Imperios del mundo atlántico: España y Gran Bretaña en América (1492-1830)

by J.H. Elliott

El prestigioso historiador John H. Elliott identifica y explica en este libro tanto las similitudes como las diferencias que se dieron en el proceso colonizador, en el carácter de las sociedades coloniales, en los estilos distintivos del gobierno imperial, y en el desarrollo de los movimientos que condujeron a la independencia. Elliott explica cómo las estructuras políticas, económicas y sociales de la América española y de la británica acabaron pareciéndose a pesar de las diferencias que las separaban, y cómo todavía influyen en la América del siglo XXI.
Imperios del mundo atlántico es el relato definitivo de la épica colonización europea de las Américas.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, European History, Spain, American History, World History, British Literature

1127 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 15, 2006

About the author

Sir John Huxtable Elliott, FBA, was an English historian, Regius Professor Emeritus at the University of Oxford and Honorary Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford and Trinity College, Cambridge. He published under the name J.H. Elliott.

Elliott was educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge. He was an assistant lecturer at Cambridge University from 1957 to 1962 and Lecturer in History from 1962 until 1967, and was subsequently Professor of History at King's College, London between 1968 and 1973. In 1972 he was elected to the Fellowship of the British Academy. Elliott was Professor in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey from 1973 to 1990, and was Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford between 1990 and 1997.

He held honorary doctorates from the Autonomous University of Madrid (1983), the universities Genoa (1992), Portsmouth (1993), Barcelona (1994), Warwick (1995), Brown University (1996), Valencia (1998), Lleida (1999), Complutense University of Madrid (2003), College of William & Mary (2005), London (2007), Charles III University of Madrid (2008), Seville (2011), Alcalá (2012), and Cambridge (2013). Elliott is a Fellow of the Rothermere American Institute, University of Oxford, of whose Founding Council he was also a member.

Elliott was knighted in the 1994 New Year Honours for services to history and was decorated with Commander of Isabella the Catholic in 1987, the Grand Cross of Alfonso the Wise in 1988, the Grand Cross of Isabella the Catholic in 1996, and the Creu de Sant Jordi in 1999. An eminent Hispanist, he was given the Prince of Asturias Prize in 1996 for his contributions to the Social sciences. For his outstanding contributions to the history of Spain and the Spanish Empire in the early modern period, Elliott was awarded the Balzan Prize for History, 1500–1800, in 1999.

His studies of the Iberian Peninsula and the Spanish Empire helped the understanding of the problems confronting 16th- and 17th-century Spain, and the attempts of its leaders to avert its decline. He is considered, together with Raymond Carr and Angus Mackay, a major figure in developing Spanish historiography.

Reviews

[Olethros · Rating 3 out of 5]

-Intentaba afrontar una empresa muy compleja y extensa.-

Género. Ensayo.

Lo que nos cuenta. El libro Imperios del mundo atlántico (publicación original: Empires of the Atlantic World. Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830, 2006) es un acercamiento a la colonización de América por parte de Inglaterra y España en busca de paralelismos y diferencias en cuanto a los mecanismos, formas y resultados que ambas naciones tenían, usaron y obtuvieron.

¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:

http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...

[Nancy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Again, reading on my Kindle. Lots and lots of interesting factoids. I'm reading it in conjunction with Don Quixote. I'm pretty interested in Spanish culture mostly because I love travelling in Spain. If you haven't been to Andalusia, you have to go. This is a great antidote to the ultra-Anglophilic history of my youth.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 5 out of 5]

'In the hands of the erudite Professor Elliott, we are swept through three and a half centuries of dramatic historical transformation during which relatively small numbers of determined Europeans conquered, depopulated, and reconstructed the Western Hemisphere. Rejecting one-dimensional causalities, this eminent British historian draws complex interactions among metropolitan traditions, local circumstances, geography, demography, and leadership skills, and his stimulating what ifs leave space for human choice. In masterly, fluid prose, Elliott is constantly comparing, juxtaposing, and interweaving the two stories of the British and Spanish empires; he persuasively debunks and blurs conventional distinctions, as between the alleged British Empire of commerce and the Spanish empire of conquest, finding instead fascinating points of resemblance. Still, notwithstanding his attention to complexities and his admirable efforts to be fair to the Spanish tradition and to draw attention to the innumerable horrors of British colonial rule, Elliott's main thrust is familiar: the British colonial institutions of representative government, civil liberties, and religious pluralism contrasted with Spanish authoritarianism, bureaucratic centralism, and militant Catholicism -- laying the foundations for the success of the United States and the frustrations of Latin America. George Washington could draw on an inherited political culture, whereas Simón Bolívar had to invent one.'

Review from Foreign Affairs

[Jacob]

I had to cram this down one weekend in college. I remember thinking it was smart, and now that I'm spending some more time learning about Cuban history and Cuban music I'd love to revisit this.

[Rui · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've translated this book from English to Chinese last year for a publisher in China but I don't know when it will be published.

[Erik Champenois · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Empires of the Atlantic World" is a wonderful comparative treatment of British and Spanish imperialism in the Americas. It's not a complete treatment of all British and Spanish possessions as the mainland is particularly emphasized. It's also not a general chronological treatment of the history of British America or Spanish America and is best appreciated after reading more general histories first. It is however a wonderful comparative treatment of what made the British and Spanish Atlantic empires similar and different.

A few takeaways from the many themes covered here include: the nature of British and Spanish colonialism in the New World was a natural outgrowth of British and Spanish colonialism, conquests, and governance structures in the Old World. Spain had the advantage of being first in the New World whereas Britain had the advantage and disadvantage of arriving later. Sparser indigenous population levels in British North America combined with a perceived overpopulation in England led to more massive British than Spanish immigration. The more centralized nature of central Spanish rule resulted in a post-colonial order that was very different from the more local and decentralized nature of British rule. In contrast to the independence of the United States, Latin American independence was more the result of the collapse of the center - from the Napoleonic wars - than of central pressures on the periphery.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-researched comparative history (actually a textbook), concerned mainly with the two powers’ differences in empire-building.

Elliot distinguishes Spain as an “empire of conquest.” He describes how Spanish settlers intermingled with the locals and how this led to the rise of a Creole population, while English settlers remained more aloof. He also covers how Spain managed to exploit its colonies for silver and how this fortune allowed them to build a vibrant culture in America, how they struggled to control their far-flung possessions, and how they preferred to have Catholics settle the land.

Elliot calls England an “empire of commerce.” He describes how English naval power protected English colonies from foreign interference while simultaneously allowing them to experiment with politics, reconcile different groups, and seek peace with the indigenous tribes, although they generally avoided making religious conversion a priority or bothered too much with giving them legal protections. Elliott also writes of the religious diversity of these colonies. Elilot's narrative mostly tells the reader “how” all these developments happened, but has less to say on “why.” Also, there is little on the exploration period.

An insightful, well-written, and well-organized work.

[Arbitrista · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating comparison of the British and Spanish colonial empires, it demonstrates the tremendous role that chance played in the development of British and Spanish America. Both empires were conditioned by the facts on the ground (particularly the presence of large, urbanized native populations to serve as a labor force, as well as of precious metals) and the nation's previous colonial experience (whether in Ireland or Andalusia). As Elliott teasingly describes, history would have taken a profoundly different path if Henry VII rather than Ferdinand and Isabella had commissioned Columbus to sail west.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting but boring at the same time. I guess the main problem is it's too dense.

[Carlos Casanueva Nardiz · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a very comprenhensive and complete book. Very useful to understand better the american history and the roles of Spain and Great Britain. However, I have not been to finish It.

[Abby Stallard]

a tank

[Cheri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dense and intriguing, Empires of the Atlantic World is a comparative colonial history of Spain and Britain in America. A bold undertaking by Elliott, an expert on Spanish history, who attempted to write some sort of pan-American history albeit only on the region’s colonization aspect (there are not many essays on the indigenous Americans in this book). I enjoy reading this book although from time to time, Elliott’s narratives can get a bit academic and dry but overall his essays are easy to follow. Since Elliott is a Hispanist and has published many works on Spanish history, naturally, I can tell that Elliott’s knowledge about the Spanish side of Central and South America’s conquest is far superior to his British knowledge of North America’s colonization.

We knew what drove these conquistadores, explorers, entrepreneurs, and settlers who risked their lives on a long voyage to reach the Americas but what intrigued me was what’s their perspective, thought-process, and how would they manage the land that they found? As shown by Elliott, the Spaniards and the British had two different ideas on the promised land that so captivated their mind and their differing continental background (one on the Iberian peninsula and the other on the British Isle) also played a part in how they dealt with the land and the original inhabitants of Americas. Imaginations are far more beautiful than reality, the colonization of North, Central, and South Americas were rife with inequality, brutal warfare, diseased conditions, and of course, social degradation. The indigenous inhabitants of the Americas and the African slaves suffered the most as their worth as human beings was reduced for the justification of their enslavement of their persons and lands.

Still, it’s interesting to learn that the Spaniards and the many states founded by the British settlers on American soil differ on how they treat these new, different peoples and how they work the lands. The Spaniards tended to be welcoming as long as these peoples incorporated themselves into the hierarchical Spanish society and its established laws as the Spanish Empire itself was a composite monarchy (Castile, Aragon, Portugal, and Catalonia). Whereas the British colonies were a bit more experimental. Some states were being used solely for farms and profits (its produce was intended for massive commercial exports), laboured by many slaves in dire conditions. Some states, like Pennsylvania, were founded as safe havens for those fleeing religious persecutions from Continental Europe (such as Anabaptists, Amish, Quakers, Huguenots, Puritans) and whose founding reason was to create a place so pure in faith (and faithful to biblical doctrines) and away from the tainted vices of the old world (where religion and politics are always intermingled).

“In the eyes of William Penn and his fellow Quakers the ‘Inner Light’ that guided them was not simply reserved for a select few but was to be found in everyone. This meant that the new colony, unlike Massachusetts, was designed from the start not only as a place of refuge for persecuted members of a single religious group but for all believers in God who wished to live together in harmony and fellowship.”
“From the start, however, Pennsylvania offered itself as a haven both for the economically aspiring and the religiously distressed. As the news spread back in Europe, a growing streams of immigrants, many of them arriving with their families, landed in Philadelphia to build for themselves new and better lives — British and Dutch Quakers, Huguenots expelled from the France of Louis XIV, Mennonites from Holland and the Rhineland, Lutherans and Calvinists from south-west Germany. As prospective settlers they looked forward to establishing their own independent family farms, which they would build up through hard work and mutual support. As God-fearing Protestants, they would enjoy, many of them for the first time, the right to worship as they wished, without fear of persecution.” ~Chapter 7: America as Sacred Space, page 211 & 213.

The Birth of Pennsylvania in 1680 painted by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris. It depicted the authorization given to William Penn to establish a colony on the North American soil. Penn is seen holding a document (possibly a royal decree granted by King Charles II of Britain).

This is perhaps why we see the connectedness of Central and South America’s cultures (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, etc.) with those of Spain and Portugal. Historically, Spaniards tended to incorporate them into their empire whereas the British settlers saw the vast American lands to experiment with a wholly new and different system from continental Europe. And yet, of all the promises and dreams the new continent offered, the racial, social, and gender discrimination existed deeper than the old world. Not every subject was allowed to reach American soil (notably the Jews and Moors) and even if they were finally granted permission, they were prohibited to own a land.

"Jews, Moors, gypsies and heretics were all forbidden entry to the Indies. In the earlier years of colonisation it was possible to find ways around these prohibitions, but evasion became more difficult after 1552, when it was decreed that potential immigrants must furnish proof from their home towns and villages of their limpieza de sangre, demonstrating the absence of any taint of Jewish or Moorish blood.” ~Chapter 2: Occupying American Space, page 51.

Empires of the Atlantic World is definitely a good book and worth reading although to put two differing nations with its unique historical background in one book is definitely not enough. The information presented feels cramped. Perhaps, if Elliott published it in two volumes, (one for the British colonization of North America and the other for the Spaniard colonization of Central and South America) it could give a breathing space for readers.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the sort of sprawling, deeply insightful book that well deserves the adjective of magisterial.  Although the author himself freely admits that his comparative history of the Atlantic empires of England/Great Britain and Spain is selective and does not include a great deal of attention on important aspects of the worlds of both empires, this is still a work of incredible ambition and achievement.  In its skeletal framework, this is a classic work of comparative history, comparing and contrasting the fate of the English and Spanish empires over the long duration of time from the "discovery" of the Americas by Columbus in 1492 to the successful gaining of independence of the mainland Spanish Empire after the decisive battle of Ayacucho in 1824 and the subsequent division of the successor states into the smaller nations of Spanish Latin America that we are still familiar with today.  To be sure, many readers will be familiar with aspects of this story [1] from reading other books that look at part of this story or look at it with less detail, but few authors attempt the sheer scope of chronicling the fate of two Empires that were somewhat intertwined even if politically distinct and even hostile over much of their history.

This book of slightly more than 400 pages is divided into three parts and twelve chapters of comparison and contrast between the British and Spanish Atlantic empires.  The first four chapters examine the process of occupation (I) in the two empires, with a discussion of the contrast between Cortès and Newport and their motives and methods for intruding into Mexico and Virginia, respectively (1), along with a discussion of the occupation of space symbolically, physically, and through effective settlement (2), the confrontation through coexistence and segregation between European settlers and indigenous peoples (3), and the exploitation of native resources in a transatlantic economy (4).  The second part of the book discusses the consolidation of both empires (II) with a discussion of the framework of the empires and the nature of central authority and local resistance (5), followed by a discussion of hierarchy within the colonial societes as well as concerns over social antagonism and the ambition of emerging local elites (6), a look at the Americas as a sacred space with discussions of providence, religious plurality, and the relationship between church and state (7), as well as an examination of the question of empire and identity and the balance between transatlantic and local identities among settlers in both empires (8).  The third and final part of the book consists of a discussion of emancipation in the two empires (III) with chapters on expanding societies on the move and importing slave labor (9), the drive for reform in the eighteenth century in both empires that sought to redefine imperial relationships (10), the crisis that was contained in Spanish America but which led to the rupture of the British empire (11), and the search for liberty and the end of the Spanish empire that led to a new world of independent American states in the making (12).

In reading this book, one gets a sense of the author's interest in the relationships and ramifications of behavior.  Overall, the author seeks to avoid sprawling cliches and shows himself to be a master of a lot of relevant and somewhat obscure sources that include imperial archives as well as matters of local governance in the Spanish and British empires.  The author is, moreover, an astute student of intellectual history, noting that different Enlightenment thinkers were favored in the two empires--I think the United States lucked out by having its founders not be fond of Rousseau, but others may disagree--and that the salutary neglect of the British for the colonies over a long stretch of time made the conflict between the two all the more severe when rupture came in the eighteenth century in the aftermath of the French & Indian War.  Of particular note, though, the book is full of a sense of tragedy in that the Spanish and British empires could not manage to effectively manage the hopes and expectations of settler populations for being fully respected citizens of the empire, and those same local elites were caught in a bind that still remains between their demands for dignity and honor and their inability to deal successfully with their own role in fostering inequality within their own local provincial societies either under empire or in the period after successfully winning their independence.  This book does not perpetuate black legends against the Spanish empire or whitewash the problems of either imperial or settler societies, but it is full of complexity and leaves the reader with a great deal of deep and thoughtful questions about empire and how it went wrong.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

[Kevy Nathalie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good insight on a comparation between Spain & Great Britain's colonization of America. It gives the impression that it's biased but when yoh finish it you see that it doesn't. Gives you a lot of detail and a bunch of reference. Great for historians and economists interested in the topic.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent story and highly recommended.

[Bernard English · Rating 4 out of 5]

Elliot seamlessly switches from describing the development of the Spanish and British Atlantic empires, which makes for faster reading then if he had focused on just one. He writes that "the winning of independence by Spanish South America contrasted sharply with the winning of independence in the British colonies." We know the outcome was a superpower in one case and rather unstable countries in the other case. But what made the difference?

Despite the long running Black Legend with its roots in the 17th century colonial propaganda (e.g., J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur), blaming the Spanish inheritance for the difference, Elliot gives a fair hearing and considers many factors:
*The American colonies had a richer political tradition with representative assemblies and English liberties than the Spanish Americans with their "city councils dominated by small, self-perpetuating oligarchies."
*the disadvantages of the first mover--Spain really had no model to follow; contrariwise the British could learn to avoid some of the Spanish mistakes
*far sparser Indian population facing the British territories who tended to be exclusionist and pushed into Indian territory while pushing Indians out, compared to the Spanish who, in often cruel ways, were inclusionists and proceeded to Christianize and Indians and include them in a complex hierarchical system, referred to as the casta system in Spanish in which every type of mixed race offspring got some designation such as mestizo, mulatto, and zambo among many others.
*the large size of the Spanish colonies comprising some 15 to 16 million inhabitants (old estimate by Alexander von Humboltd) living in about 5 million square miles compared to the few hundreds of thousands in the 322,00 square miles of the thirteen mainland British colonies. Attempts at some larger political units were therefore harder. The Federal Republic of Central America was a merger of six states but only lasted from 1823 to 1841.
* America's independence movement got help from France, but a generation later, the Spanish rebels got no such help leading to far more drawn out savage liberation movements that left their scars on the continent.
* The Spanish authorities were far better able to restrict the reading material of its territories. In addition to censorship there were simply far fewer printing presses available compared to the number in the English territories. Newspapers were irregular in Spanish America whereas the British colonies were "already supporting twelve newspapers by 1750."

Elliott covers many of the similarities and differences between the Spanish and British Atlantic empire, making it clear how complicated rule from across the Atlantic was and how many factors went into the eventual revolutionary movements across both the northern and southern continent of America. In particular, he gives due emphasis to contingent factors.

[Zack Whitley · Rating 5 out of 5]

An illuminating look at the Spanish and British colonies in the Americas. Elliott's writing is somewhat stilted but he is presenting fact-dense material and he provides astute analysis. Elliott basically shows how Spain's "empire of conquest" was quite different from the more commercial system the British established. And he shows how the American revolution was a result of British interference in the colonies, but the Latin American revolutions were the result of the collapse of Spain following Napoleon's invasion. His conclusion paints a picture of a very lucky United States and a mostly unlucky collection of Latin American countries following their independence. But as he says, it could have all been quite different.

The only quibble I have is that Elliott claims the British observed and learned from the Spanish experience. I don't really think this is true and I don't really think he showed this to be the case. I think most of what happened in the colonizing experience in Anglo and Latin America was more the result of very specific circumstances and many many small decisions.

Some of the differences:
-Spain's colonies focused on natural resource extraction in areas heavily populated by indigenous people. British settlers in North America felt like the land they were settling was empty (or almost empty) and they focused on farming and fishing and hunting.
-Spanish settlers lived in cities and towns, including some that were quite large, as rural areas remained mostly American Indian. British settlers were much more rural, usually living on farms in small towns and villages. Cities in North America were dramatically smaller than their Latin counterparts.
-British settlers tended to arrive in family units (ie. many women were immigrating). Spanish settlers were overwhelmingly male and they tended to take Indian or African wives.
-Spain controlled its colonies from Madrid, sending administrators to the colonies for terms and when the term ended, the administrators and their family and attendants tended to return to Spain. This meant that, in the diverse society of Latin America, it was always a group of Spaniards at the top of the hierarchy. British settlers were left to self-rule and generally set up voting systems to make rules.
-British settlers (and later German, Dutch and other protestant European settlers) did not mix with Indians and later with Africans. Spanish settlers tended to intermarry and live side-by-side with people of other ethnic backgrounds. This made Spanish colonies racially diverse but also set up racial hierarchies of status which undermined unity when independence came. British settlers' exclusionary practices had the effect of unifying them when the revolution happened.

[Patrick Link · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterful work that covered a lot of ground with clear contrasts and comparisons, Elliott's work wove both Spanish and English empires together while keeping their great differences apparent. I particularly liked the writing style, very readable, and the developmental format that kept the two stories running together. At no point did switching between the two cultures seem awkward; the transitions were seamless. Fundamental aspects of the societies, the legacy of central control and contractural relationship of Spanish lands and the lack of focus and salutary neglect of British lands were reenforced in detail. Speaking of detail, the 35 pages of bibliography had pointed me in the direction of more works that I'll probably spend years investigating, and the 67 pages of notes were well perused. I've read a work by Elliott on Spain before and his writing style and organization in that work and this make for an effortless and engaging read.

[Rudyard L. · Rating 3 out of 5]

If this book was even half as dry as it was, I would have given it 5 stars automatically considering my enormous bias towards this era. The material in this book is really fascinating and dramatic. It basically asks the great question of why Mexico and the US turned out so differently even though they were both colonized by Western European nations around the same time. However the style was very slow and clinical. I got the impression the writer took no joy writing this and was trying to make it as “academic” as possible. The however does do the job it set out to do and supplies all the facts but does so in a quite workmanlike manner.

[Caterina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Studio Storia all'università e questo libro mi è stato consigliato dal professore di Storia Moderna. L'ho trovato molto utile e dettagliato. Adatto a chi è interessato a sapere di più sulla storia americana dalla sua scoperta.

[Boone Ayala · Rating 5 out of 5]

Elliot seeks to explain why the Spanish American Empire was an "empire of conquest" whereas the British Empire in the Atlantic was an "empire of commerce." He pushes back against classical "Black Legend" arguments that the differences were merely a result of culture and national character, and attributes them primarily to "accidents both of environment and timing" (28).

Following Louis Hartz, Elliot argues that the colonies were "fragments of the larger whole of Europe" but that, while "the moment of 'fragmentation' - of the founding of a colony - constituted a defining moment for the self-imaginging, and consequently for the emerging character, of [...] overseas societies," there were crucial differences between the Spain of the late 15th/early 16th century and England of the early 17th Century (xiv, xvii). Over the course of the century following Spanish colonization, England "saw the establishment of Protestantism as the official faith [...], a notable reinforcement of the place of parliament in English national life, and changing European ideas about the proper ordering of states and their economies" (xvii). The onset of the Reformation of England was. by the early 17th century, somewhat unsteady - "England under Elizabeth was moving, however reluctantly, in the direction of religious pluralism" - and the colonies provided a vent for the transfer of these "minority and libertarian elements" which led to colonial diversity (24). Castille, which had just successfully ousted the moors from Granada, was instead determined "to prevent the migration of Jews, Moors, and heretics to the Indies" (24).

Perhaps even more important then when colonies were founded is where. The Spanish Empire possessed "the easiest forms of wealth - silver and Indians" from the beginning (21). The presence of large mineral wealth deposits, and large, densely populated indigenous civilizations, both encouraged intervention from the center. By papal bull the Spanish crown was "the ultimate authority when it came to the protection of the Indians and the protection of their souls." As importantly, "the Indians were a source of tribute and of labour, and the crown was determined to have its share of both" (22). The presence of silver, meanwhile, "turn[ed] Castile's possessions in the Indies into a great reservoir of riches." "The consequent concern for the exploitation of its silver deposits and the safe annual shipment of the bullion to Seville was therefore translated into continuing attention to the affairs of the Indies..." (23).

The English settlements, by contrast, lacked mineral wealth and encountered considerably less dense indigenous populations (owing to both disease and differing political structures). "The lack of silver and indigenous labour in these early British settlements forced on the settlers a developmental as against an essentially exploitative rationale; and this in turn gave additional weight to those qualities of self-reliance, hard work, and entreprenuership that were assuming an increasingly prominent place in the national self-imagining and rhetoric of 17th-century England" (27). The absence of easy money limited royal interest, so that "the British crown maintained a relatively low profile in the crucial opening stages of colonial development" (27).

The remainder of the book is principally concerned with tracing how these societies develop and play out, but they always do so against the backdrop of the claims Elliot makes in the beginning about timing and environment. Yet I do have a few questions:
1) if the presence of large wealth stimulated metropolitan intervention, why did the crown not exert a greater influence over the Caribbean and Carolina colonies, where lucrative sugar and rice would have provided motivation for domination?

2) Building somewhat off that, how much of this is biased towards earlier settlements? Particularly in the English case, Elliot focuses on Virginia and New England (mainly Massachusetts Bay), founded between 1607 - 1630. Yet new colonies were being settled by the English in the Atlantic for the next century. Especially considering that the crown was actively trying to assert its sovereignty as early as the 1660s, what accounts for Georgia's autonomy? Why do the first couple of colonies get to set the tone for their successors?

3) Similarly, what of those regions of Spain's American Empire that were more commercially orientated and less urban? Did the crown (and the church) take a lesser interest in extending power here? Are we really talking, perhaps, not about the identity of an empire, but the identity of particular colonies, founded at different times?

I suppose the thrust of these questions is I would have liked more intra-imperial comparisons to showcase how metropolitan interest waxed and waned over time and space. I think this work has considerable value in showcasing the possible cause for the distinction between the Spanish and American Empires, but it doesn't completely satisfy, because the places the work focuses on are the areas the thesis is most likely to be true. No doubt this is a result of the scope of the volume, but I'd need to read follow-up works to judge the ultimate significance of time and environment.

[Nagapriya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generally I enjoyed this. Very nicely written. At times it got a bit dense and even boring. Perhaps more could have been said about the human tragedy of slavery in the Americas - there is not much detail on it.

[Richard Locke · Rating 4 out of 5]

After a trip to Mexico, I wanted a better understanding of the history of the Americas. This is a very good - and indeed epic - compare-and-contrast history, which gives a good and thought-provoking insight into the current differences between the north and south.

[Luis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like any academic history, it can get tedious at times, but it's extremely informative.

[Sebastian Meythaler · Rating 5 out of 5]

,

[Felipe Mella · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesante y muy completo análisis comparativo entre las empresas imperialistas transatlánticas de dos potencias que durante siglos compitieron por la supremacía en Europa.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A readable and illuminating account of an important period. Does much to explain how the development of North and South America differed, in ways that continue to affect the modern world

[DS25 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Testo complesso e maestoso, che segna il superamento di una storia del colonialismo dai tratti anglo-sassoni. A tratti un po' ripetitivo.

[Sue Lewin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting parallel history of North and South America.

[Devil’s advocate · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good model of comparative history of colonial empires.