Just an interesting topic I am getting primary source materials on regarding their settlement. Any good reads (primary or secondary materials are welcome).
I am comparing the Spanish and English model of empire in the Americas and how far these were different / similar to other European empire states (Portugal, France etc). > to what extent did they compete and establish a strong base for future growth.
Why were they different?
I am looking for interesting insights or thoughtful/ innovative points so please post what you think but try to support it with sources!
Materials I've already read: Alan Taylor's American Colonies & Canny's History of the British Empire. A lot of stuff on economy & early settlements too
Thank you in advanced! Please share views / points.
Only saw this now. Here's an older answer of mine, where in the beginning I talk a bit about structural differences between the early British and Spanish empires. The second part deals more with discourse of empire and rule. One major difference I don't mention there is the difference in administration, with the development of Viceroyalties in Spanish America that had quite a few liberties vis-a-vis the far-away Spanish Crown; and the building on indigenous political organisation at least in some Viceroyalties. This model wasn't followed quite in this way by later empires with their more "modern" bureaucracies.
The book I mention in the post, Pagden's Lords Of All the World, might be interesting for you. It goes into more detail on how the French, Spanish and British justified their empires, and early modern times and beyond, and how interlinked their justifications were. Another interesting work is Anthony Marx' Faith in Nation, which looks more at how a national consciousness developed in these same states in early modernity -- although with from a more European vantage point it's an interesting base to start from. Let me know in case you want more sources especially on Spanish America.