Just a thought. I've always wondered why the Spanish never invaded sub-saharan Africa.

The invaded North Africa, planned to capture Jerusalem. When they went to the far east, they sized up Japan, but thought to tough a nut to crack. The Portuguese grabbed small areas of China, Malaysia and India. The Spanish took the Philipines and of course the new world. Wherever it was possible, they invaded.

So how come not sub-saharan africa. It had gold, precious stones, slaves. Was it too tough, when meso-america wasn't? Any thoughts.....

What about the famous pact between the Spanish and the Portuguese where they divided the world into spheres of influence? I believe it is the treaty of Cateau Cambrésis in 1559, which was sanctioned by a papal bull, though I could be wrong.

The Spanish were not supposed to interfere with the Portuguese in Africa, India and Brazil, and the Portuguese were not supposed to interfere with Spanish posessions in the Americas beyond a certain longitude. 

I think the battle of Alcazarquivir in 1578 ended any colonial aspirations the Portuguese, and possibly the Spanish, in Africa.  The Portuguese king, Sebastian, was killed in battle and nearly all of his 80,000 man army was killed or captured and sold into slavery.  Most of the Portuguese (and some Spanish) nobility were wiped out.  There is documentation in the primary source material of the king's pages having to pour water down into his armor because he was literally frying inside the steel suit, from the Morroccan sun!

Similarly, Charles V's African possessions on the Algerian and Morroccan coastline were systematically dismantled by the Ottoman navy and African corsairs.

You are probably right, but Sebastian's defeat at Alcazarquivir put a check on Portuguese colonization in the world as a whole, at least for a few decades.  Most of the kingdom's military talent and young adult male population were slaughtered in the battle.  They needed military power to sustain and protect the colonies.

Again, the discussion here is about the Spanish expansion in Africa, or lack thereof, and not about the Portuguese. I do think that the battle does play a role though, albeit indirect, as such:

1. Spain and Portugal conclude treaty in 1559, by virtue of which Spain agrees not to interfere with the Portuguese in Africa, hence not to colonize Africa.
2. Portugal loses battle, and sovereign, in Morrocco in 1578; As a result, they get swallowed up by Spain, after dynastic disputes. Spain is now free to colonize Africa.
3. 1588: Spain loses the "Invincible Armada". They now lack enough ships for maintaing the relations with their important American colonies and pursuing a colonizing policy in Africa at the same time. As a result, they concentrate on their existing colonies in the Americas and leave Africa to the English, French and Dutch.

Spain therefore only had a small window of 10 years to freely pursue a colonizing policy in Africa

The spanish were not exactly a great naval power, or very rich; that came right after this period. Between 1500-1559, they had more than their hands full with the Americas. conquering the Mexica and the Inca, as well as the other minor civilizations. By contrast, Africa did not offer easy and rich conquests.

The Spanish possesions in Africa were acquired as follows: Rio Muni and Fernao da Po: acquired from the Portuguese in 1778. West Sahara: acquired as a protectorate in 1884. Canary islands conquered in 1495. Ceuta captured in 1415. So basically, the spanish posessions were either acquired just before their conquest of the Americas and becoming a great power, or at the time when they were a waning power, in the 18th and 19th centuries

So what exactly made Africa such a tough conquest, compared to other places where they were successful.

Berosus, my mistake: that's the treay that I was referring to. I had forgotten the name of the treaty, only remembering what it stipulated and I did a quick search on the web, coming up with the treaty of 1559. It still doesn't change my conclusion much, I don't think.

By the way, the 1578 battle was between the Portuguese and the Morrocans: an islamic power which cannot be compared to a state from Sub-Saharan Africa at the time, being almost equivalent in technology with the Europeans.

And certain parts of Africa were worth the trouble. The empire of Songhay had fabulous riches in gold, which prompted the Moroccans to invade it in 1680. The Swahili city-states - Kilwa, Zanzibar, etc. on the coasts of Kenya, Tanzania and Somalia were quite wealthy as result of a 1000 year long trade with India, the Middle East and China. The Portuguese were the ones to conquer them in the early 1500's.

Besides, European interests were usually monetary and commercial anyway. The primary commodity to be obtained from Africa in Renaissance and Enlightenment times was slaves.  It was much more efficient and cost-effective to let local African states go out and raid the interior for slaves, rather than for Europeans to do the job themselves.

Are you saying that it was the Spanish who conquered Ceuta in 1415?