Five Historical Mistakes That Held Back Spain

The Five Mistakes That Weighed Down Spain

Imagine if Spain could rewind history. Where should it cut? One user lists five failures that, in their view, explain why the country was late to almost everything: the Arab conquest of 711, colonization based on mestizaje, the Bourbon victory in the War of Succession, the lack of widespread Industrial Revolution, and the Franco dictatorship. The thesis isn't new, but the breakdown is interesting: it argues the Visigoths should have resisted Muslim advances better, a "British-style" conquest would have sufficed by settling the Southern Cone and Caribbean islands, and Franco should have lost World War II with the Axis so Spain could join the Marshall Plan like other defeated nations.

The conversation quickly moved to rougher ground. Some argue the error wasn't occupation itself, but dependence on the Vatican and the absence of a liberal revolution like those of 1688 or 1789. Others claim exactly the opposite: that Francoism was a necessity, not a mistake, and the real burden came later with the 1978 system. Meanwhile, a third group points to the Napoleonic invasion as the true point of no return: the Spain born after it, they say, was already something else.

Why Blame the Arab Conquest for Spanish Lag?

The first point claims centuries of Muslim presence hindered the country's evolution, comparing it to France, Germany, Britain, or Italy, which supposedly didn't face this issue. The most common response is that the Reconquista forged a national identity that other regions took centuries to develop, and contact with Europe never broke: the Camino de Santiago and the Marca Hispánica maintained cultural ties. The Arab footprint, it is argued, was removed first in 1492 and then in 1609.

Some go further, stating the error wasn't the invasion, but Visigothic weakness that allowed it. Ostrogoths resisted in Italy; Hispanic Visigoths did not. It's a counterfactual judgment, but useful for remembering that in 711 there was no national project to defend.

American Mestizaje vs. the British Model

The second point is the most uncomfortable. It claims mestizaje "doesn't work," bringing only misery and violence, and suggests settlement colonization in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, plus Caribbean-style slave plantations, would have been preferable. The strongest demographic rebuttal notes that indigenous peoples in Mesoamerica and the Andes were too numerous and concentrated, while North American natives were few and dispersed. An extermination plan wouldn't have been realistic or beneficial for wealth creation. It's also recalled that New Spain had universities when English colonists were still struggling.

The discussion drifts into pure counterfactuals: What if Spain hadn't lost Florida and Louisiana due to Napoleon, or if Mexico hadn't ceded Texas? Unanswerable questions, but they highlight that the problem wasn't just how colonization peine, but how territories were lost.

War of Succession and the Cost of Being a Satellite

The third error targets 1714. The Bourbon victory allegedly turned Spain into a French satellite despite being a power, comparable to today's Russia-China relationship. With the Habsburgs, ties with the Germanic world might have been closer, possibly avoiding the next listed mistake.

Little development trinc, but it fits a theme running through the debate: Spain has often been a supporting actor, and every time it was, it lost. The problem is the Habsburg alternative guaranteed nothing either: the War of Succession was an imperial dispute where Spaniards were the board, not the player.

Industrialization That Never Spread

The fourth point is technical and least contested. Catalonia, the Basque Country, and Asturias industrialized successfully, but the phenomenon didn't spread. The proposal creates two corridors—Oviedo-Santander-Bilbao and Bilbao-Zaragoza-Barcelona—to pull in Aragon, Navarre, and northern Castile. It's a counterfactual exercise, but highlights a verifiable fact: Spain's industrial map was always an archipelago, never a continent.

Franco, the Marshall Plan, and Lost Opportunity

The fifth error sparks the most controversy. The argument holds that the dictatorship was anachronistic in democratic, capitalist Europe, and optimal would have been for Franco to win the Civil War, enter WWII with the Axis, lose, and allow US-tutored democracy with the Marshall Plan. Responses defend the regime, arguing without it, Spain couldn't recover from two centuries of failed republics and stupid monarchies, claiming the 1978 system revived problems solved by November 1975.

Counterarguments state the Civil War resulted from 19th-century tensions—social issues, regionalism, Church, Marxism, empire loss—and Francoism was part of the disaster. The metaphor used: we fell so low that reaching the twentieth floor seemed like success.

---

One data point is disorienting. In 1492, the year Jews were expelled, Spain began its path to hegemony. Two centuries later, it was a political and economic dwarf. The correlation is tempting.