Why did the spanish and portuguese empires lost influence and momentum so quick that they became irrelevant by the time...

they also had that square in the mainland

Because they invested all their eggs into their colonies and then the colonies became independent leaving a huge demographic gap and a lack of business partners to export to

For Spain during the Napoleonic wars the Royal Navy cut off its colonies which formed their own provisional governments, furthermore a divide occurred between Spaniards born in Spain and Spaniards born in the colonies, once this happened the autonomy they had naturally led to Independence. Also the US Monroe doctrine was supported by Britain so Spains final holdings in central america were living on borrowed time in the 19th century.
Spains colony in Africa was a disaster but that is more due to Francos inability to decolonize properly.
Portugal had a decent African Empire along with holdings in the far east up till the mid 20th century, their problem was more their inability to let go.

Yes Tunis

>inability to let go.

That was only a problem to you faggots, we would have rather burn that shithole than giving it to terrorists, history proved us right, as soon as we left 1 million refugees and other millions dead in civil wars, no referendum and no pay for all we built there

They also had literally nothing to gain from ruling jungle chinks.

>colonial goods hindered industrialisation and economic development
Explain Britain then.

This is an interesting post to me, the anti war movement in Portugal was allowed to grow so large that it literally toppled the government. The Portuguese were so sick of fighting an endless unwinnable war that the government's refusal to end it caused a revolution in Portugal!

And yet here you are, someone who I imagine did not live through the revolution and has never been to war says the government's refusal to give up the colonies was "only a problem to you faggots"

I have to ask, what did he mean by this?

Not him, but importing cheap foreign goods could theoretically hinder an economy by: 1) enriching the ruling class to such an extent that they suppress attempts to innovate in order to maintain their hold on power, and 2) undercutting prices in such a way that prevent domestic manufacturing from establishing itself in any meaningful way.

The comparison with the United Kingdom is of questionable relevance; the two empires existed in fundamentally different time periods. Nevertheless, it may be the case that imported goods did indeed hinder development in the UK, but other factors such as coal reserves, population density, and institutional differences also influenced the course of developments in both nations.

the portuguese were financially devastated by the 1751 lisbon earthquake and really didn't have the population to support an empire

for spain, philip II spent too much fucking money on wars and almost bankrupted the country, then 200 or so years later their south american holdings got bolivar'd

Mate the Netherlands and Britain controlled great amounts of the world shipping and imported vast quantities of cheap goods from colonial possessions and they were the richest nations in the 17th century. Britain then went on to expand in India and start importing even more goods and the import of cheap goods from the USA and India fueled the Industrial revolution.
The real reason is:
Spain was retarded at managing its finances, inflation went rampant with their gold, yes they managed to damage their economy with gold, then they fought wars all over Europe to maintain their habsburg possesions.
Britain and the Netherlands pioneered modern banking practices and capitalism and lo and behold they became insanely rich.
And by controlling the colonies that provided the goods, countries like Britain can easily establish any trade regulations that ensure that commerce favours the motherland, the wohle reason they had these colonies was because they were producing goods that nobody else was at home. Like there was nobody for carribean sugar plantations to even compete with back in Europe.

I mean people always potray the British Raj as total dominion by the English when in reality it was a patchwork of direct control and Indian princes being payed off by the English.

To the international comunity, i´ve spoken to many retornados and many wouldn´t mind a Rhodesian solution and are bitter over it.

The "revolution" was a power play beetwen commies and some generals like Spínola for power, it was so pathetic it started over a quarrel over the wages of milicians and oficers and almost started a civil war.
>Otelo Saraiva Carvalho recalled that the captains' movement began precisely because of "corporatist reasons", that is, when they are "military" men of war suddenly seen as outnumbered by former militiamen who, through a decree-law of one Government Desperate for not having more captains to send to the colonial war, it allows the entrance of the old militiamen

sol.sapo.pt/artigo/16656/otelo-admite-nova-revolucao-com-perda-de-direitos-dos-militares

He wrote "Portugal and the future", he ignored we were winning the war, we were adapting to their new equipament thanks to Israel.
>the NAPALM was loaded into deposits of US origin 750lbs. [340 kgs] or Portuguese of 660 lbs. [300 kg] being the [fuel] powder provided by Israel "

scielo.mec.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1645-91992009000200009

We owned all the major cities and even in Guiné had loyal natives (who were persecuted after the war) protected by our army evacuted to the main towns, who were prospering and growing as jewels of áfrica.
>Guiné is, and shall be defendable

blogueforanadaevaotres.blogspot.pt/2008/05/guin-6374-p2872-uma-boa-polmica-beja.html

We had more men on the ground every year, our economy was growing and debt free even before finding oil and still africa only made one-fourth of our wealth

www2.iict.pt/?idc=102&idi=15621

In Moçambique they even wanted to kill the minister of defense because they tought the soldiers were on vacations and jerking around insted of warring

youtube.com/watch?v=7uk822b9qCw

What happened to Rhodesia again?

youtube.com/watch?v=DeumyOzKqgI

Feels Bad Man

>blogueforanadaevaotres.blogspot.pt/2008/05/guin-6374-p2872-uma-boa-polmica-beja.html

>The PAIGC guerrillas did not control any important city, village or village of Guinea. The territory then had about 500,000 inhabitants. More than 400,000 Guineans lived with the Portuguese troops, subtracted of their own volition or necessity, to the control of the PAIGC.
>The Portuguese army then had about 40,000 men in Guinea, 6,000 to 7,000 of whom were Guinean Africans. Local militias, with their old Mausers, 1many G-3s and even mortars, provided some cover for the Portuguese troops' war effort and consisted of nearly 20,000 men.
>The Portuguese army and the Guinean troops that fought at its side counted on Dakota (DC 3), T-6, Fiats G-91, Dornier 27, Nord-Atlas and Alouette 3 helicopters, seven or eight of them equipped with heli-cannons , in a total of almost forty devices.
>There were a good dozens of airstrips near the Portuguese barracks, two of them asphalted (Bissau and Cufar). In order to fly, the PAIGC did not even have pigeons, although it was possible to say that the guerrillas could one day use Migs from air bases located in Guinea-Conakry, that is, outside their homeland.
>It is true that they had anti-aircraft Strella missiles and that they shot down five Portuguese airplanes in April 1973. Between June 1973 and April 1974 (after flight adaptation), with "technologically superior weaponry", in the words of our friend Beja Santos, how many Portuguese planes were shot down by PAIGC? Not one.

>Of how many naval means (...) disposed the Portuguese army? There were large and medium-sized landing craft, well equipped with >Oerlikon's heavy machine guns, small surveillance vets (our Santos Motto knew them very well), also with good firepower
>(...)PAIGC? (...) they moved in canoes rarely equipped with a small motor, but mainly primitive canoes, oars, excavated in trunks of trees

>In the year 1973, we had 210 deaths

>How many Portuguese barracks did the PAIGC conquer in 1973/1974? Not one. And how many dead did they have? No one knows, but they were far more than the Portuguese soldiers killed in combat.

>"By mid-1973, the military situation could be considered satisfactory. (...) I put General Costa Gomes, who had recently visited Guinea, inspected the troops and agreed upon the devices to be adopted, the following question:
>"Is Guinea defensible and should it be defended?" If so, let's choose the best general (in place of Antonio de Spínola) available to govern it, let's make the effort to keep the men there, and try to equip them with the necessary material. If not, we will prepare the progressive withdrawal of troops not to prolong a useless sacrifice, assigning a general officer, possibly a brigadier, to liquidate our presence.
>The response of General Costa Gomes was categorical:
>- In the present state, Guinea is defensible and must be defended. "Marcello Caetano, in Testimony, Rio de Janeiro, Ed. Record, 1974, p.180.
>And what does General Spínola tell us about this period of mid-1973?

>"(...) Almost imminent the abandonment of some frontier settlements, which was not only due to the valiant individual action of some commanders. In these border actions, it is elemental justice to emphasize the behavior of some officers, among which I emphasize:
>Colonel Rafael Durão, (my commander of CAOP 1) Lieutenant-Colonel of Cavalary
>Correia de Campos and Major of Cavalary
>Manuel Monge. "

>António de Spínola, Country without Rumo, Lisbon, Ed. SCIRE, 1978, p. 54.

They were betrayed by the international comunity, and after Portugal left, civilized South África and Rhodesia started dying out

>philip II spent too much fucking money on wars
This is a myth. He wasted most of his money on paying the interests of his father. Charles was a shit ruler that role played as Charlemagne while not managing his finances or organizing anything

It´s all a myth, the earthquake was bad but Portugal recovered.
Btw the earthquake was in 1755 not 1751

Britain is still paying debts from the XVIII century and the sea bubble and other memes showed that they had no clue about how to manage their finances. The same goes for France and any other European country. The silver inflation was going to happen to any country that took control of Peru. It was inevitable and when the Dutch captured the Spanish treasure fleet they wasted all the silver just like the Spanish were doing

I think he even managed to fuck up his loaners the Fugger jews. A job the swedes and the french finished later buttfucking Augsburg in the 30yrs war.

Good riddance though.

He was great at fucking up things, like the HRE, and basically every war he toyed around with. Even the ones won he never capitalized on them to kill off rivals. What for, just borrow more money and wait out for the next round...

Greatest asshole of the century, that belgian Charlie.