Is Spain basically Vietnam?

[Roma_Victrix]

...In terms of hellish, endless, resource-draining guerrilla warfare, that is.
Napoleon Bonaparte once called the Peninsular War his "Spanish ulcer".

PROLOGUE: Yep, probably Vietnam
The Archaic Greeks who settled the eastern shores of Spain didn't bother to quell the interior too far beyond their major poleis such as Emporion, but they probably would have run into lots of headaches doing so. Let's take a look at a long list of reasons why invading and attempting to occupy Spain is a royal pain in the rear. It's honestly comparable to the situation the ancient and medieval Chinese often faced when attempting to conquer and hold northern Vietnam from the 2nd century BC onward, plus their failed attempts to take the Kingdom of Champa in southern Vietnam, or the colonial French and Cold War era Americans who came long after them.

For a quick summary of the Chinese domination of Vietnam, the Qin Chinese military officer Zhao Tuo established his own Kingdom of Nanyue (Nam Viet) in 214 BC over parts of southern China and northern Vietnam. China's Emperor Wu of Western Han conquered this vassal kingdom in 111 BC, but all was not well. The grueling guerrilla warfare there against the Chinese all started with the rebellion of the Trưng Sisters from 40 to 43 AD during the Eastern Han dynasty. This was followed by several rebellions over the next millennia that established native dynasties like the Early Ly (conquered by China's Sui dynasty in 602 AD) and finally the Ngo dynasty that managed to defeat the Southern Han Chinese at the Battle of Bach Dang in 938 AD. The Vietnamese won their independence! Or so they thought... The Chinese would be back for round four of their attempt to dominate Vietnam with the Ming conquest of the Ho dynasty in 1406, but true to character, the Vietnamese would use guerrilla tactics to drive out Ming dynasty Chinese troops by 1427, leading to the formation of the Later Le dynasty.

Perhaps the Chinese learned their lesson from the previous four rounds when they decided to keep it brief in the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, taking a few cities in the north in a punitive expedition before withdrawing and declaring victory in defense of their ally Cambodia (which Vietnam was then occupying). The French were certainly determined to hold onto Vietnam despite the natives' successful use of guerrilla warfare, which the Americans would soon discover in the Vietnam War, but for the sake or brevity I'm just going to assume you know about all of that already. Now, on to the Iberian Peninsula we go!

CARTHAGINIANS, ROMANS, CELTIBERIANS, AND LUSITANIANS:
Okay, really starting to look like Vietnam, you guys
* The Carthaginians expanded their control over large parts of the Iberian peninsula under Hamilcar Barca, the father of the famous Hannibal. However, Hamilcar died in 228 BC fighting the Vettoni tribes, drowning in a river perhaps after an ambush by a false friend and erstwhile ally of the Oretani tribe. That would be somewhat of a harbinger of things to come.

* In the Second Punic War (218 - 201 BC), Carthaginian troops and authorities were chased out of Spain by victorious Romans such as Publius Cornelius Scipio, later Scipio Africanus. However, the Roman Republic would have a hell of a time trying to hold let alone conquer the rest of the peninsula. The Celtiberian Wars (181 - 151 BC) were incredibly brutal and the natives terrorized the Romans with hit-and-run tactics. Meanwhile, the Lusitanians in what is now southern Spain and Portugal were led by a famous guerrilla leader Viriathus, who defied Roman rule in Hispania Ulterior. He was only felled after being betrayed and murdered by a few so-called companions in 139 BC.

* The Numantine War (143 - 133 BC) was again another bloody insurrection against Roman rule in Hispania Citerior, but after the people of the city of Numantia committed mass suicide to avoid slaughter or enslavement after a long siege, the peninsula was rather quiet for several decades...until the Sertorian War (80 - 72 BC). The Roman statesman Quintus Sertorius carried out a civil war against his political rival Sulla and became famous for his guerrilla tactics, relying on fellow Romans as well as Iberian natives to continue the fight. Much like Viriathus, he was largely unbeatable in the field and only taken down when assassinated by Marcus Perperna Vento, who in turn was defeated by Pompey the Great.

* A few decades after the dictatorship of Sulla came that of Julius Caesar, when Roman Hispania became the last of several staging grounds for a civil war against him after he crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC. Caesar dealt with Optimates in North Africa at the Battle of Thapsus in 46 BC, but he would still have to face Titus Labienus, one of his famous officers in Gaul, and Gnaeus Pompeius, son of Pompey the Great, who were leading the insurrection against him in Spain. At The Battle of Munda in 45 BC Caesar finally defeated their forces and returned to Rome in triumph.

* It's important to note that the Romans didn't even control all of Spain at this point, either. It wasn't until the reign of Augustus (27 BC - 14 AD) that a large northern chunk of the Iberian peninsula was finally militarily subdued and slowly assimilated into Roman culture. This occurred only after marshaling together a conquering force of eight legions and auxiliaries in the decade-long Cantabrian Wars (29 - 19 BC), and afterwards two Roman legions had to be permanently stationed there to ensure the peace. This mountainous northern region that was home to the Celtic Cantabri and Astures tribes will become relevant later as we enter the Middle Ages.

SUEBI, VISIGOTHS, EASTERN ROMANS/BYZANTINES, BASQUES, ARABS/MOORS, FRANKS, AND A FOOLISH CRUSADE AGAINST ARAGON:
Okay, is Spain located somewhere in Southeast Asia, like next to Vietnam?
* The Visigoths, foederati allies of the Romans in late antiquity, fought the Suebi for control of the Iberian peninsula. Under their king Euric the Visigoths also defeated the Romans at the Battle of Arles in 471 AD. Euric, previously considered a Roman legate, was recognized as an independent king by Western Emperor Julius Nepos in 475 AD, just a year before the Fall of the Western Roman Empire.

* In his civil war against king Agila I beginning in 549, the Visigothic usurper Athanagild invited the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) under Justinian I the Great to assist him. Unsurprisingly, Justinian's reinforcements took over much of southern Spain and planned to stay there, doing so for the next several decades but ultimately unable to maintain their toehold for very long (what a surprise). Meanwhile, in 585 the Visigoths under Athanagild's brother Liuvigild conquered the Kingdom of the Suebi in Portugal and led campaigns against the rebellious Basques up north in the Pyrenees. The Basques were a non-Indo European people who would remain a perennial problem for various generations of Spanish authorities into the modern age.

* The Umayyad Caliphate conquered the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain in 711, introducing Arab Islamic rule for the first time and leading to things like the Mozarabic Romance language spoken by Christians under Muslim rulers. However, the Arabs/Berbers/Moors made the mistake of trying to focus on Frankish Gaul instead of dealing with the last remnants of rebellious Christian forces gathering in that rocky region of the north we talked about earlier. In 718, the Visigothic nobleman Pelagius of Asturias founded the defiant Christian Kingdom of Asturias in that precise region where Augustus had finally squashed the Cantabri and Astures centuries before. Almost from the very onset of Islamic rule, the Spanish Reconquista had begun.

* The Franks under Charles Martel defeated the Umayyad governor of al-Andalus, al-Ghafiqi, at the Battle of Tours in 732, while his successor Pepin the Short secured Septimania and Aquitaine in southern Gaul. This allowed the Frankish ruler Charlemagne (crowned emperor of Romans by the pope in 800 AD and founder of the Carolingian Empire) to move his forces south of the Pyrenees to establish the March of Barcelona, or the Marca Hispanica, in 795. The regions of Catalonia and Aragon were subdued, with the county of Barcelona being completely taken by 801. Charlemagne also developed a political, religious, and military alliance with Alfonso II of Asturias in their attacks on the Moors of Andalusia, now under the Umayyad Emirate of Cordoba established by Abd al-Rahman I in 756 after the fall of the Umayyads to the Abbasid Caliphate.

* After Al-Hakam I scored a victory for the Emirate of Cordoba at Pancorbo in 816, defeating the pro-Frankish forces of Asturias, the wily Basque freedom fighter Íñigo Arista of Pamplona saw his chance to rise and became the first King of Pamplona, allying with the Banu Qasi dynasty of Muladi Muslim rulers along the Ebro river. They defeated the Carolingian Franks at the Battle of Roncevaux Pass in 824, the same place where they had once defeated Charlemagne in 778, and secured an independent Kingdom of Pamplona in the process.

* I could go into lengthy detail about the Reconquista slogging match between Asturias' Christian successors Leon and Castile against the Emirate of Cordoba, the Almoravid dynasty, the Almohad Caliphate, the Taifa kingdoms and Emirate of Granada, with complicated figures along the way like the 11th-century warrior El Cid who fought for both Muslim and Christian rulers, but I think you get the point, this post is getting way too long, and we need to cover Napoleon, goddamn it.

* Before that, however, I will mention the Aragonese Crusade (1284 - 1285) called by Pope Martin IV against Peter III of Aragon, part of the larger War of the Sicilian Vespers. The pope guaranteed Philip III of France that his son Charles, Count of Valois, would be bestowed with the Aragonese throne, but this would not come to pass, even as Philip took Girona and Charles was crowned there without an official crown of Aragon. The French naval fleet was wrecked at the Battle of Les Formigues by the Aragonese admiral Roger of Lauria and the French army suffered dysentery, which I would love to link to invaders of Vietnam suffering from malaria, but not the same thing. The French king died of dysentery just after reentering French territory, but his withdrawing troops traveling behind him were destroyed at the Battle of the Col de Panissars. On that note, the treacherous mountain range of the Pyrenees are basically the jungles of Vietnam, aren't they? Eventually, by 1291 the pope acquiesced, relinquished claims to Aragon as a fief, and acknowledged Peter's successor Alfonso III of Aragon as rightful ruler of his kingdom in the Treaty of Tarascon.

* Again, this post is already absurdly long, so I'm going to ignore conflicts like the War of the Spanish Succession, assume you know enough, and jump right into the Napoleonic period, which I know Oda Nobunaga (the 16th-century Japanese ghost turned Venezuelan Jew who haunts these forums) is going to criticize and I actually would like to see his input and comparison to Vietnam.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, HIS DOTING BROTHER JOSEPH BONAPARTE, AND THE DREADFUL PENINSULAR WAR
So, should we rename Vietnam as Spain or España as Vietnam? Maybe a unified country called Vietespañam?

* FINALLY! The part that I know all of you have been waiting for. By the love of Jesús H. Cristo de Nazaret, where do we begin with this cluster? If Vietnam is where the presidencies of Johnson and Nixon went to die, I guess the same could be said for Napoleon Bonaparte in Spain (or Russia, take your pick). More importantly, the Peninsular War (1808 - 1814) was a conflict that truly defined guerrilla warfare and hit-and-run tactics that would be mirrored by Spanish rebels against Franco more than a century later. Woe unto the French messengers or soldiers who became captives of the ragtag bandits/militias/guerrilla fighters of Spain, because oftentimes they didn't stay captives for very long and were just tortured to death instead. The French returned the favor with their own brutal methods of suppression (encapsulated by that famous painting The Third of May 1808 by Francisco Goya). The French got to practice plenty of that before facing guerrillas in French Indo-China!

* To quickly summarize the beginning of the conflict, France and Spain were allies, they invaded Portugal together in 1807, but France turned on Spain, toppled their monarchy under Ferdinand VII of Spain in 1808 and replaced it with the rule of Joseph Bonaparte ("José I of Spain"), the older brother of Napoleon Bonaparte who had already been made King of Naples and Sicily (replaced by Joachim Murat). At least half of all Spaniards did not accept his monarchy and many would die fighting to restore the Spanish monarchy, while others would be temporarily forced or persuaded to acknowledge him as their king following fleeting victories pushing French control south into Andalusia. This threatened British Gibraltar, held since the 1704 Anglo-Dutch capture on behalf of the Habsburgs during the War of the Spanish Succession and the British were already keen on defending their centuries-long ally of Portugal if not stabbing Napoleon in his Achilles heel in southwestern Europe.

* In 1810 André Masséna, the French champion against Naples and Austria, was able to score decisive victories in Spain such as the erstwhile capture of Almeida. However, in Portugal he ran into a brick wall, or literally one of forts and trenches, with the Lines of Torres Vedras constructed outside Lisbon by the Portuguese under their British supervisor Sir Richard Fletcher, 1st Baronet. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington eventually bested this Prince of Essling, who fled with starving troops after failing to penetrate this immense barrier and lost all of his previous gains. This earned him the ire of Napoleon, who would never again allow him to take up command of French forces.

* Masséna's reputation would hardly be the last one to die a horrible death in the Peninsular War, as various Spanish generals were humiliated by the French and their government in exile, the Cortes of Cádiz, remained under siege while the French held Madrid. However, the French failure to take Portugal or to dislodge the British meant a stalemate would last for years on the Iberian peninsula, with the French never quite being able to secure all of Spain. To make matters worse for Napoleon during his disastrous retreat from Russia in 1812, Wellington's forces, including British and British-trained Portuguese regulars, pushed deep into Spain, retaking Salamanca and Madrid. French Marshal Jean-Baptiste Jourdan was decisively defeated by Wellington and his British, Portuguese, and Spanish troops at the Battle of Vitoria in 1813.

* Remember those Pyrenees we talked about? Well goddamn it, much like the army of the French king Philip III during the Aragonese Crusade centuries before, in the early winter of 1814 Napoleon's Marshal Jean-de-Dieu Soult had to fight his way through a hail of bullets and harassment by the Brits/Portuguese/Spanish as he tried to withdraw back to France via this most treacherous of mountain ranges. Broken, tattered, lacking resources, suffering from exhaustion and starvation, the French troops finally made it back home. The French are gluttons for punishment, though, so they'd search for more of that in Vietnam more than a century later, followed by the Americans who were convinced that they would always be the punishers, not the punishees.

FERDINAND VII OF SPAIN, THE CARLIST CIVIL WARS, FRANCO AND THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR
Just when you thought I was done, huh? The colonists in French Indo-China/Vietnam could relate to this one.

* Remember Ferdinand VII of Spain above, the guy who got rekt and toppled by Napoleon? Well, he was restored to power as an absolute monarch, pleasing his right wing royalists by renouncing the liberal constitution of 1812 that angered the leftists, but was forced in 1820 by a revolt led by Rafael del Riego to accept the liberal constitution. This was again reversed in 1823 thanks to the intervention of the Congress of Vienna, allowing him to clamp down on the free press and liberal elements until his death in 1833, after which another civil war broke out, the First Carlist War (1833 - 1840). In that conflict, Infante Carlos, Count of Molina ("Carlos V"), the contender for continuing absolute monarchy, was pitted against Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies, the regent over the young Isabella II of Spain, who the Carlists didn't like because she had a vagina.

* Just to make things even screwier, in comes Portugal, France, and the UK to sway the conflict in favor of the liberal side led by the regent Maria, not just sending her supplies but actually dispatching volunteers and then regular troops to confront the Carlist forces in Spain. Apparently the Carlists were a bitter bunch who just didn't take no for an answer, as evidenced by the sad, meager Second Carlist War (1846–1849) limited to Catalonia that attempted to put Infante Carlos, Count of Montemolin ("Carlos VI") on the throne and the far more serious Third Carlist War (1872–1876).

* While Amadeo I of Spain was still on the throne following the abdication of Isabella II in 1868, the Spanish elections of 1872 led to violence against Carlist candidates, leading Carlos, Duke of Madrid ("Carlos VII") to declare his rival kingship and start of a new civil war in favor of Legitimism and Catholicism as usual. Naturally, the Basque country that we mentioned earlier served as the breeding grounds for this uprising and rival state to form (of course). In the ensuing chaos, Amadeo I abdicated and in 1873 the First Spanish Republic was formed. However, a year later the Republic was overthrown as Alfonso XII was placed on the throne in a Bourbon monarchical restoration. By 1876 his rival "Carlos VII" was driven into exile in France and the Basque charters (fueros) were abolished, which the Basques obviously did not like.

* Oh boy, talk about a bunch of horrific precedents for Francisco Franco Bahamonde. Franco would rule Spain as its caudillo dictator from 1936 to 1975, during and after the brutal Spanish Civil War that lasted into 1939. The latter conflict pitted the Republicans (and communists) supported by the Soviet Union against the Nationalists of Franco supported by Nazi Germany and Portugal's dictator Salazar, ending the Second Spanish Republic and leading to the personal rule of Franco. I guess by that point guerrilla warfare was just imprinted into the Spanish (and Portuguese) DNA, or perhaps it was always that way, going back to the Celtiberians and Lusitanians. Persecutions and extrajudicial killings were carried out by both sides, but of course the greatest purge came from Franco after he took control. The remaining Spanish leftists were driven into exile in France, conveniently steamrolled by Nazi Germany a year later! Some people just can't catch a break.

[Sar1n]

Iberia, Germania, Afghanistan, Vietnam,...same thing all over again. Terrain that is, due to its vast expanse and/or obstacles, difficult to traverse and forage in, mobile, dispersed population with know-how to live off the land...that's hell for invading regular army and heaven for guerilla warfare.

[RandomPerson2000]

To put it simply, don't start a land war in Iberia.

[Abdülmecid I]

The Third of May 1808 by Francisco Goya

*puts immaculate monocle of pedantry on*
Ahem, sir, I believe you are talking about El dos de mayo de 1808, which can be translated into the Anglo-saxonic dialect as The Second of May 1808.
*puts immaculate monocle of pedantry off*

Seriously, though, nice topic, Roma! Quite lots of wars mentioned there, although not all of them can be qualified as guerilla, at least in what concerns the principal nature of the military operations. I noticed that you referred to the Spanish republicans as rebels using guerilla tactics, but that's mostly a stereotypical image of Latin-looking leftists fighting against a tyrannical regime. In reality, the Republicans defended the sovereign, democratically elected and legitimate government in Madrid against a military pronunciamento. The battles were largely static and handled by regular units of either mercenaries and professional soldiers or conscripted and semi-trained farmers and workers. Both sides however used airplanes, heavy artillery and even tanks. It is true that the fascists regularly used brutal violence to quell any possible opposition to the rule, but the extra-judicial killings of the other side were limited to vengeful massacres during the first days of the coup, which were never endorsed by the state authorities.



From the rest, I will only comment on the conflicts I am somewhat familiar with, the Napoleonic invasion and the Carlist Wars. Napoleon's motivations are somewhat obscure, although, in my opinion, the primary factor was his naive hope, similar to his optimistic vision about a revitalised Orient and Egypt, that a modernised Spain, under French tutelage, would provide him with the necessary resources to dominate Europe without any difficulties. Who betrayed whom is a bit dubious, as Godoy planned to backstab the Empire, before the crushing defeat of the Prussians at Jena-Auerstadt put him in the same embarrassing position, the envoy from Berlin was in the eve of Austerlitz. The problem with his plan is that he underestimated the current social unrest the Bourbon monarchy suffered from and the fact that he neglected to ensure the cooperation of the Kingdom's elites. Therefore, he managed to alienate everyone, which subsequently led to nobles conspiring against Joseph together with the remnants of the royal regiments, while the populace revolted, due to its increased desperation.



According to present view of scientific historiography, with the exception of Navarre, the popular resistance against France is explained by the terrible economic conditions, the result of the declining industries and the naval blockade of the British, and not by an almost feudal obsession of the peasantry with the objectively incompetent Ferdinand VII. The French were considered, somewhat unjustly, as responsible for the bankruptcy of the monarchy and the loss of contact with the colonies, while their controversial conscription tactics had gained a ridiculously sinister reputation. Loyalty to the crown, British propaganda and clerical preaching against the "atheist revolutionaries" also played a remarkable, but ultimately secondary role. Guerillas usually remained close to their village of origin and were totally incapable of organised offensive expeditions, but their mere presence was more than sufficient to completely disrupt the logistics and intelligence of the French imperial army. Geography was also crucial.



Controlling the center of the circle, Madrid, was not impossible, but expanding your rule to the periphery was very demanding, as roads are frequently interrupted by threatening mountain ranges and ravines. The French simply lacked the necessary resources to defeat both the British and the omnipresent guerillas and Spanish regulars, which resulted into a stalemate. Marshal Suchet employed particularly efficient tactics for combatting guerillas in the eastern coast, but even he was never able to eradicate them anywhere. When Masséna was replaced by the incompetent Marmont and mediocre Jourdan, while the Russian and German campaigns absorbed tens of thousands of soldiers, the French position inevitably collapsed.

As for the Carlists, the roots of the conflict can be found in the exceptional economical circumstances in the Basque countries, Navarre and Catalonia. These regions were relatively prosperous and the countryside was marked not by immense latifundia, but by independent properties of somewhat affluent farmers (Iberian version of kulaks?). In consequence, the population tended to be very conservative and was negatively disposed towards any liberal reforms, which could potentially undermine the profitable status-quo. This and the old animosity between the neighbors of the Pyrenees was why the guerilla in Spain evolved in such an unprecedently massive scale.



The War of the Aggrieved, usually ignored by English-speaking academia, which broke out in 1827 under the pretext of the abolishment of the Holy Inquisition, could be described as a predecessor of the Carlist insurgencies. So, the populace rallied under the banner of the absolutist Charles, taking advantage of the sorry state of the regular army and the mountainous morphology of heavily forested Navarre. However, guerillas genuinely sucking at attacking outside their dominions sealed the fate of the movement and rendered the prospect of a negotiated compromise the only realistic solution. The next Carlist Wars were much less important and industrialisation meant that Carlism was gradually abandoning its early chivalrous and guerilla nature. The Red Berets of General Emilio ''Never-Should-Have-Boarded-That-Plane-Look-At-Sanjurjo'' Mola fought as a regular force, defending the rights of Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma against the ''viciousness'' of awkwardly Catholic Basques in the field of the battle, next to cannons, behind Italian cars and below German airplanes.

[Dick Cheney.]

I think your right to link the Iberian Peninsula to guerrilla warfare, but I’m not ready to make the jump to Vietnam – which was a stubborn nationalist insurgency.

From a global history point of view, it seems like everyone got to rule Spain, even the Greeks and Phoenicians had colonies, and the Romans, Moors, and Catholics were able to rule relatively peacefully for around 500-800 years apiece. Their success at assimilation -to include nation building, cultural spreading, and establishing a legitimate government, and new trading posts- is not consistent with a local population that stubbornly refused foreign rule. This is somewhat due to population size, but also due to several competing factions; Iberians, Celts, Lusitanians, etc. Archaeology studies that predate the Romans also suggests these tribes fought internally among themselves, which is inferred from destroyed Iberian monuments. We also know that Iberia was famous for its mercenaries and were considered crack troops in Hannibal’s army. The presence of Greek, Roman, and Carthaginian coin in native Iberian communities again is not a record that points to evidence of rebellion or successful guerrilla insurgency.

The Romans arguably, were very successful at conquering Spain, which shouldn’t surprise anyone given their record of cultural assimilation. While its true it took multiple campaigns, several decades of investment, and some very large armies, nobody can deny the results. The Romans were absolutely brutal in their conquests, and true to character they killed or enslaved local inhabitants and goaded indigenous forces into decisive battle. The aftermath of the Celtiberian Wars shows entire settlements abandoned or destroyed as a result of Roman conquests, never again to be rebuilt. The conquest of northern Spain was also arguably a preventative war on behalf of Augustus, which again demonstrates classic Roman resolve. Following the end of any independence in Spain, the province I want to say became quite prosperous, and was a stable source for iron, silver, taxation, and wine. At the very least, it was the birthplace of future emperors (Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and Trajan’s families are all traced back to Spain) and the introduction of Latin of course, permanently changed the language.

The Iberian Peninsula in my view then, was not a Roman Vietnam, and its conquerors of course never held back.

Nobody has handled rebellion and insurgency quite like the Romans.

Now Gibraltar is a different story. That place may as well be Minas Tirith.



God help the armies of men who try to invade that place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_of_Gibraltar

[95thrifleman]

Is Spain Vietnam? No

Vietnam is Spain.

[Roma_Victrix]

To put it simply, don't start a land war in Iberia.

Inconceivable! Don't mess with a Castilian when death is on the line! Ah-ha-hah! Ah-ha-ha! Ah-ha-ha! [Dies].

Iberia, Germania, Afghanistan, Vietnam,...same thing all over again. Terrain that is, due to its vast expanse and/or obstacles, difficult to traverse and forage in, mobile, dispersed population with know-how to live off the land...that's hell for invading regular army and heaven for guerilla warfare.

Very much agreed!

*puts immaculate monocle of pedantry on*
Ahem, sir, I believe you are talking about El dos de mayo de 1808, which can be translated into the Anglo-saxonic dialect as The Second of May 1808.
*puts immaculate monocle of pedantry off*

Hey, that's enough of your pedantic gaslighting, pal ("El Tres de Mayo de 1808").

Seriously, though, nice topic, Roma! Quite lots of wars mentioned there, although not all of them can be qualified as guerilla, at least in what concerns the principal nature of the military operations. I noticed that you referred to the Spanish republicans as rebels using guerilla tactics, but that's mostly a stereotypical image of Latin-looking leftists fighting against a tyrannical regime. In reality, the Republicans defended the sovereign, democratically elected and legitimate government in Madrid against a military pronunciamento. The battles were largely static and handled by regular units of either mercenaries and professional soldiers or conscripted and semi-trained farmers and workers. Both sides however used airplanes, heavy artillery and even tanks. It is true that the fascists regularly used brutal violence to quell any possible opposition to the rule, but the extra-judicial killings of the other side were limited to vengeful massacres during the first days of the coup, which were never endorsed by the state authorities.

All very good points and I'm aware that the Republican and Nationalist factions were at first basically on an even footing in terms of tools and tactics, but when Franco managed to secure most of Spain by 1939, didn't the dwindling amount of remaining Republican troops resort to guerrilla tactics on a large scale? Especially right before fleeing into France and as they were being driven underground? I was pretty damn sure that they did, although I could be wrong and remembering/interpreting things incorrectly.

From the rest, I will only comment on the conflicts I am somewhat familiar with, the Napoleonic invasion and the Carlist Wars.

Yep, the rest of your post is just golden and couldn't agree more. Thanks for sharing all of this! That's +1 rep.

I think your right to link the Iberian Peninsula to guerrilla warfare, but I’m not ready to make the jump to Vietnam – which was a stubborn nationalist insurgency.

From a global history point of view, it seems like everyone got to rule Spain, even the Greeks and Phoenicians had colonies, and the Romans, Moors, and Catholics were able to rule relatively peacefully for around 500-800 years apiece. Their success at assimilation -to include nation building, cultural spreading, and establishing a legitimate government, and new trading posts- is not consistent with a local population that stubbornly refused foreign rule. This is somewhat due to population size, but also due to several competing factions; Iberians, Celts, Lusitanians, etc. Archaeology studies that predate the Romans also suggests these tribes fought internally among themselves, which is inferred from destroyed Iberian monuments. We also know that Iberia was famous for its mercenaries and were considered crack troops in Hannibal’s army. The presence of Greek, Roman, and Carthaginian coin in native Iberian communities again is not a record that points to evidence of rebellion or successful guerrilla insurgency.

Great points, but I'm being mostly facetious about any other comparisons between the two aside from the oft employed guerrilla tactics and the morale and resource-draining aspects suffered by the occupiers of both countries. Obviously the Vietnamese and Spanish cultures and national outlooks are extremely different, as are their demographic histories and ability to accommodate various different ethnic groups, or accept new national cultures entirely. The Spanish were far more open to that than the guarded Vietnamese, although the Vietnamese did accept Chinese Confucianism and writing, while later adopting the Latin alphabet from their French conquerors. In a way that's somewhat like the Iberians accepting Romanization and, again, the Latin alphabet.

See what I did there? I gotcha. Nailed it.

The Iberian Peninsula in my view then, was not a Roman Vietnam, and its conquerors of course never held back.

The Romans also had the luxury of having their home base in nearby Italy. They were also able to focus largely on Iberia for a while during the 2nd century BC when they weren't fighting the Kingdom of Macedonia, Kingdom of Numidia, Achaean League, and the city-state of Carthage. Even then it took the Romans two centuries to quell Spain entirely and required tons of manpower and maintenance to do so, with horrendous losses. French Indo-China was on the other side of the world from France, and while the Chinese managed to dominate and control northern Vietnam for centuries on end, the jungles there are a treacherous place in combination with instability back home when the unified Tang Empire fell apart into competing kingdoms in northern and southern China.

The Vietnamese did have something the Iberian tribes did not, though, and that is the sense of national cohesion and a unified culture to rally around when defying these foreign occupiers. That was true going back at least to the Trung Sisters who managed to whip up widespread discontent with Eastern Han Chinese rule. The ancient Iberian tribes never viewed each other as one unified force and if they did they probably would have had an exponentially better chance at challenging the Romans. Instead, they did exactly as you said, fought each other frequently and oftentimes served as mercenaries/auxiliaries for Carthaginian and Roman armies.

Now Gibraltar is a different story. That place may as well be Minas Tirith.



God help the armies of men who try to take that place.

Heh! Minas Tirith. Well said.

[mishkin]

The remaining Spanish leftists were driven into exile in France, conveniently steamrolled by Nazi Germany a year later! Some people just can't catch a break.

Great post, just and addendum if I may

(A few paragraphs from the wiki - the maquis) "The anti-Franco guerrilla resistance in Spain began before the 1939 end of the Spanish Civil War. The outbreak of World War II so soon after the civil war surprised a large part of the Spanish Republican exiles in France; many of them joined the French Resistance. By 1944, with the German forces in retreat, many of the guerrillas refocused their fight towards Spain. Despite the failure of the invasion of the Val d'Arán that year, some columns continued to progress into the Spanish interior and to connect with the groups that had remained in the mountains since 1939.[3]

The apogee of guerrilla action was between 1945 and 1947. After this, the repression from the Franco government intensified, and little by little the groups were destroyed. Many of their members died or were incarcerated. Others escaped to France or Morocco. In 1952, the last important contingents evacuated from Spain. After that, those who resisted in the mountainous regions refusing to choose either exile or surrender, fought only for their own survival"

Let me also highlight the very important participation of these leftists in the liberation of France. (La Nueve)

Personal anecdote as an inhabitant of that mountainous north(west), sometimes walking through the mountains towards some castro I have imagined some Roman climbing the hill with the impedimenta and thinking ... ing impossible.

[Commissar Caligula_]

I think you are overlooking a defining characteristic of the Vietnamese people.
As Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore, of the 1st Squadron 9th Cavalry Regiment, stated in 1969 in the seminal documentary Apocalypse Now, the key feature of the Vietnamese people is that "Charlie don't surf".
If Kilgore's proposition is taken to be true, there is no way in which 'Spain [is] basically Vietnam' as you have posited, for there are many Spanish surfers. This fact makes your arguments fall apart.

[Cyclops]

Its an amusing line but I'm not sure there's a real comparison to be made. I'm pretty ignorant of Vietnam but I suspect its been much more of a backwater than Hispania for is entire history.

Vietnam is a cluster of coastal territories with few natural resources beyond agriculture arbitrarily assigned as a political unit. It contains significant cultural and linguistic diversity (well so says the EU IV language and culture maps) and has rarely enjoyed centralised rule except when impose by external forces. The use of guerrilla tactics reflects the inability of local political units to field armies capable of facing for example Chinese or US expeditionary forces.

Spain is a significantly larger and more diverse geographic unit with substantially greater resources and external relationships. While was partly or completely conquered and /or colonised by external invaders it retained regional diversity until powerful centralising polities in Rome and Castile imposed something like unity of most (and at times all) of the peninsula. Castile was essentially a torchbearer of Frankish civilisation through its feudal and early modern phases and imposed central rule through savage ethnic cleansing and imposed religious authority. Only Roman rule was as successful, or as brutally enacted.

The Castilian and Portuguese polities for all their royal centralism (at time approaching absolutism) retained Germanic consultative political structures (cortes) and regional loyalty networks. Both polities punched way above their weight, with Portugal seizing unfathomably profitable trade supremacy over the East and Spain established the wealthiest Empire to that date, the first on which "the sun never set".

Ancient tribal Hispania may have employed seeming guerrilla tactics as they would rarely be able to field armies capable of facing Carthaginian or Roman forces. I think this was exacerbated by the Roman habit of farming provincials for triumphs eg the despicable Cato the Censor, who needed to plunder and slaughter enough of his subjects as governor to get the "Grass Crown" achievement.

Feudal Hispania is marked by typical medieval war (Castile derives its name from the acme of feudal military technology, the baronial and royal castle network) although the fluid Islamic style of warfare might be mistaken for guerrilla war.

In the Early modern period Iberia mostly exported war. The genetic decay of its Hapsburg monarchs failed to undermine Iberian unity and likewise the collapse of the Bourbon forces in 1808 underlines the intrinsic strength of Spain: as regional loyalty networks asserted themselves so did the Church and cortes and centralising forces. The Liberal and revolutionary project in Spain was a failure outside a small class of educated bourgeoisie at that time because it was tied to foreign intervention (an association which may have impeded is progress in the next two centuries).

Likewise the chequerboard of regional, national and international political loyalties that make the Spanish civil war (whcih managed to be a fomral 20th century war despite guerrilla elements) such a bloody and savage mess failed to pull Spain apart. Even the quite understandable Basque and Catalan independence movements have failed utterly.

Guerrilla war is a rejection of established authority: even though a power is unbeatable in the field it can be attacked form the fringes. The kaleidascopic nature of Iberian loyalties (international ones like the Church, Communism, Liberalism, as well as national ones like the Church, the monarchy, the common language, social lass or union membership and regional ones like the Church, the cortes, local languages, local aristocracy, civic loyalty) mean you can usually find someone willing to fight against whoever is in power.

The history of Spain is the triumph of the national over the local, today as it was in 1492 AD or 206 BCE.

[Roma_Victrix]

Ancient tribal Hispania may have employed seeming guerrilla tactics as they would rarely be able to field armies capable of facing Carthaginian or Roman forces. I think this was exacerbated by the Roman habit of farming provincials for triumphs eg the despicable Cato the Censor, who needed to plunder and slaughter enough of his subjects as governor to get the "Grass Crown" achievement.

Roman histories are littered with examples of Iberian tribes ambushing Romans and surprising their legionary columns in mountain passes and thick forests. For instance, Quintus Fulvius Flaccus being ambushed by Celtiberians at the Manlian Pass in 180 BC. This was somewhat similar to how Arminius later ambushed the Romans at Teotoburg in 9 AD, or even the Spanish guerrillas' surprise hit-and-run attacks on Napoleonic French troops that had to protect messengers with escorts of 200 cavalrymen.

However, the Romans actually did fight pitched battles against the Iberian tribes in the field on occasion and carried out sieges of their well-defended walled towns and fortified oppida, like at Numantia. It wasn't just all small skirmishes in the woods, although that was a pernicious feature of Roman warfare in Iberia. Then again, the same could be said to some extent for Germania and Britannia.

We should also differentiate between different Iberians, not all of whom fought the same way. While most Celtiberians fought in pitched battles and with urban sieges like the Romans and Carthaginians, weaker peoples like the Cantabrians and to some extent the Lusitanians had to rely on ambushes, hit-and-run tactics, and general guerrilla warfare. Sources that back that up include the following:

*Fernando Quesada Sanz (2015). "Iberians as enemies", in Encyclopedia of the Roman army. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 505 - 508.
* Fernando Quesada Sanz (2011) [2003]. "Military developments in the 'Late Iberian' culture (c. 237-c. 195 BC)" in N. Sekunda and A. Noguero's Hellenistic Warfare I, Proceedings Conference Torun, Poland.
* Joaquín Gómez-Pantoja, Eduardo Sánchez Moreno (2007). Protohistoria y Antigüedad de la Península Ibérica II. Sílex Ediciones. ISBN 978-84-773718-2-3.
* Ramón Menéndez Pidal (1962). Historia de España: España romana. Espasa Calpe.

The history of Spain is the triumph of the national over the local, today as it was in 1492 AD or 206 BCE.

This was a fine post and a strong counterargument, so thanks for sharing that. I tend to agree about this and will also obviously readily differentiate Spain from some place like Afghanistan where local tribal authorities are given more weight than national forces and federal governments, which are distrusted by the various natives as oppressors who don't look out for their individual community's concerns. Spain has obviously had very strong nationalist sentiments among its populations beginning with Romans, continuing with Visigoths, then Moors, then Castilians, and finally modern absolute monarchists and nationalists versus republicans and communists (albeit the very latter place more value on a perceived international class struggle).

The point I'm making is simply about guerrilla warfare tactics and foreign occupiers being unable to occupy either of these countries with any great amount of ease.

Mind you, Vietnam is a far more extreme case than Spain given how Spain has been more successfully conquered and transformed, while the Vietnamese adopted and retained facets of Chinese culture they liked and very little from the French aside from their current alphabet. However, Spain has always had those strong indigenous movements to resist foreign encroachment. That is evidenced with various Iberians resisting the Romans for two centuries, Visigoths resisting the Umayyad Arabs, their movement morphing into the early Reconquista that reclaimed the entire peninsula by 1492 (with the fall of the already tiny, shrunken Emirate of Granada at the southern tip of Iberia), and the homegrown guerrillas fighting alongside Spanish, Portuguese and British regulars to drive out the French under Napoleon and his brother Joseph Bonaparte.

[Common Soldier]

*puts immaculate monocle of pedantry on*
Ahem, sir, I believe you are talking about El dos de mayo de 1808, which can be translated into the Anglo-saxonic dialect as The Second of May 1808.
*puts immaculate monocle of pedantry off*

Seriously, though, nice topic, Roma! Quite lots of wars mentioned there, although not all of them can be qualified as guerilla, at least in what concerns the principal nature of the military operations. I noticed that you referred to the Spanish republicans as rebels using guerilla tactics, but that's mostly a stereotypical image of Latin-looking leftists fighting against a tyrannical regime. In reality, the Republicans defended the sovereign, democratically elected and legitimate government in Madrid against a military pronunciamento. The battles were largely static and handled by regular units of either mercenaries and professional soldiers or conscripted and semi-trained farmers and workers. Both sides however used airplanes, heavy artillery and even tanks. It is true that the fascists regularly used brutal violence to quell any possible opposition to the rule, but the extra-judicial killings of the other side were limited to vengeful massacres during the first days of the coup, which were never endorsed by the state authorities.

You are correct that it was the Nationalist who were really the rebels, and that the Republican killings we're not sanctioned by the head of the Repulicsn government, these killings we're not confined to just the first couple days off the coup, and were not just vengeful massacres. Those who were suspected of sympathizing with the Nationalist we're also killed, as were rival factions to the Stalin controlled Communist, and many priest as well. The Nationalist did kill far more than the Republicans, but toward the end of the war, the government had lost a lot of control to factions like the Communist, who could be as ruthless as the Nationalst.

From the rest, I will only comment on the conflicts I am somewhat familiar with, the Napoleonic invasion and the Carlist Wars. Napoleon's motivations are somewhat obscure, although, in my opinion, the primary factor was his naive hope, similar to his optimistic vision about a revitalised Orient and Egypt, that a modernised Spain, under French tutelage, would provide him with the necessary resources to dominate Europe without any difficulties. Who betrayed whom is a bit dubious, as Godoy planned to backstab the Empire, before the crushing defeat of the Prussians at Jena-Auerstadt put him in the same embarrassing position, the envoy from Berlin was in the eve of Austerlitz. The problem with his plan is that he underestimated the current social unrest the Bourbon monarchy suffered from and the fact that he neglected to ensure the cooperation of the Kingdom's elites. Therefore, he managed to alienate everyone, which subsequently led to nobles conspiring against Joseph together with the remnants of the royal regiments, while the populace revolted, due to its increased desperation.



According to present view of scientific historiography, with the exception of Navarre, the popular resistance against France is explained by the terrible economic conditions, the result of the declining industries and the naval blockade of the British, and not by an almost feudal obsession of the peasantry with the objectively incompetent Ferdinand VII. The French were considered, somewhat unjustly, as responsible for the bankruptcy of the monarchy and the loss of contact with the colonies, while their controversial conscription tactics had gained a ridiculously sinister reputation. Loyalty to the crown, British propaganda and clerical preaching against the "atheist revolutionaries" also played a remarkable, but ultimately secondary role. Guerillas usually remained close to their village of origin and were totally incapable of organised offensive expeditions, but their mere presence was more than sufficient to completely disrupt the logistics and intelligence of the French imperial army. Geography was also crucial.

.

The French were also foreign rulers who were occupying the country, and nationalism was rising. The monarchy was just a rallying cry for the peasants to gather around to drive out foreigners who were ruling the land, and regardless of whatever puppet the French had in place, the French were the ones calling the shots. Napoleon wanted to rule a of Europe, and the only governments he would tolerate were those under his contract Even if Napoleon had managed things better in Spain, French control would still have aroused the ire of the countryside and ignate the nationalism of the Spanish. Why should Spain have to suffer the embargo Napoleon created to support French interest, not Spanish.

Controlling the center of the circle, Madrid, was not impossible, but expanding your rule to the periphery was very demanding, as roads are frequently interrupted by threatening mountain ranges and ravines. The French simply lacked the necessary resources to defeat both the British and the omnipresent guerillas and Spanish regulars, which resulted into a stalemate. Marshal Suchet employed particularly efficient tactics for combatting guerillas in the eastern coast, but even he was never able to eradicate them anywhere. When Masséna was replaced by the incompetent Marmont and mediocre Jourdan, while the Russian and German campaigns absorbed tens of thousands of soldiers, the French position inevitably collapsed.

As for the Carlists, the roots of the conflict can be found in the exceptional economical circumstances in the Basque countries, Navarre and Catalonia. These regions were relatively prosperous and the countryside was marked not by immense latifundia, but by independent properties of somewhat affluent farmers (Iberian version of kulaks?). In consequence, the population tended to be very conservative and was negatively disposed towards any liberal reforms, which could potentially undermine the profitable status-quo. This and the old animosity between the neighbors of the Pyrenees was why the guerilla in Spain evolved in such an unprecedently massive scale.

Those countries also probably suffered more from the French imposed embargo which served only French interest. Napoleon was ruling Spain for French interest, not Spanish ones. I don't see much evidence of Catalonia or the others trying g to form their own independent nation, which is somewhat surprising given recent push for independence in Ctalonia and the Basque regions.

a
The War of the Aggrieved, usually ignored by English-speaking academia, which broke out in 1827 under the pretext of the abolishment of the Holy Inquisition, could be described as a predecessor of the Carlist insurgencies. So, the populace rallied under the banner of the absolutist Charles, taking advantage of the sorry state of the regular army and the mountainous morphology of heavily forested Navarre. However, guerillas genuinely sucking at attacking outside their dominions sealed the fate of the movement and rendered the prospect of a negotiated compromise the only realistic solution. The next Carlist Wars were much less important and industrialisation meant that Carlism was gradually abandoning its early chivalrous and guerilla nature. The Red Berets of General Emilio ''Never-Should-Have-Boarded-That-Plane-Look-At-Sanjurjo'' Mola fought as a regular force, defending the rights of Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma against the ''viciousness'' of awkwardly Catholic Basques in the field of the battle, next to cannons, behind Italian cars and below German airplanes.

It is not surprising that guerillas did not do.well.outsidr the areas that are favorable to it. Guerillas often do poorly against regular forces in more open area, unless they have backing of regulars units as well. Guerillas warfare that succeeds often by simply by wearing out the regular forces until the authorities decide it isn't worth fighting anymore, or by having the support of powers. The Spanish rebels against the French had the backing of British, which helped them to drive out the French.

[Common Soldier]

While an interesting summary of Spanish history, I don't see much similarity with Vietnam. WeSpain created one of the larget empires in the world, while Vietnam was only a regional power.

Spain and Vietnam were invaded by foreign powers, they have that similarity, but that is also true of many countries. Other than that, the similarity ends. Spanish invaders managed to estsblish reigns that centuries while the foreign rules of Vietnam were often short, the French Rule only around a century. The Vietnamese did not end of speaking Chinese the way the Spanish ended up speaking Latin. Even the US intervention in Vietnam did not have much similarity to that of Napoleon in Spain. The Americans became involved when there was a civil war already ongoing, and the French had to face an outside power, Britain, activily supporting the Spanish rebellion with troops, which wasn't true of the North avietnsmese and Viet Cong.

[Roma_Victrix]

While an interesting summary of Spanish history, I don't see much similarity with Vietnam and i Spain created one of the larget empires in the world, while Vietnam was only a regional power.

Spain and Vietnam were invaded by foreign powers, they have that similarity, but that is also true of many countries. Other than that, the similarity ends. Spanish invaders managed to estsblish reigns that centuries while the foreign rules of Vietnam were often short, the French Rule only around a century. The Vietnamese did not end of speaking Chinese the way the Spanish ended up speaking Latin. Even the US intervention in Vietnam did not have much similarity to that of Napoleon in Spain. The Americans became involved when there was a civil war already ongoing, and the French had to face an outside power, Britain, activily supporting the Spanish rebellion with troops, which wasn't true of the North avietnsmese and Viet Cong.

Are you typing this on a phone with auto-correct, perchance? It's hard to understand what you're trying to say with so many typos.

In either case, you raise some very good points, but to counter all of it, the absolutely unassailable authorities of EpicHistoryTV, who dictate the conventional wisdom and terms used by all of academia and indeed all of mankind, including you, kindly disagree and name the Peninsular War in Spain as Napoleon's Vietnam.



Given this momentous, landmark decision by the supreme deciding body over all matters historical from now until the end of time, the way I see it, Common Soldier is 0 and Roma_Victrix is 1. Oh yeah.

In all seriousness, again, my comparison is not hinged on the levels to which the Vietnamese adopted facets of other cultures belonging to conquerors versus that of the Spanish. It's merely a facetious comparison between the two countries' ability to drain the resources and morale of invaders while having suitable terrains for guerrilla warfare and irregular tactics to weaken and ultimately beat a stronger foe. My argument is more about the treacherousness of the Pyrenees mountains versus the jungles of Vietnam than it is about Vietnamese or Spanish politics, culture, or ability to project power. Obviously the Spanish built a worldwide colonial empire and the Vietnamese did not.

[Roma_Victrix]

Great post, just and addendum if I may...

...Let me also highlight the very important participation of these leftists in the liberation of France. (La Nueve)

Great points! It definitely validates my claims about the Spanish Civil War, at least the tail end of it. I also wasn't entirely sure about guerrilla activities long after the civil war and even after WWII, so that's interesting to know, thanks for sharing (+1 rep). Of course Abdulmecid is still correct about the war as a whole involving two sides of roughly equal strength and levels of technology fighting each other. It just makes sense that as 1939 rolled around and the republicans were driven underground and in exile across the Pyrenees into France, that they would utilize at least some irregular hit and run tactics that are the hallmark of guerrilla warfare, just to survive the purge and their flight.

I meant to make a lengthy reply to this post earlier but somehow it got swallowed or shelved in my efforts to answer others here. Not sure how that happened. It's good to know the Spanish republican freedom fighters who fled to France following their defeat against Franco didn't just get purged by the Nazis once they took over France and set up the Vichy regime in the south. I wonder how many were still alive to see the death of Franco in 1975 and to see the restoration of the republic.

[Cookiegod]

To be honest, you could compare many countries to Vietnam according to the parameters set by you.

Spain is a pretty big peninsula, and thus the difficulty of conquering it varied depending on where they fought. The southeastern half was never that hard to overrun and was so multiple times. For example by Carthage, Byzantines, and Franco.

The Romans had to fight an attritional costly war to conquer Iberia, but was that so different from other places? One major difference to e.g. Germania was that the Romans actually succeeded in Iberia.

The Germanic tribes of the Visigoths, Suebi, whom you mention yourself, and the Vandals didn't have that much trouble of establishing a foothold there. Nor did many other powers. The real trouble was uniting the whole peninsula, but that's not what Vietnam was about.

[Abdülmecid I]

Whoops, I had no idea that Goya had named that painting 3rd of May 1808. Pfft, what should I expect from an afrancesado? They always put honest, patriotic gentlemen into trouble. The mentioning of the guerilla tactics of the Republicans during the late phase of the conflict is absolutely correct and I agree that the activities of the Maquis serve as a nice and appropriately heroic epilogue for the Spanish tradition in guerilla warfare.

The French were also foreign rulers who were occupying the country, and nationalism was rising. The monarchy was just a rallying cry for the peasants to gather around to drive out foreigners who were ruling the land, and regardless of whatever puppet the French had in place, the French were the ones calling the shots. Napoleon wanted to rule a of Europe, and the only governments he would tolerate were those under his contract Even if Napoleon had managed things better in Spain, French control would still have aroused the ire of the countryside and ignate the nationalism of the Spanish. Why should Spain have to suffer the embargo Napoleon created to support French interest, not Spanish.

Nationalism was a non-factor for guerillas, who were largely led by and composed of illiterate peasants. Guerillas were almost exlusively preoccupied with protecting their own interests and installing an autonomous rule over the isolated communities they temporarily controlled. Their actions often openly harmed the interests of the British and their allies in Cadiz, by looting their supply trains, murdering their stragglers and welcoming the deserters who had abandoned the regular army. When Ferdinand VII was restored to the throne, almost every guerilla chieftain who was not integrated to the newly formed bureaucratic, military and administrative elites actively conspired to undermine the new regime, with his methods varying from scheming to outright revolting.

The financial crisis was the result the structural contradictions of the Spanish economy existing since before the establishment of the Bourbon dynasty, whose causes Charles III never managed to eradicate, as he wasted his budget constructing an unnecessarily huge fleet. The situation was exacerbated not by Napoleon's continental system, which was never truly implemented in Spain, but by the British blockade and the complete inability of the Spanish Navy to secure the trade routes with the colonies. Spain willingly joined the war and it's not the fault of the French Republic or Empire that the Spanish ships were not capable of reversing the maritime superiority of the British. Perhaps Godoy could have handled foreign policy more professionally, but a military conflict with Great Britain was essentially inevitable, as Madrid simply lacked any other alternative option to protect its interests and influence in Latin America from the threat posed by the growing British competition. The Spanish Empire had reached the breaking point with or without French intervention. The misfortune of Napoleon was that his badly-thought invasion served as the perfect scapegoat for the populace to vent its frustrations stemming from collapse of the economy and the subsequent mismanagement during the reign of Charles IV.

[Roma_Victrix]

Whoops, I had no idea that Goya had named that painting 3rd of May 1808. Pfft, what should I expect from an afrancesado? They always put honest, patriotic gentlemen into trouble. The mentioning of the guerilla tactics of the Republicans during the late phase of the conflict is absolutely correct and I agree that the activities of the Maquis serve as a nice and appropriately heroic epilogue for the Spanish tradition in guerilla warfare.

It appears that Goya made two such paintings meant to accompany each other, the Dos de Mayo de 1808 and the Tres de Mayo de 1808, although the first painting is about "The Charge of the Mamelukes" and the second painting is the one about the firing squad. Both paintings are now located in the Madrid's Museo del Prado. When I think of his work, however, I never think of the first painting and only the second one comes to mind as the prime example of Modern art, kind of like how the Mona Lisa exemplifies Renaissance art.

Glad to see that we've all come to an agreement on guerrilla warfare in its appropriate context at the very end of the Spanish Civil War.

To be honest, you could compare many countries to Vietnam according to the parameters set by you.

Yeah, I know, I just like being cute. For instance, I could have easily said Afghanistan instead, although I think Vietnam makes a bit more sense as a comparison to Spain.

The Germanic tribes of the Visigoths, Suebi, whom you mention yourself, and the Vandals didn't have that much trouble of establishing a foothold there. Nor did many other powers. The real trouble was uniting the whole peninsula, but that's not what Vietnam was about.

You had me on the first part, but the second part I have to disagree. If anything uniting Vietnam was always a pain in the ass process seeing how the Kingdom of Champa in the south lasted from the 2nd century AD all the way to freaking 1832 when they were finally taken over by the Nguyen Dynasty. Previous Chinese dynasties like the Sui and for that matter Vietnamese ones failed to conquer Champa during that entire stretch of time. The Nguyen Dynasty became subordinates to and were eventually supplanted by French Indochina and colonial authorities that abrogated their sovereignty. However, one must wonder how well the French would fair, in spite of their logistical and technological superiority, in attempting to unite all of Vietnam if Champa had still existed as a strong independent polity instead of being previously broken apart and subjugated.

Hell, if anything the Vietnam War fought by the USA after the colonial French withdrawal was a prime example of how uniting Vietnam was a royal pain in the rear end.

[Cyclops]

It appears that Goya made two such paintings meant to accompany each other, the Dos de Mayo de 1808 and the Tres de Mayo de 1808, ......

Did he make a painting of the incident three days later, when the salad dressing was lost in the river?...still celebrated in Mexico...

...
Hell, if anything the Vietnam War fought by the USA after the colonial French withdrawal was a prime example of how uniting Vietnam was a royal pain in the rear end.

That's a very good point. The french retained the loyalty of the Montangards against the northern-based communists, and the US was ale to deploy Hmong and other minority allies in heir war there.

The fragmentary nature of groups making up the somewhat arbitrary territory of French Indochina, and the experience of mismatched resources meant there were bodies of able guerrilla fighters willing to fight against practically anybody. The inability of the US to mobilise a formal polity capable of attracting a substantial loyalty base among the peoples of Vietnam was at the root of their failure there, but the many warring and warlike groups on the ground is reminiscent of Hispania through the ages.

[Roma_Victrix]

Did he make a painting of the incident three days later, when the salad dressing was lost in the river?...still celebrated in Mexico...

Goya died decades before the event that inspired the Cinco de Mayo holiday in Mexico. You know, the Mexican holiday about a French invasion involving national debts and that other Napoleon Bonaparte, the third one, Napoleon III, even though Napoleon II wasn't really a thing.

That's a very good point. The french retained the loyalty of the Montangards against the northern-based communists, and the US was ale to deploy Hmong and other minority allies in heir war there.

The fragmentary nature of groups making up the somewhat arbitrary territory of French Indochina, and the experience of mismatched resources meant there were bodies of able guerrilla fighters willing to fight against practically anybody. The inability of the US to mobilise a formal polity capable of attracting a substantial loyalty base among the peoples of Vietnam was at the root of their failure there, but the many warring and warlike groups on the ground is reminiscent of Hispania through the ages.

Great points! I like the way you put it. I'd give you rep, but I've repped you too recently.

Speaking of guerrilla warfare, there's a guy in the EBII subforum trying to argue with me that it never existed in ancient Iberia at all, which is clearly not the case, even if pitched battles and proper sieges were the norm for the ancient Iberian peninsula among the Iberian natives, Celtiberians, Carthaginians, Romans, and Greeks. Guerrilla warfare was most certainly practiced among the Lusitanians in the west and Cantabrians in the north, begrudgingly admitted by contrarian scholars like Quesada Sanz but also explained by other academics. You can read about that here in a neat little list of sources and quotations I compiled for the other thread in the EBII subforum:

* Francisco Queiroga. War and Castros: New Approaches to the Northwestern Portuguese Iron Age. Archaeopress, University of Michigan, 2003.

...On the other hand, Sertorius himself adopted the famous Lusitanian fighting technique of guerrilla warfare in rough terrain, and was aware of its effectiveness in that particular context.

The expedition against the Cantabrians early in 25 ВC was slow and ineffective, as the Cantabrian tactics of guerrilla warfare (Dio 53, 25, 2) did not allow direct and decisive confrontations.

* Daniel Varga. The Roman Wars in Spain: The Military Confrontation with Guerrilla Warfare. Pen and Sword, 2015.

Appianus writes that 'Lusitanian groups' who had been influenced by Viriathus, employed guerrilla tactics against Junius Brutus, who did not know how to respond to these attacks: or according to Appianus had seen no benefit in pursuing these gangs, and instead employed a scorched earth policy, and burned down crops in the fields, attacked villages and killed civilians... ...In the Cantabrian and Asturian Wars, the native warriors very skillfully used their knowledge of the mountainous terrain, with its narrow, winding valleys and gorges, of Northern Hispania. Dio Cassius recounts that in the year 26, some 180 years after Rome had launched their campaign to conquer Hispania, the Asturians and Cantabrians attacked the armies of Augustus and Agrippa, using well-organized guerrilla-warfare tactics.

* Sara E. Phang. "Spanish Wars, Course", in Sarah E. Phang, Iain Spence, Douglas Kelly, and Peter Londey (editors), Conflict in Ancient Greece and Rome: The Definitive Political, Social, and Military Encyclopedia, pp. 1218-1219. ABC-CLIO, 2016.

The late Republic's civil wars migrated to Spain. The Marian supporter Sertorius established a base in Spain, employing Celtiberians as guerrilla warriors and separating Spain from Republican control from 82-72 BC, until he was defeated by Pompey.

*Fernando Quesada Sanz. "Iberians as enemies", in Encyclopedia of the Roman army, pp. 505 - 508. Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.

Primary sources and archaeology provide a different picture of western (Lusitanians) and northern peoples (Galaici, Astures, Cantabri). Although capable of open battle in mountainous terrain, Viriathus the Lusitanian and other gifted leaders of the Cantrabri seem to have favored more irregular, guerrilla-type tactics (Cass. Dio 53.25). But even then Octavius had to employ an extremely big army of at least seven legions plus auxilia to complete the conquest in the far north (27- 19 BCE).

Although I've yet to see it, the guy claims that in other sources Quesada Sanz has written, he elaborates as to why the seemingly guerrilla tactics used by the Lusitanians and Cantabrians shouldn't be interpreted that way, or thought of as something else, or that they were among the selective tactics present during otherwise regular pitched battles. I'm not entirely convinced by that. Judging by the other sources above, even if Quesada does argue this he seems to be in the minority of scholarly opinion going against the consensus in academia.