The Fall of The Spanish Empire - Full Documentary 

Is this quote real?

@@marcuspacheco3815 I don't think so. Charles V barely spoke castilian. Ha has to learn it when he was already adult. He was raised in Flanders.

@@herrero4270 I know dude my family tried to overthrow him because of that. It doesn't mean he didn't make the statement for political reasons and rhetoric.

@@marcuspacheco3815 The statement seems too frivolous for Charles V. And too modern. From somebody who hates the Germans. But Charles V was a serious person, and loved his germanic states too much to offend them.

@@herrero4270 that sounds fair. I wonder where the quote comes from then?

👍 cierto

My people fought a 100 year war against Spain and there’s almost no content on it. So frustrating

As of matter of fact there's so much info that's not in you tube channels...or they produced but...delete from ✅

Spanish history is literally a clusterfuck of non-stop fuck ups

@@crowo1620 indeed

Netherlands: first time?

As a swede from Oslo I appreciate this comment. People overlook Marcus Aurelius comments a lot.

Because it failed miserably before the French, British and German colonial efforts collapsed. They almost always look at those three instead of Spain. Only a few places exist that are in the hands of the original colonial masters, today.

History is wrote by anglosphere and they tend to overlook Spanish. I don't get why since they have another historic rilvsry with France and don't do that much.

@@johngreen3543 failed miserably is an overstatement. Spanish domains lasted longer than most french, dutch or british colonies. The war of independence against Napoleon wrecked Spain, which caused the independence of the virreinatos. Spain was doing fine until then even of the royal family was a bunch of corrupt retards.

Thank you!

Facts‼️ I used to tune into this kinda stuff to sleep, this channel I actually stay up & watch

@@VickHushpuppy215 I listen to these while working 😆

INVICTUS AND KINGS&GENERALS you’re welcome👍🏽

@@Fireoflearning great but u shuld do modern history

Also the Cubans and Puerto Ricans had issues with Spain because Spain wanted to officially prohibit the african slave trade but the influence of the Southern United States was making them want to join the USA if that happened. But have in mind that was only the elite of Cuba. The common cubans where loyal to Spain as a country. It was the USA and Cuban elites that wanted the independance of Cuba.

An entire vlog on the independence movements in the New World needs to be discussed in one of your youtube shows. It must focus on events here( North and South America, not just Spanish America) with only a backdrop to the European side and their wars. There is so much to discuss that it could take several episodes.

There is a rose legend about independence. They are very dark without the idealisation Of the independence. And we have to acknowledge that the reason for independence was the void of power caused by Napoleon invasión. The provinces here did not wanted Joseph I so they rebelled and declare autonomy, criollo after this, declare independence because they wanted to control the provinces in their own benefits, but it is a error to think this movement was promoted by everyone, this was just made by a parte of elite class. And the movement lack of popular support because Bolivar used English support, and that people was hated a lot in America because English were the eternal enemy of Spain and by logic, enemies of Americans too. In this war we lost s lot of people, cities, towns, ports, farms, industries were destroyed, all the money from real haciendas was robbed by libertadores and British. We got huge debts with UK, the comercial block that was the Spanish empire here disappeared and Local artisans and rich investers could not match the Europeans market and much less now with all these countries destroyed. Indigenous that was " liberated" their lands were expropiated by the libertadores of independence because they were equal to everyone so indigenous ndid not need all these laws protecting their lands. And all our countries fall into what we did not have here: revolutions, civil wars for years. All thanks to there's shitty government and shitty libertadores. They did not fight for freedom but their own benefits and for glory. Now Spain is blame by by all their errors and say Spain did never invested in these provinces.

The Spanish Empire was already in decadence before the conflict with Napoleon. There were already problems within the Iberian peninsula and America; Napoleon merely revealed how deep these issues were. Additionally, corruption was already present throughout the Empire, a condition that is present even in modern Spain. I have yet to find a single reputable historian who believes the various independence movements in Hispanic America were "promoted by everyone"; it is of public domain that there were also Royalist forces that were also part of the elite class of that time, but they _lost_ the wars of independence. And if even part of the Establishment were the only ones that wanted and promoted attaining independence from Spain, it would not have been possible without the support of the people; especially when taking into consideration the size of the territories in America emancipated from Spain, and the overall short time it took to achieve it (approximately ten years on average per country). This pink legend about the various independence movements in America is just part of the rhetorical dynamics of the fanatical Hispanists to lick their wounds. If you believe that's not the case, please share significant academic sources of American (the Continent) authors and historians that believe the independence process (and posterior effects) of Hispanic America was pure bliss. Idealization is part of the human condition, and Spain-centric Hispanists do not escape to that premise.

@@xolotlmexihcah4671 la decadencia española comenzó en plenas guerras napoleónicas al verse estos envueltos en ellas sin poder desligarse o aislarse debido a que no eran una isla, sino vecinos de la Francia revolucionaria. En la clase elitista española en las Américas había un interés por destruir el proteccionismo en el mercado, este proteccionismo favorecía al productor local y las industrias propias del imperio que eran de particulares y del Reino. Estas para prosperar no debían tener competencia de industrias foráneas como la británica, francesa o de cualquier índole. A los criollos poco lew importaba eso sino acceder a los rubros aún cuando fuera una catástrofe para el mercado. También querían adueñarse del gobierno por completo y ellos poner las pautas a como debían funcionar. Los británicos lo que hicieron fue aprovechar la situación de anarquía y apoyar las revueltas, saquear las haciendas, llevarse todo el oro y la plata y dar empréstitos altísimos con grandes intereses, endeudar todos los países recien nacidos en el concierto internacional, hacerlos productos de las materias primas de l reino unido, y destruir su mercado debido al libre comercio que empobrecido al ciudadano común. Las independencias tuvieron catastróficas consecuencias, que fueron más de 500 mil muertos, pueblos, ciudades, campos, fincas, hatos, astilleros, industrias destruidas. Universidad, colegios, miseria, anarquía y destrucción. Caos social y político que continúa a sol de hoy. Ese es el legado e la indeodencia, caos desde que España se fue. Y a los indios se les expropiaban sus tierras

Different way to govern their people though.

russians? for a time they have colonies in asia and americas. they have loads of different time zones

@@jmgonzales7701 No. Russia never had lands in the Atlantic time zone. and the land they owned in the Americas was Alaska which has its own time zone that's not connecteds to any other American time zone.

Y la Frase es de los Españoles "El Imperio donde nunca se oculta el sol" . los Ingleses les copiaron en su idioma

@@sdb7092 ok. so it is spain and British. what about the french? regardless screw all of them.

But never won a war by guerilla.

​@@herrero4270 echamos a Napoleón de esa manera🤷‍♂️😮‍💨

@@k12tonight You didn't.

Its because Spain was a extraction econmy and did not invest in other sectors of the economy.

@Imanol Aizpurua The SPanish were good at exploiting the natives and its colony, they were good at finding valuable resources while enslaving the natives.

@Imanol Aizpurua they were exploited and there was cultural genocide.

@@jmgonzales7701 just a question, if the spanish commited genocide in South and Central America, what would you call what the English did in North America? Just look at the number of people of native american decent on each side of the Río Bravo...

@@jmgonzales7701 Just repeating the black legend mantra without any historical base

La guerra civil española es un tomo-libro aparte. No se puede entender esta sin antes retrotraerse a las continuas injerencias británicas desde 1808 para desestabilizar su hegemonía. "Humillar a España" cuaderno encontrado recientemente escrito por un inglés del siglo XVIII para apoderarse del Mar del Plata

They were the biggest of allies when Mexico didn't have puppet Spanish-Mexican leaders such as Santa Ana... And instead bad ass Indigenous leaders like Benito Juarez who defeated his opposition during their civil war( against former royalistas) as well as the French, Spanish, and parts of the British empire while the US was dealing with the CSA... If they both lost ground it would have staged possibly the first full European empire attack on two nations outside of Europe(to retake claimed European empire land), Benito and his Army are the reason we celebrate "Cinco de Mayo" in the United States (which many Latins hate for some reason💀), also Benito Mussolini's father named him after Benito Juarez the Zapotec warrior(although not sure if that is a good thing granted he was a fascist dictator according to historians).

it is to short

@@randomgamers8153 no Mexico has a whole pre-colombian period which ranges for hundreds of years, colonial era which was over 300 years, the early Republican ear, civil war and invasion from France, Reign of Porfirio Diaz, Mexican Revolution, and modern era. So it would be a long video

@@Spongebrain97 fueron 3 siglos

@@Ralfi_PoELA Not at all US only supported Mexico because wanted Mexico to remain a mediocre country under puppet politicians, not a France next door, or any smart, militaristic population to be a threat to the US, later in history you can see some parallelism when American politician Brzezinski said: “we don’t want a Japan south of the border” Spain, USA, France and Britain have been thenatural predators of Mexico, none of them are our allies, unless you call your offender your allied.

Thank you 🙏

30 Wars war would be awesome the 7 years war as Well. But there are many "Short" Videos about it. So I would prefer a longer Doco movie series about both of them. There would be enough Material tbh.

Tu "Patria" permanece cagado y sigue siendo la Argentina de Europa Huehuehuehue

@@johnsmith-ir1ne Argentina Es un gran Pais, Gracias por el cumplido.

@@doyouevenpraise189 No sabe ni ofender 🤣

@@doyouevenpraise189 la mejor respuesta que se podia dar

It always makes me laugh whenever I see comments from fanatic Hispanists crying and whining when it comes to the British. Such _hypocritical_ zealots often forget the historical fact that the Spanish Empire was a hardcore supporter of The U.S.-American independence movement, which happened way before the independence movements of Hispanic America.

@@xolotlmexihcah4671 and we talk about That, the hypocresy comes from the British ppl who wont admit they payed and help Spanish América to emancipate having all the proofs

@@xolotlmexihcah4671 Yes without Bernardo de Galvez de US independence would have ended in disaster. Nevertheless you are making a straw man fallacy, and not addressing my argument.

​@@alexisern5815 You didn't comprehend my point. No one in this specific post has denied the involvement of Freemasonry and the British Empire in the independence movement of the Spanish Viceroyalties in America. The hypocrisy comes when the Hispanists whine about the British and forget that the Spanish Empire _first_ supported the independence of the Thirteen Colonies.

@@xolotlmexihcah4671 Well if you actually understand what was going on in North America in the late 1700's, you wouldn't have made such a pretentious statement. Spain helped the US as a geostrategic defense, because the British were menacing with taking all Florida (they already had West Florida), Lousiana and Cuba. Not to mention their failed attempt in Cartagena de Indias with Blas de Leso. Meanwhile the Brittish helped the spanish american separatist movements out of commercial control and hemispheric domain. "Divide et impera". If you were an ounce honest you should at least consider that. The 13 colonies wanted the independence. The Spanish American didn't want independence except for some creoles that saw the opportunity to profit from it. Basically your strawman argument goes like this: I argue about Peter punching John's face, but then argue that John was a bad brother to his sister 20 years ago. You mix 2 different things. And try to rescue yourself saying, yes I know that Peter is a good mason puncher, but lets focus again in my strawman argument about John being a bad brother. The communist-indegenism is strong on you.

Probably It is because the base of spanish society was catolicism and after of 30 years war were neccesary to lost the catolicism (world Empire) as goal of international polítics.

France was another mess: French revolution, Napoleonic wars, which ended with the invasion of Paris and Napoleon imprisoned. Revolution of 1830. Revolution of 1848. Defeat in the Franco-Prussian War... Germany was another mess in the 20th century: two defeats in the world war, revolution in 1918. Germany divided into East and West. Fall of the emperor and the monarchy... Austria the same. Italy: fascism, defeat in the world war, red brigades... Russia? Russia is still in a mess. Eastern Europe something similar. The only ones who could stay out of invasions and revolutions were the islands difficult to invade or to influence with revolutionary agents: the British, the Icelanders and the Greenlanders.

@@Gloriaimperial1 I agree,the one difference between the ones you mentioned and Spain that is this failed to keeping his power and influence overall in America,while the others had a inside conflicts but it didn´t affected in theirs possesions,colonies,or maybe what is the most important,industrial muscle.

@@danielguerrero894 The independence of the continental American republics in the 19th century (1810-1825) is equal to the independence of the 13 colonies (the basis of the current USA) against the British in 1776-1783. The two territories had a Western culture, with universities, modern hospitals, cathedrals, schools, European weapons, ships. The British, French and Dutch empires retain their possessions in Africa, India, Indonesia or Angola and Portuguese Mozambique, because those lands are not civilized. It is very difficult for them to become independent before WW2, because they live in very poorly developed tribal regimes. Australia and Canada had a very British population, and only 3 or 4 million inhabitants in 1900, and could not dream of independence. But shortly after they began to propose reforms along those lines, and the UK had to give in, amicably, to avoid problems. The proof is that the British empire shrank 144 times in 20 years in the 20th century.

@@Gloriaimperial1 😂😂😂😂You absolute Spanish 🤡, always having to bring in and talk about Britain when this video discusses what a weak pathetic nation Spain became in the 19th and 20th centuries.

si

Pero una tragedia tampoco. Lo sería en su momento, pero ¿qué imperio ha durado más de 400 años? Lo importante es el legado civilizador, y España lo hizo perfectamente. Como les dimos universidad a los americanos, aprendieron a ser occidentales y se rebelaron, como las 13 colonias contra los británicos. Los que no podían rebelarse hasta el siglo XX eran los indios, los indonesios y los africanos, a los que los británicos y holandeses no dieron casi ninguna herramienta para convertirse en gente occidental o moderna hasta el siglo XX

@@Gloriaimperial1 Roma por ej. y si hablamos propiamente muchos más... Constantinopla cayó en el S.XV

@@bilbohob7179 Roma, claro, es un modelo más parecido al español. Transportar una civilización a un mundo con otra cultura y otras razas, e integrarlas.

@@Gloriaimperial1 Ya existían universidades y hospitales en los imperios Mexica e Inca. Y no hay nada de malo con no tener una cultura occidental o "civilizada" como lo llaman. Solo son culturas diferentes a las occidentales no son inferiores como lo insinúa.

Still waiting for history of the netherlands

💃

Yep the Brits had a habit of doing that, never trust the Brits

This is part 3 of the History of Spain documentaries

@@Fireoflearning I didn’t see it on your feed, I stand corrected! I’ll go watch those

Leftoid literature and sensibilities sure are rancid and putrid.

The phrase is brilliant, but it is only half the truth. In gratitude for the discovery of chocolate, the Spanish made 25 universities for all races, 2,000 stone cities, 850 large hospitals, 130 cathedrals, and brought the Renaissance, the Baroque, and the golden age of Spanish culture. The British had a trading company in India until 1857. The only university in the Dutch empire is in Indonesia 1946, 2 years before independence, and 300 years of renting Indonesia. Chocolate-colored children could not sit on a bus with whites, in Alabama until 1960, and in South Africa until 1990. Queen Elizabeth of Castile said in 1500: "It doesn't matter if there is no gold (or chocolate) in the West Indies, I want Spanish men and women to marry and form families with the people of these new lands." The territory with the most mestizos in the world: 43% of the population. Chocolat people o coffe people :)

The actual 'deathblow' was the declaration and actual war of independence in the Americas. Napoleon was a temporary political setback, whereas all the colonial taxation & benefits from slavery as well as all of the stolen goods kept the Spanish economy going and Economy is everything in order to sustain an Empire...

@@castlebound2010 lmao why do you give the american colonies so much importance, without Napoleon they wouldn't have won anything, they even practically lost fighting against an invaded Spain

@@acusticamenteconvusional9936 Read my comment slowly and try to understand it. Take your time, no rush...

@@castlebound2010 I agree with most of what you say, but it was in part the Napoleon invasion of Spain that precipitated the Latin American independence movements.

@Acusticamente Convusional The Spanish American colonies supplied Spain with a lot of silver at various points forming the largest part of the Spanish treasury and borrowing capacity.

Sadly in every side they wanted nothing to help the natives, sad thing about colonization is that at the end of the day the Evil invaders will be on top of the social chain while the natives are treated as second class citizens.

It was mainly Native that lead them... They were just coopted because the royalistas new the Spanish were going to lose.

@@Ralfi_PoELA wrong, the ones who led the independence were criollos. If you don’t know learn more about everysinlge Hispanic America knows that but we are are taught to praise them as heroes. And I won’t deny there weren’t revolts led by indigenous people, but guess what? It was also rich indigenous people, owners of African slaves and farms, who got mad for raise of taxes. The independences were that, white criollo men fighting for their interests and the British, when they achieved independence they talked shit about those new countries, and one of those so called “liberators” talk and treated like shit native people.

@@angelasmr8818 Lol why would a group of people who benefit from a system change it... Than actually try and bring back the people who once controlled that system? That makes no sense. Also there are things called propaganda. We have it here in the US because they don't teach about how and why the first treaty and constitution was created. Which Europeans hate all these constitutions and treaties because they're used to being controlled by a king, queen, or pope.

@@Ralfi_PoELA They did it because they were doing what the brits told them to do.

Who?

@@himwhoisnottobenamed5427 Napoleon Bonaparte Emperor of the French you might have heard of him.

It was the Napoleonic invasion of Spain that in part precipitated the Latin American independence movements. They supplied the vast majority of silver and other precious metals to Madrid's treasury throughout most of the empire's history.

​@@danmur2797 en Si les motivo a los Criollos ,más no al resto del pueblo que eran monarquícos

​@@danmur2797Thats untrue, there were times fleets would not croos the atlantic.

I think it's because, while the situation in Spain influenced Latin America, ther other way around... not so much. Spain was more influenced by Europe and (specially) internal strife. That's why the emancipation of Latin America is usually treated as its own separate entity.

Gracias, hermano, y mis deseos de que América Latina sea una potencia mundial este siglo, por población y territorio

What happened to the French empire? That the Spanish Republicans were the first to enter Paris in 1944, capturing the Nazi governor. Then the French and British empires dissolved like sugar in a cup of tea. I think the UK shrank 144 times in size in just 20 years, and the French were still being beaten in Vietnam and Algeria! 👍

@@Gloriaimperial1 don’t get it twisted I’m a fan Viva la patria nepolean was just OP :/

@@andrewpanter493 Napoleon was the best general and strategist in history, but even he made many mistakes.

@@Gloriaimperial1 Napoleon was far from the greatest strategist in history. He was a genius tactician and a genius in operational command, but as a grand strategist, Napoleon overstretched and reversed all his military gains.

@@Gloriaimperial1 The UK voluntarily decolonised. Most of the territories of the British Empire became independent without winning an independence war.

The 16th-17th century in Spain was a time of confrontation between the Catholic and Protestant worlds. But it is not just a religious competition. The Protestant powers did not invest in their empires, only in white people. Almost all the wealth of those empires in India, Africa and Asia went to London, Amsterdam and even Paris until almost the 20th century. Spain had a brutal 200-year war to contain the Protestant advance in Europe, saving the Catholic religion in southern Germany, Palatine, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta. If the Protestants had won in France (Spanish invasion of Paris in 1590, forcing France to preserve Catholicism) they would have advanced on Rome, Madrid, Vienna and Lisbon, imposing another model and destroying Catholic culture. Spain carried out a Romanization in America and the Philippines, building 2,300 stone cities, 28 universities for all races, 900 large hospitals, 400 cathedrals, thousands of nursery schools, with a mixture of races (48% of the Hispanic American population has blood Spanish and indigenous mixed. More than 230 million people). It was a titanic effort, with even reinvestment of 70% of American wealth in the most indigenous land in the world, to bring these people into Western civilization, into the modern world. That is a land that the new Asian powers will never conquer (China, India, the Arab world). They are Western allies of the modern world, with democracies (sometimes failed, with leaps backwards, but under construction). Hispanic America has 90% of native Spanish speakers. 99% speak Spanish perfectly. 85% Catholic. Philippines: 85% Catholic. The Commonwealth and French Empire have less than 10% native French and English speakers. Less than 10% Christians. India: 1% Christians. China and India are advancing on these lands, and they will be the new world powers because the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France became rich, but did not invest. After the War of Succession of 1700-1714 here, Spain is freed from those conflicts in Europe, because the Catholic religion is already saved, and the priority is no longer the religious conflict. The 18th century is a century of economic recovery and expansion of the Spanish empire, which doubles in size and becomes enormously stronger. We incorporated Italy (defeating the Austrian empire in 1734), Louisiana (ceded by France, which had been defeated in India and Quebec by the British, because Spain could defend the territory), Florida, western coast of Canada, areas of Alaska, Uruguay , Equatorial Guinea in Africa and new archipelagos in the Pacific Ocean. Spain does not become a rich country, because we have increased investment in Spanish America from 70% to 80%, due to the demand for European civilization there. Our system is not backwards from the 18th century. It is the same as Germany or the Austrian empire. The only ones who get rich are the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, because they take all the wealth they can with their trading companies to London and Amsterdam (impoverishing their non-white empires). Even France was very feudal in the 18th century, which is why the French Revolution starting in 1789 (although the French have rich borders with Germany, Switzerland or Belgium, which Spain (a Mediterranean peninsula, far away like Italy, Greece and Portugal, from the majority) of the European population that trades, we do not have. We must pay high postage to travel there and sell, which is not competitive. While a Frenchman crosses the border with Germany and returns home for dinner. In reality, the French Revolution was perfectly controlled by Spain and other powers. It is Napoleon, the greatest military genius in history, who surpasses borders. Like Philip II, and later Prussia and Nazi Germany, Napoleon has a hegemonic army almost impossible to stop. And revolutionary ideas travel with the French. But France itself fell again and again into absolutism after the French revolutions of 1830 and 1848, with a Prussian invasion of Paris in 1870 and another revolution in 1871. This is what destabilizes Spain. The mixture of brutal war against Napoleon, which sinks our economy by 80%, with half a million dead, destruction of cities, fleet in port, livestock, industry, agriculture, roads, and 2 million emigrants to America, mixed with revolutionary ideas . The United Kingdom was an island, and was able to contain invasions and revolutionary agents. Hispanic America becomes independent because they have universities, modern ideas, European technology, which we have built there. That is why the 13 colonies (USA) also rebelled during that revolutionary time against the British. It is more difficult to rebel in India, Africa, Indonesia... before WW2, because they still have tribal cultures. Spain gives independence to Equatorial Guinea peacefully. The Sahara occurs after Morocco's green march, when Franco is ill and the king is pressured by the USA and other powers to decolonize at a time of succession crisis in Spain.

No it wont

@@jmgonzales7701 it does already, the most spoken language in the world, Spanish after Chinese, and the most tourist country in the world!, it receives more than 80 million of tourists per year, if you don’t call that the rise of Spain ? Which other country in the world had ever conquered culturally as Spain? Spanish culture is different, magic, special and unique. Not wonder why the rest of the world , specially north Europe loves Spain, pure envie

@@BR-ub2lc tourists are now the basis of progressive or "rise"? Yeah spanish has a lot of speakers due to colonialism butttt if you compare that to english which can take you almost everywhere and every continent then spanish pales in comparison. Sure English is mostly a 2nd language compared to Spanish however its spoken by a lot of people and is basically the lingua franca of the world. Which other country in the world had ever conquered culturally like spain? You are proud for the cultural and ethnic genocide? sure man.....Also that does nothing at all, sure latinos speak Spanish or function like a Spanish man but that is not the same for every continent especially asia. Spanish culture is unique? like what? it just reminds me of a white man culture nothing much to it. Tbh japanese, Chinese or asian culture in general is far more interesting and as it looks like the Anglos will continue to dominate at least a little longer before the east such as china rises to take their place.

@@jmgonzales7701 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fmnsEVMevjA.html

@@jmgonzales7701 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-S5rN_IJSh-c.html

@@xolotlmexihcah4671 una mancomunidad como la forma en que los británicos tenían su imperio sería igual de buena.

@@xolotlmexihcah4671 Somos la misma cultura en general, pero con muchos matices enriquecedores. España mismo tiene también esos matices, con diversas lenguas regionales y costumbres, dentro de España. Incluso las culturas indígenas de Paraguay o México, no son siempre iguales unas a otras. Pero es cierto que la religión católica se adaptó en América a muchas costumbres locales, y tiene un colorido especial, y el idioma español está lleno de matices. Además se conservaron 40 lenguas locales, y se pasaron a escrito, porque los misioneros estaban obligados por la corona a hablar las lenguas locales de América. La romanización que comenzó España la completaron las mismas repúblicas independientes en los siglos XIX y XX, para entrar en el mundo occidental, promocionando también esos rasgos culturales propios.

Quizás si los reyes de españa hubiesen gastado recursos en mejorar las condiciones de la gente en el imperio, las elites no de hubiesen revelado. Que prohibieran comerciar y participar en el poder político fue lo que llevó a las elitrs americanas a oponerse al rey de españa. Los libertadores fueron hijos de oficiales del imperio, donde hasta sus propios padres los apoyaron ya que estaban condenados a no poder ser parte del gobierno.

@@nicolasignaciomerinonunez114 Bueno, España intentó prevenir revueltas, poniendo gente de la península en los altos cargos, cierto. Pero también es cierto que España había hecho una sociedad occidental en América, y los americanos tenían los mismos recursos políticos, tecnológicos y culturales que España. Por razones parecidas se rebelaron los habitantes de las 13 colonias contra los británicos, pero no los africanos y los indios de la India, que estaban mucho más atrasados. La guerra en América también fue una guerra civil, los españoles contaron con la ayuda masiva de gente popular, especialmente los indígenas, que como ellos mismos temían, luego fueron explotados. ¿Qué pasó después de los 300 años casi de paz del imperio español, donde los únicos conflictos fueron algunas guerras contra los mapuches o alguna flota británica fracasada de la que no se enteraba casi nadie? Latifundios, matanzas de indios, golpes de estado, invasiones entre países hermanos, fragmentación de la tierra, delincuencia, narcotráfico, guerrillas, contraguerrillas, patrocinado casi todo por Reino Unido y Francia en el siglo XIX y por Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética en el siglo XX.

The Spanish Empire was not a colonial empire such as the English, French or Dutch, but on the contrary, it was the last empire of the ancient type, closer to what Rome or Greece were. 300-400 years of domain based on miscegenation, alphabetization and conversion of different peoples; construction of universities, cathedrals and cities worldwide; a huge cultural and artistic explotion; deliberation of new phylisophic, teologic and juridic debates in human history (like f.e., if all humans were equal); discoverments that changed the conception of the world; opening of new shipping routes; creation of an undefeated infantry for 2 centuries; expansion of the Hispanic culture throughout the Atlantic and Pacific ocean (called "the spanish lake" at that time) as Rome did throughout the Mediterranean... All of this, in a world as big as the one we know today, but using a technology from 5 centuries ago. From there onward, european empires had a colonial model based on mercantilism, slavery, and large-scale production, creating factories or plantations in overseas possessions, instead of a civilizing reproduction of their society. The former were a global market, the latter a global kingdom. European empires shouldnt be generalized by the fact of having overseas territories, because not all of them were the same.

Spain got ownership after the French and Indian War if I remember correctly

Yeah, it was colonized by the French, given to Spain, given back to France, and then sold to the USA.

Around half of the territory of what's now the US was claimed by Spain at some point. However, they were also the first territories to be lost.

New Orleans was largely built by the Spanish--why its historic district resembles other Mexican coastal cities along the Gulf of Mexico. In fact what is today Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, etc. were at various times in Spanish hands, as part of the viceroyalty of New Spain, all administered from its capital in Mexico City. It was captains and generals and footsoldiers from New Spain that helped the American Revolutionaries in the south drive off the British on land and sea. Spain also established posts/forts all the way to Alaska, at one point extending New Spains territory to Alaska. However the inability to defend it or colonize it from far away allowed the Russians and British to move in and make claims. Eventually through treaties, Spain ceded most of this area to the British.

@@SchmidtyProductions27 Louisiana was Spanish long before it was French. Before the year 1600, Spain had carried out more than 50 expeditions in North American territory, such as that of Hernando de Soto or that of Francisco Vázquez de Coronado. Those lands were claimed and explored with the legality of the Tordesillas Treaty of 1494. Also the Colorado Canyon, Vancouver (San Miguel) and great plains. The French settled there due to the impossibility of massively colonizing the territory. They lost Canada in the war against the British, and they gave Louisiana to Spain, because Spain could defend it.

Well, Charles III was a great king, not Benny Hill. He was king of Naples, first. He built the palace of Caserta, in Italy, bigger than Buckinham Palace. He also discovered Pompeii and Herculaneum. Under Carlos III, the Spanish empire was the largest empire in the world, extending to Alaska, Uruguay, Tahiti, Equatorial Guinea, Louisiana, the Great Plains of the United States, Florida, the entire west coast of Canada... He directed operations in the defeat of the British in the war of the 13 colonies, with the Spanish victories in Louisiana, Florida, Bahamas, Central America, Minorca. Also in the naval blockade of England (1779-80), with the capture of two British fleets of 24 and 55 British ships, full of weapons, soldiers and money, which sank the London stock market. Then he gave the 8 real or the Spanish dollar to the United States. I don't think the British thought of Charles III as very funny :)

@@Gloriaimperial1 That´s all very interesting... but still... or even more so...

@@mrscruffy8045 Probably Carlos III, in historical terms, is the most handsome man in the world at that time :)

@@Gloriaimperial1 Claiming land is very different than actually controlling and defending your legitimacy to the land in which you want to control. Spain can barely control the state of Mexico(not the actual nation we know it today with many other states) before the Mexicans kicked them out of North America. If they actually did control the parts they said they did they would have just had a land stronghold adjacent to it like the British did when they flew to Canada and started more attacks from there on the US.

@@Ralfi_PoELA Spain spent 200 years in Belgium and Luxembourg. 100 years in Holland. 162 years in parts of Germany and France. 60 years in Portugal. 70 years in Athens. 457 years in Italy. Do you think we have a problem controlling the frozen islands of Canada, Africa where Livingston was lost, or India with 300 semi-independent princes? In Italy we won 10 wars against France, capturing the king of France and his son in the battle of Pavia, taking them prisoners to Madrid. We destroyed the Turkish fleet at Lepanto, with our Italian NATO. We dominate the Vatican. In Italy we made 9 universities, splendid baroque cities, palaces and discovered Pompeii and Herculaneum. Controlling America (great plains, Florida, Louisiana, part of Alaska), Borneo, Tahiti, Taiwan, the Philippines and other places where the Spanish empire was, was not too difficult, due to the technological difference that existed at that time between Europe and those lands isolated. The fortress adjacent to the icy British Baffin Island (visited by a whaler every 3-4 years) was 3000 km. The British paint the map of the British Empire in red, in places where no one lived. If we Spaniards did the same, we would have an empire of more than 30 million km2 in the XVI-XVII centuries

they only fought the British - otherwise they paid for their independence from France/Spain in coin

They love to blame the brifor everything whilst ignoring the facts. Sound familiar?

There is a difference between "claimed land" and actually controlled settlements by those empires. Even though Spain claimed majority of North America it was sliced into pieces very fast because in order for something to be considered "legit" it has to be enforced. Spain at the time in North America could barely control the State(not the nation we see today) of Mexico its outskirts and maybe isolated settlements of the original people close to a shore. There biggest settlement in North America past the Mexican state was when they tried to control the already inhabited settlement of Toas Pueblo(where Albuquerque is pretty much is today) until after the Pueblo revolt of 1680 the Spanish had very little presence in the Southwest North American region(today the Southwestern United states, and Northern Mexico) that officers wrote about how little European influence was in these regions.

@@Ralfi_PoELA British Empire: frozen islands of Canada, Africa where Livingston is lost and India with 540 independent princes Commonwealth: 10% of the population speak English as their mother tongue. Less than 10% Christian. Hispanic America: 90% speak Spanish as their mother tongue. 99% speak Spanish. 85% Catholic. We Spaniards also have the right to have desert lands, like the British, who paint the entire empire red, even in northern Canada.

@@Gloriaimperial1 the Spanish have a right to nothing because the US declared the pands belong to Indigenous people and independent nations are intrusted with taking care of the land. Its a weird obsession that the Spanairds today are still trying to reclaim what they stole("discovered") in the first place. If you want to reclaim and reconquista you're going to have to come through us here in the United States. Lets get it cracking then.

@Michelle Totally agree. Hispano Amérita had 300 years of peace (some failed British fleet on the coast). Hispanic America had 28 universities in 1800 (Spain and England 10 at that time), 850 large hospitals, thousands of nursery schools, 300 fortresses, 400 cathedrals, Renaissance, Baroque, Enlightenment. All of this in a territory with jungles and tropical diseases, 6,000-meter mountain ranges, deep valleys, volcanoes, hurricanes, and thousands of indigenous communities to incorporate into the West. In 1800, Hispanic America was richer than the United States. In fact, Spain gave the dollar to the United States and China, so the currency was powerful. In any case, independence was inevitable, because they had a European culture (like the 13 colonies against the British). It is more difficult for Botswana, Mauritania or Pakistan to become independent before WW2.

Spain had another 34 naves and 24 frigates. At Trafalgar we only lost 11 ships. It is during Napoleon's invasion that the fleet is neglected. After the war with Napoleon we were still sending thousands of soldiers and officials to America and the Philippines. Spain had a very great power over Latin America. There we organized armies with all races, which defeated the British in Cartagena de Indias, Santiago de Cuba, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Louisiana, Florida, Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Central America, Menorca, Tenerife, Cádiz, Buenos Aires and Montevideo. In 300 years, the British were only able to capture 1 in 400 parts of the Spanish empire. The control of the Spanish civilization in America was always greater than the British control in the Commonwealth (the frozen islands of Canada, Africa where Livingston is lost or India with 540 independent princes). 90% of the population of Hispanic America speaks Spanish as their mother tongue. 99% speak Spanish. 85% are Catholic. Philippines 85% Catholic. The Commonwealth is 10% native speakers (almost all in Australia, Canada and the UK) and less than 10% Christian. Even India only has 360,000 speakers of English as their mother tongue. A country of 1.35 billion people.

@@Gloriaimperial1 😂😂Keep believing that B.S you Spanish 🤡Britain has a lot more influence on the world than Spain ever did, more English speakers, my country invented it over Spain, how you feel about that Spanish boy?

Spain pretty much claimed control over societies that been functioning and thriving for thousands of years before the Spanish brought their pestilence on many on those people before those same people had uprisings and gave Spain the boot. Lol that's not saying much from an OG Americans point of view like myself.

@@Ralfi_PoELA The Spanish did not bring pestilence, they brought 25 universities, 2000 stone cities, 140 cathedrals, 850 hospitals, roads, ports, the wheel, the horse, agricultural techniques, the golden age of Spanish culture, the Renaissance, the baroque, opera, violin... it would be endless. It's like calling you house, Sillicom Valley home with the innovations of the 25th century. He kicked us out because they had gone to college, like the 13 colonies kicked out the British. It is difficult that India or Africa could be liberated, until XX century, because the British only made universities for whites.

@@Gloriaimperial1 our societies were doing just fine until your people started to kidnap people, and enslave them. Yall stole all that from the Moors who already were in contact with certain societies why the Moors were used as guides mostly.

@@Gloriaimperial1 also the Manroe Doctrine was enforced after our military wooped that Spanish Empire a** which states that no European Empire or outside powers can have direct control over any independent nation in the Western Hemisphere. Why Canada is not controlled by the crown its a commonwealth meaning its a trusted committed trading partner with the crown. They can give that up in a heart beat like Caribbean Nations did and are doing.

@@Ralfi_PoELA Who said that we Spaniards want to reconquer America? We do not need to reconquer America: we are brothers from both shores, we are closely related, through emigration, literature, language, traditions... Like the United Kingdom and Portugal with Australia and Brazil. We don't steal anything. We reinvest 70-80% of the wealth there. The British stole from India and Africa, and left her pretty much as they found her as a pauper. Latin America is the West. In America there were human sacrifices. The Aztecs alone ate 10,000 people each year. Another 10,000-20,000 died in battle. Multiply that by 500 years without Spaniards: 10 million people would have died in sacrifices. Well, in America they had 2000 years of human sacrifice. Hispania and the Celtic cultures also had human sacrifices. That is why the Romans came to our land, to civilize us. Such is the history of humanity. The Inca empire itself civilized many American lands that were very backward. America, like Australia, was a very isolated continent. The Monroe Doctrine was only the law of the strongest, because the British had Jamaica, Belize and Guiana in America. The Spanish empire had the Netherlands doctrine, the Italian doctrine, the German doctrine and the French doctrine. That is why the Catholic religion is the majority in Europe. Now comes the Chinese doctrine in the Pacific and Asia, and the Indian doctrine in the Indian Ocean. 2.8 billion people, compared to 330 million people in the United States. I prefer the influence of the United States than China, which is a dictatorship. But remember: all empires end. 2030-2040

Most of the Spanish rulers have been very good and responsible. It is impossible to have an empire of several centuries in Europe, with bad rulers. Then the revolutions have destroyed Spain, but also France, Italy, Germany, Russia... And if we had a border with Switzerland and Germany, we would even be rich! :)

@@Gloriaimperial1 Your point escapes me.

@@jean6872 France is also a great country, there is no doubt. I just wanted to express that we have all had problems in the 19th and 20th centuries. Sometimes it was not because of having good or bad leaders, but because of destabilizing revolutionary flows and inevitable invasions.

@@Gloriaimperial1 When we make generalizing statements, such as I did, they cannot account for each and every eventuality. Making wars and ruining an economy are usually the result of a few political leaders and the people pay the price.

@@jean6872 I will take the phrase "The Spanish have been defrauded by their leaders" as a healthy private opinion. In my opinion, the Spanish have not been more disappointed by their leaders than the Germans, the Italians, the Russians or the French by their own leaders. Almost all serious events, such as revolutions imported from abroad or invasions, occurred in the nineteenth century, not before, in a context that was very difficult to manage, which affected countries like Germany, until 1945, supposedly very organized. But it's not the end of the world debate either, is it? Everyone has their opinion.