• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Spain keeps Mexico.

Ricardolindo

Well-known member
Location
Portugal
In our timeline, by 1820, Spain had pretty much defeated the Mexican rebels and only lost Mexico because the conservatives led by Iturbide switched sides after Riego's liberal coup. Say the coup hadn't happened or failed. How long could Spain keep Mexico? How would New Spain develop? How would Spain, itself, change? How would How would the US expand? Defeating Mexico is one thing, defeating the Spanish Empire is quite another.
 
Not entirely sure why you're asking me in particular- it's really not my area of expertise at all.

I doubt Spain would be able to keep hold of Mexico for long even if they were able to impose a victory at this point.

I asked you because of your replies in http://forum.sealionpress.co.uk/index.php?threads/the-fall-of-the-spanish-empire.2382/.
Regardless, once again, remember that by 1820, Spain had pretty much defeated the Mexican rebels, that had been reduced to guerrillas.
 
In our timeline, by 1820, Spain had pretty much defeated the Mexican rebels and only lost Mexico because the conservatives led by Iturbide switched sides after Riego's liberal coup. Say the coup hadn't happened or failed. How long could Spain keep Mexico? How would New Spain develop? How would Spain, itself, change? How would How would the US expand? Defeating Mexico is one thing, defeating the Spanish Empire is quite another.

tbh i think new spain would likely be weaker than mexico.

the old country would still have all the problems it encountered otl of the ruination inflicted by the napoleonic wars and then the bloodletting of the carlist wars. i imagine american settlers wouldnt have much of a problem carving lumps out of an ill-defended mexican frontier.
 
tbh i think new spain would likely be weaker than mexico.

the old country would still have all the problems it encountered otl of the ruination inflicted by the napoleonic wars and then the bloodletting of the carlist wars. i imagine american settlers wouldnt have much of a problem carving lumps out of an ill-defended mexican frontier.

Only if Isabel II (born in 1830) is born female, frankly.

If the US goes to war with Spain over Texas etc. does it take the opportunity to take Cuba and Puerto Rico?

Depends on when. If it is before the 1870s, the Spanish Navy was still a formidable force, the post-1868 instability and inward focus of the country led to the non-renovation of the Navy that meant it was extremely outdated and weak by 1898.

Land-based forces would be a different story though.
 
tbh i think new spain would likely be weaker than mexico.

the old country would still have all the problems it encountered otl of the ruination inflicted by the napoleonic wars and then the bloodletting of the carlist wars. i imagine american settlers wouldnt have much of a problem carving lumps out of an ill-defended mexican frontier.

Thing is, Spain had bought off the Comanche. The Spaniards gave the Comanche tribute in exchange for them not raiding Spanish settlements.
 
tbh i think new spain would likely be weaker than mexico.

the old country would still have all the problems it encountered otl of the ruination inflicted by the napoleonic wars and then the bloodletting of the carlist wars. i imagine american settlers wouldnt have much of a problem carving lumps out of an ill-defended mexican frontier.

Also, considering that the Texan rebels only defeated Mexico due to Santa Anna's incompetence, I'm pretty sure that they could never have defeated Spain.
 
In our timeline, by 1820, Spain had pretty much defeated the Mexican rebels and only lost Mexico because the conservatives led by Iturbide switched sides after Riego's liberal coup. Say the coup hadn't happened or failed. How long could Spain keep Mexico? How would New Spain develop? How would Spain, itself, change? How would How would the US expand? Defeating Mexico is one thing, defeating the Spanish Empire is quite another.
This might be pushing it a bit, but at least theoretically speaking, it's possible for Spain to keep at least southern Mexico up to the point of the Spanish-American War. Of course, if Spain still experiences the Carlist Wars in this scenario, then Mexico could acquire its independence much sooner.

The US was able to decisively beat Spain in 1898--something that I don't see changing in this scenario if those two powers will still go to war during this time. However, I'm not quite as sure if the US would actually be able to decisively defeat Spain in a war in, say, the 1840s. Someone more knowledgeable about this will have to answer this question.

If the US goes to war with Spain over Texas etc. does it take the opportunity to take Cuba and Puerto Rico?
If it wins, it probably grabs as much Spanish territory in the New World and the Pacific as it can actually take.

Only if Isabel II (born in 1830) is born female, frankly.

Depends on when. If it is before the 1870s, the Spanish Navy was still a formidable force, the post-1868 instability and inward focus of the country led to the non-renovation of the Navy that meant it was extremely outdated and weak by 1898.

Land-based forces would be a different story though.
When do you think was the first time that the US could actually decisively defeat Spain in a war?

Also, Yes, the Carlist Wars won't happen if Isabella II is born male--or possibly even if her younger sister is born male.

Thing is, Spain had bought off the Comanche. The Spaniards gave the Comanche tribute in exchange for them not raiding Spanish settlements.
When was this?

Also, considering that the Texan rebels only defeated Mexico due to Santa Anna's incompetence, I'm pretty sure that they could never have defeated Spain.
Possibly not a Spain that's at the peak of its prime, but a Spain that's severely weakened by the Carlist Wars is quite a different story.
 
tbh i think new spain would likely be weaker than mexico.

the old country would still have all the problems it encountered otl of the ruination inflicted by the napoleonic wars and then the bloodletting of the carlist wars. i imagine american settlers wouldnt have much of a problem carving lumps out of an ill-defended mexican frontier.
If the US was smart, it would wait until Spain became weak and/or until it (the US) itself became very strong before it would have actually sought out a military confrontation with Spain.
 
If Spain keeps Mexico, then the United States is surrounded by European colonies and can't dominate the Americas like it would want. I would expect various efforts from the US to assist any attempted Mexican rebellions, at least by the right sort of rebels (i.e. whiter ones), and eventually there would be such new rebellions.
 
This might be pushing it a bit, but at least theoretically speaking, it's possible for Spain to keep at least southern Mexico up to the point of the Spanish-American War. Of course, if Spain still experiences the Carlist Wars in this scenario, then Mexico could acquire its independence much sooner.

The US was able to decisively beat Spain in 1898--something that I don't see changing in this scenario if those two powers will still go to war during this time. However, I'm not quite as sure if the US would actually be able to decisively defeat Spain in a war in, say, the 1840s. Someone more knowledgeable about this will have to answer this question.


If it wins, it probably grabs as much Spanish territory in the New World and the Pacific as it can actually take.


When do you think was the first time that the US could actually decisively defeat Spain in a war?

Also, Yes, the Carlist Wars won't happen if Isabella II is born male--or possibly even if her younger sister is born male.


When was this?


Possibly not a Spain that's at the peak of its prime, but a Spain that's severely weakened by the Carlist Wars is quite a different story.

I know this user has been banned but answers to those questions are still relevant for the thread. Spanish officials made a series of agreements with the Comanche in the late 18th century and Northern Mexico's population was growing. If Spain had kept Mexico, this would have continued. Even if the Carlist Wars still happen, they are several years later.
 
Last edited:
If Spain keeps Mexico, then the United States is surrounded by European colonies and can't dominate the Americas like it would want. I would expect various efforts from the US to assist any attempted Mexican rebellions, at least by the right sort of rebels (i.e. whiter ones), and eventually there would be such new rebellions.

Wouldn't the UK strongly oppose such efforts?
 
Let's add a detail to this scenario: In the 1820s, the Spaniards find the gold in California. What happens, then? IMO, there would be a huge Spanish settlement in California and the US would never be able to take it.
 
Let's add a detail to this scenario: In the 1820s, the Spaniards find the gold in California. What happens, then? IMO, there would be a huge Spanish settlement in California and the US would never be able to take it.
There'd be huge settlement in California. A fair amount of which (as happened OTL in Texas) would be Americans. Who'd then be incitable into wanting to secede and join the USA. Wouldn't necessarily be as clear-cut for the Spanish as you imply.
 
There'd be huge settlement in California. A fair amount of which (as happened OTL in Texas) would be Americans. Who'd then be incitable into wanting to secede and join the USA. Wouldn't necessarily be as clear-cut for the Spanish as you imply.

Usually, Spain did not allow foreign settlers. Moses Austin only received a land grant because he knew someone who could convince the governor. Regardless of the details, we can be pretty sure that Spain wouldn't allow large scale American Protestant settlement.
 
Back
Top