TheGrandExquisitor t1_izgcq6v wrote
Reply to comment by raori921 in Why is the Spanish colonial empire often said/implied to be "less focused on trade" or "not prioritising trade" compared to other empires like the Dutch, British, Portuguese etc.? by raori921
Many people aren't taught the link between the reconquista and Spanish colonial efforts. Granada fell to the Spanish in January, 1492. That was the last Muslim outpost in the Iberian peninsula.
Columbus landed in the New World in October, 1492.
Now, think about this. You have a bunch of trained soldiers just hanging out. They just took the last bit of territory in Spain and had little to do. Which is always a dangerous thing. Especially since soldiers would often work for whomever offered the best pay/looting.
Columbus comes back and...oh, look, we found a whole new group of "dark skinned heathens." So, they just moved the fight to the New World.
If Spain hadn't had a large, well trained, army that was looking to kill for Jesus, I think trade would have been more of a priority.
Conversely, when the English started settling the east coast of America, they came in often expecting to trade. In fact they expected to trade like they had in England. Early on, they ran into problems because the natives weren't idiots. The English would soak a newly contacted area with European goods that they traded for food and furs. Which created problems. One example was iron pots. One settlement used iron pots as trade goods. Which is great until everyone has a freaking iron pot! To top it off, the native population wasn't willing to trade for food if it meant they'd go hungry. Starvation isn't worth an iron pot. This literally caused the English to raid for food.
Interesting contrast.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments