Spain's decline

>Doubling your gold reserves does not double your wealth
No one knew how money worked in the XVI century.Most countries still don't know what is the best monetary policy.
If gold and silver were the universal form of currency they were pretty valuable by themselves and you could even say that they had inherit wealth by themselves.Having a monopoly with the trade with China generated a lot of wealth and this could have never happened without the silver of Peru.
>Doubling your gold reserves does not double your wealth; in many cases (including that one) it mostly just lowers the price of gold.
But mining silver bring that silver to China and trade luxury items that you only have back to Europe does create wealth.The issue was that the monarchy had to pay loans so not enough silver was used for trade

>There's zero way you can hold that opinion unless you're intentionally letting biases override facts, or just totally clueless of how shit other dynasties were
There is not a worse dinasty in Europe than the Habsburgs from the XVI century and the XVII century.Both the Spanish and Austrian branch

Given how they build and maintained the largest european empire since roman times, how they defeated their closest competitor and then keep holding it down for the rest of the XVI century, given that they first surpassed and then assimilated the only colonial competitor, given that they for most of the time had the Thirty Years War won and were in the process of building a centralized german nation out of the HRE, stopped the turkish tide, that even with the Armada lost they rebuild it stronger and more dominant than ever and it was the years after the Armada in the first decades of the XVII century that their convoy systems secured the wealth of their colonies and they had no naval competiror anymore before the rise of the dutch navy, that their Tercios -even when first copied by everyone else and then supposedly outdated by linear tactics- keep winning every relevant battle, that when everyone saw them collapsed ages ago because of economic, population and moral decline they still controlled europe, hold down (and actually should have defeated for good) France even in the last years of spanish dominance, that they kept the Spanish Neitherlands against all foes even with the Spanish Road cut and the seas hostile; you know that it points to a spanish monarchy that should at least have some basic competence in the things it does.

The Eternal Frank
Spain lost its dominance in Europe at the Battle of Rocroi in 1643
The kept being somewhat of a great power until the War of the Spanish Succession in 1702
They spent the 18th century being a tired joke, and then the Napoleonic Invasion of 1808 and the ensuing war finished them off and resulted in the collapse of their colonial empire

They took the most advanced and centralized kingdom in western Europe (Castile)and destroyed its economy. The Habsburgs were just too lucky to inherit Castile to protect their posessions. In 2 centuries the Habsburg monarchy only hnad 3 years of peace if you don't count the reign of Charles the II. During the reign Phillip the II and Charles the I the monarchy had a total of 10 years of peace combined. They just blew a very good inheritance for nothing

>They spent the 18th century being a tired joke
The XVIII century was a good century for Spain overall.

They spent the entirety of it being France's bitch and following them in their wars (Seven Years War, US Revolution...)
Sure it was not as bad as the 19th century onward, but passing from Europe's strongest nation to France's lapdog is quite pathetic

Every single war was started by others (well okay the Dutch Revolt is arguable and it accounts to much of these war years)

The Brits and French are also living right now in vastly improved conditions then some centuries ago; they still lost their relevance from back then.

Spain in the XVI and the first half of the XVII was the leading great power, maybe the closest to a global superpower before the US;
Spain in the XVIII was a middle power, far behind the Big5 in anything but naval strenght.

>They spent the entirety of it being France's bitch and following them in their wars
Nope. They started by fighting a cuadruple alliance which they did quite well) and then just joined wars to win Naples and Parma back.
Then under Ferdinand the VI Spain was totally neutral after ending the war of Jerkin's ear which made Spain neutral in the first years of the seven years war. And then under Charles the III they signed a family alliance after the French lost Quebec and obviously Spain was interested in Britain losing their colonies in America.
>far behind the Big5 in anything but naval strenght.
Then why couldn't Austria hold Naples and Sicily without a quadruple alliance? How did Britain lost most colonial wars against Spain? Spain wasn't weaker than Prussia or Austria. They were just in the periphery so they barely participated in European affairs outside of Italyp

The Spanish are too lazy

Spanish people, like all south Europeans are lazy and they let their empire fall apart the moment maintaining it required effort.

The Spanish empire just in the XVI century lasted longer than the German empire,and the Swedish empire combined.

>far behind the Big5 in anything but naval strenght.

Are you counting Britain in the "big 5"?
Because in the 18th century, navy was the only things Britain had better than Spain (and even that is debatable)
The British army was a fucking joke, and although the Spanish one was well past its prime, it was still leagues above the British one (which was dubbed as the weakest in Europe, and only ever feared by American revolutionary peasants)

He is counting Prussia and Austria in the top 5 and Austria was bullied by Spain in the XVIII century. Veeky Forumstorian sources are
>Top 5 most powerful countries in each century

It seems like to me, just looking from the 1800s on forward, Spain had very little manufacturing or production relative to other European countries and was, for lack of a better term, backwards in their line of economic thought. Did that play a role in their decline long term, in the sense they weren't able to keep up with other countries?

>It seems like to me, just looking from the 1800s on forward, Spain had very little manufacturing or production relative to other European countries and was, for lack of a better term, backwards in their line of economic thought.

Maybe have something to do with the fact they lost their entire colonial empire during the Napoopan Wars

Spain had a decent manufacturing sector (20% of the population) until the Napoleonic wars in whcih the French and the Brittish destroyed part of that manufacturing sector. On top of that they lost their main suplier of primary resources in a spam of 20 years and fought 4 civil wars in the century of industrialization.

If only Spainiard had accepted Napoleon's enlightened rule instead of resisting like retards....

Neat, I never really made the connection between their losses in the Napoleanic wars and how far it set them back.

>Dude you should be ok with French soldiers pillaging your country and ignoring your sovereignty.
Maybe if Napoleon wasn't a cunt and respected his only ally he could have kept his empire

>ally

Spain was a subdued former enemy, not an ally
Spain was to Napoleonic France what Vichy France was to Nazi Germany

The Brits during that time were as bad for Spain if not worse than the French. Despite being theoretical allies they pillaged and destroyed any manufacturing that they saw and stole a shit tone of patrimony from Spain, while they kept Miranda and San Martín in London to send him for the independence wars. Spain got fucked by both France and Britain in a war that they hadn't started

>Spain was a subdued former enemy, not an ally
They lost the war of the Pyrenesse but France was never closed to invade Spain as Hitler did. Godoy just thought that an alliance with France was a better idea for Spain and just asked for terms in a war that was just a few skirmishes in the border

>Then why couldn't Austria hold Naples and Sicily without a quadruple alliance?
Austria never wanted Naples and gave it away soon after.
At the time Spain conquered it, Austria was fighting the Turks and even with that the small corps they send south from Milan regained it easily.
Sicily was protected by water, thats also why Napoleon never conquered it. The second the Brits cleared the naval passage, Sicily was reconquered in a matter of weeks.
> Spain wasn't weaker than Prussia or Austria i
Are you joking?

>Are you counting Britain in the "big 5"?
Everyone does. Of course their army was not as good as made by the anglophils and they werent the global superpower in the XVIII century that the Americans made them out to be. They surely were a Great Power though and far above the joke that was the spanish army at that time (even though weaker then any of the other 4 great powers at land)

>but France was never closed to invade Spain as Hitler did

They were on their way to doing that, but Spain surrendered after the French invaded Catalonia

>They were on their way to doing that
How the fuck could you know it. Most of the army wasn't even in the Pyrenees.

>At the time Spain conquered it, Austria was fighting the Turks and even with that the small corps they send south from Milan regained it easily.
Nope they lost every battle
>Brits cleared the naval passage, Sicily was reconquered in a matter of weeks.
Because there wasn't supplies
>Are you joking?
Prussia's army was smaller and they didn't have a navy. Austria lost to Spain in all the wars that they fought in the XVIII century

Case in point, the battle of Cartagena

I think you two speak about different things. He meant the french revolutionary army was invading Spain

The Spanish empire was a bunch of south american countries where small pox did all the hard work, once the colonies put up a fight it crumbled. Also
>German
>Empire
Never existed dumb dumb.

The Pyrenees War ended when Spain surrendred after France captured a part of Catalonia
Had Spain not surrendered, the invasion would have continued further south

The French and the Spanish army basically were in a stalement in the Eastern Pyrenesse and the Spanish had won the last battle there and in the western Pyreneese the French were winning when Gipuzkoa rebelled in favour of France. The war was death and the French could barely advanced so Godoy Godoy gave part of the Hispaniola in exchange of Gipuzkoa
If that is an "invasion of all Spain" and a peace treaty that made Spain "A subdued enemy like Vichy France" your standards are death low

>Never existed dumb dumb.
Ok. The Spanish empire was constantly attacked by the French,the Brittish and the Dutch. Stop being jealousp

>Nope they lost every battle
Given that the Austrians won that war and kicked out all the Spaniards from Italy, it seems quite strange.

>Prussia's army was smaller and they didn't have a navy.
We are speaking about army strenght here, not naval. And you really want to argue that the nation, that defeated Russia, Austria, HRE and France combined would have any trouble whatsoever with the spanish army? Seriously?

>Austria lost to Spain in all the wars that they fought in the XVIII century
The first was to regain their italian possession and Spain lost hard.
The second was to regain their italian possession and while Naples went independent, it was explecitely stated to not be united with Spain. Maybe it counts as spanish victory, maybe it doesnt. either way, most of austrian strenght was on the Rhine.
The third was to regain northern italy and failed. Austria fought a major war in central europe for its survival and its troops in italy were just a few. Still more then enough apparently. Yes they lost most of their battles there but won (and they lost these against the french and not the neapolitan and spanish auxiliary troops)

The frogs who couldn't even beat the bongs who couldn't even beat the murrican upstarts and the smallest country in Europe. What a grand list of enemies!

>invade Revolutionary France, when it was fighting all of Europe already to regain Roussilon
>fail hard
>are asked by the Coalition to at least bind some french troops
>fail and run for the Pyrenaes
>the Pyrenaes front also collapses, french armies advancing into Catalonia
>main spanish army got destroyed in northern katalonia
>"guys can we make peace, we kinda have to handle a real war in the north"
>NO SPAIN STRONK
>secondary invasion marches into Basque countries, spanish unable to stop them
>PLS STOP WE PEACE NOW
>"okay but give all of Hispanola and from now on you have to ally with us"

This is apparently how a spanish victory looks like

>Given that the Austrians won that war and kicked out all the Spaniards from Italy, it seems quite strange.
Austria didn't win the war. They would have lost if it wasn't for France and Britain. Can you post any Austrian victory from that war?
>We are speaking about army strenght here, not naval. And you really want to argue that the nation, that defeated Russia, Austria, HRE and France combined
They were losing until Russia dropped out of the war. France focused mostly on the war with the UK and Austria had a horrible army.
>The first was to regain their italian possession and Spain lost hard.
Spain didn't lose a single battle to Austria in the war. The loses that were inflicted on Spain came from Britain in a naval battle in which the Brittish attacked without a declaration of war. You are just talking out of your ass.

It wasn't a Spanish victory. The French clearly won but part of the Roussillon was invaded and the war wasn't as one sided as a full French invasion of Spain. If you think that a piece treaty that gave part of an island to France was a crushing defeat in which France was about to invade all of Spain you are just retarded. The alliance proposal was suggested by Godoy not by the republic btw

>NO SPAIN STRONK
No, they were probably just to lazy to go to the peace talks.

Hyperinflation and multiple wars. We already talked about that like a million times.

I think you're confusing the British Empire with the Spanish one. Spaniards actually held land in Europe.

...

What the fuck is wrong with the UK and R*ssia?

>UK
powerplaying in Europe and colonial ventures. They were almost always doing something to preserve some favorable balance of power in Europe, fighting over some colonial region with another major power, or fighting wars with those already in places they were trying to colonize.

>Russia
Wars with Sweden, Poland, decision to be the "protector" of the smaller states in central Europe, spats with the Persians and Ottomans, and projecting power into the Balkans.

JEWS

That map under counts badly. Malta was in the war of the Holy league in the 1560-1573. Also it does not count the parts of time in which one country was in union with another that was in war. Just look at Finland.

Who fucked the country were the habsburgs not the bourbons.

They were somehow cucked by the Catholic Church or some foreign influence possibly. I don't know how, but it seems like they just got neutered somehow between the 1500-1700s. You had tough motherfuckers who constantly dueled each other and committed honor killings generally seeming very warrior-like after the reconquista who also went out an colonized the SHIT out of things and then later you have a bunch of money grubbing wussbags who only care about flipping coin and never leave their peninsula again. Perhaps it was a shift of values or a cultural realization. It's only a guess anyway.

Spain remained mentally medieval while western Europe changed with the times.

Hahahahahaha, man, nice fanfic, The union with Aragon allow Castille to play a role in European Politics and Trade, Castille without Aragon was only a shithole with little possibility of expansion also, Colombus was catalan.

>Castille to play a role in European Politics and Trade, Castille without Aragon was only a shithole
It was wealthier than England with a smaller population and the biggest navy in western Europe. Aragon had a smaller population than Granada with a shit tier economy everywhere except Valencia
>also, Colombus was catalan.
And Cervantes don't forget about Cervantes

1. Spend too much in wars
2. Stupid economy
>Many believed that the influx of gold and silver from the Americas was the cause of inflation, when only one fifth of the precious metals actually went into Spain. A more prominent internal factor was the Spanish economy's dependence of luxurious Merino wool, the demand of which was replaced by cheaper textiles from England and the Netherlands
3. Low population
>Spain (17th century): 10 million
>France (17th century): 28 million

Stealing all its money from Jews

They had/have the sin of sloth and greed. They even had the sin of pride for these sins. Most people have lots of sin: especially the one's sick enough to boast of their perverted Pride. Most churches now accept the sin of pride as good: in fear the psychopathic perverts will rise against them.