Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gibraltar have become in a paradise for drug trafficking, that is the only problem. The claim of morocco over canary islands, ceuta and melilla doesn't have any sense, because morocco didn't exist when that lands were taken by spain. (Sorry for my english, I'm learning)
OK. During the era of exploration, the Portuguese were sailing around the coast of Africa and began their colonies in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde and Sao Tome y Principe. By the 1500's, Spain was preoccupied by explanding their empire in the Americas. Africa was then ignored for centuries before the introduction of quamine, which allowed Europeans to travel inland in Africa without dropping like flies from malaria. Hence, in the 1870's the scramble for Africa began! The British and French, the two largest Western powers of the day, took the most land in Africa. Germany too took colonies...Cameroon, Tanzania, Togo and Namibia were German colonies before WWI. Even Belgium took the Congo (they actually began the Scramble for Africa after circumnaviagting the Congo River). After WWI, they would also take Rwanda and Burundi from the Germans. Portugal, hung onto their colonies that they already set up. Italy even joined in...they conquered Libya, Eritrea, Somalia and briefly Ethipia (ONLY during WWII)
Spain, on the other hand, was not so interested in Africa. Spanish Sahara, now known as Western Sahara was one small exeption. It was turned over to Morocco in 1975. However, it was mostly a barren desert. The only other Spanish colony in Africa was modern-day Equatorial Guinea. The island of Bioko in EG, was Spanish since the Spanish got it in the 1700's. Annobon, is a very small and remote island that was part of Spanish Guinea, modern day Equatorial Guinea, was transfered to Spain from Portugal (along with Bioko) in 1778. The mainland portion of Equatorial Giunea is and was known as Rio Muni. Spain only occupied the interior of Rio Muni following a military operation in 1927. From the time that Spain established a protectartate over Rio Muni in 1885 until the military operation was completed in 1927, Spain would only occupy the coast of Rio Muni. Anyway, the only portion of Mainland Sub-Saharan Africa that Spain took during the Scramble for Africa was the tiny territory of Rio Muni. Until 1927, it was even really occupied. Note: Spanish Guinea became the independent nation of Equatorial Guinea in 1968 after Franco gave into to international pressure and granted independence. (Yes, Spain also had a several small terriorites along the coast of Morocco Ifni, Ceuta and Medilla. the latter two are still controlled by Spain as a part of Metropolitan Spain due to their Spanish majorities). However for these small territories in modern day Morocco, Spain only conquered a very small area in Sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the European powers took land and set up colonies in Africa during the late 1800's, but Spain took such little land.
Why didn't Spain take much more terriotry than maintaining two islands and only conquering small Rio Muni? Why not take over vast poritons of Africa like the rest of the Europeans? Was Spain in too much turmoil? But still...You would think that after the loss of their colonies in teh Americas they certainly would want to reestablish their position as a European power. Even weak Portugal showed interest in Africa just by trying hard to maintain their colonies in Africa. Note: Any territory not occupied by a European power was up for the taking according to the 1885 Treaty of Berlin. Hence, Portugal valued their positions in Africa enough to maintain their five colonies because the other Euorpean powers could have snatched them from the Portuguese. Note: Portugal did not occupy the interior of their colonies, espeically Angola and Mozambique until teh Scramble for Africa began in the late 1800's. They knew they could lose the interiors if they did not occupt them. Hence, Portugal valued those terriorites enough to maintain them under European law. Spain did not show much interest in the continent or they would have conquered much more. Spain also wpould have occupied Rio Muni much earlier than 1927, if they truely valued Spanish Guinea. To sum it up...Why not more interest in Sub-Saharan Africa on teh part of the Spainsh during the European Scramble for Africa in the late 1800's?
gold was discovered in s africa in mid1800s. the spanish knew el dorado, the mother lode was in s. america.
Treaty of Tordesillas is the answer. The world was divided along 46 degrees longitude. Everything to the west was Spain, to the east was Portugal. That was followed up by the 1529 Treaty of Saragossa which set the antimeridian at 142 degrees longitude.
This placed all of Africa and India within the sphere of Portugal. Hence, Spain did not engage in exploration or colonization of Africa and by the time Africa was opened in the 1800's, Spain was nothing more than a third rate nation without the power to join in the scramble. Whatever African possessions Spain did have, were mainly holdovers from the ouster of the Muslim Caliphats that had controlled Spain and were defensive in nature.
Treaty of Tordesillas is the answer. The world was divided along 46 degrees longitude. Everything to the west was Spain, to the east was Portugal. That was followed up by the 1529 Treaty of Saragossa which set the antimeridian at 142 degrees longitude.
This placed all of Africa and India within the sphere of Portugal. Hence, Spain did not engage in exploration or colonization of Africa and by the time Africa was opened in the 1800's, Spain was nothing more than a third rate nation without the power to join in the scramble. Whatever African possessions Spain did have, were mainly holdovers from the ouster of the Muslim Caliphats that had controlled Spain and were defensive in nature.
On target again! I would have repped you but I have to "spread reputation around" for a while!
By the 17th/18th century, Spain had declined and was overtaken by England/Great Britain, the Netherlands and France as the major colonial powers. By the 19th century, when true African colonisation took place, Spain was in no shape to rival the British, French, Germans, etc. in colonosing Africa.
At the close of the Middle Ages, with the restoration of the Catholic Monarchy and the persecution and expulsion of the Moors and Jews, Spain assumed the role of the predominant power in a re-oriented Western Europe -- essentially, the first global policeman. That role was reinforced for the first century or so by the official "sanction" of the Catholic Church; it is estimated that in the Sixteenth Century, slightly more than one adult Spaniard in ten was a priest, nun, or monk.
But this arrangement also had a prominent downside; the Church was concerned at least as much in the production of converts as in tangible wealth. As the years passed, more secular societies, beginning with the French, who have a strong history of defending their secularism, and later the English, challenged and eventually bested a society less-inclined toward secular progress. We can all offer our gratitude that the challenges in the form of totalitarianism which peaked in the 1930's were beaten back
Great Britain may be viewed, to some degree, as the first global super-power to "abdicate" in favor of its North American offspring. But regardless of the attitudes of "opinion leaders" on either side of the present-day divide, the continued development of international standards and cooperation represents a large step toward the recognition that tested democracies have no justification for settling their disputes via armed conflict.
Hence, in the 1870's the scramble for Africa began!
Spain, on the other hand, was not so interested in Africa. Spanish Sahara, now known as Western Sahara was one small exeption. It was turned over to Morocco in 1975. However, it was mostly a barren desert. The only other Spanish colony in Africa was modern-day Equatorial Guinea.
Why didn't Spain take much more terriotry than maintaining two islands and only conquering small Rio Muni?
Even weak Portugal showed interest in Africa just by trying hard to maintain their colonies in Africa.
The term "scramble" is used because the territories were divided among the European powers over a few short years. The Spanish Revolution of 1868 destabilized Spain during this critical time period. King Alfonso XII ruled from his 17th birthday in 1874 until he died of dysentary just before his 28th birthday leaving an unborn child to be future king. Maria Christina of Austria, served as his regent, in a period which saw Spain lose its Caribbean and Pacific colonies during the Spanish-American War
I also think it may be possible to characterize Portugal as weak compared the Great Powers of Europe, but it was still much stronger than Spain. Portugal recognized Brazil's independence in 1825.So there was decades of profitable trade between Portugal and it's former colony. Spain had little interchange with it's former colonies in the 19th century.
Spain simply wasn't strong enough to project far beyond it's traditional sphere of influence in Morocco.
In a number of way Spain was the Sick Man of Europe before that title was assigned to the Ottoman Empire. I notice the genuinely strong european powers of the late 1600s thru Napoleonic era would raid, temporarily occupy and loot spanish possessions because Spain had become extremely weak at power projection even Imperial defense. But it was easier for other powers to selectively attack Spain and gain benefits rather than the very expensive nature of occupation.
As Pacomartin indicated above when the Race for Africa opened in 1870, Spain was too weak. Too weak in 1800, too weak in 1750, 1700, etc.
In a number of way Spain was the Sick Man of Europe before that title was assigned to the Ottoman Empire.
We have two competing proverbs. "The best way to make money is to make money" which can be taken to refer to Florins and the Pieces of 8 which became accepted currency. Wealth begins to flow to the host monarchy or government that creates a currency widely in demand.
The other proverb is "Money makes you poor" which can be taken to what happened to Spanish civilization as treasure and gold poored in from the colonies. The demand side of wealth begins to take over and wealthy households compete to secure riches and build estates. Eventually, Spain lost it's ability to generate money and the ability to construct ships and build corporations like the Dutch and the English. They went from the greatest center of wealth the world had ever known to the poor man of Europe.
As to what those proverbs mean in the modern world where huge trade surpluses are paid for in "fiat currency" remains to be seen. USA is rapidly approaching the point where $100 banknotes are circulating in a total quantity of $1 trillion.
The word "fiat" is from Latin for "let it be done". So if a country's people ask why they should give up the product of their labor or their natural resource for c-notes, you just answer "fiat!".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
