In this case, size does matter. On top of all other factors, the American 13 British colonies were tiny in comparison to the huge kingdoms, vicekingdoms, captainships and other administrative divisions of a continent-sized group of Spanish colonies. Which included the fallen Inca and Aztec empires plus the remnants of the Mayan empire, each one larger than most European countries.
People were still very much isolated, despite most people speaking Spanish. It is still so. For example, I'm from Costa Rica. Travelling to Mexico, USA, Canada or Europe is cheaper than travelling to the lower half of South America. Taking a trip to Colombia, Peru or Ecuador is affordable, but going to Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay or Bolivia... That'd be a pricy flight. We all developed very different political approaches and cultural identities and regional dialects that may not be fully mutually intelligible. I can talk with someone from Chile without any issue, but if I hear two Chileans talking to each other, I may get lost in translation. Would be much like dropping an American that has never been out of the USA right in the middle of Scotland just to see how it goes handling the dialect.
Most Americans have trouble understanding the regional dialects of other americans, actually... Well, at least they did until recently. I don't know about how it's going in Latin America, but in the Anglo world the past two generations have lost almost all of their regional accents due to telecommunications.
@@InternetMameluq Don't know if I'd say that about the whole Anglo world, Scottish people can still be very hard to understand just check out Limmy's show but I would agree for the most part since as a Canadian it's easy to understand most standard accents of the Anglo world.
@@InternetMameluq As Colombian now I understand six of the twelve meanings of Chilean expression "weon" so we are starting to understand each othen a lot more.
Great video! But as other people commented, San Martín helped liberate Peru too, and also he didn't left South America because of Bolivar, he actually left because of infighting between Federal and Unitarian factions in Buenos Aires (ended up in a bloody civil war), which he didn't want to have anything to do with. San Martín is often poorly researched in these types of content as is often overshadowed by Bolivar and the civil unrest that came after the revolutions. One of his famous quotes when asked for participating on the civil war was: "General San Martín will never use his sword to fight its own people''. He is also the most iconic revolution hero in Argentina btw.
Indeed, I'd say that San Martin is more popular than Bolivar in Peru, or so I remember from my primary school days, where each year we enacted San Martin's declaration of independence in the school yard. I never got to play his role tho, I only got the guard one twice xD.
Fuck man, I would say he was one of the best national figures we ever had,like at least in popular culture everyone knows some dirty shit every other historical figure did,but no one ever says anything about San Martín.
If there is one thing Jared Diamond taught me, it is that it is much easier to create a big country horizontally (along a latitude) than it is to create it vertically along a longitude, because vertically the geography and climate and culture changes a lot quicker than along a latitude.
@@Alexander-yl3xp i think the climate stays pretty same along the small stretch of land between the western coast of south america and the andes to the east. Beyond them though you have the typical transition from rainforest in the north to temperate in the south.
Yea but Latin America was a superpower under the Spanish crown but it wasn’t prior to colonization likely due to the major indigenous civilizations being isolated from one another. Isolation is the primary factor that is taken into account when discussing the wealth of a nation. Without trade your economy becomes underdeveloped.
@@Alexander-yl3xp Same concept really. Geography has a good amount of influence on how a state is born. Usually horizontal is a good deciding factor. But the Andes mountains separating east and west is a damn good one for deciding where a Chile and an Argentina gets to become their own states.
Enjoyed the video. I do have to say, that I don't think a unifying "American" (USA) identity really got started until after the American Civil War. Prior to that, and for some time after, most "Americans" identified with their individual state rather than the nation as a whole. That was one of the major obstacles the US Constitution had to overcome, how much power was the Federal Government to have as opposed to how much power each state had. It's been a major balancing act ever since. There is a very old joke, about a group of American Tourists taking a tour of the Panama Canal. As they turn a corner, someone had spraypainted, "YANKEE GO HOME," on the wall. The tour guide began to apologize when one member of the tour who was from Texas stated, "Oh, that's ok son. Where I come from, we don't like them too much either." For a long time, the USA was like that.
Yeah, that US Civil War was where the United States identity started to destroy the individual state identity for a lot of people. That was a major part of the war: whether or not the States were indeed still their own nations as free to leave the Union if they saw fit. History likes to teach that the war was primarily about slavery, while ignoring things like the 4 slave states that didn't secede and the pretext for the United States fighting the Confederacy
We're STILL very much like that Texans look down on Californians. Californians look down on Texans Washingtonians look down on both (literally and metaphorically) And people in New York barely even know we exist out here in the PNW And EVERYONE mocks Florida Many Southern transplants to Seattle I know go to considerable effort to mask their accents so they don't out themselves as Southerners and become the butt of endless jokes Plus ça change, amirite
Spanish America was more than 10 times bigger than the Thirteen Colonies, with a much more diverse population. There are also other English speaking countries in Americas except US I think that comparing Spanish colonies with the Portuguese is more interesting. There is just one Portuguese speaking country in Americas. In that time, Brazil didn’t have a national identity and managed to stay as a single nation
Its just Canada and the only reason why it didn’t join the Us is because alot of the Canada was (and still is but it was way more back then) French and didn’t sympathize with America. The English were just moving into Ontario at the time so they didn’t so the bordering lands weren’t even the same cultural group. Its also wort noting the one English part of Canada, Vermont DID rebel with the Americans. Had Canada been English controlled earlier or even from the start, there is no doubt atleast most of it would join the union.
@@fawkewethere are 14 english speaking countries in the americas You seemed to have forgot a few so hers a list Canada, United States (hanging on so far), guyana, belize, dominica, jamaca, the bahamas, saint kitts and nevis, granada, saint Lucia, saint vincent and the grenadines, trinidad and tobago, barbados, Antigua and burbuda Theres also quite a lot of brittish territories in the region
quite ironic to see a video about the lack of hispanoamerican union narrated with a british accent, and not a single word mentioning the british interference.
@@SideQuestYT Video didn't say about 2 great factors: masonery and England. Both divided our Great Nation to their interest. And since there "starts" our debt and the fights against our brothers of the new small countries.. patetic. But someday we will unite again..
The big difference is that Spanish America werent colonies but Viceroyalties which meant that they were different colonies but extensions of the Spanish Crown with each Viceroyalty simply having it's own Royal Court and each Viceroy being a representative of the Crown. Spanish America was just as part of Spain as the Court of the Iberic Peninsula.
@Michelle I blame the passing of the royal house of Spain to outsiders (Habsburgs, Bourbons) Isabela of Castile had the best interest of the Americas at heart, just look at Charles V selling Venezuela to the Germans to benefit himself. It was illegal and against the wishes of Isabel.
@Michelle *ignores their cities being way nore developed than most of continental Spain* You know you were treated as equals in terms of status, right? Your territory was treated as proper provinces of the kingdom, it was just that it is a bit more important tending to a war happening near your heartland than the distant provinces
@@gamerito100 You can't say that the Spanish Viceroyalties were treated different by Spain as the UK treated the 13 colonies. You can say it has equal "status" as others provinces of Spain, but when all the official positions could only be held by peninsular spanish that argument fell off because basically all other casts were treated as inferior and lack power in their own lands.
i was really only vaguely interested in the topic. but by the first 30 seconds, your animation and sense of humor got me hooked. what an enjoyable way to learn some history! i'll def be watching more. fantastic work!
I suspect that if the Anglo colonies had all been warm and fertile enough to support plantation economies growing high value cash crops that they would have ended up just as divided as the Spanish colonies in the New World did. The colonies (later States) south of the Mason-Dixon Line had an economy that was quite similar to that of the Spanish colonies as described in this video.
The South wanted a slave empire into Latin America. Really limited their economic options. They didn't learn why they were able to take Texas- the Anglo economy was more developed than the feudal system Mexico inherited from Spain.
It's no coincidence that America's principle political divide for the first 200 years after independence was between the much more capitalistic and industrial North vs. the more aristocratic and agrarian South. It's only REALLY recently that the North-South split has become less important than the Urban-Rural split.
@@p00bix Agreed, let's not forget how close the North American federation came to splitting into two countries (or more probably, if the South had won) based on that split.
@@p00bix The South was actually arguably far more capitalist. I think you may be looking for a different term? The south in the USA was the epitome of old-capitalism, as the cotton they produced was to meet the demands of a market in europe and the north. The first capitalistic nations were founded on slavery with the spanish in Hispanola, so it is very much a relic of capitalism. Maybe the term Old-capitalism vs New-capitalism
There was one guy that tried to unify what once was the Viceroyalty of the River Plate (Virreynato del Rio de La Plata), which would be Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia today, a few years after independence of those countries took place. Juan Manuel de Rosas, who ruled the Argentine Federation during a time of civil war. He made several attempts to re-unite the territories into one giant super nation, but failed because of several factors, including foreign invervention from France and Great Britain, and even Brazil. Today Juan Manuel de Rosas is a very divisive figure, with half of the people seeing him as a patriot and a hero of the South American cause, while the other half see him as a horrible bloodthirsty warmonger, with nothing in between.
Also bolivar in the north of south america, in the great colombia, tried to unify all countries in one but he couldnt even maintain great colombia united.
Video didn't say about 2 great factors: masonery and England. Both divided our Great Nation to their interest. And since there "starts" our debt and the fights against our brothers of the new small countries.. patetic. But someday we will unite again..
You have one mayor flaw there. Rosas didn't rule the "Argentine federation", there was no such thing in the time of Rosas, since there was no constitution and each province was on its own; it was a time of anarchy. Rosas was just the governor of the province of Buenos Aires, the mayor province. People often forget the anarchy and refer to the governor of Buenos Aires as the ruler of the provinces or the "president", when it was not such thing.
@@diegodelperu409 Yo nunca había oído esto de la masoneria ayudar a dividir sulamerica. Por lo contrário, ya escuché de algunos masones que fueron ellos quien 'conquistaran' la liberdad en los EEUU, por toda latinoamerica e en Francia, durante la Revolucción (eran francmasones, por supuesto). Pero no estoy dudando de ti, lo que tu diciste hace mucho más sentido do lo dicho por ellos. Por una latinoamerica cada vez más fuerte, hermano.
Communication also had a major role in keeping Brazil united. When the kingd of Portugal set his court in Rio de Janeiro, the local leaders, who have never met untill them did so. And in this gathering they'd found much more in common than differences between them. So much so that when King João went back to Portugal, he warned his son Pedro that Brazil was in the verge of breaking up with Portugal and Pedro should act to, at least "keep the Brazilian crown on the family"
@Mark Martinez Bolivar the liberator didn't trust in US and tried to unify Latin American countries in a superpower capable to face US but regional leaders didn't accept the authority of a central government and US didn't want a country that would rival them just below them but nowadays there are many latin americans that want a unique country
Video didn't say about 2 great factors: masonery and England. Both divided our Great Nation to their interest. And since there "starts" our debt and the fights against our brothers of the new small countries.. patetic. But someday we will unite again..
@@danielchacon1859 the USA back then wanted Gran Colombia at least to succeed. That way they would have a hopefully successful neighbor Republic. A natural potential Ally against any threatening monarchy. The words of President John Quincy Adams at the time confirm this.
Even more fascinating than understanding why the American Spanish empire fragmented is to understand why Portuguese America didn't. Brazil is as large as the rest of South America and kept its territorial integrity. Many different historical explanations ensued, and the debate rages to this day.
All the cities in Brazil at the time could be accessed quickly by other cities by ship, their population was not spread out. But if you were going from Buenos Aires to Santiago de Chile you had to go thru the Andes. From Santiago up to Lima is all mountain. Lima to Panama or Guatemala City would have taken a very long time, no roads or anything through the jungle. And all of these cities struggled to reach Mexico City or Cuba that was basically at the other side of the world being located on the Atlantic coast and not the Pacific.
The king of Portugal, who had been in Brazil since the Napoleonic invasion, decided to stay and become the emperor of brazil rather than return to Europe and did so peacefully. It's not really a mystery.
The concept that the British colonies were more “developed” than their Spanish counterparts is laughable. One data point: there were 12 universities in latin america by the time Harvard was founded, the oldest 100 years before. The main reason for the lack of union in Latin America is geography: not only many times larger than the original 13 colonies but spanning from thousands of miles in North-South direction, as opposed to US East-West direction
Latin america is advanced history spain was far more powerful then britain at its prime but napoleon helped them out by ending that the thing is though maybe spain wouldnt have fallen if they seeked allies instead of enemies.
@@SmartAss4123 just because it went downhill in the past 200 years doesn't mean it was always like that. The middle east used to be more educated and prosperous than Europe not more than 500 years ago. Shit happened and that's it, a lot has changed in these 200 years specially because of the industrial revolution.
It also has some to do with the purpose of the colonies, as said in the video. The USA wasn't more developed, it just had a different kind of economy (significant manufacturing), which encouraged them to rebel and unify, while the Spanish colonies were more focused on resource extraction
@@dxzts6614 Depends on what aspects of society you're talking about. How well made was infrastructure, city planning, and how much quality did those universities have in terms of actual teaching and procuring more scholars/teachers/engineers. I think there was far too vast of a difference for there not to be underlying differenfes that fundamentally creates the disparity that happened in 200-500 years.
This analysis fails to consider the humongous difference in size between the 13 British colonies and all of the spanish colonies in central and south America. Also the much bigger and diverse cultural heritage in spanish colonies due to miscegenation.
The video explains very well the big problem the lack of comunication due to the crown and the harsh envoirment down in SA. High mountains and tropical forest made it almost impossible back then
@@Diegps IMO it doesn't. Those 13 colonies combined could fit several times inside each of the territorial divisions that ended up being south american countries. It's like comparing one neigborhood to a whole city.
4:23 apparently this is one of the big reasons the Americas were so underdeveloped compared to Europe before Colombus. Rain forests, big rivers, mountains, and all of that prevented different communities to trade and communicate with each other
Also, consider the fact that Europe had co tact with China, India and a lot of othe cultures If Europe were as isolated as América, they would still use Román Numbers (which are way less useful than the arabic)
Forgot one of the most important figures, Agustín de Iturbide who actually was an Emperor. He United most of New Spain, but his empire broke after his exile. Central America left and broke into the many republics we have today.
@Felix Saenz The Mexican Congress declared him Emperor. He was overthrown and exiled, but that doesn’t take away from the fact he was emperor, same as Napoleon or Franz Ferdinand. He controlled the entirety of Mexico. No province left during his rule. After his exile, Central America left, but he held it during his reign. His empire consisted of most of New Spain. The United States recognized Mexico’s independence and him as Emperor. They helped plot his overthrow, but they still declared his reign as legitimate.
There weren’t “colonies” under the Spanish Empire to begin with. Instead there were viceroyalties, which have nothing to do not only in administrative terms but also politically, culturally and economically. The American spanish lands were Spain itself, not just subsidiar lands belonging to Spain. It’s important to get this concept clear. An inhabitant born in hispanoamerica was consider as Spanish as the peninsular ones in Europe, because it was more a matter of religion than a matter of race or ethnicities (those were introduced later on by the French illustration, along with racism).
@ClintDempsey76 Yes but I think Britain isn't the one to contrast this example. Right next door was colonial Brazil and how the Portuguese treated their colonies was rough so they made it really clear as a political statement that Brazilians were 2nd class to European Portuguese born people, and because they're actually next to each other and The Portuguese made all their subjects convert religion too but didn't really give them access to a shared identity over it. (like, okay now were both christians but I get the sit in the front pew at church cause 'I'm' Still a more important/better christian was how portuguese colonizers felt over in brazil)
How is it possible that the de facto treatment of the Hispano-Americans was equal to that of the mainland Spanish if they had fully implemented a detailed "Caste System" based on how mixed a colonist was with African and indigenous blood? On top of that, even the Spanish colonists who barely mixed with the other "lesser" peoples were not given the same treatment by the Spanish government for being several generations removed from Spanish citizens (Peninsulares). No, the racism and classicism did not start with the French in modern day Latin America, it started with the Spanish. In terms of religion, its very much a stretch to say that having the same religion gave people in Hispano-America the same respect of acceptance as mainland Spaniards. As I said, in many regions it was still very much dependent on if you were Mulato, Mestizo, Castizo, Negro, Indígena, Criollo or Peninsular and your connections to the ruling elite in Spain (or at least to the Spanish elite in major colonial cities).
@@sp.8727 You have been clearly brainwashed in school and the Anglophile historiography that it promotes. That “Caste System” you seem so desperate to highlight didn’t last not even twenty years after the conquest and it was abolish by the Leyes de Burgos already in 1512 and with the implementation of the viceroyalties. But that’s not the most bold statement of yours, cause when you said “racism” begin with the Spanish Empire that’s simply a huge sign of ignorance regarding history on your part. Racism as we know these days begin in late XVII and mainly in XVIII century with the French Ilustration, so your statement is a total anachronism. The goal was to convert and assimilated amerindians, regardless of their ethnic background. How do you think a few Spaniards where able to conquest such enormous lands an empires in the first place? Just because its technology? Do you think they have uzis and tanques at that time or what? No, the answer is because they did it with the aid of the natives themselves. Furthermore, if you just take a look at the ethnic distribution of the whole American continent, you will find all indigenous people and mestizos are precisely living in Spanish speaking countries (not even Brazil has mestizos with amerindians), something unheard of in any racist country, ‘cause if you are to be called so just killed them all, like the Anglos did. Regarding your name, I’m going to assume you know Spanish, so I’ll recommend you some bibliography that you should look up to get rid of the Spanish Black Legend bullshit that the system is so desperate to teach you guys so the Hispanic sphere keeps fragmented, fighting against one and other, poor and politically powerless... just like the Anglo-world likes it (those who really get rid of any indigenous peoples the encountered everywhere they put their foot on): Some of the books you should have in consideration: -“Madre Patria”, Marcelo Gullo -“Imperofobia y leyenda Negra”, María Elcira Roca Barea “Banderas Lejanas”, Carlos Canales Torres y Fernando Martínez Lainez -“El expolio del indio norteamericano”, Wilbur R. Jacobs -“Political essay on the kingdom of New Spain”, Alexander Von Humboldt -“The American Independence and the man of France and Spain who saved it”, Larrie D. Ferreiro.
@@sp.8727 Aquí te dejo algunos vídeos de interés (de los muchos que pueden encontrarse), para quitarte el estigma negrolegendario que arrastras: Mira los de “Brigada antifraude”: Negros en la alta sociedad (hispanoamericana): ua-cam.com/video/C1yMdMdIt4U/v-deo.html El Imperio Español, ¿oro y esclavos?, Ivan Vélez: ua-cam.com/video/SfLSJPUf0lw/v-deo.html Los de Patricio Lons: “No éramos de España, nosotros éramos España”: ua-cam.com/video/PiN5Wjz8zzU/v-deo.html Simón Bolívar, el falso héroe ua-cam.com/video/l99e3TtDSJg/v-deo.html Méjico antes de Méjico: “Hubiera sido mejor no independizarnos de España”: ua-cam.com/video/GzCHBOxegyA/v-deo.html Estados Unidos: historia negra, leyenda rosa ua-cam.com/video/x6J6S63P3c4/v-deo.html También los vídeos del “Capitán Peru”
Side Quest mate you really really need to reach out to some of the other history channels that do similar stuff to you in a similar way. So the channels that use animation and a bit of humour. You're so good I'm sure they'd love to work with you and help get your work better known. It definitely deserves it. Keep going man you'll get the subscribers the channel should have I'm sure.
Rather disappointed that the Mexican Empire and Central American Federation were completely overlooked in the video; both provide interesting case studies as well for how a union of ex-Spanish colonies failed
I love how you explained each argument about the topic in only 6 minutes. Amazing! I just want to tell that San Martín helped liberate Peru to, the peruvians even offered him the tittle of Protector (like a office with extreme executive powers) but he declined. San Martín wasn't in favor of Monarchy, that was Belgrano who was in favor of the restauration of an Inca monarch, the descendants of Tupac Amaru. San Martín wanted to liberated South America, for that reason he didn't imposed anything in any country that he liberated like Chile, Peru or even here in Argentina.
San martín invadió e impuso la independencia al peru, y quienes pidieron eran los liberales que eran minoría pero no dudaron en usar al estado peruano para pagar su conspiración, de hecho san martín fue impopular en peru por eso se retiro en su protectorado perdió apoyo popular. Otra cosa que su objetivo junto al de bolivsr fuera empobrecer al peru en beneficio de sus paises porque el peru con el mayor ejército realista del continente era una clara amenaza
@@sithlord2225 bolivar saqueo al peru y decreto la miseria imponiendo la república, u triste masón sin más que ofreció minas de oro del Perú a Inglaterra y nunca dudo en mostrar desprecio al peruano
All Brazilian states keeped together as American states did. Of course some separatists movements existed backed then mostly in the south as Rio Grande do Sul (Revolução Farropilha) and in the southeast as Minas Gerais (Inconfidência Mineira) but nothing nationalwise. So, the Portuguese America was more like English America in that sense of union than Spanish America. Even the official name of Brazil was literally United States of Brazil for a period of time. Now it's Federal Republic of Brazil, though.
Still includes Mexico and a the country's that aren't on the south American continent who also had nothing to do with it so really he'd need to say Latin or Hispanic American and then specifically name those not involved but I get why he didn't in such a short informal video, especially when he did name the individual country's involved.
That was fucking amazing, such a lesson in politics, economy and management. How much communiction and sense of identity was important is the political part, it struck me, you not only need a good business model but to manage culture and prople's mindset. This was one of the most important videos ive saw, thank you. If you could do more details about this topic i would love it.
The Spanish settlers mixed with the natives and created their own unique cultures since each native tribe has their own languages and cultures. The English settlers did not want to be any where near the natives. Although us states are pretty different from eachother, they would be even more unique from eachother if the English decided to combine cultures with the natives rather than commit genocide.
Not the full explenation, the portuguese in some way also did that, yet Brazil which is as big as the rest of South America stayed united (in fact this video should compare more the Spanish with the Portuguese).
@@johnf.r6658 Realmente ni habrías nacido, asi que no tendrías que preocuparte por eso. Además varias sociedades latinoamericanas como la azteca, maya e inca estaban muy desarrolladas. Quien sabe que tan desarrolladas podrían haber llegado a estar si no hubiera ocurrido la colonización.
The Spanish didn't commit genocide? Lol. Guess you never heard of Cortez. No English equivalent to murderous Cortez (and other conquistadors) existed. The Spanish (at first) were hell bent on driving away all natives. Only after realizing this was quite futile (because there were far too many), did they do the next best thing... Incorporate the natives and make them 3rd class citizens, and those with the least "native" blood (the pure "Spanish") would rule and be part of the upper classes well into the 20th century. In North America it was alot different, the natives were fewer and spread out, also less unified and a lot weaker. The English didn't even have to fight them, they simply outnumbered them after a couple generations and of course the Euro diseases that decimated the native population.
Spaniards did not exterminate locals like the British and American colonizers did in the North. Hence the cultural diversity and posterior independence movements by region.
Quick answer, because Carlos IV was stopped by his son during their travel to Cadiz to put him as the new king. If they had escaped to Mexico, probably it would happen as in Brazil, but the funny thing is that probably Spain became the first country to got their indendence from the spanish monarchy
Great video! It is amazing how you could fit all of that information in a 6 min video. Most videos I've watched on the topic always leave someting out. I would like to add that, as you mentioned, comunication was one of the factors of why south america is not unified. I think that that is the reason ehy we are poorer here and less develop than in the USA. Colombia is filled with mountains. Different cultures have formed in the valleys surrounding them and even to this day, comunication is difficult. If you compare Medellin and Bogota they are very different in culture and customs. better infracstucture should be the focus of latin american countries in order to improve communications, the exchange of good and ideas and the betterment of our nations. Could you maybe make a video on the Colombian Mafia in the 80s, it is a very interesthing topic, and I know that you would make a great job covering that topic. Anyway. Thnak you for the video, see you next time my firend sidequest.
One thing that this video mentions is very interesting and in which I agree, the lack of communication, the Spanish empire and its viceroyalties were very isolated from each other, New Spain and the provinces of South America practically did not speak to each other during the whole era colonial, and they were practically unknown after independence, not to mention the Spanish possessions in the Caribbean, with the exception of Cuba and Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic was practically forgotten, not even the Spaniards knew that they still had the Dominican Republic.
@Michelle You've been on your own for over 2 centuries. It is not Spaniards blaming you for your conditions today, it is basic logic. You are responsible for your countries today. Grow up and accept some responsibilities, for God sake, you all act like 5 years old.
Wrong there were various methods of intercommunication between spain, new spain and peru during the hapsburg and bourbon eras. The panama trade from the port of callao to panama city to havana to veracruz and to madrid held a lot of trade between all the connected places, and later on there were multiple criollos from the viceroyalty of peru and new spain who became viceroys of each other’s viceroyalty as it was the rule that a viceroy couldn’t be viceroy of the place they were born of. Also when the english invaded caracas, various navies from new spain and from other nearby provinces of spain in the americas intervened and collaborated with the militias in caracas. And there was also the common hispanic market of 1776 which by the way is the only reason today buenos aires as a city is even relevant thanks to the leather trade it engaged in. Because before buenos aires was a complete backwater that relied on contraband to even subsist.
You also have to consider that the United States was purchasing land that weren’t part of the original 13 colonies. The Louisiana Purchase and many other purchases throughout American history also contributed to the unity of these states
@@shauncameron8390 it was a sweet deal for the United States since it gave the Mississippi River which was navigable and easily transported goods from North to South.
Because they’re way too different. Places like Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, and DR vs Mexico, Central America, and Ecuador vs Argentina and Chile. Why there wasn’t more consolidation between similarly cultured nations is the better and far more interesting question.
The reason is because the borders were drawn on the bourbonic reforms of the various capitancies, real audiencias, and proper viceroyalties instead of any other metric. These borders therefore weren’t even meant for the purpose of denoting cultural demographics or anything, their only literal purpose for the territories they held was to provide administrative benefits so if somebody wanted to file a paper or anything they didn’t have to go across half a continent to get to Lima or Mexico city like it was during the hapsburg era that were larger.
America had the advantage of having a new ready made system to immediately slide in to take the place of the empire once the rebellion started. That kept things in line for the average person. The looming threat of the other imperial powers on the continent also helped foster a need to unify for mutual protection.
Yeah something really important you touched on at the end was kind of really important: between every population center was some kind of inhospitable terrain that made communication and movement of people hard. In that aspect the borders just make too much sense in Latin America. It's not like in North America with vast open plains or even just relatively open geography on the east coast which make it hard to be separate and easy to unify there are mountains and jungles between every population center in the region which the borders are drawn through.
Thank you Sir for this very informative video. Maybe it would be of interest to your audience to understand how Brazil managed to remain united after our independence. After all, we account for nearly a half of south America, and different from our neighbors, we are just one country.
Una historia triste solo explicada a través del interés que tenían los ingleses de dejarnos débiles con una deudas que duraron más 100 años y guerras que nos hicieron matar entre hermanos además de una mala administración de los estados y las diferencias entre los independentistas que dieron lugar a guerras civiles sangrientas lo que todo ello dió lugar a nuestra debilidad que cuando ee.uu se hiciera poderoso fuéramos un regalo de cumpleaños.
1- As referenced in the video, any communication between the spanish colonies would need to go through Madrid making it harder 2-He also refers that unlike America, the spanish crown didn't focus on developing the country, thus they didn't have a "headstart" On the other side, Brazil was the capital of the Portuguese Empire for a considerable ammount of time. A lot infrastructure was built by Portugal such as schools, ports, markets and banks. 3- The Brazillian independence, compared to the spanish colonies, was relatively peaceful since the emperor who declared independence was a from the Portuguese Royal Family (Pedro II of Portugal and the first of Brazil) In fact Brazil had every single ingredient to become a superpower just like the US and Canada, unfortunately, corruption was what brought its demise
Por favor el reyno hispánico es de norte a sur y centro simplemente es demasiado extenso asta en asia y un país de África yego,somos más la cantidad de hispanos que brasileños y portugueses
This is stupid. Mexico at the start of independence had a 70% indigenous population with those people possibly having no way of speaking in Spanish. The same could be said for areas that still maintained a large mestizo one indigenous population. The Spanish empire is mixed group of people who didn’t identify with Spanish at the time of independence, and in some cases never will
2:16 Actually Bolivar never accepted the position of "god emperor of the gran Colombia" regardless of the british crown insistence and offerings of political, economic and militar back up (in exchange also of make the british currency the official money of the Gran Colombia) because Bolivar and Co were obsessed in the ideologies of the illustration and nationalism that came with it, so they believed that big european crown equals "peligro", so Bolivar and his supporters turn down again and again UK offerings. Some historians suggest that the UK foreseeing the great power and influence that EEUU would acquire in the near future and wanted a counterweight in the american continent, a powerful country, far enough to don't be directly influenced by EEUU but close enough to be threat or at least not ignorable, aligned with british interests.
A great presentation, considering that the history of evolution in the two different scenarios is much more complex and multiple factors are not included,I am sure to maintain the presentation as a small introduction. I enjoyed the simplicity of the video, and it brings one to take it as a point of reference for further study. Please continue your Excell work
The United States is born in the small 13 colonies, and through that single focus, it expands through a territory of the West, with almost no population (only some Indian tribes). Hispanic America had large cities distributed throughout the territory, such as Mexico, Buenos Aires, Santiago de Chile, Cartagena de Indias or Caracas, with their own universities, separated by jungles, 6000-meter mountain ranges and deep valleys. They all had a particular idiosyncrasy for 300 years, even though they were united by language and the same culture. The Captus of Colorado, the Snows of Dakota, or the Bison of Wyoming ruled no local territory, and the Indians had no technology to oppose westward expansion.
Well Mexico and Central America became one after the proclamation of the Mexican Empire, just to separate again when independence from Spain was achieved. The tribalism in Latin America is a strong part of the culture.
The Difference is, *The 13 Colonies, British America, UK* were already united to an extent as a subdivision of *British America, UK.* The structure was already in place but I'm sure it's not that huge of a difference
San Martín went to meet Bolivar to decide what to do with the regions they liberated. But when they met Bolivar received him by saying welcome to the Gran Colombia. That told San Martín that Bolivar already decided and he didn't see the point of the meeting and he left.
What is not mentioned here is that Bolivar wanted to be a dictator (think like Hugo Chavez / Fidel Castro). The reason why he never got to that point was because of Santander.
There should have been 3 large countries as a result of independent movements in Spanish America... 1 Mexico... the current Mexico plus Central America and the caribbean possesions. 2 Colombia, current Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, plus Peru and Bolivia. 3. Argentia, current Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. You add Brasil, USA and Canada.. And you end up with six large American nations.
Makes sense. Even though the Spanish Caribbean islands tried to join and are culturally speaking closer to Gran Colombia, the geographic distances line up much better than 1 entire United Latin America.
I mean, look how disunited mainland Spain is itself, so not that shocking that Spanish colonies could never unite unless there was a King ruling the country with either absolute power or atleast a figurehead King, who was loved or tolerated enough by every Spanish colony. But an Enlightened state with Democracy and Spanish culture - yeah no unity happening
To give more details about how important was the lack of communication as a factor: When Bolívar's attempted murder happened, it took A MONTH for the news to reach Venezuela, and Venezuela is right besides Colombia (where the attempt happened) and, since our economy was wrecked for the independence wars, it was very hard to budget for infrastructure, especially when there was a hot debate among keeping a strong military (Bolívar considered all Spanish colonies in the americas to be a danger, so he was planning to invade Cuba, whether the US wanted or not) funding education and, pretty much, nobody agreed where to invest more (since they couldn't tax everyone to death) to the point that they didn't have money to make the Panama Cannal (yes, Gran Colombia was planning for it since its inception) so, overall, communications became a mayor factor. As for the video itself, not bad. Very rare to see someone who isn't from Latin America covering well the subject. P.S. As for literacy, Spain treated that demagogically, Mexico had the printing press since the 1500's, Venezuela only had it like 2 years before the independence movements began.
In addition to the things you are saying, there was an attempt by the 'procer rioplatense' Jose Gervasio Artigas (and more people), to make 'Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata', which would have included huge chunks of Peru/Paraguay/Argentina/Uruguay and a bit of current Brazil. But you can imagine there was a huge cultural rift between every party involved, included indigenous people, and people born on the land, but if the state had succeded, the whole story of South America would have been different
ARTIGAS did create a Country, the Federal League, Survive for 5 Years, but the Provincias Unidas started a War aginst him, and ally with Brasil to take him down. Thats why Uruguay became part of Brasil, and the Federal League as Disbanded.-
@@mike4181 'El protector de los pueblos libres' and governor of the Provincia Oriental did create the smaller region you mentioned that partook in Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata. The Federal League was made of Cordoba, Corriente, Entre Rios, Provincia Oriental, Santa Fe and Misiones. Provincia Oriental was later invaded having it falling to portuguese/brazilian forces as you also mentioned. Which resulted in Buenos Aires not helping, betraying Artigas, and launched his exile to Paraguay. This also resulted in the disolution of the Federal League. The new Banda Oriental, today's Uruguay, was recovered with the help of Provincias Unidas with the Desembarco de los 33 Orientales, that launched another war against Brazil. With the mediation of the United Kingdom, a peace treaty was made and Uruguay was made bilaterally official, it acted as a buffer state between Brazil and Provincias Unidas. Provincias Unidas kept struggling, Alto Peru, Misiones, and Paraguay territory was lost in years to come. Even in the south, in the Patagonia struggled. But it was never like the United States. Provincias Unidas just didn't have the political stability, resources and man power to enforce its rule at the time. Although this was Artigas wish, to see it free from Spanish ruling, with civic and religious freedom over the whole zone.
@@BattlewarPenguin Let me number the ERRORS : 1- the name is "Banda Oriental of Uruguay", Entre rios, Corrientes and Cordoba are also Provincia, and in Uruguay they never refer as "Provincia Oriental". 2- Federal League consist in Banda Oriental of Uruguay, Entre Rios, Corrientes, Misiones. Some month later added Santa Fe, and more later added Cordoba, but that for short time, and as an ally. 3-You miss a LOT of History in within. Provincias Unidas of congress of Tucuman, start a WAR against the Federal League. Provincias Unidas creat an Alliance with Portugal/Brasil to take down Banda Oriental of Uruguay. The War continues, and Provincias Unidas Bribe 2 provinces of Federal League to Betray Artigas... And thas Why he lose the War and went into Exile.... thats how Federal League was shut down...
@@BattlewarPenguin 4- the 33 Orientals, as it says.. were refugees of Banda Oriental of Uruguay. They start a revolution for freedom WITHOUT the help of Provincias Unidas for one Year. After they show progress, then they ask the help of Troops of Provincias Unidas in exchange to join Banda Oriental of Uruguay. They have progres by Land BUT not by Sea. They didnt take all Uruguay, thats why they reach to a Tie. The Tie was decided in Rio de Janeiro, with the British Embassador Lord Ponsomby, who as neither sides reach an agrement... He decide to create Republica Oriental del Uruguay.
@@mike4181 you cannot change history my friend, don't double down in your mistakes, you'll a have a happier life admiting that you don't know everything and you are prone to mistakes and you are not less of a person for it. I really wish you the best, I really hope you'd listen more than you talk, I really hope that if you don't know something, don't talk about it. I won't follow this conversation with you any longer.
San Martín never inteded to "rule" any state or even be in a position of power, he was offered to be the king of Perú once he liberated the country, he rejected it. As well as he rejected to be the president of Argentina.
Cause the independence wars in spanish america weren't organized by a single group with a common objective, it was more like warlords with their own agendas.
This channel is awesome, have always wondered this as someone whos country federated fairly perfectly and to its benefit, the answers i got from south americans never really satisfied me but now i think i actually understand
We were unified as part of Spain. Bolívar, San Martín, Hidalgo, Sucre, etc., just tear that unity into pieces to sell us to the British Bank. They worked for the british lodges after all.
Look at peninsular Spain today. Mexico has been disunified often, advantage taken by the U.S., France and themselve.after 1912. Zero summage. Of late the U.S had been more regionally and class divided. The electoral college is a mechanism designed to thwart this, but has it's opponents of late.
There would be a super super league like the English premier.. but in Spanish, Instead of beckham we would have el beckahore Instead of Manchester and Liverpool we'd have Manuelster and Liverpolo
Like, it's technically not wrong, but it kind of is. The beginning of the independance movement in Venezuela was not caused by dislike of Napoleon, the idea had been stirring for several decades and they only needed an opportunity. Other things are also kinda wrong but I don't remember the exact details.
Bolívar and San Martín did have a confidential discussion at Guayaquil. Heck, there's even an episode from an Argentinean show called "The Amazing World of Zamba" about that.
"Nearly all of south America" is quite misleading since Brazil occupies 50% of South America, so it would be more accurate to say the Spanish had half of south america.
@@raymendez3403 America is another name for the United States, it's much more simpler than calling it "The United States" everytime. Yes, America is the continent, but whenever people say America, they always mean the United States.
@@Reagan1984 The name America was given to refer to the new world in 1507 in honor to Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci. The English settled only a century later in 1607. The United States wasn't a country until 170 years later, in total 270 years from which the name was given. The United States of America correctly refers to the American continent.
@@Reagan1984 And then everyone forgets about the other countries that conform a continent and you have another nations calling USA America. Taking the name of an entire continent its like displacing all of us, even his nice brother in the north its displaced. USA needs a better way to call them selfes becouse its like "Yeah we are americans and they are latinos" we are but also we are Americans, in spanish we call them Estadounidenses, they need a denonym for the nation and also star using superior metric system.
When the 13 Colonies liberated themselves and became the USA, they were rather small in the size of land. It was not until after they had won independence that they colonized/civilized/conquered and oppressed or bought the majority of modern day USA.
What people don't understand is that Brazil too is a federal Union like the US. It's made out of different states who were like seperate countries with seperate and distinct cultures and identities. Yet they were able to come together and Unite to create 1 country.
Besides language and a half spanish heritage, we don't have many things in common with one another. Mexico and Chile are very different from each other, same thing as Colombia and Guatemala. Unlike the 13 colonies, we had no real reason to unify.
Mismo idioma , misma religión , misma idiosincrasia , hay menos diferencia entre un Argentino y un Mexicano que la podria haber entre un Gallego y un Catalan
@@g2wesy805 en serio? 😂 los españoles son más parecidos de lo que piensan. Los latinos somos superficialmente igual para un español, pero las culturas son extremadamente diferentes entre sí.
Calle me crazy but of what I studied and read in Spanish América the idea of separation from the Monarchy wasn't very widespread or popular and only with the help of foreign mercenaries the "liberators" could destroy the opposition of the authentic patriots here, the loyalists to the Crown.
Although many interesting points were brought forth, the video is still vague. Latin America had various unification federalist movements but there was much Foreign intervention in the region such as that of the Anglo nations and their interested parties; hence, the Spanish-American War, Treaty of Paris, and Monroe Doctrine. Even during Hurricane Maria the island of Puerto Rico had to wait on President Trump to write an executive order to allow Spanish ships to enter the ports of the island and offer aid ( which he delayed in doing). Your video has a few missing pieces. I dare say more than a few as a huge Lacuna of information exist.
im peruvian your info is off. actually jose de san martin helped liberating Argentina, Chile and Peru , and he passed the power to bolivar for a lil brief time to get rid of the last group of spaniards that were trying to get back on power. jose de san martin didnt want to be the ruler of peru (even tho he was for about 6 in transitionary regimen.
also my friend the map of mexico after their independence was alot bigger(it had california, texas new mexico and alot more than then they lost in the us mexican war, but thats another story)
Im a USA resident. I plan to retire somewhere on the Pacific coast of Ecuador, Peru, or Chile in 2 to 5 years depending on how much longer I can keep my job. I am really looking forward to the new life and adventure I find there in my golden years.
First of all because we were never “colonies”, but viceroyalties which are very different administrative divisions and governments. Starting from there, there’s no room for comparison.
I have an animation idea for you. Next time someone opposes someone's idea, you can have them with a thought bubble and the other person swatting it away. Just an idea. If you don't like or want any other ideas I have, just say thanks but we have it covered and I'll understand.
In this case, size does matter. On top of all other factors, the American 13 British colonies were tiny in comparison to the huge kingdoms, vicekingdoms, captainships and other administrative divisions of a continent-sized group of Spanish colonies. Which included the fallen Inca and Aztec empires plus the remnants of the Mayan empire, each one larger than most European countries.
European counties were much larger at that point. Like 9-12 countries owned the continent
@@JaKingScomez western side. don't touch on germany
@@Cooom germany was still large. Eastern European/Balkans much more united.
@@JaKingScomez yes but Germany. Also still surgery than most states besides the big empires like Russia Austria and the ottomans
@@JaKingScomez Germany was cartographer's nightmare during medieval to early modern era
People were still very much isolated, despite most people speaking Spanish. It is still so. For example, I'm from Costa Rica. Travelling to Mexico, USA, Canada or Europe is cheaper than travelling to the lower half of South America. Taking a trip to Colombia, Peru or Ecuador is affordable, but going to Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay or Bolivia... That'd be a pricy flight.
We all developed very different political approaches and cultural identities and regional dialects that may not be fully mutually intelligible. I can talk with someone from Chile without any issue, but if I hear two Chileans talking to each other, I may get lost in translation. Would be much like dropping an American that has never been out of the USA right in the middle of Scotland just to see how it goes handling the dialect.
Most Americans have trouble understanding the regional dialects of other americans, actually...
Well, at least they did until recently. I don't know about how it's going in Latin America, but in the Anglo world the past two generations have lost almost all of their regional accents due to telecommunications.
@@InternetMameluq Don't know if I'd say that about the whole Anglo world, Scottish people can still be very hard to understand just check out Limmy's show but I would agree for the most part since as a Canadian it's easy to understand most standard accents of the Anglo world.
@@InternetMameluq As Colombian now I understand six of the twelve meanings of Chilean expression "weon" so we are starting to understand each othen a lot more.
How do you know English if you're from Costa Rica?
@@sierra5713 English is a common language, almost all of latin America have it on their school curriculum.
Great video! But as other people commented, San Martín helped liberate Peru too, and also he didn't left South America because of Bolivar, he actually left because of infighting between Federal and Unitarian factions in Buenos Aires (ended up in a bloody civil war), which he didn't want to have anything to do with. San Martín is often poorly researched in these types of content as is often overshadowed by Bolivar and the civil unrest that came after the revolutions. One of his famous quotes when asked for participating on the civil war was: "General San Martín will never use his sword to fight its own people''.
He is also the most iconic revolution hero in Argentina btw.
Indeed, I'd say that San Martin is more popular than Bolivar in Peru, or so I remember from my primary school days, where each year we enacted San Martin's declaration of independence in the school yard. I never got to play his role tho, I only got the guard one twice xD.
Fuck man, I would say he was one of the best national figures we ever had,like at least in popular culture everyone knows some dirty shit every other historical figure did,but no one ever says anything about San Martín.
Not so great.
As any video that tries to explain something complex in 5:56.
@@yuriyu123 That has nothing to do with his role on Peru's independence though, He is popular because of new state propaganda
Helped liberate lmao, what a way to put it, He invaded Peru with a foreign army and forced them to independence
If there is one thing Jared Diamond taught me, it is that it is much easier to create a big country horizontally (along a latitude) than it is to create it vertically along a longitude, because vertically the geography and climate and culture changes a lot quicker than along a latitude.
And Chile?
@@Alexander-yl3xp i think the climate stays pretty same along the small stretch of land between the western coast of south america and the andes to the east. Beyond them though you have the typical transition from rainforest in the north to temperate in the south.
Yea but Latin America was a superpower under the Spanish crown but it wasn’t prior to colonization likely due to the major indigenous civilizations being isolated from one another. Isolation is the primary factor that is taken into account when discussing the wealth of a nation. Without trade your economy becomes underdeveloped.
@@Alexander-yl3xp
Same concept really. Geography has a good amount of influence on how a state is born. Usually horizontal is a good deciding factor. But the Andes mountains separating east and west is a damn good one for deciding where a Chile and an Argentina gets to become their own states.
Argentina and the epitome of taaaaaaaalllll boy that is Chile : Hello there
Enjoyed the video. I do have to say, that I don't think a unifying "American" (USA) identity really got started until after the American Civil War. Prior to that, and for some time after, most "Americans" identified with their individual state rather than the nation as a whole. That was one of the major obstacles the US Constitution had to overcome, how much power was the Federal Government to have as opposed to how much power each state had. It's been a major balancing act ever since.
There is a very old joke, about a group of American Tourists taking a tour of the Panama Canal. As they turn a corner, someone had spraypainted, "YANKEE GO HOME," on the wall. The tour guide began to apologize when one member of the tour who was from Texas stated, "Oh, that's ok son. Where I come from, we don't like them too much either." For a long time, the USA was like that.
Still is.
Yeah, that US Civil War was where the United States identity started to destroy the individual state identity for a lot of people.
That was a major part of the war: whether or not the States were indeed still their own nations as free to leave the Union if they saw fit.
History likes to teach that the war was primarily about slavery, while ignoring things like the 4 slave states that didn't secede and the pretext for the United States fighting the Confederacy
Yankees can go home and stay home!
@@MacStatic what are you? A Red Sox fan?
We're STILL very much like that
Texans look down on Californians. Californians look down on Texans
Washingtonians look down on both (literally and metaphorically)
And people in New York barely even know we exist out here in the PNW
And EVERYONE mocks Florida
Many Southern transplants to Seattle I know go to considerable effort to mask their accents so they don't out themselves as Southerners and become the butt of endless jokes
Plus ça change, amirite
Spanish America was more than 10 times bigger than the Thirteen Colonies, with a much more diverse population. There are also other English speaking countries in Americas except US
I think that comparing Spanish colonies with the Portuguese is more interesting. There is just one Portuguese speaking country in Americas. In that time, Brazil didn’t have a national identity and managed to stay as a single nation
Its just Canada and the only reason why it didn’t join the Us is because alot of the Canada was (and still is but it was way more back then) French and didn’t sympathize with America. The English were just moving into Ontario at the time so they didn’t so the bordering lands weren’t even the same cultural group. Its also wort noting the one English part of Canada, Vermont DID rebel with the Americans. Had Canada been English controlled earlier or even from the start, there is no doubt atleast most of it would join the union.
@@fawkewethere are 14 english speaking countries in the americas
You seemed to have forgot a few so hers a list Canada, United States (hanging on so far), guyana, belize, dominica, jamaca, the bahamas, saint kitts and nevis, granada, saint Lucia, saint vincent and the grenadines, trinidad and tobago, barbados, Antigua and burbuda
Theres also quite a lot of brittish territories in the region
@TylerMarkRichardson there's an obvious difference in all those countries you mentioned lol
quite ironic to see a video about the lack of hispanoamerican union narrated with a british accent, and not a single word mentioning the british interference.
Getting into that topic would've made the video about twice as long. I'm actually thinking of making this into its own video later on, so stay tuned!
There were a lot of british interference.
@@SideQuestYT Video didn't say about 2 great factors: masonery and England. Both divided our Great Nation to their interest.
And since there "starts" our debt and the fights against our brothers of the new small countries.. patetic.
But someday we will unite again..
British or Jewish interference to be exact
@@prophetoftheilliterate4697 Lol jewish. Maybe you should start blaming yourself for your own failures instead of looking for a scapegoat
The big difference is that Spanish America werent colonies but Viceroyalties which meant that they were different colonies but extensions of the Spanish Crown with each Viceroyalty simply having it's own Royal Court and each Viceroy being a representative of the Crown. Spanish America was just as part of Spain as the Court of the Iberic Peninsula.
@Michelle I blame the passing of the royal house of Spain to outsiders (Habsburgs, Bourbons) Isabela of Castile had the best interest of the Americas at heart, just look at Charles V selling Venezuela to the Germans to benefit himself. It was illegal and against the wishes of Isabel.
@Michelle Oh, sorry that being invaded by France was more important to us than phoning you.
@Michelle *ignores their cities being way nore developed than most of continental Spain*
You know you were treated as equals in terms of status, right? Your territory was treated as proper provinces of the kingdom, it was just that it is a bit more important tending to a war happening near your heartland than the distant provinces
@@gamerito100 You can't say that the Spanish Viceroyalties were treated different by Spain as the UK treated the 13 colonies.
You can say it has equal "status" as others provinces of Spain, but when all the official positions could only be held by peninsular spanish that argument fell off because basically all other casts were treated as inferior and lack power in their own lands.
@@dragonitzgameno había en si castas, la diferencia social radicaba en el estatus social, es decir por ejemplo títulos de nobleza
Meanwhile in Brazil:
Revolutionary movements: We want independence!
Portugal (later Brazil it self): So you have chosen... death.
i was really only vaguely interested in the topic. but by the first 30 seconds, your animation and sense of humor got me hooked. what an enjoyable way to learn some history! i'll def be watching more. fantastic work!
Word of advice never learn Spanish history from an Brit, generally speaking
I suspect that if the Anglo colonies had all been warm and fertile enough to support plantation economies growing high value cash crops that they would have ended up just as divided as the Spanish colonies in the New World did. The colonies (later States) south of the Mason-Dixon Line had an economy that was quite similar to that of the Spanish colonies as described in this video.
The South wanted a slave empire into Latin America. Really limited their economic options. They didn't learn why they were able to take Texas- the Anglo economy was more developed than the feudal system Mexico inherited from Spain.
True. Blessed geography.
It's no coincidence that America's principle political divide for the first 200 years after independence was between the much more capitalistic and industrial North vs. the more aristocratic and agrarian South. It's only REALLY recently that the North-South split has become less important than the Urban-Rural split.
@@p00bix Agreed, let's not forget how close the North American federation came to splitting into two countries (or more probably, if the South had won) based on that split.
@@p00bix The South was actually arguably far more capitalist. I think you may be looking for a different term? The south in the USA was the epitome of old-capitalism, as the cotton they produced was to meet the demands of a market in europe and the north. The first capitalistic nations were founded on slavery with the spanish in Hispanola, so it is very much a relic of capitalism. Maybe the term Old-capitalism vs New-capitalism
There was one guy that tried to unify what once was the Viceroyalty of the River Plate (Virreynato del Rio de La Plata), which would be Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia today, a few years after independence of those countries took place. Juan Manuel de Rosas, who ruled the Argentine Federation during a time of civil war. He made several attempts to re-unite the territories into one giant super nation, but failed because of several factors, including foreign invervention from France and Great Britain, and even Brazil.
Today Juan Manuel de Rosas is a very divisive figure, with half of the people seeing him as a patriot and a hero of the South American cause, while the other half see him as a horrible bloodthirsty warmonger, with nothing in between.
Also bolivar in the north of south america, in the great colombia, tried to unify all countries in one but he couldnt even maintain great colombia united.
@@danielchacon1859 But Perú don't see that way
Video didn't say about 2 great factors: masonery and England. Both divided our Great Nation to their interest.
And since there "starts" our debt and the fights against our brothers of the new small countries.. patetic.
But someday we will unite again..
You have one mayor flaw there. Rosas didn't rule the "Argentine federation", there was no such thing in the time of Rosas, since there was no constitution and each province was on its own; it was a time of anarchy. Rosas was just the governor of the province of Buenos Aires, the mayor province. People often forget the anarchy and refer to the governor of Buenos Aires as the ruler of the provinces or the "president", when it was not such thing.
@@diegodelperu409 Yo nunca había oído esto de la masoneria ayudar a dividir sulamerica. Por lo contrário, ya escuché de algunos masones que fueron ellos quien 'conquistaran' la liberdad en los EEUU, por toda latinoamerica e en Francia, durante la Revolucción (eran francmasones, por supuesto). Pero no estoy dudando de ti, lo que tu diciste hace mucho más sentido do lo dicho por ellos.
Por una latinoamerica cada vez más fuerte, hermano.
Communication also had a major role in keeping Brazil united.
When the kingd of Portugal set his court in Rio de Janeiro, the local leaders, who have never met untill them did so. And in this gathering they'd found much more in common than differences between them.
So much so that when King João went back to Portugal, he warned his son Pedro that Brazil was in the verge of breaking up with Portugal and Pedro should act to, at least "keep the Brazilian crown on the family"
This is a pretty interesting question that i never knew i wanted to know the answer to
@Mark Martinez Bolivar the liberator didn't trust in US and tried to unify Latin American countries in a superpower capable to face US but regional leaders didn't accept the authority of a central government and US didn't want a country that would rival them just below them but nowadays there are many latin americans that want a unique country
Video didn't say about 2 great factors: masonery and England. Both divided our Great Nation to their interest.
And since there "starts" our debt and the fights against our brothers of the new small countries.. patetic.
But someday we will unite again..
I know
Simón Bolívar
@@danielchacon1859 the USA back then wanted Gran Colombia at least to succeed. That way they would have a hopefully successful neighbor Republic. A natural potential Ally against any threatening monarchy. The words of President John Quincy Adams at the time confirm this.
Even more fascinating than understanding why the American Spanish empire fragmented is to understand why Portuguese America didn't. Brazil is as large as the rest of South America and kept its territorial integrity. Many different historical explanations ensued, and the debate rages to this day.
For a while the Portuguese king and his court ruled from Rio de Janeiro. Besides most of the colonial towns in Brazil were in the shores
All the cities in Brazil at the time could be accessed quickly by other cities by ship, their population was not spread out. But if you were going from Buenos Aires to Santiago de Chile you had to go thru the Andes. From Santiago up to Lima is all mountain. Lima to Panama or Guatemala City would have taken a very long time, no roads or anything through the jungle. And all of these cities struggled to reach Mexico City or Cuba that was basically at the other side of the world being located on the Atlantic coast and not the Pacific.
The king of Portugal, who had been in Brazil since the Napoleonic invasion, decided to stay and become the emperor of brazil rather than return to Europe and did so peacefully. It's not really a mystery.
I like the part where the Prince that was going to be King of Portugal cut ties with the motherland and self proclaimed Emperor or Brazil.
I think the most important reason was a center
Brazil was centered around Rio de Janeiro, with not many local elites
The concept that the British colonies were more “developed” than their Spanish counterparts is laughable. One data point: there were 12 universities in latin america by the time Harvard was founded, the oldest 100 years before. The main reason for the lack of union in Latin America is geography: not only many times larger than the original 13 colonies but spanning from thousands of miles in North-South direction, as opposed to US East-West direction
Latin america is advanced history spain was far more powerful then britain at its prime but napoleon helped them out by ending that the thing is though maybe spain wouldnt have fallen if they seeked allies instead of enemies.
I guess that explains the massive technological advancment disparity between us then huh?
@@SmartAss4123 just because it went downhill in the past 200 years doesn't mean it was always like that. The middle east used to be more educated and prosperous than Europe not more than 500 years ago.
Shit happened and that's it, a lot has changed in these 200 years specially because of the industrial revolution.
It also has some to do with the purpose of the colonies, as said in the video. The USA wasn't more developed, it just had a different kind of economy (significant manufacturing), which encouraged them to rebel and unify, while the Spanish colonies were more focused on resource extraction
@@dxzts6614 Depends on what aspects of society you're talking about. How well made was infrastructure, city planning, and how much quality did those universities have in terms of actual teaching and procuring more scholars/teachers/engineers.
I think there was far too vast of a difference for there not to be underlying differenfes that fundamentally creates the disparity that happened in 200-500 years.
I am Colombian and knew many of the reasons already, yet I find your videos so well done I wanted to see it. Great work!
This analysis fails to consider the humongous difference in size between the 13 British colonies and all of the spanish colonies in central and south America. Also the much bigger and diverse cultural heritage in spanish colonies due to miscegenation.
The video explains very well the big problem the lack of comunication due to the crown and the harsh envoirment down in SA. High mountains and tropical forest made it almost impossible back then
@@Diegps IMO it doesn't. Those 13 colonies combined could fit several times inside each of the territorial divisions that ended up being south american countries. It's like comparing one neigborhood to a whole city.
It is interesting how Brazil din managed to unite all Portuguese colonies in south America.
4:23 apparently this is one of the big reasons the Americas were so underdeveloped compared to Europe before Colombus. Rain forests, big rivers, mountains, and all of that prevented different communities to trade and communicate with each other
Also, consider the fact that Europe had co tact with China, India and a lot of othe cultures If Europe were as isolated as América, they would still use Román Numbers (which are way less useful than the arabic)
the biggest reason id say is the lack of farm animals in the new world
Forgot one of the most important figures, Agustín de Iturbide who actually was an Emperor. He United most of New Spain, but his empire broke after his exile. Central America left and broke into the many republics we have today.
@Felix Saenz The Mexican Congress declared him Emperor. He was overthrown and exiled, but that doesn’t take away from the fact he was emperor, same as Napoleon or Franz Ferdinand. He controlled the entirety of Mexico. No province left during his rule. After his exile, Central America left, but he held it during his reign. His empire consisted of most of New Spain. The United States recognized Mexico’s independence and him as Emperor. They helped plot his overthrow, but they still declared his reign as legitimate.
@@impsimp That's really interesting
@@impsimp and thank to god that my ancestors have the wisdom to fire squad him.
There weren’t “colonies” under the Spanish Empire to begin with. Instead there were viceroyalties, which have nothing to do not only in administrative terms but also politically, culturally and economically. The American spanish lands were Spain itself, not just subsidiar lands belonging to Spain. It’s important to get this concept clear. An inhabitant born in hispanoamerica was consider as Spanish as the peninsular ones in Europe, because it was more a matter of religion than a matter of race or ethnicities (those were introduced later on by the French illustration, along with racism).
@ClintDempsey76 Yes but I think Britain isn't the one to contrast this example.
Right next door was colonial Brazil and how the Portuguese treated their colonies was rough so they made it really clear as a political statement that Brazilians were 2nd class to European Portuguese born people, and because they're actually next to each other and The Portuguese made all their subjects convert religion too but didn't really give them access to a shared identity over it.
(like, okay now were both christians but I get the sit in the front pew at church cause 'I'm' Still a more important/better christian was how portuguese colonizers felt over in brazil)
How is it possible that the de facto treatment of the Hispano-Americans was equal to that of the mainland Spanish if they had fully implemented a detailed "Caste System" based on how mixed a colonist was with African and indigenous blood? On top of that, even the Spanish colonists who barely mixed with the other "lesser" peoples were not given the same treatment by the Spanish government for being several generations removed from Spanish citizens (Peninsulares).
No, the racism and classicism did not start with the French in modern day Latin America, it started with the Spanish.
In terms of religion, its very much a stretch to say that having the same religion gave people in Hispano-America the same respect of acceptance as mainland Spaniards. As I said, in many regions it was still very much dependent on if you were Mulato, Mestizo, Castizo, Negro, Indígena, Criollo or Peninsular and your connections to the ruling elite in Spain (or at least to the Spanish elite in major colonial cities).
@@sp.8727 You have been clearly brainwashed in school and the Anglophile historiography that it promotes. That “Caste System” you seem so desperate to highlight didn’t last not even twenty years after the conquest and it was abolish by the Leyes de Burgos already in 1512 and with the implementation of the viceroyalties. But that’s not the most bold statement of yours, cause when you said “racism” begin with the Spanish Empire that’s simply a huge sign of ignorance regarding history on your part. Racism as we know these days begin in late XVII and mainly in XVIII century with the French Ilustration, so your statement is a total anachronism. The goal was to convert and assimilated amerindians, regardless of their ethnic background. How do you think a few Spaniards where able to conquest such enormous lands an empires in the first place? Just because its technology? Do you think they have uzis and tanques at that time or what? No, the answer is because they did it with the aid of the natives themselves. Furthermore, if you just take a look at the ethnic distribution of the whole American continent, you will find all indigenous people and mestizos are precisely living in Spanish speaking countries (not even Brazil has mestizos with amerindians), something unheard of in any racist country, ‘cause if you are to be called so just killed them all, like the Anglos did. Regarding your name, I’m going to assume you know Spanish, so I’ll recommend you some bibliography that you should look up to get rid of the Spanish Black Legend bullshit that the system is so desperate to teach you guys so the Hispanic sphere keeps fragmented, fighting against one and other, poor and politically powerless... just like the Anglo-world likes it (those who really get rid of any indigenous peoples the encountered everywhere they put their foot on):
Some of the books you should have in consideration:
-“Madre Patria”, Marcelo Gullo
-“Imperofobia y leyenda Negra”, María Elcira Roca Barea
“Banderas Lejanas”, Carlos Canales Torres y Fernando Martínez Lainez
-“El expolio del indio norteamericano”, Wilbur R. Jacobs
-“Political essay on the kingdom of New Spain”, Alexander Von Humboldt
-“The American Independence and the man of France and Spain who saved it”, Larrie D. Ferreiro.
@@sp.8727 Aquí te dejo algunos vídeos de interés (de los muchos que pueden encontrarse), para quitarte el estigma negrolegendario que arrastras:
Mira los de “Brigada antifraude”: Negros en la alta sociedad (hispanoamericana): ua-cam.com/video/C1yMdMdIt4U/v-deo.html
El Imperio Español, ¿oro y esclavos?, Ivan Vélez: ua-cam.com/video/SfLSJPUf0lw/v-deo.html
Los de Patricio Lons:
“No éramos de España, nosotros éramos España”: ua-cam.com/video/PiN5Wjz8zzU/v-deo.html
Simón Bolívar, el falso héroe ua-cam.com/video/l99e3TtDSJg/v-deo.html
Méjico antes de Méjico: “Hubiera sido mejor no independizarnos de España”: ua-cam.com/video/GzCHBOxegyA/v-deo.html
Estados Unidos: historia negra, leyenda rosa ua-cam.com/video/x6J6S63P3c4/v-deo.html
También los vídeos del “Capitán Peru”
@@LorianR oh, gracias, leerte a sido todo un placer 👌🏽👌🏽💛
Side Quest mate you really really need to reach out to some of the other history channels that do similar stuff to you in a similar way. So the channels that use animation and a bit of humour. You're so good I'm sure they'd love to work with you and help get your work better known. It definitely deserves it. Keep going man you'll get the subscribers the channel should have I'm sure.
Rather disappointed that the Mexican Empire and Central American Federation were completely overlooked in the video; both provide interesting case studies as well for how a union of ex-Spanish colonies failed
What Mejican Empire ? Are you Joking Right ? U lost the 60% Of the province of Mejico or Nueva España. Such an Empire. WTF ?
@@inigoacha1166the one that lasted to years don't talk of you don't know
@@inigoacha1166it was before Mexico lost most of that land read about it
@@inigoacha1166An empire doesn’t mean it has to have a land grab, it was a kingdom. And Mexico has been an empire **Twice**
@@inigoacha1166pn d jo
I love how you explained each argument about the topic in only 6 minutes. Amazing! I just want to tell that San Martín helped liberate Peru to, the peruvians even offered him the tittle of Protector (like a office with extreme executive powers) but he declined. San Martín wasn't in favor of Monarchy, that was Belgrano who was in favor of the restauration of an Inca monarch, the descendants of Tupac Amaru. San Martín wanted to liberated South America, for that reason he didn't imposed anything in any country that he liberated like Chile, Peru or even here in Argentina.
No saben nada estos gringos
@@Iruka1991 is that why they're rich?
Bolivar liberó a Perú muchacho pajuo
San martín invadió e impuso la independencia al peru, y quienes pidieron eran los liberales que eran minoría pero no dudaron en usar al estado peruano para pagar su conspiración, de hecho san martín fue impopular en peru por eso se retiro en su protectorado perdió apoyo popular. Otra cosa que su objetivo junto al de bolivsr fuera empobrecer al peru en beneficio de sus paises porque el peru con el mayor ejército realista del continente era una clara amenaza
@@sithlord2225 bolivar saqueo al peru y decreto la miseria imponiendo la república, u triste masón sin más que ofreció minas de oro del Perú a Inglaterra y nunca dudo en mostrar desprecio al peruano
All Brazilian states keeped together as American states did. Of course some separatists movements existed backed then mostly in the south as Rio Grande do Sul (Revolução Farropilha) and in the southeast as Minas Gerais (Inconfidência Mineira) but nothing nationalwise.
So, the Portuguese America was more like English America in that sense of union than Spanish America. Even the official name of Brazil was literally United States of Brazil for a period of time. Now it's Federal Republic of Brazil, though.
0:33 *Hispanic América.
1/3 of Latin Americans are Brazilians and Brazil is a single country.
Still includes Mexico and a the country's that aren't on the south American continent who also had nothing to do with it so really he'd need to say Latin or Hispanic American and then specifically name those not involved but I get why he didn't in such a short informal video, especially when he did name the individual country's involved.
Actually latin America is a term created by Napoleon 3.
Actually latin America is a term created by Napoleon 3.
He not considered Brazil country latin
@@llatani6295 The question is about Hispanic countries. Brazil is a Latin American country, but not Hispanic.
That was fucking amazing, such a lesson in politics, economy and management. How much communiction and sense of identity was important is the political part, it struck me, you not only need a good business model but to manage culture and prople's mindset. This was one of the most important videos ive saw, thank you. If you could do more details about this topic i would love it.
The Spanish settlers mixed with the natives and created their own unique cultures since each native tribe has their own languages and cultures. The English settlers did not want to be any where near the natives. Although us states are pretty different from eachother, they would be even more unique from eachother if the English decided to combine cultures with the natives rather than commit genocide.
Not the full explenation, the portuguese in some way also did that, yet Brazil which is as big as the rest of South America stayed united (in fact this video should compare more the Spanish with the Portuguese).
Sin el "genocidio" estaríamos todos en taparabos viviendo hasta los 19 años con suerte, hay que usar esa palabra con cuidado
@@johnf.r6658 Realmente ni habrías nacido, asi que no tendrías que preocuparte por eso. Además varias sociedades latinoamericanas como la azteca, maya e inca estaban muy desarrolladas. Quien sabe que tan desarrolladas podrían haber llegado a estar si no hubiera ocurrido la colonización.
The Spanish didn't commit genocide? Lol. Guess you never heard of Cortez. No English equivalent to murderous Cortez (and other conquistadors) existed. The Spanish (at first) were hell bent on driving away all natives. Only after realizing this was quite futile (because there were far too many), did they do the next best thing... Incorporate the natives and make them 3rd class citizens, and those with the least "native" blood (the pure "Spanish") would rule and be part of the upper classes well into the 20th century. In North America it was alot different, the natives were fewer and spread out, also less unified and a lot weaker. The English didn't even have to fight them, they simply outnumbered them after a couple generations and of course the Euro diseases that decimated the native population.
Creo que se referia al otro genocido, el norteamericano.
Spaniards did not exterminate locals like the British and American colonizers did in the North. Hence the cultural diversity and posterior independence movements by region.
No but the Spaniards certainly tried.
Quick answer, because Carlos IV was stopped by his son during their travel to Cadiz to put him as the new king. If they had escaped to Mexico, probably it would happen as in Brazil, but the funny thing is that probably Spain became the first country to got their indendence from the spanish monarchy
really well produced video
Great video! It is amazing how you could fit all of that information in a 6 min video. Most videos I've watched on the topic always leave someting out.
I would like to add that, as you mentioned, comunication was one of the factors of why south america is not unified. I think that that is the reason ehy we are poorer here and less develop than in the USA. Colombia is filled with mountains. Different cultures have formed in the valleys surrounding them and even to this day, comunication is difficult. If you compare Medellin and Bogota they are very different in culture and customs. better infracstucture should be the focus of latin american countries in order to improve communications, the exchange of good and ideas and the betterment of our nations.
Could you maybe make a video on the Colombian Mafia in the 80s, it is a very interesthing topic, and I know that you would make a great job covering that topic.
Anyway. Thnak you for the video, see you next time my firend sidequest.
One thing that this video mentions is very interesting and in which I agree, the lack of communication, the Spanish empire and its viceroyalties were very isolated from each other, New Spain and the provinces of South America practically did not speak to each other during the whole era colonial, and they were practically unknown after independence, not to mention the Spanish possessions in the Caribbean, with the exception of Cuba and Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic was practically forgotten, not even the Spaniards knew that they still had the Dominican Republic.
@Michelle You've been on your own for over 2 centuries. It is not Spaniards blaming you for your conditions today, it is basic logic. You are responsible for your countries today. Grow up and accept some responsibilities, for God sake, you all act like 5 years old.
Utter nonsense...
Wrong there were various methods of intercommunication between spain, new spain and peru during the hapsburg and bourbon eras. The panama trade from the port of callao to panama city to havana to veracruz and to madrid held a lot of trade between all the connected places, and later on there were multiple criollos from the viceroyalty of peru and new spain who became viceroys of each other’s viceroyalty as it was the rule that a viceroy couldn’t be viceroy of the place they were born of. Also when the english invaded caracas, various navies from new spain and from other nearby provinces of spain in the americas intervened and collaborated with the militias in caracas. And there was also the common hispanic market of 1776 which by the way is the only reason today buenos aires as a city is even relevant thanks to the leather trade it engaged in. Because before buenos aires was a complete backwater that relied on contraband to even subsist.
You also have to consider that the United States was purchasing land that weren’t part of the original 13 colonies. The Louisiana Purchase and many other purchases throughout American history also contributed to the unity of these states
Due to France being in debt and no longer able to support its colonies in the Americas.
And you forgot to mention all the land the USA stole from Mexico.
@@shauncameron8390 it was a sweet deal for the United States since it gave the Mississippi River which was navigable and easily transported goods from North to South.
@@jon6309 the mississippi and the columbia rivers made the u.s. what it is today
Because they’re way too different. Places like Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, and DR vs Mexico, Central America, and Ecuador vs Argentina and Chile. Why there wasn’t more consolidation between similarly cultured nations is the better and far more interesting question.
Even within Mexico the culture is different don't be fooled.
The reason is because the borders were drawn on the bourbonic reforms of the various capitancies, real audiencias, and proper viceroyalties instead of any other metric. These borders therefore weren’t even meant for the purpose of denoting cultural demographics or anything, their only literal purpose for the territories they held was to provide administrative benefits so if somebody wanted to file a paper or anything they didn’t have to go across half a continent to get to Lima or Mexico city like it was during the hapsburg era that were larger.
America had the advantage of having a new ready made system to immediately slide in to take the place of the empire once the rebellion started. That kept things in line for the average person. The looming threat of the other imperial powers on the continent also helped foster a need to unify for mutual protection.
"America", do you mean The United States?
@@guagualon1436 ...of America
@@guagualon1436 Your country literally has a name. The US doesn’t. Get over yourself, we can call ourselves America.
@@wtfdidijustwatch1017does not have a name? The United States? It's not my fault you were dumb and chose The United States as your name
Yeah something really important you touched on at the end was kind of really important: between every population center was some kind of inhospitable terrain that made communication and movement of people hard. In that aspect the borders just make too much sense in Latin America. It's not like in North America with vast open plains or even just relatively open geography on the east coast which make it hard to be separate and easy to unify there are mountains and jungles between every population center in the region which the borders are drawn through.
Thank you Sir for this very informative video. Maybe it would be of interest to your audience to understand how Brazil managed to remain united after our independence. After all, we account for nearly a half of south America, and different from our neighbors, we are just one country.
Una historia triste solo explicada a través del interés que tenían los ingleses de dejarnos débiles con una deudas que duraron más 100 años y guerras que nos hicieron matar entre hermanos además de una mala administración de los estados y las diferencias entre los independentistas que dieron lugar a guerras civiles sangrientas lo que todo ello dió lugar a nuestra debilidad que cuando ee.uu se hiciera poderoso fuéramos un regalo de cumpleaños.
1- As referenced in the video, any communication between the spanish colonies would need to go through Madrid making it harder
2-He also refers that unlike America, the spanish crown didn't focus on developing the country, thus they didn't have a "headstart"
On the other side, Brazil was the capital of the Portuguese Empire for a considerable ammount of time. A lot infrastructure was built by Portugal such as schools, ports, markets and banks.
3- The Brazillian independence, compared to the spanish colonies, was relatively peaceful since the emperor who declared independence was a from the Portuguese Royal Family (Pedro II of Portugal and the first of Brazil)
In fact Brazil had every single ingredient to become a superpower just like the US and Canada, unfortunately, corruption was what brought its demise
Por favor el reyno hispánico es de norte a sur y centro simplemente es demasiado extenso asta en asia y un país de África yego,somos más la cantidad de hispanos que brasileños y portugueses
2:46
"we have no record of what was said at that meeting..."
no one:
absolutely no one:
me: no one else was in the room where it happened...
And if that was the case, Bólivar on top gets a whole new meaning
This is stupid. Mexico at the start of independence had a 70% indigenous population with those people possibly having no way of speaking in Spanish. The same could be said for areas that still maintained a large mestizo one indigenous population. The Spanish empire is mixed group of people who didn’t identify with Spanish at the time of independence, and in some cases never will
Enjoyed that, simple and straight to the point
2:16 Actually Bolivar never accepted the position of "god emperor of the gran Colombia" regardless of the british crown insistence and offerings of political, economic and militar back up (in exchange also of make the british currency the official money of the Gran Colombia) because Bolivar and Co were obsessed in the ideologies of the illustration and nationalism that came with it, so they believed that big european crown equals "peligro", so Bolivar and his supporters turn down again and again UK offerings.
Some historians suggest that the UK foreseeing the great power and influence that EEUU would acquire in the near future and wanted a counterweight in the american continent, a powerful country, far enough to don't be directly influenced by EEUU but close enough to be threat or at least not ignorable, aligned with british interests.
The brits its the french of Venezuelans. You cant get enough. Dont you? . Invade me and them force go to war with a arms friend. COME ON
Love you’re videos, just discovered this channel but it’s super informative
A great presentation, considering that the history of evolution in the two different scenarios is much more complex and multiple factors are not included,I am sure to maintain the presentation as a small introduction. I enjoyed the simplicity of the video, and it brings one to take it as a point of reference for further study. Please continue your Excell work
This DLC is looking great. Thanks for the videos as always Dave
The United States is born in the small 13 colonies, and through that single focus, it expands through a territory of the West, with almost no population (only some Indian tribes). Hispanic America had large cities distributed throughout the territory, such as Mexico, Buenos Aires, Santiago de Chile, Cartagena de Indias or Caracas, with their own universities, separated by jungles, 6000-meter mountain ranges and deep valleys. They all had a particular idiosyncrasy for 300 years, even though they were united by language and the same culture. The Captus of Colorado, the Snows of Dakota, or the Bison of Wyoming ruled no local territory, and the Indians had no technology to oppose westward expansion.
Well Mexico and Central America became one after the proclamation of the Mexican Empire, just to separate again when independence from Spain was achieved. The tribalism in Latin America is a strong part of the culture.
And now it would be even more impossible to unite the continent as each region by now has it's own established culture
@@prophetoftheilliterate4697 we still have the same root and language that all Hispanics share including with Spain
The Difference is, *The 13 Colonies, British America, UK* were already united to an extent as a subdivision of *British America, UK.*
The structure was already in place but I'm sure it's not that huge of a difference
San Martín went to meet Bolivar to decide what to do with the regions they liberated. But when they met Bolivar received him by saying welcome to the Gran Colombia. That told San Martín that Bolivar already decided and he didn't see the point of the meeting and he left.
0:18 you forgot about Canada... The British colonies that failed to unite... Although I suppose they managed to unite with each other
Wow, the background music is amazing :O
5:34 THE SPANISH ACCENT IMITATION 😹😹😹😹😹
What is not mentioned here is that Bolivar wanted to be a dictator (think like Hugo Chavez / Fidel Castro). The reason why he never got to that point was because of Santander.
There should have been 3 large countries as a result of independent movements in Spanish America... 1 Mexico... the current Mexico plus Central America and the caribbean possesions. 2 Colombia, current Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, plus Peru and Bolivia. 3. Argentia, current Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. You add Brasil, USA and Canada..
And you end up with six large American nations.
Makes sense.
Even though the Spanish Caribbean islands tried to join and are culturally speaking closer to Gran Colombia, the geographic distances line up much better than 1 entire United Latin America.
Why the audio silence after "we oppose your vision?" @2:29 😳
I mean, look how disunited mainland Spain is itself, so not that shocking that Spanish colonies could never unite unless there was a King ruling the country with either absolute power or atleast a figurehead King, who was loved or tolerated enough by every Spanish colony.
But an Enlightened state with Democracy and Spanish culture - yeah no unity happening
This channel is super above average.
To give more details about how important was the lack of communication as a factor: When Bolívar's attempted murder happened, it took A MONTH for the news to reach Venezuela, and Venezuela is right besides Colombia (where the attempt happened) and, since our economy was wrecked for the independence wars, it was very hard to budget for infrastructure, especially when there was a hot debate among keeping a strong military (Bolívar considered all Spanish colonies in the americas to be a danger, so he was planning to invade Cuba, whether the US wanted or not) funding education and, pretty much, nobody agreed where to invest more (since they couldn't tax everyone to death) to the point that they didn't have money to make the Panama Cannal (yes, Gran Colombia was planning for it since its inception) so, overall, communications became a mayor factor.
As for the video itself, not bad. Very rare to see someone who isn't from Latin America covering well the subject.
P.S. As for literacy, Spain treated that demagogically, Mexico had the printing press since the 1500's, Venezuela only had it like 2 years before the independence movements began.
This Channel never loses its Quality
In addition to the things you are saying, there was an attempt by the 'procer rioplatense' Jose Gervasio Artigas (and more people), to make 'Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata', which would have included huge chunks of Peru/Paraguay/Argentina/Uruguay and a bit of current Brazil.
But you can imagine there was a huge cultural rift between every party involved, included indigenous people, and people born on the land, but if the state had succeded, the whole story of South America would have been different
ARTIGAS did create a Country, the Federal League, Survive for 5 Years, but the Provincias Unidas started a War aginst him, and ally with Brasil to take him down. Thats why Uruguay became part of Brasil, and the Federal League as Disbanded.-
@@mike4181 'El protector de los pueblos libres' and governor of the Provincia Oriental did create the smaller region you mentioned that partook in Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata.
The Federal League was made of Cordoba, Corriente, Entre Rios, Provincia Oriental, Santa Fe and Misiones.
Provincia Oriental was later invaded having it falling to portuguese/brazilian forces as you also mentioned. Which resulted in Buenos Aires not helping, betraying Artigas, and launched his exile to Paraguay. This also resulted in the disolution of the Federal League.
The new Banda Oriental, today's Uruguay, was recovered with the help of Provincias Unidas with the Desembarco de los 33 Orientales, that launched another war against Brazil.
With the mediation of the United Kingdom, a peace treaty was made and Uruguay was made bilaterally official, it acted as a buffer state between Brazil and Provincias Unidas.
Provincias Unidas kept struggling, Alto Peru, Misiones, and Paraguay territory was lost in years to come. Even in the south, in the Patagonia struggled.
But it was never like the United States. Provincias Unidas just didn't have the political stability, resources and man power to enforce its rule at the time. Although this was Artigas wish, to see it free from Spanish ruling, with civic and religious freedom over the whole zone.
@@BattlewarPenguin Let me number the ERRORS : 1- the name is "Banda Oriental of Uruguay", Entre rios, Corrientes and Cordoba are also Provincia, and in Uruguay they never refer as "Provincia Oriental". 2- Federal League consist in Banda Oriental of Uruguay, Entre Rios, Corrientes, Misiones. Some month later added Santa Fe, and more later added Cordoba, but that for short time, and as an ally. 3-You miss a LOT of History in within. Provincias Unidas of congress of Tucuman, start a WAR against the Federal League. Provincias Unidas creat an Alliance with Portugal/Brasil to take down Banda Oriental of Uruguay. The War continues, and Provincias Unidas Bribe 2 provinces of Federal League to Betray Artigas... And thas Why he lose the War and went into Exile.... thats how Federal League was shut down...
@@BattlewarPenguin 4- the 33 Orientals, as it says.. were refugees of Banda Oriental of Uruguay. They start a revolution for freedom WITHOUT the help of Provincias Unidas for one Year. After they show progress, then they ask the help of Troops of Provincias Unidas in exchange to join Banda Oriental of Uruguay. They have progres by Land BUT not by Sea. They didnt take all Uruguay, thats why they reach to a Tie. The Tie was decided in Rio de Janeiro, with the British Embassador Lord Ponsomby, who as neither sides reach an agrement... He decide to create Republica Oriental del Uruguay.
@@mike4181 you cannot change history my friend, don't double down in your mistakes, you'll a have a happier life admiting that you don't know everything and you are prone to mistakes and you are not less of a person for it. I really wish you the best, I really hope you'd listen more than you talk, I really hope that if you don't know something, don't talk about it.
I won't follow this conversation with you any longer.
Laughed out loud at mean King George! Great video! Never knew any of this
“The North Americans managed to unify.”
Proceeds to shows map of less than half of the North American continent unified.
San Martín never inteded to "rule" any state or even be in a position of power, he was offered to be the king of Perú once he liberated the country, he rejected it. As well as he rejected to be the president of Argentina.
Cause the independence wars in spanish america weren't organized by a single group with a common objective, it was more like warlords with their own agendas.
And a lot of mercenaries
Great, informative, & entertaining video. You've found a new subscriber in me.
Finally a Brit that can pronounce Simón Bolívar
well, except for the "Bolivár" accent he pronounced his last name with
Very informative. Didnt watch it with volume or subtitles on though
Might your narrator be interested in some audiodrama work? Great voice! PM me if curious.
Accurate punch packed with truth and without taking scholars too seriously either. Vale hermano 🎉
This channel is awesome, have always wondered this as someone whos country federated fairly perfectly and to its benefit, the answers i got from south americans never really satisfied me but now i think i actually understand
Very good video 👍
We were unified as part of Spain. Bolívar, San Martín, Hidalgo, Sucre, etc., just tear that unity into pieces to sell us to the British Bank. They worked for the british lodges after all.
it´s prounounced Boleeevar, emphasis on the I. great video btw
Look at peninsular Spain today. Mexico has been disunified often, advantage taken by the U.S., France and themselve.after 1912. Zero summage. Of late the U.S had been more regionally and class divided. The electoral college is a mechanism designed to thwart this, but has it's opponents of late.
not the most historically accurate video i've seen but good enough. Anyways, good video and I loved the topic :)
I’m just imagining how good this country would be at football
There would be a super super league like the English premier.. but in Spanish,
Instead of beckham we would have el beckahore
Instead of Manchester and Liverpool we'd have Manuelster and Liverpolo
@@nolesy34 Weirdly there is already an Uruguay side called Liverpool
@@lorddex1364 cool!
Although i thought the Argentinians disliked the British
@@nolesy34 ?
@@123mrmaynard123 because of the island...
I'm subscribing now that the channel is small, before it gets to the millions
Like, it's technically not wrong, but it kind of is. The beginning of the independance movement in Venezuela was not caused by dislike of Napoleon, the idea had been stirring for several decades and they only needed an opportunity. Other things are also kinda wrong but I don't remember the exact details.
Bolívar and San Martín did have a confidential discussion at Guayaquil. Heck, there's even an episode from an Argentinean show called "The Amazing World of Zamba" about that.
Line to that episode: ua-cam.com/video/FQrHWIqMjzU/v-deo.html
"Nearly all of south America" is quite misleading since Brazil occupies 50% of South America, so it would be more accurate to say the Spanish had half of south america.
That "yankee doodle" thing was so funny I rewind it and watched it again, well done, I gave you a like.
Even geographically they had no chance. America was truly blessed to become a nation.
And nearly failed many times.
America is a continent
@@raymendez3403
America is another name for the United States, it's much more simpler than calling it "The United States" everytime.
Yes, America is the continent, but whenever people say America, they always mean the United States.
@@Reagan1984 The name America was given to refer to the new world in 1507 in honor to Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci. The English settled only a century later in 1607. The United States wasn't a country until 170 years later, in total 270 years from which the name was given. The United States of America correctly refers to the American continent.
@@Reagan1984 And then everyone forgets about the other countries that conform a continent and you have another nations calling USA America. Taking the name of an entire continent its like displacing all of us, even his nice brother in the north its displaced. USA needs a better way to call them selfes becouse its like "Yeah we are americans and they are latinos" we are but also we are Americans, in spanish we call them Estadounidenses, they need a denonym for the nation and also star using superior metric system.
When the 13 Colonies liberated themselves and became the USA, they were rather small in the size of land. It was not until after they had won independence that they colonized/civilized/conquered and oppressed or bought the majority of modern day USA.
Except the English colonies didnt fully unite, some stayed loyal and become Canada, Jamaica, Bahamas, etc.
What people don't understand is that Brazil too is a federal Union like the US. It's made out of different states who were like seperate countries with seperate and distinct cultures and identities. Yet they were able to come together and Unite to create 1 country.
Besides language and a half spanish heritage, we don't have many things in common with one another. Mexico and Chile are very different from each other, same thing as Colombia and Guatemala. Unlike the 13 colonies, we had no real reason to unify.
Mismo idioma , misma religión , misma idiosincrasia , hay menos diferencia entre un Argentino y un Mexicano que la podria haber entre un Gallego y un Catalan
ridiculous comment...
@@g2wesy805 en serio? 😂 los españoles son más parecidos de lo que piensan.
Los latinos somos superficialmente igual para un español, pero las culturas son extremadamente diferentes entre sí.
@@windwaker8985 Más diferente que el vasco y español promedio seguro que no
@@The_Soviet_Onion lamento decirte que sí, pero bueno si solo ves la región por videos de reguetón tampoco te darás cuenta.
Can I just say, this guy is excellent at accents.
Calle me crazy but of what I studied and read in Spanish América the idea of separation from the Monarchy wasn't very widespread or popular and only with the help of foreign mercenaries the "liberators" could destroy the opposition of the authentic patriots here, the loyalists to the Crown.
great vid!
Although many interesting points were brought forth, the video is still vague. Latin America had various unification federalist movements but there was much Foreign intervention in the region such as that of the Anglo nations and their interested parties; hence, the Spanish-American War, Treaty of Paris, and Monroe Doctrine. Even during Hurricane Maria the island of Puerto Rico had to wait on President Trump to write an executive order to allow Spanish ships to enter the ports of the island and offer aid ( which he delayed in doing). Your video has a few missing pieces. I dare say more than a few as a huge Lacuna of information exist.
Another thing you didn't mention was French, UK, and US interventions like Manifest Destiny and Monroe's doctrine...
1:57, um, did you forget something?
The french revolution , wich was the actual inspiration , the usa revolution was way too ethnostate and racist for a region as latin america.
@@cseijifjaand how do you think the French Revolution was inspired by?
im peruvian your info is off. actually jose de san martin helped liberating Argentina, Chile and Peru , and he passed the power to bolivar for a lil brief time to get rid of the last group of spaniards that were trying to get back on power. jose de san martin didnt want to be the ruler of peru (even tho he was for about 6 in transitionary regimen.
also my friend the map of mexico after their independence was alot bigger(it had california, texas new mexico and alot more than then they lost in the us mexican war, but thats another story)
Thank you for you video
Grand Columbia would’ve been a powerhouse
Until it wasn't
Im a USA resident. I plan to retire somewhere on the Pacific coast of Ecuador, Peru, or Chile in 2 to 5 years depending on how much longer I can keep my job. I am really looking forward to the new life and adventure I find there in my golden years.
First of all because we were never “colonies”, but viceroyalties which are very different administrative divisions and governments. Starting from there, there’s no room for comparison.
The 13 colonies also had their own governor's, council, and assembly. Doesn't change the fact that the King still held all the power.
I have an animation idea for you. Next time someone opposes someone's idea, you can have them with a thought bubble and the other person swatting it away. Just an idea. If you don't like or want any other ideas I have, just say thanks but we have it covered and I'll understand.