How powerful Spain was in the 18th century?

[SergiLannister]

After the battle of Rocroi (1643) Spain loses its superpower status to give way to French rule and most historians seem to agree that in the 19th century, after losing most of the colonies, Spain was the "sick man of Europe".

But there seems to be no consensus on what place among the powers it occupied in the 18th century. Some say that Spain was no longer even a secondary power and was surpassed by Prussia, however I find this hard to believe. Especially since this century was the one where its American dominions grew the most and where the silver revenues from the new world were considered endless.

What place did Spain occupy among the powers of the time, would it be at least at the Austrian level?

 

[Umbric Man]

I suppose Austrian-tier is decent enough to compare to.

Spain's 18th century hit two nadirs at the beginning and end of the century with a resurgence in the middle: the War of the Spanish Succession was a nadir that saw Gibraltar, Minorca, and the lucrative slave-trade contract "Asiento de Negros" go to Britain and ceded its European territories to Austria, then it regained the Floridas, Minorca, and military honor with the American Revolution.... only for Charles III's death give way to the incompetent Charles IV and stresses of the Jacobin Wars in the 1790s and from there the utter disasters of the Napoleonic Wars and ghoulish Ferdinand VII once the 19th century hit.

For all its misfortune Spain was very much still a Great Power for the 18th century. It was a territorially large state in Europe in an age where there's still not that many of those around, and its worldwide empire and trade - primarily in the Americas but including the Rio Muni colony in Africa and wealthy Philippines in Asia - ensured it was still a major power to woo or tread around as need be in the diplomatic circles of Europe.

 

[Bad@logic]

Spain was a great power in certain aspects but one that had a much more specialized and limited role than others. I believe that Jonathon Dulls had mentioned this in some of his books on French defense strategy in the 18th century: the Spanish were extremely useful and an important ally in a fight against the British, but essentially useless when it came to fighting against any other European nation. Spain occasionally had its failures (such as the Seven Years' War), but for the most part it put in a credible performance against the British and was extremely formidable defensively, and under the right conditions and allied with the French could take the field offensively against the British as well. But that was essentially their one card to play: they were seemingly vulnerable to land invasion by the French as shown by the War of the Quadruple Alliance and French Revolutionary War, and in any case needed the French for support against the British.

Compare this to the other European great powers, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Russia, and Britain, who were all capable of exerting pressure against a range of other states and were not as reliant upon a foreign patron. Theoretically, Spain would have been able to, like the French and British, pay subsidies to other powers, given their colonial revenues, although they never did this to any extent other than paying off the French as far as I know.

Which leaves you a mixed bag as far as what status they have - a great power in one specific, albeit limited case, but lacking most of the attributes and influences of a great power in other circumstances.

 

[AsukaEMP]

I am not sure about the army in the 18th century but in the late 17th century Spain didn't even have enough men in the Netherlands to properly garrison its fortresses there, this while the Netherlands were the priority of the Spanish strategy. I do know for sure that the navy was basically irrelevant in European waters until around the mid-century though. During the WotSS the Spanish navy had not a single large ship, the best they had were fourth-rates, and even then only smaller ones of 60-64 guns. They didn't build anything much bigger than that until well into Philip V's second reign, and no true large warships were built until the second half of the century. Case in point, Cape Pisaro where the Spanish had a grand total of two ships with more than 60 guns (one of 70 and one of 74), while more than half the British fleet had at least 70 (and the largest 90).

And colonial wealth doesn't really mean all that much when the domestic economy is in a deplorable state, much like Portugal with its Brazilian gold a lot of Spanish silver flowed towards other countries as a result of trade deficits. Hilariously Philip IV's chronicler boasted about that trade deficit in the late 17th century "Let London manufacture those fabrics of hers to her heart’s content; Holland her chambrays; Florence her cloth; the Indies their beaver and vicuna; Milan her brocades: Italy and Flanders their linen, so long as our capital can enjoy them. The only thing it proves is that all nations train journeymen for Madrid and that Madrid is the queen of Parliaments, for the world serves her and she serves nobody.”
Furthermore the administration in both the colonies and in Spain was corrupt and inefficient which further squandered Spain's potential. There were gradual reforms throughout the 18th century with varying results, each focusing on different aspects, and towards the end of the century most of the problems were resolved (or at least improved). But they remained behind many other western European countries.

Spain had a large and strong global empire, and remained relevant in the overseas theatres. But in Europe Spain had very little weight to throw around despite said empire.​

 

[SergiLannister]

I am not sure about the army in the 18th century but in the late 17th century Spain didn't even have enough men in the Netherlands to properly garrison its fortresses there, this while the Netherlands were the priority of the Spanish strategy. I do know for sure that the navy was basically irrelevant in European waters until around the mid-century though. During the WotSS the Spanish navy had not a single large ship, the best they had were fourth-rates, and even then only smaller ones of 60-64 guns. They didn't build anything much bigger than that until well into Philip V's second reign, and no true large warships were built until the second half of the century. Case in point, Cape Pisaro where the Spanish had a grand total of two ships with more than 60 guns (one of 70 and one of 74), while more than half the British fleet had at least 70 (and the largest 90).

And colonial wealth doesn't really mean all that much when the domestic economy is in a deplorable state, much like Portugal with its Brazilian gold a lot of Spanish silver flowed towards other countries as a result of trade deficits. Hilariously Philip IV's chronicler boasted about that trade deficit in the late 17th century "Let London manufacture those fabrics of hers to her heart’s content; Holland her chambrays; Florence her cloth; the Indies their beaver and vicuna; Milan her brocades: Italy and Flanders their linen, so long as our capital can enjoy them. The only thing it proves is that all nations train journeymen for Madrid and that Madrid is the queen of Parliaments, for the world serves her and she serves nobody.”
Furthermore the administration both in the colonies and in Spain was corrupt and inefficient which further squandered their potential. There were gradual reforms throughout the 18th century results each focussing on different aspects and eventually most of the problems were resolved, and Spain economy did improve towards the end of the century. But they still started around last place, and remained behind many other western European countries.

Spain had a large and strong global empire, and remained relevant in the overseas theatres. But in Europe Spain had very little weight to throw around despite said empire.​

Didn't Spain conquer Sardinia and Sicily very easily? As far as I know although they did not keep the territories, they passed to Philip's sons along with some Italian territories that were essentially Spanish puppets until Charles III.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Didn't Spain conquer Sardinia and Sicily very easily? As far as I know although they did not keep the territories, they passed to Philip's sons along with some Italian territories that were essentially Spanish puppets until Charles III.

That's kind of more damning of the Sardinian and Sicilian ruling families, tbh. While this was still a few decades before Ferdinand "I make my courtiers look in the chamber pot after I use it, lol" of Naples, I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest the rot had already set in.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

would it be at least at the Austrian level?

No. Austria, despite it's territorial loss to Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession, did quite well for itself in the 18th century, considerably expanding, developing a dynamic domestic economy, and being a leader in great power diplomacy.

 

[AsukaEMP]

Didn't Spain conquer Sardinia and Sicily very easily? As far as I know although they did not keep the territories, they passed to Philip's sons along with some Italian territories that were essentially Spanish puppets until Charles III.

Yes, because they took them from Savoy and Austria. The former was a minor power with no actual fleet and only a small garrison on Sicily, the latter had the bare minimum of a fleet, also only had a small garrisons on Sardinia, and was preoccupied with a war against the Ottomans. Literally any country with more than 5 ships of the line on their payroll could have taken those islands from them in 1718.

 

[Atrahasis]

They were still the third naval power, after Britain and France, the problem with that is that the gap between the Spanish and French navy was even bigger than the gap between the French and British navies; so it's not that impressive. As a land power it seems to depend, during the first half of the century they performed well in Italy, in the Polish and Austrian succession, but after that they were kind of fodder; maybe in 4th for the first half of the century and then 6th after the rise of Prussia and Russia. I'd say that they could be given the 4th place, only due to their navy.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Spain was in decline from the days of Philip IV.
The WoSS was decided by outsiders. The country couldn't even control its own destiny. Eventually, Philip V garnered enough support to stave off foreign invasion when France was whooped, and Britain/Austria had to invade to remove Philip from the throne. To be fair, the days of Carlos II, the bewitched, left the country leaderless, and it was somewhat of a civil war, with some factions/regions favoring the Habsburg candidate, and some the Bourbon. Spain, as a country was not really fighting anyone. Still, without France, Spain's 'civil war' would have been over in the blink of an eye. What Spain wanted at the time of Carlos' death was irrelevant.
War of Quadruple Alliance saw Spain whooped easily after early success in Sardinia (Austria) and Sicily (Savoy). This was largely due to British Naval power.
Anglo-Spanish War of mid-late 1720s was a bad loss.
War of Polish Succession was mixed. Spain easily took Sicily, but lost Parma. The Sicilians wanted out from the Austrian Empire, and made it easy for Spain in the name of Carlos. Britain stayed out of the conflict.
War of Jenkins Ear was a draw. Spain did well defending in South America, then Britain was decimated by tropical disease, and the fleet rotting in the tropics.
WoAS was mixed. Spain regained Parma for Philip V's son, Philip, but did poorly everywhere else. After being a major ally for France, they weren't consulted at the peace table.
7YW was flat out embarrassing. They failed to beat Portugal, then Britain booted them out, and took a bunch colonially.
They had at least one minor colonial war with Portugal with mixed results.
American Revolution was a success, but they let France do most of the fighting. Spain contributed materially, and navally. The great siege of Gibraltar was a massive failure. Spain badly botched gathering a French/Spanish Armada to start off opening hostilities.
War of the Pyrenees was another arse whooping, after a good initial start.
They backed down on multiple occasions to Britain whenever France refused to help (such as Nootka Crisis and Falklands Crisis). France was great at urging Spain to help further France's aims, but were either nowhere to be found (such as WoJE), or enemies (WoQA, WotP)
War of the Oranges was a success against Portugal, but the conflict was limited.
They were basically Napoleon's bitch until he had the idea he could put his brother on the throne. His defeat there came about because he failed to secure Lisbon, Portugal, and thus the British had a beach head to send men/supplies to retake the bulk of Portugal and then into Spain, where the people rose up against the foreign invaders. The military/ gov't of Spain was bested by the French.

Outside of WoJE, Britain had its way with Spain head to head, and mostly kept Spain from making gains in the wars where one group of alliances fought another. ARW was the only time Spain came out on top, and that was a war where it was Britain against a fairly wide alliance. To be fair, in its limited role (they wisely chose to not get too involved), Spain was a key contributor to Patriot success.

In the 18th century, Spain was a power, but it was a minor one. The Navy, outside a brief period around the ARW, was useless, regardless of what it may have looked on paper. The army was almost as bad. Perhaps this is overstating things, but not much. Corruption was everywhere in the gov't, armed forces, and in the colonies. So, in the ranks of the big boys, Spain was near, if not at, the bottom in terms of power.

 

[Elfwine]

In the 18th century, Spain was a power, but it was a minor one. The Navy, outside a brief period around the ARW, was useless, regardless of what it may have looked on paper. The army was almost as bad. Perhaps this is overstating things, but not much. Corruption was everywhere in the gov't, armed forces, and in the colonies. So, in the ranks of the big boys, Spain was near, if not at, the bottom in terms of power.

It sounds like a power living on the fact it has the forces to take effort to defeat, but quality seems consistently far from adequate from that record despite being able to put say, a decent number of ships in the water if counting sips of the line.

 

[unprincipled peter]

It sounds like a power living on the fact it has the forces to take effort to defeat, but quality seems consistently far from adequate from that record despite being able to put say, a decent number of ships in the water if counting sips of the line.

Napoleon once said Spain was too tough a nut to crack, so he refrained from trying. Then the incompetence of Carlos IV (under Godoy) and Ferdinand was so apparent that he figured, what the heck. He miscalculated the Spanish populace.

 

[SergiLannister]

Spain was in decline from the days of Philip IV.
The WoSS was decided by outsiders. The country couldn't even control its own destiny. Eventually, Philip V garnered enough support to stave off foreign invasion when France was whooped, and Britain/Austria had to invade to remove Philip from the throne. To be fair, the days of Carlos II, the bewitched, left the country leaderless, and it was somewhat of a civil war, with some factions/regions favoring the Habsburg candidate, and some the Bourbon. Spain, as a country was not really fighting anyone. Still, without France, Spain's 'civil war' would have been over in the blink of an eye. What Spain wanted at the time of Carlos' death was irrelevant.
War of Quadruple Alliance saw Spain whooped easily after early success in Sardinia (Austria) and Sicily (Savoy). This was largely due to British Naval power.
Anglo-Spanish War of mid-late 1720s was a bad loss.
War of Polish Succession was mixed. Spain easily took Sicily, but lost Parma. The Sicilians wanted out from the Austrian Empire, and made it easy for Spain in the name of Carlos. Britain stayed out of the conflict.
War of Jenkins Ear was a draw. Spain did well defending in South America, then Britain was decimated by tropical disease, and the fleet rotting in the tropics.
WoAS was mixed. Spain regained Parma for Philip V's son, Philip, but did poorly everywhere else. After being a major ally for France, they weren't consulted at the peace table.
7YW was flat out embarrassing. They failed to beat Portugal, then Britain booted them out, and took a bunch colonially.
They had at least one minor colonial war with Portugal with mixed results.
American Revolution was a success, but they let France do most of the fighting. Spain contributed materially, and navally. The great siege of Gibraltar was a massive failure. Spain badly botched gathering a French/Spanish Armada to start off opening hostilities.
War of the Pyrenees was another arse whooping, after a good initial start.
They backed down on multiple occasions to Britain whenever France refused to help (such as Nootka Crisis and Falklands Crisis). France was great at urging Spain to help further France's aims, but were either nowhere to be found (such as WoJE), or enemies (WoQA, WotP)
War of the Oranges was a success against Portugal, but the conflict was limited.
They were basically Napoleon's bitch until he had the idea he could put his brother on the throne. His defeat there came about because he failed to secure Lisbon, Portugal, and thus the British had a beach head to send men/supplies to retake the bulk of Portugal and then into Spain, where the people rose up against the foreign invaders. The military/ gov't of Spain was bested by the French.

Outside of WoJE, Britain had its way with Spain head to head, and mostly kept Spain from making gains in the wars where one group of alliances fought another. ARW was the only time Spain came out on top, and that was a war where it was Britain against a fairly wide alliance. To be fair, in its limited role (they wisely chose to not get too involved), Spain was a key contributor to Patriot success.

In the 18th century, Spain was a power, but it was a minor one. The Navy, outside a brief period around the ARW, was useless, regardless of what it may have looked on paper. The army was almost as bad. Perhaps this is overstating things, but not much. Corruption was everywhere in the gov't, armed forces, and in the colonies. So, in the ranks of the big boys, Spain was near, if not at, the bottom in terms of power.

The question is how "minor" it was, at that time obviously France and UK were the first two powers, the question is rather how Spain compared with countries such as Austria, Prussia and Russia.

 

[Math]

Spain had a serious mentality problem in my opinion, they had land, money and potential, but something changed in the Spanish psyche in the 17th century That they started making all the wrong decisions, You compare the Duke of Alba and his mentality with any Spanish ruler, General, administrator from the 17th centuries onwards and it is very different, Competence has declined a lot.

 

[Math]

Spain had a serious mentality problem in my opinion, they had land, money and potential, but something changed in the Spanish psyche in the 17th century That they started making all the wrong decisions, You compare the Duke of Alba and his mentality with any Spanish ruler, General, administrator from the 17th centuries onwards and it is very different, Competence has declined a lot.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757141445608104270

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749574211633361029

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791789121226039661

"A year later the Cavalry General don Luis de Velasco commented in a letter to the King on the enemy's growing proficiency:

"It is quite remarkable how much better soldiers the Dutch are now than at the time of the Duke of Alba and his successors. One of their soldiers today is worth twenty times as much as one from the early years. The Spanish infantry has also changed a great deal ... and there are now far fewer capable soldiers than there were then."

The change was already notable at that time,

 

[unprincipled peter]

The question is how "minor" it was, at that time obviously France and UK were the first two powers, the question is rather how Spain compared with countries such as Austria, Prussia and Russia.

The question is complicated.

There's power to defend yourself, ability to project power, nature of the alliances fighting with and against you, what year in the century, ability to provide troops with supplies, location of the fighting and a whole bunch of other things.

Take Britain. In the 18th century, they had a first rate Navy, but only a middling army. They concentrated on ruling the seas and preventing others from using the seas to attack Britain and/or their allies. Their army was not going to be much good at invading other countries, which they tried now and then against Spain. But they could finance other nations to do the fighting on land, while they assisted on land, and used the navy to prevent other countries from using the seas as a supply route. Put British troops and Spanish troops in a neutral field, it's more even, but that's not the way wars work.

There's no point in comparing Prussia or Russia with Spain. They're not going to be fighting each other. Magically put Prussia and Spain next to each other in the days of Frederick the Great (and probably his father), and Prussia wins that war hands down (sans intervention by others). Ask Prussia to beat Spain from their actual location, they can't get there. More or less ditto for Russia. In the 18th century, Spain was really only a major factor in the WoPS, during which the British, Dutch, and Prussians stayed at home. Spain was also a major factor in the ARW. Prussia and Russia, on the other hand, were major factors in all the wars they fought in. As allies, they were much more valuable than Spain on the European continent. Still, even though Spain didn't do all that well in WoAS, they did tie up Austrian resources, helping in part to cause Austria to call a truce with Prussia in the Silesian war. So does that make Spain powerful? Strictly colonially, neither Prussia or Russia were of much use.

With no intervention from the Quadruple Alliance, Spain probably takes Sardinia, Sicily, and then Naples. Spain tried taking Milan multiple times and were always defeated. Austria in the days of 7YW is a different beast than in the WoAS, with a much improved military.

Did any of the other bigger powers fear Spain? Not really.

 

[Hastings]

They were considered a great power, but frankly were near the very bottom. Their navy was third or so in importance, but well behind top 2. Their geography gave them good position at home and colonies often held up pretty well. In terms of their army, it was near the bottom. It was left with very little after War of Spanish Succession. Improved after that, but so did other powers. By Seven Years War, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia were all bigger and frankly more competent. British had smaller peacetime army but could expand to be at least as large in war-time especially with their network in northern Germany.

 

[raharris1973]

No. Austria, despite it's territorial loss to Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession, did quite well for itself in the 18th century, considerably expanding, developing a dynamic domestic economy, and being a leader in great power diplomacy.

Austria may have Spain's number on internal development, especially of Hungarian lands in this century.

Great power diplomacy leadership? Not so great in the lead in to War of Austrian Succession and during it, but a nice recovery from there, and one might call Kaunitz diplomacy after that effective. Austria still always needed to be subsidized.

Expansion? They're down one Silesia and up net one Banat of Temesvar and Galicia and New Galicia for the century, as compares with say, Alta California, claims further northwest, and Luisiana for Spain. While the latter are more vast and have greater potential, the former in Europe have more taxable subjects in the here and now.

So I guess your argument reasonably checks out, but it's close. I guess the biggest balance tipper would be the WotSS transfer of Spanish Netherlands (and Milan?) to Austria.

I would say the contrast of Austrian overperformance over Spanish would be even stronger in the 1600s than 1700s, because of Spanish stagnation and losses in the northern Netherlands, and in Jamaica and Hispaniola, Anglo-French-Dutch-Swedish breakthroughs in North America and the Caribbean, Spain needing to Humpty-dumpty put Catalonia back into the state, while Austria, despite facing much resistance in the Thirty Years War, finishes the century strong, with the liberation and and reintegration of Hungary.

And the 1500s would have been the opposite, Spanish-Castilians overperformance of Austrian-HRE, because of fabulous Spanish conquests throughout the Americas and Philippines, on the fringes of North Africa, combined with Austrian-Imperial losses to Protestants, Princes, and inability to make good their claim on Hungary and stem the Ottoman tide.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Expansion? They're down one Silesia and up net one Banat of Temesvar and Galicia and New Galicia for the century, as compares with say, Alta California, claims further northwest, and Luisiana for Spain. While the latter are more vast and have greater potential, the former in Europe have more taxable subjects in the here and now.

So I guess your argument reasonably checks out, but it's close. I guess the biggest balance tipper would be the WotSS transfer of Spanish Netherlands (and Milan?) to Austria.

Expansion, or contraction depends on when you want to check in to see how things are going. A hundred years is a long time. At different points, either country could be going up, or down. Same for diplomacy.

WoSS saw a massive loss of territory for Spain. Same with WoAS for Austria.

Technically, Spain didn't gain anything back.

I would put Austria well above Spain in the diplomacy department.
In WoSS Spain wasn't even consulted in the partition. Austria, while being forced to accept limited gains, and forced to cough up Bavaria, did have a say in the outcome.
Spanish diplomacy caused a breech with France during WoQA and France's regency period in general.
Anglo-Spanish war saw some laughably botched diplomacy in making an alliance with Austria. Spanish diplomacy led to a breech in relations with France just prior, depriving them of a potential source of support.
WoPS saw poor diplomacy with Savoy, resulting in far less gains than could have been had.
Spain was barely consulted at the peace table in WoAS.
Britain had some willingness to talk about returning Gibraltar, but Spain could never accomplish it.
Spain botched the diplomacy leading up to WoJE, leading to an avoidable war. Spain negotiated a defensive alliance with France that turned out to be useless in this war.
Spain was eagerly used by France in several wars, such as WoPS and WoAS.
Ferdinand wisely stayed out of 7YW, but then Carlos foolishly allowed himself to be maneuvered into joining the losing side AFTER the war was basically over.
Spain couldn't get any help in both the Falklands Crisis and Nootka Crisis.
Spain's diplomacy following the French Revolution caused France to declare the War of the Pyrenees.
Spain was used, abused, and pushed around by France after War of the Pyrenees, although, to be fair, their bad loss in that war left them very little room to maneuver.
ARW was Spain's shining moment of the century. They extracted concessions from France, and wisely limited their role, while France was being played like a fiddle by the Patriots.

Austria, despite the foolishness of garnering support for the Pragmatic Sanction, was mostly competent throughout the century. They played France like a fiddle in the Diplomatic Revolution. They did botch the diplomacy during the Partition Treaty talks, leading them to be excluded. They managed, with one brief exception, to provide the Emperor for the Holy Roman Empire. And while they didn't always get their way, they were always sitting at the peace table during their wars, something Spain could only accomplish on occasion.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Great power diplomacy leadership? Not so great in the lead in to War of Austrian Succession and during it, but a nice recovery from there, and one might call Kaunitz diplomacy after that effective. Austria still always needed to be subsidized.

I mainly meant that Austria was never a subordinate the way Spain was for most of the 1700s.