Would the Spanish have still colonised South America if they knew the countries wouldn't turn out as good as British colonies?
What? The Spanish colonies turned out much better than the British colonies.
A lot of South America is much more civilised than shitholes like India, Pakistan, and the British African colonies. Chile and Argentina are somewhat OK.
Reminder that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and I guess the USA, are not relevant. The British population simply moved there. Just an extension of Britain.
Diden't gave a shit here either.
And then went broke multiple times cause of constant wars with the lower countries.
Even though there is nothing really here compared to its colonies wealth they could extract.
You're actually wrong, they got a whole fucking bunch of money from what is currently Netherlands and Belgium. I had to read on this, and iirc, it had to do with it being main trade center for Europe, and if buzzword memory serves me right, Mercantilism(?) shot the dutch up into a power similar to how Portugal used to be after they gained independence.
Only a few states have heavy permanent Spanish cultural influences though.
Simply put, the things that the Spanish valued in those times were not the things the English valued later on, its not surprising colonial developments slowed down.
Its also blood. The Spanish were too kind. If I had a time machine, I'd go back in time and kill bartholemew De las Casas or however that bastard was called.
With him gone, Catholicism could have been to Europe what Shinto is to Japan, and the Spanish would have ACTUALLY genocided, because lets be real, they didn't. For colonizers, they were tremendously kind and not as vicious as the English or the Portuguese.
>doesn't mention Belgium, the ex-colony that actually shares his Religion