite again
Oui👀👀👀👀👀👀
@@jacobrawlinson12 it won't happen
@@clementlefevre5384 shhhhh
Spain: Let's conquer!! Let's expand!!
Also Spain: Let's siesta.
We still have that "siesta" thingy lol.
@LeJapanese OfTokyo Have you watched the film Apocalypto? No need to explain.
@LeJapanese OfTokyo And why all Latin America speak Spanish as a native tongue? Stop fooling yourself!!!
Also Spain: let's play football (18 champions leagues trophies)
spanish were quite productive in the day, but english in order to prevail did everything possible to crack the spanish empire. As said before victors are the ones who write history. And history is written in english not spanish, obviously skipping that side of history at some point.
Spain's Reconquista is truly and epic tale.
Many Latin Americans ( living in former Spanish colonies in Latin (Spanish America) are unaware that these colonies were way richer than those held by the English in North America.
En ese tiempo no existía ese termino racistoide e invacionista de lalitoamérica. Así que tu concepción es muuy pero muuuy erronea.
The original thirteen colonies have stone for the Quarries, timberlands for paper and pencil the soil for agriculture the industrial revolution was started in Northern state's there's wildlife there's lobster in Maine fish to the great lakes the rivers the harbors and Canada is like the British never left or the French. It might not be rich with gold and silver as far as we now it's rich in their culture they really made themselves home see we can be degenerative as we please the real people go back to their culture when it gets too far gone.
@@roberto-qy2ys you're Spanish is terrible but you are free to say whatever
latin america must abandon spanish culture
@@dicitencellovoyais7914 no lo creo, está tan imbricada en nuestra cultura que sería casi una mutilación. Aunque sé que los anglosajones con sus anglicismos están ganando terreno en los jóvenes profesionales influenciables.
That's happening when you dev the gold mine in La Mancha too much w/o any means of inflation reduction...
Men of culture
🤣🤣🤣
When Texas was actually called Las Nuevas Filipinas or the New Philippines. Thnx Spain for acknowledging the service and loyalty the Filipinos gave to the Spanish Empire
I believe that both area were called Philippines because there were a few monarchs named King Phillip on the throne of Spain. The reason that Mexico and all of the mainland to the south spoke Spanish (with the exception of Brazil) was because of the Papal Bull of 1493. In fact, when Sweden, the Dutch, the French, and the British set up colonies in North America, it was viewed as an invasion because of the Papal Bull. All of the countries fought wars to expand their empires, and when the wars only expanded their debts, they started new wars to pay off the old debts. And when you gain territory, you have to spend more money you don't have to keep the new areas under control. Ask somebody in Quebec what the word "patriot" means to them.
Hopefully Spanish will be spoken in the Philippines if they continued to speak Spanish we would be 600 million people who speak Spanish but it is only a dream greetings from Argentina 🇦🇷
@@FBI.capturo.gente.rara. Soon bro, trust me. after the win of argentina in the world cup, many of the kids here in the philippines wants to play football and they would for sure learn how to speak spanish if they continue their passion for football.
@@FBI.capturo.gente.rara. Lol how’s language important? Anyways the Philippines are long past new language implementations. They have Tagalog & English.
Their focus is their economy; which is 100x more important than language
@@ryuga932Us Filipinos 🇵🇭 love Basketball than Football.
As a Portuguese, I am fond of my Spanish brothers and sisters. I have visited Spain numerous times. I admire Spanish culture, history, and uniqueness from the rest of the Iberian Peninsula, but I would welcome Spain's decision to join a really Iberian Union. I genuinely feel that if these two countries were united, they would prosper immensely.
Ah, that would be great, indeed! Who knows?, maybe we'll live to see that.
Spain isn't one country but at least two
Spanish isnt spanish but Castilian
you can do it but only siding with Catalans and building triple commonwealth 😉
but you will never regain Latin America
as they have their own etnic animosities
and much stronger than now fake European nationalities
your comment proving it itself
Yeah Spain and Portugal as a single country.
Sportugal
@@_cesarjoseph LOL that's so bad it's good
Great vid man, love the Spanish Empire.
me too, i like madrid and valencia
Cartagena de Indias 🔥🇪🇸
spain was the first global superpower, the romans or the chinese or the mongol empire were all regionals empires, none was global, spain was the first. portugal was a spanish state, just as castille or aragon or navarre, so you must put them together. the dutch and the english and the french, all of them tried to emulate spain and tried to follow their footsprints, every one with their own particularities of course, but spain was the pioneer, the european state wich established the west supremacy over the rest of the world, so in that sense, the next global superpowers, the british and the americans tried to be the spain of their ages. what spain did was so astonishing at the time thay a person of today can hardly understand. no european country before spain ever dreamed of a world dominance, every european state that later follow that imperial path was inspired by the astonishing achievements of imperial spain...
I see you don't know the meaning of global superpower or the regional power,
First and for most the global super power means an empire which control a vast land of the *known world* and a regional power is the country which control a good chunk of the *known world* such as the umayyad emirate of Cordoba,
To say Rome or the Mongols weren't a global super power is utter ignorance.
And Sapin wasn't the first global super power and it's a fact.
@@timelapse5586 the roman were a great power but not a global power of their world, they never controlled their known world. they knew about persia and about india and about china, and they controlled nothing of those regions.
@@mendozagriffith2720 neither did the Spanish they knew Persia and they knew Russia and they knew Asia and Asturalia but they didn't conquer it,
As I told you a global super power is that empire which controls a vast amount of territory of the *known world* and the Roman empire controlled pretty much a good amount of territory in Asia and they had north Africa and almost all of Europe this is a global super power from it's time .
But for the Spanish empire one simply cannot say the same thing , why? Because it just colonized the Americas and even Morocco could have done that if they thought about it or knew there was Americas in the first place this is called at best a colonial super power.
@@timelapse5586 the romans had dominance in a region of the world and in the rest of the world they had no influence. the spanish had lands and territories all over the world, they were dominants in europe, they had an entire continent for them, they had presence in africa, india and asia, they had an entire country in front of china, they controlled the seas. that was something never seen before. no one had done something like that, no one. that s why they were the first global empire.
@@mendozagriffith2720 nope as I told you having a lot of colonies doesn't make you the strongest country for example when they attacked the Muslims in north Africa the ottomans easly crushed them and they went so far to the coastes of spain,
and also no they weren't dominant in Europe there were also a great powers that were rivaling them such as the Ottoman Empire. Seems like you didn't read what I wrote about what a global super power is.
That fool Charles V reminds me of some our present day rulers. Getting into unnecessary wars and squandering money. Neglecting his own people's financial and infrastructure needs. Then adding more and more tax burdens until tax income actually starts declining. Eventually losing it all.
Yes, when I heard how this tax was self destructive, I thought, that is how it is now.
they were not unnecessary wars. The Ottoman Empire and the Protestant Princes threatened the security of Austria. The French and the pope deliberately committed diplomatic crimes by denying treaties and starting illegal wars with Charles V to diminish his power.
Apart from the fact that he defended the Balkan nations from the Ottomans openly declaring war against them, he was the one who get attacked by coalitions against him.
Also, Charles the V wanted to unite all Christian kingdoms under one banner to assert peace within the Christians, i consider it was a really honourable wish. And in that moment in time modern economics were unknown and some people mostly the Netherlands and English just started to try to figure out how modern economics work, and unfortunately for Charles V and Philip II, either they didn't take it seriously (which was comprehensible because it was such a new and unknown idea) or didn't have the opportunity to meet these early modern economists.
Trouble about Charles is he wanted to unite all Christians but under the Catholic Church. And with the Inquisition working. And the Catholic Church hierarchy with the Pope had become quite political and corrupt at that time. A big reason many rebelled against it.
So he was in fact further dividing Christian's and persecuting those that wanted just to read the Bible themselves. Who tried to establish a Spiritual relationship without a Priest's unsatisfactory interpretations.
They didn't want that power over them interfering with their Spiritual connection. All Charles accomplished in the end was drain his own resources and undermine his own goals. He wasn't the only leader like that either.
Wars aside, thats pretty much every brazilian government since the early 2000s, no exception.
In Europe, Habsburg Spain controlled Burgundy, Flanders, the Netherlands, parts of northern Italy, Naples and southern Italy, and Sicily. For 60 years, it also held Portugal under a personal union.
Held Portugal thanks to a succession crisis...plus, the Queen was portuguese..
Portugal was independent tho. Portugal and Spain just had the same king.
9:45 The Portuguese and Spanish empires were formally separate between 1580 and 1640. What led Portugal to regain its independence was the intent of Castille (or, as you call it, "Spain") to abolish this statu quo. The Castilians wanted to consume Portugal, despite their previous guarantees, yet Portugal begged to differ.
Formally "separated" as all the kingdoms were under the habsburg rule, Portugal didnt have a special status. And what happened was that the kingdom of Castille was the one giving all the soldiers and money to finance and fight in the wars across Europe, so the Count-Duke of Olivares wanted to distribute all those expenses across all the kingdoms.
@@acusticamenteconvusional9936 I wrote that the empires were formally separated. This is a matter of record. Of course, there was an unprecedented migration between the two empires. Regarding Europe, Felipe IV waanted to revert and anul all the guarantees given by Felipe II, efectively annexing and dissolving Portugal, but in name.
Portugal has a different language than the Spanish. The country was pretty much destroyed at its home base by a big, big earthquake followed by a gigantic tsunami. I believe this is the last time they burned heretics a the stake because this happened right when they were about to burn victims to death.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 Actually the last "Auto de fé" in which people were burned (or "relaxed in flesh to the secular branch") was 5 years after the earthquake/tsunami, in 1761, when the elderly jesuit Gabriel Malagrida was burnt in the stake, for having attributed the disaster to the sins of the country. Other 3 would have been burnt, but one was abroad (he was burnt in effigy) and two women died in jail.
La Unión de armas de 1640, propuesto por el Conde Duque de Olivares
The Spanish Empire launched the first trio global cities, Madrid, Mexico, Manila (Galleon-Trade), 400 years before New York, Tokyo and London.
London was founded by the Romans more than 1000 years ago by Rome. And Tokyo is only 100 years younger than Mexico. And the current global cities aren't New York. Tokyo or London but are New York, London and Shanghai and Chinese cities are really old.
@@washimpatwary1446 London indeed was founded by Romans, but you can't simply give some data without contextualizing it. London was a peripherical outpost of the Roman Empire most of the time. Alternatively, some of the areas in the south of Hispania, particularly these surrounding Cordoba, were some with the highest commercial activity in the whole Western roman area of the Empire.
I must however agree with you in the fact that Japanese civilization is much younger than most people realize. Until the jomon period (around 200BC), Japan was basically leaving "its Neolithic" era.
@@washimpatwary1446 2000 years ago.
@@teviottilehurst yh. I meant 1000 years before the Spanish empire but I guess it's actually 1500 years before the Spanish empire.
The time in history where Asia, latin america and europe are connected in terms of trade
Wow. Black Spanish Legend much.... nice video shame that it’s not very accurate, but hey 9/10 for the. Effort 😁
How is it not accurate?
From Charles V onwards: yes, there was a problem with the economy, more specifically inflation, the amount of gold and silver coming from the indies created inflation, last it 12 years and with the British crown pushing the Turks into battle (battle of Lepanto) and the beginning of piracy that was a covert action from the British. The inflation stopped with the school of Salamanca, a direct evolution of it its today’s Austrian School of economics. Please read a bout this school as is very relevant to what is happening right now globally.
I can keep going on the religious wars, the French taking over Spain throne (today’s biggest problem) and so on. It’s not enough time or space
@@camilorubiano7165 oh ok I see what you mean now
Also it was factually incorrect to call the Netherlands Dutch colony. The Netherlands was part of the Spanish monarchy just like Castile and Aragon, it was incorporated when Charles V inherited these territories from his father.
He also forgot the part when Spain had colonies at Africa
Spain: I made this slogan
Britain: you made this?
Britain: *I made this*
LOL
I think that there is a mistake at around 10:30. I mean, Spain during the Bourbon dynasty didn't fought wars due to the expansion of Protestantism (that happened during the previous dynasty) nor if fought the Ottoman Empire (the peace between both had been maintained since the Truce of 1580).
1820s Cuba: Why is everyone rebelling? Spain is cool
1898 Cuba: Guess I'm leaving too
USA: Yes, you will
Nowadays, people use the term "the empire on which the sun never sets" to describe the presence of US military bases around the world. We're hoping to end the US military presence in Korea
What? America is not an empire.
Then send your fuckin nukes to them.... Rocket man
@@roymurphy4328 😂😂😂
Sure the Spanish Empire ended, as all superpowers do. But it did many things right, and that is why its rule lasted for 400 years, from 1492 to 1898, without substantial occupation forces -the powerful Spanish army of the times ("tercios") was never sent to America. How long did the British, Dutch, Belgian and French empires last for? The Napoleonic Empire lasted a mere 11 years.
As for the exploitation of overseas territories, let's take into account that the percentage of gold and silver collected by the Hispanic Monarchy was three times less than what foreign powers extract from them today through the modern shareholding of mines. Unlike the said empires, but much as the Roman Empire, the Hispanic Monarchy used wealth to build cities, universities and hospitals, as well as protecting natives' rights to property (in year 1512) -five centuries later, have the USA, Australia and New Zealand done the same with their natives? The USA granted citizenship to its natives in 1924.
It should also be mentioned that the newly formed American republics were ramshackled, once they couldn't count on the Spanish Empire protection: Great Britain looted the wealthy Spanish American local Treasuries, the new republics had to contract enormous debt with London banks that lagged them for a century, as well as sign economic treaties that damaged their local industries in favour of the UK's. The USA was also quick to take advantage of the opportunity and took 62% of Mexico's territory, so the newly formed republics were also unable to assert sovereignty over their territories. The Spanish Empire territories in Asia did not fare much better under the new masters of the world: after a fairly light confrontation with Spain (2,000 deaths), the Philippines had an estimated death toll of 200,000 to 1,000,000 people to gain independence from the USA -that is, one tenth of its population then.
The end of the Spanish Empire was due, but the newly formed republics fell under ruthless exploitation.
Interesting. I would also asset that Spain claimed much land yet if the cannot occupy it and control it, was it every theirs to claim??? Then mexico, took over and tried to claim that what Spain claimed, was now theirs. 🙄 ridiculous !
@@captmack007 I am afraid that "occupation" is a primitive reading of the concept "sovereignty" -the primitive reading of American and Israeli settlers, who feign there was nothing before they take over. But Spain had been a State with legal sovereignty over most American territories for centuries; therefore, it had nothing to "claim". And for centuries the Spanish Army was capable of repelling several Anglosaxon military campaigns to conquer and control them. Needless to say, there was an end to the Spanish Empire's might, as there will be an end to the shorter lived American imperialism (now accumulating decades of failures to assert its objectives abroad) and there will be one to every human endeavour.
It didn’t “collapse”, it had about 300 years of existence, probably the most long-lasting modern European empire after the Portuguese one, and the Napoleonic Wars were a shock in Europe and the world that ended the order of things that previously existed, what was used to foster the disintegration of the Spanish America in the 19th century by the forces interested in splitting it and controlling its economy, being the US the ones capitalizing the movement in the end in spite of France and the United Kingdom. The British Empire, after about 200 years existence was disintegrated after the II World War, taking the US all their strategical posts, and the British only had the Germans against them, Spain had France, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, all the Protestants of Europe and the US in the end all as feinds… The Netherlands (today’s Belgium and Luxembourg after the independence of the northern United Provinces in 1581) and other territories from the old House of Burgundy between what today is France and Germany, and the Duchy of Milan were also part of the Spanish possessions until 1714, by the way, and the Spanish and the Portuguese monarchies were united between 1580 and 1640, which included to the empire the possessions in Africa, India and in other territories of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic oceans that don’t figure in this documentary. Also, the Spanish Monarchy didn’t become “extinct”, it was made a more centralized monarchy by the Bourbon dynasty in power since 1700 and is the Kingdom of Spain that exists nowadays. And it is pronounced “ca-steel”, not “cas-till”.
Anglos be Anglo-ing
greetings from las islas Filipinas
@@kronfischer Spain influences sucks, even the US always humiliates them up to date.
Yeah they are pretty short sighted
The goal of the spanish colonizers in the philippines was to spread the christian faith or the gospel... But why did they have to colonize and kill people? 303 years is the span of the colonization of spain in the philippines... Didn't the bible said to preach the gospel? But if they don't accept the good news then brush the dust from your feet and shoulders and leave? The saints and martyrs or spreaders of the gospel were also the ones that were being persecuted like boiled in oil or sawed in half. But why is it that spain did the opposite? instead of simply spreading the good news of gospel by preaching what Jesus had done on the cross they did the opposite they killed people and colonized them for 303 years...
@@francis802us Anglo Inbreed knows only his part of history. I would call humilliation to running away from farmers TWICE IN YOUR HISTORY.
No Free Masons, strong Catholic influence!
My neighbors is a free mason I’m scare d
Spain was like a runner that enjoyed a good headstart but lacked the endurance once others entered the race.
This is the best example of the sentence, "I don't have to destroy you. You can do it very well to yourself."
When Will part 2 of rome release
In 2-3 weeks
@@Knowledgia thanks for letting me know
For me the reason why spanish can't govern effectively in the Philippines is because the meddling of the Catholic Church. Spanish authority very much focused setting up forts while the Spanish priest in all kinds of orders set up churches all around. Only when the British invaded did Filipinos realized that the spaniards can be defeated resulting the rise of rebellion across the country. Spanish is more holding out the Philippines as an outpost rather than a country. Did you know that industries such as sugar plantation where introduced by a British diplomat during the American occupation than the Spaniards? The country is more controlled by Mexico than Spain itself.
Interesting
sugar plantations replaced the philippines' trade with all spanish speaking countries filipinos were china's largest trading partners and were part of the largest
Trade network (porcelain from China, spices from Indonesia and India traded with Spanish-speaking countries in exchange for many minerals "now they only produce sugar to sweeten my tea"
Im italian but is so sad to see the fall of an empire.
Is it though? How many more wars would the world have seen with most empires surviving? One or two families ruling a piece or pieces of land for hundreds of years is rarely good for the majority of people. It is fascinating history though.
@@nmcgunagle Strong countries will always exist, as it exists till today, is not the adjective "Empire" that makes it "warmonger" or something
@@nmcgunagle Not that I have a problem with empires falling but this actually causes more wars not less.
@Rincon Ovalle Luis Fernando You have a very limited knowledge of history. The world to not start 500 years ago.
You where part of the spanish empire
12:34 "Spanish administration in the Americas was inferior to the English and later British territories..." Is highly arbitrary, that was simply not the case. Spanish colonization began by early 1500s, English started about 100 years after (with many failed attempts before that). By 1750 their colonies in modern USA became independent, you will need to wait for 1820s for the independence of the Spanish oversea's territories. So, I would say Spanish administration was highly effective in the delevopment of a huge and culturally diverse region.
Congratulations for the video. Great job!
Well, they were in power long enough to make sure that almost every country and Island below the US in the New World still speaks Spanish today.
What a great accomplishment. They committed indigenous holocaust for land and resources.
How great, right?
@@josecontreras6702 Not sure how you interpreted my post but I never said anything about being in favor of genocide or stealing natural resources. Actually a bit pissed since I do but speak Spanish and it sucks getting around these countries.
You deserve way more subscribers I hope you get 10 million soon
Despite its padded rhetoric and redundancy?
@@Orson2u I agree, in addition to the demonization of often european powers.
Now I know why countries in south America and central America speak Spanish
We not only speak Spanish, many of us are descendants of them, the Spanish Empire was impressive
Saying that one of the reasons for the empire's collapse was the poor relation between the crown and the natives is not only false but totally misleading. In the former Spanish colonies there was regulation protecting natives rights and they were equal subjects before the law. During wars of independence most natives sided with the Spaniards as they knew that that they rights where better protected than with the local elites that foster the rebellion. Finally, in most of the Spanish former colonies most of the population is native in origin, take a look to that percentage in former colonies of other European powers.
Thats just a lie, there was a rigid caste system and slavery of africans who were also a sizeable minority. And about the gene pool, the only place american spanish colony where fully amerindian descent gets higher than 40% is Guatemala, Bolivia is second with 25%. Even today the ruling class of Hispanic America is disproportionately of european descent. You are wrong
@@us470 Have you ever been or know something or someone from Bolivia or Guatemala before spreading such BS? I mean, Bolivia will be like 80% precolombine population because at the time of the Viceroyalty of Peru ( Which was a gigantic territory and to which modern Bolivia also belonged as Upper Peru) all the people coming from Europe stablished in the coastal areas and not in the high valleys and mountains without coast like Bolivia is as a country. In the same Viceroyalty a majority of indians and local caciques fought on the royalist side against the armies of Bolivar, San Martin or O´Higgins that were particularly conformed by criollos of european origin when not directly British mercenaries.
the Spanish Empire murdered so many Native Americans in Mexico
@@alejandrosotomartin9720 Dude this is literally scientific genetic data, i know what people from Guatemala and Bolivia look like and if I didnt I could just google it, but phenotype is not everything, there are some traits we associate with amerindians and that makes someone look amerindian, whether they are actually amerindian is a totally different topic
"In the former Spanish colonies there was regulation protecting natives rights and they were equal subjects before the law"
this is funny because my country never had "protective native rights" until the short rule of Ma.Dela torre in the philippines. other than that. philippines is most of the time under authoritarian rule. spanish is very exploitative and abusive. There's fuckton of rebellion happen in the phillipines against the Spaniards manly due to their abuses to the natives.
Jose Rizal and other illustrados (the middle class) during the time Philippines finally open up after centuries of isolation tried to convinced the spanish empire to impose changes and equality to the natives but to no avail they just killed him sparking the revolution which ended the spanish rule in the philippines.
If Spain was nice to phil. this won't happen. but they are pretty much abusive.
Also the Protestant Propaganda against the Spanish empire. The crazy reports of De las Casas and the clueless drawings of a theodor de Bry who never saw an american native in his life... He hated the Spaniards.
If the "Spanish Empire" as this video calls it, was so poorly managed. How come that it lasted 400 years (1492-1898)??, although Ecuatorial Guinee was released in 1968, Sidi Ifni in 1959 and Western Sahara in 1975.
This video is full of the usual Anglo saxon propaganda. La Nueva España was far richer than the 13 colonies in North America and the British Empire lasted much less than the Spanish. The Hispanic Monarchy, that was its true name, wasn't focused on "conquest" as this video states. It was focused on the creation of a new civilization, building mines, roads, harbours, cities, villages, churches, cathedrals, universities (more than 20 all over the Americas, open to everyone regardless of his color), hospitals, etc The first university of the American continent was build by the Spaniards in 1540, a 100+ years before Harvard, as well as the first printing press.
It is unbelievable the way they are destroying our culture and history with all of their lies.
We dont care if they destroy our culture and history,, because in this moment Madrid is the richest city in South Europe,, Spain is the second most visited country in the world, we have the highest life expectansy, amazing medic care, wonderful and perfect infraestructure, etc etc.
Why should we care? Anglo whites are less than 56% of the USA population. There are several cities where Spanish is more spoken than English. It's a matter of time that the USA will become a Spanish country, and without having to shoot a single bullet.
La Nueva España was far richer than the 13 colonies because had abundant mines and natural ressources to exploit. The economy of the Spanish colonies in America, however, was based solely upon the extraction of ressources, never developed any industry (neither in Europe) so here and there ended up surpassed by their neighbors in practically everything.
Spain only started investing in America when it became overly risky to transport the gold and silver by sea, while its social administration totally excluded the non-peninsular Spanish (criollos), which pretty much explains why the independence movements took place across the continent to begin with. That egalitarian bullshit many claim it had taken place is absolutely delusional. Native Americans were exploited and worked in miserable conditions when not being outright massacred. Many even claim that Spanish had abolished slavery. Why would they need to get their hands dirty with the trade of slaves when they had all the manpower they needed right on the spot?
I honestly think it’s pointless to try to make them understand. 500 hundred years on, more bankruptcies than any country in History, self-perpetuating fuck ups of all kinds and flavours and still they don’t get it. As Ramón María del Valle Inclán (Spanish like no other) once stated: “Spain is a grotesque deformation of the European civilisation.”
Apart from factors such as the Napolionic wars, the Empire collapsed because it reached the maximum limit of control, taking into account that in its maximum extension (between 1770 and 1800) the population of the metropolis had only between 10 and 11 million. population.
Being from Peru and having the Spaniards kill my ancestors along with taking our gold I think is time to get it back 😂. Spain is a beautiful country and we hold no animosity against our Spanish brothers and sisters for what the elders did. At the end of the day it turns out that GREED is the downfall of every empire.
Ni idea tienes hermano
Learn your history kiddo. Clearly, you don’t know it
If your ancestors had been exterminated by the Spaniards, you wouldn't be writing bs here. Test your IQ, which must be quite low. Maybe Peruvian ancestors killed among themselves with sacrifices, which the Spanish stopped, by the way.
Por partes:
1) Siendo yo nacido y criado en el norte de España, es MUY probable que TÚ, habiendo nacido en Perú, tengas más sangre española corriendo por tus venas que yo.
2) Esos españoles que dices que 'mataron' a tus ancestros, son TUYOS no mios.
3) Abre un libro e informate.
Un saludo.
Your prob 75% spanish mate
Cuando Latinoamérica era Prospera:
😔🇪🇸💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
No mames
Antes dos Europeus!
Si nos ayudarían más tuviéramos más unión 🙄
Spanish Empire: Lasts 300 years.
Anglosaxon history channel: Of course it eventually collapsed, it was governed so badly.
@Top Secret Actually, the Spanish Inquisition killed less than a third of the protestant, descentralized, mob-ruled witchhunts that occured during XVI-XVII centuries.
@Top Secret Have no idea wtf are you talking about
@Top Secret The Inquisition didn't handle the jews, the expulsion was a matter of civil authorities. The jewish population was expelled before, by France, England and the German nobility; the treatment wasn't diferent nor specially hard. And as I said, the Inquisition only had authority over christians (heretics or false converts), not jews.
I am indeed Spanish.
Thank you so much for sharing this video. Best regards from Panama.
as a mexican, i love this video.
@ 1:54 queen Isabella and king Ferdinand of Spain, their daughter Catherine was Henry the 8th of England's first wife. Their first child Mary was England's first ruling queen, that actually ran the country. known as Bloody Mary in England. Spain changed the world in a lot of ways. When they discovered the Americas, for Europe. this map is incorrect, Spain was way into the Alaska territory before 1774, in the library of congress there's a map of the Americans that's from the early 1500s in Spanish. there are some ports with Spanish names in Vancouver, Canada and some in Alaska. All of Western United States, some part of Canada and all of Mexico were New Spain, up until the early 1800 hundreds when Napoleon took over Spain and other parts of Europe.
......they did succeed in spreading their language and the Roman Catholic religion, both of which are still in force and beloved. For example, in the USA even fifth and sixth generation Latinos still name their sons Juan and Jose, NOT John and Joseph. Like Italians do not use Guiseppe or Giovanni
Whats with the focus on US Latinos? There is millions and millions in Latin America that use the Spaniard naming system and catholic religion. Also in the US, Gringo Latinos tend to name their kids English names with only their last names being Spaniard. “Ryan Sanchez” “Stephen Rodriguez” etc, etc
Who cares about those "latinos"
@Michelle How many generations?
If I learned anything from this ancient history documentary, it’s that empires fall and so do my weekend plans.
In the map shown, you’re missing the European Viceroyalties of the empire: Flandes (now Belgium) and the Netherlands, all the south of current Italy. Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and of course large portions of land in several spots in africa and for some time Portugal as well.
Can you make video on how Spain conquered Netherlands and part of italy
A single word : heritage.
Their model was to extract gold from the colonies and use it buy manufactured goods from other European countries. The result was that Britain and France became powerful enough to supplant them.
If it's true that the Empire was governed so badly since the beginning, how the hell it lasted 300 years? 😂😂😂
the same can be asked of the Ottoman Empire
the same can be asked of the holy roman empire
Same can be said of the US
I heard that because of flow of gold and other from New World, inflation skyrocketed and it played alot in collapse.
I think almost all of Spain's gold was simply transferred to the Hapsburgs in Austria and Italy and Swiss and Vatican bankers. Spain looted the gold from the New Wold and they then were plundered by their foreign Hapsburg rules and their bankers.
The Empire which made America, maybe we should say "This is America, speak in Spanish" rather than "This is America, speak in English"
The United States was formed from English colonies, not Spanish... the colonies Spain did have in the current territory of the USA where mere claims and the Spanish themselves had no real control over them, neither did they have any population matching the Thirteen colonies. Almost all ex Spanish colonies are failures, unile the UK which has created the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India etc... South Americas current poverty represents how the Spanish Empire once controlled them.
Have you been to Miami? Your wish has already come true haha
@@noobplays-saslow2920 Poverty in South America has nothing to do with the Spanish Empire. Please explain why you'd think that.
PS: Are you calling India and South Africa good countries to live in and latin american countries bad in comparison? Seriously? India has severe poverty and human trafficking problems and SA has one fourth of it's population under the poverty line. And may I remind you, Myanmar, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria, South Sudan, Somaliland, Kenia, Tanzania, Benin, etc were also British colonies. And are they rich? NO
Not to mention that the indigenous peoples in those countries you mentioned (USA, NZ, SA, Canada, Australia,) have huge problems with violence, extreme poverty, substance adiction, suicide, racism, low life expectancy, health and nutrition, culture and identity loss, etc
This is America, speak in Italian??? This is America, speak in Castillian?
@@noobplays-saslow2920 Formed with english colonies.
* Cries in south and West Coast *
It's a cool format, I like it!
Amazing videos!!
England always envy and conspire against great Spain. England encouraged separatist movements in the Spanish colonies.
Didn't the UK bail Spain out when the economy basically collapsed? Now they rely heavily on British tourists 🤣
There are some jungles in Central America that not even armies can penetrate with all the technology from 2022 but the Spaniards crossed them 500 years ago with no technology at all, how did they do it? How did they not die from mosquitoes and malaria? They also built thousands of towns and founded hundreds of cities from Northern California all the way to Argentina's southern tip near Antartica.
At 3:45 author say " The main problems were the poor decision make by Spanish governments during the decades," but is it really poor decisions if it is the only one available due to the characters of the time. A historical "decision" can only be call bad if there is an alternative viable decision to be made. Spain rule over a larger area of the Americas for a much longer period then England or French so their decisions are not bad. The decisions made were good for Spain and it living rulers, it is bad for Spanish Americas and for the future ruler of Spain in the long run because the empire became fragile. It is fallacy to sometime to think that there is an over all decision to begin with, and that there is a central power that can control it all. Even absolute ruler of Spain don't have absolute control of it explorers, conquerors, later on planation owners and local overlords.
Although it is true that the Spanish were very negligent in many aspects with their viceroyalties, this negligence in some cases was positive, due to the lack of direct administration of the metropolis, the Spanish colonies developed an internal industry, modest, simple, but effective , trade with other European powers was prohibited, but not between the Spanish colonies themselves, among them leather, saddles, mules, food of all kinds were traded, even coins were minted, also in Havana a naval shipyard was built that was one of the most important in Spain, producing its best ships in its entire history, although the Spanish territories were sparsely populated, it does not mean that they were fragile, they were what sustained Spain and what gave it power, when they were under its dominion, if we had remained faithful to Spain during the Napoleonic invasion, we would have been a problem for Napoleon, because here there were almost 150,000 soldiers in all the viceroyalties, plus the warships of the colonies that were not few, unfortunately the kings of Spain at that time ruined everything.
It is a good analysis, I agree with all the first part. But I don't think the kings of Spain ruined everything. They did more positive things than negative. Latin America is a very complicated land, with tropical forests, tropical diseases, 6000-meter mountain ranges, deep valleys, attacked by the English, French and Dutch, and with a very large indigenous population, slowly assimilating. It is like the slow romanization that the Romans did in Hispania, Britain or Gaul. The British, French and Dutch empires had similar problems in small Jamaica, Belize, Haiti... and they directly ignored India or Africa, much poorer than Latin America. The United States, Australia and Canada (with plenty of natural resources for 3-4 people per km2) is more like the prosperous Spanish empire in Europe: (200 years in Belgium), 160 years in parts of Germany and France, 450 years in Italy. .. Europeans already Christianized, with European technology, with few or no indigenous people to assimilate, without land and tropical diseases, without mountain ranges of 6000 meters...
@@Gloriaimperial1 Fernando VIII, ese hombre nefasto es al que me refiero
@@Gloriaimperial1
Bro i thought France and Spain were allies especially against the british frauds
Not entirely Spain’s fault but their biggest mistake was creating peninsular and Criollo conflict.
The Mexican war of independence started out as a civil war and various counter coups between Peninsular and Criollos.