Why did the British Empire succeed while the Spanish Empire succumbed to inefficiency and corruption?

Why did the British Empire succeed while the Spanish Empire succumbed to inefficiency and corruption?

>spaniards claiming the HRE
wew

What did the British Empire succeed at exactly?

Inquisition and not knowing about inflation
If the psainish knew about inflation and boyght into the industrial revolution spain may have been the richist nation ever

>Brit Empire
>A century and a half.

>Spic Empire
>300 years.
Also none of the Spanish Colonies are African tier.

>none of the Spanish Colonies are African tier
It helps that they're not in Africa or populated by Africans. Everything that is populated by Africans becomes African tier. Inb4 North Africa. Obviously I mean Subsaharan aka negroes.

So? Aren't le mighty anglo a force for civilization who succeeded in empire? Lyl.

Also the Middle East- a british hegemony- is a fucking mess. Score one for Britannia.

Well there was that time the Spainish Kings were Hapsburgs.

Negroes can't into civilization.

because Britain can into economics and Spain cannot

>i-its all their fault it has nothing to do with Brits being shitty rulers honest!

>Because Britain can into avoiding wars while Spain got stuck in every shitty conflict from the 1500s-1700s
FTFY

Spaniards are lazy and incompetent half-breeds. It helps that they had a Visigothic and Germanic upper caste, but a nation is as good as its people. Eventually those Moorish genes kicked in.

that and they cannot into economics
>inflation what's that?

though to be fair Spain caused most of those shitty conflicts

There had to be a first empire to fall to inflation so future empires wouldn't make the same mistake.

Rampant inflation, terrible economic handling, and revolution as well.
Keep in mind, neither empires exist anymore, whether either side "succeeded" could be debated.
Imo, the only "success" was in spreading their culture and language, in that case the British Empire was probably more successful, at least in terms of the influence of their modern colonial heirs.

Everyone was taking Spains galleons thru privateering & piracy that were full of gold&silver on their way back to Spain. There was one particular hurricane that sank 5 Spanish ships at one time.Spain invested a lot of money getting these precious metals & gems back to Europe. It doesn't help when you have everyone trying to steal your treasure.

We didn't literally fuck our subjects

>dumb faggot who doesn't know anything about the middle east

>Spanish empire
>Inherited all it's european possessions, and all its colonies have become shitholes.

>Brit empire
>With the exception of hannover, everything was fought for
>It's colonies were bigger and richer, and the settled colonies have become wealthy nations, with the US being today's superpower.
>still owns a piece of spain
Why is the spanish empire so inferior to Britain's?

I like how brits somehow feel entitled to claim american success as their own.

>British Empire
>didn't succumb

Stop shitting up this board Nigel.

Spain plundered its conquests Britain established commerce and trade with and within its conquests

...

It didn't. It slowly decentralized and peacefully ended.

Think about it for a second, if you had colonies that brought in shit ton of gold and silver, you wouldn't care about efficiency or corruption as much. On the other hand if you colonized less resource rich regions like the British did, you have to have an efficient administration in these colonies.

bad bait

>There are people who unironically believe this
LOL

Britain had more densely populated grain producing land and didn't need to expend as many resources defending their territory and had a smaller empire to defend.

There was that time when Charles V was literally elected Emperor while simultaneously holding the crown of Spain.

Imagine if Spain had allied France instead of Austria. I think their empire would have survived much longer that way. Basically France is the main responsible of killing them

Spain and Austria were both owned by the Hapsburgs in their golden age

Spain and France were both owned by the Bourbons in their declining age

Industrial revolution

Commodities instead of precious metals

Isolated geographical location compared to Spain which competed with Caliphates and the Ottoman Empire all the time

But during their 'Golden age' Spain had a lot of wars against France because they had to defend the Austrians, and these wars weakened their Empire. If they could avoid fighting France their golden age would have lasted longer.

The Spanish didn't have to fight against the Ottomans. I think they could have avoided all those senseless conflicts and focused instead in making their colonial empire more efficient. But it looks like they were forced into every shitty war the stupid Austrians fought

>and had a smaller empire to defend

What? It was larger in size and population.

most of the times they were fighting the Dutch than the French

France probably wouldn't have liked them anyway due to the War of Three Henrys deal. But if they just fucked off and left the Dutch alone maybe they would've been more lucky.

i don't think it would have been possible to avoid that, there was no way france was ever going to be okay with being surrounded by the habsburgs.

once the reformation started there was no way for that to happen anyways, since both habsburg branches were staunch ultra-catholics and the spaniards were always willing to back up the austrians in this regard

God you're a snarky faggot.
You list the middle east as a failure?
I'll list our successes then:
>America
>Canada
>New Zealand
>India
>Singapore
>Malaysia
>Australia
>South Africa
>Zimbabwe/Rhodesia before Mugabe
>Nigeria
>Zanzibar (I'll agree Tanganyika is shit)
>Hong Kong
>Jamaica
>The Bahamas
>Aden

...

Britain's main advantage was that it was an island-nation and didn't require a massive army to deal with invaders. Thus the British only required their navy to defend their borders while also projecting their power abroad. Any other European maritime power (Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, France) had to contend with continental enemies constantly, draining and sapping away men and materials that could've been used in colonial ventures.

The fact that Britain was able to not only establish a far-flung merchant marine, but they also had a financial and industrial base in their economic development is what allowed them to raise capital and focus on internal developments far more efficiently than their European rivals.

And I really like how Veeky Forums has shitposters who meme about Britain conquering brown people when India was one of the richest civilizations throughout history. It had the misfortune of being divided by squabbling Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh rivalries, which allowed the East India Company to establish their bridgehead in Bengal, the wealthiest part of the moribund Mughal Empire. With the revenues that Bengal provided, the EIC could equip and drill tens of thousands of sepoys to crush the Marathas, Mysore, Gurkhas, Sikhs, and other opposition to their steady encroachment of South Asia. Without India to plunder and exploit as a cash cow, the British Empire would've been impossible to sustain between 1757 to 1945.

Also, Britain was fortunate to actually develop "settler colonies", lands in which English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish would flock and develop infrastructure in the 13 Colonies, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand was also markedly different from the way Spain handled Latin America. It's no surprise that the former British settler colonies are also amongst the wealthiest and developed in the world including the preeminent superpower at the moment, the US.

What do the colours mean?

Financial mismanagement.

Yellow and red means high development.

>superpower at the moment, the US.
A fair bunch of which was part of Spain.

And they're some of the poorest regions, and full of anglo protestants at their peak success.

what does blue and green mean? I guess even better?

>Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Gulf Arabs and Yemen are colonies

They stayed as mandates for couple of decades, they are far from being colonies.

>And they're some of the poorest regions, and full of anglo protestants
Yeah, Appalachians.

Say whatever you want but Spanish conquistadors had the best aesthetics ever. Just imagine arriving to the beautiful Caribbean sea in your galleon, with your Veeky Forums clothes and armor, and taking three Amerindian wives and bags and bags of gold and silver for yourself. Literally heaven on Earth. Unfortunately it was too good to last

Yeah Spain "claimed" that land, but did they or later Mexico actually settle there en masse and build it up like Anglo-Americans did?

Appalachians are actually Scots-Irish Presbyterians.

...

>Appalachians are actually Scots-Irish Presbyterians.
So Anglo and Protestant.

Zanzibar is fucking shit though.

> Scots aren't Anglos.

>Spanishboo's arguement is that Spanish colonies turn out to be good countries
Read the thread before you blindly comment on an argument.

Not an argument

Spanish Empire succumbed to civil wars. Caused by shitty economy and political traditions. The British Empire succeeded because there was nobody really left to oppose it after France lost the Napoleonic wars and the Spanish Empire fell.

>more corruption in the Spanish Empire
Common Law is better than Civil Law for fighting corruption, IMO.

>more inefficiency
Liberal economy fueled competition and usage of soft power vs. more conservative stance that the Spanish Empire had built upon.

fa.m, not all wars were fought at land.

>What is Lepanto?

>implying the Middle East wasn't a complete fucking mess before the British arrived

top laff

Shit m8. Did the Spic really made you this mad?

The British and Dutch used companies to manage their colonies. Their economic model was more efficient.

>But it looks like they were forced into every shitty war the stupid Austrians fought
You mean because they were both part of the same Hapsburg Empire? Why exactly would an empire not fight with its full strength?

>Middle East
>a British hegemony
The Middle East was dominated by the Ottomans for hundreds of years. The Brits only adopted it right after WWI and realized what a fucking mess it is. The only reason the Ottomans kept it in line is because they had no problem mass-murdering tons of people if they stepped out of line.

>Inquisition
The inquisition killed 300 people in an empire that held 17% of the world's population in 300 years.They were pretty tame compared to England's religious persecution
The DR is literally populated by Africans

>that and they cannot into economics
No one understood economics back then.Britain 1 century later almost got bankrupted because all its silver went to buy Chinese tea.
>Spain caused most of those shitty conflicts
How?

Most of the European empire's imperial possessions weren't true colonies desu, a colony is reserved for settlement. Most were protectorates and client states.

In Africa, Britain's only colonies were South Africa, Rhodesia and Kenya, while Australia, Canada, NZ and America were colonies.

>Maintain an Empire.
>Literally go siesta for 3 hours at midday

Pick one.

The Spanish empire lasted twice as much as the Brittish empire.How do you explain that?

Only New Spain was probably much richer than the whole uk, all went to shit thanks to Charles IV, Ferninand VII and the eternal anglo and french.

Sending military to France in the war of the Three Henrys pissing them off
Sending the Armada to Britain pissing them off
The whole 80 years war with the Netherlands
Taking over Portugal

Spain was not an innocent country they tried to dick over all their neighbors and got dicked back.

>Charles IV
Did nothing wrong
>Ferninand VII
Did nothing wrong.He tried to save the country from the (((liberals))),masonic anglo puppets, that were sabotajing the country from the insaid.

Spain acquired almost all their lands in Europe by inheritances, I don't get why shouldn't they defend what is theirs.

>Sending military to France in the war of the Three Henrys pissing them off
They supported the catholic candidate.England did the same thing with the protestant candidate
>Sending the Armada to Britain pissing them off
England started the war when they sent troops to Flandes.They also lost the war btw
>The whole 80 years war with the Netherlands
Rebells.
>Taking over Portugal
Phillip had the best claim to the throne.He just had to push his claim as the French,the Dutch and the eternal Anglo tried to usurp his title

Inflation from South American gold.

The Spanish Golden Age lasted almost 200 years, compared to Britain's barely more than 100.

What language do the Americans speak, remind me?

Spanish

Moors were more advanced than Germanics kek

Scotts are almost negro-tier

American.

What about letting Napoleon into Spain?

>ITT: Spaniards blame every problem they have on the English
pathetic t b q h

>though to be fair Spain caused most of those shitty conflicts

>Wars the Spanish fought during their Golden Age, started by others:
League of Cambrai (France), Fourth Italian War (France), Fifth Italian War (France), Hungarian War (Turks), Sixth Italian War (France), Mediterrean Wars (Turks), Seventh Italian War (France), Schmalkaldic War (Protestants), Eight Italian War (France), Dutch Revolt (flemish rebels), Anglo-Spanish War of 1585 (Anglo), French-Spanish War of 1595 (France), Valtellin War (Venice/France), 30 YW (Bohemians/Swedes), Savoyard War (France/Savoy), War of Mantuan Succession (France), Franko-Spanish War of 1635 (France), Katalon Rebellion (Catalonia), Naples Revolt (Naples), Anglo-Spanish War of 1657 (Anglo), Portuguese Restoration War (Portugal), War of Devolution (France), Franco-Dutch War (France), Reunion War (France), War of Grand Alliance (France),

>Wars started by Spain:
maybe Dutch Revolt, Portuguese Succession, War of Three Henrys

The British wanted to expand their country/kingdom in to a world wide Empire.

The Spaniards wanted to exploit their colonies and population, making them part of the Spanish machine wasn't part of their plan.

>Viceroyalties could only trade within their own Kingdoms/General Captaincies and Spain, there was little and shitty communication with the rest of the Empire
>the Bourbon laws made it so that only Spain born Spaniards could hold high positions in every field of government and even religion
>little to no investment from the Spanish government in to America
>so on and on

There was this duke or something in the 18th century who basically predicted the independence of the 13 colonies and said the Spanish colonies had no incentive to continue to be part of Spain. He said that Spain should give them more freedom, change its economical approach, send a royal prince to America, etc, to avoid the colonies to go their own way. Spain decided it was easier to impose way more restrictions, dictating more limitations for commerce and movement of people.

Exactly. He just completely ignored the Ottoman sponsored piracy of the western Mediterranean that continued until the 1700s

England was a third tier rival to Spain. France was our real rival desu. England was like the retarded kid thatxyou make fun of for 500 years straight

Pepe was fine but (((liberals))) had to chimped out.

You are refering to Aranda and he suggested a confederation with 3 kings (New Spain,PerĂº and New Granada) under one emperor(the emperor of Spain,Cuba and the Phillipines)

Yeah, he was a count, tho, not a duke. But anyway, yes, he feared the treatment of the colonies was going to force them to become independent, specially after the USA independence and French revolution. He also feared the USA becoming too powerful and conquering the Spanish territories in America.

He basically proposed reforms which would avoid the independence of the colonies or a revolution like the French one across the Empire. He was right, but nobody listened.

The Spanish empire got first pickings, so it chose all the areas with large populations, gold and silver.

The British empire "conquered" a lot of sparsely populated wasteland without gold, silver, silk nor spices. All the areas that Spain had ignored, because it wasn't worth anything.

Britain began trying to colonize these colonies, mostly with convicts and criminals. Yes, the majority of the anglo population in the US are actually descended from convicts. Britain only began sending it's undesirables to Australia after 1776.

However, it was hard to control the settler populations on their colonies, because they would simply flee into the wilderness. In the end, the UK had in effect no control over it's (anglo-)-colonies, just some ports and some tariffs. This meant that the colonies were de facto independent.

After losing it's colonies, the UK was know as the sick man of Europe. Without the ability to siphon money and cheap resources from their colonies, the British industries all died.

Because the Spanish were inefficient and corrupt.

False. The only penal colony was Australia, and even then for only a few years. American colonists, and of any other colony, went of their free will.

The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auction them off (for example) to plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America and the majority landed in the Chesapeake colonies of Maryland and Virginia. Transported convicts represented perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century.[1] The State of Georgia for example was first founded by James Edward Oglethorpe by using penal prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison, creating a "Debtor's Colony". However, even though this largely failed, the idea that the state began as a penal has stayed both in popular history, and local lore.[2] The British would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland.[3]

When that avenue closed in the 1780s after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements. It continued until 1868.

>Charles IV
>Did nothing wrong
Of course he fucking didn't, he literally left all the power to the guy that fucked her wife the fucking cucked piece of shit.

>he literally left all the power to the bull that he trusted
Literally flawless partp

>England was like the retarded kid thatxyou make fun of for 500 years straight

That same retarded kid went on to be more successful and relevant than them.

What does that say about Spain? Literally out-fucking-skilled by "retards"

>That same retarded kid went on to be more successful and relevant than them.
Britain is like the cockroach that survived a nuclear holocoust. They just survived through luck and their starting situation. They never outperformed anyone and only survived because they were an island. You see even after the huge continental wars Britain managed to have 40 years of hegemony through aoft power. A pathetic empire made by pathetic people

Spain was too much too early
Britiain was based more on shrinking the native population of both England and the Americas, by land distribution
Spain also had France and HRE troubles far more than England
>Carlos I did not exist

...

>never outperformed anyone
The funny thing about having such an irrational hatred is that you tend to say delusional and false things. Excluding the fact that our economy is currently far larger than yours (despite landmass) we started the Industrial revolution, held dominance over every ocean on earth and had the largest land empire to ever exist.
So what did Spain do that was so much greater? What did, for example, Sweden do? Or how about Poland?